# Why Postmodernism In Music Is Bad (Sucks)



## eugeneonagain

Is Rick Beato wrong or right about this? Or somewhere in-between?

Personally I think the piano piece he's constructed to make his point is a bit hackneyed and a mish-mish of jazz idioms (80s fusion above all), film music cues, advertising jingle music, snippets of minimalism...etc

However, I agree with his argument that there is more to tonality than composers are willing to make of it. Including the wealth of largely unused scales (melodic and harmonic).

What he may not be appreciating is that composers may well be doing exactly what he's discussing, but that he just doesn't much like the result and assumes an intentional lack of standard theoretical basis.


----------



## Larkenfield

I enjoyed Rick Beato’s piano composition and felt that it was sophisticated, far more involved and complex than what’s normally played in jazz, more closely related to classical music than jazz, after hearing it for the first time. I like the points that he makes and he’s trying to open up an area of exploration for composers that is not about avoiding tonality or melody in order to sound “modern“. The avoidance of melody and tonality does not automatically make something modern or good. In fact, that’s what I consider an old-fashioned way of composing after more than 100 years of its controversial existence. Composers need a viable direction but they may not know what it is yet because there may still be a pressure to sound modern, and modern doesn’t necessarily equate to tonality for certain composers. The expiration of certain harmonic possibility is of scales is something he feels is worth exploring, and so do I. It can unlock tonality but not standard tonality. I think overall it’s the film composers who have the most talent despite the compromises they sometimes have to make to fit in with the action taking place on the screen. There’s still the sense that they have talent.


----------



## Mandryka

The interesting thing for me is that he sees composition as a sort of exploration, so he points out, for example, that there are aspects of tonality which haven't been explored.

An alternative view is that composition is a form of expression, here's Boulez writing about composing



> Comparison of our own music with that of other times and
> cultures must surely make us wary of talking about the 'eternity' or
> 'supremacy' of an of our musical laws. Their value is relative, in time as
> well as in space; and they may be reduced, in fact, to the best method
> discovered, at a given time and in given circumstances, of organising a
> language coherent enough to be effective and flexible enough to give
> maximum expression to the intellectual and emotional potential of the age
> concerned."


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I liked his piece too, but isn't it postmodernistic too? Not so fond of all that reverb...


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> I enjoyed Rick Beato's piano composition and felt that it was sophisticated, far more involved and complex than what's normally played in jazz, more closely related to classical music than jazz, after hearing it for the first time. I like the points that he makes and he's trying to open up an area of exploration for composers that is not about avoiding tonality or melody in order to sound "modern". The avoidance of melody and tonality does not automatically make something modern or good. In fact, that's what I consider an old-fashioned way of composing after more than 100 years of its controversial existence. Composers need a viable direction but they may not know what it is yet because there may still be a pressure to sound modern, and modern doesn't necessarily equate to tonality for certain composers. The expiration of certain harmonic possibility is of scales is something he feels is worth exploring, and so do I. I can unlock tonality but not standard tonality. I think overall it's the dim composers who have the most talent Despite the compromises they sometimes have to make to fit in with the action taking place on the screen. There's still the sense that they have talent.


I am a bit mystified by some of this post. Perhaps it is my lack of "technical" musical knowledge. Which jazz is so simple, I wonder? When I think of jazz or listen to it I seem to turn to music that is sophisticated and far from over-simple. Certainly this seems to be the case when compared with the music in the clip.

Also, I am not sure that what a new noteworthy composer does is consciously try to find something new to say - or even to find a voice. For the most part the composers who rose to the top displayed a true talent for music very early (as young children). By the time they a composing works for public consumption they know a lot of music (certainly including recent music) and, having found an interest in writing it, study composition with masters they respect and admire. Surely, also, those masters will already have perceived talent or why else would they waste their time? But I imagine that the choice of a composer to systematically explore an element of music (as Haydn seems to have done) is a fairly unusual personal choice rather than a way of finding uniqueness.

I'm not sure whether I am agreeing or disagreeing with you! I know you are arguing that atonality has had its day but this is an abstract point to me: I want to hear music that exemplifies what you mean, that is new and fresh and profound and yet tonal. I know quite a lot of new music that seems tonal but in general find myself boring of it after a couple of hearings. But that can happen with atonal music, too. There has to be inspiration.

I'm not sure what you mean by dim composers having the most talent. It seems to me that there are many types of intelligence and that "musical intelligence" could be one. Would that be different to "talent"?


----------



## Lisztian

I like his channel in general and have watched quite a few of his videos, but I've never gotten the impression that he knows much about modern classical music. This video has just strengthened that view of mine.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Lisztian said:


> I like his channel in general and have watched quite a few of his videos, but I've never gotten the impression that he knows much about modern classical music. This video has just strengthened that view of mine.


I'm inclined to agree. I've seen many of his videos and enjoyed them (too many pop music ones lately though). There's no doubt he fully understands music theory, even in a classical sense - he was a music professor after all - but I think Beato has a far better appreciation for jazz.
He wrote a set of piano preludes some time back, which I thought were rather good, but relied upon the idea of what piano preludes 'ought to' sound like. A bit Debussyesque.

There's not quite as much focus on classical music on Beato's channel.


----------



## mmsbls

I had never heard of Rick Beato before listening to this video so I'm not sure exactly what he generally intends to convey in his videos. The video introduced his piano piece and described in detail how he created parts of the piece. That was interesting, but overall the video says nothing about the title, Why Postmodernism In Music Is Bad (Sucks). Beato makes two comments related to postmodern music. First, a composer friend of his was told by famous modern composers to stay away from tonality and music theory. Second, postmodernism is an idea that everything is subjective and one can do anything.

I somehow doubt that any classical composer would suggest staying away from music theory, but I can imagine composers advising to stay away from tonality. That may not be the best advice, but it says nothing about why postmodern music is bad. Similarly, just because postmodernism focuses on the subjective nature of reality doesn't mean that actual postmodern compositions suck. 

I agree that tonality is far from dead, and composers can continue writing tonal music that is new, interesting, and enjoyable. However, I think he should have used a different title or stated up front that all non-tonal music is bad. That would not have changed my view of the video much, but at least the title would have made some sense.


----------



## KenOC

I’ve never managed to figure out just what “postmodernism” is, but here’s what Stockhausen said about it: "There are certain chameleons among present-day composers -- they call themselves post-modernists -- and they mix everything they can steal, and paint the stolen elements with different colors so that you cannot identify them immediately. They are enormous garbage containers of pre-existing sound figures and clichés..."


----------



## aleazk

Ligeti's late style is sometimes considered 'post-modern', since it abandons the extreme modernism of his middle period in favor of incorporating some traditional elements (like whole tone, diatonic, pentatonic, etc., scales, also triads, melody, jazz, and even some conventional forms). But, on the other hand, a certain 'progressive' attitude remains, which makes the music to feel like a natural continuation of modernism (but, of course, without being strictly in that line). I think the reason for the increasing acceptance of his music is precisely all this, combined with his above average craft. I think it's rather difficult to compose that type of music and succeed at it. If you are not a first rate composer, it will all probably end sounding like the thing Stockhausen describes in that quote, i.e., a vacuous pastiche.

And, to make it worse, you could be inspired by Derrida and use the word 'deconstruction' in the descriptions of your art.


----------



## starthrower

He doesn't really talk much about it here. It's more about his new piano composition. While listening to it I thought of Elliott Carter's Night Fantasies. Not sure if Rick would like that one?


----------



## starthrower

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm inclined to agree. I've seen many of his videos and enjoyed them (too many pop music ones lately though). There's no doubt he fully understands music theory, even in a classical sense - he was a music professor after all - but I think Beato has a far better appreciation for jazz.
> He wrote a set of piano preludes some time back, which I thought were rather good, but relied upon the idea of what piano preludes 'ought to' sound like. A bit Debussyesque.
> 
> There's not quite as much focus on classical music on Beato's channel.


Which is a given. He's a rock and jazz guitar player and record producer. But he did study classical music at Ithaca college.


----------



## Red Terror

Enjoyable piece, though it does sound like a collection of prefabricated sounds developed by other composers. Anyway, he doesn’t really answer the question at hand.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> I've never managed to figure out just what "postmodernism" is, but here's what Stockhausen said about it: "There are certain chameleons among present-day composers -- they call themselves post-modernists -- and they mix everything they can steal, and paint the stolen elements with different colors so that you cannot identify them immediately. They are enormous garbage containers of pre-existing sound figures and clichés..."


The People United Will Never Be Defeated -- that's an "enormous garbage containers of pre-existing sound figures and clichés."

Or Schnitkke's Concerto Grosso No. 1

The other definition of postmodernism which Stockhausen gave somewhere was "the reinvention of Mahler" -- which makes Shostakovich the king of postmodernists I suppose (unless it's too much third-pressing Mahler to count.)

Bjorn Schmelzer has tried to make a postmodern interpretation of the Machaut mass "'Finally, we can return the Messe de Notre Dame into its pre-modern(ist) or post-postmodern state, making its hybridity emerge again through diagrammatic, operative performance." (I don't understand what he's saying there, by the way. Maybe someone can help.)

There is a book on this which I'd like to read sometime


----------



## Becca

Mandryka said:


> Bjorn Schmelzer has tried to make a postmodern interpretation of the Machaut mass "'Finally, we can return the Messe de Notre Dame into its pre-modern(ist) or post-postmodern state, making its hybridity emerge again through diagrammatic, operative performance." (I don't understand what he's saying there, by the way. Maybe someone can help.)
> ]


From the Urban Dictionary: 
_Postmodernists believe that if they make their terminology sufficiently obscurantist, sesquipedalian, and circumloquatious, nobody will notice the lack of substance. To a large extent, they are correct in that belief. _


----------



## Phil loves classical

I think this guy is just trying to advertise his own music by putting others down. I don't think his music is really anything original. He injects more traditional tonal patterns at times to make it more catchy, and just mixes a lot of things that's been done better before. Very unfocussed to me. I'll stick with Gil Evans.


----------



## regenmusic

starthrower said:


> He doesn't really talk much about it here. It's more about his new piano composition. While listening to it I thought of Elliott Carter's Night Fantasies. Not sure if Rick would like that one?


His live chat the date of that video talked about it more.


----------



## Simon Moon

I am a big fan of Beato's channel, for the most part. But he is simply wrong here.

Not wrong about continuing to explore tonality, I am all for it. I enjoy Mason Bates compositions, as one example, and as fat as I can tell, they are mostly tonal.

But wrong about his opinion that postmodernism in music (I wish he would clarify a bit more), if he is implying that postmodernism ruined classical music, due to atonality. Sorry Rick, but it was my discovery of atonality that made me a fan of classical music.



Enthusiast said:


> I am a bit mystified by some of this post. Perhaps it is my lack of "technical" musical knowledge. Which jazz is so simple, I wonder? When I think of jazz or listen to it I seem to turn to music that is sophisticated and far from over-simple. Certainly this seems to be the case when compared with the music in the clip.


I agree. Many people here are somewhat uninformed about all the new directions jazz has taken since the 60's. A lot of it is highly complex. Most people, in general, only know about jazz in the standard form (head-solo-head-sole, etc).


----------



## regenmusic

R . S. Pearson Addition Boat

"Computer Music" like this I think is new and innovative. It's half a unique sequencer controlled by a human, half live playing.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I quite like Claude Vivier, who is often considered a postmodern spectralist. His music is very much tonal but his treatment or "colouring" of it is on the modern side. Ligeti was a fan too, of this imagined oriental music.


----------



## starthrower

Simon Moon said:


> I am a big fan of Beato's channel, for the most part. But he is simply wrong here.
> 
> Not wrong about continuing to explore tonality, I am all for it. I enjoy Mason Bates compositions, as one example, and as fat as I can tell, they are mostly tonal.
> 
> But wrong about his opinion that postmodernism in music (I wish he would clarify a bit more), if he is implying that postmodernism ruined classical music, due to atonality.


He wasn't specific at all. But he obviously favors tonal music. Using words like "sucks" in his presentation is rather counterproductive. I'd like to know how much 20th-21st century orchestral and chamber music he's actually listened to.


----------



## eugeneonagain

The argument he seemed to me to be advancing is that 'postmodern music' doesn't have a recognisable trajectory, or possibly even structure driving it forward. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy argument which underneath just declares: it doesn't work like 'normal' music.

On the other hand I have sympathy with the idea that some music seems to have very little recognisable architecture.


----------



## Sid James

Whatever it's deficiencies, postmodernism came to accept the viewpoint of the individual, including those who create art. Rather than rejecting modernism and imposing its own set of dogmas, it aims to understand by accepting its contradictions.

Although no longer young enough to be called a whippersnapper, I'm a child of postmodernism. I think that any certainties which modernism presented have proven to be illusory. There are positives as well as negatives to this.

I was clearing out some rubbish recently and found a quote I copied years ago from that quintessentially postmodernist novel, The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje. It relates the theory in a very human way. Its poetic but not at all abstruse. Reading it, I am thinking that perhaps postmodernism has its own ideal, acceptance of diversity without judgement, and of course (as the novel illustrates) that isn't without its own complications.

_We die containing a richness of lovers and tribes, tastes we have swallowed, bodies we have plunged into and swum up as if rivers of wisdom, characters we have climbed into as if trees, fears we have hidden as if caves...We are communal books. We are not owned or monogamous in our taste or experience. All I desired was to walk upon such an earth that had no maps._


----------



## millionrainbows

I've always said that jazz became more "Westernized" (read: harmonic) as time passed and it became "assimilated" into society, culminating in the 1950's through the 1970's as soundtracks (Mancini's Pink Panther), and TV themes (Perry Mason, Peter Gunn, James Bond, Mannix, Mission Impossible, Patty Duke Show, etc.) largely due to the influence of Western music's prime vehicle of harmonic conveyance, the piano. Bill Evans, Dave Brubeck, and others helped in this direction.

Then Ornette Coleman (and Sonny Rollins) dropped the piano, and with it most of the harmonic baggage. Miles Davis, who began in be-bop, with its rat-in-a-harmonic-maze chord changes on every beat, went to a moodier, more modal jazz in "KInd of Blue," then dropped it all with "Bitches Brew" and "The Cellar Door Sessions," in which a the bass player set up a droney groove, over a single root, on which the soloists played chromatic lines. Harmony as we knew it had left the building, much to the chagrin of old-school critics who questioned, "Is _On The Corner_ really jazz?"


----------



## Roy Fuller

Art is a 'selective recreation of reality according the artist's metaphysical value judgements.' If that quote is true then Postmodernism is not art because it is not an attempt to recreate reality, but to avoid it. Melody and harmony are necessary components in the recreation of musical reality, thus any attempt to avoid melody and harmony (other than the briefest length of time) is nothing less than the attempt to make non-music the equivalent to music. The highest form of music (i.e, the most powerful and expressive form of music) is known as Romanticism (which I distinguish from philosophic Romanticism) as exemplified by the works of Beethoven, Brahms and Mahler. Film composers today are the true heirs of the Romantics, but their music is limited by the requirements of the film. What is needed is the continuation of Romanticism in new works not tied to film. This is what I have tried to do with my symphonies (which can be found on YouTube).


----------



## Woodduck

Roy Fuller said:


> *Art is a 'selective recreation of reality according the artist's metaphysical value judgements.' * If that quote is true then Postmodernism is not art because it is not an attempt to recreate reality, but to avoid it. *Melody and harmony are necessary components in the recreation of musical reality, thus any attempt to avoid melody and harmony (other than the briefest length of time) is nothing less than the attempt to make non-music the equivalent to music. The highest form of music (i.e, the most powerful and expressive form of music) is known as Romanticism* (which I distinguish from philosophic Romanticism) as exemplified by the works of Beethoven, Brahms and Mahler. Film composers today are the true heirs of the Romantics, but their music is limited by the requirements of the film. What is needed is the continuation of Romanticism in new works not tied to film. This is what I have tried to do with my symphonies (which can be found on YouTube).


Your definition of art is problematic, but particularly when applied to music. The way in which a composition of mainly non-referential sounds "recreates reality," and any reason why it should attempt to, is not at all obvious. The ability of patterned sounds to please and move us no doubt depends upon, among other factors, varying degrees of correspondence to certain perceived patterns in extramusical phenomena, but to call such correspondences, much less musical works as whole entities, "recreations of reality," stretches the meanings of words to and past the breaking point.

Romanticism seems the highest form of music to you, and I'm sure many would concur. But you may have a hard time proving it to devotees of Bach, Mozart, or, for that matter, the classical sitar music of northern India.


----------



## Roy Fuller

It's well past my bedtime, but I will supply a thorough reply tomorrow. Before I go let me say that I would consider Mozart's Requiem a Romantic composition in that it anticipates Romanticism. Also, the proof is in the pudding. Sitar vs. Brahms. I say Brahms wins hands down, not because of my preference, but due to factors which I will explain later.


----------



## Enthusiast

Roy Fuller said:


> It's well past my bedtime, but I will supply a thorough reply tomorrow. Before I go let me say that* I would consider Mozart's Requiem a Romantic composition *in that it anticipates Romanticism. Also, the proof is in the pudding. Sitar vs. Brahms. I say Brahms wins hands down, not because of my preference, but due to factors which I will explain later.


It seems like if you think a work is great you call it Romantic music? I wonder how you are going to explain that Brahms is better than Indian classical music. Referring to it as "sitar" (an instrument) music suggests that you don't know a lot about the Indian tradition.


----------



## millionrainbows

As much as I am fond of Rick Beato, I don't think he understands what 'post-modernism' means. 
It seems as he's using it here to label what he perceives as ultra-modern music, which would include serialism, Birtwistle, John Cage, Ferneyhough, stuff like that, _music which is no longer concerned with music as a harmonic, theoretical pursuit.

_He's a musician, a jazz musician, so he is concerned with jazz as it had developed harmonically, and not in the direction that Miles Davis or Ornette Coleman took it, into a non-harmonic la-la land of melodic gestures and chromatic soloing, and in Sonny Rollins' and Ornette Coleman's cases, with no piano present. Beato is more Bill Evans, Weather Report, Pat Metheney, and the era of "jazz" TV themes.

Beato is pushing jazz towards greater harmonic complexity, which is what Miles Davis wished to avoid, and this concern with greater & greater harmonic sophistication and complexity, which is a "modernist" Western classical concern as well (Howard Hanson, etc.), inevitably leads to the perception that his complex jazz might be construed as "modern" music, no longer jazz.

Is this jazz, or is it modern music? Miles Davis answered this by going towards a more melodic, rhythmic, less harmonic direction, even at the expense of being tied to "popular" music and funk (On the Corner, Big Fun, and later, a cover of a Scritti Politti song). His jazz once again became a social thing of interaction, lifestyle, and gesture, all of it "black/ghetto" in nature.

Beato is apparently dimly aware of this, and is defending his music as "jazz, not post-modernism." But he's a harmonically sophisticated white guy, with "white" gestures, education, and social norms.

And in closing, I might ask the same question he asks of rock music: "Where's the Blues?"

An interesting comment on the Beato clip, from a fellow You-Tuber:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Beato is not just "jazz". He was a double bassist and in an orchestra even before he went to study guitar/jazz guitar. His teaching has involved the direction of both orchestras and big bands. 

As I said at the beginning of this thread though, his critique of 'postmodern' is hackneyed and commonplace. It is basically the same (non) argument levelled against any modern music a person just finds aesthetically displeasing.

About Miles though... He more or less admitted himself that he backed off into modal jazz because he felt he'd reached his limits and there were better players about. His later music is horrible to my ears, more like an emergency siren over the hum of an old fridge.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> Art is a 'selective recreation of reality according the artist's metaphysical value judgements.'...


I don't at all see why whatever is created outside your narrow purview of what music is, isn't a recreation of that artist's vision of reality. In what way does such an artist 'avoid' reality. I'd argue that a good few represent more reality than a good deal of romantic music ever did.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Beato is not just "jazz". He was a double bassist and in an orchestra even before he went to study guitar/jazz guitar. His teaching has involved the direction of both orchestras and big bands.


He has said that his primary interest was, and is jazz guitar.



> As I said at the beginning of this thread though, his critique of 'postmodern' is hackneyed and commonplace. It is basically the same (non) argument levelled against any modern music a person just finds aesthetically displeasing.
> 
> About Miles though... He more or less admitted himself that he backed off into modal jazz because he felt he'd reached his limits and there were better players about. His later music is horrible to my ears, more like an emergency siren over the hum of an old fridge.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> He has said that his primary interest was, and is jazz guitar.


So? _My_ primary interests don't negate my other interests. He also wrote a set of piano preludes (bit impressionistic, bit modernist) which was shared on his channel. He's not just coming from a jazz point-of-view.


----------



## Roy Fuller

I like the definition of art above, but I would agree that with regard to music a further expansion would be helpful. Music, unlike painting and sculpture is unique in how we evaluate it. The great painting, Sea of Ice by David Casper Friedrich on my 5th Symphony on YouTube causes us to go through three steps: Perception - Evaluation - Emotion. Music is different. The three steps are: Perception - Emotion - Evaluation. Music is the art that has the power, through harmony, melody and rhythm, to reach the emotions directly. Once the listener experiences the emotions suggested by the music, he then can evaluate the work and its sense of life. Human emotions are part of reality as selectively recreated by the composer.

With regard to convincing anyone of my contention, I am not interested. I will let reality be the judge as it so effectively has done over the last many decades. Music elitists have tried to impose their idea of what art music is to an increasingly skeptical public, so much so that the elitists have given in to much of their demands. The free market has produced YouTube, and I can now publish my symphonies and let them rise or fall accordingly. Yes, the YouTube presentations, being electronically reproduced symphonic sounds, are not as good as a live performance, but they are good enough for the listener to evaluate my sense of life.


----------



## EdwardBast

Roy Fuller said:


> I like the definition of art above, but I would agree that with regard to music a further expansion would be helpful. Music, unlike painting and sculpture is unique in how we evaluate it. The great painting, Sea of Ice by David Casper Friedrich on my 5th Symphony on YouTube causes us to go through three steps: Perception - Evaluation - Emotion. Music is different. The three steps are: Perception - Emotion - Evaluation. Music is the art that has the power, through harmony, melody and rhythm, to reach the emotions directly. Once the listener experiences the emotions suggested by the music, he then can evaluate the work and its sense of life. Human emotions are part of reality as selectively recreated by the composer.
> 
> With regard to convincing anyone of my contention, I am not interested. I will let reality be the judge as it so effectively has done over the last many decades. Music elitists have tried to impose their idea of what art music is to an increasingly skeptical public, so much so that the elitists have given in to much of their demands. The free market has produced YouTube, and I can now publish my symphonies and let them rise or fall accordingly. Yes, the YouTube presentations, being electronically reproduced symphonic sounds, are not as good as a live performance, but they are good enough for the listener to evaluate my sense of life.


Emotions are not the subject matter of music, even Romantic music, and its purpose is not to suggest emotions to listeners. The idea that a listener's aesthetic process should consist in attempting to identify specific emotions in a work of music and from that evaluate a composer's "sense of life" is bizarre. The only writer I know to use the repugnant term "sense of life" in assessing aesthetic value was Ayn Rand, who was an ignorant hack as an aesthetic theorist.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Better to be robot then and have no emotions. Good luck with that.


----------



## EdwardBast

Roy Fuller said:


> Better to be robot then and have no emotions. Good luck with that.


Huh? I didn't say music doesn't express emotional states of various kinds, I said that such states are not the subject matter of musical works or a basis for understanding their aesthetic value.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Perception - Emotion - Evaluation. Evaluation is where the mind comes in to assess the aesthetic value.


----------



## BachIsBest

EdwardBast said:


> Emotions are not the subject matter of music, even Romantic music, and its purpose is not to suggest emotions to listeners. The idea that a listener's aesthetic process should consist in attempting to identify specific emotions in a work of music and from that evaluate a composer's "sense of life" is bizarre. The only writer I know to use the repugnant term "sense of life" in assessing aesthetic value was Ayn Rand, who was an ignorant hack as an aesthetic theorist.


Although I don't disagree that emotions aren't the subject matter of all music I do feel that they could be the subject matter of at least some music. I don't think anything prevents a composer from composing a piece of music about emotions, no?


----------



## DaveM

Roy Fuller said:


> The highest form of music (i.e, the most powerful and expressive form of music) is known as Romanticism (which I distinguish from philosophic Romanticism) as exemplified by the works of Beethoven, Brahms and Mahler. Film composers today are the true heirs of the Romantics, but their music is limited by the requirements of the film.
> 
> Music is the art that has the power, through harmony, melody and rhythm, to reach the emotions directly. Once the listener experiences the emotions suggested by the music, he then can evaluate the work and its sense of life. Human emotions are part of reality as selectively recreated by the composer.
> 
> With regard to convincing anyone of my contention, I am not interested. I will let reality be the judge as it so effectively has done over the last many decades.


IMO, you are more right than wrong. Beethoven transitioned from the classical tradition to romanticism for the reason that it expressed a wider range of emotions through music. In fact, he may still remain as the greatest master of that objective given the complexity of emotions expressed in the late quartets and piano sonatas.

The composers after Beethoven raised romanticism to a high art culminating in the music of Brahms, Bruckner, Rachmaninoff, Mahler et al. And then, inexplicably, circa 1915, romanticism fell off a cliff. Not because the public was tired of it, but because the elite, academic intelligentsia apparently was. Yes, it's probably a little more complex than that, but the virtual end of romanticism as we knew it did die a rather abrupt death.

Melody, in the form that the common man/woman can appreciate, was the first to go and harmony followed not that long after. The rise of music that consists more of dissonance and rhythm than anything else seemed to become an 'in' thing and even though it bears little relationship to classical music of the previous 300 years, it latched onto its coattails in (IMO) an attempt at credibility. Another reason may be that, once you remove melody and harmony, it becomes an easier chore to compose music under the moniker of 'classical music'. People who like this sort of thing appear to get offended by this. I'm not sure why, because they are free to enjoy it and call it anything they want (other than classical music) and all the more power to them.

In any event, be prepared for a backlash from a few who will throw everything, but the kitchen sink, including (the irrelevant) whether you have any knowledge of Indian classical music.



> Music elitists have tried to impose their idea of what art music is to an increasingly skeptical public, so much so that the elitists have given in to much of their demands.


I'm not so sure about that. Yes, the public is skeptical which is why most music that followed the romantic period doesn't see the light of day in the average concert hall, but, with a few exceptions, neither do attempts at reviving romanticism.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Another reason may be that, once you remove melody and harmony, it becomes an easier chore to compose music under the moniker of 'classical music'.


I find this a very dubious remark. Who says that the music which I assume (and probably rightly) you are referring to, no longer contains 'melody and harmony? I think you mean: melody and harmony in the style of the music you prefer or which you define; which is not the same thing at all.
How can you tell whether or not a composer is employing melody and harmony? Which scores have you looked at and dismissed as not containing either? I don't know that some people who are even seasoned listeners can necessarily identify either at some level, even in some mainstream works.



DaveM said:


> People who like this sort of thing appear to get offended by this. I'm not sure why, because they are free to enjoy it and call it anything they want (other than classical music) and all the more power to them.


I think the offence taken is not because you have pointed out some sort of uncomfortable truth, but that those saying it have appointed themselves as the aesthetic judges of what constitutes 'real' classical music.


----------



## Woodduck

Roy Fuller said:


> I like the definition of art above, but I would agree that with regard to music a further expansion would be helpful. Music, unlike painting and sculpture is unique in how we evaluate it. The great painting, Sea of Ice by David Casper Friedrich on my 5th Symphony on YouTube causes us to go through three steps: Perception - Evaluation - Emotion. Music is different. The three steps are: Perception - Emotion - Evaluation. *Music is the art that has the power, through harmony, melody and rhythm, to reach the emotions directly. Once the listener experiences the emotions suggested by the music, he then can evaluate the work and its sense of life. Human emotions are part of reality as selectively recreated by the composer.*
> 
> With regard to convincing anyone of my contention, I am not interested. I will let reality be the judge as it so effectively has done over the last many decades.


The matter of what music is "about," what it's "for," and how it affects us is complex. Your view of it is partial and simplistic. This part, specifically: *" Once the listener experiences the emotions suggested by the music*, *he then can evaluate the work and its sense of life."*

Conveying particular emotions is one thing a composer can try to do. Some of the Romantics were keen on the idea (which actually long predated the 19th century), and some music seems pretty successful in expressing emotions, or at least general categories of emotion. But the communication of emotions is hardly a complete description of the purpose or effect of even Romantic music, which, like most music of any era, seeks to achieve aesthetic qualities and provide an aesthetic pleasure which is neither an "emotion" nor a phenomenon capable of being described in terms of emotions. Add to this the fact that different people will inevitably have very different feelings in response to the same music, and the idea that music expresses objectively identifiable emotions that people can perceive, experience and "evaluate" is quite clearly insufficient.

Aaron Copland, in answer to the common notion that a composer writes music to convey emotion, said that a composer is motivated, not by an inward feeling, but by an inward singing. Similarly, a listener may feel many things in response to music, and his response to music he loves may be intense; but if he expects to experience "emotions" as the primary condition of musical enjoyment he will be disappointed and will miss much of the pleasure that music can afford. Echoing Copland, and speaking as both a composer and a listener, I can say that the degree to which emotion is present as a part of my experience of music varies from "considerably" to "imperceptibly" (or even "not at all"), and that I don't "evaluate" either what I write or what I hear purely on the basis of how emotional I feel about it. I can sit at the piano and pour out my soul and still come up with hackneyed crap I wouldn't want to hear again - or I can cold-bloodedly spin out an original, well-shaped melody that I'd proudly play for someone else.

When you imply that "reality" will prove the correctness of your contentions, you seem to be ignoring the fact that reality has already spoken about centuries' worth of music, much of which is not "Romantic," to which people still listen with pleasure. The continued viability of the music of Josquin, Bach, Brahms and Stravinsky has to do with more than the emotional content (if any) of the music, or its "sense of life."


----------



## EdwardBast

BachIsBest said:


> Although I don't disagree that emotions aren't the subject matter of all music I do feel that they could be the subject matter of at least some music. I don't think anything prevents a composer from composing a piece of music about emotions, no?


I'm not sure what that means: A piece about emotions?


----------



## KenOC

Well, Beethoven said that the Cavatina from his Op. 130 string quartet always brought tears to his eyes. So I guess we know where Ludwig stood on the issue of emotions and music!


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> I find this a very dubious remark. Who says that the music which I assume (and probably rightly) you are are referring to, no longer contains 'melody and harmony? I think you mean: melody and harmony in the style of the music you prefer or which you define; which is not the same thing at all.


I mean the style of music that characterized classical music for 300 years.



> How can you tell whether or not a composer is employing melody and harmony? Which scores have you looked at and dismissed as not containing either? I don't know that some people who are even seasoned listeners can necessarily identify either at some level, even in some mainstream works.


The less the average person can appreciate or determine the presence of melody in given music, the less likely it is there to begin with. Besides, it is hard to see what the purpose would be of melody that the few or no one can appreciate. Or perhaps this is just another attempt to attribute to music, such as what is often called avant-garde, a quality that isn't there while telling the unwashed masses that they just can't hear/appreciate it.

Perhaps, it isn't quite as clear when it comes to harmony, but there is some modernist, contemporary music that is more random noise than anything else and, in that case, it doesn't take a music mental giant to determine that harmony isn't there.



> I think the offence taken is not because you have pointed out some sort of uncomfortable truth, but that those saying it have appointed themselves as the aesthetic judges of what constitutes 'real' classical music.


Hmm, where have I heard that before? I refer back to how people have defined classical music during the 300 years that ended early in the 20th century. I am well under the Bell curve in that opinion. Those who disagree are the outliers.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> I mean the style of music that characterized classical music for 300 years.


That's exactly the same thing in different words. Stating that music pre-dating the relaxing of strict tonality is good and everything after simply incorrect. It's rubbish.



DaveM said:


> The less the average person can appreciate or determine the presence of melody in given music, the less likely it is there to begin with. Besides, it is hard to see what the purpose would be of melody that the few or no one can appreciate. Or perhaps this is just another attempt to attribute to music, such as what is often called avant-garde, a quality that isn't there while telling the unwashed masses that they just can't hear/appreciate it.


Good. Some of the those 'unwashed masses' - and actually a good deal of those who think they are well above the 'unwashed masses' - know jack-all about music beyond what they happen to personally like. And they then turn up to places like here offering layman's opinions masquerading as musicological analysis. Then when they are challenged, fall back on a cheap argument accusing 'all the musical elitists and misguided academics' of trying to hoodwink them. Away with this line of argument. It's bankrupt.



DaveM said:


> Perhaps, it isn't quite as clear when it comes to harmony, but there is some modernist, contemporary music that is more random noise than anything else and, in that case, ...


Some is, or seems so. There is a lot that is straddling the boundaries between different art-worlds. But then the crowd who think art-music means: a three-movement symphony with the 1st movement in sonata form with whistle-able melodies, are always aghast and always will be.



DaveM said:


> it doesn't take a music mental giant to determine that harmony isn't there.


Actually I think it does. Or at least someone who can actually recognise whatever harmonic language the composer may be employing. Just saying 'it's dissonant' or 'it's not tonal' (though often it _is_ tonal, but not necessarily tonal in the way Beethoven is tonal.



DaveM said:


> Hmm, where have I heard that before? I refer back to how people have defined classical music during the 300 years that ended early in the 20th century. I am well under the Bell curve in that opinion. Those who disagree are the outliers.


Well you've heard it every time the false accusation has been addressed. Those who disagree are not the outliers, because they are generally very appreciative of music before the rise of modernism and able to see a continuum, whereas the aesthetic conservatives are mired in a boring traditionalist swamp carping on about how everything has gone to the dogs.


----------



## Roy Fuller

In literature we have something called Naturalism. A naturalistic novel is one where one thing happens and then another thing happens. The opposite of naturalism is something we might call drama. Naturalism: the king died and then the queen died. One thing follows another naturally without regard to a plot. Drama: the king died because the queen died. In drama something happens because something else happened. So when we get to the evaluation phase of our Perception - Emotion - Evaluation trilogy in music we can see how drama is an important element in our esthetic evaluation. I find great drama in Bach and Mozart as well as the Romantics. I just believe that with the Romantics the drama is greater. I am hearing in my mind the great triumphant ending to Mahler's first symphony, where the listener is surprised with a dramatic leap in the climax.


----------



## science

Roy Fuller said:


> Music elitists have tried to impose their idea of what art music is to an increasingly skeptical public....


Exactly! You're either on the side of the people or the elite, and both sides have their own music. Of course in reality it's a spectrum rather than an absolute dichotomy, but we know what kind of music is at each end of it.

Classical music (and the other elite arts)'s attempts to incorporate democratic values will never succeed. The good news, though, is that at least for now all you have to do to join the elite is acquire the appropriate tastes. That's kind of democratic in itself. Much easier than, say, getting into an elite university or collecting yachts.


----------



## EdwardBast

Roy Fuller said:


> In literature we have something called Naturalism. A naturalistic novel is one where one thing happens and then another thing happens. The opposite of naturalism is something we might call drama. Naturalism: the king died and then the queen died. One thing follows another naturally without regard to a plot. Drama: the king died because the queen died. In drama something happens because something else happened.* So when we get to the evaluation phase of our Perception - Emotion - Evaluation trilogy in music we can see how drama is an important element in our esthetic evaluation.* I find great drama in Bach and Mozart as well as the Romantics. I just believe that with the Romantics the drama is greater. I am hearing in my mind the great triumphant ending to Mahler's first symphony, where the listener is surprised with a dramatic leap in the climax.


Does this three stage process actually reflect the way you respond to music? Or is it an abstract theory you've bought into? I doubt anyone actually listens this way. All three "phases," go on simultaneously all the time, if all three even occur in response to a given work. We begin evaluating from the first bar of a piece. Is the thematic material interesting? Does the composer have a recognizable and individual voice? Or does it sound hackneyed, cliche or just boring? We might conclude a piece is not worth our time long before we feel any particular emotional response or care what its composer thought the work was expressing.

The other thing I'd question is the assumption that the emotions one feels listening to a work necessarily have anything to do with the expressive qualities of the music. What is the basis for this assumption?


----------



## Roy Fuller

I guess there are a couple of ways I can try to answer. Yes, I do feel some sort of emotion first. The worst emotion I might feel is indifference, because this is a sign to me that the music is unworthy of my time. Let me provide as an example the emotions I first encountered upon hearing Mahler's Tenth Symphony for the first time. My first reaction was something deep and profound that I could not name specifically. It was not sadness, although there was great sadness in the piece. I came to realize later that it was some sort of profound resignation that hit me at the core of my being. I later then listened to it two more times and my evaluation was that it was a great work, unlike any of Mahler's previous works (with perhaps the exception of Das Lied). So no, this is a case where I could not evaluate the music until I had allowed my emotions to settle.

I'm expect that there could be other examples where emotion and evaluation can go on nearly simultaneously, but I can't think of any where the music actually turned out to be good. I can think of plenty of examples where I considered the music to be bad.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> That's exactly the same thing in different words. Stating that music pre-dating the relaxing of strict tonality is good and everything after simply incorrect. It's rubbish.
> 
> Good. Some of the those 'unwashed masses' - and actually a good deal of those who think they are well above the 'unwashed masses' - know jack-all about music beyond what they happen to personally like. And they then turn up to places like here offering layman's opinions masquerading as musicological analysis. Then when they are challenged, fall back on a cheap argument accusing 'all the musical elitists and misguided academics' of trying to hoodwink them. Away with this line of argument. It's bankrupt.
> 
> Well you've heard it every time the false accusation has been addressed. Those who disagree are not the outliers, because they are generally very appreciative of music before the rise of modernism and able to see a continuum, whereas the aesthetic conservatives are mired in a boring traditionalist swamp carping on about how everything has gone to the dogs.


Well, I'm glad I gave you a chance to get that off your chest. You've seemed a little bored with the relative lack of controversy around here and seemed in need of a good ole ruckus over this subject.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> IMO, you are more right than wrong. Beethoven transitioned from the classical tradition to romanticism for the reason that it expressed a wider range of emotions through music. In fact, he may still remain as the greatest master of that objective given the complexity of emotions expressed in the late quartets and piano sonatas.


I sort of get the general idea when people say that late Beethoven is an expression of complex emotions in music unprecedented in the history of music. But again, there are elements in Beethoven that people like me find a little lacking compared to Bach and Mozart in terms of structural completeness, for instance, the lengthy 3rd and 4th movement of the Hammerklavier sonata or the boogie-woogie of sonata Op.111. (There are late Beethoven works I still admire, like the first movement of string quartet Op.131) 
I keep saying this, the Romantic concept of 'over-sentimentality' doesn't always mean greater depth or range of emotion for everyone. Why do you think Romantic period music is superior form in expressing emotion? It's just different style of music that follows different standards of aesthetics from other common practice styles. Likewise, Beethoven is merely different from Bach and Mozart, he isn't necessarily better at expressing emotions than them. There is a lot of music written in the Romantic period that sounds like "Howl's Moving Castle" to me (I won't mention the composers or works specifically, to avoid offending other people), but you get the idea.








hammeredklavier said:


> I think it's cliche how much people discuss how Grosse Fuge is deeper on the philosophical level compared to music before it, saying that it challenged the conventional notion of music, "music must be easy on the ear", as if all music before it was only meant to please the listener on the skin-deep level.
> On the contrary, if I were to make an analogy comparing Grosse Fuge with other 'complex-sounding' works that came before it, it is like an athlete who relies on 'brute force' rather than 'meticulous technique' and 'gradual control'.


Also, very well put by KenOC in one of the previous threads -



KenOC said:


> I think I get what Brahms was saying, at least about dissonance. When Beethoven uses dissonance, he often hits you over the head with it - _forte, sforzandi_, and all. It stands in direct opposition to the more consonant portions of the music. This is not to say it can't be very effective - listen to the development section of the Eroica's first movement for instance.
> 
> But Mozart's dissonance usually grows organically from his music. Hearing it's like tasting a strange but flavorful food for the first time (I remember, for instance, the first time I ate Thai food). The effect is an intensification of the emotions of music, as in the Andante of his 40th Symphony.
> 
> Beethoven couldn't have written that. He was no Mozart. But of course Mozart couldn't have written the Eroica, even if he had lived that long. He was no Beethoven.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> I sort of get the general idea when people say that late Beethoven is an expression of complex emotions in music unprecedented in the history of music. But again, there are elements in Beethoven that people like me find a little lacking compared to Bach and Mozart in terms of structural completeness, for instance, the lengthy 3rd and 4th movement of the Hammerklavier sonata or the boogie-woogie of sonata Op.111. (There are late Beethoven works I still admire, like the first movement of string quartet Op.131)
> I keep saying this, the Romantic concept of 'over-sentimentality' doesn't always mean greater depth or range of emotion for everyone. Why do you think Romantic period music is superior form in expressing emotion? It's just different style of music that follows different standards of aesthetics from other common practice styles. Likewise, Beethoven is merely different from Bach and Mozart, he isn't necessarily better at expressing emotions than them.


Of course, what triggers emotions in a listener is a highly personal matter and it's hard to say for every given individual that the 'Romantic period music is a superior form in expressing emotion'. On the other hand, it was called the Romantic period for a reason. And it wasn't simply a 'different style of music'. It was music that evolved from the music that preceded it. Composers of that period were familiar, often very familiar with the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. (Consider that compared to the music Bach had to draw experience from.)

And so, the music became associated with sweeping melody and more complex development of melody in addition to more dramatic and/or complex use of instrumentation in the bigger orchestral works. If the music, for a given individual, didn't always succeed in triggering the range of emotions that the music of some composers from earlier periods did, it was not for wont of trying.

Btw, I'm not sure how the alleged 'boogie-woogie' in the op111 Arrieta figures in this discussion, but fwiw, I've probably listened to op111 more than almost any other work and I don't 'get' the boogie-woogie. It seems like the contrivance of someone in the past and has now been accepted as a reality.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> it was called the Romantic period for a reason. And it wasn't simply a 'different style of music'. It was music that evolved from the music that preceded it.


Just because somebody called it 'Romantic' doesn't mean that CM's development _did _evolve from 'Classical' to 'Romantic' - only that someone has described it that way. Between, shall we say, 1770 and 1850, music definitely evolved, but this was neither linear nor predictable. What happened, happened, regardless of the labels (though I suppose some composers might have been influenced by the cultural dialogue).

The same can be said of 'Post-Modernism', and any other development or evolution you'd care to give a name to (or more accurately, that someone else has given a name to.)


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> I sort of get the general idea when people say that late Beethoven is an expression of complex emotions in music unprecedented in the history of music. But again, there are elements in Beethoven that people like me find a little lacking compared to Bach and Mozart in terms of structural completeness, for instance, the lengthy 3rd and 4th movement of the Hammerklavier sonata or the boogie-woogie of sonata Op.111. (There are late Beethoven works I still admire, like the first movement of string quartet Op.131)
> I keep saying this, the Romantic concept of *'over-sentimentality'* doesn't always mean greater depth or range of emotion for everyone. Why do you think Romantic period music is superior form in expressing emotion? It's just different style of music that follows different standards of aesthetics from other common practice styles. Likewise, Beethoven is merely different from Bach and Mozart, he isn't necessarily better at expressing emotions than them. There is a lot of music written in the Romantic period that sounds like "Howl's Moving Castle" to me (I won't mention the composers or works specifically, to avoid offending other people), but you get the idea.


I'll just offer a different angle. Over-sentimentality is a relative perspective. I felt the same when I am more in tuned with the Classical Era, but when I'm more in Romantic mode, much of the Classical era music sounds like fluff and fake restraint. I used to be obsessed with the emotional arc of the first movement of Mozart's Piano Concerto 20. But it sounds too staged to me now. I prefer the eruptions of Liszt's Wild Hunt or Mazeppa, no need for an elaborate build-up. That Howl's Moving Castle is probably inspired by the Romantic style, but is quite amateurish compared to the greats especially on the technical level. Like some say, the Classical era can be seen as too contained within the cadence. The boogie woogie is an amazing morph in the Beethoven piece, intended to be way beyond the formal structure of Haydn or Mozart, seeking a new sort of freedom. It is more common to contain everything within the structure in more run-of-the-mill Classical era works by lesser composers. The structure itself is changed to fit the expression of the music.

Another thing is I see the over-sentimentality as more in the interpretation of performers, something I detest. I do hear some interpretations that offer more than just raw singular emotions, or just a show of technique.


----------



## Enthusiast

A thread about post-modernism (where I was hoping to learn things) has become (yet another) Romanticism vs everything else thread - and these seem to come and repeat the tired old arguments as often as Philip Glass repeats simple motifs in one of his pieces. We almost got to an understanding of what post-modernism is and then off the thread went into the storm clouds of Romanticism. We may not all agree on what Modernism is/was and which composers should be called Modern (capital M) and even if we do it is clear that the term post-modernism is not usually used to contain everything that came after them. But what does it refer to? There are far too many isms in the contemporary scene but post-modernism is a term that you see used quite often but I remain confused about what music it might refer to.

Classical music keeps evolving - thank heavens - and arguments about which stage in this evolutionary story is "better" than which other stages seems as sterile as saying that dinosaurs in the Jurassic were superior to large mammals in the Pleistocene. I know we all have preferences and enthusiasms - and, again, thank heavens - but is there really a need to try to prove that my preferences are superior to someone else's? Well, if there is there must be a thread for that.


----------



## millionrainbows

Claudio Arrau is quoted as saying "Take the _Chromatic Fantasy - _it's like a dialogue with God, with the infinite. It is music for the glory of God, but it is never music between one human being and another." This defines for me a crucial difference between the Baroque and the Romantic, and also makes the perceived differences seem to be exaggerated.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I like to use the term postmodernism regarding music after ca. 1975 and after modernism has become less experimental due to becoming more familiar. That includes just about everything and may seem pointless...I see it as modernism becoming mature, if that makes sense...


----------



## millionrainbows

I see post-modernism as a symptom of the way "history has disappeared." History was a very long centuries-spanning narrative, written down and depicted in epic paintings. 
Then as communication speeds got faster, and distances were no longer obstacles to communication, everything became "instantaneous" and the "narrative" disappeared.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> History was a very long centuries-spanning narrative, written down and depicted in epic paintings.


Yes



millionrainbows said:


> the "narrative" disappeared.


Yes, or rather the narrative has been shown to be a myth. It's not (and maybe you didn't mean this) that modern times aren't like a C 19 novel, with important characters and events and patterns of cause and effect and a voice (The Historian) who explains the whys and the wherefores. It's that no time was ever like that, not even in the 19th century. That conception of time has been been shown to be false.



millionrainbows said:


> .
> Then as communication speeds got faster, and distances were no longer obstacles to communication, everything became "instantaneous"


Yes, but I don't think there's a link between these aspects of modern life and the disappearance of narrative.

(These things interest me at the moment because I'm reading Alain Robbe-Grillet.)


----------



## Mandryka

Enthusiast said:


> A thread about post-modernism (where I was hoping to learn things) has become (yet another) Romanticism vs everything else thread - and these seem to come and repeat the tired old arguments as often as Philip Glass repeats simple motifs in one of his pieces. We almost got to an understanding of what post-modernism is and then off the thread went into the storm clouds of Romanticism. We may not all agree on what Modernism is/was and which composers should be called Modern (capital M) and even if we do it is clear that the term post-modernism is not usually used to contain everything that came after them. But what does it refer to? There are far too many isms in the contemporary scene but post-modernism is a term that you see used quite often but I remain confused about what music it might refer to.
> 
> Classical music keeps evolving - thank heavens - and arguments about which stage in this evolutionary story is "better" than which other stages seems as sterile as saying that dinosaurs in the Jurassic were superior to large mammals in the Pleistocene. I know we all have preferences and enthusiasms - and, again, thank heavens - but is there really a need to try to prove that my preferences are superior to someone else's? Well, if there is there must be a thread for that.


Be careful. _Evolving_ is ambiguous I think. It can mean _changing_ and it can mean _improving_. Hard to make sense of the latter without some sort of goal.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Well, I'm glad I gave you a chance to get that off your chest. You've seemed a little bored with the relative lack of controversy around here and seemed in need of a good ole ruckus over this subject.


It's not a ruckus. It was an answer to your (usual) complaint that modern music is terrible and foisted on everyone by elites and academics. I'd like to say you were getting _that_ off your chest, but it's been repeated so many times you probably barely notice.

However, is that an answer to the rebuttals?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I'll just offer a different angle. Over-sentimentality is a relative perspective. I felt the same when I am more in tuned with the Classical Era, but when I'm more in Romantic mode, much of the Classical era music sounds like fluff and fake restraint. I used to be obsessed with the emotional arc of the first movement of Mozart's Piano Concerto 20. But it sounds too staged to me now. I prefer the eruptions of Liszt's Wild Hunt or Mazeppa, no need for an elaborate build-up. That Howl's Moving Castle is probably inspired by the Romantic style, but is quite amateurish compared to the greats especially on the technical level. Like some say, the Classical era can be seen as too contained within the cadence. The boogie woogie is an amazing morph in the Beethoven piece, intended to be way beyond the formal structure of Haydn or Mozart, seeking a new sort of freedom. It is more common to contain everything within the structure in more run-of-the-mill Classical era works by lesser composers. The structure itself is changed to fit the expression of the music.


Interestingly I'm quite the opposite, there was a time I liked No.10 in F minor (nicknamed "Appassionata") in the Liszt set, so much so I practiced it daily and considered it one of the most passionate pieces of music ever written. Then I realized the merits of masterpieces by pre-Romantic masters which seem to convey depth through logic and intellectualism (as proven by various analysis videos on their chamber works) and since then I've had lost some interest in the general Romantic period music. I still think the Liszt is a great piece, Romantic period is a unique period of music with lot of gems that make me keep coming back to it.






About Beethoven's the last movements of the 2 late Beethoven sonatas, I think they're still great works that are interesting to listen to, but endings feel a little unsatisfactory for the whole material. As experimental and ambitious Beethoven gets in these pieces, I can't help but feel that the end results feel a little 'sketchy': It is as if Beethoven had great ideas in mind, but needed more time to polish them and didn't formulate them completely on the score. (On that note, I still think Appassionata is the greatest sonata Beethoven ever wrote.) In a somewhat different way, there's something unsatisfactory about Romantic piano preludes as well (Chopin and Scriabin), 30 second ~ 1 minute pieces that don't seem go much more beyond a few sentences. (Btw, pieces by Chopin I consider great are his Ballades, where he actually goes on to explore and develop his material.)

'Howl's Moving Castle' is indeed a watered-down, third-rate pastiche of Romantic period masterpieces in terms of composition techniques. But it still makes me feel like listening to a bad work from the Romantic period. I was using it to explain that the philosophy behind Romanticism isn't that infallible as people make it out to be and that there is 'good music' as well as 'bad music' in every era and we must examine case by case to weed out the bad from the good.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mandryka said:


> Be careful. _Evolving_ is ambiguous I think. It can mean _changing_ and it can mean _improving_. Hard to make sense of the latter without some sort of goal.


Thanks for the warning! I meant evolution in its purest form. What I'm saying is that, just as evolution in nature is not about improving (and was never aimed at a goal except the goal of organisms to replicate) - and just as change leads to more change - so music's evolution is the same. In nature an "advantage" won by one species causes pressure on others to change and, more interestingly for me, there is a tendency for the tree of life to branch as new mutations find it possible to exploit new opportunities. More and more viable niches are opened up in this way.


----------



## Mandryka

Enthusiast said:


> Thanks for the warning! I meant evolution in its purest form. What I'm saying is that, just as evolution in nature is not about improving (and was never aimed at a goal except the goal of organisms to replicate) - and just as change leads to more change - so music's evolution is the same. In nature an "advantage" won by one species causes pressure on others to change and, more interestingly for me, there is a tendency for the tree of life to branch as new mutations find it possible to exploit new opportunities. More and more viable niches are opened up in this way.


For the evolution of living things the advantage was to do with being more effective at passing your genes on to future generations. In music, how can we talk of advantage?

I was wondering if there's a relationship between some music and the changes to productive relations that started to take place in the 1970s. The globalisation of capital. But it's hard for me to make this out.


----------



## Roy Fuller

I have attended many concerts at my local symphony orchestra. The program is quite predictable: put the worst music as the first item on the agenda followed by less objectionable pieces. Finally, after the intermission, the warhorses come into play. The first and worst item on the agenda receives polite but tepid applause, while the following pieces receive various degrees of audience enthusiasm depending on the skill of the program selections. The first piece on the program is often referred to as 'parking music' because this is the time late arrivals can park their cars and not miss anything of value. I have reviewed the programs of other symphony orchestras and found a similar pattern. In order to create more ticket sales, symphony orchestras have had to provide special concerts of film music because surveys have shown an audience desire for such music. This is how many symphony orchestras operate today. And this is why as I stated earlier that the audience is winning the battle. In recognizing the failure of 'parking music' a new tactic is now being employed: multiculturalism (and I have this from inside information). Perhaps a minority composer will solve the problem say the programmers (but be sure to exclude white males. Now, as a white male, I am not complaining. I have already recognized the futility of having my works performed at my local symphony orchestra and have made other plans as I have stated before). My point here is is that the programmers do not have any idea of how to find new music (that the audience will like) and are now desperate for a solution.

I have never seen a survey that asks the audience the question: would you like to see new Romantic style (e.g. Lord of the Rings, etc.) music in the first half of the orchestra concert? Maybe there have been such surveys but I have never seen them.

Here is another part of the problem, and let us now just concentrate on symphonies in order to narrow our focus. There have been many symphonies written, but how many are masterpieces (i.e., warhorses)? I would classify some as masterpieces, others as near masterpieces, others as good, others as mediocre and so on. I once played a parlor game with my friends and we could come up with only around forty or so (we came up with all of Mahler, Brahms and Beethoven, the last symphonies of Mozart, and various others) that we would call masterpieces. My point here is that obtaining a new masterpiece will not be easy, but if one is to be found there must be a vetting process and that vetting process will not occur unless new Romantic symphonies are performed before audiences so that they can eventually make a selection. 

Now I recognize that audience selection is not perfect (especially in the short term). I submit to you the once very popular Wellington's Victory as an example. But audience selection over the long term is the only real tool that will work over the long term.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> 'Howl's Moving Castle' is indeed a watered-down, third-rate pastiche of Romantic period masterpieces in terms of composition techniques. But it still makes me feel like listening to a bad work from the Romantic period. *I was using it to explain that the philosophy behind Romanticism isn't that infallible as people make it out to be and that there is 'good music' as well as 'bad music' in every era and we must examine case by case to weed out the bad from the good.*


The trouble is, it explains nothing of the sort. Like your earlier posting of a fugue by Chopin hideously "played" by a computer, it shows only a willingness to scrape the bottom of the barrel and misrepresent things to score points for your side of an argument, an argument that probably doesn't need to be had.

'Howl's Moving Castle' is NOT a "watered-down, third-rate pastiche of Romantic period masterpieces." There are no masterpieces of which it is a pastiche. Neither is it a demonstration of the "philosophy" behind Romanticism - which, in fact, has no philosophy.

If you really wanted to explain that there is good and bad music in every era you wouldn't use theme music from a 2004 animated film (which sounds more or less like palm court music from a grade C 1930s movie) to represent Romanticism. You would, quite simply, post multiple examples of good and bad music from every era. Of course, what we would get then would be music representing your personal idea of what's good and bad, upon which we could proceed to have further pointless arguments about things which are to a large extent matters of taste.

Some poor unenlightened souls actually do get more pleasure from palm court music, which does after all attempt to express something, than from the innumerable vapid, academic, cookie-cutter occasion pieces by all those 18th-century composers whose names we've forgotten. How about Frantisek Kotzwara?






There now. Wasn't that just a perfect representation of the "philosophy" behind Classicism?

(Incidentally, Kotzwara may have had the most interesting death of any composer. According to Wiki, "On September 2, 1791 while he was in London, Kotzwara visited a prostitute named Susannah Hill in Vine Street, Westminster. After dinner with her in her lodgings, Kotzwara paid her two shillings and requested that she cut off his testicles. Hill refused to do so. Kotzwara then tied a ligature around the doorknob, the other end fastened around his neck, and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with Hill. After it was over, Kotzwara was dead. His is one of the first recorded deaths from erotic asphyxiation.")


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I see post-modernism as a symptom of the way "history has disappeared." History was a very long centuries-spanning narrative, written down and depicted in epic paintings.
> Then as communication speeds got faster, and distances were no longer obstacles to communication, everything became "instantaneous" and the "narrative" disappeared.


It sounds good, but I think this is the conflation of two things: communication and history through the ages. Both a variety of communication, but performing different roles.

Narratives have not disappeared, they are everywhere. In fact there are more of them than ever; being extracted from historical evaluations and re-evaluations; being produced now simultaneously and not just in a disposable way, but evolving very quickly.

It's a grave mistake (and a misreading of culture) to assume that everything is now reflected by the likes of Twitter - here one day, gone tomorrow. The narratives remain deep under these superficially "instantaneous" and novel "ideas" and utterances. Postmodern criticism only points to this, it doesn't wipe it out.


----------



## isorhythm

The guy's piano piece is nice enough - reminds me a little of McCoy Tyner - but he doesn't even address the subject in the title. He also doesn't explain what he means by postmodernism, which seems to be something completely different from what people in the classical world mean by it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> For the evolution of living things the advantage was to do with being more effective at passing your genes on to future generations. In music, how can we talk of advantage?
> 
> I was wondering if there's a relationship between some music and the changes to productive relations that started to take place in the 1970s. The globalisation of capital. But it's hard for me to make this out.


The idea of "memes" is sort of like a "gene pool" of ideas. It was said that Christianity displaced the Roman empire in this way, starting with a few memes which grew and spread. I can see musical ideas in this way as well.


----------



## EdwardBast

Roy Fuller said:


> I have attended many concerts at my local symphony orchestra. The program is quite predictable: put the worst music as the first item on the agenda followed by less objectionable pieces. Finally, after the intermission, the warhorses come into play. The first and worst item on the agenda receives polite but tepid applause, while the following pieces receive various degrees of audience enthusiasm depending on the skill of the program selections. The first piece on the program is often referred to as 'parking music' because this is the time late arrivals can park their cars and not miss anything of value. I have reviewed the programs of other symphonies and found a similar pattern. In order to create more ticket sales, symphonies have had to provide special concerts of film music because surveys have shown an audience desire for such music. This is how many symphony orchestras operate today. And this is why as I stated earlier that the audience is winning the battle. In recognizing the failure of 'parking music' a new tactic is now being employed: multiculturalism (and I have this from inside information). Perhaps a minority composer will solve the problem say the programmers (but be sure to exclude white males. Now, as a white male, I am not complaining. I have already recognized the futility of having my works performed at my local symphony orchestra and have made other plans as I have stated before). My point here is is that the programmers do not have any idea of how to find new music (that the audience will like) and are now desperate for a solution.
> 
> I have never seen a survey that asks the audience the question: would you like to see new Romantic style (e.g. Lord of the Rings, etc.) music in the first half of the orchestra concert? Maybe there have been such surveys but I have never seen them.
> 
> Here is another part of the problem, and let us now just concentrate on symphonies in order to narrow our focus. There have been many symphonies written, but how many are masterpieces (i.e., warhorses)? I would classify some as masterpieces, others as near masterpieces, others as good, other as mediocre and so on. I once played a parlor game with my friends and we could come up with only around forty or so (we came up will all of Mahler, Brahms and Beethoven, the last symphonies of Mozart, and various others). My point here is that obtaining a new masterpiece will not be easy, but if one is to be found there must be a vetting process and that vetting process will not occur unless new Romantic symphonies are performed before audiences so that they can eventually make a selection.
> 
> Now I recognize that audience selection is not perfect (especially in the short term). I submit to you the once very popular Wellington's Victory as an example. But audience selection over the long term is the only real tool that will work over the long term.


-Who is your local symphony orchestra? I've lived in a several major cities in the U.S. and none has ever had programming like you have described.

-Between you and your friends you could only come up with 40 great symphonies?

-What makes you think audiences aren't selecting? U.S. audiences really seem to enjoy Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Bartok, and because of this they have been hearing a lot of these composers.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Try putting something by John Adams in the second half and then watch your audience disappear, at least in the second half of the concert. You are evading the question by quibbling over non-essentials. Whether there are forty or eighty great masterpieces is not the point. The audience controls the second half and tolerates the first half.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> -Who is your local symphony orchestra? I've lived in a several major cities in the U.S. and none has ever had programming like you have described.


I reviewed the Los Angeles programs for a good part of 2018 and there was a definite trend (about 2/3 of the time) of placing commissioned works (which in my experience, in the case of the LA Phil, are 'very' contemporary) as the first work in the program followed by more well-known accepted works.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> I reviewed the Los Angeles programs for a good part of 2018 and there was a definite trend (about 2/3 of the time) of placing commissioned works (which in my experience, in the case of the LA Phil, are 'very' contemporary) as the first work in the program followed by more well-known accepted works.


Let's take the 2/3 with a pinch of salt (could be right, might not be), what's the problem with using very established works, which attract lazy listeners, to premiere something new?
Even better they even put it first so such listeners are soothed after being exposed to the discomfort of facing it. Like sitting in a soft armchair after a hard day's work - something a good deal of the retired (tired) old fools attending these performances don't get to do that much anyway.

I'd say they are doing them a great favour in pepping-up their lives.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Let's take the 2/3 with a pinch of salt (could be right, might not be), what's the problem with using very established works, which attract lazy listeners, to premiere something new?
> Even better they even put it first so such listeners are soothed after being exposed to the discomfort of facing it. Like sitting in a soft armchair after a hard day's work - something a good deal of the retired (tired) old fools attending these performances don't get to do that much anyway. I'd say they are doing them a great favour in pepping-up their lives.


This is an example of an LA Phil commissioned work. It's actually more benign than some of it's other commissioned works. It just sort of wanders around with no center and no development. It isn't revolting and people will patiently sit through it. But they won't rush out to buy a recording of it. They won't clamor to have it as part of an LA Phil program in the future. It will disappear into the vast wasteland of so many other commissioned works. And that is a good part of what is called classical music today.






In response to your unawareness of the background of my previous point that an elitism that developed in musicological academic circles as a result of Schoenberg's atonality and the serialism that followed led to a stifling of traditional tonal composition, I direct you to the writing of Philip Ball's 'Who Cares if No One Listens' inspired by Milton Babitt's 'Who Cares If You Listen?':

'_In the 1950s, classical composition was dominated by the form of atonalism developed at the start of the century by the Austrian composer Arnold Schoenberg and his followers in the so-called Second Viennese School, most notably Anton Webern and Alban Berg. Schoenberg devised a prescriptive system, described below, for composing music that lacked a tonic centre around which the melodies and harmonies were rooted: it gave equal status to all the notes of the chromatic scale. *Within the academic spheres of music composition, Schoenberg's 'serialist' or 'twelve-tone' technique came to be seen as the only respectable way to write music, to the extent that any attempts to compose within the old tonal tradition were widely regarded as recidivist, decadent and vulgar.* Babbitt was one of a group of composers, including the influential Pierre Boulez in Paris, who extended Schoenberg's serialist constraints on the way pitch was organized to embrace other musical parameters such as rhythm and dynamics, leading to a mode of composition called total serialism in which tightly prescribed rules dominated the composer's practice.

The result was a kind of music that, to many listeners, sounded fragmented, bleak and inaccessible. In contrast to the experiments in chromaticism, dissonance and rhythmic irregularities practiced by composers such as Richard Wagner, Serge Prokofiev, Igor Stravinsky and Béla Bartók, which were at first greeted with bafflement and even outrage by the musical public but have now contributed much-loved pieces to the standard Western repertoire, the atonalism of Schoenberg and his followers continues to be deemed 'difficult' by many concert-goers. Some of these works, such as Berg's opera Lulu, are considered by many critics to be masterpieces of modernism. But many are rarely performed, and are still regarded as commercially risky by concert programmers unless leavened with more popular pieces from the older tonal repertoire.'_


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> -Who is your local symphony orchestra? I've lived in a several major cities in the U.S. and none has ever had programming like you have described.


Which bit of Fuller's claims are you disputing? Many of the BBC Proms concerts are programmed similarly, though usually with a short, light piece as an opener before the commissioned or 'difficult' work. If I'd been parking my car when I went to the Proms in 2012, I'd have missed Glinka's _Ruslan and Lumilla _before Emily Howard's _Calculus Of The Nervous System._ Shostakovich 7 was the warhorse.

Here's another example, picked at random from a previous year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/events/ec52fx

Ravel
Holt (World Premiere)
Ravel
Duruflé


----------



## Enthusiast

Mandryka said:


> For the evolution of living things the advantage was to do with being more effective at passing your genes on to future generations. In music, how can we talk of advantage?
> 
> I was wondering if there's a relationship between some music and the changes to productive relations that started to take place in the 1970s. The globalisation of capital. But it's hard for me to make this out.


It's only a metaphor and it _would _be risky to take it too far. Evolution in nature requires an environment (which includes all organisms - which are in themselves evolving) and replication with some mutation. The idea is basically an algorithm. Music obviously doesn't survive or proliferate in the same way but a similar algorithm to describe the spread and development of music styles and ideas might be work. What I like about evolution as a metaphor here is the fact that all sorts of organisms (large carnivores, humans, gazelles, butterflies, cuckoos, cockroaches, viruses) can all be described as successful because they get to replicate. Musical ideas and styles do achieve popularity (the ideas live and go round in people's heads, interesting or inspiring them in some way). I would say that every composer we are aware of has achieved this.

But I don't think you can push the analogy too far. Evolution in nature _looks back _at creatures that are now extinct (not many last a geologically long time). To push the analogy, extinction in music might be the result of composers dying or changing their style and even the end of a whole musical era - Mozart and Brahms are extinct and so is Classical and Romantic music. But their music lives on in our heads so they are still very much alive. I suppose if we reach a stage when a composer's music is no longer known or listened to then we can think of them as extinct. But our time is one in which we are resurrecting so much music that had been forgotten. Some, were once very popular but are now all but forgotten and even they get performed and recorded (for example, Bernard van Dieren who was thought of as one of the greatest in the first part of the 20th century). Evolution may work as a metaphor for describing the development of our music but the products live long after the extinction of the ideas and styles.

I guess you are right to postulate that the environment and changes within it influence which musical ideas thrive - just as it does for organisms - but, again, evolution is tricky to use as a metaphor and may be particularly unhelpful in throwing light on recent trends?


----------



## Enthusiast

Roy Fuller said:


> I always find that the first one to use ad hominem is the loser.


But his criticism was aimed at the content and pattern of your thinking rather than you. He might have said "we are dealing with a fantasy" instead of "with a fantasist" and the meaning would have been the same. Aside from wishing to claim victory do you have a response to this? You do seem to be laying down laws that few in the real world would recognise as valid ...


----------



## Enthusiast

Roy Fuller said:


> Now I recognize that audience selection is not perfect (especially in the short term). I submit to you the once very popular Wellington's Victory as an example. But audience selection over the long term is the only real tool that will work over the long term.


So, you reject most Classical and Romantic music as failed - only the "warhorses" have succeeded - along with the modern music you are attacking? And to make up for the gaps you wish to introduce music that is mere pastiche of those few successful works, presumably while acknowledging that these fill ups will fail soon enough as well? You end up with a few classics - most of us will know them very well already - and the popular music of the day? That doesn't come close to describing the value of music that moves me and involves insulting that music with your reliance on the popular of the day. But your measure is the concert programmes of symphony orchestras. Many orchestral works I love - including many Romantic and Classical works - don't get programmed very often at all. But I and many others listen to them through recordings which someone finds worthwhile (even economically) making. And then there are opera houses which, in Europe at least, programme with some success all sorts of obscure and new works.

There is a problem with the economics of programming less popular orchestral works. I suspect you will be against the use of subsidies to enrich that repertoire but successful, thriving and optimistic societies tend to feed off the presence of a lively arts scene rather than one that constantly rehashes the few works that you are happy to call masterpieces and, for variety, substitutes orchestral popular music for the real thing. Our musical life is the victim of modern economic dogma.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> This is an example of an LA Phil commissioned work. It's actually more benign than some of it's other commissioned works. It just sort of wanders around with no center and no development. It isn't revolting and people will patiently sit through it. But they won't rush out to buy a recording of it. They won't clamor to have it as part of an LA Phil program in the future. It will disappear into the vast wasteland of so many other commissioned works. And that is a good part of what is called classical music today.


Oh dear, I have to keep saying it. It's just a work that upsets you and other listeners with your reserved tastes. This business about things disappearing and recordings not being bought... this happens all the time. How much stuff do you think has been programmed over the centuries only to disappear into obscurity? This has been put to you hundreds of times. There will be others that do catch and become part of the more regular canon. Things are given a chance. Or nothing would get a chance.



DaveM said:


> In response to your unawareness of the background of my previous point that an elitism that developed in musicological academic circles as a result of Schoenberg's atonality and the serialism that followed led to a stifling of traditional tonal composition, I direct you to the writing of Philip Ball's 'Who Cares if No One Listens' inspired by Milton Babitt's 'Who Cares If You Listen?':


Groan. I'm not unaware, I already know this. It was a change in direction and it upset traditionalists who think nothing ought to change, ever. These changes are necessary to break stagnation and most often allow synthesis and reappraisal of previously deprecated or rejected culture. Happens all the time.



DaveM said:


> The result was a kind of music that, to many listeners, sounded fragmented, bleak and inaccessible. In contrast to the experiments in chromaticism, dissonance and rhythmic irregularities practiced by composers such as Richard Wagner, Serge Prokofiev, Igor Stravinsky and Béla Bartók, which were at first greeted with bafflement and even outrage by the musical public but have now contributed much-loved pieces to the standard Western repertoire, the atonalism of Schoenberg and his followers continues to be deemed 'difficult' by many concert-goers. Some of these works, such as Berg's opera Lulu, are considered by many critics to be masterpieces of modernism. But many are rarely performed, and are still regarded as commercially risky by concert programmers unless leavened with more popular pieces from the older tonal repertoire.


I see no criticism, but the usual complaints. It's just a sad fact that a majority of listeners didn't and still don't connect with 'new music'. Your final sentence seems to me a justification for the sort of programming being attacked by Roy Fuller above. It allows some exposure. 
There may well be an argument that this puts such works in a difficult position, because if the majority of people only really want to see whatever easily-accessible piece is programmed as the main event, they will always be upset about it and rail against it.

The concert halls are trying to offer just a bit more than standard repertoire, assuming that a concert hall audience are people of intelligence and open minds (perhaps a mistake). If they simply catered to popular tastes they will fall into cultural stagnation, but sell reasonable numbers of tickets. That is not the sole aim for concert halls. They are also an outlet for living composers and commissions as part of current culture with a connection to a tradition). Sometimes the audience is more a hindrance to this.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> I reviewed the Los Angeles programs for a good part of 2018 and there was a definite trend (about 2/3 of the time) of placing commissioned works (which in my experience, in the case of the LA Phil, are 'very' contemporary) as the first work in the program followed by more well-known accepted works.


The orchestras I've seen and worked for tended to do the opposite: begin concerts with something popular and place the modern piece or commission second, before the break, where the audience would have to make a scene to escape. 



MacLeod said:


> *Which bit of Fuller's claims are you disputing?* Many of the BBC Proms concerts are programmed similarly, though usually with a short, light piece as an opener before the commissioned or 'difficult' work. If I'd been parking my car when I went to the Proms in 2012, I'd have missed Glinka's _Ruslan and Lumilla _before Emily Howard's _Calculus Of The Nervous System._ Shostakovich 7 was the warhorse.


All of them, I think: Where the modern work is placed (see above ^ ^ ^), the fact that, in my experience, the first half more often than not includes a major work likely to be popular with audiences. Also the implication that 20thc music is unpopular.

I don't think Shostakovich 7 meets Fuller's definition of a warhorse, despite being a fairly popular war symphony.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Oh dear, I have to keep saying it. It's just a work that upsets you and other listeners with your reserved tastes. This business about things disappearing and recordings not being bought... this happens all the time. How much stuff do you think has been programmed over the centuries only to disappear into obscurity? This has been put to you hundreds of times. There will be others that do catch and become part of the more regular canon. Things are given a chance. Or nothing would get a chance.


If this has been put to me a hundred times (doubtful), it would be in the realm of 'stop peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining'. This parallel universe construct that what is going on now with classical music is just a continuum of what has occurred in past centuries is a figment of the imagination and a reaction that occurs when one fears that what is happening right in front of one's eyeballs is actually true.

Please name a few commissioned works of the last, say 25 years, that have become part of 'the regular canon'.



> Groan. I'm not unaware, I already know this. It was a change in direction and it upset traditionalists who think nothing ought to change, ever. These changes are necessary to break stagnation and most often allow synthesis and reappraisal of previously deprecated or rejected culture. Happens all the time.


Happens all the time? Starting with the baroque period, name me one period comparable to that following the introduction of atonality when the present form of composition was brought to an almost abrupt halt, musicological students were forced to avoid it and audiences rejected the result for decades.



> Your final sentence seems to me a justification for the sort of programming being attacked by Roy Fuller above. It allows some exposure.


Well, since it was still in italics, it was Mr. Ball's sentence.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> Just because somebody called it 'Romantic' doesn't mean that CM's development _did _evolve from 'Classical' to 'Romantic' - only that someone has described it that way. Between, shall we say, 1770 and 1850, music definitely evolved, but this was neither linear nor predictable. What happened, happened, regardless of the labels (though I suppose some composers might have been influenced by the cultural dialogue).
> 
> The same can be said of 'Post-Modernism', and any other development or evolution you'd care to give a name to (or more accurately, that someone else has given a name to.)


Well, this is just playing with semantics. CM did evolve from the classical period to the romantic period. And just as we, retrospectively, identify periods that evolve such as the pre-industrial to the Industrial Age, so do we likewise with CM. Whether it was linear or predictable has nothing to do with my comments. The important fact is that anyone who is an experienced listener of music of the classical and romantic periods will be able to hear a distinct difference between works that distinguish those periods.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> If this has been put to me a hundred times (doubtful), it would be in the realm of 'stop peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining'. This parallel universe construct that what is going on now with classical music is just a continuum of what has occurred in past centuries is a figment of the imagination and a reaction that occurs when one fears that what is happening right in front of one's eyeballs is actually true.
> 
> Please name a few commissioned works of the last, say 25 years, that have become part of 'the regular canon'.


Please name! With links and 'evidence'! Do it now! 

It's happening in front of your eyeballs because they are filtered by special glasses and your ears biased. The very worst thing is you are not addressing the actual issue and are also putting words and views into my mouth. 
I already _know _that modern (postmodern?) music attracts smaller audiences. However to say it doesn't sit in the same continuum as previous art-music is pure ignorance and an insult to the people working in music today. You don't even have the right to sit there deciding that some person who has spent their life acquiring musical skills and devoting themselves to composition, isn't part of that tradition just because you don't care for what they produce.

If we're not just going to go with endless repeats of established classics, what kinds of composers will be allowed to pass your stringent test? People writing pastiches of music from past cultural movements? Is the contemporary composer now banned from the concert hall unless he or she is writing in a way that suits you and will satisfy the feeling that your concert ticket was worth the money because you got what you expected?



DaveM said:


> Starting with the baroque period, name me one period comparable to that following the introduction of atonality when the present form of composition was brought to an almost abrupt halt, musicological students were forced to avoid it and audiences rejected the result for decades.


You're really just stating an opinion here masquerading as a question. I expected more of you, but this is the paltry result of venomous hatred of something that doesn't satisfy your aesthetic sensibilities.
I'm sure that whilst writing it you were imagining all the most extreme 'avant-garde' (does that even exist these days?) works imaginable. Onto which you have slapped the label: 'modernist noise'.

And now I shall leave you to retort with: 'Ha ha...so you can't name the works and periods. Haha..I've won because I was asking for simple proof and you didn't provide it...' Victory indeed.

Now I'm off to the concert hall to catch _Pictures at an Exhibition_, followed by _Beethoven's 9th_, with a daring finale of _The Firebird _for the 'new music' fans. This is all that is on at the moment. The orchestra looks quite suicidal, but they have to eat.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> The orchestras I've seen and worked for tended to do the opposite: begin concerts with something popular and place the modern piece or commission second, before the break, where the audience would have to make a scene to escape.


Correct indeed. It is called 'hammocking' and is used throughout media, like TV where a new programme is sandwiched between two popular ones in the schedule to catch those tuning in either side. It's a very common approach for most scheduling at pop concerts and also happens in concert halls.



EdwardBast said:


> All of them, I think: Where the modern work is placed (see above ^ ^ ^), the fact that, in my experience, the first half more often than not includes a major work likely to be popular with audiences. Also the implication that 20thc music is unpopular.
> 
> I don't think Shostakovich 7 meets Fuller's definition of a warhorse, despite being a fairly popular war symphony.


My local concert hall, which I attend most often, generally puts the _least_ popular pieces last; though it has been sometimes first. The thing is if you don't turn up at the start, you don't get in; and that goes for the main performance. Most have the courtesy to turn up and also not leave until the end. Either that or they like what they've heard or given it a chance. I really can't see why if one has just heard a Glinka overture and then a Prokofiev concerto and enjoyed them, applauding the orchestra; one then wouldn't have the courtesy to listen to that orchestra play a new work.

Some people seem to be a lot ruder in real life than I am on alleged to be on the internet!


----------



## Roy Fuller

Enthusiast said:


> So, you reject most Classical and Romantic music as failed - only the "warhorses" have succeeded - along with the modern music you are attacking? And to make up for the gaps you wish to introduce music that is mere pastiche of those few successful works, presumably while acknowledging that these fill ups will fail soon enough as well? You end up with a few classics - most of us will know them very well already - and the popular music of the day? That doesn't come close to describing the value of music that moves me and involves insulting that music with your reliance on the popular of the day. But your measure is the concert programmes of symphony orchestras. Many orchestral works I love - including many Romantic and Classical works - don't get programmed very often at all. But I and many others listen to them through recordings which someone finds worthwhile (even economically) making. And then there are opera houses which, in Europe at least, programme with some success all sorts of obscure and new works.
> 
> There is a problem with the economics of programming less popular orchestral works. I suspect you will be against the use of subsidies to enrich that repertoire but successful, thriving and optimistic societies tend to feed off the presence of a lively arts scene rather than one that constantly rehashes the few works that you are happy to call masterpieces and, for variety, substitutes orchestral popular music for the real thing. Our musical life is the victim of modern economic dogma.


I have to say that I am gobsmacked at your inability to understand what I have said and your ability to put words into my mouth that I never said. When I say that some piece of music might be better or more exiting than others I am only saying what every honest person should know. It does not mean that those pieces that are not warhorses are 'failures.' I very much enjoy Sibelius for example, but that does not mean that I would place his works on the same level as Mahler. As for other types of music, the same goes. I would love to see, for example, a major symphony put Bach cantatas in the 2nd half program.


----------



## Haydn70

Roy Fuller said:


> I have to say that I am gobsmacked at your *inability to understand what I have said* and your *ability to put words into my mouth that I never said*. When I say that some piece of music might be better or more exiting than others I am only saying what every honest person should know. It does not mean that those pieces that are not warhorses are 'failures.' I very much enjoy Sibelius for example, but that does not mean that I would place his works on the same level as Mahler. As for other types of music, the same goes. I would love to see, for example, a major symphony put Bach cantatas in the 2nd half program.


Take my word for it Roy, such things (in bold above) are really common on this site. Lots of folks here like to make things up as they go along. Objectivity is a very rare commodity here.


----------



## Larkenfield

The Postmodernist Always Rings Twice. :tiphat:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Haydn70 said:


> Take my word for it Roy, such things (in bold above) are really common on this site. Lots of folks here like to make things up as they go along. Objectivity is a very rare commodity here.


And what is it replaced with? This sort of commentary pretending to be fact:



Roy Fuller said:


> I very much enjoy Sibelius for example, but that does not mean that I would place his works on the same level as Mahler.


Lucky Mahler. Sibelius must be devastated. Who cares?


----------



## janxharris

Roy Fuller said:


> I have to say that I am gobsmacked at your inability to understand what I have said and your ability to put words into my mouth that I never said. When I say that some piece of music might be better or more exiting than others I am only saying what every honest person should know. It does not mean that those pieces that are not warhorses are 'failures.' I very much enjoy Sibelius for example, but that does not mean that I would place his works on the same level as Mahler. As for other types of music, the same goes. I would love to see, for example, a major symphony put Bach cantatas in the 2nd half program.
> 
> As for your lame defense of the Loser, give me a break.


You are suggesting that every honest person knows that Mahler is a level above Sibelius or have I inferred incorrectly?


----------



## Roy Fuller

No, I saying that every honest person prioritizes his tastes in music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> No, I saying that every honest person prioritizes his tastes in music.


And if one prioritises, say, Erwin Schulhof above Mahler they've gone wrong somewhere.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Well, it is not my concern if someone prioritizes Schulhof, whoever he is. It is only my concern if he tries to impose his values on me.


----------



## fluteman

Roy Fuller said:


> I have attended many concerts at my local symphony orchestra. The program is quite predictable: put the worst music as the first item on the agenda followed by less objectionable pieces. Finally, after the intermission, the warhorses come into play. The first and worst item on the agenda receives polite but tepid applause, while the following pieces receive various degrees of audience enthusiasm depending on the skill of the program selections. The first piece on the program is often referred to as 'parking music' because this is the time late arrivals can park their cars and not miss anything of value. I have reviewed the programs of other symphony orchestras and found a similar pattern. In order to create more ticket sales, symphony orchestras have had to provide special concerts of film music because surveys have shown an audience desire for such music. This is how many symphony orchestras operate today. And this is why as I stated earlier that the audience is winning the battle. In recognizing the failure of 'parking music' a new tactic is now being employed: multiculturalism (and I have this from inside information). Perhaps a minority composer will solve the problem say the programmers (but be sure to exclude white males. Now, as a white male, I am not complaining. I have already recognized the futility of having my works performed at my local symphony orchestra and have made other plans as I have stated before). My point here is is that the programmers do not have any idea of how to find new music (that the audience will like) and are now desperate for a solution.
> 
> I have never seen a survey that asks the audience the question: would you like to see new Romantic style (e.g. Lord of the Rings, etc.) music in the first half of the orchestra concert? Maybe there have been such surveys but I have never seen them.
> 
> Here is another part of the problem, and let us now just concentrate on symphonies in order to narrow our focus. There have been many symphonies written, but how many are masterpieces (i.e., warhorses)? I would classify some as masterpieces, others as near masterpieces, others as good, others as mediocre and so on. I once played a parlor game with my friends and we could come up with only around forty or so (we came up with all of Mahler, Brahms and Beethoven, the last symphonies of Mozart, and various others) that we would call masterpieces. My point here is that obtaining a new masterpiece will not be easy, but if one is to be found there must be a vetting process and that vetting process will not occur unless new Romantic symphonies are performed before audiences so that they can eventually make a selection.
> 
> Now I recognize that audience selection is not perfect (especially in the short term). I submit to you the once very popular Wellington's Victory as an example. But audience selection over the long term is the only real tool that will work over the long term.


One of many problems with this argument, which is espoused repeatedly here at TC, is that if you take the 19th-century context as a given, inevitably 19th-century music will be best suited to it. The symphony orchestra is a 19th-century ensemble made up of 19th-century acoustical instruments (including the piano). The acoustical (i.e., without electrical amplification) concert hall is a 19th-century architectural concept. The symphony is a 19th-century musical form. All of these had their roots and developed from the 18th century or even earlier and reached their zenith in the second half of the 19th century.

We honor the traditions of over a century ago and the great music they produced by maintaining these cultural institutions. But there is no avoiding that the 20th century brought audio and video recording, electrical amplification, radio and TV broadcasting, computers, the internet, and other technological developments that have permanently changed western music and rendered those older institutions, if not entirely obsolete, at least less centrally relevant. It is true that some contemporary musicians continue to write some, or most, or even all, of their music for performance by traditional 19th-century acoustical instruments in traditional acoustical auditoriums. But that has already become a niche in the much larger 'postmodern' (a catch-all term that I try to avoid, but I'll use it here to be one of the gang) music scene. The music of the mid- to late-19th century will always be the main attraction in that mid- to late-19th century context, but contemporary music has expanded, and continues to expand, well beyond that context.

So by all means go to your local symphony orchestra concerts, but please don't make sweeping pronouncements on the state of contemporary music based on what you find there.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> A thread about post-modernism (where I was hoping to learn things) has become (yet another) Romanticism vs everything else thread - and these seem to come and repeat the tired old arguments as often as Philip Glass repeats simple motifs in one of his pieces. We almost got to an understanding of what post-modernism is and then off the thread went into the storm clouds of Romanticism. We may not all agree on what Modernism is/was and which composers should be called Modern (capital M) and even if we do it is clear that the term post-modernism is not usually used to contain everything that came after them. But what does it refer to? There are far too many isms in the contemporary scene but post-modernism is a term that you see used quite often but I remain confused about what music it might refer to.


I sympathize with your complaint here, so allow me to try to steer the thread back towards the issue of Modernism (M) VS Postmodernism (PM) and perhaps share some of my own knowledge about the distinction.

First, I have to admit that I'm not very knowledgeable of post-1950s classical music. My knowledge extends to the 12-tone composers, some Messiaen, Hindemith, Ives, Ligeti, Penderecki, a handful of Glass, Adams, and that's about it. So I'm not the best person to ask about what music fits the category of PM, but I can try to explain what PM is in the abstract.

To understand PM it helps to understand M as a philosophical and artistic movement. Essentially, M was marked by anxiety about the growing awareness of multiplicities of culture and philosophy. Much of this was due to increasing globalization and societies trying to cope with "cultural melting pots" like the US and elsewhere. So much art of the time, especially in literature, began exploring techniques like extensive quotation, collage, multiple speakers/perspectives, stream-of-consciousness and others in an attempt to mimic the multiplicity of views that were threatening various homogenized philosophies and institutions. However, M also sought to find means by which to unite these contradictions, whether it was by culture or religion or some other means. In music, we might look at the attempts made by Shostakovich, Ravel, and Stravinsky to incorporate jazz into traditional classical music, or Bartok to incorporate folk. That's a hallmark of M. M was also marked in how it often features major breaks from various traditions in order to legitimize new practices. In music, atonality was the obvious example, but poetry also saw the rise of free-verse and rejection of verse (which, much like the tonality/atonality distinction was a pretty radical change), and film saw the rejection or subversion of most of the rules of classic continuity editing, framing, and lighting practices.

PM was largely just a rejection of those attempts at unification and finding "new" modes of expression. Most PM see the proliferation of genres, styles, voices, philosophies, etc. as a big playground for them to engage in freely without the burden of trying to make coherent sense of it all, or to invent something new. PM didn't believe in trying to maintain notions of high and low culture, or top-down philosophies or overarching religions. In literature, one might think of the difference between TS Eliot's Waste Land, which, despite its multiplicity of voices and quotations, is still mostly suggesting that there is a higher culture unifying everything; and John Ashbery's Daffy Duck in Hollywood, which seems to delight just as much in its cartoonish silliness as it does in the references to high culture and dense language. In film, think of the difference between the 60s films of Jean-Luc Godard, which, despite utilizing various genre trappings--noir, science-fiction, etc.--are mostly concerned in commentaries about Marxism, Feminism, film theory, and other philosophies; and the films of Quentin Tarantino, which gleefully mix various genres into blenders of gratuitous violence and action. To Eliot and Godard, there are unifying themes that tie together their difficult, fragmentary works; to Ashbery and Tarantino there aren't or, if there are, they don't care about them. To them, every thing--every genre, subject, style, etc.--is just something to play with like a toy.

So, if you can think of music that gleefully mixes a wide range of genres and styles without attempting to unite them into some coherent whole, that would be PM. PM IS NOT a rejection of tonality. PM isn't a rejection of anything, really, except notions of unities and hierarchies. A PM can make use of tonality AND atonality, and a proper one would probably make use of both, maybe even at the same time if they wanted to get daring. When I think of PM in music, I think of an artist like Toby Driver and Kayo Dot, and albums like Choirs of the Eye and Hubardo which seems a weird mash-up of heavy metal, modern classical, hardcore, post-punk, singer-songwriter stuff, spoken-word, and other avant-garde tendencies. The entire idea being that you don't know where the music's going from one moment to the next, and that's kind of the point. This: 




seems PM to me, as I don't hear any attempt made to prioritize or unify the extremely contrasted aspects of this, from the most abrasively chaotic to the most minimal, mellow, and beautiful.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> PM isn't a rejection of anything, really, except notions of unities and hierarchies.


Oh...Is _that_ all? :lol:

The next question is: What can be _said_ in an art that rejects two such fundamental ingredients of reality, experience, perception and thought? Anything that anyone but a chronicler of cultural fashions will care about tomorrow?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Please don't make posts commenting negatively on other members - stick to criticising their expressed ideas in civil and reasonable language.

A number of inappropriate posts have been removed and some further posts edited to remove inappropriate remarks.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I think it's appropriate to quote this in relation to the discussion. Sturgeon's Law or 'revelation'. Maybe open some eyes (if not ears):



Theodore Sturgeon - Venture Magazine (1957) said:


> I repeat Sturgeon's Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. is crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other art-forms


That is what is happening when contemporary music is being trashed. While the perpetrators pit it against the 10% of well-established music.

Considering those same people say they either refuse to listen to contemporary music, or can barely sit through a few minutes, it's curious how they can judge what is and isn't worth hearing again.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Oh...Is _that_ all? :lol:
> 
> The next question is: What can be _said_ in an art that rejects two such fundamental ingredients of reality, experience, perception and thought? Anything that anyone but a chronicler of cultural fashions will care about tomorrow?


I didn't mean to imply the rejection was trivial. I was trying to be descriptive rather than judgmental. I personally feel that rejection reflects poorly on the spirit of PM as a kind of cowardly childishness even when their efforts are enjoyable. My metaphors above of playgrounds and toys was not accidental. Among post-war artists my loyalties lie with those who have at least tried to make coherent sense of the chaos--and in that small-ish class I'd include names like Geoffrey Hill, James Merrill, Jean-Luc Godard, Terence Malick, and Olivier Messiaen.

The issue is less about what can be said in such an art since the answer is literally everything, or at least anything that could've been expressed in any of the genres and styles that PM utilizes. The real issue is what's being said when everything's being said at once and there are no attempts made to make them cohere or order them hierarchically. There are thorny philosophical issues underlying this, both in and outside the arts.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The real issue is what's being said when everything's being said at once and there are no attempts made to make them cohere or order them hierarchically.


That being part of the point of the criticism.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I didn't mean to imply the rejection was trivial. I was trying to be descriptive rather than judgmental. *I personally feel that rejection reflects poorly on the spirit of PM as a kind of cowardly childishness* even when their efforts are enjoyable. My metaphors above of playgrounds and toys was not accidental. Among post-war artists my loyalties lie with those who have at least tried to make coherent sense of the chaos--and in that small-ish class I'd include names like Geoffrey Hill, James Merrill, Jean-Luc Godard, Terence Malick, and Olivier Messiaen.
> 
> *The issue is less about what can be said in such an art since the answer is literally everything, or at least anything that could've been expressed in any of the genres and styles that PM utilizes. The real issue is what's being said when everything's being said at once and there are no attempts made to make them cohere or order them hierarchically.* There are thorny philosophical issues underlying this, both in and outside the arts.


"What can be said in such an art" is very much the issue. It isn't true that postmodern art can say anything that could be expressed in the kinds of art from which it plunders. When everything is being said at once without coherence or hierarchy, nothing is being said except, by implication, that nothing is worth saying or ought to be said - or believed. It's nihilist babble, and your phrase "cowardly childishness" strikes me as a fine psychological diagnosis.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Please name! With links and 'evidence'! Do it now!
> 
> It's happening in front of your eyeballs because they are filtered by special glasses and your ears biased. The very worst thing is you are not addressing the actual issue and are also putting words and views into my mouth.


I'm putting words in your mouth?



eugeneonagain said:


> How much stuff do you think has been programmed over the centuries only to disappear into obscurity? This has been put to you hundreds of times. *There will be others that do catch and become part of the more regular canon.* Things are given a chance. Or nothing would get a chance.


Given the dismissive tone of your reply which infers that anyone should know your truth, I would think that you would have a few favorites from the last 25, or even, 50 years that are now 'part of the regular canon'.



> I already _know _that modern (postmodern?)' music attracts smaller audiences. However to say it doesn't sit in the same continuum as previous art-music is pure ignorance and an insult to the people working in music today. You don't even have the right to sit there deciding that some person who has spent their life acquiring musical skills and devoting themselves to composition, isn't part of that tradition just because you don't care for what they produce.


If the composers of 'modern (postmodern?) sit in the same continuum as previous classical art-music, their output would be appealing to a large enough audience to sustain the classical music art-form without having to rely on music that is a hundred or more years old to get people into concert hall chairs. Commissioned works are scheduled not because the composer has demonstrated the ability to compose works people might want to hear, but because an orchestra such as the LA Phil has large coffers and throws the money at the composition wall and hopes something sticks. Budding composers who have not demonstrated any ability to compose a melody and develop it rely on producing works that rely more on dissonance than anything else and decree that what sometimes amounts to nothing more than performance art is, in fact, an innovative work of classical music.



> If we're not just going to go with endless repeats of established classics, what kinds of composers will be allowed to pass your stringent test? People writing pastiches of music from past cultural movements? Is the contemporary composer now banned from the concert hall unless he or she is writing in a way that suits you and will satisfy the feeling that your concert ticket was worth the money because you got what you expected?


The repetitive premise that this my test and a demand for music that just suits me ignores the fact that I am very much not alone in my opinions. I understand that you and a number of others like the 'new music' and I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't. I really do believe 'to each his own'. But when this subject comes up, I'm not going swallow some story that this is just a natural continuum of what came before. Much of what is called classical music of the last 50 years bears little relationship to what characterized it for centuries and some of it is simply not classical music.



> And now I shall leave you to retort with: 'Ha ha...so you can't name the works and periods. Haha..I've won because I was asking for simple proof and you didn't provide it...' Victory indeed.


Well, that's the reality of debates isn't it. The one who can't support one's argument loses.


----------



## eugeneonagain

You and Mr Fuller can form a double act.


----------



## Roy Fuller

fluteman said:


> So by all means go to your local symphony orchestra concerts, but please don't make sweeping pronouncements on the state of contemporary music based on what you find there.


Sorry, but I am not into self censorship. I regard art music as a serious matter and part of the battle for western civilization. This battle has too long been ignored by the timid.


----------



## fluteman

Roy Fuller said:


> Sorry, but I am not into self censorship. I regard art music as a serious matter and part of the battle for western civilization. This battle has too long been ignored by the timid.


Possibly, but for quite some time the center of the battle has been shifting ever further away from the field in which you are standing with your broad sword. Once you have nobly slain the few stragglers that are still within your reach, you will have no choice but to venture to new fields. There you will find remote-controlled drones firing from high above you, and you will wave your heavy sword at them in vain. I hope for your sake they carry no more dangerous ammunition than paint balls.

At any rate, best of luck in your crusade to save western civilization from the young and dissolute computer-programming, latte-drinking hoards. At least you can derive comfort from the fact than in a few decades, they, as you are today, will be looking in horror at the dissolute youth and searching for a way to save western civilization.


----------



## EdwardBast

Roy Fuller said:


> Sorry, but I am not into self censorship. I regard art music as a serious matter and part of the battle for western civilization. This battle has too long been ignored by the timid.


Yes, sounds serious. For those of us who haven't been paying attention, or who are just too timid to ask, could you tell us who's battling for western civilization? What are the factions and issues involved? (You don't just mean the current infestation in the WH, right?)


----------



## Roy Fuller

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, sounds serious. For those of us who haven't been paying attention, or who are just too timid to ask, could you tell us who's battling for western civilization? What are the factions and issues involved? (You don't just mean the current infestation in the WH, right?)


I doubt that your question is really serious, but I will give you an answer anyway. It is Plato vs. Aristotle. I'll leave you to try to understand what side I am on.


----------



## EdwardBast

Roy Fuller said:


> I doubt that your question is really serious, but I will give you an answer anyway. It is Plato vs. Aristotle. I'll leave you to try to understand what side I am on.


Aristotle, obviously, because the philosopher whose name rhymes with swine gave her endorsement. Don't worry, it'll wear off. You'll escape the collective eventually.


----------



## Roy Fuller

EdwardBast said:


> Aristotle, obviously, because the philosopher whose name rhymes with swine gave her endorsement. Don't worry, it'll wear off. You'll escape the collective eventually.


So clever! I'd like to hear your views on epistemology.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Roy Fuller said:


> So clever! I'd like to hear your *views on epistemology*.


We've just about got it figured out.


----------



## Mandryka

EdwardBast said:


> Aristotle, obviously, because the philosopher whose name rhymes with swine gave her endorsement.


Quine?

Ijxkjxnxkjs k


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> Quine?
> 
> Ijxkjxnxkjs k


Nein. ..................


----------



## Roy Fuller

fluteman said:


> At any rate, best of luck in your crusade to save western civilization from the young and dissolute computer-programming, latte-drinking hoards. At least you can derive comfort from the fact than in a few decades, they, as you are today, will be looking in horror at the dissolute youth and searching for a way to save western civilization.


Well, you've got that wrong. The young are always too stupid to know what's going on. It's their elders I worry about.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> The orchestras I've seen and worked for tended to do the opposite: begin concerts with something popular and place the modern piece or commission second, before the break, where the audience would have to make a scene to escape.
> 
> All of them, I think: Where the modern work is placed (see above ^ ^ ^), the fact that, in my experience, the first half more often than not includes a major work likely to be popular with audiences. Also the implication that 20thc music is unpopular.
> 
> I don't think Shostakovich 7 meets Fuller's definition of a warhorse, despite being a fairly popular war symphony.


I think the suggestion that a concert doesn't open with a modern piece, but neither is it the main part of the programme is legitimate. We can quibble about the exact placement while still observing that the warhorse - or, if not the warhorse, the more broadly acceptable piece from the canon - occupies the 'centre' of the programme.

I didn't pick the DSCH as a pun, by the way - it's just one that I happened to go and see. I went for the DSCH, not for the Howard.

Here's another example of programming, this time suggesting the opposite of what Roy Fuller asserts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/events/ejdq9r

https://www.bbc.co.uk/events/evbj5v

https://www.bbc.co.uk/events/ex3q9r



DaveM said:


> Well, *this is just playing with semantics*. CM did evolve from the classical period to the romantic period. And just as we, retrospectively, identify periods that evolve such as the pre-industrial to the Industrial Age, so do we likewise with CM. Whether it was linear or predictable has nothing to do with my comments. The important fact is that anyone who is an experienced listener of music of the classical and romantic periods will be able to hear a distinct difference between works that distinguish those periods.


No, it's not. It's observing that whilst any fool can hear the distinct differences, the labels applied to them are not intrinsic to the music. What came first was the music, then the changes, then the labels. What followed, for some, was the division between those who saw 'classical' as an apotheosis, and 'romantic' as a decline. I'm reminded of Orwell. "Classical, good; Romantic, bad."


----------



## Varick

eugeneonagain said:


> I see no criticism, but the usual complaints. *It's just a sad fact that a majority of listeners didn't and still don't connect with 'new music'.* Your final sentence seems to me a justification for the sort of programming being attacked by Roy Fuller above. It allows some exposure.
> There may well be an argument that this puts such works in a difficult position, because if the majority of people only really want to see whatever easily-accessible piece is programmed as the main event, they will always be upset about it and rail against it.
> 
> The concert halls are trying to offer just a bit more than standard repertoire, assuming that a concert hall audience are people of intelligence and open minds (perhaps a mistake). If they simply catered to popular tastes they will fall into cultural stagnation, but sell reasonable numbers of tickets. That is not the sole aim for concert halls. They are also an outlet for living composers and commissions as part of current culture with a connection to a tradition). Sometimes the audience is more a hindrance to this.


Is it the listeners that aren't connecting with the "new music" or is it the composers of "new music" not connecting (or have no ability whatsoever to connect) to modern listeners??

The audience is representative of the current culture. I'm not sure many (dare I say most) living composers have any connection with tradition (enter the zeitgeist, nay, very definition, of post-modernism).

What many people forget is the Pareto distribution. Or similarly, Prices Law. There will only be a few composers from any time period, and even fewer across many time periods that will garner the majority of recordings listened to, bought, performed, and be entered into the canon of "classical music." These are harsh facts that are universal and interwoven into hierarchies that are older than mankind, that many post-modernists do not like to acknowledge. I believe history will show that a depression will be between 1950-60 and 2020 of great music composed and entered into that canon.



DaveM said:


> *If the composers of 'modern (postmodern?) sit in the same continuum as previous classical art-music, their output would be appealing to a large enough audience to sustain the classical music art-form without having to rely on music that is a hundred or more years old to get people into concert hall chairs.* Commissioned works are scheduled not because the composer has demonstrated the ability to compose works people might want to hear, but because an orchestra such as the LA Phil has large coffers and throws the money at the composition wall and hopes something sticks. Budding composers who have not demonstrated any ability to compose a melody and develop it rely on producing works that rely more on dissonance than anything else and decree that what sometimes amounts to nothing more than performance art is, in fact, an innovative work of classical music.
> 
> The repetitive premise that this my test and a demand for music that just suits me ignores the fact that I am very much not alone in my opinions. I understand that you and a number of others like the 'new music' and I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't. I really do believe 'to each his own'. But when this subject comes up, I'm not going swallow some story that this is just a natural continuum of what came before. Much of what is called classical music of the last 50 years bears little relationship to what characterized it for centuries and some of it is simply not classical music.


This [The emboldened] brings up the OP of this thread. I have submitted that most of the greatest modern composers of today are in Hollywood composing music of movies. They embody themes, stories, and narratives that have explained the greatest works of music (and art) throughout history.

Post modernism is a bane on humanity. It is a nihilistic philosophy that does not even have the ability to explain itself without rampant contradictions and fatal coherent flaws when deconstructed. Hence, so much that follows that philosophy in all the arts will not last the generation or the following generation that made it. If my health sustains me to an "average" age of death, I will see much of "modern" (in the vain of post-modernism) art fall to the trash heap of history. And we will be better off for it.


----------



## janxharris

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I sympathize with your complaint here, so allow me to try to steer the thread back towards the issue of Modernism (M) VS Postmodernism (PM) and perhaps share some of my own knowledge about the distinction.
> 
> First, I have to admit that I'm not very knowledgeable of post-1950s classical music. My knowledge extends to the 12-tone composers, some Messiaen, Hindemith, Ives, Ligeti, Penderecki, a handful of Glass, Adams, and that's about it. So I'm not the best person to ask about what music fits the category of PM, but I can try to explain what PM is in the abstract.
> 
> To understand PM it helps to understand M as a philosophical and artistic movement. Essentially, M was marked by anxiety about the growing awareness of multiplicities of culture and philosophy. Much of this was due to increasing globalization and societies trying to cope with "cultural melting pots" like the US and elsewhere. So much art of the time, especially in literature, began exploring techniques like extensive quotation, collage, multiple speakers/perspectives, stream-of-consciousness and others in an attempt to mimic the multiplicity of views that were threatening various homogenized philosophies and institutions. However, M also sought to find means by which to unite these contradictions, whether it was by culture or religion or some other means. In music, we might look at the attempts made by Shostakovich, Ravel, and Stravinsky to incorporate jazz into traditional classical music, or Bartok to incorporate folk. That's a hallmark of M. M was also marked in how it often features major breaks from various traditions in order to legitimize new practices. In music, atonality was the obvious example, but poetry also saw the rise of free-verse and rejection of verse (which, much like the tonality/atonality distinction was a pretty radical change), and film saw the rejection or subversion of most of the rules of classic continuity editing, framing, and lighting practices.
> 
> PM was largely just a rejection of those attempts at unification and finding "new" modes of expression. Most PM see the proliferation of genres, styles, voices, philosophies, etc. as a big playground for them to engage in freely without the burden of trying to make coherent sense of it all, or to invent something new. PM didn't believe in trying to maintain notions of high and low culture, or top-down philosophies or overarching religions. In literature, one might think of the difference between TS Eliot's Waste Land, which, despite its multiplicity of voices and quotations, is still mostly suggesting that there is a higher culture unifying everything; and John Ashbery's Daffy Duck in Hollywood, which seems to delight just as much in its cartoonish silliness as it does in the references to high culture and dense language. In film, think of the difference between the 60s films of Jean-Luc Godard, which, despite utilizing various genre trappings--noir, science-fiction, etc.--are mostly concerned in commentaries about Marxism, Feminism, film theory, and other philosophies; and the films of Quentin Tarantino, which gleefully mix various genres into blenders of gratuitous violence and action. To Eliot and Godard, there are unifying themes that tie together their difficult, fragmentary works; to Ashbery and Tarantino there aren't or, if there are, they don't care about them. To them, every thing--every genre, subject, style, etc.--is just something to play with like a toy.
> 
> So, if you can think of music that gleefully mixes a wide range of genres and styles without attempting to unite them into some coherent whole, that would be PM. PM IS NOT a rejection of tonality. PM isn't a rejection of anything, really, except notions of unities and hierarchies. A PM can make use of tonality AND atonality, and a proper one would probably make use of both, maybe even at the same time if they wanted to get daring. When I think of PM in music, I think of an artist like Toby Driver and Kayo Dot, and albums like Choirs of the Eye and Hubardo which seems a weird mash-up of heavy metal, modern classical, hardcore, post-punk, singer-songwriter stuff, spoken-word, and other avant-garde tendencies. The entire idea being that you don't know where the music's going from one moment to the next, and that's kind of the point. This:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems PM to me, as I don't hear any attempt made to prioritize or unify the extremely contrasted aspects of this, from the most abrasively chaotic to the most minimal, mellow, and beautiful.


Very informative thanks. How does one go from describing an anxiety about such melting pots to a philosophy?


----------



## Enthusiast

Roy Fuller said:


> I have to say that I am gobsmacked at your inability to understand what I have said and your ability to put words into my mouth that I never said. When I say that some piece of music might be better or more exiting than others I am only saying what every honest person should know. It does not mean that those pieces that are not warhorses are 'failures.' I very much enjoy Sibelius for example, but that does not mean that I would place his works on the same level as Mahler. As for other types of music, the same goes. I would love to see, for example, a major symphony put Bach cantatas in the 2nd half program.


If I am putting words into your mouth I don't know why you told us about how you and your friends had decided that there are only 40 symphonic masterpieces (and most of them by a mere three composers):



> There have been many symphonies written, but how many are masterpieces (i.e., warhorses)? I would classify some as masterpieces, others as near masterpieces, others as good, others as mediocre and so on. I once played a parlor game with my friends and we could come up with only around forty or so (we came up with all of Mahler, Brahms and Beethoven, the last symphonies of Mozart, and various others) that we would call masterpieces


It seemed from this and in the context of your ongoing argument that you reject most symphonies that many of us would call great (including several more by Mozart and many by Haydn). So it was reasonable to assume that you were telling us which music you feel is worthwhile (even if there are more that are merely "good" and some that almost achieve greatness). If you weren't, I am unsure why you posted the above as its relevance would become marginal at best. OK, we all put the bar for applying the word "great" in a different place - there is no reliable objective definition of the word - but in the same post you also told us



> I have never seen a survey that asks the audience the question: would you like to see new Romantic style (e.g. Lord of the Rings, etc.) music in the first half of the orchestra concert? Maybe there have been such surveys but I have never seen them.


and the implication was clearly (anyone who wants to check can look at your entire post 66 on page 5 of this thread) that the people would choose "Lord of the Rings" (I assume this is a reference to a blockbuster film score) over most contemporary music. That _may _be correct but seems to be an argument for the sort of populism that, as a defender of the great Western tradition (as you have more recently revealed yourself to be), I would have expected you to deplore. But prior to that you had told us that one of your targets is



> multiculturalism


and that you know it is behind the neglect of the music you think we should value because you have



> inside information


.

I didn't engage with your own hopes to be recognised as a composer, hopes that you may feel have been dashed by the modern bias towards minorities that some deep throat has told you about:



> Perhaps a minority composer will solve the problem say the programmers (but be sure to exclude white males. Now, as a white male, I am not complaining. I have already recognized the futility of having my works performed at my local symphony orchestra and have made other plans as I have stated before).


This may explain your earlier assertion that "sitar music" (apparently your term for music from the Indian classical tradition) is inferior to Brahms, an assertion you promised to substantiate but never did.

I think it is clear that I my reading of what you had written was a fair interpretation of what you were saying up to that point. And I am still confused about how you are so discerning in your tastes while also believing that popular film music is what orchestras should be programming along with the masterpieces and near masterpieces.

At the same time, you have not responded to anything that I wrote except to accuse me of dishonesty and the above hint that you see a hierarchy of value that sees Sibelius (as an example) as good but not as good as others. This is a view you are entitled to but hardly one that will meet with unanimous agreement and is certainly not an established fact. For myself, I feel almost that it is "poor taste" to even attempt such a discrimination in objective value between two of our very great composers.


----------



## Enthusiast

Roy Fuller said:


> Sorry, but I am not into self censorship. I regard art music as a serious matter and part of the battle for western civilization. This battle has too long been ignored by the timid.


From your earlier posts you see this as an exclusively "white" (implied, I think, in your post 66) tradition but it is surely a tradition of ideas rather than races and is western only in as much as it originated in Western Europe. As we know you are a frustrated contemporary composer - presumably working in that tradition - I would suggest to you that the tradition has moved on in response to a world where we are more more connected to each other and to different cultural traditions (often to the advantage of that tradition), that the forces at play in our lives reflect this globalising trend and that music has moved on. Surely, an active composer in that tradition will need to embrace in some way (even while rejecting many of its features) this reality if he wants to be programmed. Most of the composers who you may be seeking to reject work in that tradition (even the ones who position themselves as in opposition to many of its features) and it may be you that doesn't? The "modern" scene is actually very varied and includes a very healthy (and quite popular) neo-Romantic strand so no-one would suggest that you have to swallow it all. I can't help feeling that you are betraying the tradition you claim to be defending.

Your earlier positive mention of the score for a popular blockbuster film, suggests to me that you may be barking (if you'll excuse the unmusical term) up the wrong tree. Perhaps you should focus your ambitions on writing for films? I doubt that Hollywood suffers from the "multiculturalism" that you have deplored in the modern music played by your local orchestra and, judging by the scores for many big films, Romantic soundscapes seem to be all the thing. And then there are computer games which also sometimes call for epic and romantic music. Have you tried to break into one of those fields?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> Well, you've got that wrong. The young are always too stupid to know what's going on. It's their elders I worry about.


Whilst not once looking in the mirror.


----------



## EdwardBast

Roy Fuller said:


> So clever! I'd like to hear your views on epistemology.


Conversely, I already know yours. And your views on ethics, economics, aesthetics, etc.


----------



## eugeneonagain

What I'm slowly seeing is a case of status anxiety and thwarted ambition expressed as a generalised complaint and made into a grand (or not so grand) theory of aesthetic and cultural decline.


----------



## fluteman

Roy Fuller said:


> Well, you've got that wrong. The young are always too stupid to know what's going on. It's their elders I worry about.


But the young become the elders. I think paint balls wash off.


----------



## Larkenfield

Roy Fuller said:


> Well, you've got that wrong. The young are always too stupid to know what's going on. It's their elders I worry about.


 You're making friends right and left, aren't you? Why should anyone listen to your music with that attitude? You should be appealing to the young rather than alienating them. They're not all stupid, you know, just young. Unless you can get your music played by real musicians rather than midi files, you haven't much of a chance.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Larkenfield said:


> You're making friends right and left, aren't you? Why should anyone listen to your music with that attitude? You should be appealing to the young rather than alienate them. They're not all stupid, you know, just young. Unless you can get your music played by real musicians rather than midi files, you haven't much of a chance.


I'll give you that. A better word for the young would be 'ignorant.'


----------



## Roy Fuller

EdwardBast said:


> Conversely, I already know yours. And your views on ethics, economics, aesthetics, etc.


I asked you first and now you are begging off. No surprise here.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Enthusiast said:


> Your earlier positive mention of the score for a popular blockbuster film, suggests to me that you may be barking (if you'll excuse the unmusical term) up the wrong tree. Perhaps you should focus your ambitions on writing for films? I doubt that Hollywood suffers from the "multiculturalism" that you have deplored in the modern music played by your local orchestra and, judging by the scores for many big films, Romantic soundscapes seem to be all the thing. And then there are computer games which also sometimes call for epic and romantic music. Have you tried to break into one of those fields?


I appreciate the advice but film music, etc. is just not my thing. I am enamored with the endless possibilities of the symphony form. I am content to let my music stand or fall just where it is at the moment, although there are some good second tier orchestras showing an interest.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Our discussions can be summed up by the cartoon character, The Tick: 'And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you are good and crazy, ooh, ooh, ooh, the sky is the limit!'

Reason, Romanticism, etc. is just boring for some. But Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Jackson Pollock, John Adams, etc.? Well the sky is the limit.

If the reason side wins then the crazies will become increasingly marginalized. The opposite is just as true. There was a time in western civilization when the crazies won; it was called the Dark Ages. If that is what we're heading for, then so be it. The pendulum will swing back.


----------



## DaveM

It seems that the premise that Brahms is better than sitar music is some sort of heresy. We’ve had all sorts of polls that grade composers and Brahms is often in the top 5 and yet ‘Brahms is better than sitar music’ is a problem? Has sitar music made inroads throughout Europe, China and Japan? Must have missed it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> Our discussions can be summed up by the cartoon character, The Tick: 'And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you are good and crazy, ooh, ooh, ooh, the sky is the limit!'
> 
> Reason, Romanticism, etc. is just boring for some. But Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Jackson Pollock, John Adams, etc.? Well the sky is the limit.
> 
> If the reason side wins then the crazies will become increasingly marginalized. The opposite is just as true. There was a time in western civilization when the crazies won; it was called the Dark Ages. If that is what we're heading for, then so be it. The pendulum will swing back.


Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Jackson Pollock and John Adams are 'the crazies'? And not aligned with 'reason'. If you persist with this line it's going to to collapse for you.

You basically have a tired, bog-standard conservative, one-dimensional view which you are pinning up as: correct, morally (and politically) right, sane...etc etc And then also implying it is also the genuine interpretation of Western culture and crucial to the future of Western civilisation.

I think I have a good idea who 'the crazies' are.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> It seems that the premise that Brahms is better than sitar music is some sort of heresy. We've had all sorts of polls that grade composers and Brahms is often in the top 5 and yet 'Brahms is better than sitar music' is a problem? Has sitar music made inroads throughout Europe, China and Japan? Must have missed it.


I see. So the fact that a load of pensioners who like Brahms means it must be 'better'. Better for what? Falling asleep?


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> I see. So the fact that a load of pensioners who like Brahms means it must be 'better'. Better for what? Falling asleep?


I suggest widening your Brahms horizon by putting Brahms works on your playlist other than just Brahms' Lullaby.


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> I think I have a good idea who 'the crazies' are.


As you said before, just look in the mirror.


----------



## Haydn70

eugeneonagain said:


> Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Jackson Pollock and John Adams are 'the crazies'? And not aligned with 'reason'. If you persist with this line it's going to to collapse for you.
> 
> You basically have a tired, bog-standard conservative, one-dimensional view which you are pinning up as: correct, morally (and politically) right, sane...etc etc And then also implying it is also the genuine interpretation of Western culture and crucial to the future of Western civilisation.
> 
> I think I have a good idea who 'the crazies' are.


Exactly what one would expect to hear from someone whose avatar is Tristan Tzara.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> I suggest widening your Brahms horizon by putting Brahms works on your playlist other than just Brahms' Lullaby.


I've heard quite a lot of Brahms and I've stated many times that I like his piano music - particularly the late. I don't particularly like his music, but I've learned to appreciate some of it more recently. His German Requiem and string quartets. I don't like that much-mentioned violin concerto, it is quite flat.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Haydn70 said:


> Exactly what one would expect to hear from someone whose avatar is Tristan Tzara.


Though not as witty as one would expect from someone with Haydn.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> As you said before, just look in the mirror.


Just 21 posts in and you've already insulted several people. Are you trying to outdo me?


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> Just 21 posts in and you've already insulted several people. Are you trying to outdo me?


I believe you are king in that regard. I could never really compete.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> I believe you are king in that regard. I could never really compete.


You know a lot. Maybe not as new as you appear. However, stick to the thread topic. I'm in need of some comedy.


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> You know a lot. Maybe not as new as you appear. However, stick to the thread topic. I'm in need of some comedy.


I'll try to entertain you as best I can, but I fear the topic may be becoming exhausted.


----------



## Woodduck

Roy Fuller said:


> I'll try to entertain you as best I can, but I fear the topic may be becoming exhausted.


Some feel that postmodernism was exhausted the moment it got started. Or maybe it's just postmodern writing that's exhausting to read.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> I've heard quite a lot of Brahms and I've stated many times that I like his piano music - particularly the late. I don't particularly like his music, but I've learned to appreciate some of it more recently. His German Requiem and string quartets. I don't like that much-mentioned violin concerto, it is quite flat.


What about his symphonies and piano concertos? Like any of them?


----------



## EdwardBast

Roy Fuller said:


> I asked you first and now you are begging off. No surprise here.


Asked me _first_? I didn't ask you at all! I don't need to ask what you think on epistemology, ethics, economics, aesthetics, and so on, because people in your cult all believe exactly the same thing and express it the same way. The second you wrote the spiel about "sense of life" I had you pegged.

You want to know my views on epistemology? It's a major branch of philosophy. Do you have any questions that aren't ridiculously general?  Preferably questions that relate in some way to the topic of this thread?


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> What about his symphonies and piano concertos? Like any of them?


Not really. They're too smooth for my tastes. I don't have anything at all against Brahms, he was clearly a fine fellow and a supreme craftsman, but he just doesn't do it for me.


----------



## Roy Fuller

EdwardBast said:


> Asked me _first_? I didn't ask you at all! I don't need to ask what you think on epistemology, ethics, economics, aesthetics, and so on, because people in your cult all believe exactly the same thing and express it the same way. The second you wrote the spiel about "sense of life" I had you pegged.
> 
> You want to know my views on epistemology? It's a major branch of philosophy. Do you have any questions that aren't ridiculously general?  Preferably questions that relate in some way to the topic of this thread?


Wow that's all you've got? It's a major branch of philosophy? Where's the definition? How does it relate to metaphysics, ethics and esthetics? Please enlighten us.


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> Quine?
> 
> Ijxkjxnxkjs k


Nope, Ed referred to the philosopher as 'her'. It is Ayn Rand.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> It seems that the premise that Brahms is better than sitar music is some sort of heresy. We've had all sorts of polls that grade composers and Brahms is often in the top 5 and yet 'Brahms is better than sitar music' is a problem? Has sitar music made inroads throughout Europe, China and Japan? Must have missed it.


Have you conducted a poll in India, population 1.37 billion, or just here at TC, a specialized forum designed for fans of western classical composers like Brahms? And you apparently have indeed missed it, but in the modern era, the sitar has done quite decently in the west, thanks to Ravi Shankar and George Harrison, among others.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> Wow that's all you've got? It's a major branch of philosophy? Where's the definition? How does it relate to metaphysics, ethics and esthetics? Please enlighten us.


You're clearly no philosopher. Your (or my) metaphysics and subsequently the theory of knowledge derived from it can and will differ wildly. Don't imagine that your particular 'beliefs' constitute 'how things are', in which everyone else must be tutored.

As for aesthetics, metaphysics and epistemology doesn't offer much in the way of certainties. It is the weakest branch of philosophy.

Stick to the topic. If you hate postmodernism, or modernism all you need to do is state it. Don;t pretend you have some kind of aesthetic master-plan for why.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> Some feel that postmodernism was exhausted the moment it got started. Or maybe it's just postmodern writing that's exhausting to read.


This may be the Achilles heel for 'postmodernism'. It's much easier to be a charlatan, but that doesn't mean it is entirely comprised of charlatan theorists. A writer like Baudrillard can be alienating, especially his later aphorism-like writing, but he is a font of interesting ideas. His 1970 book on consumption was light years ahead of what most social theorists were concerned with then.

Postmodernism is just a placeholder term so I wouldn't want to just gather-up all the usual theorists and isay they are all pulling in the same general direction with the (non-existent) 'postmodern theory'.


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> You're clearly no philosopher. Your (or my) metaphysics and subsequently the theory of knowledge derived from it can and will differ wildly. Don't imagine that your particular 'beliefs' constitute 'how things are', in which everyone else must be tutored.
> 
> As for aesthetics, metaphysics and epistemology doesn't offer much in the way of certainties. It is the weakest branch of philosophy.
> 
> Stick to the topic. If you hate postmodernism, or modernism all you need to do is state it. Don;t pretend you have some kind of aesthetic master-plan for why.


I'm not trying to tutor anyone, just exposing a fraud claiming that he knows my beliefs. But here is the problem. A certain amount of philosophy is needed to continue this discussion because epistemology is crucial at some point. If we can't agree on how knowledge is acquired, then any knowledge from any source is valid, and if any knowledge from any source is valid then we are arguing something akin to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It gets us nowhere. It's just mental masterbxxxx. This is why I think the discussion is exhausted. I have no desire to try to educate anyone in this forum about any philosophical subject. We can now only discuss preferences. You like this; I like that. Big deal.


----------



## EdwardBast

Roy Fuller said:


> Wow that's all you've got? It's a major branch of philosophy? Where's the definition? How does it relate to metaphysics, ethics and esthetics? Please enlighten us.


My point is that you're asking idiotically general and random questions that have nothing to do with anything under discussion in this thread. Why? What are you trying to prove?



Roy Fuller said:


> I'm not trying to tutor anyone, just exposing a fraud claiming that he knows my beliefs.


I nailed the one about Aristotle and Plato, didn't I? Do you want me to tell you what you think about quantum physics?


----------



## Mandryka

Roy Fuller said:


> I'm not trying to tutor anyone, just exposing a fraud claiming that he knows my beliefs. But here is the problem. A certain amount of philosophy is needed to continue this discussion because epistemology is crucial at some point. If we can't agree on how knowledge is acquired, then any knowledge from any source is valid, and if any knowledge from any source is valid then we are arguing something akin to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It gets us nowhere. It's just mental masterbxxxx. This is why I think the discussion is exhausted. I have no desire to try to educate anyone in this forum about any philosophical subject. We can now only discuss preferences. You like this; I like that. Big deal.


I must say I've never come across anyone who's squeamish about the word ************ before.

Oh my god, the website blocks it out, unbelievable. Let's try wank.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> I'm not trying to tutor anyone, just exposing a fraud claiming that he knows my beliefs. But here is the problem. A certain amount of philosophy is needed to continue this discussion because epistemology is crucial at some point. If we can't agree on how knowledge is acquired, then any knowledge from any source is valid, and if any knowledge from any source is valid then we are arguing something akin to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It gets us nowhere. It's just mental masterbxxxx. This is why I think the discussion is exhausted. I have no desire to try to educate anyone in this forum about any philosophical subject. We can now only discuss preferences. You like this; I like that. Big deal.


Complete drivel. This sort of discussion (i.e. _not_ the actual topic) is not predicated upon nor does it rely upon any particular theory of knowledge. How do you propose to solve the problem of epistemological validity? What magic tools do you have for solving a problem that has flummoxed several millennia of philosophers?

Your particular metaphysics may influence your retrograde political ideas, but won't inform matter of taste. You are fooling no-one. Not me at any rate.


----------



## Roy Fuller

EdwardBast said:


> My point is that you're asking idiotically general and random questions that have nothing to do with anything under discussion in this thread. Why? What are you trying to prove?
> 
> I nailed the one about Aristotle and Plato, didn't I? Do you want me to tell you what you think about quantum physics?


You are claiming to know my beliefs. Let's hear it. Start with metaphysics.


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> Complete drivel. This sort of discussion (i.e. _not_ the actual topic) is not predicated upon nor does it rely upon any particular theory of knowledge. How do you propose to solve the problem of epistemological validity? What magic tools do you have for solving a problem that has flummoxed several millennia of philosophers?
> 
> Your particular metaphysics may influence your retrograde political ideas, but won't inform matter of taste. You are fooling no-one. Not me at any rate.


'I have it from my tin foil hat from little green men hiding under the surface of Mars that Brahms is evil and must never be listened to'. How do I argue with that?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> 'I have it from my tin foil hat from little green men hiding under the surface of Mars that Brahms is evil and must never be listened to'. How do I argue with that?


You tell us, it's your proposition.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Have you conducted a poll in India, population 1.37 billion, or just here at TC, a specialized forum designed for fans of western classical composers like Brahms? And you apparently have indeed missed it, but in the modern era, the sitar has done quite decently in the west, thanks to Ravi Shankar and George Harrison, among others.


You ignored my mention of Europe, China and Japan. Seen any sitar concerts in China lately? How about Brahms? In the end, for the most part, the sitar is a regional instrument, similar to other regional instruments in other countries. The Ravi Shankar/George Harrison period was a bubble, long since gone. It is unlikely that Shankar and the sitar would have ever been a thing outside of India if it hadn't been for the influence of The Beatles. It only lives on at all because Ravi Shankar and his famous daughter was/are iconic. Anybody without the last name of Shankar touring the world with sold-out sitar concerts? Besides, the sitar simply doesn't have the wide range of possibilities of the violin or the piano.


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> You tell us, it's your proposition.


My point is is that I can't argue with it. Tin foil hat man and I have no common ground upon which an argument can be made. Whether you wish to realize it or not, I suspect that my beliefs and the beliefs of certain others in this forum have no common ground. Nor do I wish to spend the massive amount of time it would take to try to create this common ground. What can be done at this point is to review certain facts and see if they lead to any conclusions, such as the evidence of audience control of the second half of a concert program.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Anyway, I'm going to try to find ways to continue the discussion without dipping into philosophy.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Not really. They're too smooth for my tastes. I don't have anything at all against Brahms, he was clearly a fine fellow and a supreme craftsman, but he just doesn't do it for me.


On the question of taste, you periodically defend the 'new music', but I've never been quite sure what kind of modern music you are particularly defending. Can you give an example of one or two works you like? This is not a trick question; I am genuinely interested. And any example will not be critiqued.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> On the question of taste, you periodically defend the 'new music', but I've never been quite sure what kind of modern music you are particularly defending. Can you give an example of one or two works you like? This is not a trick question; I am genuinely interested. And any example will not be critiqued.


I only defend its place to be heard and taken on any merit. There is a lot of new music that I really don't like, but I'm willing to give a chance to anything.

My particular taste for regular listening only goes up to 'modernist' music. However, when I go to the conservatory to listen to the new works being played (by their composition students and music from other students around the world) I can come away with 10% I liked or 50% or 0%. I also make the point of talking to the performers, which is easier in that setting than in a concert hall.

I'm working on the principle that only a small percentage of anything is going to be good. The thing is this is not like in the past where one major style or movement dominates and colours the output of many composers. After modernism composers now follow many mixed approaches. That's why I don't like hearing that they're all forced into anti-tonalism or serialism or whatever.

Things I like? I listened to this a while back and liked it a lot:


----------



## Woodduck

Roy Fuller said:


> Anyway, I'm going to try to find ways to continue the discussion without dipping into philosophy.


As I'm reading this odd conversation, I don't think the problem is the raising of philosophical views - postmodernism is after all a phenomenon with philosophical implications, and we can argue about what they are and how much they matter - but the too-easy linking of certain philosophical views with certain kinds of music. I believe you do that in your initial post (#25), where you quote Ayn Rand's definition of art (which I consider not bad but incomplete), offered an odd description of postmodernism in terms of it, and quickly segued to some special pleading on behalf of Romanticism and your own contributions toward keeping that aesthetic alive. The whole may make sense to you as a condensed personal manifesto, but its dangled fragments and apparent non sequiturs were bound to stir up some discontent.

What's needed isn't an avoidance of philosophy but some rigor in showing where and why it's useful to a discussion of music.


----------



## Roy Fuller

On the question of preference I get the impression that there are a lot of insecure people in this discussion group. Let me assure these people that it is OK to not like a particular composer, or prefer one composer over another if it is an honest preference. So if I say I prefer Mahler over Sibeliius it is not necessary to take it as a personal affront, it is simply my preference. Let me tell you about someone I admire, but who I believe had terrible taste in music. That name is Ayn Rand. Rand liked something called tiddlywink music. I believe it is God awful music but I do think I have an understanding of why she liked it. In her defense I also believe she liked Rachmaninoff so it wasn't all bad. At any rate a person's personal preferences have nothing to with the overall content of their character.


----------



## eugeneonagain

It makes me sad that Rachmaninoff could risk be tarnished by having a fan like that failed and hypocritical ideologue Rand. I now see where this 'philosophy' talk comes in. Now if you'd specified and said: pseudo-philosophy I would have understood.


----------



## EdwardBast

Roy Fuller said:


> On the question of preference I get the impression that there are a lot of insecure people in this discussion group. Let me assure these people that it is OK to not like a particular composer, or prefer one composer over another if it is an honest preference. So if I say I prefer Mahler over Sibeliius it is not necessary to take it as a personal affront, it is simply my preference. Let me tell you about someone I admire, but who I believe had terrible taste in music. That name is Ayn Rand. Rand liked something called tiddlywink music. I believe it is God awful music but I do think I have an understanding of why she liked it. In her defense I also believe she liked Rachmaninoff so it wasn't all bad. At any rate a person's personal preferences have nothing to with the overall content of their character.


No one needs your assurance about what music it is OK to like.

No one took personal affront at your preferring Mahler over Sibelius.

Ayn Rand did like Rachmaninoff, especially the piano concertos.

What the hell is tiddlywink music?


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> It makes me sad that Rachmaninoff could risk be tarnished by having a fan like that failed and hypocritical ideologue Rand. I now see where this 'philosophy' talk comes in. Now if you'd specified and said: pseudo-philosophy I would have understood.


Aww. Let me get you a towel.


----------



## Roy Fuller

EdwardBast said:


> No one needs your assurance about what music it is OK to like.
> 
> No one took personal affront at your preferring Mahler over Sibelius.
> 
> Ayn Rand did like Rachmaninoff, especially the piano concertos.
> 
> What the hell is tiddlywink music?


Based on the fear exhibited in the responses I think they do or did. As far as tiddlywink music goes I'm sure you could Google some examples.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> Aww. Let me get you a towel.


No thanks. It's up to you if you want to pursue simplistic 'philosophies' that meet your simple needs. Other people prefer something with more intellectual meat.


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> No thanks. It's up to you if you want to pursue simplistic 'philosophies' that meet your simple needs. Other people prefer something with more intellectual meat.


Ha. You mean that fraud Kant?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> Ha. You mean that fraud Kant?


Yes, that terrible fraud Kant and all the crazies associated with him. What are you doing now? Parroting Nietzsche's opinion of Kant filtered through the dollar-store 'philosophy' of Rand?

You're in the farm league.


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> Yes, that terrible fraud Kant and all the crazies associated with him. What are you doing now? Parroting Nietzsche's opinion of Kant filtered through the dollar-store 'philosophy' of Rand?
> 
> You're in the farm league.


So you're a Kantian! This explains a lot. A totally incomprehensible fraud of a philosopher seems to fit in nicely with your musical tastes.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> So you're a Kantian! This explains a lot. A totally incomprehensible fraud of a philosopher seems to fit in nicely with your musical tastes.


No, for pity's sake, I'm not a 'Kantian'. I did teach Kant though. I'm sure all the professional philosophers will be devastated to learn you've rumbled him after all this time.:lol:


----------



## AeolianStrains

I think it's hilarious that a follower of a proven charlatan and hypocrite dare calls one of the most influential and important western philosophers a "fraud."

Also, even though kinder souls pointed out how said member could improve his argumentation, he instead devolves into ad hominem.

Bravo, you failed philsophy-flunky. Bravo.


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> No, for pity's sake, I'm not a 'Kantian'. I did teach Kant though. I'm sure all the professional philosophers will be devastated to learn you've rumbled him after all this time.:lol:


'Professional philosophers.' Now if those aren't the biggest jokers of all time.


----------



## Roy Fuller

AeolianStrains said:


> I think it's hilarious that a follower of a proven charlatan and hypocrite dare calls one of the most influential and important western philosophers a "fraud."
> 
> Also, even though kinder souls pointed out how said member could improve his argumentation, he instead devolves into ad hominem.
> 
> Bravo, you failed philsophy-flunky. Bravo.


Perhaps you can dig Kant up from his grave and tell him what a mean thing I did to him.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> Perhaps you can dig Kant up from his grave and tell him what a mean thing I did to him.


I think even in his current state he might laugh.


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> I think even in his current state he might laugh.


HA. He Kant (get it?). Remember he didn't believe the mind was capable of grasping reality.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Alright, I've been having too much fun and need to get back to other duties. But I'll be back to respond to any questions or insults tomorrow. Keep it real Kantians.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Roy Fuller said:


> Perhaps you can dig Kant up from his grave and tell him what a mean thing I did to him.


Oh, Kant won't care about what some nobody on the internet has to say about him. Just like no one else here cares what nothing things you have to say.

> insults

You're going to have to step up your efforts if you want to effectively troll here. Don't even bother with this 4th-rate garbage.


----------



## tdc

Like many philosophers I think Rand has some ideas that have merit, and some that are questionable. I wonder why she is seen as so threatening to many here, is it her associations with capitalism? Her ideas on altruism? What are the actual philosophical issues being debated here? (Even if this question seems to go off topic, I think answers will provide some understanding on how her philosophy relates to music and the arts).


----------



## eugeneonagain

Threatening? Like a small boy threatening to give you a thrashing sort of threatening?


----------



## AeolianStrains

tdc said:


> Like many philosophers I think Rand has some ideas that have merit, and some that are questionable. I wonder why she is seen as so threatening to many here, is it her associations with capitalism? Her ideas on altruism? What are the actual philosophical issues being debated here? (Even if this question seems to go off topic, I think answers will provide some understanding on how her philosophy relates to music and the arts).


Rand isn't threatening. She's just a hack. All her "ideology" is mere selfishness. That's not to say there's nothing good in any of her writings. When I taught literature, I frequently had my students read _Anthem_. They get it, they like it, but you start pulling at any number of threads in her larger philosophical corpus and she all comes apart, both factually and logically.

Despite the railings of certain people about how selfish humans naturally are, studies regularly show the exact opposite. Of course, Rand was no scientist, and was motivated by the loss of her parents' pharmacy to rail against the system. Her whole work is a personal grudge against the Soviet Union and then generalized to any sort of altruism.

Then she dove into the rich: the poor are leeches, the rich should leave them behind and bereft. Yet in her dotage what did she do? She took a government handout in the form a Social Security check, the very sort of thing she sneered at others for doing.

And all this isn't even to mention she stole most of _Anthem_ from Zamyatin's _We_ with a butchering of Hesiod's _Works and Days_.

I'll pass. There are better and brighter students of philosophy than she.


----------



## Bulldog

tdc said:


> Like many philosophers I think Rand has some ideas that have merit, and some that are questionable. I wonder why she is seen as so threatening to many here, is it her associations with capitalism?


Capitalism does get a bad rap these days, but I trust that it will make a comeback in the long term.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Just needs another advertising slogan.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> "What can be said in such an art" is very much the issue. It isn't true that postmodern art can say anything that could be expressed in the kinds of art from which it plunders. *When everything is being said at once without coherence or hierarchy, nothing is being said except, by implication, that nothing is worth saying or ought to be said - or believed.* It's nihilist babble, and your phrase "cowardly childishness" strikes me as a fine psychological diagnosis.


Well, that's one interpretation to have on the matter. It's not one I share, though I can sympathize with it. I also think that to pursue this any further would lead us far away from discussing anything to do with music.


----------



## DaveM

I realize that I like modern music after all.  This from 1967:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

janxharris said:


> Very informative thanks. How does one go from describing an anxiety about such melting pots to a philosophy?


You're welcome. That's a difficult question to answer as it depends on what branches and philosophers we're talking about, and I wouldn't be the best person to try to get too specific.


----------



## Larkenfield

Stopped me in my tracks… a truth
rather than a philosophy. O o


----------



## tdc

AeolianStrains said:


> Rand isn't threatening. She's just a hack. All her "ideology" is mere selfishness. That's not to say there's nothing good in any of her writings. When I taught literature, I frequently had my students read _Anthem_. They get it, they like it, but you start pulling at any number of threads in her larger philosophical corpus and she all comes apart, both factually and logically.
> 
> Despite the railings of certain people about how selfish humans naturally are, studies regularly show the exact opposite. Of course, Rand was no scientist, and was motivated by the loss of her parents' pharmacy to rail against the system. Her whole work is a personal grudge against the Soviet Union and then generalized to any sort of altruism.
> *
> Then she dove into the rich: the poor are leeches, the rich should leave them behind and bereft.* Yet in her dotage what did she do? She took a government handout in the form a Social Security check, the very sort of thing she sneered at others for doing.
> 
> And all this isn't even to mention she stole most of _Anthem_ from Zamyatin's _We_ with a butchering of Hesiod's _Works and Days_.
> 
> I'll pass. There are better and brighter students of philosophy than she.


Thanks for providing some further clarification, I wasn't aware of the part in bold. I don't agree with that. While I do think to a large extent the altruistic concepts taught in religion have a lot to do with simply convincing less privileged in society that they are better off without material wealth, and should devote themselves to helping others as the highest goal rather than being "selfish". A concept that works very well for the ruling classes. I think similar views are now used to push socialism, with promises of an utopian society which in reality only leads to further consolidation of wealth into the hands of the few. An ideal society I think would have the freedom of pure capitalism but be based on principles of truth, rather than manipulation, and the concept of not using force or duress to get one's way (I believe this is one of the concepts Rand encourages). The principal of natural law - all humans have the same rights. Therefore no human has the right to tax another. (A nice word for theft). In this sense the ideal society would have that caring, communal and mutual respect element that is thought to be an element of "socialism". Yet the personal freedom associated with "capitalism". Perhaps both of these concepts represent a sort of false dichotomy anyway. A nice divide and conquer tactic, for people who don't understand their full options and the extent of their rights and freedoms.

I don't see humans as inherently selfish or altruistic. What they become depends mostly on their education and life experiences.

It comes down fundamentally to truth. What is truth? Does truth exist? I believe it does. How important is truth? Are we living in truth? Who are we? The truth can be liberating it can also be hard to swallow, but I think it is a necessary step. I think because so much of our lives are based on lies, debating philosophy amounts to debating on false premises. When humans come into harmony with truth, I think we will see a new Renaissance in the arts. I do think the state of current music is a reflection of what is going on, so it does represent a sort of truth. Perhaps if we can evolve in a constructive way Post-Modernism will become the perfect foil for what comes next, allowing the radiance to shine forth even more brilliantly.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> You ignored my mention of Europe, China and Japan. Seen any sitar concerts in China lately? How about Brahms?


Since you asked, Brahms is almost completely forgotten everywhere except for a relatively small group of western classical music enthusiasts. As for the sitar and traditional Indian music generally, I imagine it lives on not only among the 1.37 billion people in India, but wherever there is an expat or immigrant Indian community. There are large ones in and around New York, Toronto, and especially London, for example. I'm not the one who introduced Indian music to this thread, but I'm always amazed at how so many here assume there is no classical music tradition but the European one.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> View attachment 115800


An aphorism routinely disproved by aphorisms - including this one.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Philosophers like Rand are funny people. They reject a priori knowledge as in math and physics, which was how we were able to bring electricity into homes so they could write that nonsense, and to get the printers working to publish that nonsense. I find it funny also how this rejection is called Objectivism.

Linking this to the thread topic of Postmodernism, objectivism is also part of postmodern philosophy. A comparison:

http://www.sfu.ca/~poitras/Modernism-vs-Postmodernism.pdf


----------



## EdwardBast

Roy Fuller said:


> Based on the fear exhibited in the responses I think they do or did.


You aren't very good at reading emotions on the internet. It takes time, getting to know others on a forum. I'll give you a hint though: That wasn't fear wafting in your direction.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Since you asked, Brahms is almost completely forgotten everywhere except for a relatively small group of western classical music enthusiasts...


That is absolutely not true. Artists such as Yuja Wang and Hélène Grimaud have been playing Brahms in China and Japan. Both of them have been pretty busy touring the world. Why would they choose Brahms for those countries? Brahms is frequently scheduled in the U.S. Where are you getting your information?


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> That is absolutely not true. Artists such as Yuja Wang and Hélène Grimaud have been playing Brahms in China and Japan. Both of them have been pretty busy touring the world. Why would they choose Brahms for those countries? Brahms is frequently scheduled in the U.S. Where are you getting your information?


So far as I know, Brahms' position as one of the Three Bs remains secure. Berlioz has been quiet lately and hasn't tried to displace him. He was the 4th most-often performed composer in the US in the 2016-17 season...


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> That is absolutely not true. Artists such as Yuja Wang and Hélène Grimaud have been playing Brahms in China and Japan. Both of them have been pretty busy touring the world. Why would they choose Brahms for those countries? Brahms is frequently scheduled in the U.S. Where are you getting your information?


So it's absolutely not true? Absolutely, positively, no doubt I'm wrong? My observation that western classical music itself is a niche genre, and that the average Joe on the street wouldn't know a Brahms intermezzo from a hole in the wall, can't possibly be right? OK.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/310746/share-music-album-sales-us-genre/


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> So it's absolutely not true? Absolutely, positively, no doubt I'm wrong? My observation that western classical music itself is a niche genre, and that the average Joe on the street wouldn't know a Brahms intermezzo from a hole in the wall, can't possibly be right? OK.
> 
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/310746/share-music-album-sales-us-genre/


The subject was Brahms vs. sitar music. Brahms is played all over the world including the disparate countries of Russia, those of Europe, Britain, the U.S., China and Japan. Sitar music isn't (expats don't count). Brahms represents western classical music. Sitar music presumably represents Indian classical music. You want to pivot from that subject to a comparison of the popularity of classical music vs. all other music then carry on. I'm not interested.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> I'm not interested.


No, the subject was not "Brahms v. sitar music". Nor am I interested in your narrow-minded, fact-ignoring, "only white European music counts" attitude. But it does explain the "postmodernism sucks" idea of this thread, as in the modern and postmodern eras, nonwhite, non-European influences on western music became much more pronounced.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> No, the subject was not "Brahms v. sitar music". Nor am I interested in your narrow-minded, fact-ignoring, "only white European music counts" attitude. But it does explain the "postmodernism sucks" idea of this thread, as in the modern and postmodern eras, nonwhite, non-European influences on western music became much more pronounced.


Go to your post #146 where you responded to my post which was on the Brahms/sitar subject. That you have turned the subject into one of 'only white European music counts' indicates that you have landed in the wrong thread and responded to the wrong poster. But, sitarman, if you aren't interested in my alleged 'attitude', then don't respond to my posts.


----------



## Enthusiast

fluteman said:


> Since you asked, Brahms is almost completely forgotten everywhere except for a relatively small group of western classical music enthusiasts. As for the sitar and traditional Indian music generally, I imagine it lives on not only among the 1.37 billion people in India, but wherever there is an expat or immigrant Indian community. There are large ones in and around New York, Toronto, and especially London, for example. I'm not the one who introduced Indian music to this thread, but I'm always amazed at how so many here assume there is no classical music tradition but the European one.


I may have started this calling of Indian classical music "sitar music" - well I was quoting Roy Fuller's term - but what I was looking forward to was a comparison of the value of Brahms (who I, anyway, love) and that tradition. I still haven't seen that and, to be honest didn't expect it from someone who referred to the Indian tradition as "sitar music" (a term which made me think of the background music you used to get in so-called Indian restaurants). My own use of the term was as an ironical quote. If _anyone _feels up to a real and informed comparison of the aesthetic value of a single Romantic composer with a long tradition of a very different music they should go ahead. But let's stop using that term "sitar music". "Ragas" would at least focus us on a form or idiom rather than a single instrument that might be involved. There were other Indian traditions but I take it that RF was referring to ragas and Carnatic music when he tried to put it down with the name "sitar music". My suspicion, I confess, was that RF had rubbished a whole tradition that he knew less than nothing about, possibly for racist motives. But perhaps I was being unfair?


----------



## Guest

So what was meant by "Sitar v Brahms"? (Roy Fuller #27)


----------



## Enthusiast

Roy Fuller said:


> Our discussions can be summed up by the cartoon character, The Tick: 'And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you are good and crazy, ooh, ooh, ooh, the sky is the limit!'
> 
> Reason, Romanticism, etc. is just boring for some. But Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Jackson Pollock, John Adams, etc.? Well the sky is the limit.
> 
> If the reason side wins then the crazies will become increasingly marginalized. The opposite is just as true. There was a time in western civilization when the crazies won; it was called the Dark Ages. If that is what we're heading for, then so be it. The pendulum will swing back.


I have read through what for me are last night's installment of this extraordinary show - where I fear many of us are bating you as an apparent freak in the good old tradition of freak-bating - and it all started off quite reasonably. Ah good, I thought, we are getting to peace and perhaps a more meaty discussion. But, too quickly, I reached this post. At first I thought you were confessing to a history of mental instability. But that wasn't the case, was it? You are suggesting that you alone are the sane one! And we see a little more of your delusion that you, alone in our age, stand bravely against the return of the "dark ages". Please, if you know nothing or nearly nothing about your targets just stick with a simple "it's not for me" and let us have the thread back.


----------



## Mandryka

I will propose something which is a criterion of postmodern music: that the music is a collage of disparate forms. Here's an example which I rather like, by John Zorn






If all styles are equal, and the past is no more or less real than the present, then this idea of a collage of styles and quitations is natural. The problem poetically is to make it sound organic.


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> So what was meant by "Sitar v Brahms"? (Roy Fuller #27)


Exactly! "Sitar vs violin" might make sense - but is doomed as a comparison that would need to lead into an examination of how they were used in two very different traditions - but to offer a comparison of an instrument developed in the Indian subcontinent with a European Romantic composer seemed to me to be an offer that you wouldn't expect from anyone over 10 years old. From an adult it suggested not only ignorance and irrationality but also a form of cultural supremacy that borders on racism.


----------



## janxharris

Mandryka said:


> I will propose something which is a criterion of postmodern music: that the music is a collage of disparate forms. Here's an example which I rather like, by John Zorn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all styles are equal, and the past is no more or less real than the present, then this idea of a collage of styles and quitations is natural. The problem poetically is to make it sound organic.


Does 'rather liking' this piece mean you are willing to part with an amount of cash in order to support the composer?


----------



## Mandryka

janxharris said:


> Does 'rather liking' this piece mean you are willing to part with an amount of cash in order to support the composer?


Where are you coming from?


----------



## janxharris

Mandryka said:


> Where are you coming from?


Not sure what you mean. It was just a simple question.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mandryka said:


> I will propose something which is a criterion of postmodern music: that the music is a collage of disparate forms. Here's an example which I rather like, by John Zorn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all styles are equal, and the past is no more or less real than the present, then this idea of a collage of styles and quitations is natural. The problem poetically is to make it sound organic.


It was interesting but I'm not sure I could identify most of the references. Were they straight or was there an attempt at humour and parody? I'm also not sure it passed the organic test.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

janxharris said:


> Does 'rather liking' this piece mean you are willing to part with an amount of cash in order to support the composer?


I haven't heard that particular piece, but I have purchased other Zorn albums in the past, and supported at least a few artists on his Tzadik label. His Naked City album was one of the more important and original albums of the 80s. It's completely different from the above, though. Like any good postmodernist, Zorn's really diverse.


----------



## Mandryka

Enthusiast said:


> I'm also not sure it passed the organic test.


I'm sure it doesn't and it _may _be that another aspect of postmodernism is that it doesn't accept this as a value, that unity and organic development are exposed to be conventions, ready to be challenged.

(Is reality, inner or outer, unified? No. The convention of coherence and unity makes art artificial, untrue. And that postodernists aim to give us a_ coup de réel._)



Enthusiast said:


> It was interesting but I'm not sure I could identify most of the references. Were they straight or was there an attempt at humour and parody?


I don't think there's much to be gained by identifying references here, that's to say I don't see that the music works by connoting things (a bit of Tristan so now he means love/death; a bit of Bach so now he means God.)

I think it was dead straight.


----------



## janxharris




----------



## Mandryka

s,cmjnhbskjcskmjc bzaSQ


----------



## millionrainbows

So Rick Beato's misuse of the term "post-modernism" has turned into a serious discussion of what the term means? Why is Dave M defending Brahms, what's that got to do with post-modernism?

Of course traditionalists and Classical music advocates are going to protest against post-modernism, if it fits my definition: the end of the historical narrative. The "historical narrative" is what the entire Western Classical music tradition is based on.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> So Rick Beato's misuse of the term "post-modernism" has turned into a serious discussion of what the term means? Why is Dave M defending Brahms, what's that got to do with post-modernism?
> 
> Of course traditionalists and Classical music advocates are going to protest against post-modernism, if it fits my definition: the end of the historical narrative. The "historical narrative" is what the entire Western Classical music tradition is based on.


No.

The end of narrative is modernism, not _post_ modernism. There's no narrative in Babbit and Barraqué!!!!!! One of Schoenberg's perceptions is that there's a way of making music which reflects the lack of narration and causality of real inner life.

Post modernists are a response to that, building on that. They stand to end-of-narrative artists from the post war period as Picasso stands to Cézanne.

Exactly the same phenomenon in French literature. There the postmodernists are writers like Francois Bon and Pierre Bergounioux, who are restoring narrative and building on the work of modernists like Alain Robbe-Grillet and Claude Simon.


----------



## Guest

Roy Fuller said:


> Sorry, but I am not into self censorship. * I regard art music as a serious matter and part of the battle for western civilization*. This battle has too long been ignored by the timid.


The sentence I have bolded above was what caught my attention, and so I popped over - timidly - to your YouTube site to hear how seriously you take art music and how your symphonic output battles bravely for western civilization.
Not very much, it seems.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> No.
> 
> The end of narrative is modernism, not _post_ modernism. There's no narrative in Babbit and Barraqué!!!!!! One of Schoenberg's perceptions is that there's a way of making music which reflects the lack of narration and causality of real inner life.
> 
> Post modernists are a response to that, building on that. They stand to end-of-narrative artists from the post war period as Picasso stands to Cézanne.
> 
> Exactly the same phenomenon in French literature. There the postmodernists are writers like Francois Bon and Pierre Bergounioux, who are restoring narrative and building on the work of modernists like Alain Robbe-Grillet and Claude Simon.


I see post-modernism as being less tied to tradition. After all, Babbitt was dealing with Schoenberg's tone-rows in his own way, but still dealing with sustained pitch as we know it, not microtones, and using traditional notation and instruments, with the exception of the RCA synthesizer, which he did combine with traditional soprano voice. Barraque was just the French version of that, using his own serial method on "normal" pianos.
I don't see Picasso as a post-modernist, especially next to someone like Yoko Ono.

When the paradigm changes enough, I can call it post-modernism, but not before that, There has to be a clean conceptual break.

"I regard art music as a serious matter and part of the battle for western civilization" is indicative of the traditionalist's defense of the "abandoned fort" of tradition.

Then, on the other hand, Mandryka is probably correct. I'm just too much of a post-modernist to see it. But after all, I was listening to John Cage in high school and fully embracing it as valid. But that was almost fifty years ago!


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ He must be doing "good" marketing as I'd like to see that, too. Where did you find it?


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Of course traditionalists and Classical music advocates are going to protest against post-modernism, if it fits my definition: the end of the historical narrative. The "historical narrative" is what the entire Western Classical music tradition is based on.


How can it be said that the historical narrative has come to an end? Why are you asserting that the entire Western Classical music tradition is based on such a narrative?


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ He must be doing "good" marketing as I'd like to see that, too. Where did you find it?


Just youtube the name.


----------



## eugeneonagain

TalkingHead said:


> The sentence I have bolded above was what caught my attention, and so I popped over - timidly - to your YouTube site to hear how seriously you take art music and how your symphonic output battles bravely for western civilization.
> Not very much, it seems.


The 'symphony no.3 part 2' starts out good until it collapses into TV-style music of the sort popular on U.S. television for documentaries about space or Antarctica - somewhat Brucknerish.

We did exercises like this at school and had the school ensembles play them. The software wasn't so sophisticated then so no chance to write out whole things for immediate playback.

My current copy of Musescore has better soundfonts than Lord Fuller's output. Maybe I can be of assistance.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> How can it be said that the historical narrative has come to an end? Why are you asserting that the entire Western Classical music tradition is based on such a narrative?


That's what I said on page 4, post #59, to which Mandryka replied:



Mandryka said:


> Yes, or rather the narrative has been shown to be a myth. It's not (and maybe you didn't mean this) that modern times aren't like a C 19 novel, with important characters and events and patterns of cause and effect and a voice (The Historian) who explains the whys and the wherefores. It's that no time was ever like that, not even in the 19th century. That conception of time has been been shown to be false....Yes, but I don't think there's a link between these aspects of modern life and the disappearance of narrative. (These things interest me at the moment because I'm reading Alain Robbe-Grillet.)


In other words, we've already developed our ideas about what post-modernism is.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> That's what I said on page 4, post #59, to which Mandryka replied:
> 
> In other words, we've already developed our ideas about what post-modernism is.


Thanks but I remain unclear as to why you say the historical narrative has ended.


----------



## Enthusiast

OK. Got it. It seems cheap to criticise something that was presumably sincerely intended but if you put something in the public domain .... . I suspect that it would take more than brown skin and a sex change to persuade his local orchestra to programme it. The pictures were nice but appeared to be multicultural - those floating lanterns suggest China or perhaps India (Diwali). Youtube came to my rescue by suggesting this fine example of Barbara Hannigan singing, acting and conducting all at one.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> OK. Got it. It seems cheap to criticise something that was presumably sincerely intended but if you put something in the public domain .... . I suspect that it would take more than brown skin and a sex change to persuade his local orchestra to programme it. The pictures were nice but appeared to be multicultural - those floating lanterns suggest China or perhaps India (Diwali). Youtube came to my rescue by suggesting this fine example of Barbara Hannigan singing, acting and conducting all at one.


That Ligeti is very strange. To whom was your post addressed?


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Thanks but I remain unclear as to why you say the historical narrative has ended.


Mandryka explained it well:
"..._the narrative has been shown to be a myth. It's not (and maybe you didn't mean this) that modern times aren't like a C 19 novel, with important characters and events and patterns of cause and effect and *a voice (The Historian) who explains the whys and the wherefores.* It's that no time was ever like that, not even in the 19th century. T*hat conception of time has been been shown to be false...*.Yes, but I don't think there's a link between these aspects of modern life and the disappearance of narrative."
_
Do you want to dispute this view by characterizing it as "unclear"? Better to present to us what you think, because our minds are already made up. If not, consult WIK. The "skepticism about the narrative of history" is well-covered in its definition:

While encompassing a wide variety of approaches, postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward the meta-narratives and ideologies of modernism, often calling into question various assumptions of Enlightenment rationality. Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress. Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.

Salient features of postmodernism are normally thought to include the ironic play with styles, citations and narrative levels, *a metaphysical skepticism or nihilism towards a "grand narrative" of Western culture, *a preference for the virtual at the expense of the Real (or more accurately, a fundamental questioning of what 'the real' constitutes) and a "waning of affect" on the part of the subject, who is caught up in the free interplay of virtual, endlessly reproducible signs inducing a state of consciousness similar to schizophrenia.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> That Ligeti is very strange. To whom was your post addressed?


To everyone. With a thanks to you for telling me how to get there.


----------



## Larkenfield

Phil loves classical said:


> http://www.sfu.ca/~poitras/Modernism-vs-Postmodernism.pdf


 Who around here lives according to either one of these diametrically opposed philosophies?

Far more likely: 
Modernism: artistic experimentation, the questioning of tradition and tonality 
Postmodernism: an all-encompassing eclecticism

In the meantime, both words are very often defined in a highly intellectual and academic way, and I doubt if most human beings think or live that way, but live far more organically from within. I question whether the majority of individuals live in such an intellectualized, conceptualized world. Neither one apparently has any heart or soul. Just mind, mind, mind.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Larkenfield said:


> Neither one apparently has any heart or soul. Just mind, mind, mind.


Same thing. 'Heart' and 'soul' is mind when it isn't paying careful attention.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Go to your post #146 where you responded to my post which was on the Brahms/sitar subject. That you have turned the subject into one of 'only white European music counts' indicates that you have landed in the wrong thread and responded to the wrong poster. But, sitarman, if you aren't interested in my alleged 'attitude', then don't respond to my posts.


Oops. My bad. I took your "Brahms is better than sitar music" as a shorthand way of saying that the traditional, pre-20th century European classical music tradition is superior to non-western musical traditions. That at least would fit with the topic of this thread, since the "eclecticism" of contemporary music others here have noted includes numerous non-western influences that were not present before the 20th century. But if you're really just talking about Brahms and traditional sitar music, of course you are entitled to your personal opinions and tastes. I prefer Brahms most of the time too. Sorry to waste your time posting about the vibrant Indian-Western fusion music scene.

However, if you cite western classical concert performance statistics or the fact the Helene Grimaud has performed in China as evidence of anything but the new eclecticism and globalization of music styles and culture generally, you are wandering far from reality. The Academy award and Grammy winning Chinese composer Tan Dun is a major force in the contemporary music scene. His music has strong traditional Chinese influences, not surprisingly. Globalization moves in all directions. And though Brahms still gets the occasional Grammy nomination, as far as I know he hasn't won an Academy award recently.


----------



## Roy Fuller

tdc said:


> Like many philosophers I think Ran%d has some ideas that have merit, and some that are questionable. I wonder why she is seen as so threatening to many here, is it her associations with capitalism? Her ideas on altruism? What are the actual philosophical issues being debated here? (Even if this question seems to go off topic, I think answers will provide some understanding on how her philosophy relates to music and the arts).


Yes, your post deserves an answer, and even though I tried to move away from philosophy, I believe it is time to get back in for a while. Point one: A philosopher is someone who creates a system of philosophy or significantly expands, modifies or corrects an existing system of philosophy. By that definition, Ayn Rand is definitely a philosopher because of her important corrections of certain epistemological errors in Aristotle. So is Kant for that matter. When I called Kant a fraud, it was not because he was not a philosopher, but because he claimed to be a philosopher of reason. Point two: The next level is the intellectual. This is the person who advocates for a particular philosophy. Point three: The last level is the mongrel. Now I don't consider the word 'mongrel' as a pejorative; it is simply a description of how 99% of people adopt their personal philosophy. They select something that sounds good here or there and molds it into something without context or hierarchy. The choice for mongrels is either to become one oriented towards reason, or one wearing the tin foil hat.

According to Objectivism, the philosophy I advocate, man's mind is his only tool of survival. Man's mind consists of both reason and emotion. Emotion is like an early warning system for mind, but it is fallible. Reason is needed to determine whether or not the emotions are true or false. Emotions need fuel to help the mind do its important work of survival. That fuel comes from art.

I will have more to say about this in another post very soon. I am going to propose a theory for your consideration.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I guess you identify as 'mongrel' then?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

When can an emotion of _dislike for music_ be false ? Reason would have to determine the music is a diabolical magic trick . Being fooled can make a person mad , even insane .


----------



## Roy Fuller

I'm going to propose a theory, and I'm going to start with painting. Essentially, I would divide painting into three categories: high art, abstract art and the borderline case. The way we use language is imprecise so we often subsume these three categories under 'art.' There are examples from all three categories that I would love to have copies of hanging on my walls at home and examples I would not. Two of my favorite boarder case artists are Gustav Klimt and Joan Miro. In music we have an analogous situation. There is high art: Bach, Mahler, Mozart, etc. There are also borderline cases. I would place some of Stravinsky's works in that category. Any finally there is the musical equivalent of abstract painting. I think a case might be made that there is a hierarchy of examples in all three categories. The musical equivalent of abstract painting will provide for some a certain amount of intellectual satisfaction devoid of any or most emotion, while the other two can provide both emotional fuel and intellectual satisfaction.

Now, as for the concert hall, if we are to avoid the 'parking music' problem, it might be helpful for the programmers to focus on the high art and the borderline case and drop the musical equivalent of abstract painting. The audience wants their emotional fuel.


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> I guess you identify as 'mongrel' then?


We both know that you are identifying yourself. What concerns me is that you might be the tin foil hat version.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Masterful rejoinder. Now if all that can be turned around and poured into symphony-writing, I think you'll be onto a winner.


----------



## fluteman

Roy Fuller said:


> I'm going to propose a theory, and I'm going to start with painting. Essentially, I would divide painting into three categories: high art, abstract art and the borderline case. The way we use language is imprecise so we often subsume these three categories under 'art.' There are examples from all three categories that I would love to have copies of hanging on my walls at home and examples I would not. Two of my favorite boarder case artists are Gustav Klimt and Joan Miro. In music we have an analogous situation. There is high art: Bach, Mahler, Mozart, etc. There are also borderline cases. I would place some of Stravinsky's works in that category. Any finally there is the musical equivalent of abstract painting. I think a case might be made that there is a hierarchy of examples in all three categories. The musical equivalent of abstract painting will provide for some a certain amount of intellectual satisfaction devoid of any or most emotion, while the other two can provide both emotional fuel and intellectual satisfaction.
> 
> Now, as for the concert hall, if we are to avoid the 'parking music' problem, it might be helpful for the programmers to focus on the high art and the borderline case and drop the musical equivalent of abstract painting. The audience wants their emotional fuel.


How is any of that a "theory", and not simply examples of your own subjective tastes?


----------



## Roy Fuller

eugeneonagain said:


> Masterful rejoinder. Now if all that can be turned around and poured into symphony-writing, I think you'll be onto a winner.


This discussion thread has been very enjoyable for me, but you are correct, I need to get back to my symphony writing. Even though I will monitor things here, I going to try to somewhat disengage now.


----------



## Roy Fuller

fluteman said:


> How is any of that a "theory", and not simply examples of your own subjective tastes?


Take it as you wish; its just a theory.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Roy Fuller said:


> This discussion thread has been very enjoyable for me, but you are correct, I need to get back to my symphony writing. Even though I will monitor things here, I going to try to somewhat disengage now.


And it was the only thread you posted in too. A shame.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Oops. My bad. I took your "Brahms is better than sitar music" as a shorthand way of saying that the traditional, pre-20th century European classical music tradition is superior to non-western musical traditions. That at least would fit with the topic of this thread, since the "eclecticism" of contemporary music others here have noted includes numerous non-western influences that were not present before the 20th century. But if you're really just talking about Brahms and traditional sitar music, of course you are entitled to your personal opinions and tastes. I prefer Brahms most of the time too. Sorry to waste your time posting about the vibrant Indian-Western fusion music scene.


Okay, no worries.


----------



## Woodduck

Roy Fuller said:


> According to Objectivism, the philosophy I advocate, man's mind is his only tool of survival. Man's mind consists of both reason and emotion. Emotion is like an early warning system for mind, but it is fallible. Reason is needed to determine whether or not the emotions are true or false. Emotions need fuel to help the mind do its important work of survival. That fuel comes from art.


Well, this is a bit of a mess. It isn't a good summation of Objectivism, or even a good introduction to it. I'm guessing that you're trying to set up a philosophical justification for your advocacy of Romanticism in music. You'd do better to begin by trying to identify what Romanticism in music _is._ If you don't define your terms you will never get to the point of demonstrating to anyone here that mankind's "survival" depends upon favoring the kind of music that you happen to like.

But to the question of "survival"... Mankind's survival will depend not on the sound of his music but on the breadth of his ethical concerns, and to achieve that breadth we are going to need more than your favorite philosopher's "rational" egoism. Rand claims to reject the "soul-body dichotomy," but its cousin, the "reason-emotion dichotomy," sits at the very base of her moral philosophy, which claims to be wholly "objective." Her ethics begins by pretending to be rooted in biological fact, reasoning (rationalizing) that since individual survival is the ultimate value of every living organism, it should be ours as well. Unfortunately, this is a misconception of how nature works; it ignores the actual findings of science concerning the behaviors of organisms as members of species and social groups. Rand's false conception of animal behavior no doubt had, like her philosophy in general, deep roots in her personal psychology; apparently actual nature made her uneasy and she avoided it, so it was easy for her to picture it in obsolete, quasi-Darwinian terms (which fit nicely into her _a priori_ ethical categories). Given her basic ignorance of and distaste for nature, we can understand her disdain for environmental science as an irksome limitation on the human urge to turn the planet into private property and exploit it. But nothing could more clearly reveal the inadequacy of an ethics of personal survival than the practical consequences of that exploitation, now evident all around us. We have to hope that humanity will come to understand, before it's too late, that a truly rational ethics will need to involve a much broader field of concern than "rational" self-interest. Such an expansive moral consciousness will only be sustained by healing the "reason-emotion" schism and recognizing that empathy and solidarity are as necessary a basis for moral choice as a calculated determination of ends and means.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

millionrainbows said:


> I see post-modernism as being less tied to tradition.


I'd say PM is less tied to any ONE tradition but is very tied to all of them, the the point that it doesn't bother to invent on its own and just prefers to mix as much of these various traditions as is possible or that it feels like doing.



millionrainbows said:


> When the paradigm changes enough, I can call it post-modernism, but not before that, There has to be a clean conceptual break.


The problem is that you rarely have clean conceptual breaks, or even clean ontological breaks. You typically have lots of small changes ala the Ship of Theseus.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Larkenfield said:


> Who around here lives according to either one of these diametrically opposed philosophies?
> 
> Far more likely:
> Modernism: artistic experimentation, the questioning of tradition and tonality
> Postmodernism: an all-encompassing eclecticism
> 
> In the meantime, both words are very often defined in a highly intellectual and academic way, and I doubt if most human beings think or live that way, but live far more organically from within. I question whether the majority of individuals live in such an intellectualized, conceptualized world. Neither one apparently has any heart or soul. Just mind, mind, mind.


Indeed, and even those classified as M and PM rarely fit cleanly into either category. But your two-sentence summation is a very good guide for what defining qualities we're looking for. For M I'd add the introduction of new systems of creation (whether in music, literature, painting, or film).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Roy Fuller said:


> Ayn Rand is definitely a philosopher because of her important corrections of certain epistemological errors in Aristotle.


What errors are you referring to? I'm not intimately familiar with Rand, but I don't think epistemology really started getting figured out until about the last 30 years when rationality itself has been formalized into math and various forms of irrationality (in the form of cognitive biases) have been scientifically studied. It hasn't been a one-person effort either. I find most people who talk of reason and epistemology haven't even heard of people like ET Jaynes, Ray Solomonoff, and Daniel Kahneman (though the latter's gotten more attention after winning the Nobel).



Roy Fuller said:


> According to Objectivism, the philosophy I advocate, man's mind is his only tool of survival. Man's mind consists of both reason and emotion. Emotion is like an early warning system for mind, but it is fallible. Reason is needed to determine whether or not the emotions are true or false. Emotions need fuel to help the mind do its important work of survival. That fuel comes from art.


None of this sounds unique to Objectivism. The emotion/reason divide has existed in philosophy (and art) for as long as they've been around. Emotions aren't and can't be true or false, though they can be based on true or false perceptions of reality. Yes, reason (and empiricism) is how we determine what's true and false, but no statements about what's true or false can dictate how we (should) feel about them.



Roy Fuller said:


> I'm going to propose a theory, and I'm going to start with painting. Essentially, I would divide painting into three categories: high art, abstract art and the borderline case. The way we use language is imprecise so we often subsume these three categories under 'art.' There are examples from all three categories that I would love to have copies of hanging on my walls at home and examples I would not. Two of my favorite boarder case artists are Gustav Klimt and Joan Miro. In music we have an analogous situation. There is high art: Bach, Mahler, Mozart, etc. There are also borderline cases. I would place some of Stravinsky's works in that category. Any finally there is the musical equivalent of abstract painting. I think a case might be made that there is a hierarchy of examples in all three categories. The musical equivalent of abstract painting will provide for some a certain amount of intellectual satisfaction devoid of any or most emotion, while the other two can provide both emotional fuel and intellectual satisfaction.
> 
> Now, as for the concert hall, if we are to avoid the 'parking music' problem, it might be helpful for the programmers to focus on the high art and the borderline case and drop the musical equivalent of abstract painting. The audience wants their emotional fuel.


1. The opposite of abstract art is representational art. These are descriptive categories, while the notion of "high art" is an evaluation category. You speak of rationality yet you're blatantly confusing mind-only things (notions of "high art") with categories for mind-external things ("representational" vs "abstract" art), confusing the map for the territory.

2. All music is abstract by its very nature. It can only be representational if we attach it to concrete things. Wagner did this, to an extent, with his leitmotifs.

3. The problem with "parking music" isn't one of abstraction VS high-art, it's one of the unfamiliar and (often) hated VS the familiar and beloved. Artistic traditions condition us towards its semiotics and grammar; new stuff often utilize their own, which is often counter-intuitive, and in which people either respond with disgust or interest/fascination. It's just the nature of art, in general: the familiar and unfamiliar, and people's tolerance and interest in both.

4. As others have said, this is little more than an argument for your own personal tastes.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> But to the question of "survival"... Mankind's survival will depend not on the sound of his music but on the breadth of his ethical concerns, and to achieve that breadth we are going to need more than your favorite philosopher's "rational" egoism.


Not to quibble with your otherwise fine post, but man's survival will mostly depend on our apprehension and reaction to existential threats, and those can come in multiple guises, and they aren't always ethical concerns. Something like Climate Change isn't about ethics, it's about facts and reason, and people rejecting both in favor of what feels right to them. AI might be another area that could have disastrous consequences (and it's why a lot of very smart people are very concerned about it), not because of a lack of ethics but because of ignorance and underestimation of how difficult it might be to program such ethics into a machine far more intelligent than we are (see the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment).


----------



## Larkenfield

eugeneonagain said:


>


Has anyone actually watched this from the OP? Rick Beato doesn't even mention postmodernism. The term is dragged in and assumed from out of nowhere by somebody other than himself. He doesn't talk about it but he does mention the approach of certain modern composers who write serial or atonal compositions. His presentation is not about -isms and yet it gets turned into a big huge thing about it. He's simply trying to open up new tonal possibilities worth exploring and he's done so in the highly skillful way with a remarkable example. He knows exactly what he's doing, or can't anyone tell? It's obvious! His sense of music theory and harmony is highly advanced. He knows exactly where he is harmonically at all times and is stretching the possibilities in an amazing way, and that's what he's made important, not a general discussion about what postmodernism is. Who cares when hardly anyone thinks that way except perhaps the academics and the intellectuals? Who can possibly enjoy or understood anything when filtered through such speculative definitions and theories that most people can't even define? Beato makes great points in this video and Thomas Newman is a great example.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Not to quibble with your otherwise fine post, but man's survival will mostly depend on our apprehension and reaction to existential threats, and those can come in multiple guises, and they aren't always ethical concerns. Something like Climate Change isn't about ethics, it's about facts and reason, and people rejecting both in favor of what feels right to them. AI might be another area that could have disastrous consequences (and it's why a lot of very smart people are very concerned about it), not because of a lack of ethics but because of ignorance and underestimation of how difficult it might be to program such ethics into a machine far more intelligent than we are (see the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment).


This appears to be a gross underestimation of the importance of ethics in determining how the practical problems of survival arise in the first place, and how humanity will respond to them when they do. I'll even suggest that the underestimation itself demonstrates the need for a more comprehensive ethic than the major ethical traditions have bequeathed us.

I can't speak about AI, but I can speak about, e.g., deforestation threatening both human societies and wildlife, the mass extinction of "inferior" species, the theft of natural resources from exploited populations and future generations, the pollution of the commons and the "downstream" burden imposed on the less privileged, the threat to our pollinators perpetrated by self-interested chemical companies, the prospect of mass migration of humanity caused by climate change...

All of these concerns are shot through with ethical implications. My point was that Ayn Rand's benighted philosophy of "rational egoism" is not equipped to deal with them and can only pretend that the invisible hand of free enterprise and technology will magically fix all problems - or, if it doesn't, that we shouldn't care as long as the self-interested chemical companies are free to make as much money as they can until planetary apocalypse puts an end to us all.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> All music is abstract by its very nature. It can only be representational if we attach it to concrete things. Wagner did this, to an extent, with his leitmotifs.


A quibble here (because you're so eminently worth quibbling with :tiphat. Music is indeed abstract in that it doesn't represent concrete things, but its dynamic and textural patterns and structures are representational of similar patterns in the actions of both mental and physical life, and that is primarily what enables it to communicate and evoke feelings of all sorts. In most cases the range of what it evokes is wide, but sometimes it can be surprisingly specific (as evidenced by widespread concurrence in people's responses and interpretation), and this isn't dependent on literary associations or dramatic employment as leitmotifs. (Wagner, as it happens, had an exceptional ability to marshall all the elements of musical expression quite apart from, but ideally useful for, his leitmotifs).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> This appears to be a gross underestimation of the importance of ethics in determining how the practical problems of survival arise in the first place, and how humanity will respond to them when they do. I'll even suggest that the underestimation itself demonstrates the need for a more comprehensive ethic than the major ethical traditions have bequeathed us.
> 
> I can't speak about AI, but I can speak about, e.g., deforestation threatening both human societies and wildlife, the mass extinction of "inferior" species, the theft of natural resources from exploited populations and future generations, the pollution of the commons and the "downstream" burden imposed on the less privileged, the threat to our pollinators perpetrated by self-interested chemical companies, the prospect of mass migration of humanity caused by climate change...
> 
> All of these concerns are shot through with ethical implications. My point was that Ayn Rand's benighted philosophy of "rational egoism" is not equipped to deal with them and can only pretend that the invisible hand of free enterprise and technology will magically fix all problems - or, if it doesn't, that we shouldn't care as long as the self-interested chemical companies are free to make as much money as they can until planetary apocalypse puts an end to us all.


I'm not underestimating the importance of ethics at all, my point was that it just depends on the nature of the threat. Some of those threats do depend on ethics, others less so. I would say stuff like deforestation and mass extinctions are primarily ethical concerns, but for something like Climate Change the main problem is convincing people that it's actually happening, that it's a major existential threat, and what we need to do to slow it down/reverse it as much as possible. We agree about Rand not being equipped to deal with any of these concerns, though.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> A quibble here (because you're so eminently worth quibbling with :tiphat. Music is indeed abstract in that it doesn't represent concrete things, but its dynamic and textural patterns and structures are representational of similar patterns in the actions of both mental and physical life, and that is primarily what enables it to communicate and evoke feelings of all sorts. In most cases the range of what it evokes is wide, but sometimes it can be surprisingly specific (as evidenced by widespread concurrence in people's responses and interpretation), and this isn't dependent on literary associations or dramatic employment as leitmotifs. (Wagner, as it happens, had an exceptional ability to marshall all the elements of musical expression quite apart from, but ideally useful for, his leitmotifs).


One good quibble deserves another. :lol:

What I'd say is that what you're describing is less representational and more metaphoric association. In terms of the former, you either need symbols that are actually similar to thing they're representing (a drawing of a tree to represent a tree), or you need a systemized and communally agreed-upon language so that patterns of abstract phonemes or graphemes can represent whatever they refer to. I think with music we tend to associate certain patterns with the patterns of, as you say, "mental and physical life," but I think it's tenuous to say they actually represent them in the way that language or other symbols represent what they refer to. If there is a kind of representation, it's only because we seem to share many associations and thus composers/songwriters can use that shared commonality to try to express or communicate using them... though I'm less certain on how "specific" they can get beyond general emotions.

FWIW, I think a good chunk of what makes art so unique is precisely that it's something of a middle ground between abstraction, language, ideas, and representation, being, feeling.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Larkenfield said:


> Has anyone actually watched this?


Yes, I saw it back when it was released and I've watched many and learned a great deal from his videos. Still, the problem with that video is that he was picking the wrong "villain" with PM and then showed his ignorance of what PM was. If anything, atonality, which he was arguing against, is a vestige from M, that some PM utilize and others do not. But, yes, as usual his discussion of music theory, this time in relation to the piece he wrote, is always fascinating and enlightening. Dude knows his stuff and is a great and engaging teacher. I also really admire his broad tastes in music--from rock, classical, jazz, and pop--because they mirror my own and support my argument that having a great knowledge of theory doesn't have to make one an elitist snob.


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> 4. As others have said, this is little more than an argument for your own personal tastes.


One of the things that has always puzzled me about this forum is how often posters try to to prove that their personal tastes are justified or even inevitable and inherently right based on purely logical or rational grounds, or even on some fundamental and immutable idea of truth or beauty. In the early 17th century, the Italian astronomer Galileo argued that the earth orbited around the sun and not the other way around. The Pope had him arrested for this heresy, which was contrary to Church dogma, and not based on any fundamental truth, or even logic or reason, but rather on his own empirical observations. Of course, Galileo's argument ultimately prevailed, as did an acknowledgement of the central importance of empiricism to nearly every aspect of our lives.

In recent times I see a disturbing increase in a certain "head in the sand" rejection of empiricism. If scientists say global climate change is threatening our ecosystem as a result of some specific empirical observations, and people are unhappy with this conclusion, they claim the scientists must be in cahoots in pushing this big lie for their own devious motives. Even worse is the rise of religious fundamentalism, where thought control police seek to take complete control over minds at the youngest possible age. And if people are unhappy with certain trends in the arts or in music, they have the urge to prove that these trends are contrary to some fundamental truth, or irrational, or even that the resulting music is not music, as one poster declaimed above.

A good empiricist might say, the existence and persistence of an artistic trend is evidence that it reaches and speaks to no small number of people over a considerable length of time, and investigate why that is the case, rather than simply conclude, for example, that 20th and 21st century music is one long aberration, a false detour from what is fundamentally right. And to be fair, several posters at TC and in this thread have done just that. But I find the persistent reliance on objectivism, rationalism, or any philosophical or moral system, to validate one's tastes downright bizarre.


----------



## KenOC

Roy Fuller said:


> ...man's mind is his only tool of survival. Man's mind consists of both reason and emotion. Emotion is like an early warning system for mind, but it is fallible. Reason is needed to determine whether or not the emotions are true or false. Emotions need fuel to help the mind do its important work of survival...


Unfortunately, this is exactly backwards. Humans are ruled by irrational impulses over which they have little control; rationality merely helps them fulfill those impulses more thoroughly and effectively.* Rationality, for humans, is like a compass; it can help get us where we want to go, but it doesn't have anything to say about our destination.

Consider: Humans and their livestock now make up 96% of the earth's mammalian biomass, with wild mammals accounting for only 4%. These figures include seagoing mammals! And due to earth's human infestation the atmosphere is growing warmer and becoming fouled, and the oceans are increasingly polluted with non-biodegradable refuse and exotic chemicals. The oceans are not only warming but also growing more acidic by the year.

This is an obvious recipe for ecological collapse and species dieback. And yet humans only dither around the edges of the problem, which tells me that rationality has little power in real human life. But we can be comforted that it probably doesn't matter, since it's pretty clear that our point of no return was passed some time ago.

Here's a link to the biomass estimates, which also touches on unhappy historical trends in fish, birds, and plants.

*You may want to estimate the portion of human thought, effort, and gold that has always gone into the development of weaponry, one area where we have been astonishingly successful.


----------



## Larkenfield

Woodduck said:


> An aphorism routinely disproved by aphorisms - including this one.


 Well, that's very interesting because some people create to keep from going insane. Exhibit A right here. Lol.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> One good quibble deserves another. :lol:
> 
> What I'd say is that what you're describing is less representational and more metaphoric association. In terms of the former, you either need symbols that are actually similar to thing they're representing (a drawing of a tree to represent a tree), or you need a systemized and communally agreed-upon language so that patterns of abstract phonemes or graphemes can represent whatever they refer to. I think with music we tend to associate certain patterns with the patterns of, as you say, "mental and physical life," but I think it's tenuous to say they actually represent them in the way that language or other symbols represent what they refer to. If there is a kind of representation, it's only because we seem to share many associations and thus composers/songwriters can use that shared commonality to try to express or communicate using them... though I'm less certain on how "specific" they can get beyond general emotions.
> 
> FWIW, I think a good chunk of what makes art so unique is precisely that it's something of a middle ground between abstraction, language, ideas, and representation, being, feeling.


I've been more and more interested in the ways in which musical form conveys feeling/meaning, and I believe that to a considerable degree these ways transcend reliance on the acceptance of conventional systems of symbols. Music is not like language; words and grammar are almost purely conventional, usually having nothing in common with what they represent. Music is actually more like visual art in that it presents, albeit in a different sense mode, the form of what it represents.

Romantic aesthetics may have overstated the ability of music to express specific feelings and ideas, but subsequently, perhaps in reaction to the Romantics and under the influence of a world-view increasingly formed by science and technology, the essentially expressive meanings inherent in so-called "abstract" musical form seem to have been overlooked or scorned for a time. My lifelong interest in Wagner, who consciously rethought musical structure in terms of expression and probably came as near as anyone could to making musical expression specific, makes me intolerant of talk about music as an abstract play of sounds. But even "absolute" music - fugues, sonatas, variations - has incredibly rich stories to tell, narratives and dramas of feeling which are not less real for not being about concrete things. We recognize in music's patterns of tensions, sequences, interactions, contrasts, interruptions, hesitations, frustrations, resolutions, etc. occurring in time, actions common to our physical, emotional and mental functions and experiences, and these elements of music affect us by means of their correspondence to patterns we've unconsciously abstracted from those experiences. Music can do this more or less vividly, and more or less effectively; the music we tend to recognize as most significant and, indeed, tend to love, isn't the music that presents the most impressive display of technical and formal devices, but the music that finds the most specific expressive value in those devices it does employ.

I suppose all this has little to do with postmodernism. But you can probably work it in somehow. :lol:


----------



## Roy Fuller

Woodduck said:


> Well, this is a bit of a mess. It isn't a good summation of Objectivism, or even a good introduction to it. I'm guessing that you're trying to set up a philosophical justification for your advocacy of Romanticism in music. You'd do better to begin by trying to identify what Romanticism in music _is._ If you don't define your terms you will never get to the point of demonstrating to anyone here that mankind's "survival" depends upon favoring the kind of music that you happen to like.


Since when is a sentence relating music to Objectivism supposed to be a summation or even an introduction? You do realize that a summation or even a decent introduction should involve many paragraphs don't you? This is why I question that you really know anything substantive about it, other than that you dislike it.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Eva Yojimbo said:


> What errors are you referring to? I'm not intimately familiar with Rand, but I don't think epistemology really started getting figured out until about the last 30 years when rationality itself has been formalized into math and various forms of irrationality (in the form of cognitive biases) have been scientifically studied. It hasn't been a one-person effort either. I find most people who talk of reason and epistemology haven't even heard of people like ET Jaynes, Ray Solomonoff, and Daniel Kahneman (though the latter's gotten more attention after winning the Nobel).


It has to do with how man forms concepts. Aristotle thought that there was an 'essence' within an object. Rand disproved it. You really need to study it yourself and draw your own conclusions. I recommend the book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Not to quibble with your otherwise fine post, but man's survival will mostly depend on our apprehension and reaction to existential threats, and those can come in multiple guises, and they aren't always ethical concerns. Something like Climate Change isn't about ethics, it's about facts and reason, and people rejecting both in favor of what feels right to them. AI might be another area that could have disastrous consequences (and it's why a lot of very smart people are very concerned about it), not because of a lack of ethics but because of ignorance and underestimation of how difficult it might be to program such ethics into a machine far more intelligent than we are (see the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment).


Man's survival has to do with much more than mere physical survival; it means, as Aristotle would say, to flourish. That means survival as a thinking, rational, productive being. Man qua man.


----------



## Larkenfield

Roy Fuller said:


> It has to do with how man forms concepts. Aristotle thought that there was an 'essence' within an object. Rand disproved it. You really need to study it yourself and draw your own conclusions. I recommend the book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.


Rand did not disapprove the essence within form. She merely came to her own conclusion because her rational mind was too strong for her to experience that essence directly. Big difference. There's nothing like the arrogance of the mind that cannot conceive or experience anything beyond its own conceptional logic. Logic has its place of course because it helps give shape to things; but it cannot understand or experience the essence of things that are ineffable in nature. Nevertheless, it can be fascinating to read somebody who is so completely and utterly self-interested. Evidently, she was never in a burning car when someone with an instinctive sense of compassion, who defied their own logic to go in and rescue her, pulled her out of it.


----------



## Roy Fuller

Larkenfield said:


> Rand did not disapprove the essence within form. She merely came to her own conclusion because her rational mind was too strong for her to experience that essence directly. Big difference. There's nothing like the arrogance of the mind that cannot conceive or experience anything beyond its own conceptional logic. Logic has its place of course because it helps give shape to things; but it cannot understand or experience the essence of things that are ineffable in nature. Nevertheless, it can be fascinating to read somebody who is so completely and utterly self-interested. Evidently, she was never in a burning car when someone with an instinctive sense of compassion, who defied their own logic to go in and rescue her, pulled her out of a car.


Keep that foil hat on, they're coming for you.


----------



## Woodduck

Roy Fuller said:


> Since when is a sentence relating music to Objectivism supposed to be a summation or even an introduction? You do realize that a summation or even a decent introduction should involve many paragraphs don't you? This is why I question that you really know anything substantive about it, other than that you dislike it.


"...or even a good introduction to it." You're very selective in what you attempt to refute.

It doesn't matter that you question my knowledge of Objectivism. But in fact I've known it backwards and forwards for more than fifty years - more than long enough to see its errors. The rest of my post, which you don't mention and perhaps didn't absorb, points out the problems at the root of Rand's ethical argument: 1.) Her attempt to illustrate "ultimate value" is based on a misunderstanding of nature. This error is a projection of an unacknowledged premise - that morality exists to ensure individual survival - which is the very thing she's trying to prove. This makes her ethical argument essentially tautological 2.) The assumption that morality is entirely instrumental, that our ultimate values are established by rational choice and justified by reason, that the right choice is always the one that serves our rationally established self-interest, that moral decisions must always be based on the rational calculation of means to ends, and that this is actually a formula for achieving personal and societal happiness and well-being... Well, it doesn't take too many years on planet earth to kick that theory of how people live good lives into the ditch - which pretty much explains why most Objectivists are young. The growing ego is intoxicated by the Randian mix of rugged independence and impregnable certainty. Besides, what boy doesn't want to walk down the street naked without concern, blow up a housing project and not go to jail, and deflower a gorgeous heiress in a stone quarry?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fluteman said:


> One of the things that has always puzzled me about this forum is how often posters try to to prove that their personal tastes are justified or even inevitable and inherently right based on purely logical or rational grounds, or even on some fundamental and immutable idea of truth or beauty...
> 
> ...And to be fair, several posters at TC and in this thread have done just that. But I find the persistent reliance on objectivism, rationalism, or any philosophical or moral system, to validate one's tastes downright bizarre.


Yes, we're in complete agreement on this point. From a rationalist view, it's nothing more than the mind-projection fallacy, or assuming that mind-only things (like artistic tastes) are somehow "correct" or "true" or grounded in objective reality. I think the reason why this happens is that it makes people anxious to think that things they feel strongly have no stronger basis than the feelings themselves. Since minds are mutable, there's no reason one couldn't (at least hypothetically) feel a different way about those things. However, if one convinces themselves that these feelings are as true and immutable as the existence of the sun, then suddenly they feel much more secure. What's more, many people don't want to just feel secure, but superior, and if their tastes are based in some universal, fundamental truths, then feeling them not only makes them right, but better than all the other fools that don't feel them.

I wouldn't say the persistence in doing this is bizarre--it seems a pretty common mistake of irrational humans--so much as sad. To think of all the time wasted on trying to prove the unprovable, on trying to gain a sense of security and superiority via things that should just be shared, celebrated, contemplated, and enjoyed. What a piece of work is man!


----------



## Larkenfield

Music with the Ayn Rand connection:
http://dismuke.org/aynrand/

Rand's Romantic Manifesto on Music:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/music.html

She did not care for folk music. Now, she's all yours.


----------



## Woodduck

Roy Fuller said:


> Man's survival has to do with much more than mere physical survival; it means, as Aristotle would say, to flourish. That means survival as a thinking, rational, productive being. Man qua man.


That's Rand trying to wiggle out of her own trap. She begins her discussion of ethics by arguing that morality is a means to gain and keep the ultimate value, life - the only proper "end in itself" (as exemplified by the supposed actions of plants and animals, who she incorrectly imagines always act in preservation of their individual lives) - and then pulls a sleight-of-hand and says "but I mean life that's _virtuous_ and _proper for man."_ Now hold on a sec! If what's virtuous and proper is _not_ determined by reference to how well it ensures the prolongation of life, the "ultimate value," how is it determined?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I've been more and more interested in the ways in which musical form conveys feeling/meaning, and I believe that to a considerable degree these ways transcend reliance on the acceptance of conventional systems of symbols. Music is not like language; words and grammar are almost purely conventional, usually having nothing in common with what they represent. Music is actually more like visual art in that it presents, albeit in a different sense mode, the form of what it represents.
> 
> Romantic aesthetics may have overstated the ability of music to express specific feelings and ideas, but subsequently, perhaps in reaction to the Romantics and under the influence of a world-view increasingly formed by science and technology, the essentially expressive meanings inherent in so-called "abstract" musical form seem to have been overlooked or scorned for a time. My lifelong interest in Wagner, who consciously rethought musical structure in terms of expression and probably came as near as anyone could to making musical expression specific, makes me intolerant of talk about music as an abstract play of sounds. But even "absolute" music - fugues, sonatas, variations - has incredibly rich stories to tell, narratives and dramas of feeling which are not less real for not being about concrete things. We recognize in music's patterns of tensions, sequences, interactions, contrasts, interruptions, hesitations, frustrations, resolutions, etc. occurring in time, actions common to our physical, emotional and mental functions and experiences, and these elements of music affect us by means of their correspondence to patterns we've unconsciously abstracted from those experiences. Music can do this more or less vividly, and more or less effectively; the music we tend to recognize as most significant and, indeed, tend to love, isn't the music that presents the most impressive display of technical and formal devices, but the music that finds the most specific expressive value in those devices it does employ.
> 
> I suppose all this has little to do with postmodernism. But you can probably work it in somehow. :lol:


We're honestly not terribly far apart in our interests and beliefs on the matter so much as that we're just differing over what to call this phenomena by which music is used to express and evoke feelings and emotions that we associate with narrative, or "physical, emotional, and mental functions and experiences." I think this happens precisely because its abstraction allows us to associate with similar abstractions. To me, such abstraction isn't (or doesn't have to be) void of such associations; it merely means it isn't specifically referring to something concrete or specific. In a way, I actually think abstraction makes it easier to tap into such "correspondence of patterns we've unconsciously abstracted from these experience" precisely because the two things _share _that kind of abstraction.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Roy Fuller said:


> It has to do with how man forms concepts. Aristotle thought that there was an 'essence' within an object. Rand disproved it. You really need to study it yourself and draw your own conclusions. I recommend the book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.


I don't believe in Aristotlean essences, but I don't know how/why you think Rand disproved it. There were plenty of objections of that concept before her. Book recommendations are fine and well, but this is a discussion forum and I'd prefer for you to discuss it in your own words.



Roy Fuller said:


> Man's survival has to do with much more than mere physical survival; it means, as Aristotle would say, to flourish. That means survival as a thinking, rational, productive being. Man qua man.


Flourishing is different than survival.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> ...it doesn't take too many years on planet earth to kick that theory of how people live good lives into the ditch - *which pretty much explains why most Objectivists are young.* The growing ego is intoxicated by the Randian mix of rugged independence and impregnable certainty. Besides, what boy doesn't want to walk down the street naked without concern, blow up a housing project and not go to jail, and deflower a gorgeous heiress in a stone quarry?


I'm reminded of this quote: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."


----------



## Roy Fuller

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't believe in Aristotlean essences, but I don't know how/why you think Rand disproved it. There were plenty of objections of that concept before her. Book recommendations are fine and well, but this is a discussion forum and I'd prefer for you to discuss it in your own words.


Yes, you would like me to do all the work for you. Objectivism is not a simple philosophy, as some like to claim. Just have me keep coming up with answers -- long winded ones at that -- that you, due to your prejudice, will want to shoot down. 


Eva Yojimbo said:


> Flourishing is different than survival.


That should be obvious, but that just proves the above point --- hostility on your part.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Roy Fuller said:


> Yes, you would like me to do all the work for you. Objectivism is not a simple philosophy, as some like to claim. Just have me keep coming up with answers -- long winded ones at that -- that you, due to your prejudice, will want to shoot down.


Holding up your end of a discussion on a discussion forum is neither you "doing all the work for me," nor is it an unreasonable request. For one thing, if you can't explain or argue for a philosophical position, or at least the parts that are relevant to the matters at hand, I have no reason to think you understand them yourself.



Roy Fuller said:


> That should be obvious, but that just proves the above point --- hostility on your part.


There was no hostility in that statement, and if the difference was obvious then I can't make sense of your previous post suggesting that flourishing was part of survival when it's not.


----------



## Roy Fuller

All right I'll give this much before I go to bed. A concept is a mental integration of two or more units, isolated according to specific characteristics, and united with a definition. There is no 'essence' of a chair, for example. It is a concept of the units.


----------



## Guest

Roy Fuller said:


> All right I'll give this much before I go to bed. A concept is a mental integration of two or more units, isolated according to specific characteristics, and united with a definition. There is no 'essence' of a chair, for example. It is a concept of the units.


Never mind Objectivism or Rand (why waste so many column inches on a "philosopher"?). What about Sitar v Brahms? - I didn't get past that bit!


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, we're in complete agreement on this point. From a rationalist view, it's nothing more than the mind-projection fallacy, or assuming that mind-only things (like artistic tastes) are somehow "correct" or "true" or grounded in objective reality. I think the reason why this happens is that it makes people anxious to think that things they feel strongly have no stronger basis than the feelings themselves. Since minds are mutable, there's no reason one couldn't (at least hypothetically) feel a different way about those things. However, if one convinces themselves that these feelings are as true and immutable as the existence of the sun, then suddenly they feel much more secure. What's more, many people don't want to just feel secure, but superior, and if their tastes are based in some universal, fundamental truths, then feeling them not only makes them right, but better than all the other fools that don't feel them.
> 
> I wouldn't say the persistence in doing this is bizarre--it seems a pretty common mistake of irrational humans--so much as sad. To think of all the time wasted on trying to prove the unprovable, on trying to gain a sense of security and superiority via things that should just be shared, celebrated, contemplated, and enjoyed. What a piece of work is man!


All right, you win. Delete "bizarre". Insert "deluded".


----------



## millionrainbows

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, we're in complete agreement on this point. From a rationalist view, it's nothing more than the mind-projection fallacy, or assuming that mind-only things (like artistic tastes) are somehow "correct" or "true" or grounded in objective reality. I think the reason why this happens is that it makes people anxious to think that things they feel strongly have no stronger basis than the feelings themselves. Since minds are mutable, there's no reason one couldn't (at least hypothetically) feel a different way about those things. However, if one convinces themselves that these feelings are as true and immutable as the existence of the sun, then suddenly they feel much more secure. What's more, many people don't want to just feel secure, but superior, and if their tastes are based in some universal, fundamental truths, then feeling them not only makes them right, but better than all the other fools that don't feel them.
> 
> I wouldn't say the persistence in doing this is bizarre--it seems a pretty common mistake of irrational humans--so much as sad. To think of all the time wasted on trying to prove the unprovable, on trying to gain a sense of security and superiority via things that should just be shared, celebrated, contemplated, and enjoyed. What a piece of work is man!


I don't know which "side" you're referring to. I thought the post-modernists were the skeptics, doubting the mind-fabricated perception of the "historical tradition." So your response could just as easily be used to defend post-modernism. Have I got this right?


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Mandryka explained it well:
> "..._the narrative has been shown to be a myth. It's not (and maybe you didn't mean this) that modern times aren't like a C 19 novel, with important characters and events and patterns of cause and effect and *a voice (The Historian) who explains the whys and the wherefores.* It's that no time was ever like that, not even in the 19th century. T*hat conception of time has been been shown to be false...*.Yes, but I don't think there's a link between these aspects of modern life and the disappearance of narrative."
> _
> Do you want to dispute this view by characterizing it as "unclear"? Better to present to us what you think, because our minds are already made up. If not, consult WIK. The "skepticism about the narrative of history" is well-covered in its definition:
> 
> While encompassing a wide variety of approaches, postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward the meta-narratives and ideologies of modernism, often calling into question various assumptions of Enlightenment rationality. Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress. Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.
> 
> Salient features of postmodernism are normally thought to include the ironic play with styles, citations and narrative levels, *a metaphysical skepticism or nihilism towards a "grand narrative" of Western culture, *a preference for the virtual at the expense of the Real (or more accurately, a fundamental questioning of what 'the real' constitutes) and a "waning of affect" on the part of the subject, who is caught up in the free interplay of virtual, endlessly reproducible signs inducing a state of consciousness similar to schizophrenia.


So how does scepticism towards a historical narrative equate to the the end of it?


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> So how does scepticism towards a historical narrative equate to the the end of it?


If it's only a perception, or delusion, the answer is obvious. You talk about this perception of history as if it were a real, tangible thing rather than a mindset or paradigm.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> So how does scepticism towards a historical narrative equate to the the end of it?


I see million has given a brief answer. I've gone looking for further reading, based on what he quoted and found this:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...nowledge.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Ce5Z4AY77PQXdcM1mgVCR

Hope the link works!

Now we've both got some reading.

BTW - it's not "a historical narrative", but a "grand narrative" - not the same thing.


----------



## sharkeysnight

I love jumping to the last page of an innocent-seeming discussion and seeing the same arguments about historical rationalism and conceptual solipsization or whatever that seem to take over every other thread here.


----------



## fluteman

sharkeysnight said:


> I love jumping to the last page of an innocent-seeming discussion and seeing the same arguments about historical rationalism and conceptual solipsization or whatever that seem to take over every other thread here.


Yes, I'd much rather listen to and enjoy music first and read thorny academic texts or get into deep philosophical discussions much later, if ever. Sometimes I wonder if people who don't like or understand certain music at first just gave it more of a chance they wouldn't get more out of it. Sadly, the indifference or outright hostility many here show towards contemporary or modern music is identical to the reaction of most people these days to all classical music, including Brahms and Beethoven. Yet some here don't see the correspondence.


----------



## Simon Moon

sharkeysnight said:


> I love jumping to the last page of an innocent-seeming discussion and seeing the same arguments about historical rationalism and conceptual solipsization or whatever that seem to take over every other thread here.


Since when is _any_ discussion on TC concerning contemporary classical music "innocent-seeming"?

They will always (to my chagrin) degenerate to bashsing by the haters.


----------



## Roy Fuller

MacLeod said:


> Never mind Objectivism or Rand (why waste so many column inches on a "philosopher"?). What about Sitar v Brahms? - I didn't get pas that bit!


I agree completely.


----------



## Guest

Roy Fuller said:


> I agree completely.


Ah, you're back. Now you can explain what you meant.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

millionrainbows said:


> I don't know which "side" you're referring to. I thought the post-modernists were the skeptics, doubting the mind-fabricated perception of the "historical tradition." So your response could just as easily be used to defend post-modernism. Have I got this right?


I was just referring to the people that are attempting to prove that their tastes are "right" or "superior," not to the M/PM debate. However, to your point, yes, PM are "skeptics" in this sense, and when it comes to art I'm fine with that aspect of the philosophy. I don't believe in objectively existing artistic hierarchies. However, I still think it's something of a spiritual failure of the movement not to seek unities and hierarchies; but I think that for different reasons other than the notion that such things objectively exist. It's the same thing with ethics. I don't believe there are objectively true moral/ethical statements or systems either, but I don't believe this is an excuse to give up on creating, establishing, accepting, or rejecting certain moral/ethical statements or systems either; it's just that we must realize that what we're talking about with ethics, just like with artistic hierarchies, is how we feel about things and not how things objectively are.

Where I part ways with PM is when they start trying to apply that same theory to reality or methods of modeling reality. Reality is not mind-dependent, or, if that statement's too controversial and unprovable (in the Cartesian/Kantian sense), then I can amend it to "there are aspects of phenomenal reality that our minds can't alter or change." Changing my mind won't allow me to fly, eg, so whether or not we call me falling off a cliff an aspect of objective reality, we can at least agree the event isn't dependent on what I think about it. In that sense, science is not just a relative construct with no better claims to truth than other methods. Truth is correspondence between our mental maps and objective territories, tested via empiricism. Science provides models that allows for such testing and predictions. Likewise, rationality is abstracted empirical generalities that can be mathematically modeled. Science and rationality have better claims to truth because they work, period, and any suggestion otherwise is nonsense.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

sharkeysnight said:


> I love jumping to the last page of an innocent-seeming discussion and seeing the same arguments about historical rationalism and conceptual solipsization or whatever that seem to take over every other thread here.


This thread's title is "Why Postmodernism In Music Is Bad (Sucks)." That alone is a controversial and confrontational statement, inviting debate about PM and what people think about such a thing, both for and against. People wanting to share and talk about contemporary music have other threads on TC for that purpose, including Exploring Contemporary Composers I don't know what gave you the idea this was an "innocent-seeming discussion" given the thread title, which naturally dovetails into various philosophical issues behind both the acceptance and rejection of PM.


----------



## DaveM

Personally, I don’t see how these long discourses on philosophy relate to the issue raised in the OP.


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Science and rationality have better claims to truth because they work, period, and any suggestion otherwise is nonsense.


Yes, but substitute "empiricism" for "rationality", because the former is the foundation of science, not the latter. The theory or rationalization that best explains or fits the empirical data is the one that is accepted, not the other way around.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Every spare account created in the past for later use has been pulled out of mothballs recently.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Roy Fuller said:


> All right I'll give this much before I go to bed. A concept is a mental integration of two or more units, isolated according to specific characteristics, and united with a definition. There is no 'essence' of a chair, for example. It is a concept of the units.


Well, you've started out badly. That's not what a concept is. I have a concept of an electron and that's not an "integration of two or more units."

However, let's ignore the definition of concept--already a thorny philosophical issue--and just focus on the notion of concepts of things that are integrations of multiple "units." Yes, something like a "chair" is, objectively, just a lot of interconnected particles in configuration space. There is no objective essence of a chair, but rather the concept is based on a combination of some mind-only things (like purpose) and some objective qualities (the interconnectedness of those particles). Language is mostly about the most effective way of carving reality along its natural joints to speak of things that are meaningfully (to us) alike. It's not a search for essences, it's a search for qualities that we want to give a name to. Science is better at being more precise about this than most disciplines.

So we agree there's no Aristotlean essences; what does this have to do with Rand and aesthetics?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Personally, I don't see how these long discourses on philosophy relate to the issue raised in the OP.


I don't see why you don't see it. The OP is asking if Beato is right about PM "sucking." To discuss such a thing, one first has to define PM, which is a philosophical discussion to start with. Then, one has to discuss whatever aesthetic beliefs/paradigms one has, which is also philosophical, to argue why they feel that PM sucks or doesn't suck. I don't understand how you think you can discuss such things while avoiding philosophy, unless you just want to relate your personal feelings on the matter.


----------



## tdc

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's the same thing with ethics. I don't believe there are objectively true moral/ethical statements or systems either


Interesting. Can you tell me a situation where shooting kids in a school is ethical? How about rape?

Of course scientism is the new religion. Just speak in an objective tone, use big words often and use the word empiricism. Now you must be on the side of truth.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't believe there are objectively true moral/ethical statements or systems...but I don't believe this is an excuse to give up on creating, establishing, accepting, or rejecting certain moral/ethical statements or systems either; it's just that we must realize that what we're talking about with ethics, just like with artistic hierarchies, is how we feel about things and not how things objectively are.


Yeah. Person A doesn't "feel" right about sending millions of Jews to the gas chambers or making lamp shades out of their skin. On the other hand, person B "feels" just fine with it. So why should I object? After all, my approval of person A's "feelings" and my disapproval of person B's "feelings" are just "feelings" too. I must take an enlightened, objective, scientific attitude. Nothing is objectively right, nothing is objectively wrong. We merely have "feelings"; we have _preferences._ Of course the Jews being marched off to the showers don't feel too good about the preferences of their murderers, but my preference is to look on the bright side. It feels better.

Why should we _not_ "give up on creating, establishing, accepting, or rejecting certain moral/ethical statements or systems"? What profit do you see in entertaining ethical statements at all? Why does the concept "ethical" even need to exist? Shouldn't it go the way of angels, demons and phlogiston?

I think your persistence in splitting reality right down the middle into "objective" and "subjective" is just a preference.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fluteman said:


> Yes, but substitute "empiricism" for "rationality", because the former is the foundation of science, not the latter. The theory or rationalization that best explains or fits the empirical data is the one that is accepted, not the other way around.


As you say, empiricism is fundamental to the scientific method which is why I didn't explicitly include it, since saying science implicitly includes it.

However, empiricism divorced from rationality doesn't work as you have no way to make sense of empirical results. The logic underlying the scientific method can be mathematically modeled with Bayes' Theorem and that's a fundamentally rational concept. The most rigorously complete view of what all science aspires to can be modeled via Solomonoff Induction, which is, again, a mathematical formalization of rationality AND science. Quantum Mechanics is a great example of what happens when scientists either ignore rationality, or start doing philosophy without realizing that's what they're doing, and spend a good part of a century confused about it when rationality would've/could've made sense of it from the start. The real shame of it is that professional philosophers haven't helped matters either and many charlatans have taken the opportunity to inject woo into the confusion.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

tdc said:


> Interesting. Can you tell me a situation where shooting kids in a school is ethical? How about rape?
> 
> Of course scientism is the new religion. Just speak in an objective tone, use big words often and use the word empiricism. Now you must be on the side of truth.


One could start with the ethical position that "my entertainment is more valuable than the lives of others," and thus if they got entertainment out of shooting kids or raping then it would be ethical _relative to that position_ to do so. The fact that it would be unethical _relative to the position of the majority_ is also why such a person would be arrested and prosecuted (and perhaps executed depending on where it happened and what the jury decided) and we'd all feel perfectly fine about doing so. The point is that neither position is founded on or grounded in a statement about objective reality; they're both simply based on how we feel about things, and such things can't be objectively right or wrong.

Depends on what you mean by "scientism." I often see that term as little more than a bugaboo term used by people who believe in/promote woo. Science and reason are provably the best means of obtaining knowledge we have. However, I don't believe science has anything to say about normative ethics.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Yeah. Person A doesn't "feel" right about sending millions of Jews to the gas chambers or making lamp shades out of their skin. On the other hand, person B "feels" just fine with it. So why should I object? After all, my approval of person A's "feelings" and my disapproval of person B's "feelings" are just "feelings" too. I must take an enlightened, objective, scientific attitude. Nothing is objectively right, nothing is objectively wrong. We merely have "feelings"; we have _preferences._ Of course the Jews being marched off to the showers don't feel too good about the preferences of their murderers, but my preference is to look on the bright side. It feels better.
> 
> Why should we _not_ "give up on creating, establishing, accepting, or rejecting certain moral/ethical statements or systems"? What profit do you see in entertaining ethical statements at all? Why does the concept "ethical" even need to exist? Shouldn't it go the way of angels, demons and phlogiston?
> 
> I think your persistence in splitting reality right down the middle into "objective" and "subjective" is just a preference.


I also believe physics is fundamentally deterministic, and we are operating inside a deterministic universe. That doesn't mean we should stop doing things just because what we do is physically determined. You can't go to McDonald's and say "give me whatever I was physically determined to order" (well, you could, but you wouldn't get any food).

But, yes, your disapproval/approval of said feelings are based on your feelings. What else are they based on? Just because you use emotionally charged examples, like the holocaust, doesn't change this fact. You should only "give up on creating, establishing, accepting, or rejecting certain moral/ethical statements or systems" if you don't care about what world you live in.* Most of us care, so if we care then the ethical systems we create, accept, and reject affects what kind of world it is.

I have no idea what you think that last sentence even means. If you believe there are mind-only and mind-independent things then everything belongs to one category or the other, and beliefs/statements about things must depend on which they belong to. My attempts at categorization isn't about preference, but about trying to get things correct and not let my feelings bias that perception.

*I might add that even if you hypothetically didn't care, you would still live in a world where most everyone else does. So you'd still find it awfully hard to get along in society without doing it. Maybe if you wanted to be a hermit you could do feasibly do it.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> Interesting. Can you tell me a situation where shooting kids in a school is ethical?


When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, doubtless whole schools full of kids were destroyed (which was true as well, of course, in prior non-nuclear strikes). But far more children would have died in the planned invasion, the largest amphibian operation in history, where Kyūshū schoolchildren were being armed with knives and even sharp sticks and told to stab an invader, if they could. Casualty estimates for both sides were rising with every new estimate; one late study predicted between five and ten million Japanese fatalities.

So was blowing up all those kids ethical, if it avoided this outcome as intended?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

I will speak well of the* woo *. Literally , it is Life Spirit . This may further translate as survival is good , and unto the artist it is freely given . To flourish is a temporal condition . Grand music may arise in times of abundance . And for some this music will sustain the illusion of eternal prosperity . PM is lean and mean to the bone . It's built for survival , and its center is deeply traditional as like the circle dance in the meadow . Heart the wild .


----------



## eugeneonagain

^ When does the new book come out?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woo is pseudo-scientific BS. Think Deepok Chopra. I don't mind talking about stuff like "life spirit" and similar "spiritual" things in a metaphoric sense as long as we don't start trying to build systems of belief out of them.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't see why you don't see it. The OP is asking if Beato is right about PM "sucking." To discuss such a thing, one first has to define PM, which is a philosophical discussion to start with. Then, one has to discuss whatever aesthetic beliefs/paradigms one has, which is also philosophical, to argue why they feel that PM sucks or doesn't suck. I don't understand how you think you can discuss such things while avoiding philosophy, unless you just want to relate your personal feelings on the matter.


Perhaps the author of the OP can chime in as to whether he was expecting a philosophy-based answer to his question. From my point of view, the Beato video is entirely based on a musicological subject having to do with, as I read it, whether atonal modern composers (I didn't hear him specifically mention postmodern) have missed an opportunity to use tonality in new ways and he uses his own composition as an example. Again, I extrapolate from that that he is suggesting that much modern music 'sucks', using the OP's term, because atonal modern composers boxed themselves in a corner by leaving tonality totally behind. He talks about the devices composers can use, and presumably are not being taken advantage of, to create intensity and energy such as various rhythms (such as with with odd timing), low registers and harmonic intensity.

Given the above, I would think the question raised in the OP has more to do with the musicological question Beato raises which is whether modern/post modern music 'sucks' because composers totally threw tonality overboard when there were new ways to use it while still being original and inventive.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> But, yes, your disapproval/approval of said feelings are based on your feelings. What else are they based on? Just because you use emotionally charged examples, like the holocaust, doesn't change this fact. You should only "give up on creating, establishing, accepting, or rejecting certain moral/ethical statements or systems" if you don't care about what world you live in. Most of us care, so if we care then the ethical systems we create, accept, and reject affects what kind of world it is.


Moral understanding is based on both feelings and facts. It's both an expression of our psychological nature (we have an aversion to murder) and a practical necessity for living (society can't function if people go around murdering each other). The two tend to lead to similar courses of action. The "objectivists" and "subjectivists, who both deny that truth can have any basis in feeling and thus claim, respectively, that morality is purely instrumental or entirely arbitrary, are both living in a fractured reality - or talking as if they do (here's betting they don't live as if they do).

Your clinging to the idea that there's value in "creating, establishing, accepting, or rejecting certain moral/ethical statements or systems" is in contradiction to your subjectivist views. What force does any moral assertion have if no one believes it represents anything but someone's "feeling"?


----------



## eugeneonagain

I'm giving my OP opinion: DaveM is correct in a very specific reading of the video. So really the 'problem' to my mind is musicological if we are sticking to the narrow confines of the video. In general though the complaints about postmodernism from a non-philosophical view tend to align with a generalised dislike of things that break with a certain tradition, rather than being a critique of postmodern ideas (which are not all interrelated into one big thing called 'postmodernism).

I think a discussion of what postmodern 'means' is worthwhile for throwing light on trends of thought, and how that might relate to the topic. What doesn't much interest me is the vague use of postmodernism as a general pejorative for 'I think this has no melody', 'I think this is atonal', 'I think this point-of-view undermines traditional ethics/religion or my particular world-view and is thus the road to hell'.

Postmodern thought represents the kind of world we live in now - a lot of that thought is sociological rather than strictly philosophical.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> I think a discussion of what postmodern 'means' is worthwhile for throwing light on trends of thought, and how that might relate to the topic. What doesn't much interest me is the vague use of postmodernism as a general pejorative for 'I think this has no melody', 'I think this is atonal', 'I think this point-of-view undermines traditional ethics/religion or my particular world-view and is thus the road to hell'. Postmodern thought represents the kind of world we live in now - a lot of that thought is sociological rather than strictly philosophical.


Appreciate the clarification. When I it comes to music I don't know what postmodern means as opposed to modern. The wiki defines it as '_Postmodern music is either simply music of the postmodern era, or music that follows aesthetical and philosophical trends of postmodernism_.' That's awfully vague. Is there a composer who defines their music as postmodern vs. modern?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Perhaps the author of the OP can chime in as to whether he was expecting a philosophy-based answer to his question. From my point of view, the Beato video is entirely based on a musicological subject having to do with, as I read it, whether atonal modern composers (I didn't hear him specifically mention postmodern) have missed an opportunity to use tonality in new ways and he uses his own composition as an example. Again, I extrapolate from that that he is suggesting that much modern music 'sucks', using the OP's term, because atonal modern composers boxed themselves in a corner by leaving tonality totally behind. He talks about the devices composers can use, and presumably are not being taken advantage of, to create intensity and energy such as various rhythms (such as with with odd timing), low registers and harmonic intensity.
> 
> Given the above, I would think the question raised in the OP has more to do with the musicological question Beato raises which is whether modern/post modern music 'sucks' because composers totally threw tonality overboard when there were new ways to use it while still being original and inventive.


I wasn't referring so much as to what the OP expected, but rather what kind of discussion would naturally be engendered by the thread title. Speaking of which, did Beato change the title of his video? I could've sworn the OP's title was also originally the name of that Beato vid, but now the Beato vid is titled "Tonal and Modal harmonic concepts," yet if you read the comments of the vid most people are discussing PM as well. I don't think they would've been doing that with that title. Perhaps Beato realized he was wrong and changed the title himself? Or am I just imagining things?

Anyway, if the OP just wanted to discuss the musicological aspects, perhaps a different title would've been better for that purpose.


----------



## DaveM

Tikoo Tuba said:


> I will speak well of the* woo *. Literally , it is Life Spirit ...


Given the forum we're in, I think of the woo as a Work without Opus.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Or am I just imagining things?


Worthy of consideration.



> Anyway, if the OP just wanted to discuss the musicological aspects, perhaps a different title would've been better for that purpose.


Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that one could assume that the discussion should be purely philosophical to the point where you responded to my post with: _'I don't see why you don't see it.'_


----------



## eugeneonagain

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I wasn't referring so much as to what the OP expected, but rather what kind of discussion would naturally be engendered by the thread title.


I did address that. To my mind exploring postmodernism in general is bound to arise, but I hoped to avoid both those who just go 'postmodernism...bah humbug!' and the long and winding rehashes of known, elementary philosophical ideas that aren't particularly necessary for discussing the impact of postmodernism.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Speaking of which, did Beato change the title of his video? I could've sworn the OP's title was also originally the name of that Beato vid, but now the Beato vid is titled "Tonal and Modal harmonic concepts," yet if you read the comments of the vid most people are discussing PM as well. I don't think they would've been doing that with that title. Perhaps Beato realized he was wrong and changed the title himself? Or am I just imagining things?


He certainly did change it, you are not imagining it. As a British English speaker I would never deliberately choose the word 'sucks' with that particular meaning.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Moral understanding is based on both feelings and facts. It's both an expression of our psychological nature (we have an aversion to murder) and a practical necessity for living (society can't function if people go around murdering each other). The two tend to lead to similar courses of action. The "objectivists" and "subjectivists, who both deny that truth can have any basis in feeling and thus claim, respectively, that morality is purely instrumental or entirely arbitrary, are both living in a fractured reality - or talking as if they do (here's betting they don't live as if they do).
> 
> Your clinging to the idea that there's value in "creating, establishing, accepting, or rejecting certain moral/ethical statements or systems" is in contradiction to your subjectivist views. What force does any moral assertion have if no one believes it represents anything but someone's "feeling"?


Name an objective fact which "moral understanding" is fundamentally based on, and by this I don't mean a fact that explains why we feel what we do (as in, "evolution programmed us to care about survival"). Objective truth can't have a basis in subjective feelings (the reason why should be obvious); but I don't believe that morality is arbitrary any more than I believe our feelings and "psychological nature" are arbitrary.

It's not contrary to my subjectivist views at all. If value is subjective, and one values living in certain kinds of worlds than others (and everyone does), then there's value in "creating, etc. moral/ethical statements/systems" because doing so will affect the world we live in.

The force of moral assertions is found in many places, including the ability to influence what others think, thus how they act, and in the power that the morals of the majority wields over everyone.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that one could assume that the discussion should be purely philosophical to the point where you responded to my post with: _'I don't see why you don't see it.'_


I wouldn't say the discussion should be _purely_ philosophical, but it does seem rather obvious to me why, given the title, such philosophical discussions would likely be broached.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eugeneonagain said:


> I did address that. To my mind exploring postmodernism in general is bound to arise, but I hoped to avoid both those who just go 'postmodernism...bah humbug!' and the long and winding rehashes of known, elementary philosophical ideas that aren't particularly necessary for discussing the impact of postmodernism.


Fair enough. I guess part of the problem is that not many here are musicologically sophisticated enough (and I include myself in that) to go into much depth with what Beato's talking about; but we're all capable of giving our opinions on the relevant philosophy, even if it's just of the armchair variety.



eugeneonagain said:


> He certainly did change it, you are not imagining it. As a British English speaker I would never deliberately choose the word 'sucks' with that particular meaning.


Thank you! Good to know I'm not going crazy.


----------



## Haydn70

Lisztian said:


> I like his channel in general and have watched quite a few of his videos, but* I've never gotten the impression that he knows much about modern classical music*. This video has just strengthened that view of mine.


I agree. In fact I don't think he knows much about classical music from *any era*. His video about Bach 



is awful and just displays his ignorance. Beato thinks composing music is all about chord progressions...typical pop musician approach.

He should stick with jazz and pop music. He can't be taken seriously as a classical musician...because he isn't.


----------



## Haydn70

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Fair enough. I guess part of the problem is that not many here are musicologically sophisticated enough (and I include myself in that) to go into much depth with *what Beato's talking about*; but we're all capable of giving our opinions on the relevant philosophy, even if it's just of the armchair variety.
> 
> Thank you! Good to know I'm not going crazy.


What is he talking about is his usual blather about scales, chords and chord progressions using pop/jazz nomenclature. And his piano piece is certainly flashy...and that is about all...it is poorly constructed to say the least. But of course musicians of his ilk care little, if anything, about form.


----------



## Larkenfield

Here's a critical commentary on Rick Beato's video that started out this thread. Beato's original title was changed to something more positive and descriptive and excluded the words "postmodernism... (sucks)". I think a lot more could be said about Beato's point of view and this commentator's point of view where they're both right from their own frame of reference, and from a strictly musical point of view, I think it really shows the choices that are available for today's composers. But in general, I do not consider 'music as philosophy'. I think it's beyond philosophy because of its ineffable and spiritual nature.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/ae2kkh


----------



## Haydn70

Beato complains that no contemporary classical music composers are using tonality...is that so?






No surprise Beato doesn't know about him...along with the hundreds (thousands) of other composers using tonality today.

What a clown.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Haydn70 said:


> No surprise Beato doesn't know about him...along with the hundreds (thousands) of other composers using tonality today.
> 
> What a clown.


OK, we may all have various complaints about Beato, but just because the guy doesn't know certain composers and doesn't analyze music in the way you think is suitable for classical music doesn't make him a clown. It's as ridiculous to generalize about him because of these flaws as it was for Beato to generalize about PM and contemporary classical music. The guy stepped outside his comfort zone and was dutifully flogged by people who knew better, and he changed his video title to better reflect what his real concern was (though another video admitting his mistake would've been better).


----------



## DaveM

Haydn70 said:


> Beato complains that no contemporary classical music composers are using tonality...is that so?


In all fairness to Beato, I don't think he said 'no contemporary classical music composers' as in absolutely none. I don't think he's that ignorant.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Haydn70 said:


> What is he talking about is his usual blather about scales, chords and chord progressions using pop/jazz nomenclature. And his piano piece is certainly flashy...and that is about all...it is poorly constructed to say the least. But of course musicians of his ilk care little, if anything, about form.


That's a point-of-view, but you are wrong. I don't know how many videos of his you've watched, but he definitely has a normal trained musician's consideration of form. He talks a lot about jazz, because that is his main interest, but he is also familiar with classical music. I will repeat that he was a double bass player before studying guitar.

His musical theory approach is not inapplicable to classical music. When I studied there was also a good deal of concern with scales and chords.


----------



## Haydn70

eugeneonagain said:


> That's a point-of-view, but you are wrong. I don't know how many videos of his you've watched, but he definitely has a normal trained musician's consideration of form. He talks a lot about jazz, because that is his main interest, but he is also familiar with classical music. I will repeat that he was a double bass player before studying guitar.
> 
> His musical theory approach is not inapplicable to classical music. *When I studied there was also a good deal of concern with scales and chords*.


And, as usual, you are wrong...tired of that eugene?

I have watched quite a few of his videos and knowledge of classical music and form does not impress at all.

In all the course work I took in obtaining my BM/MA/PhD (all in composition) there was NOT a lot concern with scales and chords.

He was a double bass player? Big deal.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> *Objective truth can't have a basis in subjective feelings (the reason why should be obvious)*; but I don't believe that morality is arbitrary any more than I believe our feelings and "psychological nature" are arbitrary.
> 
> It's not contrary to my subjectivist views at all. If value is subjective, and one values living in certain kinds of worlds than others (and everyone does), then there's value in "creating, etc. moral/ethical statements/systems" because doing so will affect the world we live in.
> 
> *The force of moral assertions is found in many places, including the ability to influence what others think, thus how they act, and in the power that the morals of the majority wields over everyone.*


The force of moral principles is found primarily in the degree to which they are true to human nature and human needs. It's that, and not "power" and "influence," that makes them persuasive and accounts for the high degree of agreement about them across cultures and through the ages. The same can be said of aesthetic principles.

It's unfortunate that there are truths which can't be be proved by the empirical methods of science, and doubly unfortunate that one of those truths is that there are truths that can't be proved by the empirical methods of science! Ethical and aesthetic truths - provinces of what, for want of a better term, has been called the spirit or soul (with no supernatural dimension necessarily implied) - can't be seen, tasted, or smelled, and don't show up under the microscope. Still, they insist and persist, arouse the strongest passions, and engender the highest ideals. I know, without a doubt, that it would be morally wrong for me to break into my neighbor's home and steal his computer. I also know, without a doubt, that _Aida_ is an aesthetically superior opera to _Stiffelio._ Can I prove either of those assertions "objectively"? No. Are they untrue because I can't? No. Not at all.

By dividing all of reality into the objective and the subjective - facts "out there" versus feelings "in here" - you refuse the possibility of categories of feelings which entail facts. Actually, "objective fact" is a misnomer; facts are not what is out there. All that's out there are things. Facts are what we infer, "in here," about reality, including the reality that's "in here." The latter is a reality that we can talk about but never actually communicate, much less prove "objectively," to anyone else. Aesthetic and moral experience and judgment are consummated "in here," but that need not mean that the artistic and moral truths we infer have no status as facts. The choice to deny them that status - the choice of a view of reality that accepts only the empirically demonstrable as true - is just that: a choice.

I cannot make that choice. There are moral and aesthetic truths which are as clear and firm to me as the objects in my vision - and ultimately more so. I'm getting old, after all, and my eyesight isn't what it used to be.


----------



## Larkenfield

Eva Yojimbo said:


> OK, we may all have various complaints about Beato, but just because the guy doesn't know certain composers and doesn't analyze music in the way you think is suitable for classical music doesn't make him a clown. It's as ridiculous to generalize about him because of these flaws as it was for Beato to generalize about PM and contemporary classical music. The guy stepped outside his comfort zone and was dutifully flogged by people who knew better, and he changed his video title to better reflect what his real concern was (though another video admitting his mistake would've been better).


Bravo in your maturity and understanding. I've never heard of Eric Whitacre until today and I doubt that many others have either, so he's hardly a household name; he's almost 50 years old and is writing music that is very much in keeping with what Beato is suggesting in the way of modern harmony. Beato never said there weren't composers out there doing what he's talking about; his comments were directed toward the advice given by some contemporary classical composers who do not recommend that their students study advanced music theory and tonality. He's simply pointing out with an advanced example of his own the possibilities that exist for composers they may not have yet explored, including someone like Eric Whitacre.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Woo is pseudo-scientific BS. Think Deepok Chopra. I don't mind talking about stuff like "life spirit" and similar "spiritual" things in a metaphoric sense as long as we don't start trying to build systems of belief out of them.


Your woo is not the woo I have held , and I may make a kind song for it . Perhaps you could apologize for abusing an honorable word . As for spirit , it's ok for it to equal intelligence or consciousness if these are not exclusively human-centric .

As for essence - I think of this relating to transformational and referring mostly to that part of identity that is unchanging ; the root . Commonly ... magical . The essence of essence is a funny idea . The music of that would be a wonder joke . Also , I suppose it would be of complete surprise . Mmm , it is mastery of the fermata .


----------



## eugeneonagain

I don't say this often - but please just shut up. Your trivial sophistries are giving me a headache.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Haydn70 said:


> And, as usual, you are wrong...tired of that eugene?


Not as tired as I am of your attitude problem.



Haydn70 said:


> I have watched quite a few of his videos and knowledge of classical music and form does not impress at all.
> 
> In all the course work I took in obtaining my BM/MA/PhD (all in composition) there was NOT a lot concern with scales and chords.
> 
> He was a double bass player? Big deal.


BM/MA/PhD... Big deal. What am I supposed to do? Step back and say: 'sorry sir, you're a real expert, I'll defer'. In studying composition the theory is already under the belt, but it is constantly addressed. I know this because I've done it (I attended a music-centred day school) where we wrote out boring chorales and model fugues; we talked about scales and the progression and building of chords. If you didn't do any of that in among the other stuff, you were gypped.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> The force of moral assertions is found primarily in the degree to which they are true to human nature and human needs.
> 
> It's unfortunate that there are truths which can't be be proved by the empirical methods of science, and doubly unfortunate that one of those truths is that there are truths that can't be proved by the empirical methods of science! Ethical and aesthetic truths - provinces of what, for want of a better term, has been called the spirit or soul (with no supernatural dimension necessarily implied) - can't be seen, tasted, or smelled, and don't show up under the microscope. Still, they insist and persist, arouse the strongest passions, and engender the highest ideals. I know, without a doubt, that it would be morally wrong for me to break into my neighbor's home and steal his computer. I also know, without a doubt, that _Aida_ is an aesthetically superior opera to _Stiffelio._ Can I prove either of those assertions "objectively"? No. Are they untrue because I can't? No. Not at all.
> 
> By dividing all of reality into the objective and the subjective - facts "out there" versus feelings "in here" - you refuse the possibility of categories of feelings which entail facts. Actually, "objective fact" is a misnomer; facts are not what is out there. All that's out there are things. Facts are what we infer, "in here," about reality, including the reality that's "in here." The latter is a reality that we can talk about but never actually communicate, much less prove "objectively," to anyone else. Aesthetic and moral experience and judgment are consummated "in here," but that need not mean that the artistic and moral truths we infer have no status as facts. The choice to deny them that status - the choice of a view of reality that accepts only the empirically demonstrable as true - is just that: a choice.
> 
> I cannot make that choice. There are moral and aesthetic truths which are as clear and firm to me as the objects in my vision - and ultimately more so. I'm getting old, after all, and my eyesight isn't what it used to be.


Being "true to human nature and human needs" is just a way of saying "being true relative to what humans think/feel." You're basically describing moral relativism/subjectivism with that statement.

I'm very much not impressed with claims of knowing what you can't prove, or even claims that there are truths that can't be proved, followed by appeals to strong and passionate feelings. I have no doubt that Nazis and Islamic terrorists felt/feel as passionately about their ethics as well. Such things aren't untrue because they're unprovable, their unprovable because they can't be (objectively) true.

When we speak of "objective facts" we're (or, at least, I'm) talking about statements of phenomenal reality. Yes, phenomenal reality happens because of how "in here" filters what's "out there" via our senses and mind; the point is that there are some aspects of that experience, that we call "objective," that do not change based on how we feel and think. I've never been talking about Kant's "ding an sich" reality, just "objective" reality of the phenomenal variety.

Facts about what's "in here" can only be true relative what's "in here." If I feel a certain way about something, that is only a fact in the sense that it's true that I feel that way. It's not true or factual in any other way. It's the same way that any fact about a tree must only be true relative to that/those tree(s). You can't look at a wall to discover a fact about tree, any more than you can look at anything out there to determine whether what you feel is "true."

All of this boils down to one question, Woodduck: how can feelings or values, things that exist only "in here," be true in any sense other than as facts about what you (or even all people) think and feel? I'm not even talking about the ability to prove any given value or feeling, I mean, just conceptually, how could it be so?


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> All of this boils down to one question, Woodduck: how can feelings or values, things that exist only "in here," be true in any sense other than as facts about what you (or even all people) think and feel? I'm not even talking about the ability to prove any given value or feeling, I mean, just conceptually, how could it be so?


I'm sorry that I'm so poor at explaining things. I try until I'm worn out, but it seems to do no good. Just once more, in a nutshell...

That it is morally wrong to rape someone, is knowable. That one symphony is inspired and profound and another is hackneyed dishwater, is also knowable. I can't prove either of these things to you; I could go to the trouble of mounting extensive arguments as to why they're so, but ultimately you would have to intuit their truth, and you could - and obviously would - go on saying that it's all just "feelings." Well, suit yourself.

No, we can't "see" morality or profundity as things in the "objective" world, or "prove" moral and aesthetic statements syllogistically. Yet it's possible for unprovable things to be known. I cannot conceive how a living human being, as opposed to an android, can have missed this basic fact of human life. But then some people do justify everything on grounds of "I just feel like it" or "I think I can get away with it." Sounds like our president, the preeminent exemplar of the moral life.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> That it is morally wrong to rape someone, is knowable.


It's hardly necessary to point out that many people "know" a lot of things. Historically, almost all of what people have "known" has turned out to be quite wrong.

However those people, just like ourselves, were absolutely convinced that what they "knew" was objective truth.

Good thing we've got it all straight now, though. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> It's hardly necessary to point out that many people "know" a lot of things. Historically, almost all of what people have "known" has turned out to be quite wrong.
> 
> However those people, just like ourselves, were absolutely convinced that what they "knew" was objective truth.
> 
> Good thing we've got it all straight now, though. :lol:


The claim that most of what people think they know is wrong is one I doubt you can support. If knowledge is as unattainable as you're implying, what makes you think you know that?

Besides, this isn't about all the things that people think they know.


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm giving my OP opinion: DaveM is correct in a very specific reading of the video. So really the 'problem' to my mind is musicological if we are sticking to the narrow confines of the video. In general though the complaints about postmodernism from a non-philosophical view tend to align with a generalised dislike of things that break with a certain tradition, rather than being a critique of postmodern ideas (which are not all interrelated into one big thing called 'postmodernism).
> 
> I think a discussion of what postmodern 'means' is worthwhile for throwing light on trends of thought, and how that might relate to the topic. What doesn't much interest me is the vague use of postmodernism as a general pejorative for 'I think this has no melody', 'I think this is atonal', 'I think this point-of-view undermines traditional ethics/religion or my particular world-view and is thus the road to hell'.
> 
> Postmodern thought represents the kind of world we live in now - a lot of that thought is sociological rather than strictly philosophical.


There you go. 299 posts in, and I think you've answered your own question very well. I especially like your final statement, and especially as it applies to art and aesthetics. In any era, art is a sociological phenomenon as much as anything. This is why I keep bringing up David Hume. He understood what I'd think should be obvious to us all today, but wasn't so obvious in previous centuries -- our aesthetic tastes are always the product of our environment, our culture, our education and other external factors as well as our internal instincts, emotions and intellect or reasoning ability. People have a "generalized dislike of things that break with a certain tradition" for the most part because their ears and minds have been ingrained with that tradition, and they are either unwilling or unable to readjust or retrain their ears and minds to accept things that break with it. Even the pro musician in the video approaches things like scales and harmony from a particular vantage point that is far from inevitable. If anything, his obviously considerable training entrenches him more firmly within certain traditions.

So if you want to examine aesthetic issues, such as, what is postmodern art, or what is any kind of art, why does it exist and what does it mean, you have to consider it at least in part from a sociological point of view. No rigorous principles of logic or reason will suffice.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> The claim that most of what people think they know is wrong is one I doubt you can support. If knowledge is as unattainable as you're implying, what makes you think you know that?
> 
> Besides, this isn't about all the things that people think they know.


People who know, know BDO. Or so I'm told.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> People who know, know BDO. Or so I'm told.


Banco de Oro? ............


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> The claim that most of what people think they know is wrong is one I doubt you can support.


What did people "know" was true in 1500? How much of that is part of our current belief system?

Closer to home, what did physicists "know" was true in 1900? Same question applies. At least scientists realize that, at some level, their work builds a series of successive approximations.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Banco de Oro? ............


Nope: 
https://www.bdo.com


----------



## Woodduck

.............................


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> What did people "know" was true in 1500? How much of that is part of our current belief system?
> 
> Closer to home, what did physicists "know" was true in 1900? Same question applies. At least scientists realize that, at some level, their work builds a series of successive approximations.


Scientific knowledge wasn't the subject under discussion. But as far as that goes, knowledge of the physical world and how it works is not easy to obtain and involves an ongoing process of discovering and theorizing. Scientists know that. Other people don't much care.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Scientific knowledge wasn't the subject under discussion. But as far as that goes, knowledge of the physical world and how it works is not easy to obtain and involves an ongoing process of discovering and theorizing. Scientists know that. Other people don't much care.


Well, you have not addressed my first example. Let me put it more starkly. I'm sure you know of "honor killing", defined as "the traditional practice in some countries of killing a family member who is believed to have brought shame on the family." (Merriam-Webster)

In some parts of the world, it is "known" that such killings (usually of females) are quite justified and even required to maintain family honor. In the West the practice is generally met with revulsion. But can we know that we are right and they are wrong? How precisely do we know this?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't say this often - but please just shut up. Your trivial sophistries are giving me a headache.


Eat more drugs . The fermata will pass unexceptionally passé .


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Well, you have not addressed my first example. Let me put it more starkly. I'm sure you know of "honor killing", defined as "the traditional practice in some countries of killing a family member who is believed to have brought shame on the family." (Merriam-Webster)
> 
> In some parts of the world, it is "known" that such killings (usually of females) are quite justified and even required to maintain family honor. In the West the practice is generally met with revulsion. But can we know that we are right and they are wrong? How precisely do we know this?


Yes, there are cultures in which the hierarchy of values is different and leads to actions which, outside of those value systems, would be considered revolting and reprehensible. Even cultures that permit honor killing are likely to be repulsed by the idea of people murdering their neighbors. Moreover, "honor" is still a moral value which is understood, but expressed in more benign forms, in cultures which have evolved beyond crude collectivist notions of identity.

More to the point is the question of why, in most cultures and in most religious and philosophical systems, there has been such general agreement in considering certain acts wrong, and why, as cultures evolve, they tend to approach closer to universal acceptance of these moral codes and ideals, even while the codes and ideals themselves evolve.

Pointing to an example of culturally approved killing as indicating the arbitrariness of morality is perhaps a bit like pointing to Schoenberg's atonal serialism as proof that perceiving and favoring tonal hierarchy is not a natural tendency of the human mind when it invents music. Of course there are people right here who will propose that it isn't (or have they all fled to escape the hostile armies of reactionaries?).

As for "how" we know that murdering our neighbor is wrong, a number of factors both personal and social make it clear. To murder we have to override empathy for the sufferings of others (which for many, including me, is the primary basis of moral choice - the main reason for having such a thing as morality). We have to override our own guilt and fear surrounding the act. We have to be willing to live with the prospect of punishment. We have to ignore the obvious fact that societal approval of murder would make society more difficult to maintain and could put ourselves potentially at risk for murder, against which there would be no laws. We have to evade the sense that to approve murder is to cheapen the meaning and value of the one thing which makes other values - including moral values - possible: life. Committing murder is likely to have deleterious effects on our psychological well-being and character, blunting our moral sensibilities and leading to further moral degradation.

For all these reasons, and probably others, approval of murder is a massive denial and undermining of things that make life - our own lives and life in the world - possible and good. Thus, for a conscientious and psychologically mature person, reason and emotion conspire to form the conviction that murder is morally wrong. If it isn't, then "right" and "wrong" are empty concepts. Perhaps for some here they are.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...For all these reasons, and probably others, approval of murder is a massive denial and undermining of things that make life - our own lives and life in the world - possible and good. Thus, for a conscientious and psychologically mature person, reason and emotion conspire to form the conviction that murder is morally wrong. If it isn't, then "right" and "wrong" are empty concepts. Perhaps for some here they are.


And yet, our society (and yours) continues to commit murder on a large scale throughout the world, and I hear no outrage expressed. Yes, the countries are far away, so maybe this is hard to notice!

On a different track, I need to note that ancient historians (Herodotus, Thucydides, Sima Qian and so forth) were generally content to record customs and practices they encountered without feeling the need to pass moralistic judgment on them. That is an approach we might well consider emulating in our current environment, which reminds me of nothing so much as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution where indignant outrage seemed to be the preferred reaction to...whatever.


----------



## tdc

Sorry it is hard for me to keep up with threads like this, just some comments on what I've read so far. Eva Yojimbo believes in moral relativism, yet is concerned that believing in objective morality can lead to terrorism. This is how backwards people have been taught to think - it is laughable, but really mostly cryable. Right is wrong, up is down, white is black. Science, woo.

I will say this our masters are highly intelligent, but they lack empathy and morals. But they are brilliant. Smarter than I am for sure. That is why most people will believe them and not me. But the intellect is not everything. Sociopaths are highly intelligent and charismatic, I think the science agrees with me here. Just try and think about this please.



KenOC said:


> When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, doubtless whole schools full of kids were destroyed (which was true as well, of course, in prior non-nuclear strikes). But far more children would have died in the planned invasion, the largest amphibian operation in history, where Kyūshū schoolchildren were being armed with knives and even sharp sticks and told to stab an invader, if they could. Casualty estimates for both sides were rising with every new estimate; one late study predicted between five and ten million Japanese fatalities.
> 
> So was blowing up all those kids ethical, if it avoided this outcome as intended?


The lesson should be that the war was wrong from the start. The entire war was morally wrong. Blowing up kids was morally wrong. The war would not have started if the German population was not duped by miseducation and propaganda. That is the important lesson. Bankers funded both sides.

What have we learned from that? Apparently not much. Most people today have also been duped by miseducation and propaganda into believing in moral relativism, and more lies to get us into wars. Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11. The same lies, by these psychos who need wars to keep power.



KenOC said:


> And yet, our society (and yours) continues to commit murder on a large scale throughout the world, and I hear no outrage expressed. Yes, the countries are far away, so maybe this is hard to notice!


A lot of people are outraged. I am outraged. But you don't hear much about it because a handful of corporations own about 96% of the media. Oh yes, they own your schools too. That is why so many people believe the garbage they do.



KenOC said:


> On a different track, I need to note that ancient historians (Herodotus, Thucydides, Sima Qian and so forth) were generally content to record customs and practices they encountered without feeling the need to pass moralistic judgment on them. That is an approach we might well consider emulating in our current environment, which reminds me of nothing so much as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.


In ancient Greece, rape was acceptable. Grown men would rape little boys, this was a rite of passage. They also found it perfectly acceptable to dump unwanted babies on garbage piles to be left to die, just a cultural norm. So I'm not sure that culture had its morals aligned. Actually I suspect that the problems in ancient Greece and Rome are connected to the ones we face today. It is quite possible these same bloodlines are still going strong and I don't think their beliefs have changed much regarding rape. Just look into NAMBLA. Rape and torture kids enough and they become morally corrupted enough to be the perfect political leaders. I told you the truth is hard to stomach. It is more comfortable for most to stay asleep, don't worry about your conscience, just believe your television. Take your anti-depressants, have some McDonalds, American Idol. That is a good slave.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Oh , so musical . *woo*


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> ..In ancient Greece, rape was acceptable. Grown men would rape little boys, this was a rite of passage. They also found it perfectly acceptable to dump unwanted babies on garbage piles to be left to die, just a cultural norm. So I'm not sure that culture had its morals aligned.


"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!" Capt. Renault in Casablanca... What do we have besides your outraged morality to support your own moral view?


----------



## Roy Fuller

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Well, you've started out badly. That's not what a concept is. I have a concept of an electron and that's not an "integration of two or more units."
> 
> However, let's ignore the definition of concept--already a thorny philosophical issue--and just focus on the notion of concepts of things that are integrations of multiple "units." Yes, something like a "chair" is, objectively, just a lot of interconnected particles in configuration space. There is no objective essence of a chair, but rather the concept is based on a combination of some mind-only things (like purpose) and some objective qualities (the interconnectedness of those particles). Language is mostly about the most effective way of carving reality along its natural joints to speak of things that are meaningfully (to us) alike. It's not a search for essences, it's a search for qualities that we want to give a name to. Science is better at being more precise about this than most disciplines.
> 
> So we agree there's no Aristotlean essences; what does this have to do with Rand and aesthetics?


I'm glad you finally revealed your Kantian side. I was hoping that there was some modicum of reason remaining, but clearly that is not the case. I said much earlier in this thread that I did not want to debate what was essentially a discussion of how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. What you are saying is tin foil hat stuff, very sophisticated tin foil hat stuff, but tin foil hat nevertheless. In order to have any kind of productive discussion we have to stand together in reality and have a common goal of finding the truth. I could ask you if there was such a thing as reality, but I am now pretty sure I would get a Kantian reply such as yes there is reality but we have no way of accessing it. Or I would hear from you something about 'carving reality along its natural joints,' all the while hearing about your firm conviction that I do not know what a concept is while you fail to provide a proper definition of your own and talk about your concept of an electron. As I said earlier, mental masterbxxxx. If a religious fanatic came to me and said that my love of Brahms was a sin because God told him so, I would be wise to have nothing to do with him. Well this is my problem with you. Sorry. Good luck with whatever you're thinking.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> That it is morally wrong to rape someone, is knowable.


I agree that it is morally wrong.

But in saying so, I am still asserting something which, as you say, is "unprovable" in the sense that unless one goes down the road of appealing to a higher authority, "right" and "wrong" are mere assertions by one or more humans, none of whom has the right to assert (dictate) universally. Instead, what we have established over millennia is a custom and practice model which most of us subscribe to for our collective convenience (benefit). Of course, there are times when the collective defines itself locally rather than universally, thus leading to self-justification of acts other collectives believe to be immoral.



tdc said:


> Eva Yojimbo believes in moral relativism, yet is concerned that believing in objective morality can lead to terrorism. This is how backwards people have been taught to think - it is laughable, but really mostly cryable. Right is wrong, up is down, white is black. Science, woo.


Belief in moral relativism should not be confused with belief that one is justified in acting amorally.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

What is justification ? It seems to be an unreal invention , a posture of indeterminate dominance . Maybe the poser gets lucky . Best of luck to 21st century music baby smiling .


----------



## eugeneonagain

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Eat more drugs . The fermata will pass unexceptionally passé .


I don't 'eat' any drugs to start with. Whether you do is your own affair, though it would explain a lot about the drivel you post.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

To remedy your headache (which I will not) seek the help of an Axiologist .


----------



## DaveM

Tikoo Tuba said:


> To remedy your headache (which I will not) seek the help of an Axiologist .


No, they are more likely to give you a headache.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

An Ontologist then ?


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Banco de Oro? ............


They used to be known as BDO Seidman, or if you go back far enough, Seidman and Seidman.


----------



## eugeneonagain

fluteman said:


> They used to be known as BDO Seidman, or if you go back far enough, Seidman and Seidman.


No main man, just side-men.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Roy Fuller said:


> I'm glad you finally revealed your Kantian side. I was hoping that there was some modicum of reason remaining, but clearly that is not the case. I said much earlier in this thread that I did not want to debate what was essentially a discussion of how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. What you are saying is tin foil hat stuff, very sophisticated tin foil hat stuff, but tin foil hat nevertheless. In order to have any kind of productive discussion we have to stand together in reality and have a common goal of finding the truth. I could ask you if there was such a thing as reality, but I am now pretty sure I would get a Kantian reply such as yes there is reality but we have no way of accessing it. Or I would hear from you something about 'carving reality along its natural joints,' all the while hearing about your firm conviction that I do not know what a concept is while you fail to provide a proper definition of your own and talk about your concept of an electron. As I said earlier, mental masterbxxxx. If a religious fanatic came to me and said that my love of Brahms was a sin because God told him so, I would be wise to have nothing to do with him. Well this is my problem with you. Sorry. Good luck with whatever you're thinking.


Is this a joke? Nothing I said was Kantian. I have little truck with any idealists. I give Kant credit for trying to bridge the rationalism/empiricism divide, but I think he mostly failed in the attempt. You seem to enjoy avoiding discussion by tarring everyone who says anything you don't like with being "Kantian" and being "tin-foil hatters." No modicum of reasoning? I've studied the people who have mathematically formalized reasoning; what have you studied besides Rand?

Yes, I believe there's such a thing as reality. All Kant said was that reality is filtered through our senses, which is obviously true. He was wrong in most of the ways he thought the mind "invented" our experience of reality, though science has shown us plenty of ways in which it actually does. I can't provide a "proper definition" of concept because the term itself is controversial and there are at least three competing definitions of the term in philosophy. Now, that article makes no mention of Kant; you going to dismiss it too?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

tdc said:


> Sorry it is hard for me to keep up with threads like this, just some comments on what I've read so far. Eva Yojimbo believes in moral relativism, yet is concerned that believing in objective morality can lead to terrorism. This is how backwards people have been taught to think - it is laughable, but really mostly cryable. Right is wrong, up is down, white is black. Science, woo.


I'm not "concerned" that believing in objective morality can lead to terrorism, I state it as an obvious fact that terrorists have been those who believed in the objective morality (and righteousness) of what they were doing. You'll never find genocidal political leaders or terrorists espousing moral relativity. The notion of evil relativists (much like evil atheists) is an invention of Hollywood that doesn't square with reality.

Second, to say I was "taught" this isn't true. My parents were devout Christians who taught me morality via that faith. I came to moral relativism (and atheism) out of my own study of philosophy and rationality. Nobody taught it to me, as I doubt almost anyone is taught it. It's what happens when you follow rationality to its rigorous conclusion and don't blink in the face of uncomfortable truths.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I'm sorry that I'm so poor at explaining things. I try until I'm worn out, but it seems to do no good. Just once more, in a nutshell...
> 
> That it is morally wrong to rape someone, is knowable. That one symphony is inspired and profound and another is hackneyed dishwater, is also knowable. I can't prove either of these things to you; I could go to the trouble of mounting extensive arguments as to why they're so, but ultimately you would have to intuit their truth, and you could - and obviously would - go on saying that it's all just "feelings." Well, suit yourself.
> 
> No, we can't "see" morality or profundity as things in the "objective" world, or "prove" moral and aesthetic statements syllogistically. Yet it's possible for unprovable things to be known. I cannot conceive how a living human being, as opposed to an android, can have missed this basic fact of human life. But then some people do justify everything on grounds of "I just feel like it" or "I think I can get away with it." Sounds like our president, the preeminent exemplar of the moral life.


I know this is your position, but I wouldn't think any intellectually honest person would be satisfied with someone saying "I know it/it's knowable just because." The fact that anyone could use such an argument to claim they know anything, including things you yourself would believe strongly to be false, is good reason to reject any claims of knowing that rest on such an argument. One doesn't have to "intuit" truth if it can either be proved or rationally argued for. That's how I've come to understand a great many things (quantum mechanics, Bayesian probability, etc.) that are very counter-intuitive.

I aspire to be "android-like" in my distrust of human intuitions. I know far too much of rationality and cognitive science to trust what my brain intuitively conjures. This doesn't mean I don't have extremely strong moral intuitions and feelings just like everybody. I just don't delude myself into thinking they're true.



Woodduck said:


> As for "how" we know that murdering our neighbor is wrong, a number of factors both personal and social make it clear. To murder we have to *override empathy* for the sufferings of others (which for many, including me, is the primary basis of moral choice - the main reason for having such a thing as morality). We have to *override our own guilt and fear* surrounding the act. We have to *be willing to live with the prospect of punishment*. We have to ignore the obvious fact that societal approval of murder would make society more difficult to maintain and could put ourselves potentially at risk for murder, against which there would be no laws. We have to evade *the sense that to approve murder is to cheapen the meaning and value of the one thing which makes other values - including moral values - possible: life*. Committing murder is likely to have *deleterious effects on our psychological well-being and character*, blunting our moral sensibilities and leading to further moral degradation.


Did you fail to notice that each of your arguments against murder were based in subjective feelings? The only one that wasn't was the "societal approval of murder would make society more difficult to maintain," which, though a factual claim on its face, carries with it the implicit assumption and subjective feeling/value that society is something worth maintaining.* Of course, most all of us share these feelings, which is we agree that murder is wrong. But the sharing of said feelings doesn't make them "true." It would be entirely possible for someone to come along and feel none of these things, and that actually happens (sociopaths, psychopaths, etc). Of course, we can all feel nice, warm, and fuzzy because we're in the majority and thus get to purge such "wrong" people from society. Isn't being in the majority fun?

*I'd also add that while societies don't legalize murder, they do define murder so as to make certain forms of killing legal. Killing innocents in war isn't murder, it's "casualties of war;" state executions aren't murder, killing in self-defense isn't murder, etc. People have been rationalizing ways to "kill without murdering" others for centuries. It's a direct result of our "I just know it" tribalism.


----------



## Larkenfield

How many composers can dance on the head of a pin? 
How many philosophers are still guilty of sin?
What about Post-postmodernism? When will it begin? 
Or has it started already, asks Rumplestiltskin?
:angel:


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I know this is your position, but I wouldn't think any intellectually honest person would be satisfied with someone saying "I know it/it's knowable just because." The fact that anyone could use such an argument to claim they know anything, including things you yourself would believe strongly to be false, is good reason to reject any claims of knowing that rest on such an argument. One doesn't have to "intuit" truth if it can either be proved or rationally argued for. That's how I've come to understand a great many things (quantum mechanics, Bayesian probability, etc.) that are very counter-intuitive.
> 
> I aspire to be "android-like" in my distrust of human intuitions. I know far too much of rationality and cognitive science to trust what my brain intuitively conjures. This doesn't mean I don't have extremely strong moral intuitions and feelings just like everybody. I just don't delude myself into thinking they're true.
> 
> Did you fail to notice that each of your arguments against murder were based in subjective feelings? The only one that wasn't was the "societal approval of murder would make society more difficult to maintain," which, though a factual claim on its face, carries with it the implicit assumption and subjective feeling/value that society is something worth maintaining.* Of course, most all of us share these feelings, which is we agree that murder is wrong. But the sharing of said feelings doesn't make them "true." It would be entirely possible for someone to come along and feel none of these things, and that actually happens (sociopaths, psychopaths, etc). Of course, we can all feel nice, warm, and fuzzy because we're in the majority and thus get to purge such "wrong" people from society. Isn't being in the majority fun?
> 
> *I'd also add that while societies don't legalize murder, they do define murder so as to make certain forms of killing legal. Killing innocents in war isn't murder, it's "casualties of war;" state executions aren't murder, killing in self-defense isn't murder, etc. People have been rationalizing ways to "kill without murdering" others for centuries. It's a direct result of our "I just know it" tribalism.


Honest question: do you believe anything to be "true"?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> Honest question: do you believe anything to be "true"?


Yes. To quote Tarski: "the phrase 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white." Basically, truth is the correspondence between belief and reality, the map and the territory, and truth is tested the same way a map is; by predicting what we should observe when we go out there and look at things.

The problem is that mind-only subjective things--values, morals, aesthetics--don't have this correspondence. They're only part of our maps, they aren't found in reality, so truth values aren't possible. The only "truth" to say about such things is that certain people feel/think a certain way. All we can do with these things is to establish standards, similarly to how we establish the rules of a game, and then judge things relative to those standards. The game comparison is useful, because it illustrates that a phrase like "Queen to Rook 3 is objectively the best move" in a game of chess makes sense only in relation to the rules/goals of the game, but if you change those rules--which we could do--then the best move might be different. Morals, values, and aesthetics work the same way. Saying "murder is evil" only makes sense in relation to the values/morals we subjectively hold, and, just like the rules of any game, the latter things can't be "true" the way "snow is white" can be true.

I don't know why this is so difficult for people to grasp... I think there are several factors at play, most due to evolution. It was probably advantageous for us to think of values/morals etc. as being as "real/true" as the sun's existence. It makes social cohesion easier if people aren't questioning stuff all the time and doubting the truth of their instincts/intuitions/"gut" feelings; but it leads to as many problems as it solves, especially as we've moved away from living in small tribes to trying to get along on a global scale with 7 billion people and hundreds of different cultures. Hence (and to bring the thread back around) the anxieties of Modernism and Postmodernism.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I aspire to be "android-like" in my distrust of human intuitions. *I know far too much of rationality and cognitive science to trust what my brain intuitively conjures.* *This doesn't mean I don't have extremely strong moral intuitions and feelings just like everybody. I just don't delude myself into thinking they're true.
> *
> Of course, most all of us share these feelings, which is we agree that murder is wrong. But the sharing of said feelings doesn't make them "true." *It would be entirely possible for someone to come along and feel none of these things, and that actually happens (sociopaths, psychopaths, etc*). Of course, we can all feel nice, warm, and fuzzy because we're in the majority and thus get to purge such "wrong" people from society. *Isn't being in the majority fun?*


"I know far too much of rationality and cognitive science to trust what my brain intuitively conjures."

That is one of the saddest statements of cowardice and defeat I have ever read. And here I thought that one of the primary tasks of maturing was to refine and deepen my knowledge of precisely those things that can't be photographed, tabulated and computed - the things that most distinctively make me human and that make life more than a laboratory experiment - and learn to trust more and more "what my brain intuitively conjures." Little did I suspect that only knowing more cognitive science could save me from drowning in the swamp of illusion.

If you say that your "reason" tells you that in this universe only that which is provable by means appropriate to the physical sciences is knowable - that anything we claim to know which is not empirically and collectively testable can have no more truth value than anything any random person "feels" is true - that any "feeling" that contradicts our belief has an equal claim to truth, and that it's all just a contest of "feelings"... Well, I'm sure you're giving your honest opinion. If you say that you believe that only "objective" things outside our consciousness are knowable and that "subjective" reality is just a realm of spooks and shades which have no meaning, value or even reality beyond what any irrational fool or raving madman might project onto the blank screen of his mind, I trust that that's your honest opinion. And if you say that when you compare the B-minor Mass with a mass by Andrew LLoyd Webber you can't allow that the former is a more profound work of art than the latter because one person's notion of profundity may disagree with another's - as, say, Beethoven's notion may disagree with Justin Bieber's - I have no choice but to accept that you're saying exactly what you believe to be true.

In your reality, you cannot accept that some works of art are greater than others, because you think "greatness" is not real but is just something people invent to justify their taste or preference for something (something like, say, blueberry pancakes, a "great" breakfast), over something else (like, say, boiled onions on ice cream, not a "great" snack). Likewise, you cannot accept that some human beings are morally superior to others - that, say, Nelson Mandela is morally superior to Donald Trump - because morality is entirely a matter of a "subjective" preference for, say, heroism and public service over cowardice and graft, which "objectively" are all morally equal. Your criteria of truth necessitate the conclusion that no artistic or moral value judgment could carry any more weight than anyone else's, and that some people's efforts at creating beauty and improving life on earth cannot and should not be more admired or supported than other people's efforts to undermine standards of excellence, wreck the institutions of society, and destroy the ecosphere - because, "objectively" speaking, those things are merely preferred by some people who happen to "feel" that they are nicer.

Yes. "Being in the majority" - not being a sociopath or a psychopath - is "fun."

All I can say is: you live in your epistemological, aesthetic and ethical reality, and I'll live in mine.


----------



## janxharris

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes. To quote Tarski: "the phrase 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white." Basically, truth is the correspondence between belief and reality, the map and the territory, and truth is tested the same way a map is; by predicting what we should observe when we go out there and look at things.
> 
> The problem is that mind-only subjective things--values, morals, aesthetics--don't have this correspondence. They're only part of our maps, they aren't found in reality, so truth values aren't possible. The only "truth" to say about such things is that certain people feel/think a certain way. All we can do with these things is to establish standards, similarly to how we establish the rules of a game, and then judge things relative to those standards. The game comparison is useful, because it illustrates that a phrase like "Queen to Rook 3 is objectively the best move" in a game of chess makes sense only in relation to the rules/goals of the game, but if you change those rules--which we could do--then the best move might be different. Morals, values, and aesthetics work the same way. Saying "murder is evil" only makes sense in relation to the values/morals we subjectively hold, and, just like the rules of any game, the latter things can't be "true" the way "snow is white" can be true.
> 
> I don't know why this is so difficult for people to grasp... I think there are several factors at play, most due to evolution. It was probably advantageous for us to think of values/morals etc. as being as "real/true" as the sun's existence. It makes social cohesion easier if people aren't questioning stuff all the time and doubting the truth of their instincts/intuitions/"gut" feelings; but it leads to as many problems as it solves, especially as we've moved away from living in small tribes to trying to get along on a global scale with 7 billion people and hundreds of different cultures. Hence (and to bring the thread back around) the anxieties of Modernism and Postmodernism.


The _exact_ colour of any object is just as subjective as those ethical judgements you aver as subjective.


----------



## Mandryka

janxharris said:


> The _exact_ colour of any object


You mean the wavelength reflected?


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> Well, you have not addressed my first example. Let me put it more starkly. I'm sure you know of "honor killing", defined as "the traditional practice in some countries of killing a family member who is believed to have brought shame on the family." (Merriam-Webster)
> 
> In some parts of the world, it is "known" that such killings (usually of females) are quite justified and even required to maintain family honor. In the West the practice is generally met with revulsion. But can we know that we are right and they are wrong? How precisely do we know this?


Perhaps you could cite an example and then make a case for why such killing might be justified.

Some examples.


----------



## janxharris

Mandryka said:


> You mean the wavelength reflected?


You have a point there.


----------



## janxharris

Mandryka said:


> You mean the wavelength reflected?


Isn't it true that 'colour' is a construct of the mind?


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> In ancient Greece, rape was acceptable. Grown men would rape little boys, this was a rite of passage. They also found it perfectly acceptable to dump unwanted babies on garbage piles to be left to die, just a cultural norm.


Do you have citations?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> In your reality, you cannot accept that some works of art are greater than others, because you think "greatness" is not real but is just something people invent to justify their taste or preference for something (something like, say, blueberry pancakes, a "great" breakfast), over something else (like, say, boiled onions on ice cream, not a "great" snack).


Not randomly, as in the food examples (and that might not be so random anyway.) I'm also inclined to agree that "greatness" is not a fixed idea or anything other than a collective description of someone's preferences and of anyone agreeing with them. What could 'objectively great' mean? Large? Traditionally judged as being valuable? No contrary thoughts about it once the 'greatness' has been properly deduced?



Woodduck said:


> Likewise, you cannot accept that some human beings are morally superior to others - that, say, Nelson Mandela is morally superior to Donald Trump - because morality is entirely a matter of a "subjective" preference for, say, heroism and public service over cowardice and graft, which "objectively" are all morally equal. Your criteria of truth necessitate the conclusion that no artistic or moral value judgment could carry any more weight than anyone else's, and that some people's efforts at creating beauty and improving life on earth cannot and should not be more admired or supported than other people's efforts to undermine standards of excellence, wreck the institutions of society, and destroy the ecosphere - because, "objectively" speaking, those things are merely preferred by some people who happen to "feel" that they are nicer.


These are of course issues of moral scepticism or belief. The moral _wrongness _of murder is what? It is the codification of the general fact that we would prefer to inhabit a world where people are not killed-off willy-nilly because it would be an unpleasant and dangerous place to live. So it is deprecated and established as a social norm. The additional fact that killing people (from the point-of-view of someone who isn't suffering some personality defect which makes that less of a problem) 'feels' unpleasant probably because we imagine it happening to ourselves and people we love, is both the source of this rule and what maintains it. What it doesn't constitute is some sort of 'inner truth about right and wrong'; it is a social rule from a position of self-preservation extrapolated to society. For reasons of practical common sense if anything.

A hero and a coward are not always fixed. WWI soldiers shot for 'cowardice'? A 'hero' who saves the country's economy by means of what we would otherwise think of as rather nefarious means.This points not to 'subjective' constructions of moral values in the face of unstable ideas of objective moral value, but merely to the idea that moral ideas can be constructed and justified for social and political (and religious) means. Probably also for artistic means.


----------



## Mandryka

janxharris said:


> Isn't it true that 'colour' is a construct of the mind?


Distinguish the _appearance of the colour_ from the _colour _maybe.


----------



## janxharris

Mandryka said:


> Distinguish the _appearance of the colour_ from the _colour _maybe.


But wavelength - though objectively verifiable - isn't a colour in itself.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Perhaps you could cite an example and then make a case for why such killing might be justified.
> 
> Some examples.


In a society where a woman behaving in certain "unacceptable" ways brings huge costs to her family it may seem to make sense. And in countries where getting your daughters married off is an expensive burden that can become much more so if their reputations are "damaged". Of course, honour killing is obscene but it is almost a logical outcome of the social norms and rules of some societies.


----------



## Larkenfield

. . . - - - . . .


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes. To quote Tarski: "the phrase 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white." Basically, truth is the correspondence between belief and reality, the map and the territory, and truth is tested the same way a map is; by predicting what we should observe when we go out there and look at things.
> 
> The problem is that mind-only subjective things--values, morals, aesthetics--don't have this correspondence. They're only part of our maps, they aren't found in reality, so truth values aren't possible. The only "truth" to say about such things is that certain people feel/think a certain way. All we can do with these things is to establish standards, similarly to how we establish the rules of a game, and then judge things relative to those standards. The game comparison is useful, because it illustrates that a phrase like "Queen to Rook 3 is objectively the best move" in a game of chess makes sense only in relation to the rules/goals of the game, but if you change those rules--which we could do--then the best move might be different. Morals, values, and aesthetics work the same way. Saying "murder is evil" only makes sense in relation to the values/morals we subjectively hold, and, just like the rules of any game, the latter things can't be "true" the way "snow is white" can be true.
> 
> I don't know why this is so difficult for people to grasp... I think there are several factors at play, most due to evolution. It was probably advantageous for us to think of values/morals etc. as being as "real/true" as the sun's existence. It makes social cohesion easier if people aren't questioning stuff all the time and doubting the truth of their instincts/intuitions/"gut" feelings; but it leads to as many problems as it solves, especially as we've moved away from living in small tribes to trying to get along on a global scale with 7 billion people and hundreds of different cultures. Hence (and to bring the thread back around) the anxieties of Modernism and Postmodernism.


It's all very nice to say that truth is the correspondence between belief and reality but to do this you have to assume the existence of some sort of objective reality for the beliefs to have correspondence with. And as far as I can tell you don't know that reality exists any more than I do. You and I just assume it to be true because we know it to be so not because we can somehow verify this rationally.

Ultimately, to get anywhere in science, philosophy, or mathematics (maybe not in philosophy to a certain extent) you have to start making assumptions that you know to be true but can't prove. The entirety of any worldview is built on a huge edifice of assumed statements that the individual simply knows, in a sense, but can't be proven. To claim you can somehow circumnavigate this and build your worldview based only on things that are true, no apriori assumptions is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

My audio hallucinations are interesting , and a few have been musical and thus memorable . Those that are meaningless do not sound real - as in synthetic . A synthetic dog bark upon frequency analysis of its memory is obviously not true woo . I feel no need to protect the usefulness of the rational mind with a cleverly philosophical devised defense . Music does this .


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes. To quote Tarski: "the phrase 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white." Basically, truth is the correspondence between belief and reality, the map and the territory, and truth is tested the same way a map is; by predicting what we should observe when we go out there and look at things.
> 
> The problem is that mind-only subjective things--values, morals, aesthetics--don't have this correspondence. They're only part of our maps, they aren't found in reality, so truth values aren't possible. The only "truth" to say about such things is that certain people feel/think a certain way. All we can do with these things is to establish standards, similarly to how we establish the rules of a game, and then judge things relative to those standards. The game comparison is useful, because it illustrates that a phrase like "Queen to Rook 3 is objectively the best move" in a game of chess makes sense only in relation to the rules/goals of the game, but if you change those rules--which we could do--then the best move might be different. Morals, values, and aesthetics work the same way. Saying "murder is evil" only makes sense in relation to the values/morals we subjectively hold, and, just like the rules of any game, the latter things can't be "true" the way "snow is white" can be true.
> 
> I don't know why this is so difficult for people to grasp... I think there are several factors at play, most due to evolution. It was probably advantageous for us to think of values/morals etc. as being as "real/true" as the sun's existence. It makes social cohesion easier if people aren't questioning stuff all the time and doubting the truth of their instincts/intuitions/"gut" feelings; but it leads to as many problems as it solves, especially as we've moved away from living in small tribes to trying to get along on a global scale with 7 billion people and hundreds of different cultures. Hence (and to bring the thread back around) the anxieties of Modernism and Postmodernism.


Good post, but the unknowable isn't so difficult for me to grasp. I am firmly on the empiricist side of the empiricist / rationalist divide, even though I acknowledge and accept the inherent flaws and limitations of empiricism. We can only see so far and so clearly, no matter how powerful the telescopes we build. It will always be possible to build a yet more powerful telescope and see even further and more clearly. Our rational minds (or the rational aspect of our minds) will then be compelled to revise our theories of truth and reality to account for the additional information. This process will never end until humanity comes to an end. There will always be the unknown, and the need to revise our theories, including that snow is white.

Despite, or perhaps because of this, I am no atheist. I accept that empiricism gets us as close to the truth as we can get, and don't try to convince myself I can get any further. One can learn to cope with the unknown and unknowable with the help of some form of faith, and / or by expressing one's anxiety in various ways, including through art, hence your comment about "the anxieties of Modernism and Postmodernism". I happen to have a hybrid approach in this regard, but I make no claims that my beliefs, or my anxieties, reflect any fundamental truth other than the limitations of rational knowledge.

I have no sympathy with people who seek to cope with the unknown and unknowable by insisting it does not exist and pretending to create a world of absolute and known constants, such as those who insist that music "must" have melody and harmony.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

The unknown and unknowable intersect ...

My philosophy teacher says that when you come to the end of your knowing , yet still must take an action ... here , your philosophy is vitally engaged .


----------



## eugeneonagain

How much does Yoda charge for philosophy lessons in 2019?


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> How much does Yoda charge for philosophy lessons in 2019?


5 prozacs per quantum hour; no cheques.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

eugeneonagain said:


> How much does Yoda charge for philosophy lessons in 2019?


I charge Eugene with harassment .


----------



## eugeneonagain

Tikoo Tuba said:


> I charge Eugene with harassment .


I charge Tikoo Tuba with derailment via woo (but not woomanship).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> "I know far too much of rationality and cognitive science to trust what my brain intuitively conjures."
> 
> That is one of the saddest statements of cowardice and defeat I have ever read. And here I thought that one of the primary tasks of maturing was to refine and deepen my knowledge of precisely those things that can't be photographed, tabulated and computed - the things that most distinctively make me human and that make life more than a laboratory experiment - and learn to trust more and more "what my brain intuitively conjures." Little did I suspect that only knowing more cognitive science could save me from drowning in the swamp of illusion.
> 
> If you say that your "reason" tells you that in this universe only that which is provable by means appropriate to the physical sciences is knowable - that anything we claim to know which is not empirically and collectively testable can have no more truth value than anything any random person "feels" is true - that any "feeling" that contradicts our belief has an equal claim to truth, and that it's all just a contest of "feelings"... Well, I'm sure you're giving your honest opinion. If you say that you believe that only "objective" things outside our consciousness are knowable and that "subjective" reality is just a realm of spooks and shades which have no meaning, value or even reality beyond what any irrational fool or raving madman might project onto the blank screen of his mind, I trust that that's your honest opinion. And if you say that when you compare the B-minor Mass with a mass by Andrew LLoyd Webber you can't allow that the former is a more profound work of art than the latter because one person's notion of profundity may disagree with another's - as, say, Beethoven's notion may disagree with Justin Bieber's - I have no choice but to accept that you're saying exactly what you believe to be true.
> 
> In your reality, you cannot accept that some works of art are greater than others, because you think "greatness" is not real but is just something people invent to justify their taste or preference for something (something like, say, blueberry pancakes, a "great" breakfast), over something else (like, say, boiled onions on ice cream, not a "great" snack). Likewise, you cannot accept that some human beings are morally superior to others - that, say, Nelson Mandela is morally superior to Donald Trump - because morality is entirely a matter of a "subjective" preference for, say, heroism and public service over cowardice and graft, which "objectively" are all morally equal. Your criteria of truth necessitate the conclusion that no artistic or moral value judgment could carry any more weight than anyone else's, and that some people's efforts at creating beauty and improving life on earth cannot and should not be more admired or supported than other people's efforts to undermine standards of excellence, wreck the institutions of society, and destroy the ecosphere - because, "objectively" speaking, those things are merely preferred by some people who happen to "feel" that they are nicer.
> 
> Yes. "Being in the majority" - not being a sociopath or a psychopath - is "fun."
> 
> All I can say is: you live in your epistemological, aesthetic and ethical reality, and I'll live in mine.


So you find the attaining of knowledge "sad?" Here's a list of cognitive biases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases Now, these are all the ways that our brains screw up when using intuitions to reason and form conclusions. Can you honestly tell me that you can be sure that none of your beliefs and conclusions have been shaped by any of those things? The answer is clearly "no." I KNOW I can't be sure, and hence the mistrust. There's nothing of cowardice and defeat in this. Biases can be overcome with reason--but REAL reason, not rationalization--and that's what I strive for. That means not resting on conclusions just because they make me feel good and comfortable.

Look, I already demonstrated quite clearly the problem with your "subjective knowledge" claim. Anyone can use that argument to claim to know anything. If anyone can do so, and they have, and you would disagree with many of those conclusions, then it's clear that such claims are not a good indication of actually knowing anything. This isn't just my "opinion" on the matter; this is what reason clearly shows. If two people come together saying they've used the same method to reach the truth, and yet they've come to opposite conclusions, that reveals a big problem with the method in which they used. Yet THAT method is what you're trying to promote as a reliable barometer for truth. I don't think even YOU really believe this, because I know you're a smart guy capable of reason, but you're clearly being blinded by bias on this issue because you don't want what I'm saying to be true. It's Wishful Thinking in action.

Just to clear up a few things:


> You believe... subjective" reality is just a realm of spooks and shades which have no meaning, value or even reality... you cannot accept that some works of art are greater than others... you cannot accept that some human beings are morally superior to others...


Saying things like meaning, greatness, and moral superiority are relative doesn't eliminate those concepts. It just means that they're relative to the standards we create. I can most certainly say certain works of art are greater than others, my subjective reality has meaning, and some people are morally superior _relative to my/our subjective standards for such things,_ subjective standards that I (thankfully) happen to share with many other people. Luckily, humans are similar enough that we tend to share a lot of similar standards and values. Life would be even more difficult than it is without any such agreement. The only difference between us is that I realize that when people come along with different standards and values it is impossible to prove which are correct and true, and I understand very well why that is. You, however, would maintain that, even though both sides have used the same means of coming to those opposing values, that you can claim you're right; which, of course, makes no sense.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Nihilism is disease . Something must die miserably .


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

janxharris said:


> The _exact_ colour of any object is just as subjective as those ethical judgements you aver as subjective.


Just like with sound there's an objective aspect of color (wavelengths) and a subjective aspect (our experience of color), and the latter indeed doesn't record the former with consistence or accuracy, but rather depends upon a great many things including notions of contrast and even language.

However, you can translate the quote to "the phrase 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow possesses the wavelength we label as white." It just makes the quote less quippy.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> It's all very nice to say that truth is the correspondence between belief and reality but to do this you have to assume the existence of some sort of objective reality for the beliefs to have correspondence with. And as far as I can tell you don't know that reality exists any more than I do. You and I just assume it to be true because we know it to be so not because we can somehow verify this rationally.
> 
> Ultimately, to get anywhere in science, philosophy, or mathematics (maybe not in philosophy to a certain extent) you have to start making assumptions that you know to be true but can't prove. The entirety of any worldview is built on a huge edifice of assumed statements that the individual simply knows, in a sense, but can't be proven. To claim you can somehow circumnavigate this and build your worldview based only on things that are true, no apriori assumptions is intellectually dishonest.


It depends on what you mean by "objective reality." All I mean by that is phenomenal reality, not Kant's "ding an sich," or reality as it is without reference to observers. The latter is indeed inaccessible, but phenomenal reality is directly accessible. It's also directly noticeable that our beliefs about phenomenal reality can either map well or poorly to it--allowing you to make accurate or inaccurate predictions about what you will experience--and either way those beliefs do not and can not change your phenomenal experience of it--not believing in a wall will not allow you walk through it, eg.

Yes, I agree that all disciplines (science, math, logic, and philosophy) are built on unprovable assumptions (axioms). The question then is what axioms we start with. To me, it starts with empiricism, which means accepting as true (to a certain extent) what our senses tell us. We can model this phenomenal reality, and use those models to make predictions (science, math), and abstract certain generalities that seem to always hold true and reason from them (rationality).

I'm not saying that a worldview can circumnavigate the necessity for unproved assumptions and axioms. The issue hasn't even been about removing such axioms/assumptions, but about whether certain things, like values, standards, morality, etc. that are ultimately how we feel about things, can have truth values at all. I say they can't because of what truth fundamentally is.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fluteman said:


> Good post, but the unknowable isn't so difficult for me to grasp. I am firmly on the empiricist side of the empiricist / rationalist divide, even though I acknowledge and accept the inherent flaws and limitations of empiricism. We can only see so far and so clearly, no matter how powerful the telescopes we build. It will always be possible to build a yet more powerful telescope and see even further and more clearly. Our rational minds (or the rational aspect of our minds) will then be compelled to revise our theories of truth and reality to account for the additional information. This process will never end until humanity comes to an end. There will always be the unknown, and the need to revise our theories, including that snow is white.
> 
> Despite, or perhaps because of this, I am no atheist. I accept that empiricism gets us as close to the truth as we can get, and don't try to convince myself I can get any further. One can learn to cope with the unknown and unknowable with the help of some form of faith, and / or by expressing one's anxiety in various ways, including through art, hence your comment about "the anxieties of Modernism and Postmodernism". I happen to have a hybrid approach in this regard, but I make no claims that my beliefs, or my anxieties, reflect any fundamental truth other than the limitations of rational knowledge.
> 
> I have no sympathy with people who seek to cope with the unknown and unknowable by insisting it does not exist and pretending to create a world of absolute and known constants, such as those who insist that music "must" have melody and harmony.


Thanks. I don't think there should be a rationalist/empiricist divide. They're both essential. Empiricism provides the data, rationality tells us how to reason/make sense of that data. Rationality without empiricism is the old "garbage in/garbage out" saying; but empiricism without rationality can't actually tell us anything. However, I essentially agree with your sentiment about always using new information to revise our theories; but rationality tells us exactly how to do this. Bayes' Theorem models how new evidence is used to update our existing theories.

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, so all I'll say is that I sympathize with how faith can ease the anxieties of the unknown. Personally, it's just not something that I need or want. If the unknown is making me nervous then I just seek to learn more. If I've learned as much as I can then I just stop focusing on whatever unknown is making me nervous. It sounds simple, but it's not. I just don't think that faith, which is often a way for convincing one's self you know things that you don't, really helps. As long as you aren't using your faith to claim you know such things, I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Thanks. I don't think there should be a rationalist/empiricist divide. They're both essential. Empiricism provides the data, rationality tells us how to reason/make sense of that data. Rationality without empiricism is the old "garbage in/garbage out" saying; but empiricism without rationality can't actually tell us anything. However, I essentially agree with your sentiment about always using new information to revise our theories; but rationality tells us exactly how to do this. Bayes' Theorem models how new evidence is used to update our existing theories.
> 
> I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, so all I'll say is that I sympathize with how faith can ease the anxieties of the unknown. Personally, it's just not something that I need or want. If the unknown is making me nervous then I just seek to learn more. If I've learned as much as I can then I just stop focusing on whatever unknown is making me nervous. It sounds simple, but it's not. I just don't think that faith, which is often a way for convincing one's self you know things that you don't, really helps. As long as you aren't using your faith to claim you know such things, I don't have a problem with it.


Well said again. Bayes' Theorem is indeed a fundamental principle of statistical inference and underlies the relationship between more empirical data and greater knowledge (i.e., a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of how things work). And Bayes was a man of the cloth! And no, I don't claim I know things that I don't. Either there is empirical evidence to support a proposition or there isn't. That's why when someone tried to diss traditional Indian sitar music, I replied mostly but not entirely in jest that 1.37 billion Indians can't be wrong. If one insists on ranking not only individual pieces but entire musical movements or traditions, a bit of a fetish here, one can only ask, empirically, how meaningful is or was that music, and for how many people? OK, that would be all but impossible to measure, but I didn't say it was an answerable question, only that many here have a fetish for posing it.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> To me, it starts with empiricism, which means accepting as true (to a certain extent) what our senses tell us.


But, how is this so different than accepting as true your gut instinct that murder is wrong? Ultimately you choose your axioms based on what you 'feel' is right, and accepting empiricism and rationalism while rejecting the notion that murder is, in some absolute and truthful sense, wrong, is an arbitrary choice. In other words, the way you believe empiricism to be correct is virtually identical to the way other people believe murder to be wrong (in an absolute sense).

Of course, if you one of your assumptions about the world is that no 'truth values' can be derived from anything but empiricism and rationality then you believe that no 'truth values' can be derived from how we feel about things (I presume you're using feel in more of an emotional sense rather than feeling physical pain or temperature).

I apologise for using the term "objective reality". It was sloppy and not really what I meant.


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> But, how is this so different than accepting as true your gut instinct that murder is wrong? Ultimately you choose your axioms based on what you 'feel' is right, and accepting empiricism and rationalism while rejecting the notion that murder is, in some absolute and truthful sense, wrong, is an arbitrary choice. In other words, the way you believe empiricism to be correct is virtually identical to the way other people believe murder to be wrong (in an absolute sense).
> 
> Of course, if you one of your assumptions about the world is that no 'truth values' can be derived from anything but empiricism and rationality then you believe that no 'truth values' can be derived from how we feel about things (I presume your using feel in more of an emotional sense rather than feeling physical pain or temperature).
> 
> I apologise for using the term "objective reality". It was sloppy and not really what I meant.


Uh, no. That is essentially the type argument that would have been used against Galileo's proposition that the earth orbits around the sun rather than the other way around. Fortunately, it hasn't been favored over the past few centuries, and I think we're all in deep trouble if it makes a comeback.


----------



## Swosh

Is this a good representation of post modern music? To me it sounds like structure-less noise without any attention to detail, and a bunch of random sound effects mixed together.






Not to mention that ringing sounding like hearing loss haha. Kinda depressing music to be honest...


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> Uh, no. That is essentially the type argument that would have been used against Galileo's proposition that the earth orbits around the sun rather than the other way around. Fortunately, it hasn't been favored over the past few centuries, and I think we're all in deep trouble if it makes a comeback.


No, it's not. I'm not really even sure how you made this connection but if it has to do with assigning 'truth' to feelings then it's an incorrect connection. The original arguments for the Geocentric model were actually observational and by the time the Catholic church came around to imprisoning Galileo, it was about being right rather than having any actual reason for being right.


----------



## Haydn70

Swosh said:


> Is this a good representation of post modern music? To me *it sounds like structure-less noise without any attention to detail, and a bunch of random sound effects mixed together*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that ringing sounding like hearing loss haha. Kinda depressing music to be honest...


Postmodern? I don't know...I'll leave that to some of the hipster relativist philosophers here to decide. But is it music? Nah...

Your comment above in bold is just about right.


----------



## Flutter

I LOVE postmodernism in music (namely classical obviously), art (well, some of it) and art-films (particularly, it wouldn't work well in a blockbuster, lol) but HATE it in everything else (like social politics, economy, relativism etc.)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

If you play romantic backwards, is it postmodernism?


----------



## Flutter

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> If you play romantic backwards, is it postmodernism?


What if you play postmodernism backwards? :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Flutter said:


> What if you play postmodernism backwards? :lol:


Nah, that would just be Bach


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Swosh said:


> Is this a good representation of post modern music? To me it sounds like structure-less noise without any attention to detail, and a bunch of random sound effects mixed together.


Modernist type of works usually have structure, but it's too obscure. Anyway, such type of experiments are always doomed to failure.
Composers are usually interested in discovering new sounds and forms. Most listeners - in coherent and easy to understand music (usually in upbeat tempo and happy mood- slower/sad works are less popular).


----------



## Larkenfield

Flutter said:


> What if you play postmodernism backwards? :lol:


Playing 'Post-modernism' backwards would have to be labeled 'Pre-modernism' because everything 'Post-modern' that's against everything would be undone before it ever happened.


----------



## janxharris

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Just like with sound there's an objective aspect of color (wavelengths) and a subjective aspect (our experience of color), and the latter indeed doesn't record the former with consistence or accuracy, but rather depends upon a great many things including notions of contrast and even language.
> 
> However, you can translate the quote to "the phrase 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow possesses the wavelength we label as white." It just makes the quote less quippy.


I guess this is a semantic issue - colour is mind-dependant and therefore does not have an objective aspect.


----------



## millionrainbows

Swosh said:


> Is this a good representation of post modern music? To me it sounds like structure-less noise without any attention to detail, and a bunch of random sound effects mixed together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that ringing sounding like hearing loss haha. Kinda depressing music to be honest...


Dubravko Detoni (born 22 February 1937) is a composer, pianist and writer. Although active since the early 1970s he is almost unknown internationally.
He was born in Križevci, Croatia, educated in Zagreb, Sienna, Warsaw and Darmstadt, and studied with John Cage in Paris. He has written more than a hundred musical pieces, theatrical spectacles, multimedia and performance pieces, books of poetry, essays, commentaries, and radio and TV programs.
As the founder and leader of the ensemble, ACEZANTEZ, he has performed around Europe, Asia and North America.
In 2000, the Paradigm Discs record label released Dubravko Detoni a CD of pieces from 3 LPs that appeared on Jugoton (today's Croatia Records) in the mid 1970s.

Yes, I would say this is post-modern music because it juxtaposes ideas from visual art onto music. John Cage is the obvious connection here.

This is the big stumbling-block for traditional music listeners, since they are not aware of and do not accept visual or conceptual ideas from the "art" world.

Having a long-standing involvement with art, I have no problem accepting the validity of works like this as being valid music and art. Whether I think it is excellent or not is another matter, but I accept it.

If you want to gain credibility in this area, it is not a good idea to question the validity of such works using strong pejorative terms like "structureless noise", because that belies an ignorance of the form. The piece has _some _sort of structure, and uses _sounds_ (not simply noise) of traditional instruments. Rather, it is better to say that you do not like it as music because your preferences are confined to music which lies in the traditional domain of music, and those preferences do not include works which cross-over into the area of "art."


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, so all I'll say is that I sympathize with how faith can ease the anxieties of the unknown. Personally, it's just not something that I need or want. If the unknown is making me nervous then I just seek to learn more. If I've learned as much as I can then I just stop focusing on whatever unknown is making me nervous. It sounds simple, but it's not. I just don't think that faith, which is often a way for convincing one's self you know things that you don't, really helps. As long as you aren't using your faith to claim you know such things, I don't have a problem with it.


There is faith in music , and for the artist who can make something of it this can be the measure of reason . The very act of listening to the world can discern truth from the babble . Confident in this , one may trust the creation of music to be beyond judgment . It needn't be sold like a plastic Jesus .

Reason left to measure itself may in hard times reason nihilism . But who cares ?


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> The original arguments for the Geocentric model were actually observational and by the time the Catholic church came around to imprisoning Galileo, it was about being right rather than having any actual reason for being right.


Exactly. And empiricism (in the sense of gathering as much empirical information as possible and using it to construct as rational, comprehensive and accurate a model of reality as possible) is not "correct", but it is the best we can do. And that is not based on my opinion or belief. The human experience has demonstrated that this method, i.e., the empirical method, is consistently superior to using "absolute beliefs" or "gut instincts", or religious dogma, or anything else, as a guide. This lengthy and impressive record of success sets empiricism far apart and above any other system for making sense of the world.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> Exactly. And empiricism (in the sense of gathering as much empirical information as possible and using it to construct as rational, comprehensive and accurate a model of reality as possible) is not "correct", but it is the best we can do. And that is not based on my opinion or belief. The human experience has demonstrated that this method, i.e., the empirical method, is consistently superior to using "absolute beliefs" or "gut instincts", or religious dogma, or anything else, as a guide. This lengthy and impressive record of success sets empiricism far apart and above any other system for making sense of the world.


I'm not sure using empiricisms success at predicting empirical results can be used as an argument justifying empiricism. It's self-evident that empiricism is a good method for being empirical. In fact, this essentially just follows by definition.

I honestly think we're not too far apart in what we think on this. I do believe that empiricism is one of the very best methods for trying to make sense of the world around us. But, I believe that because after examining history and thinking about it I 'know' it to be true. There is no way, as much as I would like to have one, to ground this belief in anything more than a deep feeling that it has to be true.

It is worth mentioning that you can take as a basis for your belief the improvement of human well-being (ignoring issues of defining well-being). Then, it seems that empiricism is truly a better method at understanding the world than others as it results in, or seems to have resulted in, greater prosperity. However, 'well-being' is again just another thing rooted in human emotion so it ends up being, as far as I can tell, truly impossible to escape the reliance on some sort of 'feeling' as a basis for your belief system.


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure using empiricisms success at predicting empirical results can be used as an argument justifying empiricism. It's self-evident that empiricism is a good method for being empirical. In fact, this essentially just follows by definition.


No, it doesn't just follow by definition. Empiricism predicts we can build an airplane and fly it to the Greek islands, or to the beautiful beach resort of one's choice, watching a couple of movies, drinking a frozen Margarita and surfing the 'net on the way. The success of empiricism comes from the fact that I and many others have actually done all that. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that empiricism has triumphed over other systems of reasoning.

What follows by definition is that empiricism has its limits. Our ability to perceive and learn is finite, as we are finite, imperfect, mortal beings.


----------



## Guest

Swosh said:


> Is this a good representation of post modern music? To me it sounds like structure-less noise without any attention to detail, and a bunch of random sound effects mixed together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that ringing sounding like hearing loss haha. Kinda depressing music to be honest...


I don't know if this is a good exemplar of post-modern music but I disagree with your overall assessment of it. To my ears it is not random noise at all, there is a perceivable structure and very, very much attention to detail.


----------



## Guest

Haydn70 said:


> Postmodern? I don't know...I'll leave that to some of the hipster relativist philosophers here to decide. But is it music? Nah...
> 
> Your comment above in bold is just about right.


I'll leave the post-modern chat to others, too. But is it music? An emphatic _*yes*_ from me.


----------



## Logos

fluteman said:


> No, it doesn't just follow by definition. Empiricism predicts we can build an airplane and fly it to the Greek islands, or to the beautiful beach resort of one's choice, watching a couple of movies, drinking a frozen Margarita and surfing the 'net on the way. The success of empiricism comes from the fact that I and many others have actually done all that. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that empiricism has triumphed over other systems of reasoning.


To which Hegel, unimpressed with any fact, would say that all such things are beneath the dignity of philosophy; that those achievements are contemptible tinkerings with lower phenomena rather than illuminations of eternal truths, and that the "success" of such improvements in man's common life is a vulgar consideration unworthy of a true philosopher.


----------



## fluteman

Logos said:


> To which Hegel, unimpressed with any fact, would say that all such things are beneath the dignity of philosophy; that those achievements are contemptible tinkerings with lower phenomena rather than illuminations of eternal truths, and that the "success" of such improvements in man's common life is a vulgar consideration unworthy of a true philosopher.


Then Hegel doesn't get to go to the Greek islands. Or Hawaii.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> No, it doesn't just follow by definition. Empiricism predicts we can build an airplane and fly it to the Greek islands, or to the beautiful beach resort of one's choice, watching a couple of movies, drinking a frozen Margarita and surfing the 'net on the way. The success of empiricism comes from the fact that I and many others have actually done all that. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that empiricism has triumphed over other systems of reasoning.
> 
> What follows by definition is that empiricism has its limits. Our ability to perceive and learn is finite, as we are finite, imperfect, mortal beings.


I'm not sure you're arguing against what I'm saying. I agree with you as to the reasons for empiricisms success.

I never said anything about empiricisms predictive ability I just said that if judge empiricism by the standards of empiricism (in that it is empirically correct) it is obvious that you will end up concluding empiricisms success.

I'm not at all sure how you get the limits of empiricism from its definition. You can only think about its limits in relation to other things so it can't just follow from the definition of empiricism; you necessarily need more things.


----------



## DaveM

TalkingHead said:


> I'll leave the post-modern chat to others, too. But is it music? An emphatic _*yes*_ from me.


Music? Maybe. Classical music? A definite no!


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> Music? Maybe. Classical music? A definite no!


So?............We know what you mean, but most people use "classical" as a broader, more inclusive term; but we know what you mean by your limited use of the term..


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> So?............We know what you mean, but most people use "classical" as a broader, more inclusive term; but we know what you mean by your limited use of the term..


Fwiw, that work is a prime example of works that somehow get/got included under the classical music tent. It bears no conceivable relationship to CM, contrary to even atonal music which does. That doesn't mean that those who like that sort of thing shouldn't enjoy it. It just needs to have its own category. Since it seems to be an exploration of sounds, how about Polyaudio? Then someone could say on a forum, Talk Polyaudio, 'I just heard this incredible polyaudio work by Detoni.'


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> Fwiw, that work is a prime example of works that somehow get/got included under the classical music tent. *It bears no conceivable relationship to CM, contrary to even atonal music which does.* That doesn't mean that those who like that sort of thing shouldn't enjoy it. It just needs to have its own category. Since it seems to be an exploration of sounds, how about Polyaudio? Then someone could say on a forum, Talk Polyaudio, 'I just heard this incredible polyaudio work by Detoni.'


Are you trying to use Schoenberg and company as a "true" example of atonal music in order to invalidate Carter? That's what I call a truly desperate strategy! :lol:

Carter has too many ties to traditional forms & instruments (and Charles Ives) to compare him to post-modern art-influenced music such as Cage. Let me catch my breath, I'm LOL.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Are you trying to use Schoenberg and company as a "true" example of atonal music in order to invalidate Carter? That's what I call a truly desperate strategy! :lol:
> 
> Carter has too many ties to traditional forms & instruments (and Charles Ives) to compare him to post-modern art-influenced music such as Cage. Let me catch my breath, I'm LOL.


I responded to TalkingHead's post about the work above by Debravko Detoni. You responded to my post. I responded to your post. My subject matter was Debravko Detoni's work, not Elliot Carter. That's another thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> I responded to TalkingHead's post about the work above by Debravko Detoni. You responded to my post. I responded to your post. My subject matter was Debravko Detoni's work, not Elliot Carter.


Then maybe you should start calling them by name, and Oops! Wrong thread.

I think people who listen to music should study art, so they can expand their paradigm. We already have sub-categories of Classical music, like Spectralism, Serialism, Neo-Classicism, Aleatoric, Pointillism, Atonal, Impressionism, Minimalism, etc.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> I responded to TalkingHead's post about the work above by Debravko Detoni. You responded to my post. I responded to your post. My subject matter was Debravko Detoni's work, not Elliot Carter. That's another thread.


Don't you love it when people respond to your posts without actually reading them?


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Then maybe you should start calling them by name :lol:


Maybe you should keep track of the subject matter. (Btw, I did specifically mention Detoni in the post you responded to.)


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Don't you love it when people respond to your posts without actually reading them?


Seems to happen a lot.


----------



## Logos

DaveM said:


> I responded to TalkingHead's post about the work above by Debravko Detoni. You responded to my post. I responded to your post. My subject matter was Debravko Detoni's work, not Elliot Carter. That's another thread.


I need a flowchart.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Music? Maybe. Classical music? A definite no!


Nah, there's no "maybe" about it: it _*is*_ music.
Is it classical music? Not within the narrow historical confines of that term.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> Don't you love it when people respond to your posts without actually reading them?


I find that people read my posts without actually responding. It's much less satisfying.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> *Fwiw, that work is a prime example of works that somehow get/got included under the classical music tent. It bears no conceivable relationship to CM, contrary to even atonal music which does.* That doesn't mean that those who like that sort of thing shouldn't enjoy it. It just needs to have its own category. Since it seems to be an exploration of sounds, how about Polyaudio? Then someone could say on a forum, Talk Polyaudio, 'I just heard this incredible polyaudio work by Detoni.'


I think we are getting hung up on categories. Let's call it "contemporary classical music" (not the happiest of terms, I'll admit). Or let's call it as the French do: _*musique savante*_, even though many might object.


----------



## Haydn70

TalkingHead said:


> I think we are getting hung up on categories. Let's call it "*contemporary classical music*" (not the happiest of terms, I'll admit). Let's call it as the French do: *musique savante*, even though many might object.


A much better and accurate term is: *contemporary Western art music*...or at least contemporary art music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

TalkingHead said:


> Nah, there's no "maybe" about it: it _*is*_ music.
> Is it classical music? Not within the narrow historical confines of that term.


I agree. I listened to the entire thing while I was busy sanding down a cabinet. It's not at all terrible and it's like 8 minutes of being suspended in space wondering what is about to happen next. There is a place for that sort of art.

If it isn't music, what is it? Why can a writer talk about the 'melancholic _music of the wind_' with readers accepting that metaphor and accepting that the wind can sound like a type of actual melancholic music, but this piece is utterly dismissed as anything to do with music?

What do those issuing dismissals think they gain or lose by this?


----------



## Haydn70

eugeneonagain said:


> I agree. I listened to the entire thing while I was busy sanding down a cabinet. It's not at all terrible and it like 8 minutes of being suspended in space wondering what is about to happen next. There is a place for that sort of art.
> 
> If it isn't music, what is it? Wy can a writer talk about the 'melancholic _music of the wind_' with readers accepting that metaphor and accepting that the wind can sound like a type of actual melancholic music, but this piece is utterly dismissed as anything to do with music?
> 
> *What do those issuing dismissals think they gain or lose by this?*


It is tremendous fun.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Haydn70 said:


> It is tremendous fun.


A postmodern pastime if ever there was one.


----------



## Guest

Haydn70 said:


> A much better and accurate term is: *contemporary Western art music*...or at least contemporary art music.


OK, suits me. So Debravko Detoni's work is contemporary Western art music, not random noise.


----------



## Haydn70

eugeneonagain said:


> A postmodern pastime if ever there was one.


Yikes, me, good ole curmudgeonly, conservative, anti-modernism, anti-postmodernism, anti-serialism, anti-atonality, anti-nihilism, anti-relativism, anti-ugliness-in-art Haydn70 accused of indulging in some form of a postmodernist pastime! No way! However, your accusation of such a thing is very, very postmodern.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> I agree. I listened to the entire thing while I was busy sanding down a cabinet. It's not at all terrible and it's like 8 minutes of being suspended in space wondering what is about to happen next. There is a place for that sort of art.
> 
> If it isn't music, what is it? *Why can a writer talk about the 'melancholic music of the wind' with readers accepting that metaphor and accepting that the wind can sound like a type of actual melancholic music, but this piece is utterly dismissed as anything to do with music?
> 
> What do those issuing dismissals think they gain or lose by this?*


I wish I could answer those questions. It maybe stems from insecurity, who knows. I don't really care, to be honest. But I'll always step up to the plate and defend what's needs defending.
Another personal "factoid" if I may: I don't like cold, rainy days but if I am stuck at home, I don't mind focusing on the rain as it falls on various surfaces creating all sorts of textures and patterns; I think I might even enjoy the sound of sanding down a cabinet. Another favourite sound that really does tickle my ear: the sound of leather soles crunching on gravel.
It's OK, I've already told Matron that I'll get back into bed now...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

eugeneonagain said:


> I agree. I listened to the entire thing while I was busy sanding down a cabinet. It's not at all terrible and it's like 8 minutes of being suspended in space wondering what is about to happen next. There is a place for that sort of art.
> 
> If it isn't music, what is it? Why can a writer talk about the 'melancholic _music of the wind_' with readers accepting that metaphor and accepting that the wind can sound like a type of actual melancholic music, but this piece is utterly dismissed as anything to do with music?
> 
> What do those issuing dismissals think they gain or lose by this?


You are combining only two hobbies at one time, now if only could only record your sanding while listening to some music (does not have to be post modern), you could be creating a post modern piece as a third activity


----------



## eugeneonagain

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> You are combining only two hobbies at one time, now if only could only record your sanding while listening to some music (does not have to be post modern), you could be creating a post modern piece as a third activity


I'm too postmodernly lazy. Isn't there a button I can just push? (Tip - the naysayers think it's no different anyway).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm too postmodernly lazy. Isn't there a button I can just push? (Tip - the naysayers think it's no different anyway).


I spend my days recording car horns and recreating my favourite musical pieces at home, the wife isn't so sure thou.......

Some say I'm searching for the lost Cord, but no I'm looking for a Duesenberg


----------



## Flutter

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm too postmodernly lazy. Isn't there a button I can just push? (Tip - the naysayers think it's no different anyway).


Put it on a loop too!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> But, how is this so different than accepting as true your gut instinct that murder is wrong? Ultimately you choose your axioms based on what you 'feel' is right, and accepting empiricism and rationalism while rejecting the notion that murder is, in some absolute and truthful sense, wrong, is an arbitrary choice. In other words, the way you believe empiricism to be correct is virtually identical to the way other people believe murder to be wrong (in an absolute sense).


The key difference between empiricism and gut instinct is that the former doesn't change based on how you feel and the latter can (and does). It makes no rational sense to base truth on something that can differ between individuals and cultures. Two people come together and say "I believe murder is wrong," and the other says "I believe murder is OK." How do you decide which statement is "true?" With empiricism it's easy: "I believe there's a house on the corner of X street," and "I believe there isn't a house on the corner of X street." How do you decide which statement is true? Go to the corner of X street and look. Your senses will either report a house is there or it isn't, and it won't depend on what you believe about it beforehand.

In general, most agree with the logical law of non-contradiction. "A" and "not A" can't both be true, as that would be contradictory. So if we're talking about truth, a proposition can't be both true and false. If that's so, then we need some method for distinguishing between the two. If the method involves feelings, things that are entirely subjective, then you have no way of distinguishing between truth and falsity when people believe different things based on feelings. Because empiricism isn't based on feelings but perception, you have such a method.



BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure using empiricisms success at predicting empirical results can be used as an argument justifying empiricism. It's self-evident that empiricism is a good method for being empirical. In fact, this essentially just follows by definition.


The justification for caring about empiricism is in most of us caring about the world we phenomenally experience. If you're the type that doesn't care whether you're being burnt by a hot stove, falling off a cliff, soaking in a bubble bath, or having sex with an attractive partner, then, by all means, ignore empiricism. I predict you'll have a short and brutish life, however.



BachIsBest said:


> However, 'well-being' is again just another thing rooted in human emotion so it ends up being, as far as I can tell, truly impossible to escape the reliance on some sort of 'feeling' as a basis for your belief system.


It depends on how you define "well-being." If you define it as being alive and healthy, then these aren't subjective/emotional things. You're either alive and healthy or you're not (though health is a very complex subject, so one might say there are degrees of healthiness).

I think we have to be careful about suggesting that all belief systems are based on values and feelings. Yes, most of us care about the world we phenomenally experience, and that's a feeling. But to say a belief system about that world is based on feelings just because we care about it isn't necessarily correct. Empiricism isn't based on a feeling, and it seems the best way of understanding phenomenal reality given how well we can use it to predict and manipulate experience. Just because we CARE about empiricism because we care about phenomenal experience doesn't mean the belief system itself is based on the feeling, if that distinction makes sense.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

janxharris said:


> I guess this is a semantic issue - colour is mind-dependant and therefore does not have an objective aspect.


I think of color the way I think about sound: a word that denotes both an objective fact (wavelengths/acoustic vibrations) and a subjective experience. But, yes, that's semantic.


----------



## Enthusiast

Haydn70 said:


> A much better and accurate term is: *contemporary Western art music*...or at least contemporary art music.


That is going to catch on! It just trips off the tongue. What's wrong with saying "classical music"? We all know what it means and, clever beings that we are, we can all tell (through the context) in which way the term is being used. I can't help feeling that a desire to remove the recent part of the genre and define it as a totally different art form is a strange and almost pathological one. It is like the existence of the modern - or maybe only the post-modern? - in the same category as music you enjoy feels threatening.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The key difference between empiricism and gut instinct is that the former doesn't change based on how you feel and the latter can (and does). It makes no rational sense to base truth on something that can differ between individuals and cultures. Two people come together and say "I believe murder is wrong," and the other says "I believe murder is OK." How do you decide which statement is "true?" With empiricism it's easy: "I believe there's a house on the corner of X street," and "I believe there isn't a house on the corner of X street." How do you decide which statement is true? Go to the corner of X street and look. Your senses will either report a house is there or it isn't, and it won't depend on what you believe about it beforehand.
> 
> In general, most agree with the logical law of non-contradiction. "A" and "not A" can't both be true, as that would be contradictory. So if we're talking about truth, a proposition can't be both true and false. If that's so, then we need some method for distinguishing between the two. If the method involves feelings, things that are entirely subjective, then you have no way of distinguishing between truth and falsity when people believe different things based on feelings. Because empiricism isn't based on feelings but perception, you have such a method.


Of course I tend to agree with your position, but there _are_ actually views of logic that don't merely rely upon the principle of negation (and contradiction). Dialetheism, which is a 'shades of truth' approach. I'd consider these cases rarer than claimed because a good deal of ambiguity is language-based (a result of language limitations or poor usage).

Also I'd agree that attempting to build arguments upon feelings will always be precarious (and likely to mislead), though 'intuition' can have levels of value. The sort of 'intuition' based upon a firm grounding in what has gone before, so that you perform 'hidden cognitions' does tend to mislead people that the knowledge is accessed from a pre-existing source rather than acquired.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Enthusiast said:


> That is going to catch on! It just trips off the tongue. What's wrong with saying "classical music"? We all know what it means and, clever beings that we are, we can all tell (through the context) in which way the term is being used. I can't help feeling that a desire to remove the recent part of the genre and define it as a totally different art form is a strange and almost pathological one. It is like the existence of the modern - or maybe only the post-modern? - in the same category as music you enjoy feels threatening.


Very simple answer. It is not "classical". Maybe - "anti-classical"?


----------



## Enthusiast

BabyGiraffe said:


> Very simple answer. It is not "classical". Maybe - "anti-classical"?


What is wrong with seeing it as belonging in the classical tradition even when its proponents rubbish that tradition? That tradition has seen so many huge changes in its aesthetics. Why draw a line now? Each era has its own name (Baroque, Classical etc) but we have no difficulty seeing it (and talking about it) all as "classical music". There is no problem. Nothing needs fixing. Post-modern music, like it or loathe it, draws on and operates within the same tradition. It sometimes criticises it and sometimes claims to negate it. But the phenomenon of classical composers rubbishing their immediate forebears has been going on for more than 100 years. It didn't mean that, say, Stravinsky wasn't a classical composer. I do not see why the term classical music should be defined by the subjective preferences of a few of us.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Enthusiast said:


> What is wrong with seeing it as belonging in the classical tradition even when its proponents rubbish that tradition? That tradition has seen so many huge changes in its aesthetics. Why draw a line now? Each era has its own name (Baroque, Classical etc) but we have no difficulty seeing it (and talking about it) all as "classical music". There is no problem. Nothing needs fixing. Post-modern music, like it or loathe it, draws on and operates within the same tradition. It sometimes criticises it and sometimes claims to negate it. But the phenomenon of classical composers rubbishing their immediate forebears has been going on for more than 100 years. It didn't mean that, say, Stravinsky wasn't a classical composer. I do not see why the term classical music should be defined by the subjective preferences of a few of us.


Can you define what music doesn't belong in the "Classical" mega-genre?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Lots of music isn't classical. Jazz isn't classical. Pop isn't classical. Film music mostly isn't classical. Musicals aren't classical. Rock isn't classical. I could go on but it is clear enough. There are people who prefer the term "art music" and that is I suppose more precise but I think we get on fine using the term classical music when we want to talk of the whole (mega) category and art music sounds a little affected to my ears. Of the forms that are not classical that I listed I suppose film music will be the more controversial one. There are some who would like all orchestral film music to be seen as "classical" - they are often the same people who would reject the use of the term for most contemporary music - but I don't think the use of an orchestra is a defining characteristic of classical music. 

I don't think we need to overthink this. The broad classical music field that I refer to is recognised by radio stations, record companies, educational institutions, performers and so on. There can be a bit of argie bargie about some specific examples on the edges of the category - witness the controversy about "the status of" some film composers - but I am not sure these are interesting or useful to anyone. 

BTW I enjoy and value quite a lot of music that is not classical and do not see being included in the classical camp as a mark of quality per se. There is good, bad and indifferent classical music.


----------



## millionrainbows

This whole thread was started on a mistaken notion of Rick Beato. I disagreed with what I assumed he meant, because I'm more amenable to ideas about music which originate outside the tradition. 

Since Beato is a strictly "harmony" guy, I assume that what he is rejecting as "post modernism" includes much music which is post-tonal and post-harmonic; music which is not generated from tonal harmonic principles, but which uses modern musical thought, which would include significant music by Bartok, Hindemith, Varese and others.

As for the rest of this thread, it seems to be acting on the same mistaken assumption as Beato, which is a surface reading of "postmodernism in music sucks," which is the same old attitude of anyone who doesn't like modern art. It's meaningless, because History, and people's attitudes are already formed, and this comes across like flag-waving. Hooray for our meme! In other words, this is a very flawed and ugly thread. It should die.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> .. I can't help feeling that a desire to remove the recent part of the genre and define it as a totally different art form is a strange and almost pathological one. It is like the existence of the modern - or maybe only the post-modern? - in the same category as music you enjoy feels threatening.


There is something pathetic about the constant need to frame other people's opinions as coming from some mental or emotional aberration. Not to mention doing it in thread after thread. If you were in a car forum and, for some reason, someone took a car and removed the wheels, the steering wheel and the chassis and ended up with just the motor running, you would insist that it was still a car.

It is also disengenuous to be suggesting that the issue for a lot of us is the entire modern and/or post-modern music. You know that it isn't, but you seem to think that saying so strengthens your point. It doesn't.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Reason has become ritualistic . To accomplish this it has repressed perception , and reasonably its people become conditioned to the dimness . The light of art may be punished for violating this . Abolish punishment .

Crying and crying and you don't why - that's when you need a good philosophy lest the weeping goes on and on . Crying for Giselle ? Ah , that needn't be questioned deeply .


----------



## DaveM

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Reason has become ritualistic . To accomplish this it has repressed perception , and reasonably its people become conditioned to the dimness . The light of art may be punished for violating this . Abolish punishment .
> 
> Crying and crying and you don't why - that's when you need a good philosophy lest the weeping goes on and on . Crying for Giselle ? Ah , that needn't be questioned deeply .


What happened to Giselle?


----------



## Boludo

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> If you play romantic backwards, is it postmodernism?


I've played 'Ya Hozna' backwards on Audacity but it didn't make any sense.


----------



## Boludo

Why do discussions of this nature on TC always boil down to the pointless definition of a word?


----------



## aleazk

Boludo said:


> Why do discussions of this nature on TC always boil down to the pointless definition of a word?


Because, in that way, you can avoid having to go to the core of the matter, where an uncomfortable truth may be lying ready to torn apart your cherished beliefs and prejudices


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

What if you have no feelings on this matter


----------



## aleazk

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> What if you have no feelings on this matter


Then you are a "pure subject of knowing", according to Schopenhauer, since you were able to turn against your irrational impulses


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

DaveM said:


> What happened to Giselle?


(copied from synopsis of the ballet Giselle)

Giselle is distraught beyond measure. She stabs herself with Albrecht's sword and sinks into madness. Weakened physically and emotionally, she collapses and dies.

ACT II

Giselle has been buried in a forest, close to a lake. Hilarion comes to grieve at her grave, but does not linger; he senses the presence of Wilis.

Myrtha, Queen of the Wilis, summons her subjects to appear and assist her in initiating Giselle to their sisterhood. The Wilis hide about the forest as Albrecht, full of remorse and sorrow, comes to mourn at Giselle's grave and seek her forgiveness. She suddenly appears before him.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Tikoo Tuba said:


> *Reason has become ritualistic .*


I certainly know that every time I for one use reason I make sure to do an elaborate rain dance with tiki torches while reciting a Latin hymnal to the beat of bongos and sacrificing a virgin to the volcano gods. It just makes the ol' noggin work better, you know?


----------



## aleazk

eugeneonagain said:


> Of course I tend to agree with your position, but there _are_ actually views of logic that don't merely rely upon the principle of negation (and contradiction). Dialetheism, which is a 'shades of truth' approach. I'd consider these cases rarer than claimed because a good deal of ambiguity is language-based (a result of language limitations or poor usage).
> 
> Also I'd agree that attempting to build arguments upon feelings will always be precarious (and likely to mislead), though 'intuition' can have levels of value. The sort of 'intuition' based upon a firm grounding in what has gone before, so that you perform 'hidden cognitions' does tend to mislead people that the knowledge is accessed from a pre-existing source rather than acquired.


Indeed, you can have the so-called "intuitionistic logics", where the law of excluded middle doesn't hold and where you can have partial truth values besides the usual Boolean ones. I never found the arguments about why those logics would be necessary to be very convincing, though.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eugeneonagain said:


> Of course I tend to agree with your position, but there _are_ actually views of logic that don't merely rely upon the principle of negation (and contradiction). Dialetheism, which is a 'shades of truth' approach. I'd consider these cases rarer than claimed because a good deal of ambiguity is language-based (a result of language limitations or poor usage).
> 
> Also I'd agree that attempting to build arguments upon feelings will always be precarious (and likely to mislead), though 'intuition' can have levels of value. The sort of 'intuition' based upon a firm grounding in what has gone before, so that you perform 'hidden cognitions' does tend to mislead people that the knowledge is accessed from a pre-existing source rather than acquired.


Yeah, that's why I said most generally accept the logical law of non-contradiction, rather than just saying it was a law. I generally agree with you, though, that most of the ambiguity of such things is language-based and/or due to mistaking probabilistic statements/categories for Boolean ones. EG, in the famous liar's paradox, if we go with the liar saying "I'm lying" version, we must understand that being a liar isn't a boolean is/isn't category, but rather one of statistics; the liar only lies some percentage of the time and thus can be telling the truth about lying or lying about lying and neither is contradictory. However, something like "this sentence is false" just makes no sense because, at least under the correspondence notion of truth, "this sentence" (literally the subject) doesn't correspond to anything external with which we can form a belief about. If we were to say "THAT sentence is false," then what we'd really mean would be "the subject of that sentence," which is a tricky distinction, but an obvious one if you carefully consider it.

FWIW, what I'm talking about is building arguments upon feelings that can only be feelings, rather than building them on intuitions about reality. Of course, we need intuition, but as anyone who's read Kahnemann knows, it's rather unreliable, but we don't always have the luxury of "thinking slow."


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The justification for caring about empiricism is in most of us caring about the world we phenomenally experience. If you're the type that doesn't care whether you're being burnt by a hot stove, falling off a cliff, soaking in a bubble bath, or having sex with an attractive partner, then, by all means, ignore empiricism. I predict you'll have a short and brutish life, however.


I tried to make that point with a flight to the Greek Islands or Hawaii, movies and frozen margaritas. But you quite rightly take it further. After a day on the beach, back to the hotel for -- a bubble bath? Sex? And even then you haven't yet arrived at your table at the restaurant and begun to peruse the wine list!
Eventually, as you drift towards sleep on down pillows and silky-soft sheets, you wonder if you shouldn't be doing more about the inherent wrongness of post modern music. I can't speak for others, but I'd fall fast asleep before getting very far on that issue.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Eva Yojimbo said:


> However, something like "this sentence is false" just makes no sense because, at least under the correspondence notion of truth, "this sentence" (literally the subject) doesn't correspond to anything external with which we can form a belief about.


"This sentence is false" isn't a contradiction either, if "this" is pointing to something other than itself. "This car is blue." Clearly the "car" isn't referring to the sentence. Context matters:

"_Liszt never composed an opera._ This sentence is false. Liszt did in fact compose an opera, the _Don Sanche_, which was lost until 1903."


----------



## BachIsBest

aleazk said:


> Indeed, you can have the so-called "intuitionistic logics", where the law of excluded middle doesn't hold and where you can have partial truth values besides the usual Boolean ones. I never found the arguments about why those logics would be necessary to be very convincing, though.


These logics can actually be quiet useful. Quantum mechanics defies Classical Logic and Quantum Logic is an example of a logic system that doesn't have the usual Boolean truth values. I should also note that there are other interpretations of Quantum Logic that aren't so fundamentally disruptive to our Classical notions but the fact remains that these alternative logic systems are, at the very least, useful.


----------



## aleazk

BachIsBest said:


> These logics can actually be quiet useful. Quantum mechanics defies Classical Logic and Quantum Logic is an example of a logic system that doesn't have the usual Boolean truth values. I should also note that there are other interpretations of Quantum Logic that aren't so fundamentally disruptive to our Classical notions but the fact remains that these alternative logic systems are, at the very least, useful.


I know that QM uses the non-distributive lattice of projectors, but to call that a replacement of classical logic is a far cry, it never worked. In fact, you still use classical logic in QM, what changes is the probabilistic structure, the correct interpretation of the projectors is as events, not as propositions (as von Neumann originally proposed.) What is useful is just the general lattice theory, not the interpretation of these lattices as "alternative logics of propositions".

And in the so-called topos approach to QM, where one uses the Heyting algebra structure of clopen subobjects (which would give to it an 'intuitionistic' structure), it still has problems if you want to interpret those as propositions and the natural topos subobject classifier as truth values (in the physical theory, as abstract mathematics in abstract logic works fine.)


----------



## Guest

Boludo said:


> Why do discussions of this nature on TC always boil down to the pointless definition of a word?


a) They don't
b) Definitions of words are essential. How else are we to be sure that we have a common understanding?

What I would observe of "these discussions" is how often they are criticised for being about "semantics" (as if semantics are undesirable, like fleas or headlice) or they descend into personal criticism. It makes a change for them to be sustained by some wanting to discuss Boolean logic (though this kind of abstract loses me almost immediately).

I must also say that I don't follow the reason v emotion debate as deployed here. If I've been following correctly, the observation has been made that those who assert that "murder is wrong" only do so on the basis of their feelings about examples that illustrate the truth of that statement. That may be so, but it seems more likely that they are just unwilling or unable to follow the logic of the argument (in this case, that says "wrong" is not as fixed and securely defined a concept as we would like it to be, so "murder" cannot be anchored to it.)


----------



## Boludo

Tikoo Tuba said:


> (copied from synopsis of the ballet Giselle)
> 
> Giselle is distraught beyond measure. She stabs herself with Albrecht's sword


Wait, is Adam a Wagner dup?


----------



## Boludo

MacLeod said:


> a) They don't
> b) Definitions of words are essential. How else are we to be sure that we have a common understanding?


Nonsense. Many words, particularly the ones that people get hung up on here (what is classical music, what are the dates for the Romantic period, what is post-modernism, atonal blah de blah) cannot have a precise definition. So you can argue as cleverly and or emotionally as you like whether or not something fits into the word you want for it (is Vangelis' music classical...sigh) but it makes no difference to the item being discussed. It's properties do not change just because you define a word in a certain way. What you are doing is changing the meaning of a word, the art-piece itself is completely untouched.

Hence, it is all hot air and a waste of time.


----------



## Guest

Boludo said:


> Nonsense. Many words, particularly the ones that people get hung up on here (what is classical music, what are the dates for the Romantic period, what is post-modernism, atonal blah de blah) cannot have a precise definition. So you can argue as cleverly and or emotionally as you like whether or not something fits into the word you want for it (is Vangelis' music classical...sigh) but it makes no difference to the item being discussed. It's properties do not change just because you define a word in a certain way. What you are doing is changing the meaning of a word, the art-piece itself is completely untouched.
> 
> Hence, it is all hot air and a waste of time.


Oh. Ok. .


----------



## zelenka

postmodern is the one and only reason why classical music isn't popular anymore


----------



## Boludo

zelenka said:


> postmodern is the one and only reason why classical music isn't popular anymore


Hahaha. When was it popular then?


----------



## zelenka

Boludo said:


> Hahaha. When was it popular then?


it was much more popular until 3 decades ago compared to today


----------



## DaveM

Boludo said:


> It's properties do not change just because you define a word in a certain way...


You've got it backwards. Regarding the works I'm referring to, you define the word in a certain way because their properties have changed.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

MacLeod said:


> I must also say that I don't follow the reason v emotion debate as deployed here.


There may be a philosophy of reason here and it is exclusionary . It will not accept and examine all phenomena . This becomes an obsession with categories , one of which it deems unreasonable and useless . When something in this category actually exists in nature , hmm , there's trouble . In the extreme , for example , genocide is such a trouble .

Anybody here ever get in trouble for performing post-modern music in public ?


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> a) They don't
> b) Definitions of words are essential. How else are we to be sure that we have a common understanding?
> 
> What I would observe of "these discussions" is how often they are criticised for being about "semantics" (as if semantics are undesirable, like fleas or headlice) or they descend into personal criticism. It makes a change for them to be sustained by some wanting to discuss Boolean logic (though this kind of abstract loses me almost immediately).
> 
> I must also say that I don't follow the reason v emotion debate as deployed here. If I've been following correctly, the observation has been made that those who assert that "murder is wrong" only do so on the basis of their feelings about examples that illustrate the truth of that statement. That may be so, but it seems more likely that they are just unwilling or unable to follow the logic of the argument (in this case, that says "wrong" is not as fixed and securely defined a concept as we would like it to be, so "murder" cannot be anchored to it.)


Yes, I think you're right. We are comfortable in concluding murder (defined as intentionally killing another human) is wrong in general because, as an empirical, practical matter, in virtually any type of human society, most agree that it is enormously harmful and destructive. And humans are social animals. But even there, capital punishment is still used in many US jurisdictions, most of Asia and some African countries, and western countries are increasingly legalizing assisted suicide. Of course, one still may have the strongly-felt personal belief that all murder is wrong, including in those instances, and it would be silly for me to claim I could 'disprove' that principle. But as I said, if one empirically observes how humans behave and construct their societies, one would have to conclude that most humans treat murder as nearly always wrong, but not absolutely always.

I adopt the same approach -- empirical observation -- in reaching conclusions about cultural trends and artistic movements like postmodernism, because, though far from perfect, it has consistently proved to be the most accurate tool for analyzing our world.


----------



## fluteman

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Anybody here ever get in trouble for performing post-modern music in public ?


The opposite. In my chamber music group, it was consistently the most popular with audiences, far more than Broadway show tunes, jazz, classic opera arias, baroque music, or anything else.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

An available set of empirical data can be deviously imperfect by design . The designer's motive - emotional .


----------



## Boludo

MacLeod said:


> Oh. Ok. .


No worries Mac mate.


----------



## Boludo

DaveM said:


> You've got it backwards. Regarding the works I'm referring to, you define the word in a certain way because their properties have changed.


Thanks, you're confirming my point, even if you don't realise it!


----------



## DaveM

Boludo said:


> Thanks, you're confirming my point, even if you don't realise it!


If so, you made your point poorly.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> Yes, I think you're right. We are comfortable in concluding murder (defined as intentionally killing another human) is wrong in general because, as an empirical, practical matter, in virtually any type of human society, most agree that it is enormously harmful and destructive. And humans are social animals. But even there, capital punishment is still used in many US jurisdictions, most of Asia and some African countries, and western countries are increasingly legalizing assisted suicide. Of course, one still may have the strongly-felt personal belief that all murder is wrong, including in those instances, and it would be silly for me to claim I could 'disprove' that principle. But as I said, if one empirically observes how humans behave and construct their societies, one would have to conclude that most humans treat murder as nearly always wrong, but not absolutely always.
> 
> I adopt the same approach -- empirical observation -- in reaching conclusions about cultural trends and artistic movements like postmodernism, because, though far from perfect, it has consistently proved to be the most accurate tool for analyzing our world.


Can I just check what our understanding is of the word 'wrong'? Murder may be an unprofitable act, harmful, anti-social, destructive - and demonstrably so - but 'wrong' implies something else.


----------



## Boludo

zelenka said:


> it was much more popular until 3 decades ago compared to today


Nonsense. Where do you get this idea? What happened 3 decades to music to have such a devastating effect on it's popularity?

You are transferring your personal inability to appreciate certain music to the whole global classical music population!


----------



## DaveM

Boludo said:


> Nonsense. Where do you get this idea? What happened 3 decades to music to have such a devastating effect on it's popularity?
> 
> You are transferring your personal inability to appreciate certain music to the whole global classical music population!


Can't refrain from making it personal can you.


----------



## Boludo

DaveM said:


> If so, you made your point poorly.


Maybe, or you didn't read it properly.


----------



## KenOC

fluteman said:


> Yes, I think you're right. We are comfortable in concluding murder (defined as intentionally killing another human) is wrong in general because, as an empirical, practical matter, in virtually any type of human society, most agree that it is enormously harmful and destructive. And humans are social animals. But even there, capital punishment is still used in many US jurisdictions, most of Asia and some African countries, and western countries are increasingly legalizing assisted suicide...


Multiply that death toll by many many times and you'll get an approximation of the number of people murdered by governments in wars -- wars we always glorify. Murder, in our species, is not just a regrettable side effect of managing organized societies, it is an absolute preoccupation in which we revel.


----------



## Boludo

DaveM said:


> Can't refrain from making it personal can you.


I was replying to zelenka. It is a tired old position. 'I don't like it, therefore it is rubbish therefore it's all falling apart.'

You've been here long enough to know the feeble arguments put forward by modern music haters. There is nothing wrong in calling it out for what it is.


----------



## sharkeysnight

So what is postmodern music, anyways?


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> Can I just check what our understanding is of the word 'wrong'? Murder may be an unprofitable act, harmful, anti-social, destructive - and demonstrably so - but 'wrong' implies something else.


Fair enough. I should have said, "if one empirically observes how humans behave and construct their societies, one would have to conclude that most humans treat murder as an act that should nearly always be strictly prohibited, but not absolutely always." If someone wants to argue that murder is always absolutely wrong, including capital punishment and assisted suicide, on moral, religious or other grounds, I make no, and have no, argument to the contrary. Empirical observations do not carry such value judgments. That is one of their most useful features.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

sharkeysnight said:


> So what is postmodern music, anyways?


Its music that you have not heard yet


----------



## AeolianStrains

Not all instances of killing someone are murder. Murder is specifically the unjustified/illegal killing of someone. The two should not be conflated.


----------



## Boludo

sharkeysnight said:


> So what is postmodern music, anyways?


It is music that zelenka doesn't like.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

AeolianStrains said:


> Not all instances of killing someone are murder. Murder is specifically the unjustified/illegal killing of someone. The two should not be conflated.


Is this an essential part of postmodern music?


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Can I just check what our understanding is of the word 'wrong'? Murder may be an unprofitable act, harmful, anti-social, destructive - and demonstrably so - but *'wrong' implies something else.*


What else does it imply? All of those factors, and more, contribute to the perception and belief that intentional, unnecessary killing of human beings is wrong. Empirical observation supports moral principle, and is a necessary and proper foundation for it. The wrongness of murder is implicit in the very term: we don't use the term, in most cases, for killing in self-defense, defense of others, or legal punishment.


----------



## fluteman

AeolianStrains said:


> Not all instances of killing someone are murder. Murder is specifically the unjustified/illegal killing of someone. The two should not be conflated.


Yes, I'm a lawyer, so I know that. I thought it would be simpler to define it my way since that is the sort of definition non-lawyers usually use in moral or philosophical discussions. Murder in legal terms is by definition a crime and cannot be justified. Above, I made the mistake of using the term "wrong" in the legal sense rather than a moral or philosophical one, understandably causing some confusion.


----------



## AeolianStrains

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Is this an essential part of postmodern music?


We're talking about music? Huh.


----------



## KenOC

fluteman said:


> ...Murder in legal terms is by definition a crime and cannot be justified.


An interesting conundrum. If we're simply a bunch of people milling around, then going next door and killing everybody is clearly "murder" since it's illegal. But if we set up a government and choose people from among ourselves to lead us, and they order us to go next door and kill everybody, then that's not murder anymore since it's now, magically, legal.​


----------



## fluteman

KenOC said:


> An interesting conundrum. If we're simply a bunch of people milling around, then going next door and killing everybody is clearly "murder" since it's illegal. But if we set up a government and choose people from among ourselves to lead us, and they order us to go next door and kill everybody, then that's not murder anymore since it's now, magically, legal.​


Legal scholars spend a lot of time discussing things like that. They are a lot like musicologists discussing postmodernism, actually.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> *What else does it imply? *All of those factors, and more, contribute to the perception and belief that intentional, unnecessary killing of human beings is wrong. Empirical observation supports moral principle, and is a necessary and proper foundation for it. The wrongness of murder is implicit in the very term: we don't use the term, in most cases, for killing in self-defense, defense of others, or legal punishment.


"Morally" wrong. That is, none of those factors are necessary contributors to the belief of its wrongess - it's just wrong (as ordained by an absolute authority, perhaps). Morally wrong is not the same as "anti-social". Picking one's nose and eating the contents is regarded as anti-social, but not morally wrong. Crashing one's car is destructive, drinking alcohol and smoking are harmful, but none of these is morally wrong.


----------



## Boludo

MacLeod said:


> Morally wrong is not the same as "anti-social". Picking one's nose and eating the contents is regarded as anti-social, but not morally wrong.


I know what you mean Mac. My nasal excretions taste soapy. Not nice. When I was a child they were quite tasty, even nutritious, but then we didn't wash much in those days so there were less chemicals being excreted.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> What else does it imply? All of those factors, and more, contribute to the perception and belief that intentional, unnecessary killing of human beings is wrong. Empirical observation supports moral principle, and is a necessary and proper foundation for it. The wrongness of murder is implicit in the very term: we don't use the term, in most cases, for killing in self-defense, defense of others, or legal punishment.


All well said and correct. As I acknowledged before, I was not using the term murder in its technical, legal sense, as I didn't think most in this discussion were. But when you get to thornier issues such as assisted suicide for the terminally ill, the moral issue is less clear cut, perhaps because empirical observation does not support one side quite so clearly. Even less clear cut is the issue of where and to whom to devote scarce and costly health care resources that can prolong life. To those who can best afford to pay for them? Should an 18-year old who could live another 70 years have priority over a terminally ill 85-year old?

I suggest that the thornier these issues become, the more important it is to consider the empirical evidence.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

eugeneonagain said:


> I charge Tikoo Tuba with derailment via woo (but not woomanship).


In the woo , Tikoo appreciates this question and reply :

_What is post-modernism ?

It hasn't happened yet ._


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> empirical observation does not support one side quite so clearly.


I'm still not quite sure where empirical observation fits into this. Can you simplify for me?


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> "Morally" wrong. That is, none of those factors are necessary contributors to the belief of its wrongess - it's just wrong (as ordained by an absolute authority, perhaps). Morally wrong is not the same as "anti-social". Picking one's nose and eating the contents is regarded as anti-social, but not morally wrong. Crashing one's car is destructive, drinking alcohol and smoking are harmful, but none of these is morally wrong.


This sounds like a complete dissociation of morality from life. Where do you think moral ideas - including the idea of morality itself - come from?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> This sounds like a complete dissociation of morality from life.


Does it? I'm not sure I understand.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> I'm still not quite sure where empirical observation fits into this. Can you simplify for me?


Sorry, no. I think issues like those cannot be simplified. I only bring them up to counter the idea that one can always be guided by clear cut, absolute rules to determine what is moral or right and what is immoral or wrong. Even killing another human being, an example raised by another poster here, which seems like such a fundamentally wrong and immoral act, can be seen in another light when considering the practical reality of how to allocate limited and costly health care resources or end of life decisions, for example. But whether the factual circumstances in such cases support the act of ending a life, or allowing it to end, is not an easy question to answer.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> Sorry, no. I think issues like those cannot be simplified. I only bring them up to counter the idea that one can always be guided by clear cut, absolute rules to determine what is moral or right and what is immoral or wrong. Even killing another human being, an example raised by another poster here, which seems like such a fundamentally wrong and immoral act, can be seen in another light when considering the practical reality of how to allocate limited and costly health care resources or end of life decisions, for example. But whether the factual circumstances in such cases support the act of ending a life, or allowing it to end, is not an easy question to answer.


I didn't mean for the issues to be simplified - just what "empirical observation" means in this context - what are they? What do they have to do with moral decisions?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> This sounds like a complete dissociation of morality from life. Where do you think moral ideas - including the idea of morality itself - come from?


Humans are prey to all sorts of delusions and irrational beliefs -- like the ideas of "right" and "wrong." But evolution has hard-wired us for that sort of thing so that the social groupings we depend on for individual survival will be possible. We discard our delusions at our peril, but they remain...delusions.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> I didn't mean for the issues to be simplified - just what "empirical observation" means in this context - what are they? What do they have to do with moral decisions?


I'm sorry, but there is more to this than can be summarized in a simple internet discussion. If you want to learn more about resource allocation in health care, end of life decisions, and related issues, I strongly recommend the work of my college classmate, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emmanuel. He addresses these issues through what he calls "political philosophy", by which he essentially means a careful (and democratic) evaluation of social consensus. We look to our society's common values, regardless of where or why or how they arise, to formulate medical ethics policy. This is the empirical process I was referring to.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Humans are prey to all sorts of delusions and irrational beliefs -- like the ideas of "right" and "wrong." But evolution has hard-wired us for that sort of thing so that the social groupings we depend on for individual survival will be possible. We discard our delusions at our peril, but they remain...delusions.


If you claim to know that the idea of right and wrong is a delusion, then you're claiming to be free of that delusion. At what peril have you discarded it?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> If you claim to know that the idea of right and wrong is a delusion, then you're claiming to be free of that delusion. At what peril have you discarded it?


There is a big difference between knowing something is a delusion and being free of it! Conditioning goes deep.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Does it? I'm not sure I understand.


The question was essential to the statement. Where do moral ideas come from if they're not derived from, and are not intended to serve, the conditions of life? What meaning do the words "right" and "wrong" have if they describe no state of affairs or purposes to be achieved in the real world? How can anything be, as you put it, "just wrong"?

I'm getting the feeling that people here are arguing against a purely intrinsic theory of values, as if values were inherent in things and somehow beyond debate. That may very well describe the way people have regarded moral principles in the context of accepted religious and other social codes, but it's not the only way of regarding them, and certainly not a way of explaining them.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> There is a big difference between knowing something is a delusion and being free of it! Conditioning goes deep.


No. A delusion is a false idea. You either hold such an idea or you don't. You're either deluded or you're free of that delusion. If you "know" that ideas of morality are delusions, you "know" that, say, raping and murdering your neighbor is not immoral. It's merely...what? "Antisocial?"


----------



## KenOC

Let me ask you a question. After you answer, I'll ask a second question.

Do you believe a person professing atheism should be put to death?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> Let me ask you a question. After you answer, I'll ask a second question.
> 
> Do you believe a person professing atheism should be put to death?


By god or someone else?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Death is banishment . Whistling along , I follow the band .


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Death is banishment . Whistling along , I follow the band .


Sounds like freedom to me


----------



## KenOC

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> By god or someone else?


God doesn't have to lift a finger. Atheism merits the death penalty in *13 countries*. It's the law of the land in those places and nobody seems in a hurry to change that.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

KenOC said:


> God doesn't have to lift a finger. Atheism merits the death penalty in *13 countries*. It's the law of the land in those places and nobody seems in a hurry to change that.


And all 13 of those nations are majority muslim nations. No christian majority nation does this.


----------



## KenOC

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And all 13 of those nations are majority muslim nations. No christian majority nation does this.


True, but what must people in those countries think of the Christian nations, so far gone in their iniquity that they suffer atheists to live?

Whose "right" is right? What would _we _believe had we been born in rural Pakistan? Is it possible that our ideas of right and wrong are merely accidents of our births?


----------



## Simon Moon

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And all 13 of those nations are majority muslim nations. No christian majority nation does this.


Historically speaking, that behavior of majority Christian nations is quite recent.


----------



## Phil loves classical

KenOC said:


> An interesting conundrum. If we're simply a bunch of people milling around, then going next door and killing everybody is clearly "murder" since it's illegal. But if we set up a government and choose people from among ourselves to lead us, and they order us to go next door and kill everybody, then that's not murder anymore since it's now, magically, legal.​


Kind of like the Nazis' if your neighbors were Jewish, or reporting to the Viet Cong, a neighbor who was an emphatic democrat.



KenOC said:


> Humans are prey to all sorts of delusions and irrational beliefs -- like the ideas of "right" and "wrong." But evolution has hard-wired us for that sort of thing so that the social groupings we depend on for individual survival will be possible. We discard our delusions at our peril, but they remain...delusions.


Are you saying it is only a delusion or self-righteousness that we condemn the Holocaust when the Nazis' were just being obedient citizens?


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Let me ask you a question. After you answer, I'll ask a second question.
> 
> Do you believe a person professing atheism should be put to death?


Of course not. What purpose would be served by doing that? Atheists are are a threat to - whom? Or what? To the beliefs of people who prefer to remain intellectual sheep? "Moral" practices such as that exist where people don't question or oppose them, usually out of fear. Fear is not a good basis for making moral choices, but institutions of power perpetuate themselves by making it the primary basis.

A moral sense is innate in most people. But moral values are learned. Learning isn't simple; we can do it badly, individually and collectively. The fact that some people can believe ridiculous and destructive things doesn't imply that better beliefs can't be defined or justified. As long as you believe the earth is flat, you'll never understand astronomy or enjoy a trip around the world. As long as you believe atheists should be executed, you'll have to suppress your mind's inclination to question, encourage others to be just as stupid, watch your neighbors being put to death and become desensitized to it, hope your kids don't become atheists, and try to exorcise any scary atheistic thoughts that may creep in and shake your faith and your self-confidence. Here, as in most cases, a bad moral code is invalidated by realities and preserved by evading them.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...As long as you believe the earth is flat you'll never understand astronomy or enjoy a trip around the world.


Things provable or disprovable through observation are in the realm of science. Moral beliefs are not.


----------



## KenOC

Phil loves classical said:


> Are you saying it is only a delusion or self-righteousness that we condemn the Holocaust when the Nazis' were just being obedient citizens?


If Germany had won WWII and somehow conquered the United States, you and I might believe just that.

After all, we committed a probably greater genocide in our own country but are perfectly willing to reap the benefits of all that real estate!


----------



## KenOC

Simon Moon said:


> Historically speaking, that behavior of majority Christian nations is quite recent.


I remember my father telling me of a religious broadcast he had heard in the 1930s. The churchman whose show it was said that all non-Catholics should be either converted or killed. Probably an extreme view even in those times, but still it wasn't all that long ago.


----------



## Phil loves classical

KenOC said:


> An interesting conundrum. If we're simply a bunch of people milling around, then going next door and killing everybody is clearly "murder" since it's illegal. But if we set up a government and choose people from among ourselves to lead us, and they order us to go next door and kill everybody, then that's not murder anymore since it's now, magically, legal.​





KenOC said:


> Things provable or disprovable through observation are in the realm of science. Moral beliefs are not.





KenOC said:


> If Germany had won WWII and somehow conquered the United States, you and I might believe just that.
> 
> After all, we committed a probably greater genocide in our own country but are perfectly willing to reap the benefits of all that real estate!


But don't you think after these lessons or observations from History, we are better able to make moral decisions? Maybe they weren't provably morally wrong back then, we can advance or refine our moral ideals. Or are we doomed to make mistakes again and again in different circumstances?


----------



## KenOC

Phil loves classical said:


> But don't you think after these lessons or observations from History, we are better able to make moral decisions? Maybe they weren't provably morally wrong back then, we can advance or refine our moral ideals. Or are we doomed to make mistakes again and again in different circumstances?


Only Darwin can define a "mistake." I certainly can't! And of course Darwin doesn't spend a lot of time on morality.

Sorry I can't give you a response that you would find more satisfying.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> If Germany had won WWII and somehow conquered the United States, you and I might believe just that.
> 
> After all, we committed a probably greater genocide in our own country but are perfectly willing to reap the benefits of all that real estate!


Leave me out of the 'we'. I wasn't around at the time.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

As long as hitler didn't get the rest of the West, I'd be ok with that - would have saved us all from Maccas and KFC

and God I'm glad I don't believe in God of any kind and live in a Country where that is OK.........


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> The question was essential to the statement. Where do moral ideas come from if they're not derived from, and are not intended to serve, the conditions of life? What meaning do the words "right" and "wrong" have if they describe no state of affairs or purposes to be achieved in the real world? How can anything be, as you put it, "just wrong"?
> 
> *I'm getting the feeling that people here* are arguing against a purely intrinsic theory of values, as if values were inherent in things and somehow beyond debate. That may very well describe the way people have regarded moral principles in the context of accepted religious and other social codes, but it's not the only way of regarding them, and certainly not a way of explaining them.


Which people? Me? The problem _I'm _finding with this discussion is that it feels like 'people' trading shots from their different positions without actually trading ideas (or, in the case of the silent cheerleading 'likers', without even trading posts!). I don't understand what is meant by "empirical observation" in the context of determining morals, but apparently, it can't be simplified, says fluteman. I observe that the way the word word 'wrong' is being used - not by me - implies something different than 'anti-social' and am trying to understand what the word 'wrong' actually means, and am then assumed by Woodduck to be "dissociating morality from life" (it sounds bad, but I'm not sure what that means either.)

Some pages back, I confirmed my view - which seemed to be shared with one or two others, but no-one actually responded to what I'd posted, so I'm making an assumption - that morals for a community are agreed amongst those who belong to the community, but that since our world is comprised of many differing communities, we can see that what is regarded as moral behaviour in one community is not necessarily moral behaviour in another. Since, as Ken points out, there are some behaviours which seem to one community profoundly wrong while acceptable in another (executing atheists is his example; mine might be the age of consent for sex between 'adults') we have to see that the word 'wrong' means, in practice, different things to different people. It is not a universal, even though those who believe in a god tell us that there is a universal _and absolute_ meaning to these words - right, wrong, moral, immoral etc.

'Murder' takes us somewhere else, introducing the finer points of law and the problem of degrees and state-sanctioned killing, and is probably an unhelpful example if we're trying to share ideas more simply about what 'moral' means. It's rather like starting teaching children algebra with a quadratic equation instead of a simpler 3=a+1.

Woodduck, you seem to hold the firm conviction that telling right from wrong is easy, because somethings are just intrinsically 'wrong'. Have I go that right?

I've long since lost track of what this has to do with the OP. Can anyone enlighten me? I'm happy to continue to fathom morals, but perhaps this should be continued in the community section?

[add. It was this post that took us away from PM - I blame Eva! - Why Postmodernism In Music Is Bad (Sucks)]


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Woodduck, you seem to hold the firm conviction that telling right from wrong is easy, because somethings are just intrinsically 'wrong'. Have I go that right?


No, that isn't my view. Specific "things" (behaviors, actions) acquire morally significant identities from their context. In different contexts they're actually different "things." Killing is a good example; it may be justifiable in some contexts, but not in others, and when it isn't it may acquire a distinct moral identity called "murder."

It's possible to disagree about the moral significance of any specific action. We do it frequently; we even debate it with ourselves. Sometimes, when values have competing claims and one must be chosen over another, a clear moral "winner" can't be decided upon. But we do our best, and I hold that there are basic values which most reliably guide moral choices and help us do our best. How certain values fulfill that role is a topic in itself, and one I haven't tried to articulate in writing. Maybe that discussion would better be had elsewhere (and also not twenty minutes before my bedtime).


----------



## Enthusiast

Phil loves classical said:


> But don't you think after these lessons or observations from History, we are better able to make moral decisions? Maybe they weren't provably morally wrong back then, we can advance or refine our moral ideals. Or are we doomed to make mistakes again and again in different circumstances?


We are surely doomed to make the same mistakes. I think you see it all the time writ small. For the big ones need special circumstances like (in Hitler's case) a global depression and the humiliation of Germany following WW1. The effect is so strong that I am reluctant to list the current "writ small examples" for fear of angering some members and being accused of bringing politics into our discussions.


----------



## 1996D

Not just in music, postmodernism is an intellectual cancer, a denial of even the most basic truths.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> Not just in music, postmodernism is an intellectual cancer, a denial of even the most basic truths.


And here's an alternative view...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...nt-a-vile-cancerous-doctrine/article37272519/



> So what is postmodernism, anyway? Scholars who pay attention to accuracy will tell you that the term first surfaced in 1960s architectural lingo. It meant a jumbling of styles and materials not constrained by traditional International Style expectations. Robert Venturi and the early work of Canada's own Frank Gehry are good examples.
> 
> I'm assuming that the discerners of rot, cancer and so on don't mean this. They have bigger bugbears to stalk.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> No, that isn't my view. Specific "things" (behaviors, actions) acquire morally significant identities from their context. In different contexts they're actually different "things." Killing is a good example; it may be justifiable in some contexts, but not in others, and when it isn't it may acquire a distinct moral identity called "murder."


Why wouldn't that be a 'legal' identity?



Woodduck said:


> It's possible to disagree about the moral significance of any specific action. We do it frequently; we even debate it with ourselves. Sometimes, when values have competing claims and one must be chosen over another, a clear moral "winner" can't be decided upon. But we do our best, and I hold that there are basic values which most reliably guide moral choices and help us do our best. How certain values fulfill that role is a topic in itself, and one I haven't tried to articulate in writing. Maybe that discussion would better be had elsewhere (and also not twenty minutes before my bedtime).


I can't see any authority for deciding what is and isn't 'moral' unless we invent it. And we invent it based upon our own shared feelings of self-preservation, preservation of what we love, sympathy, empathy.


----------



## eugeneonagain

1996D said:


> Not just in music, postmodernism is an intellectual cancer, a denial of even the most basic truths.


The only real intellectual cancers are those that halt thought; notably religious 'thinking' and static ideology and conscious corruption of information for private gain. What are these 'basic truths' you allege are denied by _postmodernism_?


----------



## 1996D

What irony, you just perfectly described postmodernism: a conscious corruption of information for private gain.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> What irony, you just perfectly described postmodernism: a conscious corruption of information for private gain.


Ah, you're back. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate further on your views of postmodernism, rather than just repeating one-liner dismissals


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> No, that isn't my view. Specific "things" (behaviors, actions) acquire morally significant identities from their context. In different contexts they're actually different "things." Killing is a good example; it may be justifiable in some contexts, but not in others, and when it isn't it may acquire a distinct moral identity called "murder."
> 
> It's possible to disagree about the moral significance of any specific action. We do it frequently; we even debate it with ourselves. Sometimes, when values have competing claims and one must be chosen over another, a clear moral "winner" can't be decided upon. But we do our best, and *I hold that there are basic values which most reliably guide moral choices and help us do our best.* How certain values fulfill that role is a topic in itself, and one I haven't tried to articulate in writing. Maybe that discussion would better be had elsewhere (and also not twenty minutes before my bedtime).


I agree with almost all you say. I think I agree with the bit I have emboldened too, but I'd just like to check whether you think the "basic values" are to be regarded as objective and/or absolute.

As for context, the community is an important part of that context, isn't it? It's not just about the circumstances within which a moral choice is to be made.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

MacLeod said:


> [add. It was this post that took us away from PM - I blame Eva! - Why Postmodernism In Music Is Bad (Sucks)]


LOL, To be fair, I merely mentioned morality as analogous to the PM/M debate and wasn't trying to side track things! I'm also one of the few who genuinely tried to define and distinguish PM and M here.


----------



## Guest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> LOL, To be fair, I merely mentioned morality as analogous to the PM/M debate and wasn't trying to side track things! I'm also one of the few who genuinely tried to define and distinguish PM and M here.


Oh, yes. I wasn't trying to apportion blame, merely find out the point at which one post precipitated the subsequent exchanges. Your sidestep from artistic hierachies (a legitimate response to the OP) to ethics hierarchies was an interesting but diverting side note. Of course, if Roy Fuller had not scattered a whole range of fascinating and sometimes random comments, we might never have got on to pure philosophy* and ethics at all. It doesn't bother me. I'm just conscious that it bothers others and a mod may come along at any moment and render the efforts of those genuinely interested in the side issues redundant.

*as opposed to confining ourselves to the philosophy of post modernism with reference to music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

1996D said:


> What irony, you just perfectly described postmodernism: a conscious corruption of information for private gain.


It's only irony in your eyes. You'll need to get explaining if you want to be taken seriously because at the moment it's just griping that 'fings ain't wot they used to be'.

If you have no explanations, jog on.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

"Within the music scene, the term postmodernism does not have a clearly defined content, but it has been linked to the dramatic expansion of the musicians' and composers' field of work and ways of working from 1970 onwards. Important in this context is the music technological development and the globalization of music culture, with world music and border crossings between genres and music subcultures (art music, pop, jazz and ethnic music). The musical forms of knowledge have shifted focus from the material of music, technique and theory, to its social / cultural contexts, meaning and content. The distinction between composer and practitioner is partially erased, and any music creator can freely exploit any material from past and present, from his own culture and from other cultures or subcultures."
thank-you "Great Norwegian Lexicon" & translate.google
I trust this definition of postmodernism, so it doesn't suck.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Why wouldn't that be a 'legal' identity?


That too.



> I can't see any authority for deciding what is and isn't 'moral' unless we invent it. And we invent it based upon our own shared feelings of self-preservation, preservation of what we love, sympathy, empathy.


We don't invent those feelings - which are more than just feelings, but carry with them intrinsic valuations - and if we're looking for a basis for moral choice they're certainly the right place to begin. What would "morality" mean, and why would the concept even arise in our minds, without them?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> We don't invent those feelings - which are more than just feelings, but carry with them intrinsic valuations - and if we're looking for a basis for moral choice they're certainly the right place to begin. What would "morality" mean, and why would the concept even arise in our minds, without them?


I'd say the concept is developed rather than it arises. Morality seems to be an ongoing agreement to preserve our best interests, and whilst that might appear simplistic; it actually represents a difficult balancing act. The intrinsic valuations you refer to are what I would recognise as values that we hold as beneficial for ourselves and thus we agree to trade part of our freedom to be able to behave exactly as we please (even if we might want to sometimes) for the promise of being treated well.

The feelings are certainly real, but they are ours and in relation to us as individuals, and only by extension (empathy) to others. This is not a defeat and collapse into individualism, but more a recognition that we learn to be social and morality is part of that.


----------



## DaveM

Rick Beato says, ‘I have no opinion about any of this.’


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> Which people? Me? The problem _I'm _finding with this discussion is that it feels like 'people' trading shots from their different positions without actually trading ideas (or, in the case of the silent cheerleading 'likers', without even trading posts!). I don't understand what is meant by "empirical observation" in the context of determining morals, but apparently, it can't be simplified, says fluteman. Why Postmodernism In Music Is Bad (Sucks)]


Please don't misstate what I said. It's there in black and white. Issues with moral implications (for they are not necessarily solely moral issues or capable of analysis solely from a moral standpoint) are best resolved by arriving at a consensus, through a democratic political process that is unavoidably empirical. The principles that bring people to that common ground are far less important than finding and accurately defining it, and determining how to apply it to specific issues, and in fact there is no need for universal understanding of or agreement on those principles.

To me, it is no accident that some of the worst atrocities, both in recent and long past history, have been committed in the name of God by theocractic governments. This is not because religion, or religious principles, are necessarily bad or wrong. It is because, in the absence of a democratic political process to define a moral common ground and how to apply it to specific issues, there is no reliable way to insure those or any other principles are not abused to promote the self-serving agendas of rulers or ruling elites or other bad ends.

Some despots haven't bothered with religion at all, and instead created their own mythology, such as Hitler's "Aryan race", to create moral justification for their atrocities. Stalin's mythology, called "communism" but only tenuously related to the ideas of Marx and Engels, was overtly anti-religious. Some seem to try to mythologize what they refer to as "free enterprise", or create a cult of the individual, perhaps along the lines of the ideas of Ayn Rand discussed here earlier.

I have great mistrust for all of that, because nearly all of the time it is merely an excuse for an attempt to force some agenda or other on society as a whole without finding the moral common ground and how to apply it properly in specific instances. I think it's best not to discuss moral principles at all unless in the context of finding and applying the moral common ground. We could say, intentional killing is wrong, unless it is justified. But under precisely what circumstances can most or all of us agree it is justified? Abstract principles alone will never get us the comprehensive answers we need.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> Please don't misstate what I said. It's there in black and white. Issues with moral implications (for they are not necessarily solely moral issues or capable of analysis solely from a moral standpoint) are best resolved by arriving at a consensus, through a democratic political process that is unavoidably empirical. The principles that bring people to that common ground are far less important than finding and accurately defining it, and determining how to apply it to specific issues, and in fact there is no need for universal understanding of or agreement on those principles.


If I misstate, it's because I've misunderstood. It's not my intention to deliberately misrepresent.

You say "through a democratic political process that is unavoidably empirical" - it's that word again, and I don't understand its application here (I know what the word means - I've looked it up!)

What do you mean by "a democratic political process that is unavoidably empirical"?


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Only Darwin can define a "mistake." I certainly can't! *And of course Darwin doesn't spend a lot of time on morality*.


Are you sure? Social animals like chimps, bonobos, and elephants exhibit complex social behaviors difficult to explain without reference to concepts of ethics and fairness. Morality in some basic sense seems to have evolved in mutually dependent, cooperative social species because it has survival value for both the group and for individuals.


----------



## Simon Moon

EdwardBast said:


> Are you sure? Social animals like chimps, bonobos, and elephants exhibit complex social behaviors difficult to explain without reference to concepts of ethics and fairness. Morality in some basic sense seems to have evolved in mutually dependent, cooperative social species because it has survival value for both the group and for individuals.


YES!

This is a big mistake people make with regards to evolution, and the completely misunderstood concept of "survival of the fittest".

Survival of the fittest, as most people believe, does not mean: the strongest, meanest, most ruthless, etc.

With regards to tigers, it may be true. But with regards to social species, like humans, it means best able to be part of a group. Behaviors like: altruism, kin selection, reciprocity, cooperation, etc are part of our survival tool set.

By definition, social species are unable to survive without the support of their group.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

EdwardBast said:


> Morality in some basic sense seems to have evolved in mutually dependent, cooperative social species because it has survival value for both the group and for individuals.


Members of this forum constitute a cooperative social specie . One I first I arrived I was very soon and directly informed of a CM taboo , yet in no way did the writer define it . Mysteriously informed and warned . So I had to get out the oracle wheel for a clue and an oh-somewhere-that-way direction . I think it is in this string that taboo is being exposed . It may remain ephemeral though , like a bit of smoke , then it's gone .


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> If I misstate, it's because I've misunderstood. It's not my intention to deliberately misrepresent.
> 
> You say "through a democratic political process that is unavoidably empirical" - it's that word again, and I don't understand its application here (I know what the word means - I've looked it up!)
> 
> What do you mean by "a democratic political process that is unavoidably empirical"?


The delineation of a society's common or shared values, and how these values should be applied in specific circumstances to create law or policy, should be "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." Or at least, rather than solely or entirely based on theory or pure logic. The part within quotes is a definition of "empirical".


----------



## KenOC

Simon Moon said:


> ...But with regards to social species, like humans, it means best able to be part of a group. Behaviors like: altruism, kin selection, reciprocity, cooperation, etc are part of our survival tool set.
> 
> By definition, social species are unable to survive without the support of their group.


Exactly. Survival behavior. Nothing to do with an absolute morality. And of course man's tribal behavior toolkits vary widely. We are all bred for behaviors that promote survival and then we create myths that they were decreed by gods.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

When is authority a myth ? Invoke it , poke it , and find out .


----------



## eugeneonagain

Simon Moon said:


> YES!
> 
> This is a big mistake people make with regards to evolution, and the completely misunderstood concept of "survival of the fittest".
> 
> Survival of the fittest, as most people believe, does not mean: the strongest, meanest, most ruthless, etc.
> 
> With regards to tigers, it may be true. But with regards to social species, like humans, it means best able to be part of a group. Behaviors like: altruism, kin selection, reciprocity, cooperation, etc are part of our survival tool set.
> 
> By definition, social species are unable to survive without the support of their group.


The problem is the identification and naming of a thing called 'morality' as something more than those social skills derived from our own requirements for survival. I think it bothers some people to admit this because it feels like some kind of Ayn Rand quackery, but it's actually the realisation and development of a necessary social co-operation that obliterates any half-baked ideas about 'personal moralities' and 'virtues of selfishness'. The latter merely recognises the initial fact and runs completely in the wrong direction to reach a conclusion, when the actual conclusion is staring everyone in the face.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Tikoo Tuba said:


> When is authority a myth ? Invoke it , poke it , and find out .


It could be an advertising slogan for postmodernist thought.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Exactly. Survival behavior. Nothing to do with an absolute morality. And of course man's tribal behavior toolkits vary widely. We are all bred for behaviors that promote survival and then we create myths that they were decreed by gods.


I'm not exactly disagreeing, but why do you think survival behavior and absolute morality are mutually exclusive categories? For social groups wishing or needing to interact intensively on an ongoing basis and to work and trade together efficiently, perhaps group survival behavior is the central pillar of an absolute morality.


----------



## tdc

The problem with Darwinism is it is a theory relating to animal life, and it has been superimposed upon human social behavior, as though human beings are no different from any other animal life. This is a tenet of Satanic doctrine, that humans are just another animal. However, man's ability for higher thinking functions due to the development of the neo-cortex, the ability to comprehend more complex concepts such as art and morality, is not something that should be ignored, but in fact places a higher responsibility upon our shoulders, as care takers of this planet. 

I think morality does not have to be anymore complex than a non-aggression principle. Essentially it boils down to - don't steal. Life, goods or anything else. Aggression can be seen as moral only in self defense. Assisted suicide is not an act of aggression therefore I don't see it as immoral.

All of man's laws outside of this are by nature, relative and corrupt. Outside authority is an illusion, no matter how deeply engrained. Each person owns themselves and are responsible for their own actions. 

As far as Atheism it is a form of religion (a dogmatic erroneous belief) and tends to lead towards totalitarian governments. It is not based on any sort of science.

"Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a categorical statement that expresses belief in non belief: "I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, period." It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations, we say "okay, you can have a hypothesis, and you have to have some evidence for or against that." An Agnostic would say "I have no evidence for God...but on the other hand, an Agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about." The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." 
-Marcelo Gleiser


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> As far as Atheism it is a form of religion (a dogmatic erroneous belief) and tends to lead towards totalitarian governments. It is not based on any sort of science.
> 
> "Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a categorical statement that expresses belief in non belief: "I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, period." It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations, we say "okay, you can have a hypothesis, and you have to have some evidence for or against that." An Agnostic would say "I have no evidence for God...but on the other hand, and Agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about." The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
> -Marcelo Gleiser


Not to divert the discussion from the diversion it's already being diverted by, but I want to point out that not all atheists declare categorically that gods do not exist. To be an atheist, one need only lack a belief in gods, a position founded on the conviction that there is no evidence for such a belief and that there is good evidence to the contrary. Since the matter is not subject to proof, most atheists just don't bother with it. In my experience, self-declared "agnostics" do bother with it and are bothered by it. They may eventually feel comfortable being theists - believers - or atheists - nonbelievers. All that's required for the latter is a lack of belief. Nonbelief isn't a religion, it's the state of not having one.

Atheism has nothing to do with governments, totalitarian or otherwise.


----------



## DaveM

I’m thinking that survival of the fittest can apply to classical music. :devil:


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> I'm thinking that survival of the fittest can apply to classical music. :devil:


Have you been watching Yuja Wang again...?


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not exactly disagreeing, but why do you think survival behavior and absolute morality are mutually exclusive categories? For social groups wishing or needing to interact intensively on an ongoing basis and to work and trade together efficiently, *perhaps group survival behavior is the central pillar of an absolute morality*.


Group survival behaviour _is_ 'morality'. Or that is the name given to it.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> The problem with Darwinism is it is a theory relating to animal life...


Darwinian theory relates to all life, animal and plant, huge and microscopic. When there is survival value in living in a group, then tendencies to individual behaviors that help the group endure are preferentially selected for.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

What happens if you play post modern music on a laptop, does it still suck even if you blow it.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Have you been watching Yuja Wang again...?


Yuja who? Nope, doesn't ring a bell.


----------



## eugeneonagain

tdc said:


> The problem with Darwinism is it is a theory relating to animal life, and it has been superimposed upon human social behavior, as though human beings are no different from any other animal life. This is a tenet of Satanic doctrine, that humans are just another animal. However, man's ability for higher thinking functions due to the development of the neo-cortex, the ability to comprehend more complex concepts such as art and morality, is not something that should be ignored, but in fact places a higher responsibility upon our shoulders, as care takers of this planet.


Human social behaviour _is_ animal behaviour. It hasn't been superimposed, it is a description. Also Darwin was chiefly interested in explaining the _Origins _of life, not constructing a morality framework. That you refer to humans not being sufficiently differentiated from the rest of animal life as a 'satanic doctrine' smells suspicious. We do have a greater responsibility to the planet, but it is mainly a issue of the problems we create for ourselves in artificial society. We really are just apes blessed and cursed with self-consciousness.



tdc said:


> I think morality does not have to be anymore complex than a non-aggression principle. Essentially it boils down to - don't steal. Life, goods or anything else. Aggression can be seen as moral only in self defense. Assisted suicide is not an act of aggression therefore I don't see it as immoral.


Morality, being a (human) social phenomenon, is a good deal more complex for human society than 'thou shalt not kill' from a simple aggression point-of-view. There are moral problems posed that involve no actual overt aggression unless the concept is stretched - and even then it depends on personal perspectives. The use of stem cells, cloning..etc.



tdc said:


> All of man's laws outside of this are by nature, relative and corrupt. Outside authority is an illusion, no matter how deeply engrained. Each person owns themselves and are responsible for their own actions.


Yes, outside authority is an illusion. I'm more sceptical of the idea that each person 'owns themselves' because you trade-in part of yourself when you become part of a society, which Is why I consider the 'absolute freedom' preached by 'freedom' demagogues as misguided twaddle. Plus human behaviour, as opposed to 'lesser-animals', is assumed to be purely a matter of rational deliberation and total self-control and thus all actions are free actions, but scientific analysis shows this to be untrue.



tdc said:


> As far as Atheism it is a form of religion (a dogmatic erroneous belief) and tends to lead towards totalitarian governments. It is not based on any sort of science.
> 
> "Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a categorical statement that expresses belief in non belief: "I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, period." It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations, we say "okay, you can have a hypothesis, and you have to have some evidence for or against that." An Agnostic would say "I have no evidence for God...but on the other hand, an Agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about." The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
> -Marcelo Gleiser


Dogmatic and erroneous? What's dogmatic about not pursuing a belief that has nothing going for it? I've seen a million and one quotes about atheism and they all stink. Marcelo Gleiser is just another fool for making that statement. Wheeling out the tired falsehood that atheism is just the other side of the coin from blind religious belief. It is completely consistent with scientific method because it waits for credible evidence and doesn't hang around worrying about it until that has been provided. That's not the same as 'a belief in a non-belief'. People really need to stop repeating this rubbish in their semi-philosophical diatribes. The difference between an agnostic and atheist is the atheist has stepped down from the fence and made his view known.
Religious people and self-styled Voltaires prefer agnostics because they leave a little safe-spot within the 'undecided' for preaching empty platitudes.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> Darwinian theory relates to all life, animal and plant, huge and microscopic. When there is survival value in living in a group, then tendencies to individual behaviors that help the group endure are preferentially selected for.


Evolution as a theory has its roots in antiquity ( in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in Medieval Islamic science), The first Modern proposed theory by the Frenchman Jean-Baptiste Lamarck ( a hero of Darwin's) in 1809 the Transmutation of species


----------



## Simon Moon

tdc said:


> As far as Atheism it is a form of religion (a dogmatic erroneous belief) and tends to lead towards totalitarian governments. It is not based on any sort of science.


Incorrect.

Atheism is simply NOT being convinced that gods exist. That's it.

_Some_ atheists may go further, and claim that gods don't exist. But that describes a minority of atheists.

My atheism is not a dogmatic position, it is provisional one. As long as the case for the existence of gods fails to meet its burden of proof, I will continue to be unconvinced.

I've evaluated the 'evidence' and the philosophical arguments (Kalam, teleological, TAG, ontological) and they all are unsound and/or invalid.

As soon as theists are able to provide me with evidence and reasoned argument to support their case that a god exists, I will be forced, by my intellectual honesty, to alter my position.



> "Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a categorical statement that expresses belief in non belief: "I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, period." It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations, we say "okay, you can have a hypothesis, and you have to have some evidence for or against that." An Agnostic would say "I have no evidence for God...but on the other hand, an Agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about." The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
> -Marcelo Gleiser


This is not correct.

Not to mention, that atheism and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive positions. I consider myself and agnostic atheist.

I don't claim to KNOW, with absolute certainty, that gods do not exist. This defines me as an agnostic.

I also, disbelieve gods exist. This defines me as an atheist.


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not exactly disagreeing, but why do you think survival behavior and absolute morality are mutually exclusive categories? For social groups wishing or needing to interact intensively on an ongoing basis and to work and trade together efficiently, perhaps group survival behavior is the central pillar of an absolute morality.


But if we want to formulate coherent, effective policies to deal with pressing ethical issues of modern society, involving questions such as when should life be protected and prolonged, and when should it end, it is not enough to trust our instinctive survival behavior or to turn for support to some pillar of absolute morality.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Everyone's an atheist. All Christians are atheists in that they declare that these gods do not exist: Zeus, Hera, Enkidu, Thor, Odin, Baal, etc. etc.

It's mind-boggingly hypocritical and laughably absurd to say that "atheists" act contrary to science in their disbelief when Christians do the exact same thing.

Observe:



> "Christianity is inconsistent with the scientific method. Christianity is a categorical statement that expresses belief in non belief: "I don't believe in Zeus even though I have no evidence for or against, period." It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations, we say "okay, you can have a hypothesis, and you have to have some evidence for or against that." An Agnostic would say "I have no evidence for Zeus...but on the other hand, an Agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about." The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Gleiser's statement is 100% baloney.


----------



## Phil loves classical

tdc said:


> The problem with Darwinism is it is a theory relating to animal life, and it has been superimposed upon human social behavior, as though human beings are no different from any other animal life. This is a tenet of Satanic doctrine, that humans are just another animal. However, man's ability for higher thinking functions due to the development of the neo-cortex, the ability to comprehend more complex concepts such as art and morality, is not something that should be ignored, but in fact places a higher responsibility upon our shoulders, as care takers of this planet.
> 
> I think morality does not have to be anymore complex than a non-aggression principle. Essentially it boils down to - don't steal. Life, goods or anything else. Aggression can be seen as moral only in self defense. Assisted suicide is not an act of aggression therefore I don't see it as immoral.
> 
> All of man's laws outside of this are by nature, relative and corrupt. Outside authority is an illusion, no matter how deeply engrained. Each person owns themselves and are responsible for their own actions.
> 
> As far as Atheism it is a form of religion (a dogmatic erroneous belief) and tends to lead towards totalitarian governments. It is not based on any sort of science.
> 
> "Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a categorical statement that expresses belief in non belief: "I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, period." It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations, we say "okay, you can have a hypothesis, and you have to have some evidence for or against that." An Agnostic would say "I have no evidence for God...but on the other hand, an Agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about." The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
> -Marcelo Gleiser


Coming from a Christian background, I have observed the going-ons in the Church (or churches) are not outside of Darwinism, any more than atheists, and History has shown it is not beyond totalitarism. The Pope had more power than the Emperor and kings at one time. Evidence of the contrary, and doctrinal inconsistencies and contradictions are enough to cast sufficient doubt. The burden of proof should be on those making extraordinary claims.


----------



## KenOC

AeolianStrains said:


> Everyone's an atheist. All Christians are atheists in that they declare that these gods do not exist: Zeus, Hera, Enkidu, Thor, Odin, Baal, etc. etc.


I think it was Dawkins who said, I merely disbelieve in one more god than you.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> As far as Atheism [etc]


A diversion too far. We've strayed far enough from postmodernism and music as it is without the overt introduction of "religion".



Simon Moon said:


> I consider myself and agnostic atheist.


Besides, you'd never get into heaven with that pipe!


----------



## Guest

Marcelo Gleiser is not beyond making his own misstatements.



> Which is why I get upset by misstatements, like when you have scientists-Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss among them-claiming we have solved the problem of the origin of the universe, or that string theory is correct and that the final "theory of everything" is at hand.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/...cientific-method-prizewinning-physicist-says/

I don't recall Hawking ever claiming we have "solved the problem of the origin of the Universe." My recollection is that he offered a theory that, _if proven_, brings us closer to it.


----------



## DaveM

Not with the intention of bringing up religion: when I hear and see something liike this very young girl with a shy smile playing this gorgeous work on a harp like someone much older, I find myself saying, 'There is a God!'.


----------



## arnerich

We can scientifically measure almost everything about music except the thing that really matters most; what gives it the power to move us? I can't prove why a piece of music is profound through the scientific method, but of it's profundity I am certain. To me, God is like that.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

dog playing musical instruments simultaneously - does this suggest god or dog
Sounds like Bagpipes to me
*



*


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

here is some more- this dog has taste


----------



## janxharris

eugeneonagain said:


> We really are just apes...


You might be right but the acknowledged (among evolutionary palaeontologists) scarcity of intermediary species remains an issue.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

janxharris said:


> You might be right but the acknowledged (among evolutionary palaeontologists) scarcity of intermediary species remains an issue.









.


----------



## janxharris

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> View attachment 116507
> .


He didn't speak.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> You might be right but the acknowledged (among evolutionary palaeontologists) scarcity of intermediary species remains an issue.


Does it? Is it acknowlegded? References please.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> Does it? Is it acknowlegded? References please.


"The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Geologist - Peter G. Williamson)

You will find many quotes from evolutionists saying much the same thing. Of course, they remain evolutionist; I was merely highlighting a possible issue.

I've posted this one before:

"We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation (ie gradual change) all the while knowing it does not." (Niles Eldredge)


----------



## Boludo

eugeneonagain said:


> . People really need to stop repeating this rubbish in their semi-philosophical diatribes.


Quote of the thread.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

janxharris said:


> He didn't speak.


He only grunts and groans


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> "The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Geologist - Peter G. Williamson)
> 
> You will find many quotes from evolutionists saying much the same thing. Of course, they remain evolutionist; I was merely highlighting a possible issue.


I am not sure what you purpose is here but this argument merely suggested that some small changes were needed _within _neo-evolutionary theory (it didn't come close to rethinking the whole thing as Einstein's work did in replacing Newton). It was sometimes quoted by creationists as proof that Darwin was wrong. Of course, it is no such thing and you would serve the cause of truth better if you were more clear about this. It is an argument among neo-evolutionists rather than proof that Darwin was substantially wrong.


----------



## 1996D

eugeneonagain said:


> Human social behaviour _is_ animal behaviour.


Do you understand animal behavior? If you do you can't be postmodern because animal behavior follows patterns and is predictable, giving you a clear understanding of the world. You can deconstruct all you want but once you start reconstructing you'll find that all is how it should be.

I quite enjoy Derrida, it's a nice read, but it only reinforces the truths that people like you fight every day. Postmodernists are running away from themselves and it makes them weak, but if you can't compete within the rules of the world, maybe that's your only choice.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I am not sure what you purpose is here but this argument merely suggested that some small changes were needed _within _neo-evolutionary theory (it didn't come close to rethinking the whole thing as Einstein's work did in replacing Newton). It was sometimes quoted by creationists as proof that Darwin was wrong. Of course, it is no such thing and you would serve the cause of truth better if you were more clear about this. It is an argument among neo-evolutionists rather than proof that Darwin was substantially wrong.


Since I didn't aver that neo-Darwinism is refuted then I'm not sure why you posted this. However, gradualism is a central pillar of Darwinism (as I am sure you know) - so not finding such evidence is hugely problematic. Of course, Dawkins and Dennett poopooed Gould and Eldredge's theory:

"Punctuated equilibrium does not deserve a particularly large measure of publicity."


----------



## Enthusiast

My argument is more about the way you present a - by now, minor - adjustment to Darwin's theory (there have been several) as "refuting Darwin". This is not a true refutation of Darwin's huge insights in any meaningful sense at all. And, as it is a piece of science that it often misrepresented by creationists as vindication, needs to be referred to with sensitivity to its import. You seem to know some details of this dispute in the evolutionary biology camp but not to get how it relates to the wider picture. I'm sure you will find many quotes by Gould that demonstrate this. Let's not hijack this thread any further.


----------



## eugeneonagain

janxharris said:


> You might be right but the acknowledged (among evolutionary palaeontologists) scarcity of intermediary species remains an issue.


It really doesn't. It's a non-issue.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

tdc said:


> As far as Atheism it is a form of religion (a dogmatic erroneous belief) and tends to lead towards totalitarian governments. It is not based on any sort of science.
> 
> "Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a categorical statement that expresses belief in non belief: "I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, period." It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations, we say "okay, you can have a hypothesis, and you have to have some evidence for or against that." An Agnostic would say "I have no evidence for God...but on the other hand, an Agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about." *The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.*"
> -Marcelo Gleiser


Others have already obliterated this absurd quote, but allow me to address the last part: absence of evidence _IS _evidence of absence, and mathematically provably so: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence

That Gleiser quote could just as easily said the same thing about a lack of belief in unicorns, dragons, or any other fantastical beings; yet how idiotic would it sound to say a lack of belief in unicorns was inconsistent with the scientific method? What makes this God concept so special that not believing in it is inconsistent with the scientific method, but not believing in other fantastical beings is just fine?


----------



## eugeneonagain

1996D said:


> Do you understand animal behavior? If you do you can't be postmodern because animal behavior follows patterns and is predictable, giving you a clear understanding of the world. You can deconstruct all you want but once you start reconstructing you'll find that all is how it should be.


Yes I do understand animal behaviour and recognise it as predictable, yet human self-consciousness interferes with this. Who said I was 'postmodern'? In the sense that you mean. I'm not deconstructing anything. Unfortunately for you we all live in postmodern society. All postmodern theorists do is offer an attempt at understanding it.



1996D said:


> I quite enjoy Derrida, it's a nice read, but it only reinforces the truths that people like you fight every day. Postmodernists are running away from themselves and it makes them weak, but if you can't compete within the rules of the world, maybe that's your only choice.


People like me? Nice try. We've also established that your postmodernist demon is something you actually fear, but keep that brave face by announcing they are running away from themselves and are weak. It no doubt makes you feel strong and specially grounded. Maybe 'people like you' need a small number of simple rules to stop you getting overwhelmed and confused by complexity.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> My argument is more about the way you present a - by now, minor - adjustment to Darwin's theory (there have been several) as "refuting Darwin". This is not a true refutation of Darwin's huge insights in any meaningful sense at all. And, as it is a piece of science that it often misrepresented by creationists as vindication, needs to be referred to with sensitivity to its import. You seem to know some details of this dispute in the evolutionary biology camp but not to get how it relates to the wider picture. I'm sure you will find many quotes by Gould that demonstrate this. Let's not hijack this thread any further.


I said I wasn't refuting. It remains an awkward fact that the predicted finding of intermediary species didn't happen - and it casts doubt on gradualism.


----------



## 1996D

eugeneonagain said:


> Yes I do understand animal behaviour and recognise it as predictable, yet human self-consciousness interferes with this. Who said I was 'postmodern'? In the sense that you mean. I'm nor deconstructing anything. Unfortunately for you we all live in postmodern society. All postmodern theorists do is offer an attempt at understanding it.


Postmodernism is not at attempt to understand, it's the revolutionary force itself. It's an attempt to change society, a transitional agent from one part of the cycle to the next. I said it to be an intellectual cancer because it is; it's completely incompatible with everything from Plato to Darwin, but it's still a necessary transitional force. I don't fear it, I fear the madness of people who take it for more than it is, and of course saddened by the hampering of art it has caused, but thankfully it will be over by the time I'm middle aged and it will have a very beneficial reaction.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism
Post-postmodernism post here.


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> Postmodernism is not at attempt to understand, it's the revolutionary force itself. It's an attempt to change society, a transitional agent from one part of the cycle to the next. I said it to be an intellectual cancer because it is; *it's completely incompatible with everything from Plato to Darwin*, but it's still a necessary transitional force. I don't fear it, I fear the madness of people who take it for more than it is, and of course saddened by the hampering of art it has caused, but thankfully it will be over by the time I'm middle aged and it will have a very beneficial reaction.


Excuse my coming to this one late but .... what are you talking about? What is compatibility in the context of music (we listen to one piece at a time) and why does your version of postmodernism not impact on post-Darwinian thinking?


----------



## fluteman

1996D said:


> Postmodernism is not at attempt to understand, it's the revolutionary force itself. It's an attempt to change society, a transitional agent from one part of the cycle to the next. I said it to be an intellectual cancer because it is; it's completely incompatible with everything from Plato to Darwin, but it's still a necessary transitional force. I don't fear it, I fear the madness of people who take it for more than it is, and of course saddened by the hampering of art it has caused, but thankfully it will be over by the time I'm middle aged and it will have a very beneficial reaction.


What you refuse to acknowledge is that human behavior is not based solely on innate animal instincts, and certainly not solely on absolute moral principles. Humans also have the ability and need to learn from their environment in a systematic way, and modify their behavior accordingly. This has always been and always will be the case, but the technological revolution of the 20th century, and the onset of the phonograph, electrical amplification, broadcast radio and TV, computers and the internet, have had some particularly strong impacts on the evolution of music.
Ironically, it is you who take postmodernism for more than it is, using hysterical terms like "intellectual cancer" and "the hampering of art". Technological revolutions, like other social, economic and cultural trends, wax and wane, as do their impact on art and music in particular. But postmodernism does evidence a natural and fundamental human attribute that will not go away.


----------



## eugeneonagain

1996D said:


> Postmodernism is not at attempt to understand, it's the revolutionary force itself.


Is it? Says who, you?



1996D said:


> It's an attempt to change society, a transitional agent from one part of the cycle to the next. I said it to be an intellectual cancer because it is; it's completely incompatible with everything from Plato to Darwin, but it's still a necessary transitional force. I don't fear it, I fear the madness of people who take it for more than it is, and of course saddened by the hampering of art it has caused, but thankfully it will be over by the time I'm middle aged and it will have a very beneficial reaction.


You already sound middle-aged. Plato and Darwin also had an eye on altering society and behaviour to accord with whatever facts or 'truths' they put forward. Have you even read Plato? His _Gorgias_ perhaps? Which discusses the motivation for action in life and also meaning in political action.

Hampering of art? What is your real gripe? Every time 'postmodernism' is mentioned all the enemies of non-existent 'cultural marxisms' come scurrying out of the woodwork with some rebottled version of that ancient vintage: _O tempora, o mores!_


----------



## Haydn70

eugeneonagain said:


> Is it? Says who, you?
> 
> You already sound middle-aged. Plato and Darwin also had an eye on altering society and behaviour to accord with whatever facts or 'truths' they put forward. Have you even read Plato? His _Gorgias_ perhaps? Which discusses the motivation for action in life and also meaning in political action.
> 
> Hampering of art? What is your real gripe? Every time 'postmodernism' is mentioned all the enemies of *non-existent 'cultural marxisms' *come scurrying out of the woodwork with some rebottled version of that ancient vintage: _O tempora, o mores!_


Non-existent...ha, ha, right. Typical response...just say cultural Marxism doesn't exist and it doesn't! Presto!


----------



## Guest

Haydn70 said:


> Non-existent...ha, ha, right. Typical response...just say cultural Marxism doesn't exist and it doesn't! Presto!


"Cultural Marxism" sounds like such a woolly, poorly-defined term. It does seem to exist for people of a certain mindset:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim


----------



## apricissimus

"Cultural Marxism," whatever that is, seems to exist only to those who oppose it.


----------



## tdc

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Others have already obliterated this absurd quote, but allow me to address the last part: absence of evidence _IS _evidence of absence, and mathematically provably so: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence


Oh really, you just mathematically proved God doesn't exist? Amazing! Why wasn't this on the evening news? Thank goodness we can finally put this one to rest. 



Eva Yojimbo said:


> That Gleiser quote could just as easily said the same thing about a lack of belief in unicorns, dragons, or any other fantastical beings; yet how idiotic would it sound to say a lack of belief in unicorns was inconsistent with the scientific method? What makes this God concept so special that not believing in it is inconsistent with the scientific method, but not believing in other fantastical beings is just fine?


You don't think there is a difference between the abstract concept of a creative intelligence behind the universe, and dragons and unicorns? Really? I think with all of the mysterious, unexplained aspects of the human mind, of consciousness, the mysteries of this existence we inhabit, that declaring without any doubt there is no God shows a reckless level of hubris, ignorance and arrogance that I am simply stunned that people could declare such a thing and simultaneously profess to be scientific.


----------



## tdc

eugeneonagain said:


> That you refer to humans not being sufficiently differentiated from the rest of animal life as a 'satanic doctrine' smells suspicious..


Of course, you likely didn't learn about this in any extensive way in any of your textbooks at school, so that is probably why it's suspicious to you. Just like anything else of a spiritual nature that cannot be fully rationalized by the physical senses. Just treat it with suspicion and ignore it. It's just another thing to be called 'woo' isn't it? Just place it in that neat little box and don't think about it. That will make it so it doesn't exist, right?

However, in reality the religion of Satanism does exist, it is not about worshipping creatures with horns and forked tails, and actually many of the beliefs taught in schools, share a striking similarity, but you wouldn't know too much about that would you? Stick to what you've been programmed to believe and you don't have to have such a crippling fear of the unknown, right?

Unfortunately in the real world, whether you believe Satanism is a thing to be taken seriously or not, has zero impact on whether or not it can impact your life. Just like a victim of a religious extremist terrorist attack does not need to believe in any religion to be victimized.

Picking and choosing what we research and believe in because of how safe it makes us feel is a logical fallacy. Facts don't care about your feelings, or insecurities.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> ...I am simply stunned that people could declare such a thing and simultaneously profess to be scientific.


Just a reminder that science concerns itself entirely with propositions that can potentially be falsified. Since supernatural beings are not subject to falsification, they are not within the purview of science at all.


----------



## DaveM

Not addressing whether there is a Creator or not, I find it a major challenge to embrace the fact that the creation of the universe -thought to have occurred some 14.5 billion years ago in the form of the Big Bang- is not the question, but what or who created what came before the Big Bang since it is likely that our universe is one of many. Inevitably, if one goes back far enough, something must have been created out of nothing.

Digressing, it occurs to me that if creating something out of nothing is a God-like activity, then the U.S. Federal Reserve has been doing the work of a deity for the last 11 years.


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> Of course, you likely didn't learn about this in any extensive way in any of your textbooks at school, so that is probably why it's suspicious to you. Just like anything else of a spiritual nature that cannot be fully rationalized by the physical senses. Just treat it with suspicion and ignore it. It's just another thing to be called 'woo' isn't it? Just place it in that neat little box and don't think about it. That will make it so it doesn't exist, right?
> 
> However, in reality the religion of Satanism does exist, it is not about worshipping creatures with horns and forked tails, and actually many of the beliefs taught in schools, share a striking similarity, but you wouldn't know too much about that would you? Stick to what you've been programmed to believe and you don't have to have such a crippling fear of the unknown, right?
> 
> Unfortunately in the real world, whether you believe Satanism is a thing to be taken seriously or not, has zero impact on whether or not it can impact your life. Just like a victim of a religious extremist terrorist attack does not need to believe in any religion to be victimized.
> 
> Picking and choosing what we research and believe in because of how safe it makes us feel is a logical fallacy. Facts don't care about your feelings, or insecurities.


You don't accept that scepticism regarding the existence of an entity called Satan (as described in the Bible) is valid and natural?


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Not addressing whether there is a Creator or not, I find it a major challenge to embrace the fact that the creation of the universe -thought to have occurred some 14.5 billion years ago in the form of the Big Bang- is not the question, but what or who created what came before the Big Bang since it is likely that our universe is one of many. *Inevitably, if one goes back far enough, something must have been created out of nothing.*


Why? There is no reason whatever to believe this. Why must there once have been nothing? Invoking Occam's Razor: It's simpler and saves a big step to just assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that everything always existed (in some form or other). I've never understood this desire to complicate things by inventing supernatural beings to do something that didn't need to be done. What is is. To get Biblical: It am what am!


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Why? There is no reason whatever to believe this. Invoking Occam's Razor: It's simpler and saves a big step to just assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that everything always existed (in some form or other). I've never understood this desire to complicate things by inventing supernatural beings to do something that didn't need to be done. What is is. It am what am!


First, just to clarify, I was careful (ie. by using 'what or who') not to make an argument for a supernatural being. Personally, I find the perspective or acceptance that 'everything always existed' as a way to avoid dealing with the more difficult premise that this all started from nothing. There is an absence of evidence that everything started from nothing and that everything always existed.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> There is an absence of evidence that everything started from nothing and that everything always existed.


Yes. But it's more complicated to assume an ultimate start or creation. It takes an extra, unwarranted step and accomplishes nothing.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Yes. But it's more complicated to assume an ultimate start or creation. It takes an extra, unwarranted step and accomplishes nothing.


Fwiw: Stephen Hawkings apparently thought that addressing this was necessary. From his final book:
"Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. ... there was no time before the Big Bang.
...The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature.
...I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science,"


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

DaveM said:


> Fwiw: Stephen Hawkings apparently thought that addressing this was necessary. From his final book:
> "Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. ... there was no time before the Big Bang.
> ...The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature.
> ...I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science,"


Which all goes to show that even 4'33" didn't exist before the Big Bang


----------



## DaveM

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Which all goes to show that even 4'33" didn't exist before the Big Bang


And 4'33" would be more like 4'32" on a satellite.


----------



## DeepR

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Which all goes to show that even 4'33" didn't exist before the Big Bang


But John Cage _did_ exist before the big bang. In fact, he created the universe just so he could manifest in physical form, when the time was right, to introduce 4'33" to its experimental inhabitants (advanced apes). He did all of this so he could have the biggest laugh of his life at their reaction to 4'33": huh?!? is it music or is it not?? . Go ahead, disprove it.


----------



## DaveM

4’33” is an example of man creating something out of nothing.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

DaveM said:


> 4'33" is an example of man creating something out of nothing.


So there we have it, John Cage was a god and he created the Big Bang which took 1" and explains why 4'33" only lasts 4'32" around a satellite...........................


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Fwiw: Stephen Hawkings apparently thought that addressing this was necessary. From his final book:
> "Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. ... there was no time before the Big Bang.
> ...The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature.
> ...I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science,"


I don't think start from a singularity has been established, has it? Some are still suggesting models like a big bounce, where there's a cosmic crunch but not down to singularity before an expansion. Or has that been ruled out?


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> I don't think start from a singularity has been established, has it? Some are still suggesting models like a big bounce, where there's a cosmic crunch but not down to singularity before an expansion. Or has that been ruled out?


I don't know about recently, but I know that in Hawkings' lecture on Origin of the Universe, he said that many years ago he and others disproved the bounce theory of Lifshitz and Khalatnikov mathematically. Hawkings, as of his death, remained in the belief that the start was in singularity. 'In singularity there is no time.' Ergo, time began with the beginning of the universe.

It's interesting that he says that Einstein theory breaks down at singularity so it can't suggest the beginning, but only how the universe evolved.


----------



## KenOC

It seems that according to the generally accepted current theory, space and time came into existence just under 14 billion years ago. I believe this has been estimated by several methods, which are in close agreement. The Big Bang model “accounts for observations such as the correlation of distance and redshift of galaxies, the ratio of the number of hydrogen to helium atoms, and the microwave radiation background.”


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

tdc said:


> Oh really, you just mathematically proved God doesn't exist? Amazing! Why wasn't this on the evening news? Thank goodness we can finally put this one to rest.


I said nothing of mathematically proving God doesn't exist; I said, contrary to the quote, that absence of evidence is (mathematically provably) evidence of absence. Evidence is not necessarily proof. Next time, it might be helpful if you toned down the snark and understood what someone's saying before you respond.



tdc said:


> You don't think there is a difference between the abstract concept of a creative intelligence behind the universe, and dragons and unicorns? Really? I think with all of the mysterious, unexplained aspects of the human mind, of consciousness, the mysteries of this existence we inhabit, that declaring without any doubt there is no God shows a reckless level of hubris, ignorance and arrogance that I am simply stunned that people could declare such a thing and simultaneously profess to be scientific.


No, I see no difference. These are all imagined, hypothetical beings with no evidence for their existence. Mysteries are just that; mysteries. They don't suggest any cause without evidence. "We don't know, therefore God" is not evidence, and has exactly the same weight as saying "we don't know, therefore dragons." I might also add that proposing God as a cause of natural mysteries (that were eventually solved) is batting a perfect 0.0 throughout human history. It might do good to ask why people keep proposing the same answer that boasts such a spectacularly consistent failure rate.

Again, it's not about "declaring without any doubt there is no God," but you can replace "God" in that sentence with any imaginable beings and it makes no difference. Things we can imagine exists is infinitely more than the things that actually exist, and we have no reason to assume any of them exist without evidence. Strangely, it seems that only God has this cult-like devotion of people going around declaring it exists without any evidence, which spurs people like myself and other atheists to remind them of what should be basic epistemic principles like "don't assume things exist without evidence."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Fwiw: Stephen Hawkings apparently thought that addressing this was necessary. From his final book:
> "Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. ... there was no time before the Big Bang.
> ...The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature.
> ...I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science,"


It's worth pointing out that when physicists and cosmologists speak of the universe coming from nothing, they are not talking about absolutely nothing; they're talking about as close to nothing as we can get, meaning quantum vacuums. There's no spacetime, no matter, but there is a very chaotic form of energy in the form of (apparently) random quantum events. Lawrence Krauss has written/lectured about how our universe could've arisen out of such a quantum event in his book A Universe from Nothing and here: 



 Scientifically speaking, it's very interesting stuff, but it doesn't satisfy the theologians and many philosophers who proclaim that this isn't really existence "ex nihilo."

My own take is that "nothing" is likely an incoherent and empty cognitive label that we formed based on our experience with physical things. If you remove tangible, physical things it would seem that there is "no thing" there. This was long before we realized that there are things--molecules, atoms, particles--that are far too small for us to see, feel, touch, taste, etc. Yet even after learning about such thing the "nothing" label cognitively persisted. In any case, one merely has to ask what's a more likely explanation of the universe: eternal quantum energy/events or God? With the former, we know they exist, and have a good understanding of how they could've made a universe; with the latter, we don't know it exists, and have no idea how it could've created a universe. Occam vastly favors the former.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> First, just to clarify, I was careful (ie. by using 'what or who') not to make an argument for a supernatural being. Personally, I find the perspective or acceptance that 'everything always existed' as a way to avoid dealing with the more difficult premise that this all started from nothing. *There is an absence of evidence that everything started from nothing and that everything always existed.*


This isn't technically correct. In order to imagine everything always existing, we only have to take what we already know--that things exist--and extrapolate that back to some simple form that's capable of "creating" (I use the term loosely) everything we experience; in order to imagine nothing existing, we have to imagine a state that we've never experienced before and have no idea if it could or ever could've existed and then imagine, somehow, everything coming from that. The latter IS adding an extra step in the process and is proposing that there is a state of (non)-existence that's completely opposite from everything we know. So, yes, Occam very much favors the "everything always existing" because it's just an extrapolation from what's known and doesn't require imagining things or process we don't know at all.

Of course, this doesn't guarantee "everything always existed" is the correct answer, it just means it's more probable to be correct.


----------



## Boludo

tdc said:


> However, in reality the religion of Satanism does exist, it is not about worshipping creatures with horns and forked tails, and actually many of the beliefs taught in schools, share a striking similarity, but you wouldn't know too much about that would you? Stick to what you've been programmed to believe and you don't have to have such a crippling fear of the unknown, right?


The Devil. Is he all bad? In a sense he has had a very bad press.

What is bad? I mean here we are on Talk Classical.

I think modern Christians should have a bit less of the 'Get thee behind me Satan' and more of the 'Come in me old mate and have a cup of tea.'


----------



## Enthusiast

This thread! Now we have gotten to whether or not Satan exists. Maybe we should get back to whether or not (and how) he has influenced music. I assume he was behind the post-modern movement?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Let me drag you back from this. 'Postmodernism' here is a not an evil "cultural marxist" plot to undermine your favourite Beethovenian forms; it's not a discussion about the existence of gods or some sort of place-holder name for "moral decline".

Let's take it to mean an approach to (and re-evaluation of) culture based upon the fragmentation and change in 'cultural institutions' and the ideas that supported them. Not simply a denial of basic concepts and ideas.

I've enjoyed some of the flights of fancy into philosophy, but I've seen no meaningful argument made applying this to a musical approach. Nothing apart from the usual gripes from tired conservative hacks who just think all modern approaches to music are a one-way ticket to hell in a wheelbarrow.


----------



## fluteman

For what it's worth, Rick Beato, with his heavy use of extended dissonances (all but unheard of before Stravinsky), polyphony, complex rhythms (as in the 15/16 - 11/16 - 10/16 passage he discusses) and even modal harmony, is very much a postmodern composer whose music evokes that of Pierre Boulez and Philip Glass, as well as the progressive jazz he mentions. His idea that one can expand on traditional ideas of tonality and harmony without abandoning the traditional scales altogether and adopting serialism is old hat -- Hindemith emphatically rejected serialism, for example. (Though, what does he mean by "synthetic scales"? The western diatonic, equal tempered scale is as synthetic as can be.)

Rather than cause me to ruminate over the existence of God and the origins of the universe, Beato's video more brings to mind Pogo's classic observation: We have met the enemy, and he is us. We can call postmodernism a cancer and decry the harm it has done to art, but Beato and all of the rest of us are still very much postmodernists.


----------



## 1996D

eugeneonagain said:


> Is it? Says who, you?
> 
> You already sound middle-aged. Plato and Darwin also had an eye on altering society and behaviour to accord with whatever facts or 'truths' they put forward. Have you even read Plato? His _Gorgias_ perhaps? Which discusses the motivation for action in life and also meaning in political action.
> 
> Hampering of art? What is your real gripe? Every time 'postmodernism' is mentioned all the enemies of non-existent 'cultural marxisms' come scurrying out of the woodwork with some rebottled version of that ancient vintage: _O tempora, o mores!_


Critical theory destroys an already rotting society and allows a renewal to happen: what you're doing is mistaking the transition from the end result. The direction we're heading in doesn't continue indefinitely, there is a collapse and an opposite reaction. These cycles are observable throughout history, from Babylon, to the Roman empire, to Muslim Spain, to the Weimar republic.


----------



## Enthusiast

So, in terms of music, what is the direction we are heading in and what is postmodernism doing to get us there? Of your examples, I know something of the music of Muslim Spain and more on the music of the Weimar republic but I must admit I cannot see how the music of those periods was especially concerned with transition. Nor can I see that what came after those times was a qualitively different end result. I just see change and evolution without a markedly transitional form between what came before and what came after. Perhaps you could give some examples?


----------



## apricissimus

1996D said:


> Critical theory destroys an already rotting society and allows a renewal to happen: what you're doing is mistaking the transition from the end result. The direction we're heading in doesn't continue indefinitely, there is a collapse and an opposite reaction. These cycles are observable throughout history, from Babylon, to the Roman empire, to Muslim Spain, to the Weimar republic.


I think the lesson is that change is inevitable, and it's probably futile to try to cling to some very subjective ideal. Successive generations both toss out and build on earlier generations. There's nothing anyone can do about it (nor should they).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> This thread! Now we have gotten to whether or not Satan exists. Maybe we should get back to whether or not (and how) he has influenced music. I assume he was behind the post-modern movement?


According to William Blake, Satan is symbolic of the natural, primal drives and emotions that had to be "chained underground" in order for society to function. Satan is the chaotic "adversary" to society's order. Whenever anyone taps into that energy to overthrow societies, such as in revolutions, that's "Satan" at work in the mind and spirit of man. For Blake, artists--including composers--were people that had to confront and tame Satan in order to express that chaotic emotion into constructive (art) rather than purely destructive forms. One reason Blake idolized Milton was that Milton was the poet that literally "tamed" the Satan archetype by giving him a being and personality in Paradise Lost. It's also why the arts have been historically demonized by religious types because they (symbolically) recognize the chaotic, energetic force at work in art and its power to move people emotionally and even intellectually/psychologically. Of course, if we go further with Blake, he also saw Jesus as symbolic of the artist-type that channeled the "God-within-man" in the form of the artist to challenge the existing hierarchies, and resetting the Old Testament (which Blake saw as tyrannically authoritarian). He's the type that loved Christ but hated (and would still hate) what Christianity has made of it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eugeneonagain said:


> Let me drag you back from this. 'Postmodernism' here is a not an evil "cultural marxist" plot to undermine your favourite Beethovenian forms; it's not a discussion about the existence of gods or some sort of place-holder name for "moral decline".
> 
> Let's take it to mean an approach to (and re-evaluation of) culture based upon the fragmentation and change in 'cultural institutions' and the ideas that supported them. Not simply a denial of basic concepts and ideas.
> 
> I've enjoyed some of the flights of fancy into philosophy, but I've seen no meaningful argument made applying this to a musical approach. Nothing apart from the usual gripes from tired conservative hacks who just think all modern approaches to music are a *one-way ticket to hell in a wheelbarrow.*


so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens


----------



## Phil loves classical

Some think there is no single big bang, but localized bangs and crunches through black holes. Time itself changes through gravitational time dilation. So in a black hole with infinite gravity, time must stand still. I think there doesn't need to be a beginning or end. We normally don't think of time ending, so there must be no beginning, or maybe it is circular as some suggest, the past, present and future co-exist. Maybe black holes are just transitions in the whole fabric of things, and there is no discontinuity from a perspective apart from our own concept of space and time.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eva Yojimbo said:


> According to William Blake, Satan is symbolic of the natural, primal drives and emotions that had to be "chained underground" in order for society to function. Satan is the chaotic "adversary" to society's order. Whenever anyone taps into that energy to overthrow societies, such as in revolutions, that's "Satan" at work in the mind and spirit of man. For Blake, artists--including composers--were people that had to confront and tame Satan in order to express that chaotic emotion into constructive (art) rather than purely destructive forms. One reason Blake idolized Milton was that Milton was the poet that literally "tamed" the Satan archetype by giving him a being and personality in Paradise Lost. It's also why the arts have been historically demonized by religious types because they (symbolically) recognize the chaotic, energetic force at work in art and its power to move people emotionally and even intellectually/psychologically. Of course, if we go further with Blake, he also saw Jesus as symbolic of the artist-type that channeled the "God-within-man" in the form of the artist to challenge the existing hierarchies, and resetting the Old Testament (which Blake saw as tyrannically authoritarian). He's the type that loved Christ but hated (and would still hate) what Christianity has made of it.


Nothing new to me there. My point was not that discussion of Satan could not be linked to music, merely that it was not being and that the influence of the idea on the subject of the thread was no longer clear (if it had been in this thread). Aside from your "including composers" you, also, seem to do nothing with the Satan idea of relevance to the thread. There are obviously things that could be said about the Satan idea and tradition in relation to postmodernism but no-one is saying them so the discussion is quite simply not served.


----------



## eugeneonagain

1996D said:


> Critical theory destroys an already rotting society and allows a renewal to happen: what you're doing is mistaking the transition from the end result. The direction we're heading in doesn't continue indefinitely, there is a collapse and an opposite reaction. These cycles are observable throughout history, from Babylon, to the Roman empire, to Muslim Spain, to the Weimar republic.


Why do think you you are telling me new and profound things? I know change occurs, but I'm not the one complaining about it and referring to it as a 'cancer'. Please don't now deign to adopt the stance of disinterested observer in inevitable change when you clearly had (and have) an ideological opinion about it.

Your observations have been noted and filed (in the wastepaper basket).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> Nothing new to me there. My point was not that discussion of Satan could not be linked to music, merely that it was not being and that the influence of the idea on the subject of the thread was no longer clear (if it had been in this thread). *Aside from your "including composers" you, also, seem to do nothing with the Satan idea of relevance to the thread.* There are obviously things that could be said about the Satan idea and tradition in relation to postmodernism but no-one is saying them so the discussion is quite simply not served.


If the Satan idea is linked to all artists, which was my point, then that would make it relevant to PM as well. It may not be uniquely relevant, but I was just showing how it was relevant at all.


----------



## Enthusiast

But if that relevance is not teased out into some sort of opinion or thesis of relevance then the post is not a contribution. I find it hard to believe that you don't see my point even if you would prefer to discuss philosophy (and there must be forums for that). For example, has anyone even tried to link the God idea or the Satan idea to the question of the merits of postmodernism in music. After quite a lot of it I still don't know whether postmodern music is being explained, praised, decried or regreted in those posts. That's because the posters are not writing about postmodern music.

Some artists (including composers) like to go for walks and find inspiration in doing so. I also like rambling. But I don't discuss it here.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> But if that relevance is not teased out into some sort of opinion or thesis of relevance then the post is not a contribution. I find it hard to believe that you don't see my point even if you would prefer to discuss philosophy (and there must be forums for that). For example, has anyone even tried to link the God idea or the Satan idea to the question of the merits of postmodernism in music. After quite a lot of it I still don't know whether postmodern music is being explained, praised, decried or regreted in those posts. That's because the posters are not writing about postmodern music.
> 
> Some artists (including composers) like to go for walks and find inspiration in doing so. I also like rambling. But I don't discuss it here.


I understand your point, but I guess in contrast to people discussing Satan literally I was just trying to connect it with music on a basic level. To connect it to PM specifically would've required a much longer post, and I doubt it would've been much more interesting.

I think the reason PM music isn't being discussed much is because most don't seem to know what it is. That leads to semantic discussions, which easily digresses to PM-related philosophical discussions, which easily takes over the topic because even if everyone doesn't have a firm grasp on what PM is, everyone has opinions on broader philosophical issues. I tried to explain what PM music was way back in this thread, but other than Woodduck and I briefly discussing our opinions on its failures it didn't accomplish much in terms of steering this thread back to the subject.


----------



## Enthusiast

OK. Me too - I also doubt that it would have been more interesting. A few have tried to get the thread discussing PM music but usually with no takers. The thread should probably have stayed a short one. But it has been treated as a huge dustbin for other matters.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Cripey , the discussion is actually now on topic . Post Mortem music and the cat at the end of the world .


----------



## janxharris

Doesn't post-modernism itself suffer the very same scepticism it has for grand narratives?


----------



## DaveM

DaveM said:


> ... There is an absence of evidence that everything started from nothing and that everything always existed.





Eva Yojimbo said:


> *This isn't technically correct.* In order to imagine everything always existing, we only have to take what we already know--that things exist--and extrapolate that back to some simple form that's capable of "creating" (I use the term loosely) everything we experience; in order to imagine nothing existing, we have to imagine a state that we've never experienced before and have no idea if it could or ever could've existed and then imagine, somehow, everything coming from that. The latter IS adding an extra step in the process and is proposing that there is a state of (non)-existence that's completely opposite from everything we know. So, yes, Occam very much favors the "everything always existing" because it's just an extrapolation from what's known and doesn't require imagining things or process we don't know at all.
> 
> Of course, this doesn't guarantee "everything always existed" is the correct answer, it just means it's more probable to be correct.


Extrapolating, imagining, essentially theorizing in one's mind is not evidence.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Extrapolating, imagining, essentially theorizing in one's mind is not evidence.


It depends on how one is defining evidence. Broadly I think there's two slightly different valid ones: one is any _observation _that makes the truth value of a proposition more or less likely; two is is any_thing _that makes the truth value of a proposition more or less likely. Under the second definition, notions of ontological simplicity, which would include extrapolations from the known, _would_ count as evidence as they make certain propositions more likely to be true than more complex ones with equal explanatory power. Even if you don't want to call that evidence, it's important to realize that it still essentially serves the same function of observational evidence.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It depends on how one is defining evidence. Broadly I think there's two slightly different valid ones: one is any _observation _that makes the truth value of a proposition more or less likely; two is is any_thing _that makes the truth value of a proposition more or less likely. Under the second definition, notions of ontological simplicity, which would include extrapolations from the known, _would_ count as evidence as they make certain propositions more likely to be true than more complex ones with equal explanatory power. Even if you don't want to call that evidence, it's important to realize that it still essentially serves the same function of observational evidence.


I spend far more time in the scientific than the philosophical realm. And so, apparently, do/did scientists such as Stephen Hawkings and others who have some credibility on the subject in question.

Regarding: _'notions of ontological simplicity, which would include extrapolations from the known, would count as evidence as they make certain propositions more likely to be true than more complex ones with equal explanatory power._'

No it doesn't count as evidence. 'notions of ontological simplicity' are irrelevant. This is just philosophical spin. You're in the wrong lane.


----------



## apricissimus

Science is really just one relatively narrow slice of the much broader discipline of philosophy, and is contained within philosophy. It's interesting that practitioners and other admirers of science often elevate it and even claim that it obviates the rest of philosophy (which actually gave rise to science in the first place and gives it its intellectual underpinning).

Science is great. I'm a big fan. But people would do well to broaden the scope of their outlooks as well.


----------



## DaveM

apricissimus said:


> Science is really just one relatively narrow slice of the much broader discipline of philosophy, and is contained within philosophy.


Perhaps 2000+ years ago when scientific evidence was limited. Not now.



> It's interesting that practitioners and other admirers of science often elevate it and even claim that it obviates the rest of philosophy (which actually gave rise to science in the first place and gives it its intellectual underpinning).
> 
> Science is great. I'm a big fan. But people would do well to broaden the scope of their outlooks as well.


When it comes to a scientific question, people would do well to not elevate philosophy to the level of scientific evidence. Nothing philosophical trumps Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.


----------



## KenOC

One of the hallmarks of human thought is that whenever something has not yet been adequately understood, the default explanation is "God did it." And often even _after _it's understood!


----------



## Jacck

KenOC said:


> One of the hallmarks of human thought is that whenever something has not yet been adequately understood, the default explanation is "God did it." And often even _after _it's understood!


it is called the god of the gaps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps


----------



## KenOC

Thanks, I didn't know that! Your link has this, from Bonhoeffer: "...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> I spend far more time in the scientific than the philosophical realm. And so, apparently, do/did scientists such as Stephen Hawkings and others who have some credibility on the subject in question.


Most scientists being utterly ignorant of philosophy is why we've had 100 years of confusion concerning quantum mechanics. Hawking et al. have also stumbled when they've tried to step into philosophy thinking that scientific knowledge obviated the need for rational rigor, which it does not. What's desperately needed is a discipline that formalizes both science's rigor for empirical investigation and rationality's rigor for making proper sense of that investigation and how it modifies priors. The idealized form would look very much like Solomonoff Induction.



DaveM said:


> No it doesn't count as evidence. 'notions of ontological simplicity' are irrelevant. This is just philosophical spin. You're in the wrong lane.


Saying "no it doesn't" isn't an argument. You can't even begin to speak of scientific evidence without taking into account ontological simplicity as you have no idea what prior any observational evidence is modifying. Not taking into account ontological simplicity would have you flipping a trick coin for forever and never being able to declare it a trick coin.

I'm in the "lane" of trying to best figure out what is true. Science is a huge part of that, but no bigger part than rationality is, as there is an underlying logic why science works at all that's far too often ignored or glossed over, even by those doing the science.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Most scientists being utterly ignorant of philosophy is why we've had 100 years of confusion concerning quantum mechanics. Hawking et al. have also stumbled when they've tried to step into philosophy thinking that scientific knowledge obviated the need for rational rigor, which it does not. What's desperately needed is a discipline that formalizes both science's rigor for empirical investigation and rationality's rigor for making proper sense of that investigation and how it modifies priors. The idealized form would look very much like Solomonoff Induction.


When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. You introduce philosophy into virtually every thread you take part in. Here you are making the sort of judgments that to have any basis would require a knowledge of quantum mechanics, theoretical physics and cosmology on the level of the top scientists in those fields. Otherwise, how would you know whether their theories or conclusions rise to the level of rational rigor or not. Somehow, you don't bring to mind a Stephen Hawking.



> Saying "no it doesn't" isn't an argument. You can't even begin to speak of scientific evidence without taking into account ontological simplicity as you have no idea what prior any observational evidence is modifying. Not taking into account ontological simplicity would have you flipping a trick coin for forever and never being able to declare it a trick coin.


Saying that '_you can't even begin to speak of scientific evidence without taking into account ontological simplicity_' without evidence to support it as an incontrovertible truth isn't an argument either, particularly since the sentence, '_as you have no idea what prior any observational evidence is modifying_' makes little sense as written. If I take a guess what you mean, it suggests the sort of scientific practice that seems unlikely.

Besides, you are getting way into the weeds. My original statement was that there is an absence of evidence that everything started from nothing and that everything always existed. You responded that 'This isn't technically correct.' You haven't come up with any evidence and all the ontological simplicity in the world is not going to lead to it.


----------



## 1996D

eugeneonagain said:


> Why do think you you are telling me new and profound things? I know change occurs, but I'm not the one complaining about it and referring to it as a 'cancer'. Please don't now deign to adopt the stance of disinterested observer in inevitable change when you clearly had (and have) an ideological opinion about it.
> 
> Your observations have been noted and filed (in the wastepaper basket).


It's a cancer to the person seeking truth that lasts through the ages, because it's simply a mentality for a transition to happen and is no knowledge in its own right. As long as the same rules of human nature apply, truth should last indefinitely, and be applicable to any stage of society: art itself is judged by its ability to awe across different generations and different mentalities.

There is a tangible world that you're denying by fully buying in to the whims of the times, and you'll be very ill equipped once the world changes. By adopting a philosophy rooted in universal truth that allows you to remain a balanced human being, you avoid the insanity that grasps people through transition.

The examples I gave were not relating to art but to societies that lost so much of their balance through open thinking, that the reaction they arose is what we now see as the horror man is capable of. If there are more balanced human beings that study historical knowledge, instead of losing themselves to hedonistic and fantastical world views, these transitions can be done much more swiftly, with less loss of life.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> art itself is judged by its ability to awe across different generations and different mentalities.


That rules out classical - it only awes a tiny percentage - a narrow slice across generations and mentalities I'd say.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. You introduce philosophy into virtually every thread you take part in. Here you are making the sort of judgments that to have any basis would require a knowledge of quantum mechanics, theoretical physics and cosmology on the level of the top scientists in those fields. Otherwise, how would you know whether their theories or conclusions rise to the level of rational rigor or not. Somehow, you don't bring to mind a Stephen Hawking.


I "introduce" philosophy into topics that are either philosophy related or have taken a turn towards philosophy for whatever reason. EG, I didn't "introduce" the topic of the universe's origins and how Occam's Razor or "absence of evidence" played into it; that was all you and EdwardBlast.

You actually don't need to know much of QM to understand the basic issues surrounding it, which is one thing that makes it perfect to illustrate the limitations of science and areas where philosophy can be of great help. I'm perfectly fine explaining what I mean, but I don't want to waste my time if all you're going to do is dismiss me because I'm not Stephen Hawking.



DaveM said:


> Saying that '_you can't even begin to speak of scientific evidence without taking into account ontological simplicity_' without evidence to support it as an incontrovertible truth isn't an argument either, particularly since the sentence, '_as you have no idea what prior any observational evidence is modifying_' makes little sense as written. If I take a guess what you mean, it suggests the sort of scientific practice that seems unlikely.


It makes perfect sense as written if you just took my example. Assuming you have a coin, and your only possible experiment is to flip it, how many heads would you need to get before you'd declare it a trick coin? The actual flip is your observational evidence. That evidence is predicted differently by two different hypotheses: trick coin (heads/tails < or > than 50%), or regular coin (heads/tails 50%). Unless you determine which hypothesis is simpler--and this simplicity can be based on many different factors--you don't know how likely each is to start, and you don't know how much any single experimental "flip" alters your estimation of which hypothesis is true.

You can transplant that example onto any scientific experiment and model it the same way: different hypotheses predict different results if they were/weren't true, and unless the experiment is of the type that some outcome is 100% if one hypothesis is true and 0% if other hypotheses were true, then what any observational evidence is doing is modifying the prior likelihood of each hypothesis being true.



DaveM said:


> Besides, you are getting way into the weeds. My original statement was that there is an absence of evidence that everything started from nothing and that everything always existed. You responded that 'This isn't technically correct.' You haven't come up with any evidence and all the ontological simplicity in the world is not going to lead to it.


I'm not off into the weeds; I'm trying to show you why ontological simplicity can be as good as evidence (in terms of determining how likely a given hypothesis is) as any observational evidence. I can't show you why that is unless you agree to follow along and learn.


----------



## Larkenfield

“Music is not philosophy because it’s ineffable nature is beyond words by its nature and design. It can only suggest a certain way of looking at the world through experience, sensation, and feeling but not in specifics, philosophical concepts, or intellectual theories—and that’s its value.”


----------



## Enthusiast

It seems from you avatar and your new style of posting quotes that you have achieved enlightenment, Larkenfield. Tell us the secret.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> It seems from you avatar and your new style of posting quotes that you have achieved enlightenment, Larkenfield. Tell us the secret.


It's called listening to Sibelius 

...mature Sibelius...


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Thoughts of art and god have a need for a philosophy of emotion . It is this that will most ably protect the rational mind when in fear of the woo . Sure , even mass insanity is possible when thy enemies weaponize woo as a synthesis of bad nonsense . Some will rely on classical music for protection .

Epistomology
Ontology
Axiology
Emotolo Jee!


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You actually don't need to know much of QM to understand the basic issues surrounding it, which is one thing that makes it perfect to illustrate the limitations of science and areas where philosophy can be of great help. I'm perfectly fine explaining what I mean, but I don't want to waste my time if all you're going to do is dismiss me because I'm not Stephen Hawking.


So you think that just a basic understanding of QM, theoretical physics and cosmology suffices to judge that scientists at the level of Hawking have been limited by a failure to exercise sufficient 'rational rigor'. It raises the question as to whose time is being wasted.



> It makes perfect sense as written if you just took my example. Assuming you have a coin, and your only possible experiment is to flip it, how many heads would you need to get before you'd declare it a trick coin? The actual flip is your observational evidence. That evidence is predicted differently by two different hypotheses: trick coin (heads/tails < or > than 50%), or regular coin (heads/tails 50%). Unless you determine which hypothesis is simpler--and this simplicity can be based on many different factors--you don't know how likely each is to start, and you don't know how much any single experimental "flip" alters your estimation of which hypothesis is true.
> 
> You can transplant that example onto any scientific experiment and model it the same way: different hypotheses predict different results if they were/weren't true, and unless the experiment is of the type that some outcome is 100% if one hypothesis is true and 0% if other hypotheses were true, then what any observational evidence is doing is modifying the prior likelihood of each hypothesis being true.


If this is something that top scientists are missing then I suggest sending off an email as soon as possible.



> I'm not off into the weeds; I'm trying to show you why ontological simplicity can be as good as evidence (in terms of determining how likely a given hypothesis is) as any observational evidence. I can't show you why that is unless you agree to follow along and learn.


Did I make a wrong turn and end up in your lecture hall? I have no wish to get caught up in the sort of long-winded rambling discourses you seem to enjoy.


----------



## EdwardBast

Please forgive my reintroduction of music into this thread, but wouldn't Schnittke's polystylistic music be a quintessential example of post-modernism? If so, I'd have to say he single-handedly saved post-modernism in music from sucking. I think some of it is wonderful. He creates meaningful expressive oppositions with structural importance by opposing disparate historical styles.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Its time to reflect on what been said and not said on this thread


----------



## fluteman

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Its time to reflect on what been said and not said on this thread


Post 644! What took you so long?


----------



## EdwardBast

Can I have some opinions here on the second movement of Schnittke's Third Symphony and how they might relate to this thread? It contains passages in diverse styles of the last 300 years.

Do you think it is post-modern music?

What do you think is the significance of the mixture of styles and their sequence?

Does it do anything for you?

The second movement starts at 12:00:






The first movement is fascinating too and a good set up. It has been described, not entirely facetiously, as the Rheingold Prelude cubed.


----------



## Simon Moon

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I said nothing of mathematically proving God doesn't exist; I said, contrary to the quote, that absence of evidence is (mathematically provably) evidence of absence. Evidence is not necessarily proof. Next time, it might be helpful if you toned down the snark and understood what someone's saying before you respond.


Yes, theists love to use Sagan's quote in the wrong context.

THe fact is, where you would expect to find evidence for an existential claim, and there is none (or it is woefully insufficient) it IS, evidence of absence.

As you stated, it is not proof of absence, but it is evidence of absence.


----------



## paulbest

EdwardBast said:


> Can I have some opinions here on the second movement of Schnittke's Third Symphony and how they might relate to this thread? It contains passages in diverse styles of the last 300 years.
> 
> Do you think it is post-modern music?
> 
> What do you think is the significance of the mixture of styles and their sequence?
> 
> Does it do anything for you?
> 
> The second movement starts at 12:00:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first movement is fascinating too and a good set up. It has been described, not entirely facetiously, as the Rheingold Prelude cubed.


I love how schnittke pays respects/homage to past masters. He keeps the original passage intact, but then he spices it up,,,,,the passages morph , intertwine into other masters, like a collage . You know you have heard a certain passage somewhere before, but just can't place it, brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bach, Mozart, Vivaldi, ,,Schnittke brings in all his favorites. 
Post modern? Schnittke is hard to define. Its good he has gained some recognition past 10 years. If we take into consideration how important Beethoven has been in classical music community, I can forsee one day his star falling and Schittke's rising, brightly.
There is a new generation coming who will make their own decisions who is important to them. 
Classical music radio stations are doing their best to continue promoting their darling favs, and this means making sure Schnittke never receives any air time.

Schnittke had no sense of ego, He could care less if his music gains notoriety, , that is fame has never been his game This incredible humble attitude from such an genius, just blows me away. He scored masterpieces only for the love of his art, not for applause.

Pettersson was the same, Elliott Carter as well just kept truckin on, in spite of disdain from the powers-that-be within the US classical community. Copland was the favorite, Carter the outcast. 
Pettersson , only toward the end of his life, gained respect from the swedes. 
You can tell which composers are the greatest, through their life story. The greater a composer is, be assured the more he has suffered. 
Only via suffering can come forth great , powerful , meaningful , living art, There is no other way. 
So yes Schnittke is a phenomenon.


----------



## Larkenfield

janxharris said:


> It's called listening to Sibelius
> 
> ...mature Sibelius...


 Exactly.  . . . .


----------



## paulbest

Larkenfield said:


> "Music is not philosophy because it's ineffable nature is beyond words by its nature and design. It can only suggest a certain way of looking at the world through experience, sensation, and feeling but not in specifics, philosophical concepts, or intellectual theories-and that's its value."


 Well that's correct, can;'t argue with that fine assessment. 
But if we have a classical community steeped in the old standards, paying homage to their idols, how can the new music be given birth? 
The Jews were suppose to prepare the way of Jesus, the new way. They failed, they refused, and look at what's been happening with the jews past 2 millennium, nothing good. 
Why?
Because they failed to prepare the way for the New Way.
Same can be applied to classical. If the staus quo, the powers-that-be in classical wish to buttress up their crumbling idols, this stodgy , persistent attitude will only create more resistence in the future. 
Look at whats happening in france. the idiot EU illuminati never gave the thought that history repeats itself, if attention to issues is absent, negligible.

Watch ticket sales fall, and donations drop considerably. orchestras will be under strain of low revs. 
Why?
Because they failed to acknowledge the new way of music. 
The old must (absolutely must) die for the new to be born. There is no other way.
None.
sacrifice or perish. 
I foresee dearth, doom, gloom ahead for classical (modern) music. 
I've been away for over a decade now, from chat boards, and nothing much has changed. I had hope to find more activity on certain modern composers chat rooms.
Its like a ghost town on certain composers rooms, und, with a passerby coming around the saloon for a shot, then they ride off....


----------



## Larkenfield

Enthusiast said:


> It seems from you avatar and your new style of posting quotes that you have achieved enlightenment, Larkenfield. Tell us the secret.


It's an old avatar and the meaning is in the music, isn't it? How is it philosophy? What if it's more direct than that? Otherwise, look at the mess of speculation and conjecture dragged in from out of nowhere as if there's some kind of answer outside the domain of the person. Does it take a village?


----------



## KenOC

Lark, your ears are seriously out of control. Must be those vortices.


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> Lark, your ears are seriously out of control. Must be those vortices.


I've been caught! I learned everything from windows 10. 
https://coub.com/view/1labb2


----------



## Varick

paulbest said:


> Watch ticket sales fall, and donations drop considerably. orchestras will be under strain of low revs.
> Why?
> Because they failed to acknowledge the new way of music.
> The old must (absolutely must) die for the new to be born. There is no other way.
> None.
> sacrifice or perish.
> I foresee dearth, doom, gloom ahead for classical (modern) music.


Watch? It's already happened and has been happening for the past few decades. It's not because they fail to acknowledge the new way of music. Unless of course you mean Pop music as being the "new way." But if you are talking about classical music which I infer from your post, it's because the "new" composers failed to acknowledge greatness in music. They have taken a post modern and nihilistic (redundant?) view, philosophy, and embrace of "new" [modern] art. And the people have resoundingly rejected it.

Dearth, doom, and gloom are already here for classical music. The rejection of greatness in the arts (ie: the popularity of "popular" music) via "Schools of Rock," the elimination of classical training, Shows like "The Voice," "American Idol" etc aren't the only culprits. The very "spokesmen/women" of the "classical arts" have also rejected greatness for "originality" and "unique" for "originality" and "unique" only sake.

It's the entire culture of the western world: We have decided that is better to have diversity for diversity's sake than to have quality, competence, and greatness. The latter are secondary to the former, and we are all poorer for it.

V


----------



## paulbest

The new way = the new great composers. Schnittke, Pettersson, Henze, Carter, a few others. But definitely selective, with discrimination, some standards are needed. Take Stockhausen. He actually managed to have 3 conductors and 3 chamber orcbestras step up and perform his work for 3 orchestras all playing same time!!!??? How is this possible? Now I know Henze , Pettersson, Schnittke has some complex music , quite often, but never so liberal as to require 3 conductors. 

Classical music should be introduced into all highs chhols, either via a designated listening room, library room, and or as a elective required. 
The instructor should be open to include intro to new modern, late 20th C composers. Some students today may find the music of Beethoven a turn off. And thus throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, in not giving classical a futher opportunity once outside of school. 

Perhaps kids may find Schnittke *really cool*, perhaps they may hear Pettersson as *far out*. 

This is the new way I am speaking of. When the new has not been given recognition, the old and the new, both will perish.

radio stations for classical never ever, NEVER program Schnittke. 
This is bad, this is a crime. 
We don't want the old,,is the cry of the youths today. 
Beethoven is dated, his statue shows severe signs of crumbling.Mahler's days are numbered. 
Rachmaninov has served us well. 

Sibelius score sheets have paled. Tchaikovsky is only for Christmas time. 

Bach is the old grandpaw. way past retirement I should say. Please. Mention that to Hillary Hahn when you see her.


----------



## KenOC

paulbest said:


> The new way = the new great composers. Schnittke, Pettersson, Henze, Carter...


"New" perhaps, but all quite dead and gone, two for quite a while now. We're getting a hint why so many people call this "dead white male music."


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Can I have some opinions here on the second movement of Schnittke's Third Symphony and how they might relate to this thread? It contains passages in diverse styles of the last 300 years.
> 
> Do you think it is post-modern music?
> 
> What do you think is the significance of the mixture of styles and their sequence?
> 
> Does it do anything for you?


I can't divine a clear intention behind this music's use of diverse styles. The effect is like a dream in which mini-dramas play out, with things mysteriously giving way to other things or transforming themselves into them with a suggestion of some indecipherable purpose. If it projected a feeling of playfulness or irony I'd call it post-modern without hesitation, but for the most part it seems quite serious, sometimes, I feel, self-indulgently so. I'll go out on a philosophical limb and call it anti-metaphysical; it wants to say that there are no certainties, that purpose and volition are pointless or imaginary, that we have only experiences and memories which come and go and play upon us as they will, and that this is ultimately tragic. I suppose being anti-metaphysical is post-modern, though the tragic feeling may be less post-modern than neo-romantic, despite the pastiche- or collage-like structure. But I'm not invested in categorization.

For me, being taken on this sort of journey among musical phantasms, however momentarily interesting some of them are, wears out its welcome rather quickly.


----------



## Phil loves classical

EdwardBast said:


> Can I have some opinions here on the second movement of Schnittke's Third Symphony and how they might relate to this thread? It contains passages in diverse styles of the last 300 years.
> 
> Do you think it is post-modern music?
> 
> What do you think is the significance of the mixture of styles and their sequence?
> 
> Does it do anything for you?
> 
> The second movement starts at 12:00:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first movement is fascinating too and a good set up. It has been described, not entirely facetiously, as the Rheingold Prelude cubed.


That 2nd movement starts out kind of like Prokofiev's Peter's theme, in Peter and the Wolf to me. The theme is pretty light and naive sort of. It seems to alternate with some more violent dissonant episodes. I wouldn't call it postmodernism, because there is a clear narrative and cohesive form, and not fragmented nor deconstructed which typically postmodern music is supposed to be. I find the contrasts kind of interesting and the later parts quite moody. It's hard to take the music serious to me, but it's fun. Like a horror, comedy, action, romance movie in one.


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> The new way = the new great composers. Schnittke, Pettersson, Henze, Carter, a few others. But definitely selective, with discrimination, some standards are needed. Take Stockhausen. He actually managed to have 3 conductors and 3 chamber orcbestras step up and perform his work for 3 orchestras all playing same time!!!??? How is this possible? Now I know Henze , Pettersson, Schnittke has some complex music , quite often, but never so liberal as to require 3 conductors.
> 
> Classical music should be introduced into all highs chhols, either via a designated listening room, library room, and or as a elective required.
> The instructor should be open to include intro to new modern, late 20th C composers. Some students today may find the music of Beethoven a turn off. And thus throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, in not giving classical a futher opportunity once outside of school.
> 
> Perhaps kids may find Schnittke *really cool*, perhaps they may hear Pettersson as *far out*.
> 
> This is the new way I am speaking of. When the new has not been given recognition, the old and the new, both will perish.
> 
> radio stations for classical never ever, NEVER program Schnittke.
> This is bad, this is a crime.
> We don't want the old,,is the cry of the youths today.
> Beethoven is dated, his statue shows severe signs of crumbling.Mahler's days are numbered.
> Rachmaninov has served us well.
> 
> Sibelius score sheets have paled. Tchaikovsky is only for Christmas time.
> 
> Bach is the old grandpaw. way past retirement I should say. Please. Mention that to Hillary Hahn when you see her.


Classical music is growing by leaps and bounds in China and is driven by the old masters starting with Mozart and forward. Modern music -though not totally absent- not so much.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> So you think that just a basic understanding of QM, theoretical physics and cosmology suffices to judge that scientists at the level of Hawking have been limited by a failure to exercise sufficient 'rational rigor'. It raises the question as to whose time is being wasted.


With QM, yes, because the science is basically settled and has been for almost 100 years. The issue is purely philosophical as all the interpretations are in accord with the scientific data and observations. I wouldn't say the science is so settled with cosmology, but currently there is no data that I know of that distinguishes between "something always existing" and "something coming from nothing." You yourself suggested there is no scientific/observational evidence that distinguishes between them, so, again, we're back to whether philosophy can have a say on the a priori likelihood of hypotheses/interpretations. I've said nothing of theoretical physics, unless you're lumping QM interpretations under that label.



DaveM said:


> If this is something that top scientists are missing then I suggest sending off an email as soon as possible.


And by what power could I convince them all to begin studying new subjects like Algorithmic Probability, Bayes' Theorem, Solomonoff Induction, Cognitive biases, etc.? I can't even convince you--someone freely taking part on a discussion forum, someone who introduced this subject--to let me teach you something about how ontological simplicity can be as good "evidence" as scientific/observational evidence is.



DaveM said:


> Did I make a wrong turn and end up in your lecture hall? I have no wish to get caught up in the sort of long-winded rambling discourses you seem to enjoy.


No, you made a wrong turn and ended up making the incorrect assertion that there's no evidence for two hypotheses just because there's none of the scientific/observational variety. I've been trying to explain why you were incorrect in that assertion. If you want to keep making the same mistake and refusing to learn anything new, you're free to do so, just as I'm also free to call out your incorrectness every time I see it.


----------



## Larkenfield

"Beethoven is dated, his statue shows severe signs of crumbling.Mahler's days are numbered. 
Rachmaninov has served us well.

Sibelius score sheets have paled. Tchaikovsky is only for Christmas time.

Bach is the old grandpaw. way past retirement I should say. Please. Mention that to Hillary Hahn when you see her."
--
Oh my. Just because his music sounds different, whose shoulders does Schnittke stand on?



> Schnittke's biographer Alexander Ivashkin writes, where "he fell in love with music which is part of life, part of history and culture, part of the past which is still alive." "I felt every moment there," the composer wrote, "to be a link of the historical chain: all was multi-dimensional; the past represented a world of ever-present ghosts, and I was not a barbarian without any connections, but the conscious bearer of the task in my life." Schnittke's experience in Vienna "gave him a certain spiritual experience and discipline for his future professional activities. It was Mozart and Schubert, not Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff, whom he kept in mind as a reference point in terms of taste, manner and style. This reference point was essentially Classical ... but never too blatant." [unquote]
> 
> While his music may have transcended the past, he had no contempt for the past, nor viewed it as having no relevance to him as a composer and I believe that his message should not be distorted or misinterpreted. There's something universal about the great masters that transcends the era in which they lived, something universal in their understanding about the human kingdom and humanity, and perhaps that's why they are still listened to today as relevant, and those who are going to succeed them are going to have to earn their way.
> 
> In the meantime, I feel that Schnittke is very much worth hearing despite the growing starkness in his later works that some listeners do not necessarily find uplifting and inspiring. But there's a certain raw honesty about him that I believe will create more interest in his music in the years to come, and there's no reason that one has to throw Bach, Mozart, or the other masters on the scrap heap in order to appreciate him, because he probably didn't himself. Nevertheless, I applaud & salute your revolutionary spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full of surprises.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> But if we have a classical community steeped in the old standards, paying homage to their idols, how can the new music be given birth?
> The Jews were suppose to prepare the way of Jesus, the new way. They failed, they refused, and look at what's been happening with the jews past 2 millennium, nothing good.
> Why?
> Because they failed to prepare the way for the New Way.
> 
> Same can be applied to classical. If the staus quo, the powers-that-be in classical wish to buttress up their crumbling idols, this stodgy , persistent attitude will only create more resistence in the future.
> 
> *The old must (absolutely must) die for the new to be born. There is no other way.
> *
> Sacrifice or perish.


This is such stale Modernist cant. Been talking to Pierre B. ? Have a plan to blow up the opera houses and destroy the Mona Lisa?

The problem - if there is a problem - is not that the new fails to be born, but that people don't want to take an ugly baby home from the maternity ward.

In the normal course of events, the new is born while the old recedes from view without being "sacrificed." Nobody sacrificed Bach to allow Haydn to be born, and Bach was still there when people wanted him again. Oddly, large numbers of people still want him. After 300 years of acclaim you must be terribly frustrated that no one is preparing to slay him on the altar of "the new."

Haven't you noticed that your pet examples of the New Way - Schnittke, Pettersson, Henze, and Carter - are all old, born a long time ago and by now quite dead? They are fully available, they are being listened to by the interested and ignored by the uninterested, and they will find their place without ranting prophets "preparing the way" for your vision of music's saviors.


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> I remember my father telling me of a religious broadcast he had heard in the 1930s. The churchman whose show it was said that all non-Catholics should be either converted or killed. Probably an extreme view even in those times, but still it wasn't all that long ago.


Father Coughlin had a huge following during the 1930s and was well known for his inflammatory rhetoric. Oh, did he give fits to Franklin Roosevelt!


----------



## janxharris

paulbest said:


> The new way = the new great composers. Schnittke, Pettersson, Henze, Carter, a few others. But definitely selective, with discrimination, some standards are needed. Take Stockhausen. He actually managed to have 3 conductors and 3 chamber orcbestras step up and perform his work for 3 orchestras all playing same time!!!??? How is this possible? Now I know Henze , Pettersson, Schnittke has some complex music , quite often, but never so liberal as to require 3 conductors.
> 
> Classical music should be introduced into all highs chhols, either via a designated listening room, library room, and or as a elective required.
> The instructor should be open to include intro to new modern, late 20th C composers. Some students today may find the music of Beethoven a turn off. And thus throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, in not giving classical a futher opportunity once outside of school.
> 
> Perhaps kids may find Schnittke *really cool*, perhaps they may hear Pettersson as *far out*.
> 
> This is the new way I am speaking of. When the new has not been given recognition, the old and the new, both will perish.
> 
> radio stations for classical never ever, NEVER program Schnittke.
> This is bad, this is a crime.
> We don't want the old,,is the cry of the youths today.
> Beethoven is dated, his statue shows severe signs of crumbling.Mahler's days are numbered.
> Rachmaninov has served us well.
> 
> Sibelius score sheets have paled. Tchaikovsky is only for Christmas time.
> 
> Bach is the old grandpaw. way past retirement I should say. Please. Mention that to Hillary Hahn when you see her.


Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was just about as new and revolutionary as music could get when it was first performed in 1913 and, notwithstanding the fulminations of some at the premiere, it did became a standard - one of the most influential works of the 20th century in fact. If Stravinsky could achieve such success _whilst_ more traditional music continued to be performed then your argument is unnecessary is it not?


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> The new way = the new great composers. Schnittke, Pettersson, Henze, Carter, a few others. But definitely selective, with discrimination, some standards are needed. Take Stockhausen. He actually managed to have 3 conductors and 3 chamber orcbestras step up and perform his work for 3 orchestras all playing same time!!!??? How is this possible? Now I know Henze , Pettersson, Schnittke has some complex music , quite often, but never so liberal as to require 3 conductors.
> 
> Classical music should be introduced into all highs chhols, either via a designated listening room, library room, and or as a elective required.
> The instructor should be open to include intro to new modern, late 20th C composers. Some students today may find the music of Beethoven a turn off. And thus throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, in not giving classical a futher opportunity once outside of school.
> 
> Perhaps kids may find Schnittke *really cool*, perhaps they may hear Pettersson as *far out*.
> 
> This is the new way I am speaking of. When the new has not been given recognition, the old and the new, both will perish.
> 
> radio stations for classical never ever, NEVER program Schnittke.
> This is bad, this is a crime.
> We don't want the old,,is the cry of the youths today.
> Beethoven is dated, his statue shows severe signs of crumbling.Mahler's days are numbered.
> Rachmaninov has served us well.
> 
> Sibelius score sheets have paled. Tchaikovsky is only for Christmas time.
> 
> Bach is the old grandpaw. way past retirement I should say. Please. Mention that to Hillary Hahn when you see her.


One of the problems with music we don't like (in your case 99% of classical music) is that we don't want to listen to it (fair enough as we don't like it) so we remain ignorant of and about it. This means that we are in a poor position to criticise it. You have posted the positive that you feel repeatedly and anyone who cares will have heard you. So it must seem like you are now left with rubbishing the greats from Bach to Stockhausen. As you dislike so much, I guess you have hundreds of critical posts in you (even if you don't repeat yourself) but it seems fairly certain that none of them will be interesting or well-informed. Oh dear.


----------



## 1996D

MacLeod said:


> That rules out classical - it only awes a tiny percentage - a narrow slice across generations and mentalities I'd say.


Art has always been and will always be for the intellectual elite.


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> Art has always been and will always be for the intellectual elite.


And ...? You seem to mean that as a criticism but you don't make the criticism!

Anyway, actually, I have come across in my time a large number of people who most certainly do not belong to any elite and are as far from being intellectual as it is possible to be but who love some some great art or literature or music. I have come to see great art as our (everyone's) heritage, our right. I think the Soviets got it right by ensuring that "the workers" could get real access to a lot of great art. And, no, I am not saying that that cancels out their crimes.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

1996D said:


> Art has always been and will always be for the intellectual elite.


Errr, no. It may be that some art appeals to the intellectually elite, but the very existence of popular art would mean that there's much art that appeals to the intellectual average. I would also challenge the notion that classical, as a genre in general, only appeals to the intellectually elite. The only study I know on this is one that correlated SAT test scores and musical preferences, and the results were all over the place: https://www.labnol.org/internet/music-taste-linked-to-intelligence/7489/ If we're just talking about genres it goes like this: "Soca < Gospel < Jazz < Hip Hop < Pop < Oldies < Raggae < Alternative < Classical < R&B < Rap < Rock < Country < Classic Rock < Techno"

If that order seems nonsensical to you as it does to me, then it's probably a good idea to dump the notion that genre preferences correlates to intelligence much at all. The argument that MAY have more weight is that certain art forms are more the domain of the financially elite. When people no longer have to worry about money or constantly working for a living, they often cultivate interests in areas like the arts, and that cultivation may lead them to areas far outside the mainstream art-forms and genres. But in this case, we're talking more about social class than intelligence.


----------



## eugeneonagain

This is bound to come across as highly 'elitist', but I've met loads of blockheads at classical concerts and in galleries. People who have forked-out for a fairly expensive or expensive ticket and wouldn't know one end of a walking stick from the other, though they probably think otherwise.

'Art' and attending 'artistic' gatherings has a social cachet associated with it. People attend for different reasons and there are those who go merely because they are accompanying someone else or a group of people. Some go to dress up and have a 'cultured' experience. Only a portion are attending with anything like serious listening intentions. To be honest it really doesn't bother me all that much because the former help fund it for the latter to keep listening. And I'm sure those others get what they want, so they are having 'art' their way.

Only approaching art in an intellectual way is for the intellectual 'elite'. That may be approaching it in the way some artists intend, but enjoying e.g. a symphony in an entertainment capacity is not 'wrong'.

Perhaps these 'elite' just appoint themselves as the only ones who _really _consume art artistically?


----------



## Enthusiast

Intellectual elitism is one thing - and I am not convinced it is a bad thing (anyone up for persuading me otherwise?) - and social elitism is something very different. As I have already posted, I do not think great art is only appreciated by intellectual elites although they may explore it more widely and deeply but there are many very uneducated people for whom some great art is extremely meaningful. 

Social elitism - and the habit of some social elites to signal their superiority by attending classical concerts, ballets and operas as well as exhibitions and, perhaps, the theatre without actually enjoying those - is a different matter. It may pay for the music we enjoy but it is also associated in my mind with dumbing it down. And as the same people are often the ones who argue most aggressively against state subsidies for the arts, they may be robbing us of a more interesting musical life.


----------



## paulbest

A lot of insightful perspectives on this topic, making this thread the best on the forum. I will find time later today to rebuttal my ideas, which have been trampled , crushed, shredded, cast into the junk pile. I will reconsider , and recast my beliefs. Though many of you have rzor sharp arguments which have sliced my theories to tiny pieces. 
I will have to rebuild upon many great arguments here presented.
Be back later today


----------



## 1996D

Elitism gets confused with display of status and the little games some play to reassure themselves, which is not elitism but the exact opposite - a fear of inferiority. 

The vast majority of people don't have the competence to understand the sophistication of a field, but they see the power, and proceed to rationalize it as being because of reasons which satisfy them and their world view. 

You really don't need any sort of approval from people who can't understand and even of those who do - if your own thoughts, understandings, and actions give you the approval you need - that is true elitism.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

This is curious , my young beginner piano student arrives for her about her 5th lesson and she is so excited to tell me something . She has heard a Beethoven orchestral work - _And now I understand it _! She has been freely taught and may freely understand . The classical essence is surely in the most-present musical moment . The ability to understand what has been comes from what is modern as can be .


----------



## Thomyum2

janxharris said:


> Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was just about as new and revolutionary as music could get when it was first performed in 1913 and, notwithstanding the fulminations of some at the premiere, it did became a standard - one of the most influential works of the 20th century in fact. If Stravinsky could achieve such success _whilst_ more traditional music continued to be performed then your argument is unnecessary is it not?


I wholly agree. I'm showing my age here, but in my youth and first studying music, compositions by the likes of even Bartok, Prokofiev and Shostakovich were still considered edgy and dissonant not widely accepted to large concert audiences. Now, these are standard repertoire and no one thinks twice about seeing them on the program - moreover, they are not only accepted but often enthusiastically welcomed. One of my most vivid concert memories is that of seeing an audience of mostly elderly concert-goers a few years ago completely enraptured by a performance of Bartok's _Miraculous Mandarin_. It takes time for any kind of innovation to work itself into the common consciousness.

I think that large orchestras and other performers and arts organizations are in a tough spot of needing, as a matter of survival, to please an enormously wide variety of audiences and tastes. That they can do this by balancing such a large spectrum of existing music, while taking on the risk of commissioning, selecting and introducing new compositions into performance at the same time, is something of a wonder in my mind.


----------



## Phil loves classical

paulbest said:


> Well that's correct, can;'t argue with that fine assessment.
> But if we have a classical community steeped in the old standards, paying homage to their idols, how can the new music be given birth?
> The Jews were suppose to prepare the way of Jesus, the new way. They failed, they refused, and look at what's been happening with the jews past 2 millennium, nothing good.
> Why?
> Because they failed to prepare the way for the New Way.
> Same can be applied to classical. If the staus quo, the powers-that-be in classical wish to buttress up their crumbling idols, this stodgy , persistent attitude will only create more resistence in the future.


Rather than the Jews failing to prepare for a New Way, it was Christians that deviated from the way, twisting things around, and reinterpreting the scriptures to fit their agenda. Eg. The sign of Immanuel was already fulfilled in the Old Testament. Also with the voice calling in the desert rather than about the desert.

The same with music, I'm skeptical of music that doesn't acknowledge the merits of that in the past, and breaks for the sake of breaking for fame or some other agenda. Usually they end up copying and rehashing it as new. Link to Darwinism: they do anything to draw attention from their competition, both composers and the music authorities, and religious cults (eg. Jonestown)


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've said nothing of theoretical physics, unless you're lumping QM interpretations under that label.


You commented on Stephen Hawking's lack of 'rational rigor'. Hawking was a theoretical physicist.



> I can't even convince you--someone freely taking part on a discussion forum, someone who introduced this subject--to let me teach you something about how ontological simplicity can be as good "evidence" as scientific/observational evidence is.


Yeah, all that scientific/observational evidence is such a waste of time.



> If you want to keep making the same mistake and refusing to learn anything new, you're free to do so...


And the world will be the lesser for it.


----------



## AeolianStrains

paulbest said:


> Perhaps kids may find Schnittke *really cool*, perhaps they may hear Pettersson as *far out*.


This is not borne out by experience.



> This is bad, this is a crime.


Give them a trial! Send them to the Hague! 



> We don't want the old,,is the cry of the youths today.


I get the feeling you don't talk to "youths" very much.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I find using a Wah Wah pedal helps


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> You commented on Stephen Hawking's lack of 'rational rigor'. Hawking was a theoretical physicist.


So? That doesn't mean I, myself, said anything about theoretical physics; and Hawking himself has written about philosophy. Why does a theoretical physicist writing about philosophy get more of a pass than if a philosopher was writing about theoretical physics?

BTW, if you want the opinion of an actual physicist (because I'm obviously a nobody), read what Sean Carroll has written about philosophy in opposition to the attitudes of Hawking et al. here: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/



DaveM said:


> Yeah, all that scientific/observational evidence is such a waste of time.


Now you're just skewering strawmen. I never said nor suggested such a thing. Whether scientific/observational evidence or ontological simplicity has a greater impact on the likelihood of a hypothesis's truth value entirely depends on the specific value of both in any specific case. If you go back to the trick coin analogy, the ontological simplicity is much better evidence for it NOT being a trick coin until you've made many, many flips (your "observational/scientific evidence") that would suggest otherwise.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> I can't divine a clear intention behind this music's use of diverse styles. The effect is like a dream in which mini-dramas play out, with things mysteriously giving way to other things or transforming themselves into them with a suggestion of some indecipherable purpose. If it projected a feeling of playfulness or irony I'd call it post-modern without hesitation, but for the most part it seems quite serious, sometimes, I feel, self-indulgently so. I'll go out on a philosophical limb and call it anti-metaphysical; it wants to say that there are no certainties, that purpose and volition are pointless or imaginary, that we have only experiences and memories which come and go and play upon us as they will, and that this is ultimately tragic. I suppose being anti-metaphysical is post-modern, though the tragic feeling may be less post-modern than neo-romantic, despite the pastiche- or collage-like structure. But I'm not invested in categorization.
> 
> For me, being taken on this sort of journey among musical phantasms, however momentarily interesting some of them are, wears out its welcome rather quickly.


Thanks!

I don't have a fully developed view on what Schnittke is about in this movement {Symphony 3, 2nd movement) and his other polystylistic music. But I feel a strong sense of purpose and unity in it, and I have some intuitions about why this is so. Despite being stylistically all over the map, from early classical to harsh polytonal counterpoint, it's tightly unified thematically. The initial classical theme undergoes the most extreme transformations imaginable, but it and a couple of other ideas, especially material from the first movement, can be heard in nearly every measure. The movement is organized primarily as a set of contrapuntal variations, with other material interspersed. And Schnittke is doing in his variations pretty much what composers have always done: using the full resources of the shared language of his time to create extremes of contrasts within the thematic unity. It's just that our shared language in the age of Neo-everything and hyper eclecticism is really broad. The result can be exceedingly strange, but then the movement is a scherzo, the usual locus of symphonic whimsy.

There are other principals at work beyond variation. Perhaps most important is a repeated pattern of complexification using ever more dense stretto on his basic motives, followed by a simplification and return to older language. This is beautifully summed up at the end where a solo piano variation is progressively shadowed over by a cloud of string clusters.

The other thing I really value about Schnittke's writing here is that even in his densest polytonal variations, one can always hear and resolve the individual lines. It is exhilarating following that many at once.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I don't have a fully developed view on what Schnittke is about in this movement and his other polystylistic music. But I feel a strong sense of purpose and unity in it, and I have some intuitions about why this is so. Despite being stylistically all over the map, from early classical to harsh polytonal counterpoint, it's tightly unified thematically. The initial classical theme undergoes the most extreme transformations imaginable, but it and a couple of other ideas, especially material from the first movement, can be heard in nearly every measure. The movement is organized primarily as a set of contrapuntal variations, with other material interspersed. And Schnittke is doing in his variations pretty much what composers have always done: using the full resources of the shared language of his time to create extremes of contrasts within the thematic unity. It's just that our shared language in the age of Neo-everything and hyper eclecticism is really broad. The result can be exceedingly strange, but then the movement is a scherzo, the usual locus of symphonic whimsy.
> 
> There are other principals at work beyond variation. Perhaps most important is a repeated pattern of complexification using ever more dense stretto on his basic motives, followed by a simplification and return to older language. This is beautifully summed up at the end where a solo piano variation is progressively shadowed over by a cloud of string clusters.
> 
> The other thing I really value about Schnittke's writing here is that even in his densest polytonal variations, one can always hear and resolve the individual lines. It is exhilarating following that many at once.


I did notice the "theme-and-variations" aspect. It made my brain happy (a kind of life raft, I guess). For some of the other internal relationships you mention I'd have to listen again. But I think I'll just take your word for it.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> BTW, if you want the opinion of an actual physicist (because I'm obviously a nobody), read what Sean Carroll has written about philosophy in opposition to the attitudes of Hawking et al. here: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/


Quotes from that article:

_'Nobody denies that the vast majority of physics gets by perfectly well without any input from philosophy at all...

Philosophy is interesting because of its intrinsic interest, not because it's a handmaiden to physics. I think that philosophers themselves sometimes get too defensive about this, trying to come up with reasons why philosophy is useful to physics. Who cares?'_


----------



## apricissimus

Is not the whole scientific method of inquiry a philosophical point of view?

There's no need to denigrate philosophy. It's not in opposition to science or anything like that (although it may try to address questions above and beyond those that science does).


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Quotes from that article:
> 
> _'Nobody denies that the vast majority of physics gets by perfectly well without any input from philosophy at all...
> 
> Philosophy is interesting because of its intrinsic interest, not because it's a handmaiden to physics. I think that philosophers themselves sometimes get too defensive about this, trying to come up with reasons why philosophy is useful to physics. Who cares?'_


Yes, and then...
_
Nevertheless, there are some physics questions where philosophical input actually is useful._


----------



## DaveM

apricissimus said:


> Is not the whole scientific method of inquiry a philosophical point of view?


 No.



> There's no need to denigrate philosophy. It's not in opposition to science or anything like that (although it may try to address questions above and beyond those that science does).


No one is denigrating philosophy. The premise floated here is that scientists such as Hawking are/were less successful than they could have been because of a failure to incorporate philosophy and exercise sufficient 'rational vigor'.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> Yes, and then...
> _
> Nevertheless, there are some physics questions where philosophical input actually is useful._


Which of the quotes is more striking?


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Which of the quotes is more striking?


Rather than mining quotes, I prefer to read the whole article.


----------



## KenOC

apricissimus said:


> Is not the whole scientific method of inquiry a philosophical point of view?


I can't see that at all. It is not a point of view but a method, one that has been found quite useful in very practical ways. It has no more to do with philosophy than with religion.


----------



## Guest

As I'm planning to move house, and have "decluttered" prior to marketing my home, I can't find my copy of Hawking's _The Grand Design_, mined for its bold statement that "Philosophy is dead." I wanted to read what else he had to say that didn't make it into the narrow analysis on the internet.

A reasonable analysis is here:



> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/physics-philosophy-quantum-relativity-einstein





> we should reflect on how a scientific image of the world that relies on up to 10 dimensions of space and rests on ideas, such as fundamental particles, that have neither identity nor location, connects with our everyday experience. This should open up larger questions, such as the extent to which mathematical portraits capture the reality of our world - and what we mean by "reality". The dismissive "Just shut up and calculate!" to those who are dissatisfied with the incomprehensibility of the physicists' picture of the universe is simply inadequate. "It is time" physicist Neil Turok has said, "to connect our science to our humanity, and in doing so to raise the sights of both". This sounds like a job for a philosophy not yet dead.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> Rather than mining quotes, I prefer to read the whole article.


Does quoting parts of an article infer that one didn't read the whole article?


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Does quoting parts of an article infer that one didn't read the whole article?


There seems little point picking out lines and trying to decide which is "more striking". What is important is the thrust of the whole article.


----------



## apricissimus

KenOC said:


> I can't see that at all. It is not a point of view but a method, one that has been found quite useful in very practical ways. It has no more to do with philosophy than with religion.


Its an epistemological stance, that you can gain knowledge of the world through forming hypotheses, testing them, etc. It absolutely arose out of philosophy. Scientists used to be called natural philosophers (and not that long ago, when you consider the span of human history).

It's true that working scientists don't concern themselves much with philosophical questions (usually), but I think that's mainly because they're operating in a relatively narrow set of philosophical precepts, and you can do a lot of good scientific work while staying within your philosophical lane (so to speak).


----------



## apricissimus

DaveM said:


> No.
> 
> No one is denigrating philosophy. The premise floated here is that scientists such as Hawking are/were less successful than they could have been because of a failure to incorporate philosophy and exercise sufficient 'rational vigor'.


I don't think it's so crazy to criticize Hawking's positions in something that's outside his area of expertise. But I wouldn't argue with him about stars and black holes and stuff like that.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> There seems little point picking out lines and trying to decide which is "more striking". What is important is the thrust of the whole article.


The thrust of the whole article was not nearly as supportive of the position taken by the one who posted the reference as the poster apparently assumed it was. As indicated by the quotes from it.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> The thrust of the whole article was not nearly as supportive of the position taken by the one who posted the reference as the poster apparently assumed it was.


Unsurprisingly, I disagree.



> The point, I take it, is to understand how nature works. Part of that is knowing how to do calculations, but another part is asking deep questions about what it all means. That's what got me interested in science, anyway. And part of that task is understanding the foundational aspects of our physical picture of the world, digging deeply into issues that go well beyond merely being able to calculate things.


He accepts the role of physics, but asks that the usefulness of philosophy be acknowledged.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Philosophy directs science and makes mathematics beautiful . Science is a method . It cannot perceive the mad scientist .


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> Unsurprisingly, I disagree.
> He accepts the role of physics, but asks that the usefulness of philosophy be acknowledged.


You have arrived in this issue without reading up on the background. Nowhere in that article did the author make or support the claims as involves top theoretical physicists and cosmologists, that EY did. If you disagree then, at least, post quotes that relate to that.


----------



## KenOC

apricissimus said:


> Its an epistemological stance, that you can gain knowledge of the world through forming hypotheses, testing them, etc. It absolutely arose out of philosophy. Scientists used to be called natural philosophers (and not that long ago, when you consider the span of human history).
> 
> It's true that working scientists don't concern themselves much with philosophical questions (usually), but I think that's mainly because they're operating in a relatively narrow set of philosophical precepts, and you can do a lot of good scientific work while staying within your philosophical lane (so to speak).


I'm familiar with that bit of history, but still can't agree. Science makes physical observations, creates hypotheses to explain the observations, and tests them -- nothing more. Where in philosophy, outside of science, are testable hypotheses put forward?

In other words, philosophy and science are two different things. As far as scientists remaining in their "lanes", anybody is free to put forward any philosophical idea they want - but it isn't science if it's not testable and falsifiable.


----------



## Bwv 1080

KenOC said:


> but it isn't science if it's not testable and falsifiable.


Which everyone believes, thanks to the philosopher Karl Popper


----------



## apricissimus

KenOC said:


> Where in philosophy, outside of science, are testable hypotheses put forward?


I don't know, but I'm not sure why that's relevant to determining whether science ought to be considered a subdiscipline of philosophy. It'd be like asking (and I'm just making this up), "Where outside of ethics does philosophy ask what it means to live a virtuous life," and then declaring ethics to not be a part of philosophy.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> You have arrived in this issue without reading up on the background.


Have I ? What is your evidence?

No, scrub that. We'll just get further away from the point. I stand by my earlier posts. If you don't like them, never mind.


----------



## KenOC

apricissimus said:


> I don't know, but I'm not sure why that's relevant to determining whether science ought to be considered a subdiscipline of philosophy. It'd be like asking (and I'm just making this up), "Where outside of ethics does philosophy ask what it means to live a virtuous life," and then declaring ethics to not be a part of philosophy.


Categorization is always arguable (such arguments rage here all the time). If I say that cooking is a branch of philosophy, and should be called culinary philosophy, it might be hard to prove me wrong! :lol:


----------



## paulbest

KenOC said:


> Categorization is always arguable (such arguments rage here all the time). If I say that cooking is a branch of philosophy, and should be called culinary philosophy, it might be hard to prove me wrong! :lol:


No to the contray, philo-sophia (greek work wisdom) is perfectly suitable to cooking. I was a cook down here in new orleans , I should know.
Escoffier was who he was, perhaps one of the greatest ever culinary wizards, was a genius, that is he possessed a powerful understanding (= philosophy) of what made diashes set for the wealthy of Europe in his day, most plalatable , tasty, but as important, dishes which would not irritate the kings ulcers. Which is why Escoffier was in such demand, he know how to make food easy on weak stomachs, which many kings suffered from in those day.s. IOW the kings found they did not puke at all when Escoffier was in the kitchen.

Philosopy, psychology, religion are all 3 intertwined . each partakes of dif word usage, but all share the same end result. …
now let me see how I can tie all this back into the topic, what makes post mod music suck as it does....stinks.
I will leave that to the musically trained philosophers on board here to answer
:lol:


----------



## Larkenfield

I think of cooking as how to prepare a great meal, and philosophy as how to prepare a great life. (Music is how to prepare a great string quartet or symphony.) They might coincide, such as one having a philosophy of cooking, but there’s also a distinction between them because you can’t have a book of philosophy for dinner, at least until you boil or sauté it first.


----------



## DaveM

If philosophy is as simple as having a powerful understanding of a specialty such as cooking, why bother with an advanced education in philosophy?


----------



## paulbest

DaveM said:


> If philosophy is as simple as having a powerful understanding of a specialty such as cooking, why bother with an advanced education in philosophy?


 Yes, great philosophers are not made in the universities, In fact university life can abort a possible new birth of a great philosophical mind. 
Plato nor Nieztsche would not be welcomed in philosophy classes today. 
That instinct, better tagged innate genius, is inborn at birth.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> If philosophy is as simple as having a powerful understanding of a specialty such as cooking, why bother with an advanced education in philosophy?


Have you ever tried making Bœuf Bourguignon?


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Have you ever tried making Bœuf Bourguignon?


No, but I microwave a great salmon in a steam bag.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> No, but I microwave a great salmon in a steam bag.


Postmodern cooking. Thumbs up.


----------



## eugeneonagain

In fact, I think it quite possible to compose a modern symphony comprised of microwave beeps.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

But is a symphony a postmodern thing?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> But is a symphony a postmodern thing?


It's so old it is now ironically postmodern.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I suddenly wondered if my view on what postmodernism is has changed and the answer is no...


----------



## eugeneonagain

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I suddenly wondered if my view on what postmodernism is has changed and the answer is no...


Also a postmodern reaction. The comedy punchline. Well-delivered sir.


----------



## paulbest

The youths of tomorrow will decide which composers gains/deserves respect and which idol will be destroyed. 
Look at the church pews, void of youths. They ain;'t buying into America's Christian religion. I don't blame 'em.


----------



## eugeneonagain

That's odd. I was at the Easter jubileum at 06:15 in the morning on Sunday and it had loads of young people there. I'm an atheist, but they do a good Easter breakfast for free and the cathedral is very beautiful.

The other people though...I talked to many while eating, were devoted Christians.


----------



## Larkenfield

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> But is a symphony a postmodern thing?


Perhaps if one has just played post Schoenberg's _Erwartung_.


----------



## paulbest

eugeneonagain said:


> That's odd. I was at the Easter jubileum at 06:15 in the morning on Sunday and it had loads of young people there. I'm an atheist, but they do a good Easter breakfast for free and the cathedral is very beautiful.
> 
> The other people though...I talked to many while eating, were devoted Christians.


Yes I have to ageree the old EU cathedrals are incredible, but all built on the blood of the poor.
why is it atheists are welcomed in Christian groups, but not so much vise versa?


----------



## eugeneonagain

paulbest said:


> Yes I have to ageree the old EU cathedrals are incredible, but all built on the blood of the poor.
> why is it atheists are welcomed in Christian groups, but not so much vise versa?


They are; no one tends to ask about religious affiliations. For all I know my dentist is the Messiah himself.


----------



## paulbest

eugeneonagain said:


> They are; no one tends to ask about religious affiliations. For all I know my dentist is the Messiah himself.


 The great cathedrals in Europe are more museums than places of worship. If one thinks about in the manner in which they were built,,,robbing the poor. ,,anyway back to subject,,why post mod music stink? , that is has become so mucha sub-classical genre, that I classify most mod music, New Age Classical. , which leaves me out. 
Take Rihm, interesting music, , but not sure if he meets the qualifications to be placed in the classical genre. . Stockhasuen's name also is brought up in classical forums. This confuses me, as I do not hear Stockhausen as a classical composer. He is along with Rihm, sub/classical, that is new age classical.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^ So you have told us there are only four worthwhile classical composers and that you have been through the rest and after a few hearings found nothing left to hear in each work. And now you want to dismiss many noted composers as not classical. You have enough experience in talking about music to know that your views are unique. You know, for example, that most classical fans expect a masterpiece to go on rewarding them for their whole life. I wonder why you think it is so different for you?

Telling us in no uncertain terms what you views are is not helpful to any of us who want to understand where you are coming from. You need to tell us how it is so many of us are wrong and do more than say that you categorise music differently to most of the musical world. 

As I actually like the composers who you have not got bored of - even if this is without elevating them to the pinnacle - I would like to hear interesting things from you. What about individual works by, say, Pettersson? How would you compare his many symphonies? Are they similar or individual?


----------



## eugeneonagain

So in general, according to Professor Best, all the older standard 'classical' is worthless and destined to be forgotten within a thousand years (though almost all culture tends to fade from the fore in the space of a millennium - hence the profession of reconstructing 'lost' history). What we have left is a wafer-thin, narrow window of genius, after which all else is new-age music.


----------



## Thomyum2

I've been following this thread for a while now and somewhat coincidentally came across this article last night about John Adams work _Harmonielehre_ which seems to fit right into this topic:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/t...ny-guide-john-adams-harmonielehre-tom-service

Adams is quoted here as saying "_This is a work that looks to the past in what I suspect is a 'postmodernist' spirit, but … it does so entirely without irony_", and the article goes on to discuss the references to Wagner, Mahler, Schoenberg and Sibelius that are evident in the work. I've always loved this piece and thought it one of Adams' best, but these insights gave me a new appreciation of what he's doing here. Some may not agree that this really represents 'postmodern' music, but I'd challenge anyone who isn't familiar with the piece to give this a fair listening and coming away really believing that it 'sucks'.


----------

