# A Long Rant



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Ok, I require your imagination for a second: Think of an early 18th century European gentleman, a follower of the Baroque masters. Now imagine his introduction to the new fad sweeping Europe, the style galante/rococo - the silly, trivial music that is so popular with the silly, trivial ladies at court - who obviously can't possibly be able to dissern good music from bad (taking the gent's point of view). Our gent is quite likely to be of the opinion that this music is utter drivel, citing its melody and harmonic (or rather contrapuntal) simplicities, and would probably utter disgruntled questions such as "what is the world coming to?".

We would probably excuse but pity his inability to accurately assess the potential of the new style, and predict such masters as Haydn and Mozart (and indeed Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninov etc.). The gent's solid background in Baroque-era music means he is just unable to shift his appreciation of music into the correct gear for the classical values. Whereas the 'empty headed' followers of the new style, while perhaps not predecting what heights it can reach, are able to enjoy it.

But doesn't this all sound vaguelly familiar?

I am driven mad by the constant criticism of current popular musics as being 'too simple'. Simple melody, rhythm and metre, harmony and counterpoint, and form. You even hear complaints that they have no orchestration (naming no names). I find this utterly crazy. Of course, the word 'orchestration' can't really be applied due to the lack of an orchestra, but timbral considerations are the focus of modern popular music. Timbral expoloration has exploded in recent years, in a way that was previously impossible due to technological limitations. Production is an incredibly difficult process, based on a great deal of learning and a great deal of creative ability. Production is the difference between an emo band recording in their garage, and a hit record. And the appreciation of modern music is the appreciation of the infinite timbral possibilities available to producers now.

I think this appreciation requires a different musical gear - similar to the Baroque to Classical change - and completely unsimilar to the evolutions from Classical to Romantic to Modern classical, which, to continue the metaphor, are more like changes in speed within the gear. I also believe that music training can have the effect of making this gear change more difficult.

So do you agree with my anology of 'Modern classical'->'Modern popular' with 'Baroque'-> 'Classical'? Do you think that history will perceive the change as a hiccup in the flow, a change of direction, similar to the beginnings of the Baroque and the Classical periods? Do you think that this new school will produce masters (maybe in the form of producers?) who will be considered along with *our* historical greats?


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

50 views and no opinions?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Im sorry I think your argument is well put and makes a lot of sense.

However, Ive always thought of Pop music as todays Folk music.. so your explanation wouldnt work in my paradigm.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

I think that may be valid but never has folk had so much timbral variety at it's disposal. Folk never had 'producers'.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

> appreciation of the infinite timbral possibilities available to producers now.


Like Autotune? Or brickwalling mastering techniques?


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

nickgray said:


> Like Autotune? Or brickwalling mastering techniques?


I can pick out examples of poor orchestration, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss all orchestral music..


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I think what you said about timbre was a good point. I think harmony was already streched to its limits somewhere around the early 20th century. Perhaps we are living in the age of timbre - though harmony & melody will still be important aspects of music, it's hard to innovate in those areas anymore, and innovations will be perhaps focused on artistic use of timbre.


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

If we're living in an age of timbre, having largely abandoned counterpoint except in jazz, then perhaps we've moved away from European ways - harmony, development, melody - towards the African general emphasis on timbre & rhythm, by means of technology. 
Of course that's a gross simplification, but I suggest that the label "World Music" completely misses that point. 
Anyway, I like the idea behind this thread. I'm sure that if I were the gent who decried, or at least put down as frivolous the new galante style & rococo touches, I would have been in good company in failing to see what it could lead to. That brief transition from late Baroque to early Classical produced a lot of pleasantly diverting material, but only a visionary could see forward into the true Classical age, still less the Romantic.
Personally, I'd much rather hear good counterpoint than any Romantic symphony. It's not an intellectual thing, it's just more involving.
So I see the little contemporary music that I hear as un-beautiful, even un-musical, and cannot see what good will come of it.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Mark Harwood said:


> If we're living in an age of timbre, having largely abandoned counterpoint except in jazz, then perhaps we've moved away from European ways - harmony, development, melody - towards the African general emphasis on timbre & rhythm, by means of technology.


I have to say I never considered African music to be more timbre-focused that European music is. The orchestra provides a bewildering array of timbres, and potential blends.

What I meant is that, we no longer have to rely on instruments at all (for sound production).


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Well, I for one _still_ think style galante/rococo is silly, trivial music, but I understand and like your analogy. Obviously from my avatar I embrace the modern technologies.

I agree that producers, often in basement or bedroom studios, are the composers of the day. However I think there is always going to be a simplistic pop music that is aimed at the lowest common denominator. If we judge current non-classical music (whatever that is) by what we hear on radio and TV, of course we are going to think it's trivial. We have to get away from the mainstream to find the really interesting stuff. Certainly there is virtuosity too - it's not all about production.

Here's Jordan Rudess improvising. You can't deny it's pretty complex stuff, though many complain his style is mere virtuosity over feeling:




Incidently, Rudess was trained at Juilliard for what it's worth.

Even as far back as the 60's and 70's "pop" musicians were experimenting with very complex rhythms and harmonies. I dare anyone to make it through to the one minute mark on the link below without being at least a little bewildered:





I guess the point of my post is - there's popular music and better, not-so-popular music that is still not classical.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

I don't think music need be complex (rhythmically or harmonically) or outside the mainstream to be of real artistic interest.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Ive always thought of Pop music as todays Folk music.. so your explanation wouldnt work in my paradigm.

I largely agree. And I doubt little of what we deem "popular music" will last in long haul. But I would also note that there has been and continues to be "folk music" of the greatest merit... there may indeed be more than a few examples (Miles Davis? Duke Ellington?) that end in outliving a great majority of the more esoteric strains of contemporary "serious music". The difficulty with today's "folk music" or popular music is that as a result of recording technology and the huge sums of money generated by popular music and the high level of production this is the first era in which folk music has been given a lasting form and the ability to reach a mass audience. The folk musicians of Mozart's or Beethoven's time were largely limited to performing in taverns and theaters and at festivals and if their music lasted it was often because a "serious" composer took notice of a given tune (like Greensleeves) and gave it a permanent form by writing it down... or even orchestrating it or creating variations upon it. I am not overly certain, for example, that John Cage, or Phillip Glass, or Arvo Part, or Osvaldo Golijov are more assured of lasting than is Miles Davis _Kind of Blue._


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well, I for one still think style galante/rococo is silly, trivial music, but I understand and like your analogy.

But do we assume that only music that is rigorous and difficult will survive? Let's face it, Rachmaninoff, Puccini, Massenet, and even Johann Strauss are more popular with a great many... even with a great many who are not ignorant or inexperienced with classical music... than late Schoenberg, Webern, or Berg.


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

Ignis Fatuus said:


> I have to say I never considered African music to be more timbre-focused that European music is. The orchestra provides a bewildering array of timbres, and potential blends.
> 
> What I meant is that, we no longer have to rely on instruments at all (for sound production).


There are scores of types of African music, enormously diverse, but subtleties of timbre play a large part in many of them and can have great meaning.
I'm all for the electronic production and manipulation of sound. It can take a lot of experience, imagination, perceptiveness, and intelligence to make it work well.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Well, I for one still think style galante/rococo is silly, trivial music, but I understand and like your analogy.
> 
> But do we assume that only music that is rigorous and difficult will survive? Let's face it, Rachmaninoff, Puccini, Massenet, and even Johann Strauss are more popular with a great many... even with a great many who are not ignorant or inexperienced with classical music... than late Schoenberg, Webern, or Berg.


I have to believe all music will survive -- even Schoenberg's.  He does have his champions. I would also like to think difficult and rigorous, or at least complexity, doesn't necessarily equate to being unpleasant. I know it usually does though.


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

Schoenberg wrote some music?


----------



## Joaf (Oct 22, 2009)

If you ask me enjoying art is a combination of enjoying that which is aesthetically pleasing and appreciation of the talent of the artist (which is evident in his art). Since the overwhelming majority of pop music is a comprisal of a few melodies repeated ad nauseam, the appreciation aspect doesn't really factor in. After all, if you sit there at a piano or other instrument long enough, you're bound to produce a couple of good, short melodies. Coming up with a first movement in sonata form is a great deal more challenging.

The appreciation aspect can be seen in how a painting, though very beautiful, will not have the same appeal to an audience if it is discovered that it was not produced by the great master everyone assumed. This was recently the case with a "Rembrandt painting": everyone thought Rembrandt painted it but it was found to be produced by one of his pupils. This example is particularly apt because the pupil must have had tremendous talent to be able to replicate his teacher. However, since he hadn't produced a number of masterpieces the way Rembrandt had his "genius" was questionable, unlike Rembrandt's. The painting a great master produces isn't just a beautiful picture but a testiment to his genius. 

I don't think the analogy between the baroque and classical eras is really valid. There may have been simplifications of sorts from the baroque era to the classical era but they pale in comparison to those that took place between the romantic and pop eras. At the risk of sounding haughty, I'd say classical music is like a world-class meal and pop music is like McDonalds. There's nothing wrong with McDonalds (tastes okay, you know what to expect, etc.) but you can find many people on the street capable of producing it. Ask for an excellent meal and the number capable of giving you that drop off exponentially.

As far as greats go, we are suffering a drought of them in the modern era if you ask me. But then again the truely great have always been few and far between. No I don't think producers should accompany greats in the history books. The creation of music and the manipulation of pre-existing music are two very different things. A person who polishes a statue doesn't deserve the same amount of credit as the person who created it. That analogy probably doesn't do producers justice but you see my point. Great music with a poor production is bearable; poor music with a great production isn't.

So even though I'm glad pop music exist because it provides people pleasure, to me, it's art to the same degree that the jingles on carpet cleaning commercials are.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Timbre exploration? That sounds like an escape route for people who just don't want to arrange their music very well. They can go ahead and use rudimentary progressions, but suffice to say they aren't aware of how to actually produce an effect that is even remotely enthralling. You certainly can't mean that we've been relegated to poor use of triads, basic scales and modes, and a few chords that don't seem all that concrete. Now all of this meets up with some little imaginative change of instrument or a few tweaks from a computer. And once they find an effect that sounds neat, instantly it's a work of art that expresses the individual poignantly? I have nothing against simplicity, but everything has it's reason, purpose, metaphor, something it actually refers to. For example: Minimalists often deconstruct conventional methods, isolate single elements to explore their specific qualities, and often apply interesting orchestration and arrangement to these different elements meeting with one another. Minimalism really is the appreciation of clarity, individualism, exploration, and meditation. Pop music, on the other hand, is appreciation of a genre. Similar to a politician who follows his/her parties policies but tries to come up with a few differences here and there so as not to seem superficial.

However, I wish I could understand this music that seems for the most part barbaric. There are those who easily redeem this era and method of music making, such as Queen, a few of the Beatles' works, System of a Down, Blue Oyster Cult, even a bit of All That Remains and other speed-metal groups (but I certainly wouldn't include Dragonforce under that category). Any other good examples?

I don't mean to put down a whole lot of people, but when it comes down to a full analysis of the pop music of today, what does it do? It mainly advocates the lack of: musical education, maturity, appreciation, or respect for one another and the music that predates it (which by all means should be every bit as enjoyable if not for massive bias at least where I live). How many people do you know that actually give a damn enough to study music rather than say they appreciate it because they think Pachelbel's Canon in D or Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is neat?

As a whole, pop music seems like a representation of sloth, misplaced and immature mellow-drama, lack of appreciation or understanding of others, lack of individualism, lack of concrete principles, etc. These are simply the brass facts. What type of person is generally behind the record label and what are they trying to get across 99% of the time? What do your friends and acquaintances listen to and try to emulate?


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

First of all thanks for replying 



Joaf said:


> Since the overwhelming majority of pop music is a comprisal of a few melodies repeated ad nauseam, the appreciation aspect doesn't really factor in. After all, if you sit there at a piano or other instrument long enough, you're bound to produce a couple of good, short melodies. Coming up with a first movement in sonata form is a great deal more challenging.


I can only guess that you haven't read my little article. I consede that the melodies are simple - the complexity and the interest lie in the timbre.

Sitting down at the piano and finding a nice melody is really something like 5% of the creative process in a pop song, just like it is in the process of a sonata form movement.

In your view that 'writing a pop song' = 'finding a melody on the piano' suggests that you are not looking at the right things in your appreciation of modern music.



> I don't think the analogy between the baroque and classical eras is really valid. There may have been simplifications of sorts from the baroque era to the classical era but they pale in comparison to those that took place between the romantic and pop eras.


I'm working from the view point that art is good it it has a large *effect* on the listener/viewer. From this stand point the level of complexity is not correlated with artistic importance. A single melody from folk tradition or plainchant is still art, and can be far more effective than the most elaborate piece of symphonic writing.

But I'm not sure how widely held this view of art is.



> As far as greats go, we are suffering a drought of them in the modern era if you ask me. But then again the truely great have always been few and far between.


I agree with this. It's the potential of modern music I am promoting, not it's current form.



> No I don't think producers should accompany greats in the history books. The creation of music and the manipulation of pre-existing music are two very different things.


Not so, if the 'manipulation' is the art you are interested in. To my thinking, the setting of a poem is a manipulation of it. I love to compare different settings of the same poem to see the composers interpretation. It's the same wtih music production. The note on the page are the bare bones (very simplistic as we all agree) and it's the timbral landscape the the producer creates which is the real area of interest.



> A person who polishes a statue doesn't deserve the same amount of credit as the person who created it. That analogy probably doesn't do producers justice but you see my point. Great music with a poor production is bearable; poor music with a great production isn't.


So when a composer arranges a folk song, this is not consider art? A polisher has (about) no creative input of the statue. This is the worst anology of a producer I've ever heard.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Art is a word who's definition is hotly debated.

For me, what defines art is intention. The intention behind the piece makes it art, the soul and effort put into it. 

When I think pop I think some multi-millionare record company owner looking for a sexy young girl to sing some songs so that most parties involved can earn some money. Or the producer working closely with the singer to hear what sounds coolest, shifting the notes along the timetrack to see how they can best get this song into peoples heads..

=/= Art

Art is a highly individual thing in my view, and the more people involved in the creation causes it to lose its meaning and expression IMO.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

I would just like the make this addition to my original comments:

I might cite Ravel's Bolero to my aid. We all agree that in terms of rhythm, harmony, melody and form (AAAAAAAA....) it holds little interest. But the variation of timbre through out the piece can enthrall audiences for 15 minutes. Dull, repeated melodies but a whole lot of interest. Now imagine that you have infinite timbral possibilities (not limited to the orchestra), just how much interest can you create?

SORRY about the length of this reply. But please bear with me.



Lukecash12 said:


> Timbre exploration? That sounds like an escape route for people who just don't want to arrange their music very well.


I agree, it can be a handy excuse for the untalented. But that doesn't mean it's always the case.



> Now all of this meets up with some little imaginative change of instrument or a few tweaks from a computer.


Please don't say things like this. It's analagous to me reducing orchestral music to "drawing a few dots on a page".



> It mainly advocates the lack of: musical education, maturity, appreciation, or respect for one another and the music that predates it


I agree that we should always have a respect for the past. But assume for a second that I am right, and that the interest of a song lies in its timbre. Melody and harmony must, to some degree, be kept unadventurous. Think of church bells, the melody must be very simple because the sound is too timbrally complex (crowded with non-harmonic metallic overtones) to allow anything else. So if this is the case, what use is the study of counterpoint. Why would you need to know the ingenous ways in which Bach avoid consecutive 5ths in his chorales. Why would you need to learn how to write elegantly for string orchestra when it is such a minute section of your new palatte? I agree that modern musicians have a lot to learn from the musical past, but there is no established school to turn to in production. For so long, composers have been technologically limitted to the orchestra, and now, almost in an instant, the orchestra represents a tiny corner of their palette.



> How many people do you know that actually give a damn enough to study music rather than say they appreciate it because they think Pachelbel's Canon in D or Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is neat?


You cannot hold the effects of popularity against a piece. If you discovered moonlight sonata, as a 'little known gem', I'm sure you would love it.



> As a whole, pop music seems like a representation of sloth, misplaced and immature mellow-drama, lack of appreciation or understanding of others, lack of individualism, lack of concrete principles, etc. These are simply the brass facts. What type of person is generally behind the record label and what are they trying to get across 99% of the time? What do your friends and acquaintances listen to and try to emulate?


I agree here. I think the large majority of any genre is trite and pointless. But please remember that the hacks of the past have been washed away in the toilet of time. It wasn't all Haydn in Mozart in the 18th century.



> However, I wish I could understand this music that seems for the most part barbaric. There are those who easily redeem this era and method of music making, such as Queen, a few of the Beatles' works, System of a Down, Blue Oyster Cult, even a bit of All That Remains and other speed-metal groups (but I certainly wouldn't include Dragonforce under that category). Any other good examples?


I'm glad. Take a listen to this with some good headphones: 



 I'd post loads of youtube videos but the poor quality of the audio kind of defeats the point. Some names I would mention are Massive Attack, Portishead, Radiohead, Four Tet (although Rounds is his only good album). etc. etc.

I'll also post this video but the sound quality is so awful (and evident on the drums). It's not so timbrally great, but its compositionally fresh. Just listen through the whole thing: http://www.last.fm/music/Four+Tet/_/She+Moves+She

It's no masterpiece but it's nice. Also bear in mind that drum repeats at the beginning are delibrately sparse so a DJ can easily layer and merge it in seamlessly with the previous track.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Ignis Fatuus said:


> It wasn't all Haydn *in* Mozart in the 18th century.


Ooer missus.

Pop music is a business. It is full of businessmen. Artistic integrity is of little importance to these people. However, there are some great pop acts, it's just that they are swamped by vast numbers of absolute crap. There too was a time when classical composers enjoyed far more poularity than they do today and this was reflected in their work by them following tried and tested forms, styles and ideas.

The only real difference I see between any genre of music is the ratio of bad to good. Classical has a good ratio, so do other less popular styles like jazz and blues, moving to a progressively worse ratio as the style of music becomes more popular. This, however, is a very subjective way of looking at things. Look at jazz in the 30' and 40's. Yes, there were classics like Benny Goodman, Basie and Ellington but there was an awful lot of derivitive rubbish that history has forgotten. Then with the rise of Rock and Roll and the decline in popularity of jazz, geniuses like Davis, Coltrane, Hancock, Shorter and Evans began appearing.

So what I'm saying is that in a hundred years or so and the current popular music styles lose support, will say Kasabian or the Stone Roses be seen as geniuses parallel with the greats of the 18th and 19th century. I believe it's easily possible. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Neil Young, Johnny Cash, John Coltrane and many others have gained in artistic credit over the years so what's to say this won't continue.

And to Lukecash12, check out Michael Angelo Batio or Steve Vai. Their music is difficult to play, technically demanding, not very popular and composed (not improvised) and it is still for the most part utter rubbish. Nothing against them it just seems a case of virtuosity over originality and artictic distiction.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Argus said:


> Ooer missus.


LOL!!! Oops! ..... "Haydn and Mozart" obviously 



> Pop music is a business. It is full of businessmen.


Name 3 composers who didn't compose for money (not including Gesualdo, he's too easy).

My point being, musicians have almost always had to treat music as a business and pander to their employers. Is it any coincidence that Palestrina wrote mostly religious music, in a time when the church was main patron.



> However, there are some great pop acts, it's just that they are swamped by vast numbers of absolute crap.


Yes I agree. Please refer to my "Haydn in Mozart" argument. There have always been a majority of rubbish musicians, it's just no writes textbooks about them.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I stand firmly by my statement. It may irritate you to hear it, but a lot of what some might like to call timbral exploration is indeed doodling about with a computer. We both know it's true, because a majority of the time it doesn't reflect anything interesting. What use is timbre if it doesn't relate to anything?

Good music intellectually stomps upon the idea of playing the same lifeless and contrite progression over and over with a few changes in modulation, instrumentation, and other various effects.

You reflect emotion by making your hard-nosed efforts evident in your music, and then you play about with metaphors, structures, tones, even micro-tones, philosophical concepts, etc. to put forth a specific idea. That is how actually good music is made. And this is what crossed through the heads of those who wrote admirable music amongst pop culture music.

Also, not to poke into your conversation with another individual, but here are more than 3 composers who didn't pander to their employers: Alkan, Scriabin, Roslavets, Feinberg, Sorabji, Mozart (not that I know of), Cowell, Granados, Albeniz (he wrote a ton of operatic and orchestral works, with complete disregard for the fact that people were predisposed to hear piano pieces from him), Janacek, Medtner, Mendelssohn, Blumenfeld, Georges Catoire, Luciano Berio, Alfredo Casella, Sammartini, Froberger, Haydn, Ravel, Shankar, Heller, Stenhammar, Bartok, Berg, Thalberg, Liszt, Prokofeiv, Griffes, Beethoven (he may have done a few special commissions but he certainly didn't just pander to the "weak minded"), Wolff. Not only that but myself and several people I know don't sell out at all, and we seem to be getting along just fine.

Thanks for the references. Once my speakers are working again I'll be sure to get back to you on those.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Also, not to poke into your conversation with another individual, but here are more than 3 composers who didn't pander to their employers: Alkan, Scriabin, Roslavets, Feinberg, Sorabji, Mozart (not that I know of), Cowell, Granados, Albeniz (he wrote a ton of operatic and orchestral works, with complete disregard for the fact that people were predisposed to hear piano pieces from him), Janacek, Medtner, Mendelssohn, Blumenfeld, Georges Catoire, Luciano Berio, Alfredo Casella, Sammartini, Froberger, Haydn, Ravel, Shankar, Heller, Stenhammar, Bartok, Berg, Thalberg, Liszt, Prokofeiv, Griffes, Beethoven (he may have done a few special commissions but he certainly didn't just pander to the "weak minded"), Wolff. Not only that but myself and several people I know don't sell out at all, and we seem to be getting along just fine.
> 
> Thanks for the references. Once my speakers are working again I'll be sure to get back to you on those.


I don't like the idea that any artist 'sold out'. An artist sometimes has to do what he has to do to make ends meet. If this means doing inferior or derivitive music to generate some revenue then that beats having to do something extra-musical like work a day job to get food on the table. At least some people will get enjoyment out of the 'poor' music. You can always 'sell out' and produce great music at the same time. A lot of the early beboppers like Monk, Christian, Clarke, Parker and Gillespie had to play soft jazz to the crowds during the day for their job then at night jammed bebop together just for the fun and enjoyment of the music.

The only people who won't sell out are those who haven't done serious hard graft for a living. Obviously, there are limits. If the Scissor Sisters asked me to join them full time I would be in a serious conundrum.

Also, I'm far from an expert in the realm of composer biographies but I'm sure people like Haydn and Mozart were under the patronage of either royalty, aristocracy or noblemen and relied on their income. They might not have had to produce outright populist drivel but they would have had to compromise some of their work to stay chummy with the men with the money. No doubt there are plenty of composers who write only for themselves but a lot of them remain destined to obscurity.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Argus said:


> I don't like the idea that any artist 'sold out'. An artist sometimes has to do what he has to do to make ends meet. If this means doing inferior or derivitive music to generate some revenue then that beats having to do something extra-musical like work a day job to get food on the table. At least some people will get enjoyment out of the 'poor' music. You can always 'sell out' and produce great music at the same time. A lot of the early beboppers like Monk, Christian, Clarke, Parker and Gillespie had to play soft jazz to the crowds during the day for their job then at night jammed bebop together just for the fun and enjoyment of the music.
> 
> The only people who won't sell out are those who haven't done serious hard graft for a living. Obviously, there are limits. If the Scissor Sisters asked me to join them full time I would be in a serious conundrum.
> 
> Also, I'm far from an expert in the realm of composer biographies but I'm sure people like Haydn and Mozart were under the patronage of either royalty, aristocracy or noblemen and relied on their income. They might not have had to produce outright populist drivel but they would have had to compromise some of their work to stay chummy with the men with the money. No doubt there are plenty of composers who write only for themselves but a lot of them remain destined to obscurity.


Yes, I agree with your statement on Mozart and Haydn. But they certainly didn't "pander to their employers". Ignis Fatuus implied, dare I say, that most of the greats have stood the test of time solely because they were mere animals, monkeys penning down symphonies for a banana chip. At least, that's what it seemed to imply.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Lukecash12 said:


> Yes, I agree with your statement on Mozart and Haydn. But they certainly didn't "pander to their employers". Ignis Fatuus implied, dare I say, that most of the greats have stood the test of time solely because they were mere animals, monkeys penning down symphonies for a banana chip. At least, that's what it seemed to imply.


Well I think we are both right, because my point isn't as extreme as you're taking it (perhaps I over stated what I mean). This is what I mean:

Imagine Mozart's twin brother who was just as gifted as W.A, however his artistic drive led him to ignore current fasions and compose Renaissance era madrigals. Or perhaps instead of writing Turkish-flavoured music like W.A, he decides to actually write music from the Ottoman Empire. Would he be able to function in that society as a musician? It's possible to gain money from other sources but history doesn't have too many Borodins.

There have been composers who exist outside the mainstream but it's easy to forget that people like Stravinsky had masses of fans; the Rite of Spring was not a riot between the audience and the composer, but between the pro and anti sections of the audience.

So my point is not as extreme as you seem to be taking it. I agree that Mozart did not pander to his first (and only real?) employer (that Archbishop guy), but he did nonetheless, write music that a large section of the aristocracy enjoyed. He took the concept of "Nachtmusik" and made it into something sublime, but he composed Nachtmusik all the same. If he was born 100 years early, I dare say he would not have done so.

When I mention Gesualdo, I mean someone who is so rich an politically influencial that he need not worry about getting his music published or appreciated - a rare situation.


----------



## Cortision (Aug 4, 2009)

This is a very interesting discussion. Your 18th Century Gentleman has probably always existed in some form. You have compared the style gallant with pop music, but I think there is another contender - Contemporary classical music that is more approachable and more focussed on melody than much of 20th century modernism (such as Schoenberg for example) has been. Such music is labelled 'minimalist' or 'neo-tonal' and is sometimes despised by those who appreciate the complexities of atonal and serial music. Consider this quote from Charles Rosen, a very eminent example of your 18th Century Gentleman:

"_Modern so-called neo-tonal music, however, inspired by a natural reaction to the complexities of modernism, is only a hollow simulacrum of either eighteenth- or nineteenth- century systems. In today's neotonal works, the hierarchical richness and complexity of the eighteenth-century structures have completely disappeared; even the major-minor contrasts of nineteenth-century style have lost their capacity for controlling the large-scale form. Each single phrase may be tonal in today's new conservative movement, but the tonal structure of an entire piece is either abandoned or given a simplistic form which does not recognise the emotional intensity of full triadic tonality. That system required an intensity of listening that most of us are perhaps no longer willing to provide. In Mozart, every harmony is related to the central key,and has a different harmonic significance according to its distance from the center, and the meaning of each chord also depends on whether the harmony was reached from the flat or sharp direction. This was an extroadinarily grand expressive style that depended on a complex heirarchy that has dissapeared forever. We can learn to appreciate it,but continuing to compose in this style is as artificial, in the end, as impossible as trying to write poetry in the language and style of Chaucer or Shakespeare. Neotonal music is a poor substitute for the subtle and powerful work of the past. It is true that Schoenberg once said uneasily that there was a great deal of good music still to be written in C Major, but nobody has succeeded in writing any of it, and it is unlikely that anyone ever will_

From 'Piano Notes' by charles Rosen.

When I read this, I was astonished at how dogmatic this writer is, that the only good music that can now be written is atonal or serial music in the tradition of Schoenberg, that true tonal music is now impossible to write, and that those who claim to do so are shallow frauds. His attitude strikes me as being very similar to Ignis Fatuus' 18th Century Gentleman. It makes me wonder whether the simple and naive contemporary music of today has more of a future than Rosen grants. Personally speaking, I hope so. (I love Arvo Part).

Most of Charles Rosen's book was marvellous, by the way. In fact I recommend it - I just found this particular section a little too dogmatic.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well I certainly do agree with him in some respects.

When listening or analysing the works of haydn or mozart, the smallest nuance in tone creates a huge ripple which alters the entire feeling of the piece. I remember in Haydn's 104th symphony there is a bar where a broken chord is repeated, and then again with the root flattened and the entire atmosphere changed.

Music has lost some of its sensitivity to breaches from key, to ascent or descent.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Cortision said:


> This is a very interesting discussion. Your 18th Century Gentleman has probably always existed in some form. You have compared the style gallant with pop music, but I think there is another contender - Contemporary classical music that is more approachable and more focussed on melody than much of 20th century modernism (such as Schoenberg for example) has been. Such music is labelled 'minimalist' or 'neo-tonal' and is sometimes despised by those who appreciate the complexities of atonal and serial music. Consider this quote from Charles Rosen, a very eminent example of your 18th Century Gentleman:
> 
> "_Modern so-called neo-tonal music, however, inspired by a natural reaction to the complexities of modernism, is only a hollow simulacrum of either eighteenth- or nineteenth- century systems. In today's neotonal works, the hierarchical richness and complexity of the eighteenth-century structures have completely disappeared; even the major-minor contrasts of nineteenth-century style have lost their capacity for controlling the large-scale form. Each single phrase may be tonal in today's new conservative movement, but the tonal structure of an entire piece is either abandoned or given a simplistic form which does not recognise the emotional intensity of full triadic tonality. That system required an intensity of listening that most of us are perhaps no longer willing to provide. In Mozart, every harmony is related to the central key,and has a different harmonic significance according to its distance from the center, and the meaning of each chord also depends on whether the harmony was reached from the flat or sharp direction. This was an extroadinarily grand expressive style that depended on a complex heirarchy that has dissapeared forever. We can learn to appreciate it,but continuing to compose in this style is as artificial, in the end, as impossible as trying to write poetry in the language and style of Chaucer or Shakespeare. Neotonal music is a poor substitute for the subtle and powerful work of the past. It is true that Schoenberg once said uneasily that there was a great deal of good music still to be written in C Major, but nobody has succeeded in writing any of it, and it is unlikely that anyone ever will_
> 
> ...


This is intriguing. In a way, this quote highlights that the "ruined" nature of tonal music is totally dependant on the society that listens to it - rather than being an objective trait. If society lost its memory, new Mozartian-style compositions might be accepted.

In a way, you could say it is the persistance of musical education which stops this from happening. Similarly, the 18th century man has learned that a good melody is one that fits to the processes of fugue, etc, and therefore the capricious galant melodies are not to be accepted. Perhaps this observed drop in the musical education of currents artist may be beneficial. (That's delibrately provokative, and not my real opinion, but with discussing perhaps?)

As previously stated, I believe at should be judged by its *EFFECT* on the listener. Whenever, in the past, I've sneered at someone who seems to be enthralled by Pachelbels canon, is the SENSATION they're feeling any different from my appreciation of Bach?

*
So to clarify the intended direction of this article: training can inhibit the appreciation of music which is not covered by that school of thought. But the emotional and biological reactions of the untrained can be equally as forceful and valid as those of the trained.

Continune to discuss! *


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> So to clarify the intended direction of this article: training can inhibit the appreciation of music which is not covered by that school of thought. But the emotional and biological reactions of the untrained can be equally as forceful and valid as those of the trained.
> 
> *Continue to discuss! *


That I just can't come to an agreement with. An untrained individual simply wouldn't have the rich experience that someone who has made music their life's work does. That would be like saying I know more about marriage than my grandfather, who has been married over fifty years.


----------

