# Where is classical music going?



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Try to listen at this music(?):











Can we still call it music? Do authors use a system to compose this horror movie soundtracks or they are just writing random notes?

Tell me something, because I don't really know where to begin.

And most important question: what after this?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Yes, it is music. No, it doesn't sound random. The second work in particular repeats a theme a number of times, which doesn't happen randomly.

Why isn't this music? What do you want from music?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Tell me something


Grasshoppers have open circulatory systems, with most of the body fluid (haemolymph) filling body cavities and appendages. The one closed organ, the dorsal vessel, extends from the head through the thorax to the hind end. It is a continuous tube with two regions: the heart, which is restricted to the abdomen; and the aorta, which extends from the heart to the head through the thorax. Haemolymph is pumped forward from the hind end and the sides of the body through a series of valved chambers, each of which contains a pair of lateral openings (ostia). The haemolymph continues to the aorta and is discharged through the front of the head. Accessory pumps carry haemolymph through the wing veins and along the legs and antennae before it flows back to the abdomen. This haemolymph circulates nutrients through the body and carries metabolic wastes to the malphighian tubes to be excreted. Because it does not carry oxygen, grasshopper "blood" is green.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> Yes, it is music. No, it doesn't sound random. The second work in particular repeats a theme a number of times, which doesn't happen randomly.
> 
> Why isn't this music? What do you want from music?


Well this is what I asked. Tell me why this is music.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2014)

Those sounds a fair bit more "musical" than some of the good output of the last 50 years...and yes, it's all music.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I quite like the music of James Dillon that I've heard so far, I'm not familiar with those pieces in particular but based on my prior experiences I feel he is a composer of some integrity who would not simply write "random notes". His music is also far more sophisticated than any horror movie soundtrack I've heard.

Edit: Kikko, why don't you tell us why you think this isn't music? What is your definition of music?


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2014)

kikko said:


> Well this is what I asked. Tell me why this is music.


Considering it is accepted as music, it would be more helpful for you to tell us why it isn't music.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Aramis said:


> Grasshoppers have open circulatory systems, with most of the body fluid (haemolymph) filling body cavities and appendages. The one closed organ, the dorsal vessel, extends from the head through the thorax to the hind end. It is a continuous tube with two regions: the heart, which is restricted to the abdomen; and the aorta, which extends from the heart to the head through the thorax. Haemolymph is pumped forward from the hind end and the sides of the body through a series of valved chambers, each of which contains a pair of lateral openings (ostia). The haemolymph continues to the aorta and is discharged through the front of the head. Accessory pumps carry haemolymph through the wing veins and along the legs and antennae before it flows back to the abdomen. This haemolymph circulates nutrients through the body and carries metabolic wastes to the malphighian tubes to be excreted. Because it does not carry oxygen, grasshopper "blood" is green.


wow u so pro dude


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

You've at least listened to Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Bartok, right? If not, you might want to explore those stuff becomes sometimes it's helpful to listen to something more accessible. As far as string quartets go, Schoenberg 2 and 3 and Bartok 6 are some of my favorites.

As far as really modern stuff goes, I myself find composers like Dillon and Ferneyhough are difficult... But I'm not giving up! As far as what you showed us, I enjoyed the piano quintet, but the string quartet was too outlandish for me. 

There's also more mild but still wonderfully intense and colorful stuff in the late 20th and 21st century. Like Messiaen: he's like God.

Why don't you try listening to the string quartets I mentioned above first?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It's classical because:

1. It is scored, so the score exists as a definitive version of a musical idea. a recording or performance of it can 'subsume' the work and exist as the definitve version after that, if you so wish.

2. It uses an old traditional form of instrumentation, the String Quartet.

3. The music is based on 'sound,' not the idea of music in the older sense. This is a new paradigm brought about by recording, in which every sound is considered as valid music.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Crudblud said:


> I quite like the music of James Dillon that I've heard so far, I'm not familiar with those pieces in particular but based on my prior experiences I feel he is a composer of some integrity who would not simply write "random notes". His music is also far more sophisticated than any horror movie soundtrack I've heard.
> 
> Edit: Kikko, why don't you tell us why you think this isn't music? What is your definition of music?


Well it's one the hardest question.

What is music?

I don't know, maybe a series of sounds that don't disturb me.

Something intuitive.

But if we call music everything that is built using a system, then a fart recorded and repeated for 20 hours should be considered music too.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

kikko said:


> Well it's one the hardest question.
> 
> What is music?
> 
> ...


Sure, why not? I don't think that would be terribly interesting, but I don't see why it couldn't be music.

You still haven't explained what makes those Dillon pieces not music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

kikko said:


> But if we call music everything that is built using a system, then a fart recorded and repeated for 20 hours should be considered music too.


No one's asking you to consider such a thing "good music". I don't understand why people can't accept that terrible ideas for compositions can be compositions just as much as good ideas.

Didn't listen to the above, and I've never much taken to the "New Complexity" of Ferneyhough and others, though I do enjoy a lot of things other people do not consider music.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Crudblud said:


> Sure, why not? I don't think that would be terribly interesting, but I don't see why it couldn't be music.
> 
> You still haven't explained what makes those Dillon pieces not music.


Because it is not intuitive. I cannot immagine what will happen after a given point and I cannot attribute a meaning to the relationships between notes.

EDIT: This quote is only refered to me. I'm trying to tell why this doesn't seem music from my point of view.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

kikko said:


> Because it is not intuitive. I cannot immagine what will happen after a given point and I cannot attribute a meaning to the relationships between notes.


Are you assuming that no one, even someone familiar with the style and the composer, would be able to? I wouldn't.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

kikko said:


> Because it is not intuitive. I cannot immagine what will happen after a given point and I cannot attribute a meaning to the relationships between notes.


It's only music if you can tell where it's going at all times?


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Are you assuming that no one, even someone familiar with the style and the composer, would be able to? I wouldn't.


I've said "I cannot" and not "everybody cannot". I was explaining why it doesn't sound music to me. My bad I'll edit the message to be more precise.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> It's only music if you can tell where it's going at all times?


That sounds like a horrible world!

But seriously kikko, this music might not be for you and that's fine. There's plenty o' stuff I don't like but I'm over calling it out or getting up in arms about it. Just get on with listening to what you're comfortable with

FYI there's also a rich history of people starting threads saying "what the &(*& is this modern stuff?" and most people are over it, so don't expect a lot of considered and constructive responses responding to your assertions


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> *Sure, why not? I don't think that would be terribly interesting, but I don't see why it couldn't be music. *You still haven't explained what makes those Dillon pieces not music.


I cant wait for the symphony :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

kikko said:


> I've said "I cannot" and not "everybody cannot". I was explaining why it doesn't sound music to me. My bad I'll edit the message to be more precise.


I listened to the second one (because the whole thing was in one video). Certainly a lot of recognizable patterns. If anything it didn't sound very rigorous at all. I wasn't crazy about it or anything, but it had some nice ideas in it, it's just that they felt overworked and repetitive to me.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Crudblud said:


> It's only music if you can tell where it's going at all times?


If I say "a reasonable amount of time" you will ask me what reasonable means.

It's impossible to define what exactly music is. I'm trying to tell you what is more or less my thought.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

kikko said:


> Because it is not intuitive. I cannot immagine what will happen after a given point and I cannot attribute a meaning to the relationships between notes.


I am not very enthusiastic about it, but 'yes' it IS music .... I can imagine what will happen (though that is NOT why I regard it as music) ... and it even sounds a bit predictable to me even though I understand why you might think it rather random. I can appreciate the relationship between the notes selected (and also between the textures and speeds used).


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Ok maybe I'm just retarted.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Classical music is if anything, diminishing in importance. As the "old guard" who loved and supported funding for the arts die off, what already is a very small audience will shrink even more, unfortunately. One day classical music will be a dinosaur.

I've taken a photo of the classical music discussion page for exhibit in a "Ripley's Believe It Or Not?" museum, someday.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

You create a pretty bleak image from the pieces you quote in the OP, and I would be concerned if all new "classical" music sounded like this. Some composers still seem to hold the view that the more alienating a piece is, the better it is. Luckily there are other composers, particularly in the fields of minimalism and electronic music, who restore hope.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Dude, just listen to some of the works I suggested. They're really good. I promise


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

kikko said:


> Ok maybe I'm just retarted.


or need more listening?

Maybe you may even then not like it - and that's fine by me - each to their own!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> Some composers still seem to hold the view that the more alienating a piece is, the better it is.


Oh yeah? Name some.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Oh yeah? Name some.


Although I haven't read his artistic manifesto, I would guess James Dillon.

I am also referring more generally to the wider problem in the contemporary music scene whereby it is virtually impossible to achieve mainstream audiences and at the same time critical acclaim.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> Although I haven't read his artistic manifesto, I would guess James Dillon.


Based on the piece I listened to, I sincerely doubt that he went out of his way to make this music "as alienating as possible". It wasn't abrasive enough, it was too predictable, it used entirely familiar instruments and timbres, and it certainly did nothing to challenge ideas of what music is in the way that some pieces by Cage can.



Winterreisender said:


> I am also referring more generally to the wider problem in the contemporary music scene whereby it is virtually impossible to achieve mainstream audiences and at the same time critical acclaim.


What about the widespread critical and audience appreciation for composers such as John Adams and Steve Reich? Critics are divided over a lot of issues, and so are audiences. Neither are monolithic entities. You'll find audiences that love Carter and Boulez, critics that think Ferneyhough and Dillon are full of it, audiences who love only pre-Romantic music, critics who specialize in pre-Baroque music, and so forth.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> What about the widespread critical and audience appreciation for composers such as John Adams and Steve Reich? Critics are divided over a lot of issues, and so are audiences. Neither are monolithic entities. You'll find audiences that love Carter and Boulez, critics that think Ferneyhough and Dillon are full of it, audiences who love only pre-Romantic music, critics who specialize in pre-Baroque music, and so forth.


I think Reich and Adams are two very exceptional examples of composers who have achieved audience appreciation and critical acclaim and I respect them enormously for having done so. Far more often, however, the composers who achieve critical acclaim are derided or sneered at. Even here on TC, the likes of Glass are criticised for being too popular whilst Arvo Pärt is dismissed as being too conservative. These composers therefore receive considerably less academic attention than the likes of Boulez and Carter, despite the fact that the latter composers' audiences are limited to a smaller albeit devout following. Other composers like Dillon probably try to fit themselves into this academically respectable style of composing, but just end up sounding desperate/ridiculous.

I am just concerned about the problem this poses for young and aspiring composers. They can either try to gain the respect of their academic peers, at the expense of alienating large audiences, or they can try to appeal to these larger audiences, at the expense of being labelled sell-out.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I think Reich and Adams are two very exceptional examples of composers who have achieved audience appreciation and critical acclaim and I respect them enormously for having done so. Far more often, however, the composers who achieve critical acclaim are derided or sneered at. Even here on TC, the likes of Glass are criticised for being too popular whilst Arvo Pärt is dismissed as being too conservative.


In my experience, Glass and Pärt are more often criticized for repeating themselves from work to work and having little new to say. Some others dislike the minimalist style entirely, and this includes many who hate modernist music as well.



> These composers therefore receive considerably less academic attention than the likes of Boulez and Carter, despite the fact that the latter composers' audiences are limited to a smaller albeit devout following. Other composers like Dillon probably try to fit themselves into this academically respectable style of composing, but just end up sounding desperate/ridiculous.


I still don't understand your obsession with "those academics". If you scorn academic attention, why do you care about who does and does not receive it? Why do you assume that people who compose in a post-serial style are doing so in order to court academic attention? Can it not be possible that they really just love the kind of music that they write?



Winterreisender said:


> I am just concerned about the problem this poses for young and aspiring composers. They can either try to gain the respect of their academic peers, at the expense of alienating large audiences, or they can try to appeal to these larger audiences, at the expense of being labelled sell-out.


Well, your concern is noted, though it is logically problematic.

You haven't proven that the reason why composers are ostracized is _because_ they appeal to audiences, though you have implied it multiple times in the face of examples to the contrary. I have pointed out other criticisms of the composers you mentioned. And it is also true that, as I said above and you have completely ignored here, that there are critics (and academics) who hate anything in post-serialist styles and think that minimalism, neoromanticism, and postminimalism are the "true way forward" for music.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Yeah - the "academic" obsession is weird and doesn't bear any relation to the real world. Just to pull out a Wikipedia quote:

_(Eric) Whitacre went on to earn his Master's degree in composition at the Juilliard School, where he studied with John Corigliano and David Diamond_

Yep - antagonistic modernism is definitely a global academic conspiracy and a total straightjacket for aspiring composers!!!


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Here is the shortest 1 mov ever composed:








Analisys:

Exposition:
First Theme: bar 1 (original key)
Second Theme: bar 2 (dominant key)

Development:
bar 3

Recapitulation:
First Theme: bar 4 (original key)
Second Theme: bar 5 (original key)

Coda:
Bar 6.

Nobody thought about this right? Then I'm a genius. (<- this is basically how people think).


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Music can only evolve if composers experiment. Some musical experimentation works and some doesn't. But you have to try. And it's natural to want some change and evolution in our music. No composer wants to sound like someone else, or worse, everyone else.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Aramis said:


> Grasshoppers have open circulatory systems, with most of the body fluid (haemolymph) filling body cavities and appendages. The one closed organ, the dorsal vessel, extends from the head through the thorax to the hind end. It is a continuous tube with two regions: the heart, which is restricted to the abdomen; and the aorta, which extends from the heart to the head through the thorax. Haemolymph is pumped forward from the hind end and the sides of the body through a series of valved chambers, each of which contains a pair of lateral openings (ostia). The haemolymph continues to the aorta and is discharged through the front of the head. Accessory pumps carry haemolymph through the wing veins and along the legs and antennae before it flows back to the abdomen. This haemolymph circulates nutrients through the body and carries metabolic wastes to the malphighian tubes to be excreted. Because it does not carry oxygen, grasshopper "blood" is green.


So do lobsters (the open circulatory system I mean)... I learned that from David Foster Wallace..


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

kikko said:


> Nobody thought about this right? Then I'm a genius. (<- this is basically how people think).


The regrettably predictable regularity in phrase length and the thinness of its melodic inspiration weigh down what was otherwise a truly insightful distillation of the essence of Schenkerian discourse, filtered through a laser-sharp insight into the middle range of the piano, hitherto unheard with such fine clarity. Performer Lang Lang played with technical precision, but an odd disregard for the score and its lack of markings, adding in changes in tempo and dynamics that didn't correspond with the purity of the composer's conception. When it was over, the audience coughed impatiently, waiting for the tuning to finish and the piece to begin. One person, who was later revealed to be the composer's cousin, clapped heartily, and was ejected for "disorderly behavior".

- A. Ku Ritique


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I once had a music teacher tell me that things tend to go to the extreme, then retract back a bit.

Is it possible we will go back to tonality or in that direction?


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Itullian said:


> I once had a music teacher tell me that things tend to go to the extreme, then retract back a bit.
> 
> Is it possible we will go back to tonality or in that direction?


Where did tonality go? Some of these comments look like people trapped in 1958 Darmstadt - out in the real 2014 you might be pleasantly surprised how much tonal "contemporary art music" is being composed and performed.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I once had a music teacher tell me that things tend to go to the extreme, then retract back a bit.
> 
> Is it possible we will go back to tonality or in that direction?


If by "tonality" you mean "common practice tonality of the kind between 1600 and 1900", then no, emphatically no, it is not coming back and almost certainly never will.

If by "tonality" you mean "any music that is based on diatonic scales or modes rather than the chromatic scale", then it never went away, and most likely never will.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*SOS*

kikko,

One of the mistakes I have made when I first started participating in internet classical music forums is assuming that I knew more about music than most people. Whenever I think this way I have gotten myself into real trouble. My stupid ego has gotten me banned from another classical music forum.

The debate concerning the worth of contemporary music has been going on for years. There is absolutely nothing original in you observations. I have cited a book in other threads. _The Agony of Modern Music_ by Henry Pleasants which was published back in 1955. Your remarks are no different than some of the comments that Pleasants made over fifty years ago. You should not be surprised that many of us are rather bored with the idea of having to go through this again .

I have learned that people really do not care to know what music I hate. If I despise the symphonies of Johnson and start a thread deriding his music, the people who are aficionados of Johnson are going to continue to listen to his music regardless of what I say. They will think that I am a disgruntled sourpuss who has not been laid in twenty years.

Before you continue you should try review some of the other threads concerning this subject. It least try to come up with something original.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Even if you were to retort, "Music should have a recognizable melody or theme, and use lovely harmony," that perfectly describes these pieces you seem to abhor. These pieces you've posted are certainly leagues ahead as better sounding and 'better' music than anything I've heard by James Horner, John Williams or Hans Zimmer, that's for sure.

There is an impression, maybe false, that you were going along loving classical music but have not drifted much if at all into repertoire much later than the late 1800's, and if it was later, it was retro-conservative Romantic fare like Rachmaninov, say.

So yes, it is music, it is contemporary (but on the slightly conservative side in some circles,) and this sort of makes me wonder how much newer style 20th century, later 20th century, ca. 1976 and thereafter, or current contemporary classical you've ever really listened to, repeatedly.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Crazy Frog went #1 around the world and your concern is Dillon?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

kikko said:


> Here is the shortest 1 mov ever composed:
> 
> View attachment 46588
> 
> ...


Your ideas have to actually be stimulating though...


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

kikko said:


> Nobody thought about this right? Then I'm a genius. (<- this is basically how people think).


Speak for yourself  - I don't think like that!


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Speak for yourself  - I don't think like that!


With "people" I don't mean every single human being but the majority or if you want the less competent listeners.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2014)

I say, chaps!

This horse seems to be dead.

Next!!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

kikko said:


> Well it's one (of) the hardest question(s).
> 
> What is music?
> 
> ...


If the artist says it's art, then it's art.

There actually was a French guy who could fart tunes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Pétomane

Since the advent of recording, *any* sound could be recorded, regardless of whether it could be scored or not. Thus, every sound which it was possible to record could then be considered music if it was used in an artistic context. This gave birth to electronic and musique concrete.

The reluctance to consider *any possible recorded sound* as music can be traced back to the _older_ paradigm of scored (written) music before recording existed. Up until then, only sounds which could be scored were preserved in a 'definitive' form.

Scored, or written music, was more visual in nature than aural. The only other way to preserve or 'record' music was in biological memory, which tended to morph musical ideas, and was unreliable as a 'definitive' version.

Recording is not visual, but aural in nature; recording is an 'ear' memory which, unlike the biological memory of people, is reliable and consistent in a way that the human ear could never be. Recording has thus taken some of the power of scored music, and scores are no longer exclusive, and are not the "only game in town."


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

some guy said:


> I say, chaps!
> 
> This horse seems to be dead.
> 
> Next!!


It's beyond that. It's compost.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

kikko said:


> Ok maybe I'm just retarted.


I wanna be "re-tarted" too! That first one was delightful!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Winterreisender;689649 Some composers still seem to hold the view that the more alienating a piece is said:


> I can think of one performer whose agenda was to alienate the audience: G.G. Allin.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GG_Allin


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I wanna be "re-tarted" too! That first one was delightful!


One tart is just never enough - oohlala!!!


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

I feel cheated. The title made me think this would be an insightful discussion on the directions of new composers and movements.

Just another day at TC...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Let's back up a bit, and say it is more really for you 'where has it gone over the last hundred years where I have not yet followed or explored.'

Your knee-jerk reaction to this relatively recent piece is typical, and if you have any real desire to at least better understand it (not necessarily condition yourself to like it) then you need to back up and do a chronological survey of music from the high late chromatic of the late romantic, early 20th century late romantic, the early 20th century moderns, and follow "what's up" in music perhaps even decade by decade. It does really seem that other than some music from the modern era 20th century which is more the retro-conservative 'old fashioned' way of music making, you've explored and are unfamiliar with a lot.

So that is my suggestion, and there are plenty of lists, free guides, where you can find pieces, a bit of a pedagogic direction pointing you from one development in music to the next, the different phases and styles, and get yourself more familiar with it and informed. 

You still may have tastes for only the older music, but at least will be able to recognize the later works as music, and it is to be hoped without such rancor, if nothing else, whether you care for it or not, you will better be able to understand and accept that no one is going to write like Mendelssohn in 2014, if nothing else, because Mendelssohn wrote all the best Mendelssohn there is.

Best regards.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2014)

I don't love any of the "new complexity" composers yet, though I have finally begun to check them out. Richard Barrett seems especially neat. And I definitely don't care for the term "new complexity" as I have expressed once before. However, I suspect the OP would take issue with a significant portion of the 20th century composers, but I gotta say, I like where they're headed.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Classical music is not going any where it is hard to find good quality music today.
View attachment 46660


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2014)

Trout said:


> The title made me think this would be an insightful discussion on the directions of new composers and movements.


That would be a good thread. Perhaps it already exists and we just haven't noticed it.

Pop/rock has a Top Forty of artists currently active (Billboard and BBC for example, though not the only ones). Go to Metacritic and you can find the best releases and the critics picks of the past year, and where long-established performers rub shoulders with the emerging talents and the complete unknowns (to me, at any rate!)

The only charts I know of for classical keep the usual long-dead suspects in position. Or compilation albums.

http://www.classicfm.com/radio/shows/official-classic-fm-chart/6th-july-2014/

Or am I simply roaming around in what is, for me, uncharted territory? Am I not recognising the new...and the new trends...for what they are. One trend is obvious - OST's. But do Einaudi, Garbarek, Domeniconi, Jenkins - all in Classic FM's Top 30 - represent where 'popular' classical is going?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Three acceptable answers:

1)Nowhere.

2)Inwards.

3)To Asia.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Where is classical music going?:

To the stars and beyond!


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2014)

mtmailey said:


> Classical music is not going any where it is hard to find good quality music today.
> View attachment 46660


Die horse corpse! Die!!!


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

some guy said:


> Die horse corpse! Die!!!


It keeps twitching every time I hit it with the stick, it must be alive!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> It keeps twitching every time I hit it with the stick, it must be alive!


It's like Medusa!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

kikko said:


> Try to listen at this music(?):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can see the angle of your question, where you are coming from so to speak. Yes, it is music. Yes, it is composed music. No doubt about that. Technically speaking, these are music.

But is it the real quality of music that lifts your heart to the extent that the greats of the past did? In my opinion, I would unequivocally say no, and so I share your concern. Please read my member signature below, and a great painter from centuries ago already hinted and such dilemma.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I can see the angle of your question, where you are coming from so to speak. Yes, it is music. Yes, it is composed music. No doubt about that. Technically speaking, these are music.
> 
> But is it the real quality of music that lifts your heart to the extent that the greats of the past did? In my opinion, I would unequivocally say no, and so I share your concern. Please read my member signature below, and a great painter from centuries ago already hinted and such dilemma.


What's the dilemma? That James Dillon is too dependent on his genius, and not working hard enough? I mean, he's a pretty good composer (his Book of Hours is excellent piano music), but is he a genius?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Where is classical music going?:
> 
> To the stars and beyond!


I often wonder how we'd feel if we recieved a message from an alien race, and after years of decifering the unfamiliar type of information to get a sense of thier wisdom and nature and a possible (threatening?) message we discovered it was just a mix tape.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Probably to see Oz. So it can find a heart, some courage, and a brain. Moohoohaahaa.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I would go out on a limb and say within 100 years, classical music will be almost totally forgotten....pretty much like now, only worse.


----------



## Naccio (Jul 16, 2014)

Thanks, i'll take a listen, but really i believe and hope new new things, ideas and methods for making music in a revolutionary fashion, nothing atonal or dismbodied, but rather daring and daunting, for there will be composers identified by name and work in a utterly particular form


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Crudblud said:


> It keeps twitching every time I hit it with the stick, it must be alive!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

kikko said:


> Try to listen at this music(?):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just visited this thread and listened to the two pieces. I enjoyed both, especially the second piece, the quintet, for which the score was supplied. Seeing the score helped my first hearing. Some fascinating things going on in there. I found both pieces to be beautiful.

Overall, this music is not "far out" to my ears, and my first hearing of these pieces in no way allows me to render any valid opinion as to their overall quality. We may not know their worth for quite some years, though I didn't really catch anything extremely original in either piece. These are works firmly grounded in the current musical aesthetic, the building materials of our present age. Neither piece takes us to a place we haven't been before. (I say that having heard a lot of contemporary music.)

Examples of such music that _does _break new ground are things like Beethoven's Third Symphony, Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde_, Debussy's _Afternoon of a Faun_, Schoenberg's _Pierrot Lunaire_, Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring _.... These works appear on the scene and change things. Though all of them are based upon formerly recognizable musical principles, they all break new ground. They stand alone in the sense that before them there is nothing quite like them, in one way or another. But _after_ them one will begin to notice music that shares their qualities.

You see, genius is basically of two kinds in art -- those who _perfect _and those who _innovate_. Haydn can well be called an innovator, because he created new forms and new ways of thinking about music during what we call the "classical" age. Mozart then becomes a sort of perfector of the forms created by Haydn. Mozart doesn't so much innovate (though there are arguments to be made for his advances with the piano concerto form and opera form) as bring the classical methods to a perfection that says either everybody else will continue to imitate _or_ something has to change. Take a look at all those composers of the classical period around the time of Mozart. You don't hear much going on that rivals the magic of Mozart's perfection. And then comes along Beethoven, an innovator. Had Beethoven continued doing what Haydn had developed and Mozart had perfected, he'd be unknown today, just like hundreds of composers of the late 18th century are. But Beethoven brought something new to the table, the kind of new thing that only a genius can tap into. And music changed.

The same with Debussy, mentioned above. Listen to _Afternoon of a Faun _and then listen to anything written _before_ it. It is so unique, so new. It opens new ground. It innovates, moving Romantic music, the innovation of Beethoven (perfected in various ways by fellows like Brahms and Bruckner), into a new realm, which we sometimes call Impressionism, a style of post-Romanticism. A lot of Impressionist composers then appeared, but Debussy was the first. It's actually easy to do something once it has been created, but to create that something new is the trick. Haydn did it, Beethoven did it, Debussy did it.

Where does Dillon fit? He may be a "perfector", taking the musical language of today and exhausting it to the point where there is no where else to go with it except to begin to imitate. (Remember, Mozart did that for classicism.) But it's too early to tell.

Could this composer turn into an innovator? Possibly. But he would have to make an advance in music so startling that we would recognize it immediately, as we recognize the advances of former innovative composers. What will that advance be? Well ... if I knew I would do it. You see, that's the rub (to borrow a term from Shakespeare). Anybody can do what the innovator does after the innovator does it, but the genius is the one who can do it first -- who can create it out of nothing and move our sensibilities into a new realm where we've never been before.

I think John Cage does this. He's an innovator. A lot of folks don't necessarily appreciate his innovations, but they are unique. Cage did things, like wrote 4'33", that seem so simple to us today. Sure ... art is always simple once the innovator has created it.

I taught in the arts fields on and off for quite a number of years. I often discussed modern painting with my students. Say, something by Jackson Pollock, the American abstractionist "action painter" who was fond of splashing paint on canvas. I enjoy his paintings and find them unique. Of course, today anyone can splash paint on canvas and create a painting. But why didn't anyone do that _before _Jackson Pollock? Again, that's the trick.

Occasionally I would have a student who would say something like: "I can do that. Heck, my kid brother could do that. I'll even bet my pet duck could do that if I let him waddle around through the paint." And I would respond: "Of course you could do that. And your kid brother, too. But look what I can do. I can paint the _Mona Lisa_." So ... what's so great about being able to paint the _Mona Lisa_? The _Mona Lisa _is an innovative work, an early example of painting that attempted real portrayal on a flat canvas of the dimensions and depth of a human face. Early Renaissance painters had perfected a fairly "flat" presentation. DaVinci came along, the innovator, and showed painters how to use light and shadow to create fullness and dimension. Now everyone can do that. But why couldn't anyone do that before DaVinci? Which is why I say I can paint the _Mona Lisa_. Heck, every art student in the world can. No big deal. The big deal would be to have done it_ before _DaVinci did. Could I have done it before DaVinci? I doubt it. I'm sure I lack the genius DaVinci possessed.

So, when my students would maintain that they could paint like Pollock, I would suggest a homework assignment, which was this: go home tonight and produce a painting in a manner and style that has never before been seen or done, totally unique in vision with no precedent to compare it to. Of course, no one ever did the assignment, because everything they could think of trying (like splashing paint onto a canvas, or adding light and shadow to present dimension) had already been done. But somewhere out there is the next innovative genius who will create a _new _"image" that will give us all pause. And I bet you, the next day everyone will be able to do that, too.

So, in a kind of simplistic format, there's a little bit about what art is all about. Take from it what you will. But please do keep exploring music. It's a beautiful art form and allows for so much variety that you'll never exhaust possibilities, even if that next innovative genius doesn't come along for quite some time.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

^^^^
Outstanding :tiphat: :trp: :clap:


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> Say, something by Jackson Pollock, the American abstractionist "action painter" who was fond of splashing paint on canvas. I enjoy his paintings and find them unique. Of course, today anyone can splash paint on canvas and create a painting. But why didn't anyone do that _before _Jackson Pollock? Again, that's the trick.


Premise: my english is horrible.

This thing of "why didn't anyone do that before" has always intrigued me and I've tried to give an answers to this question.

Couldn't be a possible answer that maybe nobody did it because it felt stupid?

Maybe other painters before Pollock splashed a canvas but they never published it just because they felt it was too silly.

I cannot believe that nobody has splashed a painting in the last 300+ years; maybe it was just angry and he trew a can of paint on a canvas.

Maybe the real point of this discussion isn't "who invented it before" but "the first who had the "bravery" to consider it art".

P.S.

Great post.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2014)

kikko said:


> Couldn't be a possible answer that maybe nobody did it because it felt stupid?


Sure that's a possible answer. So is maybe nobody did it because the stars were not aligned correctly.

It's not whether an answer is possible so much as whether an answer is any good or not.

I would say that neither answer here is any good, the second because star alignment has nothing to do with art, the first because it assumes something that has yet to be demonstrated (and because it pretends to be able to have gotten inside someone's head).

Here's another question to answer: did anyone ever try it before Pollock and report that it felt stupid? If there's no record, then that answer is just idle speculation. Or not idle, pernicious.


----------

