The Quality of Music

Originally Posted by Gman

Yiuou tipee engrish gud.

Hey, my English is usually IMPECCABLE.

Mrs. Robinson Sinatra made this one his own.

See, THAT's upbeat. The tempo gives it a bit of energy, unlike that other one which was a bit slow.

Originally Posted by Lelouch

See, THAT's upbeat. The tempo gives it a bit of energy, unlike that other one which was a bit slow.

Or if you're looking for something mellow this will definitely tide you over. If not then there's always this. This kind of music always puts a smile on my face and a spring in my step.

Originally Posted by Lelouch

"Wrong" by Ministry. Everything about this song. The vocals and lyrics of Al Jourgensen, the guitars, the violin, the drums, everything just comes together into one great big expression of outrage. The build-up of tension, and the outlet of tension, just after the sample from Bush, is also fuelled by sheer anger. (The studio version sounds even better because his voice is synthesized for the whole song rather than at select moments).

I don't know about Ministry, really. Their rage seems more.. how should I say this, more "illiterate". They might be angrier at Bush than De La Rocha, but they just don't have the same sort of charisma, or the lyrics, that make RATM truly great. For fear of sounding cheesy, it seems to me that Ministry let out their anger through their music, while RATM truly "amplify" it.

All respect to Ministry, but I find RATM to be a tad bit angrier. Not because they.. how should I say this, contain more anger than Ministry, but because they're ANGRY AT ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.

While, in that song atleast, centered their rage upon one person, RATM seems to concentrate more on "the system" as a collective that trample in the face up the public no matter how loyal they may be, and get away with it.

I guess that is why I prefer RATM, because I believe, that the best way to be rid of this problem is the utter destruction this quagmire of lies and deceit that this political system is based on.


Let it be known that I think RATM is the most awesome band in the universe, so I might be a tad bit biased.

Originally Posted by Skoomzeh

I don't know about Ministry, really. Their rage seems more.. how should I say this, more "illiterate". They might be angrier at Bush than De La Rocha, but they just don't have the same sort of charisma, or the lyrics, that make RATM truly great. For fear of sounding cheesy, it seems to me that Ministry let out their anger through their music, while RATM truly "amplify" it.

All respect to Ministry, but I find RATM to be a tad bit angrier. Not because they.. how should I say this, contain more anger than Ministry, but because they're ANGRY AT ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.

While, in that song atleast, centered their rage upon one person, RATM seems to concentrate more on "the system" as a collective that trample in the face up the public no matter how loyal they may be, and get away with it.

I guess that is why I prefer RATM, because I believe, that the best way to be rid of this problem is the utter destruction this quagmire of lies and deceit that this political system is based on.

Ministry have loads of songs that criticize different aspects of certain administrations, most recently their Bush trilogy (Houses of the Molé, Rio Grande Blood, and The Last Sucker), where they made a full three albums lashing out at the Bush administration, and events occuring during that administration, in its entirety. I think RATM can be a bit soft in some of their songs, and others it really does just seem like a case of teenage rebellion. Bulls on Parade, fantastic example of what I like. Focused outrage. Others, like nearly everything else off Evil Empire, is just far too Teenage Rebel for my taste - they're angry, but they're not quite sure at what. So it's just "the system like, sucks man! And the government just want to keep us down! Go anarchy!"

With Ministry, I also like the heavier sound they bring to the table, as that brings some of the energy with it. As well as the fact that they use certain samples to satirical, humourous, or ironic effect, and try new sounds to add to it. Plus the fact that their lyrics aren't written in rap form, and are sung with a kind of focused rage, but somehow rap also really suits RATM's general message, because Zack de la Rocha doesn't sound like every other rapper and his dog, and puts the energy into that, too.

Let it be known that I think RATM is the most awesome band in the universe, so I might be a tad bit biased.

Well, I rather think the same about Ministry, so I may also be a tad bit biased.

Originally Posted by Lelouch

I think RATM can be a bit soft in some of their songs, and others it really does just seem like a case of teenage rebellion. Bulls on Parade, fantastic example of what I like. Focused outrage. Others, like nearly everything else off Evil Empire, is just far too Teenage Rebel for my taste - they're angry, but they're not quite sure at what. So it's just "the system like, sucks man! And the government just want to keep us down! Go anarchy!"

Strange.. That's kinda how I felt with Ministry

But yeah, they have seen better moments than Evil Empire, that's for sure.

Not that it's a bad album, oh no, but I found the two others to have a more set agenda.

Originally Posted by Skoomzeh

Strange.. That's kinda how I felt with Ministry

But yeah, they have seen better moments than Evil Empire, that's for sure.

Not that it's a bad album, oh no, but I found the two others to have a more set agenda.

I'd probably say that their first album was my favourite, The Battle Of Los Angeles wasn't really "hard" enough for my tastes, so it wasn't quite brimming with anger like their first album.

I prefer Tchaikovsky to Beethoven.
I'll admit though, I haven't heard many pieces from him (other than the most famous ones)

I really don't like much new music, most of the music I listen to are from the 60's to 80's. It's kind of annoying how bad popular music has gotten.

Originally Posted by morval

Goodness, I'm flattered that my thread provoked a few of the initial thoughts behind this thread.

Before I start, I'll just throw out my top 5 chart of Beethoven while we're on the subject.

Op. 131 (all);
Op. 132 mvt 3;
Symphony 7 mvt 2
Pathetique mvt 2.,
Beethoven 9 mvt 4.

No particular order. It depends on the mood and whether I'm listening or performing.

Definitely love this one (I mentioned it a few posts up), It's also a good example of a classical piece that is, in terms of chord choices, very similar to modern music. Billy Joel even based a song on its opening melodic line.

approach 1 is strictly concerned with what the empirical essence of the music actually is. The main reason for the rift we have today between classical music (terrible term, really) and popular music is that the academia classical musicians have been obsessive about pushing all the boundaries.

Essentially since serialism, modernism, etc.... has taken sway in classical music circles, composers have been increasingly concerned with finding each their own unique techniques while ignoring what it is their music means to other people. Broad generalization, yes; but it seems to hold true especially in the younger composers.

There's this strange fad in modern classical music: When performing a piece that's "about" something, the composer will rely upon pages of program notes thrust upon the unsuspecting audience members. If the piece is supposed to be "about" something, why not just make it perceptible to the audience members without a 5 paragraph essay? If that's not possible, why not incorporate suitable text into the piece? yes, I know. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, but, well....that was a crazy drug trip.....

ehem...anyway......

Thus there's the split in the two philosophies of absolute music and program music.

Anyway, I'm drooling out of my brain now, but before I move back to popular music I'd like to compare briefly two composers that thoroughly understood method 1.

1)Ravel
2)Schoenberg

The former sought out the refinement of a musical aesthetic that would be naturally beautiful to the human ear (based upon the preferences and preconceptions of music of that time period)

The latter sought to break those preconceptions. (He wanted to destroy western tonality, but he failed because his 12 tone system failed to account for, rhythm, articulation, tone-color, and meter. These all affect pitch perception.)

I think the typical "post-modern" composer just doesn't get the difference between method 1 and 2. It's an important one to understand if you are taking into consideration who the audience members will be. Music written with the intention of being performed for a live audience desperately needs to take this into consideration (I think).


When you are writing music that breaks too many pre-conceived notions about music (what constitutes as "too many" will vary between demographics), don't expect people to fully understand it for a few years. (definitely don't expect to get a paycheck for it. Even Beethoven was only middle class as far as his pensions went, right? lol)

As far as modern classical music goes (and yes, it is a terrible term), I agree. I would go as far as saying that post-modern composers often don't just ignore the differences between "1 and 2," but try and actively criticize people who perform music, which I think is a sad philosophy. While I completely understand and respect the idea of widening the horizons of music itself, I often see the entire idea as pointless. Once you ignore the audience, the music becomes a tonal experiment rather than, well, music.

I do, however, put a lot of stock in "pushing the boundaries," in a sense that it often widens taste. A lot of post-modern intellectual music sounds incredibly 'experimental' at first listen, but as society psychologically eases itself into the new sound, it becomes the norm. In this way, society as a whole widens it's perception of what sounds good. This is different than completely reversing the status quo though, which, again, I often view more as a tonal experiment than music.
_______________________________

OK, so pop music.

They are primarily focused on method 2 of approaching music.
Paul McCartney isn't concerned with breaking your preconceptions of what music audibly sounds like.
He wants his music to make you feel something. His lyrics provide messages that are cohesive and can be understood by an individual on several levels. The music enhances what it is the words say, on a macro level. (the micro level would be text-painting, I suppose).

When an artist focuses primarily on how a person feels upon hearing a particular piece, it will most likely be more understood by many more people. Thus it is....popular music.....ok that was obvious.

Moving On.

Well, I'd say that a lot of modern music also focuses on making a statement (whether it be political, social, or something else,) but yes, in general, it's a good assessment. I'd say that Beethoven often composed music about how he felt, his feelings were just far more intricately described. And again, I'm not saying this gives any particular credence to classical music, only to Beethoven.

What I think people often forget is that what we view within classical music is the intellectual cream of the crop. It survived because it was enjoyable to listen to, complex, and genius. There was simple, repetitive pop music performed in the 1700's too. What I often ask classical, 'anti-pop' supporters to consider is a simple hypothetical. What if Beethoven was born in 1955? What if his childhood influences were the Beatles and the Rolling Stones? Would be any less of a genius? Of course not, and he'd probably still make music. Would that music be any less genius? Probably not. There will always be "generic pop music" musicians, and there will always be geniuses. This held true in Beethoven's time and it holds true in ours. It's really just a way of rephrasing something I said earlier in this thread. Beethoven's music wasn't incredible because he was a classical musician, Beethoven's music was incredible because he was Beethoven.

But wait wasn't "classical" music once "popular music"?

The answer is yes.

In short, it was their form of entertainment.

The Bach suites are most often inspired or written in a particular mode of dance: popularity of the particular dance movements varying between culture and class. (aside from the quasi-improvisatory preludes, toccatas, etc.....)

Opera is a grand form of narrative story telling.

The rise of the Beethoven symphonies must've been like hearing a rock concert for the first time. (can you imagine growing up on Haydn concerts and then stepping into a beethoven 5 performance? wow!)

Anyway, you get the idea. This was a time when there was a healthy balance between method 1 and 2 of approaches to music.


Now they have been divorced.

I don't know if it is a reparable thing, but I hope they become blissfully reunited before I die.


I think John Corigliano is fixing it (based on the little I've heard).
I think his pupil Erik Whitakre is fixing it as well
I think radio head is on the road to fixing it also.
Who's the avant-Garde pianist that set Oscar Wilde's letters to music? anyway, he's on my list too.

Of course, part of the problem is the demographics have become so fractured.

More or less what I said above, but I'd go farther in saying that the indie movement as a whole has been doing a good job of expanding popular music's horizons. Many performance bands actually have stated their philosophy is to break pre-conceived notions about popular music, and I would argue that many bands have achieved a fairly healthy balance of '1 and 2,' just as many post-modern classical composers have more recently begun to 'remember the audience,' so to speak. I would point to pitchfork.com as a prime example of the indie movement's move towards intellectual thought. While some of the reviewers tend to play word salad and can have very...overwrought opinions, others successfully show that popular music deserves more credit in the world of higher art.

Modern classical music can be considered an intellectual achievement, however I wouldn't go so far as to say that it has consistently been an artistic or spiritual one. Of course, the sub-genres are so numerous that it is hard to make such a broad generalization.

Conversely, I would say the opposite of modern popular music. It has been a profoundly spiritual achievement (especially during the 60's in America), but I would be much more hesitant to say that it has been an intellectual achievement in music.

I wouldn't say the line is so thickly drawn between the two, and while I think the term 'pseudo-intellectual' is often overused (and often in the wrong context,) I think it actually fits perfectly when describing a lot of 'modern classical' music. Just because someone breaks the boundaries of tonality and rhythm doesn't mean it's good, or even 'intellecual' music. Mad Hatter phrased it perfectly when he said that it has a lot more to do with tension/release than chord choices and the number of harmonies. Music has to structurally stimulate the listener, and as you said, too often, modern classical music forgets the listener entirely.

I would also say that lyrics within popular music, especially songs that can successfully achieve layers and layers of rich meaning within their lyrics, lend modern music artistic merit. Similarly, even in the 60's, the later Beatles (due to John Lennon's influence) began to move towards much 'smarter' music.

For the most part though, the rift still exists, and yes, a lot of it has to do with the demographic of the listeners.

The creative artist must know himself, the craft, and the viewers on an "existential" level before he can begin to make art that is meaningful to the self, meaningful to the viewers, and clever in design.

I think one of the problems is that the so-called 'rift' often isn't as much between 'intellectual music' and 'performance music' as it between the artist and his viewers. I'm sure there are a lot of artists out there who would like to explore new territory, but the viewer expects what they've heard before. This is why I wholeheartedly support the "stretching boundaries" ideal of 'art music,' but again, I'm still aware that often, the purpose of music is to stimulate the listener. This is the unsolvable quandary of performance art in general.

If you know the intentions of the artist and the results it has upon the people, then you can conclude the art to have succeeded or not.
If successful vs failed art is good and bad, then yes you could say that art is either good or bad, merely by turning the own artists intentions upon himself.

The trouble is if the artist didn't have many intentions for the creation of the art, then there are not very many parameters in which you have to measure the art with, and they are usually very vague parameters at that.

So, no parameters= neither good nor bad. it just is. (but you still don't have to like what it is.)

The real trick is, once you've figured out the artists intentions and ideas of art, do you agree with him?

Exactly. This is really why music criticism in itself is really just a "consensus of agreement." If intellectual society deems something disagreeable with what are considered higher and more intelligent intentions and ideas within the art world, it's given generally bad reviews. I'm not sure whether this is healthy or not, but it is what it is.

There are many aspects of music we need to consider before we say that one type is better than another. Complexity does not inherently make a song better (and can often make it worse), and simplicity doesn't either. It's how you integrate them and build up tension and release it. Making a very complex piece sound simple takes a lot more talent than just making it complex. 7th and 9th chords don't always sound better than basic triads. And we also have music like Indian classical music, which has extremely complex rhythm and melody, but doesn't even use harmony at all. And if you listen to more modern composers like Arvo Part, you'll notice that even music consisting purely of harmonies, with no melody or elaborate rhythm, can be very emotional.

So of course there's the artistic side as well, and the purpose there is to evoke an emotional response from the listener. Obviously this is a lot more subjective than judging complexity and structure because this all takes place in our heads. I consider classical music to be much more emotionally stimulating than modern pop music, but I'm sure others don't. I think the real problem with pop music is how formulaic it is. I can pretty easily sing along to songs I've never heard before. Most have the same 3 chords, reuse the same melodies, and there are about 2 different beats you can hear on the radio today. I guess as you get exposed to more music, you realize how much more there is to music. But we can't just blame the musicians. My band, for example, usually tries to write pretty sophisticated pop-sounding music. We wrote one song almost as a joke where we all dick around on cheesy synthesizers while my drummer plays an electro beat. And of course when we performed it, everyone came up to us and asked, "what was that song you played?! That was awesome!!!" A lot of people listen to music just to dance, have fun, and bob their heads.

And that's nothing new - there were a lot of really cheesy minuets written back in the day. Being a cellist, I'm stuck with the really unimaginative bass parts, and I don't even need to look at the music anymore. The classical music we listen to now is the stuff that stood the test of time. Even Plato was complaining about the direction music was going in, and that's before any resemblance of classical music.

As I said earlier in this post, I agree. Complexity definitely doesn't make something better or worse, and a lot of it has to do with tension/release and structure in general.

Right. Time to introduce taste to this thread:

YouTube - Meatloaf - Bat out of Hell

YouTube - Kutulu!

YouTube - Metallica-The Thing That Should Not Be

YouTube - Metallica- Enter Sandman

YouTube - Queen - The Prophet's Song

All I can think of at the moment, sadly..

Originally Posted by Leinator

What I think people often forget is that what we view within classical music is the intellectual cream of the crop. It survived because it was enjoyable to listen to, complex, and genius. There was simple, repetitive pop music performed in the 1700's too. What I often ask classical, 'anti-pop' supporters to consider is a simple hypothetical. What if Beethoven was born in 1955? What if his childhood influences were the Beatles and the Rolling Stones? Would be any less of a genius? Of course not, and he'd probably still make music. Would that music be any less genius? Probably not. There will always be "generic pop music" musicians, and there will always be geniuses. This held true in Beethoven's time and it holds true in ours. It's really just a way of rephrasing something I said earlier in this thread. Beethoven's music wasn't incredible because he was a classical musician, Beethoven's music was incredible because he was Beethoven.

Yes! Very true. People get caught up in the genres of their music and they put this invisible box around their brain and never ever leave that box if a genre doesn't fit inside that box. (not always, but it happens.)
I guess it's because some people make a music genre a big part of their self identity. Not necessarily a bad thing I guess, but it does prevent other good things from perhaps coming into ones awareness.

The genre doesn't justify the music.
The music justifies the music.
Genre labels are only as good as the music that defines them.
Some is good, some is bad.
As you've said, the "classical" composers have already been through the filter of time, so we are only really exposed to the best of the best when you think about it.

Speaking of exposure to new music, have you heard of the Pandora's Box music project thing? It was popular a couple years ago. Not sure if it's still going. It's a cool concept.

As far as modern classical music goes (and yes, it is a terrible term), I agree. I would go as far as saying that post-modern composers often don't just ignore the differences between "1 and 2," but try and actively criticize people who perform music, which I think is a sad philosophy. While I completely understand and respect the idea of widening the horizons of music itself, I often see the entire idea as pointless. Once you ignore the audience, the music becomes a tonal experiment rather than, well, music.

"post-modern composers often don't just ignore the differences between "1 and 2," but try and actively criticize people who perform music"

Really? what do you mean by that? I have a friend who is quite gifted at method 1 of music composition and he really enjoys telling me all the things wrong with my playing. Is that the kind of critique you speak of?

I do, however, put a lot of stock in "pushing the boundaries," in a sense that it often widens taste. A lot of post-modern intellectual music sounds incredibly 'experimental' at first listen, but as society psychologically eases itself into the new sound, it becomes the norm. In this way, society as a whole widens it's perception of what sounds good. This is different than completely reversing the status quo though, which, again, I often view more as a tonal experiment than music.

Yes, I remember when Leon Fleischer first started performing again and he gave a talk in KC before the performance. He said something to the extent that.....
"In the arts, the ear is usually about 70 years behind the eye."

Or something like that.
I think there's definitely truth in that statement.

I think one of the problems is that the so-called 'rift' often isn't as much between 'intellectual music' and 'performance music' as it between the artist and his viewers. I'm sure there are a lot of artists out there who would like to explore new territory, but the viewer expects what they've heard before. This is why I wholeheartedly support the "stretching boundaries" ideal of 'art music,' but again, I'm still aware that often, the purpose of music is to stimulate the listener. This is the unsolvable quandary of performance art in general.

Yes, definitely. It's actually the conundrum that professional symphonies are finding themselves in right now.

Everybody in KC wants to hear beethoven, mozart, brahms...etc...every season. Stern, however likes to incorporate newer music into his programs. So he balances his programs, providing exposure to new things as well as giving the audiences a bit of the old favorites.

More or less what I said above, but I'd go farther in saying that the indie movement as a whole has been doing a good job of expanding popular music's horizons. Many performance bands actually have stated their philosophy is to break pre-conceived notions about popular music, and I would argue that many bands have achieved a fairly healthy balance of '1 and 2,' just as many post-modern classical composers have more recently begun to 'remember the audience,' so to speak. I would point to pitchfork.com as a prime example of the indie movement's move towards intellectual thought. While some of the reviewers tend to play word salad and can have very...overwrought opinions, others successfully show that popular music deserves more credit in the world of higher art.

Hmm, interesting. I would definitely agree that much "non-classical" music deserves to be thought of as more than just entertainment.
Perhaps I should check out more "indie" music. (I always thought that the "indie" kids were so smug. lol)
What are your favorite indie bands? (the pitchfork site didn't load for me =/

I really enjoy "non-classical" stuff like Damien Rice, Paul McCartney, beatles, lots of instrumental acoustic stuff. stuff that has a folksy sound will often catch my ear.

Exactly. This is really why music criticism in itself is really just a "consensus of agreement." If intellectual society deems something disagreeable with what are considered higher and more intelligent intentions and ideas within the art world, it's given generally bad reviews. I'm not sure whether this is healthy or not, but it is what it is.

Hmmm, could critiques take an approach as to how well the intentions were executed, then perhaps discuss the actual intentions?
Disagreement on philosophy of music is one thing, and execution of that philosophy are two different things, yes?

I don't really know the in's and out's of music critique, so I'm just being curious at this point.

I did, however, get a brief one sentence review in the KC Star last march for Basso Continuo work on St. Matt's passion under Andrew Megill's baton.

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Right. Time to introduce taste to this thread:

YouTube - Meatloaf - Bat out of Hell

YouTube - Kutulu!

YouTube - Metallica-The Thing That Should Not Be

YouTube - Metallica- Enter Sandman

YouTube - Queen - The Prophet's Song

All I can think of at the moment, sadly..

Are you implying that Frank Sinatra is tasteless?

Originally Posted by Leinator

Definitely love this one (I mentioned it a few posts up), It's also a good example of a classical piece that is, in terms of chord choices, very similar to modern music. Billy Joel even based a song on its opening melodic line.

ah, nice. I played pathetique at my CIM audition on piano. I didn't get in on piano =/
(I did get in on cello though)

I heard a song by Bright Eyes once where the melody was definitely inspired by the melody from beethoven 9 mvt 4.

Can't remember the song name.... oh well. the melody and rhythms were too similar for it to be just coincidence.

*edit*

Trumpettree is coming.......

Leinator, could you please define 'music'?

You write: "I would go as far as saying that post-modern composers often don't just ignore the differences between "1 and 2," but try and actively criticize people who perform music, which I think is a sad philosophy. While I completely understand and respect the idea of widening the horizons of music itself, I often see the entire idea as pointless. Once you ignore the audience, the music becomes a tonal experiment rather than, well, music."

My first retort:

Morval has identified two broad categories [1) The empirical, scientific approach. 2) The purpose behind the music.] which I think I can justly simplify to 1) a systematic approach, i.e. the thing before the idea and 2) a spiritual approach, i.e. the idea before the thing. You remark that postmodern composers don't JUST ignore the differences between these two extremes, but that as a further affront to our sensibilities they CRITICIZE performers!

My problem with your sentiments is that you wrongly compartmentalize intellectualism with complexity and spiritualism with simplicity. Granted, the majority of music seems to follow such standards, but I think this is a case of misplaced means.

Some examples: Bach is one of the most intellectual composers ever, and I would consider him a spiritualist. George Crumb said that music "may be defined as a system of proportions in the service of a spiritual impulse." This is pertinent: Bach was NOT tonal--he did not think vertically at all--everything is about the horizontal movement of individual voices; even so, the spiritual impulse that he served can be (at least partially) by tonal phenomena--like gravity. So the spiritual essence, the muse, the "feeling" gives way to structure that withstands academic analysis (thanks Rameau). Another example: Heinz Holliger--one of maybe two musicians on the planet who could give a flying **** about poetry. His music would, surely, not have too difficult a time offending the ears of everyone present, excepting possibly Morval and Leinator--intellectual, yes . . . from a man who was a virtuoso performer at 20 before embarking on the composition path. And his music is not that of a Paganini reincarnation (or, God forbid, another Ferneyhough)--it is of a man with an ear for detail and an obsession with the heart. But do me a favor and pull out a score, any old one . . . wait!--spiritualism, my ass!--this maniac studied with Sador Veress! It's like the 60s all over again, with Boulez booing at all that he sniffs (whether its crab cakes or ****). Holliger can actually play Gemeaux (or Eucalypts for that matter)! He has sex with harpists! Holy crap!

My point: he does not write "intellectually," and although he does write "complex" music to an ear that can discern detail and nuance he is not Boulez, he it not Michael Finnissy, he is Holliger and his music is spiritual. Or at least cathartic enough that I don't feel bad throwing it at Mahler and crafted enough that I might actually listen to Brahms after leafing through some of Holliger's not-wind music.

Gubaidulina is another example: her spiritualism (Christian, I hypothesize, but the drug of choice is irrelevant so on I go . . .) gives way, strangely to humanism [she says that composition for her is "religion," or "re-ligio" the retying of bonds against the "staccato of existence;" which, while I kind of find it quaint, really is just a non-Satanic regurgitation of Scriabin so I can't take it too seriously]--then gives way to . . . you guessed it!--complexity! But, not . . . ?

Others: Tigran Mansurian, from the heart AND the head. Also, defend Shostakovich for me because I really don't want to beat his head in with this crap and he really is good--because his rhythms are so simple? Hell no, I want some septuplets! Old Shosty can write counterpoint like Beethoven and his voice leading (while predictable after the first ten second or so) is as original as Bach. Except Bach has Mendelssohn and where would we be today if my Shostakovich didn't come with a helping of Iron Curtain and the largest side order of self-imposed misery this side of Kafka before Zurau . . . ? That was a question?

I could keep going, but back to postmodernism: Schnittke, Golijov, John Adams (not the Alaskan one), Unsuk Chin, Erkki-Sven Tuur. They have their similarities as well as their differences, but do they "IGNORE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 1 AND 2"???

Um, no. On the contrary, postmodernism dwells on the accumulated experience of both the individual AND society. An artist's aesthetic decisions (in postmodernism, see also structuralism--postm.'s downfall??) are the result of their acquired "oeuvre" of experience which inform the act of creation through memory--both consciously and unconsciously. Yay, we found surrealism. Just a pit-stop, sorry, I'm moving forward . . .

So, recap of retort one: I hate/dislike your (really Morval's, but you went with it so I've got to go straight for the balls on this one) categories because I think they are misplaced. Why? Ljova said: "Everything is listenable, some things just require more time and attention. I’ve always tried to do both – write music that interests me intellectually and captivates me spiritually. Sometimes that happens in the same piece, sometimes it doesn’t." Too true--a composer (nay, any, EVERY, artist . . . ever) is never all one way or the other. They take a little of every little thing--and, the more you know about your medium, the more nuanced you can make your art, the more detailed. Thus, intellectualism is usually complexity: the more your ear can grasp, the more acutely trained it is, the stranger and wilder you can make the piece. But a true artist, one who KNOWS what they are doing, will know also when enough is enough--I would say that many pieces fail here, so this is where the incongruity resides. Mansurian knows when to stop (note: Part does not--he rips off himself, like Penderecki). What about Ligeti? Atmospheres? Yes, it is complex, but its structure derives from Ligeti's whim, his spiritual impulse to do t h i s t h i n g . . . . . . . . . I see it as simplicity (i.e. what happens = nothing much, like Pelleas et Melisande!)--areas in a sonic space stretched out as if under a microscope: what Strauss gives at the first measure of a melody Ligeti blows up and and examines in fine, minute detail. But still, it is static, and these details are lost in the amalgam of the whole, giant miasma of sound. It is beautiful, spiritual, structured, alien, simple, wondrous, and disconcerting all at once. Define that in categories.

Retort two: as far as criticizing performers, since when do composers do that? Oh, forever. If you don't like what you hear, then let them know because you've seen those practice rooms--they SUCK!--and you know your performers aren't going to gnaw away at their own flesh anymore than they have to. Besides, they don't need composers when they can take care of the self-effacement all on their own (boom chik !). At this point I name drop only once: Hilary Hahn. As long as she is the only person playing Schoenberg's Concerto without any ****-ups I say we can criticize performers ALL GODDAMN DAY. Watch her bow arm. You see that? It = sexy.

Retort Three (keep up . . .):

Leinator, you wrote: “Once you ignore the audience, the music becomes a tonal experiment rather than, well, music.”

I think that in some respects your thoughts on the current music scene are valid; we need the stylistic disparity that postmodernism provides to "educate" the ear of society—we could justify this perhaps by “training” it for the marathon and sending it off for the long haul. The more a composer listens (and Takemitsu said just that: "A composer is first a listener--Listen!"), the more their ear can grasp at once and the more nuanced the sound they will want to call for. Popular music restricts the growth of the ear as aforementioned so much of the avant-garde remains "unlistenable"--which is unfair and untrue.

Where the intelligence of your audience is lacking you can pull a blind with perfect discretion over their eyes. Webern inspired many imitators of his sparse (simple, I think not. Complex--because of the pitches, NO! Because of the NUANCE!)--do we listen to them? No, because they were no smarter than the people they tried to fool, and in the end their work can't stand on its own (say, like Bach's; or Webern's, hence . . .).

Leinator, you wrote: "I think one of the problems is that the so-called 'rift' often isn't as much between 'intellectual music' and 'performance music' as it between the artist and his viewers. I'm sure there are a lot of artists out there who would like to explore new territory, but the viewer expects what they've heard before. This is why I wholeheartedly support the "stretching boundaries" ideal of 'art music,' but again, I'm still aware that often, the purpose of music is to stimulate the listener. This is the unsolvable quandary of performance art in general."

I disagree. Here's why: a modern composer's audience is chiefly other composers (this is, sadly, the beast of academia). The artist toils over his work because he(/she) is driven to do so. Compelled by fate to spin strings like Scheherazade telling tales with her life on the line. An artist creates using the knowledge he accumulates, and this process can only be understood by those who have access to a similar store of information. As long as society goes forward, so will the creators it spawns and their creations (ha, Frankenstein's monster . . .). If the populace does not try to keep up, NO WAY will it be able to reach those up front running as fast as their little warped and maligned "feet" (I mean "intellectualisms," oops.) will carry them.

Morval wrote: "Modern classical music can be considered an intellectual achievement, however I wouldn't go so far as to say that it has consistently been an artistic or spiritual one. Of course, the sub-genres are so numerous that it is hard to make such a broad generalization."

I disagree with this using my earlier argument retroactively, and also simply on the grounds that this is completely without base. If the achievement is anything at all it is by definition artistic, and see the Crumb quote for my defense of the spiritual in new music. I am putting this here to further strengthen my number one concern:

Leinator: How is a “tonal experiment” different from "music"? [Note: I am arguing the “experiment” not the “tonal,” as music can exist wholly without tones or tonality.]

Interesting thing: the New Complexity of Ferneyhough and Finnissy and English blokes in general (oops, can I include Elliot Carter in that one? No? Too bad I guess.) has--quite against common sense and/or decency--attracted many performers to their side, where the music is as much about the performer attempted to do the insanely improbable as it is about the sound. In actuality, one could argue the music is more for the performer and THEIR art than for the resultant sound the listener discerns.

Doesn't the composer speak to the performer? Isn't it the performer who speaks to the listener?

Originally Posted by morval

Trumpettree is coming.......

and you thought maybe I was kidding.....
We're on our way. We'll be back, Leiny.

Music lives forever and as long as we hold on to good music it will survive.

It is neccesary to find out if a piece of music is "art" or "entertainment". Meaning, weather they are actually trying to sing what they feel, or if they are just making something up to make money. I think that veries from artist to artist.

Personally I think anyone who says one style of music is better than another is an idiot. It is an opinion, nothing more. Each genre has good point that balance eachother out. The same with skill level. For example DragonForce has incredible guitar skills, but Aerosmith has much better vocals.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

Music lives forever and as long as we hold on to good music it will survive.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is yet another example of beautiful music in the modern age. This song is about practically nothing, essentially. May have been inspired by something, but it's just beautiful music for the sake of beauty. Freddy Mercury was also an excellent vocalist, I must point out.

Power Metal does make you feel GLORIOUS, but it gets tedious because it's mostly about fire and steel and blood and victory and all that general "battle is glory" bollocks.

Yeah, which is the one reason I really love the idea of power metal but dislike most of its bands. I do find bands here and there with lyrics that aren't total garbage, though. I'd recommend Kamelot for those tired of slaying the dragon or fighting for honor.

Anyway, I'm not a huge connoisseur of music, but I don't really buy the idea that some music can be "better" than other music. It's far too vague and doesn't really make any sense. The aspects of the musicians and the aspects of the pieces can be compared, and from there we can ask, "Which aspects of music are more worth listening to?"

It seems pretty evident to me that even among intellectuals the most important aspects of music are not things we can always agree upon. It might be possible to find one or two aspects in common, and then find a mish-mashed heirarchy in that, but even there it can be tricky.

It doesn't help that people often listen to music for different reasons. I, actually, primarily listen to music to motivate my writing; the music that can most put me in the world of my story is what I usually adopt. That's why, strangely enough, when I was writing a half-serious mystery, I got into dark techno.

This is one of my favorites. It's a bit older than The Ecstasy of Gold, but whatever.

You would just love "Princes of the Universe", Lelou.