Is atonal music dead?

Originally Posted by jujimufu

Nirvana: I was struck to read your post. You just (wrongly) infer something from my post, and disregarding the rest of it, you hold on to a single phrase, and although stating that you do not know if these were my intentions or not, you indirectly call me a dumb and arrogant person with a condescending attitude towards all people.

In any case, I have no intention to end up in yet another argument about things irrelevant to what's important. I am really sorry if that's what was understood by my post. It may have been due to bad/hasty phrasing, which is basically the result of having said this and other things so many times in the past that I can't be bothered to write them exactly as I did in the first place.

We're not talking about people "disliking a piece" here or about people who are expected to like everything they hear. We're talking about people who ignore 100 years of music, musical thought, philosophy of music and the development and interaction of music with the other arts, as well as all the people who contributed in all these fields. We're talking about people saying the analogous of "I don't like Bush, he mixed up his words the other day, he shouldn't be a president". This is not at all a valid reason to dislike Bush, and I am not saying that disliking Bush is wrong because you should like Bush, but that you should refine your judgement, and justify your dislike of Bush in a more valid and serious/grounded way. You might do a lot of research, or just read the news and see what Bush does, and then still dislike him - I'm fine with that. I know people who know a lot about contemporary music, have listened to a lot of Ligeti, read a book or two on Ligeti, and still don't like him - fair enough. I am not blaming them. But if someone discards Ligeti's validity as a "good composer" because they heard from someone who had read somewhere that Ligeti wrote music for Metronomes and it sucked, then I won't agree with that.

It's not "what" people dislike, it's "how" and "why" they dislike it. I won't take back anything from my post, as I think it was highly misunderstood.

What I would value from my previous post, which seems to have been completely ignored, is this part:



And also, I think the part that was most misunderstood was:



I still stand by what i said. I never said that "all people who dislike contemporary music or some particular pieces or composers of the 20th/21st centuries are misinformed/uninformed, it's their bad, and they have been denying it on the grounds that they don't like it", which is what apparently was interpreted by Nirvana. I said that the reason we're having discussions like these is because [some] people (the omission of "some" may have contributed to the misunderstanding, but I think it's very clear I don't mean "all" people, since if that was the case, there would be no arguments, we'd all agree...) as misinformed, and are ignorant enough to believe that they are informed enough to have a fully-developed understanding of what they don't understand, and start bashing it with no valid arguments or indication that they have at least done the most fundamental and essential kind of research that one can do (you can't say you like a car without knowing what car you mean - you can't say "I really dislike that BMW", and when people ask you "what BMW, and why don't you like it?" reply "I don't know exactly which, one of them, and I just don't like it, dunno.. I haven't really seen it or anything.. I just don't like it").

About movies, well, I've heard people say that "Odyssey 2001" sucks, or that "A Clockwork Orange" is the worst film they've ever seen. Well, these films are considered to be two of the finest films by Kubrick, who was one of the most interesting and artistic directors in the 20th century, so if these people don't do the least amount of research to find out why Kubrick is considered a good director, and why these films are considered good, and read things by people who have spent their whole lives analysing films, direction, who have a heap of knowledge on that particular art (without asking every viewer to go and learn what these people know - although a person interested in direction should, and that's what SSC was talking about), I won't take their opinion highly, and similar arguments will arise (things like "Odyssey 2001: IS THIS ART? DIRECTING?").

Unfortunately, I've had enough of these threads. I've spent so much time replying to many things which are expected to be trivial by people who are supposedly interested in a topic, any topic, and mainly highlighting what other people have said (who deserve more respect than they are given - again a bad thing of the internet, because if these discussions were taking place in real life, these people would be respected more), and I have so many things to do. And instead of trying to grab the greater idea out of all these posts by all these members, people just pick on the smallest details and make a huge fuss out of them, straying largely away from the essence.


Here are other posts of mien in the thread where I have explained better my point of view, in the hope that people will actually read them and not bash me for something they inferred from what they misunderstood from them:

Page 5i
Page 5ii (second paragraph mainly)

Have fun.

Then I apologize for misunderstanding. I was in a bit of a pissy mood yesterday (nothing to do with this forum, entirely personal) so I was feeling pretty belligerent anyway. I still stand by what I said but I should've asked you to better clarify before jumping to conclusions.

Anyway, I do agree with a lot of what you said as well. It's not what people like, it's why and how. If someone can't explain to me why they don't like something then I don't hold their opinion in very high regard. While, I know I argued that people don't always need a reason to like or dislike something, I was refering people who don't keep music as a central part of their lives. I was refering to hobbyists basically, and no offense to anyone, but I'm not going to put a whole lot of weight into a hobbyist's opinion, just like someone who loves books should not hold my opinion of literature in very high regard.

I also agree that a lot of people have ignored this last 100 years of music. It's alright not to like it but as a true music lover, you should at least take some time to study and decide why you don't like it. Personally, I think anyone who has studied the music of the *entire* 20th century can find at least a few composers he/she likes but I guess it could be remotely possible. I used to claim not to like anything from the 20th century until being exposed to the works of Ravel, Bartok, (and to a lesser degree) Cage. While these may indeed be some of the easier 20th century composers to get into, and I still have yet to find appreciation for people like Stockhausen and Berio, I'll admit that I have not studied enough of their work to really have a true opinion.

Anyway, I'm sorry for being an assuming ass. No hard feelings?

Juji I agree in some way with what you have said, but you have to remember that 'taste' is highly reasoned in many conscious and subconscious ways.
If I listen to something I don't initially enjoy, it would be more profitable for me to musically study it than it would be to research the composers history and philosophy. Ultimately whether or not a composer was fantasically intellectual or had a very specific reason for writing the work that they did or not, it doesn't matter to me. I would prefer to base my opinion of a piece of music on the merits of the piece itself.
If Stephen Hawking wrote a terrible piece of music, I would not go out and buy his books solely on the basis that I should do my research! In my opinion music should speak for itself; it is not the philosophy or the history, but the outcome.
If I found out that Beethoven's 5th symphony was written about a piece of string for example, it wouldn't marr my appreciation of it.
I know this may be off at a tangeant considering the original topic thread, but I thought I'd at least try to add something..!

Ultimately whether or not a composer was fantasically intellectual or had a very specific reason for writing the work that they did or not, it doesn't matter to me. I would prefer to base my opinion of a piece of music on the merits of the piece itself.

Exactly!

A good piece of music doesn't need a lecture after the performance to explain what you just heard and what it means

Originally Posted by almacg

Juji I agree in some way with what you have said, but you have to remember that 'taste' is highly reasoned in many conscious and subconscious ways.
If I listen to something I don't initially enjoy, it would be more profitable for me to musically study it than it would be to research the composers history and philosophy. Ultimately whether or not a composer was fantasically intellectual or had a very specific reason for writing the work that they did or not, it doesn't matter to me. I would prefer to base my opinion of a piece of music on the merits of the piece itself.
If Stephen Hawking wrote a terrible piece of music, I would not go out and buy his books solely on the basis that I should do my research! In my opinion music should speak for itself; it is not the philosophy or the history, but the outcome.
If I found out that Beethoven's 5th symphony was written about a piece of string for example, it wouldn't marr my appreciation of it.
I know this may be off at a tangeant considering the original topic thread, but I thought I'd at least try to add something..!

Shows you never had to do proper piece analysis.

In an analysis of a piece, you have to know history, context and ideology of the composer and the trends of the time. The whole point of a proper analysis is fit the piece within a historical frame as to understand how it was made, the influences, what it caused, what is similar or different from the pieces of the time. ETC ETC ETC ETC.

I, again, don't think EVERYONE should be so amazingly thorough about each piece of music they come across, but I personally make an effort to do so as all that hard work brings an amazing amount of knowledge to the table you would not otherwise have.

About the other thing, I think that a piece has to be given a "first view" without any explanation or lecture. Just the sound. It can then come with an explanation, or you can read some about it and then listen to it again and you may see it entirely different than the first time unless you automatically create a bias.

I don't really care how you pick and choose the music you like or don't like, I'm talking about actual study of music and how the attitude shown by a lot of members recently simply will put them in a uphill struggle until they realize that they have to pay mind to things they don't like too or they'll never get further in the craft.

I'm not going to bother going into "A good piece of..." argument because "good" music doesn't exist. Only music exists.

Originally Posted by SSC

I'm not going to bother going into "A good piece of..." argument because "good" music doesn't exist. Only music exists.

I disagree. While it may be near impossible for people to agree on what 'good' is, it certainly exists.
I've seen the difference between good and not good in my own music. I was working on a song (still am, actually) and the 'b' section was giving me trouble. My instructor pointed out how it wasn't working, and I struggled for about a month trying to get this to work. I had it all written out, it was just causing a lot of problems along the rest of the song.
My instructor said something to me, he said "I'm not convinced it has to go into 12/8 there." And I went home and worked on it, and came up with something completely different, and it worked a million times better. The rest of the song came much more easily (I'm still working on it, but it's a lot better off)
If there were no such thing as 'good' music then the 12/8 section would have worked just as well as what I have now. This is what, to me, destroys your whole philosophy that "There is no such thing as good music" as well as the numerous statements you've made regarding the "write what you want" business (I'm paraphrasing) Simply put, I would not be writing my best music ever if there were no such thing as good music, and my music would not be near as good as it is if I just wrote what I wanted and left it there. Additionally, as much as I have improved in the two years I've been here, I know I have a very long way to go still.

Originally Posted by Jamie Whitmarsh

I disagree. While it may be near impossible for people to agree on what 'good' is, it certainly exists.
I've seen the difference between good and not good in my own music. I was working on a song (still am, actually) and the 'b' section was giving me trouble. My instructor pointed out how it wasn't working, and I struggled for about a month trying to get this to work. I had it all written out, it was just causing a lot of problems along the rest of the song.
My instructor said something to me, he said "I'm not convinced it has to go into 12/8 there." And I went home and worked on it, and came up with something completely different, and it worked a million times better. The rest of the song came much more easily (I'm still working on it, but it's a lot better off)
If there were no such thing as 'good' music then the 12/8 section would have worked just as well as what I have now. This is what, to me, destroys your whole philosophy that "There is no such thing as good music" as well as the numerous statements you've made regarding the "write what you want" business (I'm paraphrasing) Simply put, I would not be writing my best music ever if there were no such thing as good music, and my music would not be near as good as it is if I just wrote what I wanted and left it there. Additionally, as much as I have improved in the two years I've been here, I know I have a very long way to go still.

Oh, so your opinion and taste of what "good" is suddenly destroy what I say about "good music" and such? I think that if anything, your example is pretty much within what I'd expect if you have taste and opinion, and ask for someone else's taste and opinion.

The very fact we can all disagree on what "good" is negates it as a real factor, there's no common ground. In your example, you just weren't convinced by what you were writing, and you tried something else. That's fine. But you could've as well accepted the part that "didn't work," as could've your instructor. There's nothing against or for that, you only happen to have similar tastes then.

What if he had thought it worked and you didn't?

So, what you're getting at is, what's closer to your taste is "good" to YOU. That's fine, I never say the opposite. I say that there's no ABSOLUTE "good" standard we can all fall back on collectively, or any of that. "Writing what you want" is precisely referring to writing what you think is "good" in your opinion which can be something totally different than what is "good" by other people.

Now, if you're saying you write (or attempt to write) universally "good music", then I'm sorry to say but no, you aren't. There's no such a thing if nobody (a VAST statistical majority, that is to say!) can agree on what "good" objectively is.

"Good" is simply not a good adjective by itself when talking about this sort of thing. It's OK in context of opinion and taste, sure, but it's all too easy to assume "good" is used like a you'd use it in "A good car." There's no objectivity here to discuss, and that much is clear I hope.

If anything, it's much better to say "It works for me, doesn't work for me" than "It's good, it's bad." Nobody's tastes are the center of the universe, and you have to accept the logical possibility that other people may have drastically different view from your own regarding what they like and they don't like even if you don't deal with them often or know anyone who directly does so.

So, I don't see how any of what you said destroys my philosophy in any way, it supports it if anything. :x

I liked the part that I was writing, but it wasn't working. It certainly isn't a matter of taste - my instructor and I have a lot of different views on music. I have written stuff when I was in 7th grade that was utterly horrible, and in no way good music. Mostly poor ideas as well. I have written stuff in high school that I enjoy quite a bit, but I don't really think it's good music. It's very immature (even though I like it, that doesn't make it good.) I am writing stuff now that I enjoy, but I also think it is good music (or at least quite close.)



How about this: Mahler 3 is good music. A 12 minute piece of one single note played on an oboe non stop with no inflections and a poor tone is not good music. There may be people who walk away from Mahler 3 saying "I didn't like that" but that doesn't negate it as good music. Someone could walk away from the 12 minute oboe piece and say "I liked that" (they'd have to be on something, though,) but that doesn't qualify it as good music.

I think there are criteria, but good music certainly exists. I'm not entirely sure what they all are, but off the top of my head I would say something along the lines of intent, as well as the music working with itself would be included. My problem that I have with what you are saying is that you're saying "There's no such thing as good music. It's foolish to aspire to write good music because it's impossible, so you should just write whatever you want" which, in my opinion, is a fairly reckless way to take your craft. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, at which point it might be a bit more beneficial to me if you better stated your philosophy on music.

Originally Posted by Jamie Whitmarsh

I liked the part that I was writing, but it wasn't working. It certainly isn't a matter of taste - my instructor and I have a lot of different views on music. I have written stuff when I was in 7th grade that was utterly horrible, and in no way good music. Mostly poor ideas as well. I have written stuff in high school that I enjoy quite a bit, but I don't really think it's good music. It's very immature (even though I like it, that doesn't make it good.) I am writing stuff now that I enjoy, but I also think it is good music (or at least quite close.)



How about this: Mahler 3 is good music. A 12 minute piece of one single note played on an oboe non stop with no inflections and a poor tone is not good music. There may be people who walk away from Mahler 3 saying "I didn't like that" but that doesn't negate it as good music. Someone could walk away from the 12 minute oboe piece and say "I liked that" (they'd have to be on something, though,) but that doesn't qualify it as good music.

I think there are criteria, but good music certainly exists. I'm not entirely sure what they all are, but off the top of my head I would say something along the lines of intent, as well as the music working with itself would be included. My problem that I have with what you are saying is that you're saying "There's no such thing as good music. It's foolish to aspire to write good music because it's impossible, so you should just write whatever you want" which, in my opinion, is a fairly reckless way to take your craft. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, at which point it might be a bit more beneficial to me if you better stated your philosophy on music.

Well, you did misunderstand. My philosophy is more like "Write what you THINK IS GOOD, and write things you LIKE, make you happy, or otherwise just enjoy. Have fun."

But, on your second point with Mahler, well. Says who? You? Mahler's 3rd symphony is pretty terrible in my opinion. To me it's "not good music," no matter what other people think. I don't care for it, and if it were for me it could as well not exist. The oboe piece, well, dunno. It's a hypothesis but I may not like it either, but I also may like it. It's hard to tell stuff like this. But a close example is Berio's Sequenza for Oboe, which I think is AMAZING. I'd say that is a "good piece of music", because I like it.

But that shit is my opinion. According to ME, and my opinion, I consider Mahler's 3rd to be a total unnecessary bore. That's just me. I don't consider my opinion in any way universal nor a standard. It's not anyone else's opinion but mine and mine alone.

You say however, that you can objectively somehow tell what music is "good" from what music is "bad." If you have somehow invented a machine that does this, that'd be cool. Chances are, you haven't, and it's just a flawed view on the nature of art (and taste) as it tends to happen.

But, hey, prove me wrong. If you can come up with what parameters we can ALL agree on that make a piece "good", then let's hear it.

Nevermind my example with the car. We can all agree more or less on what a "good car" is on the basis that it has to at least serve the function a car must serve. In other words, a car without wheels isn't much of a car, so it can't be good at being a "car" (much less a GOOD car) since it fails at the basic criteria for being a car at all (having wheels, being able to transport people around, etc.) But a piece of music?

Then we have to start defining what is music's function, and then what doesn't fit that function isn't music (objectively speaking). Problem is, uh, I'm sure you're aware of the whole centuries of philosopher-nightmare headaches on trying to even get near trying to answer this, yes?

So, come on. It's pretty simple, don't claim objective shit when there ain't any and there won't be any problems. If you do claim objectiveness, let's get some examples going to support your claims.

Though, you do say you aren't sure yourself, so well how about at least giving it a shot? What you said there didn't make a lot of sense so elaborate if you must.

Jamie: I won't go into my opinions whether there is such a thing like "good" music, or try to define it. However, any attempt to "prove" your conviction with concrete examples is bound to fail. You said earlier: "While it may be near impossible for people to agree on what 'good' is, it certainly exists.". I can accept that and even in certain way agree. However, you then proceed by mentioning a Mahler symphony and a specific concept of a "bad piece of music" as examples to explain your point of view. That just can't work, as like you said yourself, we won't be able to agree on a definition of "good music". All listing such examples does, is convincing those who don't believe in the concept of "good music" that they are in fact right - as if they disagree with your examples, your whole point is refuted.

A question like "is there better and worse art" can, if anything, only be discussed on a very general, theoretical level and never on concrete examples. Especially as it has always been a curious feature of the arts to evade all attempts to clearly classify them. Maybe this even -is- a defining feature of art (which would be paradox of course, since this again is an attempt of a clear classification).

In short: If you want to argue your point, it will only work if you do it very theoretically and fundamentally. Examples are often helpful, but in cases like this they will ruin your argumentation.

It's a bit like in quantum mechanics: Every concrete observation about art changes art itself. So if you want to make an observation about art as a whole, you'll have to stay -extremely- general if you want to stay more or less "objective" (that still affects the "system" art, but it minimizes the changes induced by your observations). I know that sounds crazy, but I think discussions like this -must- happen on an almost "metaphysical" level to have any meaning at all. Art is just so extremely unstable and slippery, -especially- since the 20th century.

It seems to me that possibly we are saying similar things, but calling them by different names. I see music as a very ethereal thing, and I agree that you should write what you want within reason. I don't think you should necessarily allow others to tell you what to write (unless that's your job, in which case it is somewhat unavoidable sometimes) but I think you should be able to improve and regulate yourself (one of the reasons I don't think one should write for orchestra until one has a decent grasp on the basics.) I don't correlate 'good' music with music that I like. I like a lot of stuff and I recognize that it's not good music. I like it for whatever reasons. I am not sure about defining what good music is; it has some intangible quality that makes it good.

EDIT - This post was directed to SSC. Gardener's post popped up while I was typing this.