"I do not believe...

...that I can call back composers from the present insanity of their work." ~J.J. Fux, from his Author's Forward to Gradus ad Parnassum.

Discuss.

I don't get it.

Jay Jay Fucks?

Who?

APPLE CHEESECAKE AIRPLANETREE
Discuss.

Well, I guess it means: I do not believe that I can make composers write good music again (call them back) who are now composing insane music. Or more simply: The music of today sucks and I can't do anything about it.

Nice thing to bring up actually. Many people seem to think that suddenly, in the 20th century, composers have abandonned the proper path of music and are suddenly writing what nobody wants to hear, whereas all music of the past we now revere was always loved by everyone.

Wow you mean people reacted negatively to things EVEN BEFORE the 20th and 21st century!?!?

WHAT A SURPRISE!

I'm not sure how much of a discussion is there to be had at all, this isn't 4chan. You don't just dump something and expect people to discuss it (read: LOL flamebait.)

So, provide a context in which this is relevant and maybe someone will take it seriously.

Or post a pic of water melons.



Yea, there's nothing to discuss. People always reacted badly to new music. Perhaps Fux was too old fashioned. OR, as some have suggested, Fux himself (by way of his text) reined in some of the 'insanity' of the composers of future generations. (We all know Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Hans Zimmer studied Fux. Wait. Not sure about that last one there. Is he even a composer?)

Daniel: Hans Zimmer? Nooo, he's a fisherman. And I think he studied with Fux :X

I was rather hoping that, as Gardener began to, people would discuss Fux's attitude in terms of our modern individual ontological demands on music. Too much to hope for here, I guess.

Of course people have always disagreed with things, disliked music, whatever. But the ontological demands that we as a culture place on music are far different from the demands of Fux's time, and that bears thinking about. For instance - why is expositional material in classical music often not repeated now? In Mozart's time, it would of course be repeated, and probably with a little bit of improvisation, if it was in a solo context. What IS the "insanity" that Fux talks about, and today, what does it mean? Which music, for us, joins the ranks of the insane? Can Fux's absolutist view of music even be applied at all? To where can it be applied? Is this application deliberate, or reactionary? How does acclimation affect us, in the context of our musical views? How does saturation affect us, in the context of our musical views, especially as relates to the comparative musical saturation of Fux's time?

Any of these questions can lead to many more related ones. And I realize that a lot of people are more interested or comfortable in just tossing a flippant dismissal off than actually delving into the deeper implications of something that seems archaic and obvious. But thinking never hurt anyone.j

And maybe the fact that some of us can't "take it seriously" without context helps answer some of the questions above. What prevents you from making your own context? From treating the given material in a way that it resonates with your own personal experience? Why does this piece of information not give itself implications in ways that other pieces of information do (see above on saturation)?

Originally Posted by Christopher Dunn-Rankin

And maybe the fact that some of us can't "take it seriously" without context helps answer some of the questions above. What prevents you from making your own context? From treating the given material in a way that it resonates with your own personal experience? Why does this piece of information not give itself implications in ways that other pieces of information do (see above on saturation)?

For one, I have no idea what Fux meant with that, you don't give a historical context and I don't feel like researching it on my own. Speaking of which, it's a seemingly random statement and it has no depth because it can mean anything you want it to mean without any fixed context.

So all it really is, is an invitation to ramble on something which is as well uncertain and unclear. I'll pass, thx.

It'd be similar to me posting "Ducks are the best music." and saying "discuss!" then accusing people of not taking it seriously. I'm sorry, it doesn't matter much that Fux said it, it's still a random statement which might as well mean nothing without a real context.

Seems to me you over-thought this and expected people to read your mind. You should've posted what you posted above in your first post, then maybe it would've been more interesting. Now it's not helping much, I have no idea what any of what you said has to do with Fux' quote at all.

I mean, uh, yeah music has changed a lot since then! That's... not very debatable. If the question is why did stuff change then, well, if we'll turn this into a sociology study then why not just say so right away?

As for what prevents me from making my own context is the same thing that prevents me from interpreting your post as a personal attack on the people's republic of China and my mom. Communication doesn't really work without at least some sort of basic context that is shared by people engaging in the whole process.

I can as well take Fux's quote to be entirely satire/irony/sarcasm, and that he was actually totally in favor of what was going on. Hell he himself was insane! Who knows? Who cares?

So, yeah. I stand by what I said before, I don't think it's very interesting and you should've probably formulated it better rather than randomly dumping the quote and expecting what you predicted to happen.