Forums

Nah it's just my own opinion. I think it's a word to describe people's work, and for that is fine. Just when people start questioning "what is art" and "role of art" is really the wrong mindset, to me. I think it's much more important to look at it in the individual level.   Yep, that's part of what I'm talking about. But crucially, what people's creations mean to other people is important. I think you can't generalize the topic in a way that "gets you somewhere," let's say, because we can only speak of personal individual experience. I mean we talked about the massive shifts in ideologies, aesthetic paradigms, etc, but in the end it comes down to how people react to the works created around them. If they want to champion them or tear them down, or are indifferent and soon forgotten.   So when it gets written as question like you did here: I think that's a trick question because you can't really answer it beyond it being something we inherited from previous generations. Additionally, I don't think it's necessary for something like "classical music," whatever that may be, to have a "role." You can say it has a place, and that people enjoy it, teach it and practice it, yeah. That much is true, but Beethoven's music is quite alien to us, we can't help but view it through our own modern lenses despite studying history. We can't know what it is like to sit under the night sky of 1830 europe and look at the stars, with virtually nothing to get in the way of the light, sound, etc of just nature and the experience. The bond between, let's say for the sake of this example, the romantic period and the conception of "nature," is huge. Works like Winterreise from Schubert (1827 for the music, 1824 for the poems by Müller),  up to stuff like Das lied von der Erde from Mahler (1908-9), and just about a ton of things in between and a little earlier, all talk about a very strong connection and admiration for nature. In Winterreise's case the connection is a twisted one of mirroring the protagonist's emotions, but also of delusions and hallucinations up to the very end where one of the first instances of musical realism appear (Der Leiermann.) We can study it, as such, through our modern sources and read the texts and the things written back then, but that world to us is actually lost and quite alien compared to what we have now. And I'm not talking about not knowing details about the historical aspect, context and influence of those works, but the simple fact that that's the ONLY way we can experience it. We need to build our own image of what it was like to be in that world, and from there we can try to piece together what kind of things inspired those people to do what they did. People make the mistake to think that because they can buy or download a score from Bach and play it and it sounds nice, they have somehow a "connection" to it, but in reality it comes from a completely different world in just about every sense of the word. It probably doesn't even sound remotely like what it did back then, despite the huge effort in attempting to recreate historically accurate performances, it's still very debated how that should be done. So, having said all that, isn't it ironic that the music that would most likely actually speak to us of the actual world we have now, is some of the least "pleasant" one? I'm not implying that 1700s europe was some utopia, far from that, but I am very thankful to the people that opened my eyes to actually seeing music that is about the world I actually understand. A very complex, very out-of-control, battered by world wars, proxy wars, mega-corporations, extreme new global ideologies, etc world. And of course, out-there crazy music has always existed in some manner or another (see: Heinrich Biber - Battalia à 10 (1673) but not to this extent. But it may not actually be that the music is "out-there" or crazy, just that our world just became that crazy and out-there, and we're just seeing the inevitable byproduct of that.

Sounds good to me. The split/weighted idea seems complicated to a simple person like me. But I wondered if it could be bettered by multiplying each score by 1/√(2πωC) then divide it by ∛0 so everyone's a winner!  Oh dear. Musical people aren't supposed to have a sense of humour. Sorry. Maybe I'd better leave the stage! 😄

I don't have any experience with them, so I'm afraid I can't give any useful feedback here.

Oh, yes, I understand your position. I was bringing up my friends' position as representatives of the liberal arts field. I didn't mean to imply that was your position, as well. My bad. Oops, I don't mean to offend. If there's a better word you'd prefer that I use, just let me know. I think I understand you here but I want to make sure. It sounds like you're saying people are going to pass judgment on your creative endeavors no matter what, so the important thing is to not let that fear keep you from creating.

I’ve to ask whether music review websites are still good enough for the musicians. I have seen many music websites like Guitaa Music Review, who reviews music for the artists. But is this still good as many are benefitted from it, and many doesn’t get anything. So does this thing depends on the website or what?