Is atonal music dead?

ps: I wrote this as a reply to a whole lot of posts that talk about this same sort of thing, with the same sort of irritating attitude, just in case anyone wonders if it's an overreaction, it ain't. scraggy like this accumulates with every retarded post on the interwebs~

You know a lot of 'young composers' come here to express their views, without fear of being told they are 'thick'. I am personally stunned by your arrogance and selfishness. On the one hand you advocate that all music is equal, but you do it in a way that implies that anybody who disagrees or doesn't understand this view is an 'idiot'. It's rude, condescending, and immensely hypocritical.

Your stunning indifference to people's feelings and beliefs is utterly shameful.

I am suprised that somebody who is a teacher of music would propogate the idea that all music is equal. Why bother teaching anybody if essentially they can't truly improve? Why bother telling somebody to re-write a section of music if essentially, the end result cannot be seen as better music?

You know a lot of 'young composers' come here to express their views, without fear of being told they are 'thick'. I am personally stunned by your arrogance and selfishness. On the one hand you advocate that all music is equal, but you do it in a way that implies that anybody who disagrees or doesn't understand this view is an 'idiot'. It's rude, condescending, and immensely hypocritical.

Your stunning indifference to people's feelings and beliefs is utterly shameful.

I don't see how it's arrogant or selfish to try to defend people's options to write whatever they want to write, but go figure.

Stunning indifference to people's feelings? Oh really? Well, I stand by what I said regardless. If you're going to lecture me on me calling you an idiot on the shoutbox, I already said I take it back. If you don't want to let go, then that's your deal now, not mine.

Nevermind now calling me rude, hypocritical, etc. Y'know, call me what you want, I couldn't care less at this point in the narrative. I made my point, I said what I had to say. I'm not going to stick around reading attacks towards my person, specially when I do what I can to actually help and inform/educate. So, if you got anything else you'd like to add, you know where you can shove it.

Good day.

PS: Wait now, you edited your post while I was writing mine, not fair. To be honest, the job of a good teacher in my opinion is to present tools, information and method to people so they can decide what they want to do, and how. I can say my opinion, but there are a lot of parameters to talk about if we're talking about style recreations (which are founded in historical literature examples, which can be studied and analyzed.)

I do just that, I try to present people tools and information so they can take them and go do whatever it is they want to do, and actually realize what they want to realize. It's very different from "I don't like this, change it." If you're talking about a particular example where there is a norm, tradition and historical context, the corrections would be around particular examples in literature pertaining to that style and aesthetic, not my personal taste.

I hope that answers your questions.

Something new, eh? There's nothing new under the sun, there has never been.

is it really people that do new things, or is that people perceive things that have always been around differently (or at all) as time moves on?

Sure there are new things, composers are always discovering/inventing/stumbling upon new things. The steady expansion of the musical "ear," first to hearing dominant sevenths, then other kinds of sevenths and ninths and thirteenths, and augmented sixth chords, and secondary dominants (hmm, maybe not in that order), and finally planing and polytonality... Bach would think polytonality is something new! :D or the prepared piano, I bet he'd like that.

Haha, what you're talking about "doing something new and seeing if people like it" is actually manipulating trends by introducing new elements into the popular/trend canon.

Doing something new = introducing new elements, yes.

What about writing for new instruments? What about the way the symphony orchestra has changed over time, or the composers who even wrote for saxophone? ;) That's "doing something new" and seeing if it has artistic merit / if people like it.

It still doesn't do anything to help the popularity vs composer problem since if everyone was able to manipulate the public like that we wouldn't be having this conversation!

What "problem"? The composers we are taught today to revere as geniuses are praised either for being the height of the contemporary state of their art (Mozart) or for introducing JUST SUCH innovations and discoveries into the art (Wagner). In other words, they (eventually) got popular approval... I guess that makes them suspect? They were only "manipulating trends" to try and make careers for themselves?

What about writing for new instruments?

Harry Partch, created a whole new kind of music, with new scales, instruments, harmonies, everything.

It still doesn't do anything to help the popularity vs composer problem since if everyone was able to manipulate the public like that we wouldn't be having this conversation!

It is exactly because people are able to manipulate the public that we are having this kind of conversations. When the "media" didn't practically exist (i.e. there were no CDs, no tapes, no LPs, no radio, no TV, nothing), people only listened to the music that was being played in concerts, whatever that was. They had no choice. That was the only music they could listen to, whether they liked it or not. So the "human ear" used to develop alongside the "human culture", as someone crudely put it in a few posts above (or was it another thread - I don't remember). But then, with the commodities that the 20th century offers, people reside in what they're used to, and they refuse to go for any change, refuse to do something different, because they feel safe and sound where they are, and because they have that ability. So, basically, the reason we're having this kind of conversations is because a) people are misinformed/uninformed and it's their bad, because they don't bother reading about terms, musicians, listening to music, or getting to know things properly, yet they seem to have a very grounded opinion on things that they can actually barely start to understand, and b) people have been denying "contemporary" and "modern" music on the grounds that they don't like it, and because it "clashes" with all the music they're used to listen, or have grown up with.

Harry Partch, created a whole new kind of music, with new scales, instruments, harmonies, everything.

It is exactly because people are able to manipulate the public that we are having this kind of conversations. When the "media" didn't practically exist (i.e. there were no CDs, no tapes, no LPs, no radio, no TV, nothing), people only listened to the music that was being played in concerts, whatever that was. They had no choice. That was the only music they could listen to, whether they liked it or not. So the "human ear" used to develop alongside the "human culture", as someone crudely put it in a few posts above (or was it another thread - I don't remember). But then, with the commodities that the 20th century offers, people reside in what they're used to, and they refuse to go for any change, refuse to do something different, because they feel safe and sound where they are, and because they have that ability. So, basically, the reason we're having this kind of conversations is because a) people are misinformed/uninformed and it's their bad, because they don't bother reading about terms, musicians, listening to music, or getting to know things properly, yet they seem to have a very grounded opinion on things that they can actually barely start to understand, and b) people have been denying "contemporary" and "modern" music on the grounds that they don't like it, and because it "clashes" with all the music they're used to listen, or have grown up with.

Well yeah. But what I was getting at, is that we can't ALL influence the culture to a degree that we can create what is popular. It's pretty much impossible for logical reasons.

I think the whole technology/choice take is very accurate. It is indeed because people have options, that they willingly choose to limit themselves because they can. But composers, hell, going back as far as Bach have been always able in some degree to explore beyond what the general audience knows. I find it inexcusable that, if even Bach went to visit Buxtehude, learned all about H

Harry Partch, created a whole new kind of music, with new scales, instruments, harmonies, everything.

It is exactly because people are able to manipulate the public that we are having this kind of conversations. When the "media" didn't practically exist (i.e. there were no CDs, no tapes, no LPs, no radio, no TV, nothing), people only listened to the music that was being played in concerts, whatever that was. They had no choice. That was the only music they could listen to, whether they liked it or not. So the "human ear" used to develop alongside the "human culture", as someone crudely put it in a few posts above (or was it another thread - I don't remember). But then, with the commodities that the 20th century offers, people reside in what they're used to, and they refuse to go for any change, refuse to do something different, because they feel safe and sound where they are, and because they have that ability. So, basically, the reason we're having this kind of conversations is because a) people are misinformed/uninformed and it's their bad, because they don't bother reading about terms, musicians, listening to music, or getting to know things properly, yet they seem to have a very grounded opinion on things that they can actually barely start to understand, and b) people have been denying "contemporary" and "modern" music on the grounds that they don't like it, and because it "clashes" with all the music they're used to listen, or have grown up with.

Maybe I'm just taking this too much out of context but it does seem like you're actually condemning people who don't like "modern" music as ignorant, uneducated listeners. Do you honestly believe this? If so, it's terribly biased. Just because *you* like "modern" music does not mean that everyone should or has to. I'll agree that a lot of people who don't like it is because they don't give it a fair listen but I'll be damned if you're going to tell me that if someone would "properly" studies "modern" music that they will like it and they *must* like it.

I personally haven't had as much exposure to modern music as I like some but I'll say that the majority, I just don't care for. It is interesting but it's not something I derive a whole lot of enjoyment from and I don't see how that is ignorant to do so. It's called having an opinion. I've read about as much as I can possibly on Boulez. I've listened to literally all his music that I can find online for free and guess what? I just don't like him. He doesn't do it for me. His music speaks to me in no way and I don't ever get more than mild enjoyment out of it. Do this make me "ignorant"?

Sometimes people just don't like certain things. People have preferences and sometimes no amount of education or understanding will change this.

I hate how YCers here always come here and bash other people's music taste and say that if they really "understood" a piece, that they would like it. Now, some of the posts I have seen, they really have been made in ignorance. And I have no problem with this but more often thant not, it's just "Person A: Well, I don't like this blah blah blah piece Person B: Well, you're a big stupid head. You should go read books and listen to it 50 more times and blah blah blah blah then you'll like it." needs to stop.

I understand the position that people should not make judgements so hastily and a lot of the time, people evaluate stuff out of ignorance. I understand people should properly inform themselves more but does anyone realize how hypocritical and unrealistic this is?

It just makes me want to say "Oh really? Well do you like movies? Mhm, mhm, mhm. What are some movies you don't like? Oh, you don't like that? Okay. Well, have you bought the DVD, watched all the extra footage, watched interviews with the cast and crew, re-watched the movie about a dozen times, and read through the Wikipedia and IMDB articles? Oh, you haven't? What's this I hear, oh yeah...it's a double standard."

This can be applied to anything really. Cars, fashion, books, paintings, etc. Anything that someone considers art really. Do you ever just like things? Do you honeslty have to research everything in exhaustive detail before you form an opinion on *anything*? I seriously, seriously doubt it. I think people like to insult each other's musical taste in particular because afterall, this *is* a music forum and a lot of people here are *very* passionate about it but I bet you'd be pretty irked if I insulted your taste in movies/books/etc. as "ignorant" because you didn't spend the same care and attention into that you do music (And judging from the movies thread, a lot of YCers don't have very good taste in movies in my opinion. :D)

Anyway, I apologize if this isn't what you're saying but what I *think* you're saying just threw me into semi-rant mode. Feel free to clarify.

It just makes me want to say "Oh really? Well do you like movies? Mhm, mhm, mhm. What are some movies you don't like? Oh, you don't like that? Okay. Well, have you bought the DVD, watched all the extra footage, watched interviews with the cast and crew, re-watched the movie about a dozen times, and read through the Wikipedia and IMDB articles? Oh, you haven't? What's this I hear, oh yeah...it's a double standard."

This can be applied to anything really. Cars, fashion, books, paintings, etc. Anything that someone considers art really. Do you ever just like things? Do you honeslty have to research everything in exhaustive detail before you form an opinion on *anything*? I seriously, seriously doubt it. I think people like to insult each other's musical taste in particular because afterall, this *is* a music forum and a lot of people here are *very* passionate about it but I bet you'd be pretty irked if I insulted your taste in movies/books/etc. as "ignorant" because you didn't spend the same care and attention into that you do music (And judging from the movies thread, a lot of YCers don't have very good taste in movies in my opinion. :D)

Anyway, I apologize if this isn't what you're saying but what I *think* you're saying just threw me into semi-rant mode. Feel free to clarify.

Sorry, but a professional and a responsible composer MUST research everything and anything, even if they don't like it. Education has nothing to do with taste.

If you were a film maker, you WOULD BE EXPECTED to be so thorough in your research as the example you mentioned there, because it's what you're supposed to do. IF you don't do that, you'll be clearly only limiting yourself. Education, again, has priority over taste.

I think the problem arises from the fact I expect anyone who is serious about composition to behave in a serious manner and actually tackle the subject without idiotic biases when it comes to the study of music altogether. I don't care if you don't like Jazz, or clusters, or 40s experimentalism, or baroque music, you HAVE to know about these topics enough to write goddamn essays on each of them. Not only that, but you have to know the history of each of those things, consequences, theory and application of each of those styles and aesthetics!

If not, then well, let's establish how serious you take your music studies and I won't expect so much from you.

The question itself is rather circular and vague -- what is atonality? How does atonality die? Theoretically we can divide a string into infinite units so there is an infinite set of possible tonalities as long as there is something to produce sound and it is being perceived. And this means what is considered atonal by the perceptor may vary alot. For example, if you are used to classical Middle Eastern music, much Western bel canto opera sounds like screaming or wailing because the hearer is not used to the higher rate of vibrato. He or she may find much 18th - 19th century Western classical music very "square" and the reliance on the major minor system a bit tiring after awhile. In some ways this explains to a small degree the widespread popularity of some Western pop and its incorporation into other musics -- it uses the major/minor and modal scales, the singing has less vibrato and the rhythmns (of some pop) are less "square".

So, this illustrates one of facet of music that we organize it around -- psychological expectations and psychoacoustical limits. Every compostion created is a set of expectations to be met overturned explored or dissected. So examples -- sopranos who sing above the second f above middle c will lose the intelligibility of the text from that point and higher -- this is a psychoacoustical fact of human hearing. Many times this register is used for the climax of a song. So, you could compose a song wherein the text is introduced at the highest tessitura at all times but you are betraying one expectation and ignoring a psychoacoustical fact. You have a choice to have the text be intelligible later by another singer or you could choose nonsense text and explore the possibilities and work around limitations imposed.

When you aim to avoid "tonal" centers (eg using modal scales) you are encountering some of the problems in the above example. But there are rich possibilities and new expectations. Therefore things such as spectral music, minimalism, and musique concrete are results of one of the great "discoveries" of the early 20th century --- that our major/minor and modal scales used for the past 1000 years or more are pitch class sets that follow roughly certain mathematical models. SO if we rephrased the question has the trend to avoid consciously tonal centers passed. I would say for the most part yes but we are beginning to hear the fruits birne of this trend.

Sorry, but a professional and a responsible composer MUST research everything and anything, even if they don't like it. Education has nothing to do with taste.

If you were a film maker, you WOULD BE EXPECTED to be so thorough in your research as the example you mentioned there, because it's what you're supposed to do. IF you don't do that, you'll be clearly only limiting yourself. Education, again, has priority over taste.

I think the problem arises from the fact I expect anyone who is serious about composition to behave in a serious manner and actually tackle the subject without idiotic biases when it comes to the study of music altogether. I don't care if you don't like Jazz, or clusters, or 40s experimentalism, or baroque music, you HAVE to know about these topics enough to write goddamn essays on each of them. Not only that, but you have to know the history of each of those things, consequences, theory and application of each of those styles and aesthetics!

If not, then well, let's establish how serious you take your music studies and I won't expect so much from you.

Oh, no. I'm certainly not saying that if you want to be a professional in the field, then it's okay for ignorance. But let's be reasonable, despite being a composition forum, most of us take ourselves a bit too serious. There are maybe 10-15 "professional" composers here and that's being generous. Most of us are just hobbyists. Most of us probably do not love music as we really think we do and very few of us will ever actually make it in the field. And besides, I was going off on a tangent by that point. The real point of my post was that Juji seemed to be saying that anyone who "properly" studies "modernist" music simply should not and can no hate it. And anyone who does is ignorant. Whether or not that was what he was really saying, I don't know yet but I hold a very firm stance against that sort of condescending, arrogant attitude (as much as I hated the brief "Baroque was the only good period of music" stance that some members took here recently). Sometimes people simply do not like things. And to call someone "uneducated" because they do not absolutely agree with you on everything is well...dumb.

If someone's reasoning for hating 4'33" is "It isn't music. Music has notes and stuff. LOL!" then I will be the first to defend Cage. If someone says "Well, I understand that he was trying to make a statement about music and while I can understand why some people might like it, I personally do not find it appealing" then that is great. I welcome differing opinions as long as they are founded.

The movie thing is just an analogy because just like most of us are only hobbyists in music, most of us are only hobbyists when it comes to movies. I do enjoy movies quite a lot myself and I try to pick up on a lot of things that real, professional critics look for but in no way would I consider my opinion on movies "informed" or "respectable".

I do tend to take people who don't claim to know much about music less seriously. Though I will argue with anyone who claims to love music yet can't explain to me why they like a single damn piece/song/track/whatever.

Anyway, no. There isn't an excuse for ignorance when you claim to hold music in such a high regard. Just, I'm starting to get sick of all this bashing of other people's opinions. Apparently, I'm not the only one *points at "Why be negative?" thread* I'm always up for a good, brain stimulating, thought provoking dedate but I just haven't seen so many of these lately. I hold Debussy in the highest regard but if someone on this forum said "Debussy sux! Mozart ftw!" then I wouldn't agree but I'd respect their opinion...provided they have heard a good deal of his work and were able to tell me why exactly they didn't.

Note: I'm not claiming to be either a serious music lover or just a hobbyist. I haven't achieved that level of self-awareness to make any such claims.

Juji if you find yourself in a position whereby you simply are not enjoying what you're listening to, it does not necassarily mean you are ignorant of it. There isn't a single person alive who likes everything they hear. I don't like listening to somebody repeatedly hitting the note C on a keyboard for hours on end, doesn't mean I have to go and research the history of music so that I can pass the judgement: 'I dont like the sound of what you are doing!'

I hate to be so pedantic, but really I'd like to know what kind of music you don't like. I could easily accuse you of being ignorant of it if I took your reasoning of the gospel truth.

I like the way you enjoy debating music and, you are well-intentioned and don't insult people who are admittedly, relatively new to musical composition. However, I don't think people are being ignorant of something when they don't enjoy it, although there are some cases where this could be true.

Well clearly, I don't really intend everyone who has an interest in music to throw themselves at books and start studying like a machine. I was just simply saying, taste has no place when it comes to education. Even if you are an amateur, hobby composer, or just like music altogether. Research never hurts, looking at things with more depth never hurts.

Don't like the sound of something? Why is that? Have other people liked/not like that sound? What did they say were their reasons? Where did those sounds first appear? Is there some physical property in them that makes them unlikable? Is tradition/culture conditioning a part of not liking it?

Unless those questions (and many more) are answered, or at least an attempt has been made, it's really doubtful that a genuinely honest and informed opinion can be had in regards for taste. You can always elaborate on what you like, or don't like, and it makes you a better composer/musician/artist for it. But, to have the proper means to elaborate on things you don't like, you actually need to look at them with more depth. Think about it more. Give it more time to sink in, and see what exactly is what you don't like, see if it repeats itself elsewhere, see if others had the same reactions and why, so on and so forth.

It's not necessarily EASY, it's not SIMPLE, it's not something you do in a week or a month even. But it's damn important and it's a healthy attitude to have.

You can also simply shrug it off saying that "Well, it's too much work for just a hobby" and sure enough it may as well be depending on your interest. But I'm also addressing people which may find what I'm saying useful, not people who don't care either way. I'm not going to convince anyone to dedicate their lives to music and study hard or any of that nonsense. That's up to them.

But the right attitude is going to help both the part-time composer and the professional actually improve as artists, and that's what I'm talking about the whole time when I talk about education. It's not just memorizing facts and knowing a lot of things, it's just the attitude to learn, investigate, research and look at things with an eye for details rather than simply dismissing what one doesn't like without having the slightest clue about all the "why"s and "how"s beyond the simple rejection.

So really, it's all in the interest of helping people do what they want to do as well as possible. If they don't want to do that, that's fine. People have a right to be mediocre just as much as to have mediocre opinions. Doesn't mean I have to do the same, or let it pass unnoticed.

Harry Partch, created a whole new kind of music, with new scales, instruments, harmonies, everything.

Yeah, speaking of ear, brain, and culture as the givens for music... Microtonality is very interesting to me because studies have shown that people who grow up in music cultures with more microtonal elements (e.g. Hindustani music) can hear smaller pitch intervals - so it's clearly a culture thing. As Western music becomes more open to the possibilities it may be that people will appreciate Partch more ;) I know other people have written pieces for the diamond marimba.

But then, with the commodities that the 20th century offers, people reside in what they're used to, and they refuse to go for any change, refuse to do something different, because they feel safe and sound where they are, and because they have that ability.

I think it's more that in the 21st century there are more composers offering more variety and reaching to a greater audience than ever before. People aren't limiting themselves to one kind of music, rather they have more choices and they are choosing some kinds and ignoring other kinds. It's not necessarily that they are favoring neoRomanticism and minimalism and disdaining, say, strict serialism. It's more about style than school... I brought up Don Davis earlier as an example of a composer who uses modern techniques with a very accessible style.

So, in perspective, things are going damn fast towards an acceptance for diversity in arts altogether despite certain regimes or attitudes against it, nobody can really stop it.

I think music is undergoing / has undergone a schism, just like art, sculpture, film, you name it.

There is a group that is mostly based in academia, for which anything and everything goes and they don't give a damn if anyone appreciates it, or thinks it's a joke, or what.

And there is a group that is commercially focused, and creates what people "want to hear," sometimes leading the way and stretching people's ears and sometimes just pandering and selling schlock.

Both groups have their pros and cons :whistling:

it does seem like you're actually condemning people who don't like "modern" music as ignorant, uneducated listeners.

Well, the Cage supporters are right that we should approach everything with an open ear. But if I DID approach it with an open ear, and DO understand what Cage was trying to communicate, and DID think about the questions he raised, but still think the piece is very bad as music, then what? Then, usually, I still get accused of not understanding it :P

Prokofiev is probably my favorite composer, you can like him or loathe him but I'm not going to accuse anyone of not grasping his genius :D

The real point of my post was that Juji seemed to be saying that anyone who "properly" studies "modernist" music simply should not and can no hate it. And anyone who does is ignorant. Whether or not that was what he was really saying, I don't know yet but I hold a very firm stance against that sort of condescending, arrogant attitude [...]. Sometimes people simply do not like things. And to call someone "uneducated" because they do not absolutely agree with you on everything is well...dumb.

Juji if you find yourself in a position whereby you simply are not enjoying what you're listening to, it does not necassarily mean you are ignorant of it.

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:

So the "human ear" used to develop alongside the "human culture", as someone crudely put it in a few posts above (or was it another thread - I don't remember). But then, with the commodities that the 20th century offers, people reside in what they're used to, and they refuse to go for any change, refuse to do something different, because they feel safe and sound where they are, and because they have that ability.

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

So, basically, the reason we're having this kind of conversations is because a) people are misinformed/uninformed and it's their bad [...] and b) people have been denying "contemporary" and "modern" music on the grounds that they don't like it [...]

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.

It's not "what" people dislike, it's "how" and "why" they dislike it.

That's what I've been saying this WHOLE TIME!!!

;)

Also, in the last few days, you guys have spilled more ink on this subject than the entire musicological community in the last year. Quality over quantity, folks.

...what's the YC catchphrase: "China called, they want their wall back" ??

:whistling:

That's a lot of ink, there.

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 donkey. No hard feelings? :D

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 ;)

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.

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.

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.

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 scraggy 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 scraggy 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.