What would music historians call this era?

Renaissance #2

I actually quite agree with that title, but for maybe different reasons.

I think it is SORT of like a renaissance in the sense that, well, basically what is "modern" is less about what is aesthetically modern and more what is socially modern. That's a huge distinction really which happened in the 20th century (I think Cage was the one who pointed that out.)

In any case, today people have the freedom to do whatever they want musically and artistically with less and less fear of reproach from people who live in their own little boxes. That and really it's kind of hard to live in a box these days, you really have to try hard at it (and obviously forums such as this one attract those types too like the above poster.)

Anyway, I think all has been rather positive and uplifting, so a positive and uplifting name is in order. Hell if I could I'd just name it "Awesome era full of win," but sadly that'd be overlooking all the setbacks.

Renaissance #2

Or more aptly put: Renaissance 2.0

:P

I actually quite agree with that title, but for maybe different reasons.

I think it is SORT of like a renaissance in the sense that, well, basically what is "modern" is less about what is aesthetically modern and more what is socially modern. That's a huge distinction really which happened in the 20th century (I think Cage was the one who pointed that out.)

In any case, today people have the freedom to do whatever they want musically and artistically with less and less fear of reproach from people who live in their own little boxes. That and really it's kind of hard to live in a box these days, you really have to try hard at it (and obviously forums such as this one attract those types too like the above poster.)

You may live in your own little box of "socially modern concerns" [whatever that means], but music, as every kind of art, has primarily to do with aesthetics of its outcomes –– and there are huge differences between them, not sociologically defined, but cognitively (i.e. psychologically in every sense).

"Anything goes" has never been a good advice, neither in the philosophy of science nor in the aesthetics of arts.

You may live in your own little box of "socially modern concerns" [whatever that means], but music, as every kind of art, has primarily to do with aesthetics of its outcomes –– and there are huge differences between them, not sociologically defined, but cognitively (i.e. psychologically in every sense).

But "socially modern concerns" can affect the aesthetics of music, therefore changing its perceivable outcome. The difference between the popular music of the 60s and 50s is aesthetic, but closely linked to politics, morality, philosophy etc.

Anything goes sounds good in theory, but a socially responsible, benevolent approach - whereby freedom is limited to some extent in musical education and in public spending on art - is more useful then a society with no artistic control by the state, in my opinion. What I mean is that, for example if

"Anything goes" has never been a good advice, neither in the philosophy of science nor in the aesthetics of arts.

I think that 'anything goes' is actually pretty rare in music.

Sure some people have done it, but more often composers create there own set of rules and ideas for each composition. Even in the craziest modernest dissonantest (etc.) music exist rules and organization.

Of course, the organizational concepts are often new and innovative, or old and reevaluated, but really, very few composers actually have an 'anything goes' mentality

Perhaps a good title would be: Age Of Conflict? From the very onset of the current 'phase' in western music, the chief stylistic ideas arose from conflicts with other ideas (minimalism, serialism, etc) and those different ideas often times scathed other ideas harshly.

Perhaps a good title would be: Age Of Conflict? From the very onset of the current 'phase' in western music, the chief stylistic ideas arose from conflicts with other ideas (minimalism, serialism, etc) and those different ideas often times scathed other ideas harshly.

Possibly, but that's quite a negative label. I think some stylistic ideas can co-exist and even co-operate, although I do know what you mean.

...music, as every kind of art, has primarily to do with aesthetics of its outcomes –– and there are huge differences between them, not sociologically defined, but cognitively (i.e. psychologically in every sense).

"Anything goes" has never been a good advice, neither in the philosophy of science nor in the aesthetics of arts.

Cool, who made you the authority on what music is or has to do with at all? Oh, nobody?

Cool.

But even so, there's sort of the issue of society and politics influencing people's psychological reactions (Psychological conditioning, culturing process, etc) so I don't see why make the distinction. Are you sure you know what the words you are using actually mean?

In any case, freedom counts and "anything goes" is a concept worth defending, even if it is ultimately unrealistic. Everyone IS subject to their upbringing, social and cultural pressures, etc no matter what even if the degrees may vary. There's no truly "free" composer as that would imply they exist in a vacuum (and aren't human to begin with) and this is never the case. But, within all that, the concept that you can play with what's already there and not simply bow down and accept the cards you've been dealt IS important, that's what "anything goes" really mean. It means to get out and think for yourself, be it distancing yourself from your influences or picking up perhaps new ones. It also means the possibility of change, of a dynamic creative process.

But then there are those who rather live in the past and have everything done for them so they can sit down and write "pretty music" which is ultimately a lot easier than really coming to grips with creativity as that is never a comfortable or easy process.

QCC said also something which I think is ultimately true in the thread about Cage's 4'33'' which was that composition is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. That's usually what it takes to wrestle with that freedom unless you willingly give it up.

But see, being free to give up your own freedom is only possible because you ARE free to do so. In effect, that is PART of "anything goes," isn't it? But eh well. Hate on, if it makes you happier.

It's really a nice thing to discuss with you. So let's see:

Cool, who made you the authority on what music is or has to do with at all? Oh, nobody?

Cool.

Thanks for your labelling me "cool". But first of all, I'm my own 'authority' on what music is AND has to do with human beings. My lifelong experience with music and the psychology of its impact on man tells me what to say in the context of this thread's topic. [bTW, of course "lifelong" means that I'm part of the 7+ % of YC members of 30+ age, 30++ to be more precise.]

But even so, there's sort of the issue of society and politics influencing people's psychological reactions (Psychological conditioning, culturing process, etc) so I don't see why make the distinction. Are you sure you know what the words you are using actually mean?

Of course, you're completely right concerning all kinds of psychological influence of society, culture and nature ("nurture & nature") on everyone of us (including me throughout my life). But how you deal with these influences is worth to consider. With reference to the topic of this thread I've chosen my words carefully (see my comments # 23, 27, 29, 52, 55 so far).

In any case, freedom counts and "anything goes" is a concept worth defending, even if it is ultimately unrealistic. Everyone IS subject to their upbringing, social and cultural pressures, etc no matter what even if the degrees may vary. There's no truly "free" composer as that would imply they exist in a vacuum (and aren't human to begin with) and this is never the case. But, within all that, the concept that you can play with what's already there and not simply bow down and accept the cards you've been dealt IS important, that's what "anything goes" really mean. It means to get out and think for yourself, be it distancing yourself from your influences or picking up perhaps new ones. It also means the possibility of change, of a dynamic creative process.

To "play with what's already there and not simply bow down and accept the cards" as given to you, that's exactly what I mean with composer's freedom and creativity. But you have to know what's properly given to you as a composer by the 'nature of music', including the fundamentals of psychoacoustics as well of psychophysics of hearing (e.g. the empirically established differences between consonance and dissonance in all of its gradings

To "play with what's already there and not simply bow down and accept the cards" as given to you, that's exactly what I mean with composer's freedom and creativity. But you have to know what's properly given to you as a composer by the 'nature of music', including the fundamentals of psychoacoustics as well of psychophysics of hearing (e.g. the empirically established differences between consonance and dissonance in all of its gradings

K. Though I'll point out that composing like Mozart is rather quite easy because Mozart already exists. We have his music to refer to, study, and ultimately copy. In fact, wouldn't it be rather reasonable to create a program that assembled music using statistical analysis and processing in order to make music "like Mozart" but with variations within a margin of accuracy?

Not only that, but we could program it to take in different composers and models as the standard and copy a lot of other things, all within statistically acceptable margins of accuracy. A person writing a style copy, after all, is not a magical being being influenced by the magical spirit of Mozart; he/she is just a fantastic pattern recognition machine and has the programming necessary to assemble and produce copies with variation within a statistical margin of accuracy.

Has all been done already, by David Cope for example. Visit his Experiments in Musical Intelligence site (see main) and listen to music samples of his doing so.

This is not the same thing as coming up with things from scratch, which was my point.

There's no "coming up with things from scratch" when composing. Each and every composer has, so to speak, a mass of musical structures/patterns in his head from which he/she activates/reactivates samples and creates more or less new variants of them in the actual step-by-step process of composing.

That's all about composing, technically seen! If you're prepared to go into psychological detail, let's do so. [but in a new thread, of course.]

There's no "coming up with things from scratch" when composing. Each and every composer has, so to speak, a mass of musical structures/patterns in his head from which he/she activates/reactivates samples and creates more or less new variants of them in the actual step-by-step process of composing.

That's all about composing, technically seen! If you're prepared to go into psychological detail, let's do so. [but in a new thread, of course.]

Patterns, eh? That'd be true if you left out chance music, improvisation, etc etc. Spontaneous composition is also possible, given obviously that it's all within a margin of probability given the factors, bla bla, but even then it is an uncertain thing. There's no predicting what isn't composed yet, and that's the whole idea of "composing from scratch." Ideas and stuff can go in multiple unforeseen directions, which isn't going to happen within a frame of standards like if you were copying a style (Mozart, for example.) Even a style recreation is technically unpredictable, but by actively copying and ensuring likeness to something previous the unpredictability is greatly reduced. Obvious stuff really.

So, no, thanks. I rather not waste my time talking about psychological details if that's not clear enough for you yet.

So, no, thanks. I rather not waste my time talking about psychological details if that's not clear enough for you yet.

You're right, that's waste of time (and the wrong thread anyway). Apparently you don't have the slightest idea about the inner workings of the mind [when improvising, for instance].

EDIT for SSC's sake:

Patterns, eh? That'd be true if you left out chance music, improvisation, etc etc. Spontaneous composition is also possible, given obviously that it's all within a margin of probability given the factors, bla bla, but even then it is an uncertain thing. There's no predicting what isn't composed yet, and that's the whole idea of "composing from scratch." Ideas and stuff can go in multiple unforeseen directions …

Improvisation, spontaneous composition, "chance music" is even more dependent on masses of musical structures/patterns in the composer's/improviser's head from which he/she activates/reactivates samples for instantly transforming them into actual motor patterns of finger movements. The resulting outcome always gets its direction from subconscious levels of intentional advancement of motor programming in the brain. There's no spontaneity, no "chance music", no "composing from scratch" on the motor level of exercising music! The "unforeseen thing" is only on your subsequent level of consciousness.

You're right, that's waste of time (and the wrong thread anyway). Apparently you don't have the slightest idea about the inner workings of the mind [when improvising, for instance].

If you can't (or don't want to?) defend your arguments as they already are, I don't see why we need to switch fields entirely. What, you know more about psychology than music?

Case to point:

Before this goes anywhere, define "nature of music" since I'm sensing that this will spiral towards a "tonality is natural" and "must know the "rules" to break them" argument, which I hope isn't the case as this has been argued and crushed in many other threads already.

You have not met this yet, and so, if you insist on avoiding clarifications for YOUR OWN argument then don't be surprised when I find no interest in debating you on any other arguments OR fields.

PS: Last chance really before I blacklist you (as I'm doing to everyone who simply replies to parts of people's arguments and leave other bits mysteriously unanswered and unclear,) if you want to be taken seriously, address the clarity of your statements FIRST and FOREMOST like I asked you to because I have NO IDEA what you mean with "nature of music," bla bla. I want to avoid wasting time and if your argument has already been dealt with I rather point you to that thread than repost.

Oh sweet sorrow, doth his cynicism know no bound? Alas, does it not;

within the gentle bosom of thine deepest soul doth malice lie.

Bring about change, Oh good sir!

for it shall be the end of thee.

It is within the end one's wounds are greatest

if forced to then alter;

I pray of thee in the present, in change,

that ye do not falter.

PS: Last chance really before I blacklist you (as I'm doing to everyone who simply replies to parts of people's arguments and leave other bits mysteriously unanswered and unclear,) if you want to be taken seriously, address the clarity of your statements FIRST and FOREMOST like I asked you to because I have NO IDEA what you mean with "nature of music," bla bla.

Well, give me the honor of your "blacklist"!

just a few days member of the forum and I stumbled upon this interesting discussion. I think its impossible to name the current period, because there is no unifiing term for what's going on. This is (imho) part of postmodernism, where there is no unifiing theory. If the human race is ever to grown beyond postmodernism it will be possible to name periods, else, historians are doomed and past tense (ironic, isnt it?;) )

There's no sense in naming this period anytime within the next 100 years.

I think recently (the last few decades) western music has been slowly moving into what could be called the "Pop Era" or even the "American Pop Era". As we hold on to orchestral/concert music, and yes, there are still great pieces of music being composed by composers around the world, and often. Historians would be foolish to completely ignore the whole area of consumer music, and record sales, and chart toppers. It's an fact, as far as new music goes, the number of pop songs being released drastically outweighs the number of 'concert style' pieces being released and published and performed. Concert music is is at the lowest point it has been in centuries, while some bands or solo artists release 1 or 2 albums of brand new music a year and each grosses millions of dollars around the world, in addition to single's being released individually. Much of this comes from American artists, who then go on World Tour's and make additional millions in countries all across the globe.

All the while bands/orchestras/choirs are being cut from primary and secondary schools (in US mostly) in favor of sports and 'academic' courses. While professional orchestras and choirs just don't have the support to stay alive. In fact, much art in general is being overlooked as unimportant, with theaters, and dance programs, and the like.

In history, we hear of musical movements that matched revolutionary political movements. Some of this music was so powerful and inspiring that it had to be banned for fear of causing and rebellion. Perhaps we are on the verge of a musical revolution, where concert style music proclaims it's importance and proves that it cannot be extinguished by Billboard Charts and Music Videos.

OR.....

A merger is necessary. It's been done before, but maybe even more is needed. Where orchestras and choirs become part of the mainstream. I think of Metallica and the San Francisco Phil. And lots of 'classical style' musicians that have become mainstream and are known in the pop world. Josh Groban, Andrea Bocelli, Joshua Bell, Charlotte Church, Sarah Brightman, Enya, etc.

Classical/Concert Style music will never die. I want to say it's impossible as long as there are composers alive who have the knowledge and ability write or record. But it is certainly fading further and further into the background as less and less people are interested enough to invest time and money into the art.

Metallica and the San Francisco Phil

Barf.

And welcome to the beginning of the 20th century, where a LOT of music ended up being played and composed privately, away from the "general public" for either monetary or social reasons. History repeats itself, as usual.

I think recently (the last few decades) western music has been slowly moving into what could be called the "Pop Era" or even the "American Pop Era".

Revelation 1 - "Pop music" has ALWAYS been around, although it hasn't been called that until just recently.

Shiiiittt, it used to be opera. And before that Haydn's symphonies and people's folk music and whatnot.

Revelation 2 - Americans are the not only people who make pop music.

Postmodernism

Stop making things up

Thread closed

Yes, but looking back at it, how different was the sound? Compared to today, where the sound of pop in contrast to concert music is drastically different. Opera was pop, true, but it was basically the same thing everyone else was doing, but ((gasp)) with words!!!! DUN DUN DUNNNNNN...

Seriously though, i think the spectrum is so much broader now than ever. Though some electronic music can be borderline.

Americans, I know, aren't the only ones who make Pop music. But they're arguably the greatest amount. The demand for american artists doing concerts in Europe/elsewhere is much higher than the alternative.

Postmodernism

Stop making things up

Thread closed

Well, I've heard several cultural philosophers and similar talk about this topic and most of them talked about postmodernism as a thing of the past (mostly the 70s and 80s). I'm rather clueless about these things personally though.

Yes, but looking back at it, how different was the sound? Compared to today, where the sound of pop in contrast to concert music is drastically different. Opera was pop, true, but it was basically the same thing everyone else was doing, but ((gasp)) with words!!!! DUN DUN DUNNNNNN...

Seriously though, i think the spectrum is so much broader now than ever. Though some electronic music can be borderline.

Americans, I know, aren't the only ones who make Pop music. But they're arguably the greatest amount. The demand for american artists doing concerts in Europe/elsewhere is much higher than the alternative.

That's cause America only wants money, and lots of it. GOD BLESS AMERICA.