Another article on modern music.

NO, pay attention. What YOU don't seem to want to SEE is that supporting a professor blindly shoving high-modernism down everyone's throat STOPS SOME PEOPLE FROM WRITING WHATEVER THEY WANT!

No, not really. If it does, they should grow some balls, seriously. That's like saying saying you don't like someone's music MAY provoke them to not write what they want to write. OH NO! We should never voice our opinions about music ever again, it's too dangerous!

No, not really. If it does, they should grow some balls, seriously. That's like saying saying you don't like someone's music MAY provoke them to not write what they want to write. OH NO! We should never voice our opinions about music ever again, it's too dangerous!

Sure, grow some balls. What's the difference?

Oh yeah, the instructor has (or should have) the knowledge. The student should have access to the knowledge they need but don't because it's either not offered or entirely absent. However indirectly it may be, the student's pursuit of complete artistic freedom is significantly debilitated. THAT'S the difference.

And no, rhetoric has no place in a composition curriculum. As personal as art may be, there are objective abstractions in music that can and should be relied upon in teaching composition. The pursuit of artistic freedom is always going to be up to the student, but without balance, it becomes immediately evident that some students will have little if any problem pursuing it while others will struggle against everything balanced against them.

Voice your opinion all you want, just balance your method and curriculum if you're going to teach composition. Check your ideology at the door and focus on balancing the information such that the student's artistic freedom is realized. This means that, yes, if your tastes are different, you still need specialized knowledge in those areas.

It must be simply exhausting to have to constantly write essay-length passages in order to defend (or try to tear apart) others', or your own, beliefs. [it would absolutely drive me up a wall, and I really don't think I'm the only one.] And don't get me started on the low blows and cheap shots these discussions always seem to degenerate into.

***Example -- the long post above.***

My post has low blows and cheap shots? Sure, I'm an easy target and all because I've been known to be passionate with my views, but really, I've done my best to convey my point of view in a compelling way without resorting to low blows and cheap shots.

I don't suppose you're referring to another post? Please clarify with a quote so I know what you're referring to.

I was speaking merely on its length.

However indirectly it may be, the student's pursuit of complete artistic freedom is significantly debilitated.

No, not really. They can just, you know, still write whatever they want and/or seek out other ways to gain knowledge if they have to or whatever. They could man it up, it's not a terribly revolutionary concept. If something like that "significantly debilitates" their ability to write whatever they want to write, then the pursuit must've been rather weaksauce to begin with.

I was speaking merely on its length.

Yeah, the Comp HQ has that propensity.

No, not really. They can just, you know, still write whatever they want and/or seek out other ways to gain knowledge if they have to or whatever. They could man it up, it's not a terribly revolutionary concept. If something like that "significantly debilitates" their ability to write whatever they want to write, then the pursuit must've been rather weaksauce to begin with.

So, it's a choice of balancing the curriculum for the benefit of those who struggle the most to achieve their artistic freedom by accepting that this freedom is not the only component of education in composition, or... not balancing the curriculum, perpetuating high-modernist ideology as the primary method in developing a composer's skill set, and accepting the hypocrisy of your rhetoric, then. Got it.

You side with hypocrisy for the sake of your ideological views.

You express belief in an ideal for the mutual benefit of everyone, yet you deny that benefit to anyone that wants to pursue a form of expression that IS NOT to your standard of "modern," which ultimately boils down to one and only one thing - YOUR TASTE IN MUSIC. Some people get their money's worth while others get taken to the bank.

Way to stand behind your beliefs... lol... well done!

Edited for specificity.

Hahaha I can't take this anymore. You all know where I stand. This argument isn't going to change much. And the other guy's right, there are more effective things we could be doing with all this energy. I've said what I needed to say, and I stand by my statements.

So what is the problem with challenging the student by having him/her write something outside of their comfort zone?

So what is the problem with challenging the student by having him/her write something outside of their comfort zone?

That's the whole idea of applying theoretical foundations in composition lessons that balance the application of theory with the development of a composer's skill-set to include the expansion of a student's comfort zone. This would logically progress into greater and greater artistic freedom, though, not an ongoing exploration into modernism and post-modernism.

It's more or less backwards in the "high-modernism" camp where composition instruction seems to proceed with instructors pushing students to compose in a "modern" idiom and "freely express themselves" (a conundrum for the student whose "free expression" draws on traditional forms, harmonic languages, commercial styles, etc.). This is especially true of those composition professors coming out of the "prestigious" colleges of the east coast.

In my opinion, there are no short cuts for teaching music. If you're cutting corners without demonstrably assessing the student's skill-set in a variety of areas, you're not doing your job or educating anyone, plain and simple.

NO, pay attention. What YOU don't seem to want to SEE is that supporting a professor blindly shoving high-modernism down everyone's throat STOPS SOME PEOPLE FROM WRITING WHATEVER THEY WANT! At the very least, it's debilitating enough to significantly reduce the accumulation of their knowledge. I'd love to be able to say, "I know ABC, so now I can really focus on learning more about XYZ," but I can't do that. While high-modernist professor is NOT supporting my desire to learn about ABC, I'm only going to grow to resent XYZ for no reason other than because it was arbitrarily valued more by my instructor than ABC. There is absolutely no balance between the two, and therefore, you ARE STOPPING PEOPLE FROM WRITING WHATEVER THEY WANT.

To be honest, though...

From someone who has recently devoted significant time to identifying the right school type for myself, I think more of the problem lies in students not adequately researching the proper schools that best meet their needs and demand. Composition teachers are fully able to be assessed via proper research AND, from my experience, are very open to answering questions about the types of techniques they specialize in teaching. I researched, as an example, about 20 schools. I looked at the following: mission statement, recent graduates and alumni works, listened to faculty compositions (many of which found there way on YouTube!!), and when I had questions I emailed the teachers themselves. I learned my lessons from attending the University of Indianapolis years ago. There, I was faced with quite the opposite: being forced to sit through traditional harmony, counterpoint, extensive study of CP scores. I found it to be highly annoying and quite outdated - at the time, I WANTED to learn modern techniques! So, in choosing the 5 schools I chose this time around, I made sure to investigate before even applying/submitting my portfolio. So, in short, if a person wants ABC education.... then they should research and find/apply to those institutions that provide ABC education - they do exist!

So, what's happening here is a substitution of one context for another. In the educational environment, a balanced approach is ideal. Being able to gravitate from a stronger, balanced foundation to one where more and more artistic freedom is offered is a perfectly legitimate way to deal with this concern. In so many other specializations, this is exactly what happens. Back to my computer science example... you generally won't see students having that kind of freedom to approach problems with any language, method, or process until they have mastered the syntax and concepts from a multitude of previous projects. Engineering, from what I've been told, is far more similar.

I think the problem in this is that your comparing music and art to scientific and technical fields - which are truly two different fields. You are REQUIRED to know a certain foundation because that foundation has been proven to be empirically correct. In music, there is no empirically correct means to which a composer must subscribe. The other difference lies in the idea that your expecting a student of computer science (a data driven field) to have 'artistic freedom'. The first problem with that lies in the fact that computer science is not an artistic field. Sure, a game developer does exert some artistic expression in the games he/she develops - but aside from that... there's not much artistry in the technicalities of the field itself. Using Engineering as an example is even more of a fallacy. I can just imagine an architect/engineer deciding he/she will now call upon the artistic freedom to design a building/structure that pays no attention to laws of physics, etc. The loss of life could be staggering. In other words, your comparing apples and oranges. May I recommend comparing music to visual art?

But the mastery must exist, regardless of whether it's ultimately utilized. If anything, a curriculum of the type you suggest completely disregards the practical mastery of the concepts. These can and should include techniques of the 20th Century alongside methods and practices of the past. All of this is relevant. There is no arbitrary "cut-off" to what is and is not relevant. Beyond that, the only thing that should NOT be a part of the curriculum is the instructional adoption of ideological principles regarding artistic freedom and whether one style or another should be used. All I am saying is that the academic community is verifiably off-balance in this regard. I was under the impression long ago that you and I agreed on this point. I imagine that's no longer the case given your opposition.

I was under the impression that a composer should master all the techniques you mentioned. Again, this could be ignorance on my part. Certainly, though, a composer should have the foresight to state what he/she doesn't know how to do and then know to ask questions. Does this not occur?

Again, we're lacking in context here by a HUGE margin. The explanation offered, what started all of this, was the suggestion that modernism did not draw the attention that was forecast almost 80 years ago because of the elements some modern works tend to outright avoid. Well, this may be objectively accurate, and then again, it may not. Nowhere did I say or suggest, "You should stop writing this type of music." What I did say AND suggest is that composers interested in drawing a larger audience for modern works should investigate ways to implement some of these elements (memorability, simplicity, etc.) that may be missing in their work in some creative way (to be memorable, simple, etc without detracting from the expression or the art - as reasonable a suggestion as delaying resolution of a tonic to prolong dissonance without actually eliminating consonance altogether, as was a rather creative approach in its own right in the 19th century). If the objective is to obscure memory and eliminate predictability, then there are certainly ways to do this that are effective.

I don't see any problems with this at all. However, I think part of the problem that could be with this is that there is an assumption on what audiences want. While there is a lot of research showing that audiences do respond to similar stimuli, etc. saying that every person will memorize the same expressions, etc. is a bit far-fetched. Also, the idea of what constitutes consonance and dissonance aren't entirely set in stone either - as the past 300 years of Western Music have shown! Heck, just look at popular music (Rock, for example): in just 20 years, you went from music that was easy listening to extremely distorted and harsh and then eventually predominantly percussion oriented. Just a forethought, there are many people in this world. I think it's best as composers for us to, instead of catering to all, just find a niche and fill it.

Except, this isn't about criticism. Nowhere in all of this have any of us stated concerns of criticism by the audience. My standards for my art and expression still exist and are still equally important to considerations of the reception of a work. What is debilitating and deconstructive is the over-bearing reliance on high-modernism in training composers. It's legitimate, sure. It's EQUALLY legitimate to modern tonality, commercial writing, and tons of other approaches to music. Assuming college freshman KNOW popular music, that music theory will teach them modern tonality, and that high-modernism is the medium through which a composition student can most likely grow and develop is erroneous.

You just mentioned the audiences concerns, your opinion of what those are at least, in the last paragraph! I don't see why learning to write in the current musical language is 'debilitating and deconstructive' to a composer. Can you explain how this is? Going down this road, however, one has to wonder... did Beethoven find the training he received (which was, of course, the current musical language of his day: classicism) as being debilitating and deconstructive? Bach? Monteverdi? I hope you see where I'm going with that train of thought, I think it's a good point to bring up in this discussion.

In this day and age, it's not a question of criticism, of playing it safe, or of being popular. It's a question of time and money. The more you assume about a student's freedom to "go and do whatever even if [you] or anyone doesn't like it," the more time and money the student will more than likely need to invest on their own to master the material without the support you, as a composition teacher, were expected to provide as an instructor. That's what your assumptions do to people like me. I can only hope you don't do it to others like me if you have a composition studio of your own someday. I hope you'll prepare for students like me instead of assuming what we know, what we don't know, and what we'll come to know. I hope you'll put your money where your mouth is and deliver the support that is necessary to allow every student of yours to achieve the full potential of their artistic freedom.

Again, I will end this in saying....

It is up to the student to research and identify the institution that best meets his/her need. There are nearly 7 billion people in this world... that would mean there are probably millions upon millions of composition teachers available. Certainly, not every single one of those millions of millions is going to 'force' modernism down your throat. So going with that train of thought.... a prospective student, in the end, needs to weigh his/her options carefully before deciding on an institution.... funny, now I sound like a college counselor. :blink:

No wall of text, Jason... just straight up answers:

1) Research.

I couldn't have afforded to go to one of the three uni's that, at the time, focused on the material I was interested in... and yes, at the time I did the research I could given the information available (this was in 1997/98 - you of all people should know how much easier it is to find info today than it was over 10 years ago!). There are extensive problems you're completely overlooking... not the least of which being expense and location. You're overlooking the implementation here, and rather than directly addressing the issue of teaching music composition, you're suggesting a work-around to avoid the dilemma altogether that you haven't entirely thought out.

2) Computer Science.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Yes, it is a technical field. So what? Education (TEACHING) is the art form in question, no matter what the subject matter being taught deals with. Yes, it is possible to teach music with a similar methodology used in teaching computer science. You could also teach music like a coach might teach a football team how to run a play. I doubt you're following this, but w/e. Music can be taught in a barn with a stick in the sand. The point is, education is not subject-specific, and music is no "special case" in the arena, either.

3) The Audience. (this will be a bit longer because I have to correct some comprehension errors here)

Yes, well, again you need to think through what I'm saying in that last sentence, because you're taking my position to some ridiculous extreme I neither stated nor implied. My statement was... and I'll break this up into statements:

- "What I did say AND suggest is that composers interested in drawing a larger audience for modern works

- should investigate ways to implement some of these elements (memorability, simplicity, etc.) that may be missing in their work in some creative way (to be memorable, simple, etc.) without detracting from the expression or the art

- as reasonable a suggestion as delaying resolution of a tonic to prolong dissonance without actually eliminating consonance altogether, as was a rather creative approach in its own right in the 19th century).

- If the objective is to obscure memory and eliminate predictability, then there are certainly ways to do this that are effective."

So, first, I'm assuming a premise that there are composers interested in drawing a larger audience for modern works. Next, I'm suggesting there are ways to do this that are demonstrably effective (elements of music and art that are successful in popular music) and artistically sound, even in a modern idiom. Then, I'm drawing a correlation between the suggestion and something that's proven to be a historic example of creatively enhancing music to achieve something "extra-musical". Finally, I'm addressing a plausible artistic objective and applying it to the interest of drawing a larger audience - and it could all fail, but so what? It's a far more informed approach than blindly assembling notes without any particular reason and hoping that the pure-dumb-luck fairy will fall in your lap.

Now that it's broken down for you, I hope you can NOW see this has nothing to do with "criticism" at all. If anything, this is in the same vein of "experimenting" with ways to do things with music to see what works.

No wall of text, Jason... just straight up answers:

1) Research.

I couldn't have afforded to go to one of the three uni's that, at the time, focused on the material I was interested in... and yes, at the time I did the research I could given the information available (this was in 1997/98 - you of all people should know how much easier it is to find info today than it was over 10 years ago!). There are extensive problems you're completely overlooking... not the least of which being expense and location. You're overlooking the implementation here, and rather than directly addressing the issue of teaching music composition, you're suggesting a work-around to avoid the dilemma altogether you haven't entirely thought out.

True, but you have to realize (as I have done) that today it is a lot easier to find the right schools. I also, don't understand why you don't think I'm not thinking of things. I'm not a child, Shaun. I've got a lot of life experience under my belt now and I am proud of that fact. I think, though, today, that people need to realize they can and SHOULD research extensively.

2) Computer Science.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Yes, it is a technical field. So what? Education (TEACHING) is the art form, no matter what the subject matter deals with. Yes, it is possible to teach music with a similar methodology used in teaching computer science.

I'm sorry, since when is Education an art form? Even if it were an art form, which it's not, your still teaching two very different fields. With CS you have 'hard data' that you are teaching as opposed to composition (which is anything but hard data). To qualify hard data, I'm referring to programming code, technical equipment, etc. - all of which has to be specific and concise (to borrow a phrase from a friend who educated me on this stuff.) I guess if you want to stick to this weird analogy... it's your call - I'm not going to buy it though. It did get a laugh out of a few friends in computer science I showed it to though. ;)

3) The Audience. (this will be a bit longer because I have to correct some comprehension errors here)

...- If the objective is to obscure memory and eliminate predictability, then there are certainly ways to do this that are effective."

To this part, I stated: I don't see any problems with this at all.

Then... I went on to state one possible problem with some of your suggestion (i.e. stimuli, memorability, etc.)... to which you completely ignored my question. That's alright though, I understand that sometimes I don't type clearly enough for you to comprehend.... *sigh*

Next, I'm suggesting there are ways to do this that are demonstrably effective (elements of music and art that are successful in popular music). Then, I'm drawing a correlation between the suggestion and something that's proven to be a historic example of creatively enhancing music to achieve something "extra-musical". Finally, I'm addressing a plausible artistic objective and applying it to the interest of drawing a larger audience - and it could all fail, but so what? It's a far more informed approach than blindly assembling notes without any particular reason and hoping that the pure-dumb-luck fairy will fall in your lap.

What are these elements that are successful in popular music? Should we have conductors be in their 20s and 30s and strut around the stage dancing sexily? I'm sure that would bring in the crowds. I kid..

Anyways, this is pretty much the same thing you said above... but much more flowery. I also, don't think anyone just 'blindly assembles notes without any particular reason'. Was a nice chuckle though.

Now that it's broken down for you, I hope you can NOW see this has nothing to do with "criticism" at all. If anything, this is in the same vein of "experimenting" with ways to do things with music and see what works.

Well, I'm trying to figure out where you got me saying that you were 'criticizing' anything with that paragraph.... here is what my response to that paragraph was:

I don't see any problems with this at all. However, I think part of the problem that could be with this is that there is an assumption on what audiences want. While there is a lot of research showing that audiences do respond to similar stimuli, etc. saying that every person will memorize the same expressions, etc. is a bit far-fetched. Also, the idea of what constitutes consonance and dissonance aren't entirely set in stone either - as the past 300 years of Western Music have shown! Heck, just look at popular music (Rock, for example): in just 20 years, you went from music that was easy listening to extremely distorted and harsh and then eventually predominantly percussion oriented. Just a forethought, there are many people in this world. I think it's best as composers for us to, instead of catering to all, just find a niche and fill it.

Do you see me say you were criticizing anything? I also think that the second sentence clearly introduces my own personal opinion on a possible criticism on the assumption that memorability, simplicity, etc. were what audiences want. I didn't say you SAID that was want they wanted... I was just going down a train of thought - and figured you were intelligent enough to see exactly what I was doing with my paragraph. In the future, however, I will hold off from that. I then also commented on the 19th century delay of consonance... stating that the definitions of consonance and dissonance today aren't anywhere remotely similar to what they were in the 19th century - and then even went further to point out the vast change in 20 years that have occurred in just Rock and Roll. Sooooo.... where is me saying you were criticizing anything in my response to that paragraph? It looks to me like I was thinking critically on your comments and trying to deduce potential flaws within them... yes?

You just mentioned the audiences concerns, your opinion of what those are at least, in the last paragraph! I don't see why learning to write in the current musical language is 'debilitating and deconstructive' to a composer. Can you explain how this is? Going down this road, however, one has to wonder... did Beethoven find the training he received (which was, of course, the current musical language of his day: classicism) as being debilitating and deconstructive? Bach? Monteverdi? I hope you see where I'm going with that train of thought, I think it's a good point to bring up in this discussion.

But.... "high-modernism" isn't the "current musical language." It was 50 years ago; it no longer is.

But.... "high-modernism" isn't the "current musical language." It was 50 years ago; it no longer is.

Is it still being taught? If so, why is it still being taught? Is it relevant still? Think... before... you... post.

And furthermore, music that is 500 years old is ALSO still being taught in music programs across the globe. So... if you want to take your train of thought on something as recent (on the time line) of 1961 as no longer deserving to be taught... then it stands logically sound to state that Mahler, Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach... should also, not be taught - since they are even more outdated.

Is it still being taught? If so, why is it still being taught? Is it relevant still? Think... before... you... post.

Sure its relevant because its history. So is 19th Century Romanticism as is 18th Century Baroque fugues. Its no accident that a major work that pianists should learn is Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. No doubt "high-modernism" is important, it's almost 100 years of music history! But is it today's current "in" thing? Meh, I wouldn't say so. Certainly there are those who like it and will hang on to it till the end of their days (like Strauss and Romanticism holding on to it until his death in the 1940s), but most new commissions these days don't sound like Schoenberg, Berg, Varese, Cage, or Xenakis. They use elements of them, sure, just like any composition, but they can't be classified under the same style of music. It has become something else. What that "else" is, who knows? (Composers often don't know what's current until after the fact, much like in all art forms.) But we know what it isn't. It isn't style copies of Beethoven and it isn't style copies of Schoenberg.

EDIT:

And furthermore, music that is 500 years old is ALSO still being taught in music programs across the globe. So... if you want to take your train of thought on something as recent (on the time line) of 1961 as no longer deserving to be taught... then it stands logically sound to state that Mahler, Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach... should also, not be taught - since they are even more outdated.

Heh, caught yourself there. I never said it shouldn't be taught. So don't go to the extreme with it. I don't think it should be taught as what's "in", which is the implication of what happens at schools like AntiA's talking about, where the composition professor just pushes the one ideological view without balance.

I agree, it's no style copies of anything.. as I've said several times... there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

Super. We agree on something!

Someone pour the champagne! (or pepsi)

Sure its relevant because its history. So is 19th Century Romanticism as is 18th Century Baroque fugues. Its no accident that a major work that pianists should learn is Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. No doubt "high-modernism" is important, it's almost 100 years of music history! But is it today's current "in" thing? Meh, I wouldn't say so. Certainly there are those who like it and will hang on to it till the end of their days (like Strauss and Romanticism holding on to it until his death in the 1940s), but most new commissions these days don't sound like Schoenberg, Berg, Varese, Cage, or Xenakis. They use elements of them, sure, just like any composition, but they can't be classified under the same style of music. It has become something else. What that "else" is, who knows? (Composers often don't know what's current until after the fact, much like in all art forms.) But we know what it isn't. It isn't style copies of Beethoven and it isn't style copies of Schoenberg.

Iono about that last part, the commissions thing... I've heard a lot of new works on YouTube and in concert recently that were far more similar to S,B,V,C, or X then anything before them.... but, I generally agree against style copies.

Heh, caught yourself there. I never said it shouldn't be taught. So don't go to the extreme with it. I don't think it should be taught as what's "in", which is the implication of what happens at schools like AntiA's talking about, where the composition professor just pushes the one ideological view without balance.

No, you didn't say it shouldn't be taught. You were however, making the implication that it 'isn't the current language of the day' and implied that it shouldn't be taught - which was the context of AntiA's and my comments regarding..

Personally, I don't think any stylistic trait should be pushed at a student.

Personally, I don't think any stylistic trait should be pushed at a student.

YES! This is what people are tryin' to say here! I think we're just differing on the *details*. But in principle, we're all agreeing here.

For Jason, because I care:

Education/Computer Science/Etc.

Education is an art form, not a cold hard, rigorous formula. Like any art form, there are some foundations in which to operate that, depending on your approach, may or may not work. Until you take education courses yourself and understand what these foundations are, I suggest we discontinue this aspect of the discussion until you and I can have an intelligent discussion. Similarly, start taking some programming courses online (I recommend the MIT courses on academicearth.org) for insight into the field of computer science. Yes, there are differences that you have pointed out between music and programming. OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES. This doesn't have anything to do with the education methodology. You're disagreeing with me in two areas in which I am currently studying where I can only presume (given your responses) that you are not. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Comprehension.

All I can say is... OMFG!!! Here go read what you have written!

Go to the paragraph beginning with this sentence where you respond to what I JUST clarified for you: "I don't see any problems with this at all."

Go to the NEXT paragraph beginning with this sentence that I'm responding to with my clarification: "You just mentioned the audiences concerns, your opinion of what those are at least, in the last paragraph!"

Just stop wasting time with this nonsense. Read. Comprehend. Repeat.

Language of the Day.

Please, by all means, define the language of the day for us, Jason. Explain to all of us exactly what it is. Do this, then take some time to compare this against the growing, seemingly "universal" syntax of classicism in western art music - as in, it was learned in a purely "this, not this" manner (hint: that's not how it's taught today). But please, by all means, explain what that syntax is now and why I should believe you or care.

Successful Elements of Popular Music.

Efficiency.

Memorability.

Simplicity.

These are "extra-" musical elements (not specific to music, can be generally applied to a variety of art forms - INCLUDING EDUCATION). These elements appear to be effective in drawing large audiences. Lyrics play an important role as well.

I think, though, that you're disagreeing with me before you even know what I might even do "creatively" to apply these elements to a modern idiom in a creative way. You're saying these are, more or less, "not the droids you are looking for" (yes, Star Wars reference for the epic win!). To this I say, find and extract an element of popular music you think is responsible for the proliferation of commercial art forms - something specific to the music itself, not more excuses like, "DURR Peeple js so dum and stpidz!" Demonstrate that you have your own thought on the topic. I'm entirely open to your thoughts on it if you have legitimate theory in mind. Let's hear it!

I'm excited now. I simply can't wait to hear your musical insights into popular/commercial music!

For Shaun, because he is being a ............

Education is an art form, not a cold hard, rigorous formula. Like any art form, there are some foundations in which to operate that, depending on your approach, may or may not work. Until you take education courses yourself and understand what these foundations are, I suggest we discontinue this aspect of the discussion until you and I can have an intelligent discussion. Similarly, start taking some programming courses online (I recommend the MIT courses on academicearth.org) for insight into the field of computer science. Yes, there are differences that you have pointed out between music and programming. OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES. This doesn't have anything to do with the education methodology. You're disagreeing with me in two areas in which I am currently studying where I can only presume (given your responses) that you are not. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, obviously Shaun... I know nothing. As I said, I will never accept Education as being an art form. I'm very much of the idea that it should be considered a science. For a good book on the topic... see this.

Here go read what you have written!

Go to the paragraph beginning with this sentence where you respond to what I JUST clarified for you: "I don't see any problems with this at all."

Go to the NEXT paragraph beginning with this sentence that I'm responding to with my clarification: "You just mentioned the audiences concerns, your opinion of what those are at least, in the last paragraph!"

Just stop wasting time with this nonsense. Read. Comprehend. Repeat.

First problem, stop jumping between my paragraphs and trying to put together different trains of thought! With the first paragraph, which I broke down in the last post to you, I think it was very clear I was commenting on the individual paragraphs that I broke into a separate quotes. I don't think I need to sit here and break down my comments any more further - especially considering I took the time out to break your long donkey posts into shorter quotes on which I commented paragraph by paragraph - yes, I reiterated the same sentence, so you can see it twice. If the train of thought was meant to be read in relation to ALL of your paragraphs as a distinct whole... then why would I waste my damn time breaking it down for you? My god, your a masters student... and your acting like a High School freshmen! I know your smarter than this.

Please, by all means, define the language of the day for us, Jason. Explain to all of us exactly what it is. Do this, then take some time to compare this against the growing, seemingly "universal" syntax of classicism in western art music - as in, it was learned in a purely "this, not this" manner (hint: that's not how it's taught today). But please, by all means, explain what that syntax is now and why I should believe you or care.

I could care less what the musical language of the day is. I'm not a teacher.. nor do I construct lesson plans or curriculum for anyone. I will say though, something in use a mere 50 years ago is a lot more current then something used 200 years ago. Just saying.

Successful Elements of Popular Music.

Efficiency.

Memorability.

Simplicity.

These are "extra-" musical elements (not specific to music, can be generally applied to a variety of art forms - INCLUDING EDUCATION). These elements appear to be effective in drawing large audiences. Lyrics play an important role as well.

Well, let's look at studies. Pull up one study that states that out of a group of 100 participants... all 100 found the exact same thing memorable in a piece of music? 75? 50? What's the number? Also, again... I'm not buying - until you can back it up - that Education is a form of art. Sure, it may include some aspects of artistic expression (speech, creative writing, etc.) but overall, I would say it is greatly flawed to claim education is an art. Simplicity, I think that is a give or take - some respond to simple things... some don't. I'm not saying these things aren't what bring out the crowds.. I am saying though that they most likely aren't the only things - to go in depth, I think your try to oversimplify for the sake of argument.

I think, though, that you're disagreeing with me before you even know what I might even do "creatively" to apply these elements to a modern idiom in a creative way. You're saying these are, more or less, "not the droids you are looking for" (yes, Star Wars reference for the epic win!). To this I say, find and extract an element of popular music you think is responsible for the proliferation of commercial art forms - something specific to the music itself, not more excuses like, "DURR Peeple js so dum and stpidz!" Demonstrate that you have your own thought on the topic. I'm entirely open to your thoughts on it if you have legitimate theory in mind. Let's hear it!

I'm excited now. I simply can't wait to hear your musical insights into popular/commercial music!

Really, again... I'll say this clearly... I'm really not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just questioning here and there and offering my own comments. Go back and read my threads - I've reread them many times trying to see where I 'miscomprehended' anything you've said. Hell, I even broke a paragraph down for you to bring the point home - to no avail, sadly. My only comment, really... was that a student looking at studying at a composition program should research his/her options in depth and come to an educated decision about which institution is the perfect fit.

All that said, this entire conversation has really made me lose a lot of respect for you. I'm not a retard. I also am realizing the fact that you consider yourself to be far more intelligent then most on this forum and you attempt to intimidate other members with your choice of words. I've heard from others that you do this - but never really thought that it was true, until now. I find that to be a big flaw in your personality - and think it's something you should really work on. I also don't think your as intelligent as you let on. For example, you claim I wasn't comprehending what you were saying. I made it quite clear in my last post, that I wasn't misinterpreting what you said - instead, I was going on whims of thought and thinking on what you said while typing... a clear sign, or it should be, that I was taking what you said in and letting it digest - not misinterpreting OR criticizing OR failing to comprehend. You also, again, failed to answer my question - it's alright, I'm done with this conversation. I tire of arguing to dense walls of brick.

I tire of arguing to dense walls of brick.

Makes two of us.

Thread closed.