Contemporary Composition

I think this thread is getting slightly off topic; the original discussion was more about the course of contemporary trends, not our specific opinions/reactions to this or that new development. I mean, of course we're talking about it, but there's more to contemporary music than the 'world music' fad.

I generally agree with JStone and robinjessome, but suggest that more evidence might be necessary. Aside from Minimalism, the trends in post-Serialism and aleatory have been steadily growing closer and closer (with the occasional sprinkling of Dadaism), which suggests a future musical spectrum where a combo of strictly predetermined elements and chance events is the norm. The crisis in this is that such an idiom is not stable. Critics have and will continue to point out that music thus composed is random noise, which is accurate but fails to consider other principles of aesthetics in the composition.

Perhaps there may be a return to the lyricism of Webern in our future?

SSC.

Then we are in agreement pretty much. ;)

Firstly I do find that one can be authentic, even if they are not natives, etc. It can be done, I can accept that, to a certain level, and I've seen it happen!

Now problem is, exactly, when lots of people try to pass it as authentic, which is rubbish 80% of the times. Or when they know it's rubbish and they go ahead and do it. Not because of artistic license, but because "the director told him so". There are quite a few films which introduced some "new" instrument, and it's always quite... cheesy I say (?) You get an epic orchestra and... a pan flute at some moment (WIllow, I think had pan flute, ro something close to that. I never pay attention to those things). Bad taste. (Not wrong! There is nothing wrong! But bad taste!) I have someone I'm working with, and she's doing a comic with interactive music etc. In a future fantastic era, with plenty of non urban elements, she was looking into using some chinesse instrument into the music. brrr... I will do it of course (I'm half forced to), but I can't say that I will br 100% proud of it. It's... bastard, for the lack of a better word.

EDIT:

In Australia Anyway. ;)

Key phrase is "trying to pass it off as authentic", which is something I'm not interested in at all. I don't think anyone can be authentic enough, ever. Sorry, even the Greek most Greek of all Greece can't be authentically Greek enough. Why? Because since it's a subjective standard of judgment I decide to simply make it unreasonable altogether. It's better for everyone.

So a bunch of Germans decide to write Tango. You know what? Awesome! It's not authentic, but since it's impossible to BE authentic there's no silly assumption or pretension. However, that's just my end of the deal. If people decide to go claiming things, they're going and claiming things and there's nothing I can do about it.

Another reason it's impossible to be authentic is that it's all a copy of a copy of a copy.

Just some copies are more popular than others!

As far as my PERSONAL experience is concerned, I've been to Rachmaninov's 3rd played by both someone DRUNK and doing giggling fits during the orchestral passages (played by someone on piano, not-so-drunk) and it was the best thing in the world. Not going into more detail, let's just say I've seen just about every trampling of cultural signatures, by people both FROM said cultures and not.

Then again I may just have weird friends like that.

About Bach, I'm going to ignore this with the WTK altogether, it's just a collection of songs. Where they intended to be pedagogic by Bach? Probably, surely. But his educational approach of "I just write music" is both to me amazingly brilliant and also arguably anti-pedagogic.

So, absolutely not, it's no "theory" or "common practice (AAGH)" book at all. It may be a doorstop, a paperweight, or otherwise two books, but I'm not going to associate it with super-theory nonsense terms.

In fact I don't really like that term. "Common practice" is a retarded generalization, and it only exists in English to boot (according to english wikipedia out of a book by some guy I've never heard about.) The German version of the article for some amazing reason doesn't have anything to do with neither the term nor what it's talking about. Go wikinonsense!

But I digress.

As far as the dealie with the Scherzo is concerned, or such other types of names, you can either be "traditional" (that is to say, familiar with the latest musicological trends!) or not give a damn. And even if you go the trend way, there's thousands of different sources and ways of analyze the same piece or use this or that terminology. In fact, I'm usually not on great terms with musicologists precisely because either they are driven into tiny little viewpoints they can't stray from or risk being entirely "wrong", or nothing means anything, ever.

I mean, let's not forget how amazing a breakthrough it was when people started to think pieces had more than two parts because they suddenly were taking other things into consideration in form analysis! If the older view had won, we'd have to rewrite tons of theory books. Wait, aren't they fighting over it STILL?

I mean, I can make a piece of music that is just a laugh track and garbage truck noises and call it "Scherzo & Samba for Orchestra." I'm not wrong at all, it's a Scherzo (AND Samba!) as long as I'm saying it is.

In fact ignore all I just said, this such a better idea, I'll go do this right now instead.

PS: What I'm getting at in the end is that, LOL, music should be fun and I agree on some level with what Nikolas responded. I'm not a fan of "culture" in general, and I tend to be very hostile to (in my opinion) idiotic concepts of respect and pride when it comes to culture. It kills any practical value any culture can have if people are going to start fighting and being jerks to each other because of it. And no, writing crap-samba in Brazil results in absolutely nothing. Maybe someone'll laugh, maybe you'll get FANS. There's a huge discussion as to what proper Samba even is, within Brazil itself.

No, I guess the problem is what if I went in and insulted people's moms. With my crap-samba. About their moms. WHAT THEN? They'd be angry, but I suspect it'd have less to do with samba then.

Here are a few points for you...

1) It is totally possible to be authentic. I for one have the ability to write a perfectly sounding authentic Baroque fugue or choral due to the study and proper application of the common pracitces of the time.

Some are just better than others in making authentic music.

2) Just because you choose only to accept Bach's WTF as sheet music does not negate its intent on being ocmposed as theoretical teaching tool.

3) I'm thinking you really don't understand what the idea of "Common practice" as a cultural ideal means. I think you are thinking purely about the theory you get from Academia.

4) I don't know what you'be been reading or who you'b been talking to but please give me the huge discussion on the issue of proper Samba. Unless you are refering to the arguments about traditional Samba versus the high energy dance samba. With that issue one is silmply a cultural evolution of the other. But that's another discussion we can have at another time.

5) People would probably be angry more about poor Samba used to insult someon.

First of all, whether or not certain aspects of cultural pracitces evolve is not a huge deal. The fact that a pracitce or idea evolves within a culture continues to add a cultural stamp on any idea be it two part music or the use of meter in music. Its not about writing a theory book.

6) What breakthrough of what people are you talking about? Are you talking about European music only?

7) Yes music is to be fun. But, you seem so worried about being all traditional when my point is about keeping the sacred attributes of whatever it is you borrow. It seems that you don't care if you insult the people or their traditions so as long as you have your way musically. Certain Caribbean music expressions come from great pain and there is a profound personal attachment to these expressions. But according to you it is foolish to respect those ideals and take things out of context to simply further your musical whimsy. Its too bad you have no problem showing such disregard.

The sad thing is that all the people I know who play "cultural specific music" the only thought they have is to do it as similar to the original as they can. They consider themself arrived when their music is indistinguishable from the true one. They call that "their own style". Funny. Just think (if you are outside america) to all the Hip-hop bands around you or reggae or soul or irish-folk and so on...Obvioulsy the same concept applies to the ones who are happy when someone says to them that their music is like William's or Elfman's one. That means: Your music is good beacuse it sounds like another composer music. Paradoxal.

I'm not against the usage of cultural-musical clich

Again, the issue is not about borrowing major harmonies or pentatonic harmonies or cultural instruments to express yourself. The fact is that it is often done poorly and many times the material that is borrowed has significant cultural significance that is often ignored and therefore insulting to its own people.

It's exactly what I said. The point is that in incidental music cannot be otherwise. Sincerely I believe in the cleaverness of the people. If they are ear-trained they just can distinguish between good and bad music...if they feel insulted by a bad use of some of their cultural musical things there's something wrong with them. Or they are very young. Come on! It's just bad musical thought. It will die with it's owner :).

Then I am sorry, but I completely disagree with the view of the "express yourself". Please, we are in the 21th century. Romanticism is over...Since more than 1 hundred years. :D

It is totally possible to be authentic. I for one have the ability to write a perfectly sounding authentic Baroque fugue or choral due to the study and proper application of the common pracitces of the time.

[...]

my point is about keeping the sacred attributes of whatever it is you borrow. It seems that you don't care if you insult the people or their traditions so as long as you have your way musically. Certain Caribbean music expressions come from great pain and there is a profound personal attachment to these expressions.

I see a discrepancy between those two statements. First it seems that you are saying to be authentic it suffices to be able to create a music that sounds like the music of a culture (Middle-European Baroque in this case), and the degree of authenticism is merely based on your abilities to copy this style.

Then you go on to say that it's not just the audible result that matters, but also the exact mindset and all the feelings that are associated with a certain musical style.

How can you, as a person living in the 21st century, expect to have an "authentic" grasp of the emotional mindset of an "average" person living in Middle-European Baroque? And even apart from that, would even that suffice? Wouldn't actually living in that time be an absolute requirement for writing "authentically baroque" music?

Apart from all these questions I'd merely like to add that I prefer Henri Rousseau's jungle paintings to most of painters who've actually seen a rain forest. ;)

...Then you go on to say that it's not just the audible result that matters, but also the exact mindset and all the feelings that are associated with a certain musical style.

How can you, as a person living in the 21st century, expect to have an "authentic" grasp of the emotional mindset of an "average" person living in Middle-European Baroque? And even apart from that, would even that suffice? Wouldn't actually living in that time be an absolute requirement for writing "authentically baroque" music?

BAM!!!

:whistling:

Someone's been reading Adorno methinks ;)

...

BAM!!!

:whistling:

Someone's been reading Adorno methinks ;)

...

Actually, I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't :( I consider that a serious gap that I need to fill though.

Actually, I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't :( I consider that a serious gap that I need to fill though.

He's intense, and hurts your head...but has some interesting points. He HATES jazz...actually, he kind-of hates everything that's not Berg, Webern, et al. Musicologists are a strange breed ;)

His essays on authenticity are interesting though - right along your line of thought.

Then you go on to say that it's not just the audible result that matters, but also the exact mindset and all the feelings that are associated with a certain musical style.

How can you, as a person living in the 21st century, expect to have an "authentic" grasp of the emotional mindset of an "average" person living in Middle-European Baroque? And even apart from that, would even that suffice? Wouldn't actually living in that time be an absolute requirement for writing "authentically baroque" music?

Heh...

First of, personally I don't find much sense in writing baroque music today, let alone fugue...

And then, if you consider that Germany, France, etc could very well continue the "tradition" of fugue, or baroque writing, very much as a native could continue his own tradition. Either way traditional music, is alive, because of the continuation and not because people have been living in the past. ;)

And then, if you consider that Germany, France, etc could very well continue the "tradition" of fugue, or baroque writing, very much as a native could continue his own tradition.

That is true of course (even though you could say it's already too late for that now, as continuation requires, well, continuity. So it'd be more like "rediscovery" now.) But anyways, this opens a question to what the "borders" of a culture are. Are there geographical borders, but no temporal ones? I.e. if you can take a style that existed a long time before, but in the same country and say that it's "your tradition", couldn't you just as well take a style of your time and another country and call it "your tradition*"? In other words, are geographic/ethnic differences really more important to cultural identification than history/time? Personally, I'd guess a French and a Brasilian person of today have more culturally in common than a French person of today with a French person in 1600.

*Yes, I'm aware that the word "tradition" is usually used for something that is continued -in time-. But in its literal meaning of something that is "handed over" it might just as well apply to something that is "handed over" across the world.

I see a discrepancy between those two statements. First it seems that you are saying to be authentic it suffices to be able to create a music that sounds like the music of a culture (Middle-European Baroque in this case), and the degree of authenticism is merely based on your abilities to copy this style.

Then you go on to say that it's not just the audible result that matters, but also the exact mindset and all the feelings that are associated with a certain musical style.

How can you, as a person living in the 21st century, expect to have an "authentic" grasp of the emotional mindset of an "average" person living in Middle-European Baroque? And even apart from that, would even that suffice? Wouldn't actually living in that time be an absolute requirement for writing "authentically baroque" music?

Apart from all these questions I'd merely like to add that I prefer Henri Rousseau's jungle paintings to most of painters who've actually seen a rain forest. ;)

No there is no discrepancy. It is possible to sound authentic in style of the baroque becuase the common practice philosophies have been passed down and are studied.

My argument is about borrowing a cultural element that has a specific cultural meaning and using the element of context and stripping it of its cultural meaning.

I don't know what its like to live in Middle-Europe in the Baroque but the music gives me a great deal of information. Therefore, I know how not to strip the music of its cultural meaning.

Your painting argument doesnt quite fit into the argument I'm making.

I never said one shouldn't duplicate cultural music or its aspects. I said the unique cultural associations that should not be stripped.

I don't know what its like to live in Middle-Europe in the Baroque but the music gives me a great deal of information. Therefore, I know how not to strip the music of its cultural meaning.

That's what I don't believe though. In my opinion you simply can't get any information about "cultural meaning" out of the music itself. All information the music itself contains is a series of sounds. Cultural meaning is not inside the music, but in the minds of those who write and listen to it. But I fear with this we're just getting into the old "does music contain a meaning" debate again.

But anyways, the discrepancy I sensed is still there for me. What is it now for you? Does only count what is actually there in the music, as a sound, or also what is "behind the creation of the music", but not audible? If the former, just copying what a style of music sounds like without understanding anything about it should suffice to be authentical. If the latter, then you certainly can't draw understanding of baroque music from hearing/reading it alone.

That's what I don't believe though. In my opinion you simply can't get any information about "cultural meaning" out of the music itself. All information the music itself contains is a series of sounds. Cultural meaning is not inside the music, but in the minds of those who write and listen to it. But I fear with this we're just getting into the old "does music contain a meaning" debate again.

But anyways, the discrepancy I sensed is still there for me. What is it now for you? Does only count what is actually there in the music, as a sound, or also what is "behind the creation of the music", but not audible? If the former, just copying what a style of music sounds like without understanding anything about it should suffice to be authentical. If the latter, then you certainly can't draw understanding of baroque music from hearing/reading it alone.

Let me state this again...

My argument was never about not being able to produce authentic music but making poor represtations of cultural music or a pastiche of it and passing it off as authentic or by taking musical elements that have significant meaning and stripping the meaning away whether it be European classical music, German folk music or in my case Caribbean music. It seems that only classical musicians have the "is there meaning in music" debate and that's probably why some are having such an issue with what I'm stating.

Also, if you go back and read my other replies you will see that I never said simply copying the sound of a musical style would suffice. I made mention already that understanding the "common practice" and ideals of culture and its music is what is needed.

So as I said before, it is not an issue of being authentic, or borrowing elements. But in doing so if those elements have sacred meaning to a people it is disrespectful to represent it in a false fashion, or in a poor fashion whatever those scared elements are.

Either I have not made this clear enough or it really is a difficult issue for some to understand.

Gardener: But don't you think we have more information about Baroque, etc, than we have about... traditional dances in S.A.? Don't you also agree that a native Australian guy playing a barouqe fugue, in his own way would sound somewhat... strange?

Western concert hall music, has been very largely detached of anything cultural, in the sense that it is aimed for... a concert hall! Some Bach works, or some other works, are linked to religion but nothing too serious really. On the contrary it does appear that playing anywhere concert hall music (western) is acceptable, since it is not attached to anything else. You can't really claim that Beethoven should be played in the living rooms of the Austrian rich families, or that Shostachovich should sound only in the Russian Steps, or that... etc.

The other side of the coin, traditional music (or world music if you want), is very attached to the culture, to the environment, to the people, to the language, to the understanding. It's not (yet) internation, nor it should be. As I said in my first, second post in this thread, traditional music cannot really be taken out of context, unless you do some "serious" creative work. Inspiration, ideas, etc, are all fine in my book (and since I'm Greek I'm guilty of taking ideas from our culture), but make it your own! Give the music your own identity, don't attempt to steer the existing identity cause it won't be there, with the music alone.

Food analogy: There are certain things which work well with other things, and are linked with culture. In indian cusine (which I LOVE) there is this yogurt drink called "Lassi". you may know it. Now, the purpose of the drink is to provide refreshement and a cooling sensation to those hot curries! If you attempt to mix and match with... pizza for example, it will be plainly rubbish! If you take it outside and serve it alone, with no food, again it doesn't work. It does need the hot curry dishes next to it to serve it's purpose.

Majesty: I feel we may be moving a bit in circles here. We're probably both missing our respective points, somehow.

At least we can generally agree on the "passing something off as authentic" thing (not so much on the "stripping the meaning from music" part though, but ah well). But authentic or not, I don't really care much about music that uses "I'm ethnic!" as a selling point, instead of the music itself.

Gardener: But don't you think we have more information about Baroque, etc, than we have about... traditional dances in S.A.? Don't you also agree that a native Australian guy playing a barouqe fugue, in his own way would sound somewhat... strange?

Possibly, but strange doesn't necessarily mean bad. And even if we have information about ancient music we don't always choose to apply it, for our own aesthetic reasons as performers/listeners. Why play Bach on a Steinway piano? And even if we were able and willing to reproduce a Bach piece exactly like it sounded back then, it would be something entirely different, because the audience is a different one, changed by many years of music history. Regardless of notation and recording techniques, music, for me, is always a "momentary art".

We will never be able to experience a piece by Bach the same way as it was experienced when it was first performed.

Give the music your own identity, don't attempt to steer the existing identity cause it won't be there, with the music alone.

I certainly agree with that, even though I don't see how that doesn't apply to "classical" music as well.

Food analogy: There are certain things which work well with other things, and are linked with culture. In indian cusine (which I LOVE) there is this yogurt drink called "Lassi". you may know it. Now, the purpose of the drink is to provide refreshement and a cooling sensation to those hot curries! If you attempt to mix and match with... pizza for example, it will be plainly rubbish! If you take it outside and serve it alone, with no food, again it doesn't work. It does need the hot curry dishes next to it to serve it's purpose.

Good analogy :D But in the end it's the taste that decides whether it fits or not, not theoretical reasoning about the purpose of this drink. So ok, the attempt to combine this drink with pizza failed, but it's not impossible that something totally unexpected and good could have come out of the experiment, revealing a quality in Lassi that was hidden in its original context. I'm not saying trying to understand the "purpose" of this drink couldn't have been helpful, but it's not the only path.

I find it perfectly acceptable to use steel drums in a piece, just because I like the sound of them, without having to delve into their history and cultural context, just as much as I could make a piece of music out of the sound of a creaking door without considering what a door is used to and represents.

Actually, what's the ultimate goal of this discussion? :D

4) I don't know what you'be been reading or who you'b been talking to but please give me the huge discussion on the issue of proper Samba. Unless you are refering to the arguments about traditional Samba versus the high energy dance samba. With that issue one is silmply a cultural evolution of the other. But that's another discussion we can have at another time.

Short version: Depends on who you ask.

Long version: As I've lived in Brazil years ago, I've come in contact with people who are jarringly contrasting opinions. There's common misconceptions also, even in Brazil. Tom Jobim, for example, would've thought of himself as person who wrote Samba. The "bossa nova" idea is simply a "new trend" of the same old principles of samba. There is, of course, also differences between regions when it comes to Choro writing (with the Paulista (from Sao Paulo) and Carioca (from Rio) "schools" being pretty prominent examples.) Though these days, the differences between regions are less accentuated than before.

The whole fight is between people who try to separate samba into various categories and people who don't, as far as I understand it. It's also a thing about the identity of the music and whatever is popular. There's a lot more stuff to say about it, but maybe another time.

Regardless of notation and recording techniques, music, for me, is always a "momentary art".

Hey reminds me. Wasn't the whole point of "not writing down music" for the Greeks that... Hmm.. "Musik als t

Short version: Depends on who you ask.

Long version: As I've lived in Brazil years ago, I've come in contact with people who are jarringly contrasting opinions. There's common misconceptions also, even in Brazil. Tom Jobim, for example, would've thought of himself as person who wrote Samba. The "bossa nova" idea is simply a "new trend" of the same old principles of samba. There is, of course, also differences between regions when it comes to Choro writing (with the Paulista (from Sao Paulo) and Carioca (from Rio) "schools" being pretty prominent examples.) Though these days, the differences between regions are less accentuated than before.

The whole fight is between people who try to separate samba into various categories and people who don't, as far as I understand it. It's also a thing about the identity of the music and whatever is popular. There's a lot more stuff to say about it, but maybe another time.

Please forgive me as I know this is going to get a bit off topic...

You are so very wrong!!! And now I'm gonna have to let your know.

First of all Samba has the same story as all the other music of the Caribbean. Samba was brought to Bahia, Brazil by the African slaves of Angola. In fact when the Portuguese arrized in Angloa the made contact with the royal ruling family of Angola which carried the last name Samba and they called their music Semba. After being brought to Bahia it spread to the rest of Brazil. When it spread Samba became more Europeanized and the divisions and categorizations began. Some of the African rhythms remained but it became almost more ballroom like. The discussion of Samba is really a racial one that insults and angers the Blacks/Afro-Brazilians. The whole "Samba School" issue is relatively new compared to the Samba of Bahia of the 17th century. So, with these divisions the truth behind the music has been lost and that's why Afro-Brazilians are insulted...and almost in the same fashion as I mentioned before in regards to cultural specific beings stripped from music.

Real Samba is more of a Percussion ensemble expereience. Styles like Bosso Nova do not really refelct true Samba.

I'm not just debating the point for intellectual reasons but from what I know culturally/personally as far as how the people of Caribbean culture feel.

I didn't read everything in this thread, but would like to comment on a few points.

Firstly, world music. Wow, there are some examples of a broad style that aren't very good. Freakin' incredible, and a perfect reason to disregard an extremely large and undefinable "genre". At least that's what I'm hearing from some of you. "World" music is just the result of our general global unification via our new fandagled means of communication (amongst other things). It isn't really any more a genre or style than anything else, if not even less so.

Someone mentioned that they wouldn't exactly consider jazz ethnical or cultural. Ummmm, so what exactly was everyone referring to when they used to say "the cultural music of the american negro"? Typically, if you don't consider something ethnical, it's because you are a part of that culture. Jazz has become a part of culture the world around, is this wrong? Are jazz players in cuba less musicians because they aren't black or born in the south of America? Of course not.

And of course one should always take great pains in accurately reproducing anything they reproduce, to do otherwise in any context would be bad and disrespecful. But some of you seem to think the instrument implies the tradition. It may, for you, but that's very relative, even for people within the culture (as has been mentioned). So if you want to write faux traditional chinese music, certainly you should incorporate a type of huquin; but if you want to play an erhu, certainly it needn't be in the style of it's era of conception. Similarly, many a chinese style melody has been played on instruments as far removed from tradtion as an electrical guitar, and to good effect. They are instruments, which creates notes. Everything else is subjective and relative.

As for tradition and culture, I personally despise these two things. At their best they preserve things in a semi incoherent mish-mashed form decided by fate, and at their worst they are very very powerful agents of counter-productivity. Some here seem to think that a culture is something once decided upon by a group of sagely scholars living in a mountain cave, and thus should be untampered. CULTURE IS TAMPERING. It's the result of a bunch of people doing what they know how to do by observing those who came before them. Culture isn't decided upon and regulated, it's free and cancerous; practically unstoppable, really. Jazz isn't a part of european culture because one day, some master cuture maker wrote "let it be" in some giant book; it's there because enough people went "hey, that's cool, I wanna do it". And they did, case closed.

And European "common-practice"? Ughhh... talk about path of incoherent tradition. You wanna know what PP is? It's something that comes out of my god-damn wang.

So in the end, it doesn't matter if your piano sonata emulates Bach, Mozart, or Chopin. Nor does it matter if your scherzo is in a "proper scherzo" form or not. History should make this apparent to any who care to look for themselves. Isn't the Mozart example (with his use of "turkish" idioms) one for careless incorporation of other styles? Seriously, anyone who hasn't heard the Akira soundtrack by now should already; it'll learn you a thing or two about the future.

Secondly, over predictions for the future of music. Nothing stated that I read hasn't been done before in recently recorded history. Short lengths, music no one else hears, blah blah blah. In the old chinese days, the sage played only for himself, for meditative purposes. Playing music, for him, was an purely transcendental excercise. That music could be used for mass entertainment was not a familliar notion to him. I'm willing to bet many have done like this throughout history, and many more will continue to do so (I'm reminded of a story from Lovecraft's "Necronomicron"). As for music getting shorter, we're forgetting that those 2-hour operas we've come to associate with the people of old were made for one class: the extremely wealthy. These people would spend hours on a letter, ie not a good representation of the common class. Some even suggest that people of old had an even shorter attention span than most today, and this is evidenced by numerous composers of varying times. The thing is, they never maintain their popularity because, one day, someone looks at Bach and goes "holy scraggy, a 10-minute fugue!", and now Pachelbels over 100 short fugues on popular church themes have nothing, and duely become forgotten along with their composer.

Finally, all anyone really needs to remember is this, and it was briefly touched upon by another poster: fun and profit. This is the ultimate goal, which is funny because of how objective it is. Whether it's Bach spending the last of his money on beer at Zimmerman's, or a lone guitarist travelling around with a backpack and living off of the charity he recieves, fun and profit has been acheived, and happiness will abound because of it.

I didn't read everything in this thread, but would like to comment on a few points.

Firstly, world music. Wow, there are some examples of a broad style that aren't very good. Freakin' incredible, and a perfect reason to disregard an extremely large and undefinable "genre". At least that's what I'm hearing from some of you. "World" music is just the result of our general global unification via our new fandagled means of communication (amongst other things). It isn't really any more a genre or style than anything else, if not even less so.

Someone mentioned that they wouldn't exactly consider jazz ethnical or cultural. Ummmm, so what exactly was everyone referring to when they used to say "the cultural music of the american negro"? Typically, if you don't consider something ethnical, it's because you are a part of that culture. Jazz has become a part of culture the world around, is this wrong? Are jazz players in cuba less musicians because they aren't black or born in the south of America? Of course not.

And of course one should always take great pains in accurately reproducing anything they reproduce, to do otherwise in any context would be bad and disrespecful. But some of you seem to think the instrument implies the tradition. It may, for you, but that's very relative, even for people within the culture (as has been mentioned). So if you want to write faux traditional chinese music, certainly you should incorporate a type of huquin; but if you want to play an erhu, certainly it needn't be in the style of it's era of conception. Similarly, many a chinese style melody has been played on instruments as far removed from tradtion as an electrical guitar, and to good effect. They are instruments, which creates notes. Everything else is subjective and relative.

As for tradition and culture, I personally despise these two things. At their best they preserve things in a semi incoherent mish-mashed form decided by fate, and at their worst they are very very powerful agents of counter-productivity. Some here seem to think that a culture is something once decided upon by a group of sagely scholars living in a mountain cave, and thus should be untampered. CULTURE IS TAMPERING. It's the result of a bunch of people doing what they know how to do by observing those who came before them. Culture isn't decided upon and regulated, it's free and cancerous; practically unstoppable, really. Jazz isn't a part of european culture because one day, some master cuture maker wrote "let it be" in some giant book; it's there because enough people went "hey, that's cool, I wanna do it". And they did, case closed.

And European "common-practice"? Ughhh... talk about path of incoherent tradition. You wanna know what PP is? It's something that comes out of my god-damn wang.

So in the end, it doesn't matter if your piano sonata emulates Bach, Mozart, or Chopin. Nor does it matter if your scherzo is in a "proper scherzo" form or not. History should make this apparent to any who care to look for themselves. Isn't the Mozart example (with his use of "turkish" idioms) one for careless incorporation of other styles? Seriously, anyone who hasn't heard the Akira soundtrack by now should already; it'll learn you a thing or two about the future.

Secondly, over predictions for the future of music. Nothing stated that I read hasn't been done before in recently recorded history. Short lengths, music no one else hears, blah blah blah. In the old chinese days, the sage played only for himself, for meditative purposes. Playing music, for him, was an purely transcendental excercise. That music could be used for mass entertainment was not a familliar notion to him. I'm willing to bet many have done like this throughout history, and many more will continue to do so (I'm reminded of a story from Lovecraft's "Necronomicron"). As for music getting shorter, we're forgetting that those 2-hour operas we've come to associate with the people of old were made for one class: the extremely wealthy. These people would spend hours on a letter, ie not a good representation of the common class. Some even suggest that people of old had an even shorter attention span than most today, and this is evidenced by numerous composers of varying times. The thing is, they never maintain their popularity because, one day, someone looks at Bach and goes "holy scraggy, a 10-minute fugue!", and now Pachelbels over 100 short fugues on popular church themes have nothing, and duely become forgotten along with their composer.

Finally, all anyone really needs to remember is this, and it was briefly touched upon by another poster: fun and profit. This is the ultimate goal, which is funny because of how objective it is. Whether it's Bach spending the last of his money on beer at Zimmerman's, or a lone guitarist travelling around with a backpack and living off of the charity he recieves, fun and profit has been acheived, and happiness will abound because of it.

I for one feel that Jazz is ehtnic/cultural. But I don't think anyone is making an argument about the skill of a musician just because he/she plays or adopts the music of anothe culture (as far as you Cubans playing Jazz comment). And, nothing wrong with fun and the profit of music but again, those like nikolas and myself are not debating the issue of borrowing and mixing insturments and cultural style but that if a certain instrument or style has a sacred significance to a people one should consider the insult if the sacred meanings are misrepresented or stripped. And yes, in some cultures specific insturments imply certain traditions that need to be observed. Its not about using the instrument but if the instrument is too emplyed specifically is also the issue.

In a way, I'm beginning to think that it will take the experience of having a sacred relationship with something in one's own culture and then feeling the pain or disrespect of seeing the sacred value misrepresented or stripped to understand the kind of argument I'm trying to make.

And "common practice" applys not only to eurpean classical music but to all cultural music. There are "common practices" that are observed, taught and passed on. Yes, they sometimes evolve within the culture but I wouldn't say that it is tampering and cancerous. No matter how certain cultural elements evolve there is always traditional aspects that remain and keep a link of the past to the future its not as chaotic and random as being "cancerous" or tampering.

I also don't understand how culture and tradition in music should be considered counter productive when they both help to give self worth, pride and cultural identity.

I don't think one should consider it counter-productive simply becasue there are some restrictions to respect. Not everthing can be taken part of or be shared. Yes, mixing and borrowing is a most wonderous and beautiful thing but then so is diversit in its context.

But can you really speak easily of "one's culture" as an ethnic/national/geographical thing anymore? Sure, there are still national traditions, but how many people do they actually concern? Many people don't care much about traditional music of the places where they live, and many people live in different places than their parents came from etc. American pop music may be the culture of a young Hungarian much more than Hungarian folk songs. Culture is not just nationally defined, but just as much temporally (and to some degree personally).

Of course I have to admit that this is all coming from a person living in a country where actual traditional music has been long extinct so there's really no heritage to be "proud" of. (But honestly, I always found it silly to be proud of something that you had no influence on, but that's a different matter.)

But can you really speak easily of "one's culture" as an ethnic/national/geographical thing anymore? Sure, there are still national traditions, but how many people do they actually concern? Many people don't care much about traditional music of the places where they live, and many people live in different places than their parents came from etc. American pop music may be the culture of a young Hungarian much more than Hungarian folk songs. Culture is not just nationally defined, but just as much temporally (and to some degree personally).

Of course I have to admit that this is all coming from a person living in a country where actual traditional music has been long extinct so there's really no heritage to be "proud" of. (But honestly, I always found it silly to be proud of something that you had no influence on, but that's a different matter.)

Yes, in my case I can surely speak on culture as an ethnic/geographical sense. And if it is so in the Caribbean then I'm pretty sure there are many other cultures who feel the same way.

And as you mentioned, since your traditional music is extinct then perhaps everything else that revolved around the music is going? (I'm just asking). I would say that you don't have to have an influence on something for it to define you. It helps to associate you and as you take part in your own cultur through the music your participation becomes a kind of influence.

Again, I will speak on my part of the world in that Caribbean people accept you much easier if you get to understand and respect the culture of their music and food simply because so much of the culture is structured around those two. And again, I believe it is so for so many other peoples and cultures around the world.

True, culture is defined personally as well. But, it does not negate the history and traditions that have made a people and continue to shape them as a society. The young Hungarian teen may have personally adopted American pop music as his/her culture much more than his/her own but it doesn't change the sacred and significant issues of that culture. I can't imagine anyone not having at least one thing they hold dear to them that is part of his/her culture that would be insulted if it were misused or misrepresented.

I do have friends that aren't as attached to their cultures as I am, but there are little things here and there that mean something to them and that would offend them if certain cultural values were not respected. If there is an example on this point that proves me wrong then so be it. I can accept it.

:)