On the Modern Condition of Music

I've got some time to kill but I'm away from my home computer so I thought I'd post a thread discussing the phenomenon of "newness" in music and see what thoughts people have on the topic.

I like to begin this discussion (I've had it before, so it's nothing really "new" to me) by talking about Milton Babbitt's article, "The Composer as Specialist." Many may know this article by its published title, "Who Cares If You Listen?" Most should know this publication, but if you don't, here's a brief synopsis as I understand it:

Babbitt argues that a composer of his time exerts a great deal of activity and energy creating music that by traditional standards is very often criticized for its complexity. He claims that the world of music branches off in many different directions. Where the common practice of tonal music in the past served as the one template from which composers would branch out to create music, there are now many genres from which to compose. This "new" sound and those who seek to use it should be encouraged and not exiled from the music pedagogy. It is this that Babbitt seems to argue is critically important to the survival of music, the very concept of evolution at work. It is not important to the average, uneducated concert-goer that this music survive, but if the academic field of professionals does not recognize and commit to the study of this genre, music will cease to grow beyond itself.

What is interesting to me about Babbitt's argument is how it serves as an invocation to the musical "modern age." For those unfamiliar with how the modern age began, look to the discoveries that led to the foundations of modern science, especially the confirmation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. This propelled science and math into a higher demand of study in academia and led to the current foundations of our own American University Institutions. This, in turn, shifted the significance of a Liberal Arts education to the back-burner. This is even evident today when you hear a politician preaching school reform emphasizing stronger curricula for Math and Science. Even curricula in history only see nominal attention. HISTORY! Of all things, one of the most important subjects for a younger generation.

And it relates so much more to our education in music. Though I don't believe it was ever Milton Babbitt or Arnold Schoenberg who intended for the historical study of music to ever become threatened, their endeavors to follow their own voice and create something unique have led to something I believe truly threatens music at its core. I speak of our loss of rooted-ness, our autochthony according to Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher and poet. When Heidegger speaks of the type of thinking inherent in the Modern age, he speaks of calculative thought, thinking that removes the humanistic element, the catalyst of our own creation. He argues for a movement back towards meditative thinking, which does not compute solely for the purpose of solving the task at hand.

So when in our education we are confronted with a paradigm of "newness" for the sake of evolving the art-form of music, what are we asking of ourselves? Are we to turn a blind eye to the traditions on which music grew to form the ocean of colorful sounds and ingenuity in its manipulation that brought forth the masterworks we admire and look towards for our inspiration? Or are we to ignore what is "new" in genre or technique for the sake of continuing the traditions we hold in the highest esteem?

It is only fitting to believe a middle ground exists, a balance of tradition and ingenuity, for music can only grow when it branches out from its root, lest it be swept up in a whirlwind to be left stranded alone in a desert. What in music is so valuable to us that we would leave behind a tradition so grand in scope to simply reinvent music in a sound space befitting only that which encourages the calculative process? I believe this is where modernism, at least in theoretical design, fails to grow beyond its own rebellious intent (keeping in mind that this "rebellious" attitude developed many years after the deaths of the greats and should not be credited to them specifically). How can a flower rise above a field to receive sunlight without roots from which to receive nutrients from the water in the soil?

The metaphor illustrates this modern condition of music, that without rooted-ness, we as artisans and craftsmen will only hope to achieve but may never resolve to do what our predecessors endeavored to set as a framework for our time. Not only do we learn in music the ingenuity and the creative spark of the master of his craft, but we learn to follow the path traveled by the composer that led to this new insight. It is in this important way that we learn how to appreciate a work of art in music.

What, then, are we to hold on to as composers of this Modern age? The pendulum swings in both directions in such a way that when history becomes our judge, we can only justify our choices by following our essential being, our humanistic belief that what we choose to reproduce in sound has a purpose beyond what is merely new to music. It must be what is true to our own being, and in this important way, every work of every composer will one day hopefully be understood to be truly unique.

I welcome comments and discussion.

-AA

I think that I'm in agreement with Babbitt but there are a few issues I dissagree...

I was educated mostly in Greece for the most part of my life and later on, deepened my relationship with composition in London, to a PhD level. I have to say that the Greek education system, relies heavily on learning the historical 'facts' and 'knowledge' and moving further. In order to study composition you need to have a diploma in harmony, one in countepoint and one in fugue! (for gently caresses shake! :D). So the potential composer has very strong roots in classical education before even beginning studying composition.

On the other side, in London, at a postgraduate level, however, I was constantly facing analysing new works by composers, of the 20th or 21st century even! Since I've had my classical education almost done, it didn't bother me, but I can see how other composers in my class, or other composers at PhD level might be faced with only the 'straggle of the new', as opposed to... creating music maybe.

One thing that is important to remember is that academia, traditionally, and by default, belongs to education and nowhere else. Academies are in fact schools. They may produce rules, or guides, but I can't say that I find it 'valid' to produce art. Especially since, being caught up in the academic field which deals with research heavily, one can lose focus. Very much so. Or develope autism (in the sense, of not giving shite to what the audience or even his peers think), or on the contrary schizofrenia (in the sense of having to deal with multiple 'personalities' and filters in music).

The idea is certainly to be 'educated' and avoid being ignorant I think! This is what I teach my students in the university (the few that I've had in the recent past, anyways). You don't go to college/conservatory/university in order to do as you please, but in order to educate yourself and then, being knoledgable, to make a more... standing choice in your life. I have to say that seeing 18 year olds, entering 1st year on the university and feeling ready to make a choice that "I don't like contemporary music - PERIOD" or "I want to be a film composer, I can write good melodies.", makes me uneasy. Why on earth did these persons go to the university in the first place?

Anyways, I also had some time to kill, so... here are my thoughts...

Very nice thread, btw, from someone who appears to dislike atonality! :D

I definitely disagree with some of Babbitt's more radical views on music, specifically the belief that music should be composed for the sake of academia. Now, with that opinion aside, I really do admire and enjoy Milton Babbitt's music. In fact, one of my teachers studied with him at Princeton. However, not all contemporary aesthetes (associated with the composition of atonal music) share the same views as Babbitt. Many composers, both living in dead, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries (including Arnold Schoenberg) have espoused the viewpoint that (free) atonality is the natural continuation of the romantic style of music, but eventually the need for a set procedural structure pushed composers of atonal music to use serialism. Some composers abandoned the triadic system all together, but others, such as Alban Berg and Paul Hindemith integrated triadic harmonies into both free and serialized atonality. Have you ever heard the Berg Violin Concerto? Listen to the last movement- a beautiful example of serialized, triadic atonality. I think you'd like it, antiatonality.

On this concept of "newness," I think we all can agree on one thing- that it is OK to draw upon earlier forms for inspiration, or guidance and perhaps even utilize them in a way which integrates elements of music of our age, with music of the past. Now, there is LOTS of "new" tonal music being composed right now, but what makes it new is its utilization of tonality, just as Alban Berg's use of serlialism is new, or innovative.

AA:

Well written OP there, good work. But, there are a bunch of problems with what you're saying.

First, you assume that the reason the traditions are holding much less ground now than before is due to "rebellion" from modern composers. This is in fact, specially by people like Schoenberg, wrong. Schoenberg, as many other composers, ventured into what we call "modern" ideology because the body of evidence, in their opinion, left them no choice.

It's an error to believe that atonality came because it was in any way, shape or form created against tonality. It was conceived as the "natural conclusion" of tonality reaching its absolute limit during the late romantic and early modern (expressionist) period.

Indeed, because of this, atonality according to Schoenberg falls directly in line with traditional tonality and is NOT to be considered "against" the tradition but much rather "the next step" of the very same tradition. Likewise, his pieces draw heavily from Wagner and Mahler, and have principles drawn directly from tradition. It's not hard to see the same elements of tonal music appearing again and again in atonal music of this sort.

Take the french, for example. If you follow the, say, tradition of organ music in France from Franck to Vierne to Messiaen, there is a VERY clear line followed and it would be absurd to say Messiaen's music could have come to be without the traditions of his culture imposing their influence on him. Likewise with Debussy, Ravel (and to a lesser, weirder extent, Satie.)

Then we have Hindemith, Bartok, Durufle and Stravinsky, for example, who very much interpreted and worked with traditional ideas for the majority of their life. Of course, that's the entire idea of the neo-classical/neo-romantic period in the modern.

So, as the evidence points out, modern music as a whole can't exist without tradition, and it certainly wouldn't have come to be without it. I see a single time-line, rather than the divisional approach you use. I wouldn't accuse Schoenberg's atonality of trying to rebel against tradition any more than I would accuse Mozart's last pieces of going against the Vienna Classic style in favor of the old baroque or almost inventing the romantic idioms.

There's no real reason to draw a division, historically. Therefore, since such divisions are unnecessary, it's completely reasonable to say that there IS no such problem as deciding between tradition and modern aesthetics since both are entirely compatible.

So, no, I would say that BECAUSE of all the influence tradition holds on modern idioms and techniques, it would be recommended still to study music history. How are you to understand Cage's intentions with his Sonatas for prepare piano, or Berio's Sequenzas, without knowing history and the tradition they drew from? Even in the study of modern music history plays a HUGE role and it shouldn't ever be underestimated.

Concerning the pedagogic argument, I'm in favor of not forcing any particular curriculum onto students, as it will always fail to be inclusive enough to be effective and it can generate bias. Music education, to be as inclusive as it should be in all the styles and things, would mean the curriculum would have to be gigantic.

We have to consider first of all how to split the specializations. Clearly a musicologist has to know EVERYTHING, modern, traditional and everything in between. For them it's expected to whip up historical recreations as well as have good grasps on modern literature. But what about performers, or people who aren't into music as a "science" so to speak?

If everyone that studied music aimed to be a musicologist, surely the main outlook of education would look very different. However, the truth is that it is very likely that the majority of the people who engage in musical education are not in it for the musicology side of things. Institutions attempt to introduce a "balanced" education, including theory despite the specialization chosen. Though, fundamentally, this always falls short. It can vary from institution to institution, but it's entirely reasonable that someone who wants to specialize in performance isn't expected to give seminars on modern art history.

The way the institutions narrow down the curriculum to "the essential" is always a topic of argument, since there clearly is no real, objective, essential body knowledge any musician must have. It is either everything, or nothing.

I'm not talking about the ORDER (though that is also problematic) in which things are taught, but what exactly is taught and considered important. The only reason studies of modern techniques are not part of the "general curriculum" in most institutions is purely on the basis of statistics (thus, taste.) It's simple: to make a buck, it's much better to teach what people think is important, than the actual truth which is that there is no "more important" musical subject than any given other.

A young person going to learn music at any given institution, would probably panic if they simply told him "Well, you have to learn everything. Ever." Including composition, all musicology fields, etc. Clearly, that's not practical.

Obviously, given the way institutions work it's very unlikely that this will be fixed or improved. The best they can do is just cater to the bigger audience and attempt to teach what isn't exactly the most popular to the specialists of those areas (such as musicologists, historians, etc.)

So, overall, I'd warn against raising walls between "tradition" and "modern" music, as there is no real evidence of any separation as far as composers' own works, opinions and history are concerned. Sure, Schoenberg doesn't sound like Mozart, but neither does P

I think that I'm in agreement with Babbitt but there are a few issues I disagree...

I was educated mostly in Greece for the most part of my life and later on, deepened my relationship with composition in London, to a PhD level. I have to say that the Greek education system, relies heavily on learning the historical 'facts' and 'knowledge' and moving further. In order to study composition you need to have a diploma in harmony, one in counterpoint and one in fugue! (for gently caresses shake! :D). So the potential composer has very strong roots in classical education before even beginning studying composition.

On the other side, in London, at a postgraduate level, however, I was constantly facing analyzing new works by composers, of the 20th or 21st century even! Since I've had my classical education almost done, it didn't bother me, but I can see how other composers in my class, or other composers at PhD level might be faced with only the 'straggle of the new', as opposed to... creating music maybe.

Yeah, the grass is always greener on the other side... sorta.

One thing that is important to remember is that academia, traditionally, and by default, belongs to education and nowhere else. Academies are in fact schools. They may produce rules, or guides, but I can't say that I find it 'valid' to produce art. Especially since, being caught up in the academic field which deals with research heavily, one can lose focus. Very much so. Or develop autism (in the sense, of not giving a shite to what the audience or even his peers think), or on the contrary schizophrenia (in the sense of having to deal with multiple 'personalities' and filters in music).

Perhaps the nomenclature I'm using is a bit elementary. When I speak of producing, I am referencing the simple, creative act of composing. It seems to me that kind of boils down to an argument of semantics over producing vs creating. From an industry standpoint, sure, we can see this distinction. On the broader whole, the acts are one in the same, but I see what you mean.

The autistic and schizophrenic polarities of musical personality have been around for a while. I don't think I'm advocating a simple solution for these two conditions in the learning process, but if I'm showing a tendency to lean in one direction, I'm willing to admit I prefer a good tonal work to a scrafty contemporary work any day of the week (and twice on Sundays). It makes no sense to think that a student composer will learn to adapt to the changes in the musical archetype without a thorough understanding of the traditional system, even if the harmonic languages have nothing to do with one another.

Until the time comes that the contemporary genre that's out there reveals itself to be thoroughly rooted in the principles upon which music grew and developed, how can we justify passing on an established genre of traditional music that provides thorough insight into the creation of music? At least for me, you lose a great deal of appreciation for the principles and sooner or later do away with them altogether. Then what do you have? Well-established theory based on a body of literature? Not necessarily. You have a broken system and a weakened musical culture.

The idea is certainly to be 'educated' and avoid being ignorant I think! This is what I teach my students in the university (the few that I've had in the recent past, anyways). You don't go to college/conservatory/university in order to do as you please, but in order to educate yourself and then, being knoledgable, to make a more... standing choice in your life. I have to say that seeing 18 year olds, entering 1st year on the university and feeling ready to make a choice that "I don't like contemporary music - PERIOD" or "I want to be a film composer, I can write good melodies.", makes me uneasy. Why on earth did these persons go to the university in the first place?

For the same reason the inquisitive come to universities... to learn the knowledge they need to hone their craft and develop their art (again, we can go into semantics on this, but I prefer not to if that's ok with ya :) ). That's exactly what I wanted to do when I went into college, and I didn't have a lot of money or I would have flown across the U.S. to L.A. and learned about it. But I got more than I ever needed and now feel as though I'll have to spend an eternity trying to "find" myself again.

But more to the point, the reference I make to the University system is not necessarily a shot at them from the present. It's more of a look to the future. My point is that with the modern age consuming the world, the Liberal Arts are threatened externally more as the years go by and more emphasis is placed on technical degrees that prepare you for the job market (where a music education rarely focuses on this aspect). But more importantly, the Music Arts have seen shifts internally as well, as we all seem to feel as though we're trying to find our own "side" if you will. It's an unfortunate reality that we spend semesters at a time debating amongst one another on what is and is not worthwhile as a musical pursuit in composition (be it contemporary tonal, atonal, serial, impressionist, neo-tonal, etc.). All become very thin branches of a tree with a decaying trunk as we begin to forget about the art of simple harmony, counterpoint, and fugue writing. We don't learn these to promote them. We learn them because they teach us something about music that echos through other genres.

Anyways, I also had some time to kill, so... here are my thoughts...

Very nice thread, btw, from someone who appears to dislike atonality! :D

Well, I don't necessarily "dislike" atonality. I've shared this anecdote with some folks in the shoutcast on the forum. During my senior year of undergrad, I opted out of the 18th and 19th century analysis to learn about Jazz harmony (I figured John Williams was considerably influenced by Jazz, so it couldn't hurt to learn what he knew). Turns out, we explored just about every jazz chord in the book and I had this epiphany of sorts... you can rearrange any atonal or serial harmony and create some kind of Jazz chord. There was essentially no pitch you couldn't use in a chord extension to create color.

So, I approached my professor with this... I asked if this was true. He said, "Well, yes, that's true." And with a quick bit of wit, I spouted off, "So, atonal harmony is really just poorly voiced jazz harmony?" He paused. He thought. He thought some more... and he said, "You know, I never really thought of it like that, but I guess you could think of it that way." And I sort of do to an extent.

I just think atonal music is a waste of colorful harmonies. When I hear the work of Berg, for instance, I hear the principles of composition and I admire his work because there is cohesion to the work in how the pitch content moves and reacts within the work. I don't get that at all with highly avant garde, contemporary music today. What I hear today is so often stripped of nearly everything I ever loved about music, and it's not even the language that I have a problem with.

It's like a stoner poet reciting some street-beat, philosophical rubbish in Klingon. Sorry, I just can't say there's much to appreciate about it.

"So, atonal harmony is really just poorly voiced jazz harmony?"

Oranges are really poorly made apples.

...

Obvious bias is obvious.

PS: I do hope that you reply to what I said in my other post, since it also applies for your reply to Niko there.

Oranges are really poorly made apples.

...

Obvious bias is obvious.

PS: I do hope that you reply to what I said in my other post, since it also applies for your reply to Niko there.

I've been replying, actually. Before you read further, just know that if I wasn't married, I'd totally hit on you because I think you're very cute (in the sense that you are attractive - it's a compliment, don't take that the wrong way). That being said, I hope you don't take offense to my response.

I would encourage you to go back and READ my OP before you reply. You might find some of the things I'm talking about and how they are implied in my writing.

To your benefit, though, I must admit that my writing can be a bit confusing. I try to balance detail with brevity and it doesn't always work. So, just keep that in mind in reviewing my comments.

AA:

Well written OP there, good work. But, there are a bunch of problems with what you're saying.

Well, there are generally going to be problems when the content is misinterpreted. I'm pretty sure you're about to misinterpret a LOT of what I have stated.

First, you assume that the reason the traditions are holding much less ground now than before is due to "rebellion" from modern composers. This is in fact, especially by people like Schoenberg, wrong. Schoenberg, as many other composers, ventured into what we call "modern" ideology because the body of evidence, in their opinion, left them no choice.

It's an error to believe that atonality came because it was in any way, shape or form created against tonality. It was conceived as the "natural conclusion" of tonality reaching its absolute limit during the late romantic and early modern (expressionist) period...

No, my belief in all of this has little to do with rebellion on the part of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky, or even some of the composers of today's contemporary literature. The "rebellious" nature developed in light of antagonism against the avant garde of the middle part of the century (which if you pay close attention, I reference by introducing the entire topic with Babbitt, who tends to embody this philosophical shift).

And even if this rebellious attitude doesn't permeate from the antagonism of that particular period of time, there is a tendency for this music to be more appealing to the academic community because of this understanding of "freedom" from a finite system that is not at all finite in design. More on that later.

There's no real reason to draw a division, historically. Therefore, since such divisions are unnecessary, it's completely reasonable to say that there IS no such problem as deciding between tradition and modern aesthetics since both are entirely compatible.

So, no, I would say that BECAUSE of all the influence tradition holds on modern idioms and techniques, it would be recommended still to study music history. How are you to understand Cage's intentions with his Sonatas for prepare piano, or Berio's Sequenzas, without knowing history and the tradition they drew from? Even in the study of modern music history plays a HUGE role and it shouldn't ever be underestimated.

This misunderstanding has led to another large misrepresentation of my opinion on this. My argument is not about whether this genre of music follows the principles of traditional music. At this point in time, it must for us to adequately include it in the pedagogy to teach it. But when I hear of arguments for eliminating the tonal curriculum of music theory (pervasive in some of the beliefs of my peers at various institutions I've visited and attended), I cringe. I am simply attempting to explain why this temptation exists as a result of the onset of the modern age and its impact on music in academic study.

...

Obviously, given the way institutions work it's very unlikely that this will be fixed or improved. The best they can do is just cater to the bigger audience and attempt to teach what isn't exactly the most popular to the specialists of those areas (such as musicologists, historians, etc.)

This almost veers us into a ditch. Let's simplify, shall we?

First, consider the narrative as you understand it. We had Bach, and Bach begat Beethoven, who begat Wagner, who begat Schoenberg, who begat some of the first modern music. Ok, we get it. Tell me. How long do YOU think this narrative has existed in music curricula? I can tell you from my own research into this very topic that it only developed over the last 25-35 years. Now, you tell me what YOU think is going to happen to the curricula of music if this narrative follows a logical sequence over time.

I can tell you what I THINK could happen. In 100 years, this period of music history could very easily fade into the pre-medieval priority if we do not consider, at least for now, what we are allowing to happen with the onset of Modernity in music. It doesn't have to be a "bad" thing, but I for one would like to leave a lasting echo in the literature in my lifetime. But if what I fear could become of music if we continue to filter this evolutionary model throughout the universe of music. The schism that results is nothing more than a survival of the fittest. What survives will be determined by the values we hold on to.

Now, unless you want your great, great grandchildren to never know the beauty that is Tristan or the greatness of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, then it might benefit us to consider the importance of what otherwise seems remedial to those of us with a value for the "new" and "contemporary."

So, overall, I'd warn against raising walls between "tradition" and "modern" music, as there is no real evidence of any separation as far as composers' own works, opinions and history are concerned. Sure, Schoenberg doesn't sound like Mozart, but neither does P

I think everyone is biased, across virtually all disciplines, but especially in music (due to its inherently subjective nature). This can make open-mindedness a sticking point. It's a bit like breaking up with a long-term partner, or having to say goodbye to a close friend for a long period of time. Clearly, there could be people out there who are more suited to you than them - better "objective matches". But do you care? Are you open-minded in that regard? No, you're not. And who can blame you?

At the extreme, one side touts the objective importance of their subjective preferences, which in my view earn validity purely by the very virtue of their existence, and the other touts the importance of objectivity in itself. There is nothing wrong with either of those perspectives, they're just different, and it links in with the simple fact that people are different. To each his own, no?

And of course, what's subjective is liable to change, although I've discovered quite recently that many of my musical preferences now can be traced back to personally "seminal" works I first listened to over a decade ago. I realised these had been regularly playing on my inner ear's musical rotation when I re-heard them the other week for the first time in years. It was quite remarkable.

Anyway, most fundamentally, I think we require all kinds of composers - the ones who are interested in avant garde experimentation, the destruction of assumptions and comfort zones, along with the ones who make it their mission to get in touch with the vernacular and use music to communicate with people on a primal, culturally underpinned level. And of course, all of the in-betweens! Seriously, aside from "trickling mountain stream" contrasted with "air horn 2 inches from ear", I think the only objective thing that can reasonably be asserted about music is that it isn't objective.

As some of you have said, academia is one thing, and composer is another one altogether. Care what should care the former, the creator is self-centered, independent from the academia in the way that he/she doesn't do what he does but for himself, just for the need to do it.

This said, the discussion about old and new... is such a big mess. How would I explain myself. Willful blindness towards our historical baggage is for me, at first sight, incomprehensible. Its like having a chest full of treasures in front of you and bury it back. After deeper thought, that blindness is simply non-existent, an imposible concept. Whether you like it or not, you're rooted in that tradition, full stop.

That distinction, furthermore, between traditional and contemporary is too much displaced. I've discuss this with many people over and over: Schoenberg & company's atonality is as "old", "traditional", "obsolete", or whatever you want to call it, as master Beethoven's symphonies. The same for Cage or whoever you want to mention. If you want to make a distinction, you can only make it between what's been written and what it is being written today. Then writing atonal or concr

And it relates so much more to our education in music. Though I don't believe it was ever Milton Babbitt or Arnold Schoenberg who intended for the historical study of music to ever become threatened, their endeavors to follow their own voice and create something unique have truly led to something I believe truly threatens music at its core. I speak of our loss of rooted-ness, our autochthony according to Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher and poet. When Heidegger speaks of the type of thinking inherent in the Modern age, he speaks of calculative thought, thinking that removes the humanistic element, the catalyst of our own creation. He argues for a movement back towards meditative thinking, which does not compute solely for the purpose of solving the task at hand.

So when in our education we are confronted with a paradigm of "newness" for the sake of evolving the art-form of music, what are we asking of ourselves? Are we to turn a blind eye to the traditions on which music grew to form the ocean of colorful sounds and ingenuity in its manipulation that brought forth the masterworks we admire and look towards for our inspiration? Or are we to ignore what is "new" in genre or technique for the sake of continuing the traditions we hold in the highest esteem?

It is only fitting to believe a middle ground exists, a balance of tradition and ingenuity, for music can only grow when it branches out from its root, lest it be swept up in a whirlwind to be left stranded alone in a desert. What in music is so valuable to us that we would leave behind a tradition so grand in scope to simply reinvent music in a sound space befitting only that which encourages the calculative process? I believe this is where modernism, at least in theoretical design, fails to grow beyond its own rebellious intent. How can a flower rise above a field to receive sunlight without roots from which to receive nutrients from the water in the soil?

The metaphor illustrates this modern condition of music, that without rooted-ness, we as artisans and craftsmen will only hope to achieve but may never resolve to do what our predecessors endeavored to set as a framework for our time. Not only do we learn in music the ingenuity and the creative spark of the master of his craft, but we learn to follow the path traveled by the composer that led to this new insight. It is in this important way that we learn how to appreciate a work of art in music.

What, then, are we to hold on to as composers of this Modern age? The pendulum swings in both directions in such a way that when history becomes our judge, we can only justify our choices by following our essential being, our humanistic belief that what we choose to reproduce in sound has a purpose beyond what is merely new to music. It must be what is true to our own being, and in this important way, every work of every composer will one day hopefully be understood to be truly unique.

I welcome comments and discussion.

-AA

The autistic and schizophrenic polarities of musical personality have been around for a while. I don't think I'm advocating a simple solution for these two conditions in the learning process, but if I'm showing a tendency to lean in one direction, I'm willing to admit I prefer a good tonal work to a scrafty contemporary work any day of the week (and twice on Sundays). It makes no sense to think that a student composer will learn to adapt to the changes in the musical archetype without a thorough understanding of the traditional system, even if the harmonic languages have nothing to do with one another.

Until the time comes that the contemporary genre that's out there reveals itself to be thoroughly rooted in the principles upon which music grew and developed, how can we justify passing on an established genre of traditional music that provides thorough insight into the creation of music? At least for me, you lose a great deal of appreciation for the principles and sooner or later do away with them altogether. Then what do you have? Well-established theory based on a body of literature? Not necessarily. You have a broken system and a weakened musical culture.

It's an unfortunate reality that we spend semesters at a time debating amongst one another on what is and is not worthwhile as a musical pursuit in composition (be it contemporary tonal, atonal, serial, impressionist, neo-tonal, etc.). All become very thin branches of a tree with a decaying trunk as we begin to forget about the art of simple harmony, counterpoint, and fugue writing. We don't learn these to promote them. We learn them because they teach us something about music that echos through other genres.

I just think atonal music is a waste of colorful harmonies. When I hear the work of Berg, for instance, I hear the principles of composition and I admire his work because there is cohesion to the work in how the pitch content moves and reacts within the work. I don't get that at all with highly avant garde, contemporary music today. What I hear today is so often stripped of nearly everything I ever loved about music, and it's not even the language that I have a problem with.

It's like a stoner poet reciting some street-beat, philosophical rubbish in Klingon. Sorry, I just can't say there's much to appreciate about it.

The parts in bold. How am I supposed to interpret them?

Because, well, jeesh. It's not like you aren't bluntly obvious about your stance and how/why you got there. But, well, if you don't know how to write, or you don't write what you mean, then it's really not my fault is it.

I don't think I misunderstood your point at all. How can you claim the things you claim in the face of clear evidence of the opposite?

Just to take ONE of the things, again:

"The metaphor illustrates this modern condition of music, that without rooted-ness, we as artisans and craftsmen will only hope to achieve but may never resolve to do what our predecessors endeavored to set as a framework for our time."

This assumes that a GREAT DEAL of modern music isn't founded on traditional ideas/etc etc/bla. Which FLIES in the face of post-modernism, pluralism and just about the half of the music written in the 20th century.

ETC.

At this point, I don't know what the hell you mean or what you intend. I just see what you wrote and based on the stuff I've put in bold, I drew my conclusions. Very heavy-handed bias is very easy to spot, mind. I'm not putting anything "in your mouth", you wrote it all yourself.

So, explain yourself and what your points are because at this rate I'm not going to waste my time trying to reply to something that is written in such way that it's very difficult to know what your point is.

That distinction, furthermore, between traditional and contemporary is too much displaced. I've discuss this with many people over and over: Schoenberg & company's atonality is as "old", "traditional", "obsolete", or whatever you want to call it, as master Beethoven's symphonies. The same for Cage or whoever you want to mention. If you want to make a distinction, you can only make it between what's been written and what it is being written today. Then writing atonal or concr

At this point, I don't know what the hell you mean or what you intend. I just see what you wrote and based on the stuff I've put in bold, I drew my conclusions. Very heavy-handed bias is very easy to spot, mind. I'm not putting anything "in your mouth", you wrote it all yourself.

So, explain yourself and what your points are because at this rate I'm not going to waste my time trying to reply to something that is written in such way that it's very difficult to know what your point is.

Ok, SSC. Tell me how you get the impression that the music of Cage, Babbitt, Feldman, Boulez, or any number of a thousand other composers of contemporary music even come remotely close to the principles found in traditional music. They intentionally explore ways in which to do away with perceptual form, functional harmony, and sound melodic structure. For all intent and purpose, these composers are just a small number of a larger collection of the avant garde tradition who make every attempt in their writing and their philosophy to disconnect themselves from the common practice entirely.

You must have a very strong urge to hate me right now for how I seem to "misunderstand" the history behind this music and ignorantly type some pedantic insinuations about the state of contemporary music. Unfortunately, there's not much I can say to assuage your frustration. What I can say is that my interpretation is genuinely based on what I perceive to be a thoroughly DIVIDING attitude from this point in history. I emphatically reemphasize that you absorb my perspective on this before taking me to the woodshed.

P.S. From what you highlighted in bold, it does not appear you have absorbed my argument. For example, the very essence of the position is the emphasis we tend to place on "newness" in music.

These arguments pop up every now and then on this forum... and I generally realize more and more that it is just best.. not to care.

Sadly true.

Ok, SSC. Tell me how you get the impression that the music of Cage, Babbitt, Feldman, Boulez, or any number of a thousand other composers of contemporary music even come remotely close to the principles found in traditional music.

See now, that's exactly my point. That YOU don't see the connections is precisely why this bothers me.

What connections? Well, damn, I think I've mentioned QUITE A FEW before. That there are composers that strive to NOT have connections to tradition, is undeniable. But that there are just as many that (like Schnittke, Gorecki, Reich, Cage, P

See now, that's exactly my point. That YOU don't see the connections is precisely why this bothers me.

...

Sure, ok, it's not C major chords and 4/4 rhythm, but it is the past. It is history and it affects the modern world just the same. Isn't that the idea?

I think the problem here is that you don't accept the above examples as ways that tradition is still alive and kicking because, probably, you'd rather people write historical recreations. Or?

PS: Newness in music? Eh?

Wow, so I read all of that to come back to a simple, subjective objection. See, what you and I see as "relating to tradition" are entirely different, and you make many, MANY assumptions about my views that just aren't there in my text. Sure, I admit an obvious bias, but that bias doesn't necessarily prevent me from enjoying many works of the 20th century.

You can probably rationalize a relationship between Cage and Beethoven by some tricky, high-level analysis. Aurally, it falls apart. Am I advocating that we compose like Beethoven? Hell no! Wagner? No. Both of them combined? Hmm.. maybe... add some of Hindemith and we might have something to work with. You would have someone believe that the negation of the common-practice RELATES to musical tradition. I call SHENNANNIGANS!!

Doesn't it always come back to the question, "Oh, so you prefer to live in the stone age writing historical recreations?" It's a laughable question to me, a testament to how we tend to think today - "If you're not with us, than you're... against.. us.? No! You're living in the PAST!! Forget YOU!" No further response is necessary.

Thank you for your comments.

Wow, so I read all of that to come back to a simple, subjective objection. See, what you and I see as "relating to tradition" are entirely different, and you make many, MANY assumptions about my views that just aren't there in my text. Sure, I admit an obvious bias, but that bias doesn't necessarily prevent me from enjoying many works of the 20th century.

You can probably rationalize a relationship between Cage and Beethoven by some tricky, high-level analysis. Aurally, it falls apart. Am I advocating that we compose like Beethoven? Hell no! Wagner? No. Both of them combined? Hmm.. maybe... add some of Hindemith and we might have something to work with. You would have someone believe that the negation of the common-practice RELATES to musical tradition. I call SHENNANNIGANS!!

Doesn't it always come back to the question, "Oh, so you prefer to live in the stone age writing historical recreations?" It's a laughable question to me, a testament to how we tend to think today - "If you're not with us, than you're... against.. us.? No! You're living in the PAST!! Forget YOU!" No further response is necessary.

Thank you for your comments.

It was just a question. You could've just said "no." :>

In any case, I'm simply asking if you understand my point. Plus, the relation IS THERE, even if you don't care to see it or don't WANT to see it. It's not "some tricky, high-level analysis" like you think, they are all very basic FACTS (audible too, in the case with Berio and Cage!)

If you want to antagonize me that's fine and dandy, but please do study more if you think what I just said was "some tricky, high-level analysis." Because, scraggy, I thought this was a high-level discussion.

I'm not sure what you mean by modern music. Do you mean music rooted in modernism or postmodernism? There is a big difference between the two. Boulez and Cage come from a different tradition than Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, and Mahler. The latter believe that music can be used to improve society and has meaning outside of its form; the former think the thirteenth harmonic is just as good as the third. I would defend the latter without defending the former.

It was just a question. You could've just said "no." :>

In any case, I'm simply asking if you understand my point. Plus, the relation IS THERE, even if you don't care to see it or don't WANT to see it. It's not "some tricky, high-level analysis" like you think, they are all very basic FACTS (audible too, in the case with Berio and Cage!)

I don't want to just see the relationships... I need to hear them (and many MORE relationships to many OTHER composers from different periods. See, you can sit and listen to a piece for, oh, I don't know, an eternity, then point and say, "Oh! Oh! Oh! Did you hear that?! That was Beethoven!" Oh, goodie, because I've been waiting for a while now...

But it's nothing compared to the improvement upon a language that has existed for centuries. It's difficult to form many obvious connections unless you mix languages, let alone to truly relate to an entire tradition without USING and BUILDING ON its language.

If you want to antagonize me that's fine and dandy, but please do study more if you think what I just said was "some tricky, high-level analysis." Because, scraggy, I thought this was a high-level discussion.

Ok, prove the relationships without a visual analysis (this is rhetorical, see above). Aurally, you don't stand a chance in hell of convincing us that such relationships exist between two completely different languages of music without employing extensive analysis.

This is a high-level discussion. It is also a rational discussion, and I have yet to find a rational individual who can actually establish a connection without manufacturing some kind of analytical plethora to translate between both languages. Sorry. Prove it convincingly without analysis and I'll consider it.

Ok, prove the relationships without a visual analysis (this is rhetorical, see above). Aurally, you don't stand a chance in hell of convincing us that such relationships exist between two completely different languages of music without employing extensive analysis.

This is a high-level discussion. It is also a rational discussion, and I have yet to find a rational individual who can actually establish a connection without manufacturing some kind of analytical plethora to translate between both languages. Sorry. Prove it convincingly without analysis and I'll consider it.

.... LOL!

Oh this just went into comedy territory.

Ask a physicist to provide proof of any given theory without a formula/equation/mathematical proof, etc. Ask a historian to provide proof of a given fact without establishing the context/analysis of what leads up to the educated conclusion which established that fact, as a fact.

Same here.

It's all pretty much based on evidence. There are SOME CASES where the evidence is hard to interpret accurately and there are cases where musicologists still discuss X or Y issues because it's really hard to get it "right" entirely.

Let me put it real simple:

"Prove it convincingly without analysis and I'll consider it."

What do you think analysis are for?

Very high-level, indeed.

I can prove that 2+2=4 without any kind of complex mathematical analysis. Take two things, then take two more things, put them together, and now you have 4 things.

Trying to make these connections without being able to provide obvious evidence and support (what is more obvious than an aural example, I mean, COME ON?!) just leads to erroneous conclusions. Thanks, but no thanks.

I can prove that 2+2=4. Take two things, then take two more things, put them together, and now you have 4 things.

Trying to make these connections without being able to provide obvious evidence and support (what is more obvious than an aural example, I mean, COME ON?!) just leads to erroneous conclusions. Thanks, but no thanks.

Do I need to actually hear Ligeti's requiem to know that it is, indeed, a requiem? That it has an obvious relation to the tradition of requiem-writing? Of course not. I can just look at the names he uses, and the text, and that's all. The relation is obvious and clear as day.

I rest my case.

Do I need to actually hear Ligeti's requiem to know that it is, indeed, a requiem? That it has an obvious relation to the tradition of requiem-writing? Of course not. I can just look at the names he uses, and the text, and that's all. The relation is obvious and clear as day.

I rest my case.

Do that for Cage. Feldman. Carter.

I can name dozens of well-known, if not INFAMOUS composers that you cannot do that for but we still give credence to their "success" for pushing some philosophical musical idealism with NO relationship at all to tradition.

See, this is what I don't get... you refuse to believe this dividing line exists among composers of this century. You refuse to account for the well-known 20th-century composers I mention. Instead you go back to Schoenberg, Ligeti, Stravinsky, and a plethora (I REALLY like that word) of lesser-known composers to support this counter-argument that no such division exists in our recent music history.

I'll give you a couple more composers, Varese and Stockhausen, to add to the mix. Pick a few at random and tell me how you hear anything remotely CLOSE to our tradition of music. Then tell me how it works for you to have a student study ONLY the musical style of these composers to gain at least enough knowledge about music to be able to pass it on to future generations. Tell me nothing gets lost in that two, maybe three generations down the road.

THIS is my POINT!

...and i rest MY case... thank you very much

Do that for Cage. Feldman. Carter.

I can name dozens of well-known, if not INFAMOUS composers that you cannot do that for but we still give credence to their "success" for pushing some philosophical musical idealism with NO relationship at all to tradition.

See, this is what I don't get... you refuse to believe this dividing line exists among composers of this century. You refuse to account for the well-known 20th-century composers I mention. Instead you go back to Schoenberg, Ligeti, Stravinsky, and a plethora (I REALLY like that word) of lesser-known composers to support this counter-argument that no such division exists in our recent music history.

I'll give you a couple more composers, Varese and Stockhausen, to add to the mix. Pick a few at random and tell me how you hear anything remotely CLOSE to our tradition of music. Then tell me how it works for you to have a student study ONLY the music of these composers to gain at least enough knowledge about music to be able to pass it on to future generations. Tell me nothing gets lost in all of that.

THIS is my POINT!

...i rest MY case... thank you very much

K, I already did so with Cage's sonatas, unless you missed it.

But anyways, see, my example with Ligeti was a tiny simple analysis. Why did you accept it? After all, Ligeti's requiem DOESN'T SOUND like, uh, Verdi's! So, according to you, the MOST OBVIOUS evidence should be against it being a requiem.

I'm simply proposing that just like there are some composers that support the argument of division, there are just as many (and probably many more) that don't. That they're "lesser known" means jack scraggy, they're composers and they're contemporary to us. Period.

And, uh, I totally already went into the argument of musical education and curriculum. You should go back and read that, because I totally think history and scraggy is important.

Anyways, my job isn't to teach you music history or analysis, or any of this. If you want to know how Carter, Feldman, Stockhausen or Boulez relate or don't relate to tradition, and how, you go and figure it out. I've given more than enough examples to shoot holes in your argument. Enough so that the best thing you can say is that what matters now is popularity.

Cuz really, nobody has heard of Schnittke, Arvo P

@Antiatonality

I think SCC is just made cause you were hitting on her ;)

...

"I can prove that 2+2=4 without any kind of complex mathematical analysis. Take two things, then take two more things, put them together, and now you have 4 things."

[\Quote]

Um, actually that's not true. Even to prove 1+1 = 2 is a very deep theorem(and theory built up for it) in mathematics and even most post-doc's do not understand. (look up Russel and Whitehead. Here's an excerpt from a simple google search:

Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica is famous for taking a thousand pages to prove that 1+1=2.)

Just to say what you said is not a mathematical prove and involves very little analysis. You are just making an observation. You do not use any properties of numbers, any definitions of numbers, or any mathematical structure except what you know by intuition.

About the musical part of the discussion I have no idea cause I haven't been following along but I have to agree with SCC with what little I have read.

Although "...because I totally think history and scraggy is important." I'm not sure of... I mean, I'm sure scraggy is important but it sounds kinda nasty and I'd like to not think about it.

Anyways, I'm not really sure what your asking but it seems you are trying to philosophize music instead of compose it. I doubt any of the great composers spent to much time on the social, historical, and philosophical ramifications of what they might compose as they just composed what they felt. (although they might have had some desire for it to impact humanity in some great way I doubt they tried to understand how it might)

Anyways, I think SCC is essentially saying that those composers that are "Anti-tradition" still must be viewed in terms of tradition(or better, history) and with this I completely agree. Life is nothing but causality run-a-muck. Even though you might want to simplify things by analyzing it in a vacuum you truly never understand it without its true context. (you have to simplify to understand but you cannot oversimplify which I think is what your trying to do)

-------

You seriously think there was a dividing line? If you do you have a real misconception with reality. You don't realize that you have the ability(a gift in some sense) to look upon history and see it at once. You may think there are clear dividing lines because you learned it that way but it definitely is not.

An analogy would be 911. Maybe 20 years from now someone will think that 911 just happened out of the blue. That it came about very quickly and seemed like a "dividing line" when in fact it was just a causal event due to a plethora of others. These so called dividing lines only seem that way cause that is when the "scraggy hits the fan" type of think(sorta when all these smaller events culminate into a large event and over time we forget the how it all relates).

There are many examples like this. Bach is considered one of the great's but was he always like this? If not then where is the dividing line?

One way to think about it is that as we get farther away in time, the event's in question coalescent into a larger event and those smaller events get "lost". Think of points on a line. If you look from afar they can seem to one point but if you look to close you might not see any points.

@Antiatonality

I think SCC is just made cause you were hitting on her ;)

Hehe... maybe.

...

Um, actually that's not true. Even to prove 1+1 = 2 is a very deep theorem(and theory built up for it) in mathematics and even most post-doc's do not understand. (look up Russel and Whitehead. Here's an excerpt from a simple google search:

Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica is famous for taking a thousand pages to prove that 1+1=2.)

Just to say what you said is not a mathematical prove and involves very little analysis. You are just making an observation. You do not use any properties of numbers, any definitions of numbers, or any mathematical structure except what you know by intuition.

Precisely. But there is a simple truth to it that can be supported later by more complicated analysis. It makes little sense to begin with a complex proof of something that can otherwise be expressed with a simple observation. That there is no "simple observation" to make about the composers and works I've listed is pretty revealing about the nature of this discussion.

You seriously think there was a dividing line? If you do, you have a real misconception with reality.

And so on...

Listen, you're right that we get to look on history with a different lens to see the whole picture. The problem comes when we try to define that picture, and we have done just that, defined the whole picture with this pretty little narrative of discovery for the sake of evolving the art.

Like I've already asked, "How long do you think this narrative has been around?" In other words, since when has writing music been about evolving the art. We all know music changes over time. We know that once a composer understands the fundamental concepts of music s/he goes out to find their voice. We know it as such because this is how we define the big picture.

Take a step back and realize that "newness" in music for a great portion of that very history has not actually been the primary goal of the composer. In Classicism, the pursuit was perfection. In Romanticism, the pursuit was emotive. What do we say about our endeavors in the 20th Century? We're spinning our wheels trying to reinvent music? We're making profound discoveries? What is it that we're really doing?

And you think for one moment that the greatest composers throughout history never stopped to think about similar questions in relation to their work? There are books, journals, TONS of reading on composers and their aspirations in music. They all questioned the world of music around them, trying to find their place in that world. The best of them remained true to their intuitive, creative process. They knew what they were doing.

We shuffle around with all these styles making petty arguments about what is worth writing and what isn't (hence, my amusement at the typical, "You prefer to sit back and write historical recreations?"). It's an attitude brought about by this pursuit of "newness" or "reinvention" or whatever you prefer to call it in music. There's an attitude also that we should stop trying to reinvent and just create with what we already have.

And there it is, our two very opposed, very distinct attitudes about music. I don't know where you think we all seem to connect with tradition in all of this. For me, when I think of the contemporary music I hear today on a composition recital or by one of dozens of composers over the last fifty years trying to reinvent music, I think about how much better it could have been if everyone had just stepped back from all of it to look at the big picture and how we're defining it. I think it's a mistake to view it as a progression to begin with, but to claim that it flows with any logic behind it implies an interpretation that does not apply to the entire history of music.