On the Modern Condition of Music

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.

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.

That's absurd. You can have your opinion, that's fine. But, however, the truth is that regardless of what you think, the actual evidence is around to point out at what REALLY is going on, or at least there's enough to point what one can call a properly educated guess.

The bit in bold & underline is specially telling of the ignorance being touted here as "different opinions."

Mozart is, if anything, an example of a man trying to find his way in an increasingly uncertain and complicated composition and creative process, as we can see from his later pieces. Beethoven and Haydn, who are also attributed to the Vienna Classic school are also extremely difficult to properly pinpoint and Beethoven himself is a subject of discussion not because he embodies a particular set of ideals or examples but precisely because he doesn't.

It's foolish to tack on such absurdly simply "purposes" to any given period. It's even more absurd to try to pretend the "modern" period must MEAN Something in a made-up concept of "bigger picture" which serves no purpose other than to generalize and gloss over each composer's own individuality and their actual music in contrast to the historical frame they were written in.

The other bit in bold and underline relate to something that is also riddled with problems. I've already talked about the "own voice" problematic and the misconception of individuality and innovation in the other thread so I won't go into it here.

The issue is really that you're using terminology without defining it. I don't agree and neither does any reputable musicologist that there is any given "basics or fundamentals" of music that MUST BE KNOWN before a person can engage in composition. Maybe, really, the only thing that is necessary is knowing that "music" exists.

The other bit in bold and underline is simply what your entire argument comes to. There are no "best composers" in objective fact. This is why I said that this topic requires actual objectivity if it's to go anywhere, or it'll turn into a "you say I say" argument with no solution.

As I've previously said, many times, Mozart was "guilty" of trying to innovate, look for new things and actually take tradition and turn it upside down. Nevermind Bach, Beethoven, Brahms or Schumann. Music history is riddled with examples of composers taking elements from the past and doing new things with them, either for the sake of innovation or because they felt like it.

While the reasons may be subjective, after all, we can't REALLY know what was going through Mozart's head when he attempted to write the small quasi-baroque gigue in G major, it is certainly a turning point in his life as a composer and it is important in the overall understanding of his character when in contrast to the period he lived in. That much is fact.

Mozart's connection with the (then) abandoned tradition of the polyphonic schools of the late baroque period is something that has fascinated many musicologists for many years because it's precisely an example of a composer evolving and shooting for things that were in stark contrast to what he was writing before.

Likewise, we can see that happening in the 20th century, as a fact. Like Ligeti's requiem, the connections sometimes may be obvious and blunt, but like Berio's Sequenza it may take a little more research and insight to unravel the connections that chain all music to one another as expected by the vast web of influence that characterizes any given period.

The truth is, the past will forever be important to the present and the future of composition as we cannot really escape the traditions imposed upon us, unless we grow up in a deserted island in the south pacific, with no contact to any culture what so ever. And even then, one has to wonder if the waves and the sun may as well have musical implications or, indeed, influence the music we may create.

So, like I first said, you are creating a problem where there shouldn't be any. Modern music cherishes the past and modern composers use tradition and history all over the place, everywhere. It would not come to be without it and even some view it as the natural consequence OF the past and tradition (Schoenberg, for example.)

It's not only reasonable, but it's bluntly obvious that traditions like Palestrina's counterpoint or Mozart's sonata form will stay with us for a long long time more. Aesthetics, composition systems and ideas don't die, they only become unfashionable.

The same is clear for the vast landscape that is contemporary music ranging from reggae to drone metal and Boulez.

You think that the "famous" composers of the 20th century didn't know their history? Do you think even for one second that it had no influence on them?

If so, time to study more.

And finally, the last point in bold and underline. I will simply say that only because your incompetence as a musicologist makes it difficult for you to see where everything connects and how, it does not mean that the connections aren't often simple and bluntly obvious (Ligeti's requiem example).

Honestly, I'd love to see how YOU would do an analysis on Berio's Sequenza or Penderecki's Threnody, since we're at it. A nice 'ol modern piece. How about Stockhausen's Punkte or Boulez's structures? Just for curiosity, really, since your stance is incredibly debilitating when tasked to account for an actual analysis of any reputable magnitude and depth.

So, humor me if you will, if you insist on continuing we can at least try to get something done.

PS: I totally didn't address the points in order, so sue me. Hahaha~

I think your argument is to philosophical to result in any meaningful answer. You can apply it to just about any human intellectual argument and it will work.

Two things you need really to take into account: First is that you have the choice to do as you please. Second, It will happen anyways.

Suppose that the modern musical view will only ruin music, what do we do? Suppose it will lead music to new heights, then what?

Now if you can prove(or at least persuade) that its one or the other then you might save music. If not then whats the point. You must choose if you rather contemplate over these most likely intractable questions or compose music?

If you believe traditional music is where music should evolve from then that's your choice! BUT GUESS WHAT!! THATS EXACTLY WHAT IT HAS DONE!!! Atonality is the natural(in the context of humanity) extension of classicism(and anything before and inbetween among other things).

I think your problem is that you view the modern era as something juxtaposed to tradition?!?! This is completely wrong. It is an evolution and in 1000 years it won't be modern any more but will have evolved into something else. It's not as if a few guys sat down one day, had some alien brainwash them and put some strange concepts in there heads, then gave them the ability to convince other people that those ideas are the best. It happened over time.

You talk about the special theory of relativity. How much do you know about it? Do you really think it was something that "just happened"? If so then you need to study more about it. It was the work of many people and evolved over a long period of time(100 years at least depending on how much you want to take into account). In fact Einstein had little to do with establishing the theory and only put it all together. There were many people involved: Lorentz, Faraday, Ampere, Poincare, etc... Each one taking a little step in the right direction. Einstein comes along and is able to see where all these guys are going(since they are all going generally in the same direction) and then put everything together.

Its not as if one guy wakes up one day and the world is changed. Things evolve. In fact if you believe in determinism and physics then, at least classically(which even evolved), its simply F = sum(m*a). That is the equation of evolution of everything.

Again, if you believe that the path of humanity along some direction is wrong then you have every right to change it... But you obviously don't know if you are right or not and can do more harm than good.

Actually what you need to do is question why you believe what you believe. You say you believe modern music is bad? Why? Why do you feel this way? Is it possible maybe you are wrong and all the others who disagree with you are right? Maybe the real answer is that it is relative?

I think I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you are really debating here. Is it that modern music as been a step backward or that modern music did not evolve from traditional music?

In the first case all I can say is too bad! Sometimes you have to take a few steps backwards to go forward. Genetic evolution is about mutations which initially tend to be counterproductive. Also just cause you don't like it doesn't mean squat. That's your opinion. Only time will tell if your right or wrong.

If its the second case then there's no use arguing about it.

What I want to know from you is if you can delineate why modern music has hurt rather than helped the evolution of music. Maybe this way I can actually try and present an argument. (just itemize them in short sentences such as "1. Atonality sucks.")

@SCC:

Your so cute when your angry!! j/k ;)

@SCC:

Your so cute when your angry!! j/k ;)

aww~

SSC is a boy, with long hair, and badly cut beard! But I still want to hit on her! :D:D:D

Will reply when I find time next... ;)

Short hair now, actually.

I just skipped over most of these posts, but pointing out that the music of people like Carter, Boulez, etc. has no obvious link to tradition just made me chuckle. We're speaking of people here who wrote music based on 12 chromatic tones in equal temperament, played on instruments that are hundreds of years old, and so on. How more obvious could you possibly get? Carter wrote string quartets for gods sake! That alone just screams TRADITION. Not even to mention that they are in direct continuation of the romantic principle of stretching the development part of a sonata form more and more until ulimately it's the only thing left. This isn't something you have to deduce theoretically. They sound like huge, dense non-stop sonata development parts, to me at least. Carter, for me, is an "epitome of traditionalism".

And you hear all the ornamentations in Boulez' music, those little glittering figurations and his playing with sonic colours. How can you help noticing the connection to Messiaen and Debussy? No matter what Boulez said about his own music, you can hear this stuff.

You also mentioned Var

That's absurd. You can have your opinion, that's fine. But, however, the truth is that regardless of what you think, the actual evidence is around to point out at what REALLY is going on, or at least there's enough to point what one can call a properly educated guess.

The bit in bold & underline is specially telling of the ignorance being touted here as "different opinions."

Seriously? We're talking BIG PICTURE, SSC. Sure, you're going to talk about Mozart like he "revolutionized" and "turned things upside down" to try to make a point about Classicism. But it's more than accepted by most authorities on the topics that the "goal" in Classicism was attaining perfection, not nuance.

You tell me to go learn history, but I think it's you that could stand to take a step back from the music text books and look into other resources for your information.

PS: I totally didn't address the points in order, so sue me. Hahaha~

Consider yourself sued. Give me all your money!

I think your argument is too philosophical to result in any meaningful answer. You can apply it to just about any human intellectual argument and it will work.

I can? I've never tried, so I wouldn't know. Have you?

They sound like huge, dense non-stop sonata development parts, to me at least. Carter, for me, is an "epitome of traditionalism".

Sounds like a very subjective argument to me. Carter is all about nature, and he creates rhythms that are just completely out there to evoke this natural free floating sound (which doesn't sound as pretty as I describe it here). Have you listened to his Symphony for Three Orchestras? Come on, you're going to have to do a LOT better than a couple of phrase moments of nostalgia in his work to argue that Carter is the "epitome of traditionalism." There's nothing traditional about his language and certainly not when it comes to his rhythms.

You also mentioned Var

I call that a waste of my money if I'm the one paying to see his concert.

Take someone with no music education. Have them listen to a work from Romanticism and a work by Varese (Hyperprism, for example) or Carter (Sym. for 3 Orchestra's, since I already brought it up). Ask them if it sounds like one came from the other. It's not a bullshit question either...

It's not a bullshit question, it's a fallacious argument. Which is, quite frankly, worse, because it shows an intent to mislead.

You don't ask a person with no music education to make a distinction that requires at least a minimal formal eduction.

By the same logic, one could say show a person who is illiterate an excerpt from Beowulf and an excerpt from Stephen King and ask them if th languages came one from the other.

You are comparing apples and doorknobs.

It's not a bullshit question, it's a fallacious argument. Which is, quite frankly, worse, because it shows an intent to mislead.

You don't ask a person with no music education to make a distinction that requires at least a minimal formal eduction.

By the same logic, one could say show a person who is illiterate an excerpt from Beowulf and an excerpt from Stephen King and ask them if th languages came one from the other.

You are comparing apples and doorknobs.

Illterate people can't read at all. People with no formal musical education still have ears to listen with.

Illterate people can't read at all. People with no formal musical education still have ears to listen with.

maybe, but their musical culture is insuffucient to make judgements on musical history.

the equivalent to an iliterate person is the film-maker who, when offered musical snippets played at the piano, couldn't tell the difference between Bach, Mozart, Debussy and Barber... he said "I don't know, it's all piano"... which was around 5 minutes before I tossed him out on the sidewalk flat on his donkey.

How can a person, whose musical knowledge does not distinguish between different styles of writing of that sort, be expected to make the logical assessment of historical continuity of music?

So, as I said: "fallacious argument". Misleading and fundamentally dishonest.

@M_is_D:

Um, they still have eye's don't they? Reading is an intellectual process as is *listening* to music(and not just hearing it).

@Antiatonality:

It sounds to me as if you are trying to justify your reasons for not liking modern music? I too do not like such thing's as atonality, serialism, etc... the difference it seems is that I do not try to find excuses why.

I just don't like it, most of it of course... something like 99% and its really a spectrum as I can only tolerate about the other 1% and maybe pretend to like it. BUT IT IS MUSIC AND IT DOES DESERVE ITS PLACE IN HISTORY!

Just because you don't appreciate it or don't enjoy it doesn't mean other people can't. Comprende?

If you think its a step away from perfection then that's your opinion and you have no way to back it up. Do you realize that it could be in its infancy and it's just going to take that special someone to come along and write the kinda atonality that will make you cream your pants? How long as classicism been around compared to the "modern era"? Seems to me that it could just be in its infancy? Give it a few hundred more years and if it still sucks donkey then maybe you might have a point? (but not now)

Your attitude is similar to a racist's. You don't like something for some reason and then justify it with fallacious arguments. Just accept the fact that you don't like it but don't give up listening too it every once in a while. It might grow on you and one day you might love it. Surely you've had those type's of experiences before?

Also I think that you have to switch your mentality when listening to modern music. You have to listen to it within the context it was created for(at least it helps if you don't like it). If you try to listen for the smooth flowing melodies, for example, then you generally won't find any and you'll be confused why. If you understand what your suppose to listen for then it will be a more enjoyable process. (of course you still might not like it but that's your choice... it's really not a big deal)

Sounds like a very subjective argument to me.

Exactly! But you were the one who brought up said "(what is more obvious than an aural example, I mean, COME ON?!)", dismissing analysis. Either you show parallels from a theoretical point of view, or you go for "how it sounds" - and enter a highly subjective area.

Come on, you're going to have to do a LOT better than a couple of phrase moments of nostalgia in his work to argue that Carter is the "epitome of traditionalism." There's nothing traditional about his language and certainly not when it comes to his rhythms.

Ok, admitted, "epitome of traditionalism" was a very blunt exaggeration. But for me, in comparison to what other composers did at the same time, the more traditional aspects of Carter have always stood out much more. But yes, that again is to some degree subjective.

Varese was a grandchild of the futurists, not a traditionalist.

Yay! We have a discussion! Finally!

Then you would've expected something of that order of weirdness to happen.

Not necessarily. Cage may have a certain illusory quality to him, but expecting a completely silent piece? It's offensive no matter how you justify it philosophically.

"fallacious argument". Misleading and fundamentally dishonest.

I find it more "honest" than any expert in music could ever be. And indoctrination into music today occurs mostly with popular music in the United States which is why it's such a big industry.

The "establishment" bias against popular music needs to end, too. There's nothing fundamentally right about the contemporary composer who wonders where his audience went after he failed to give them anything they expected to hear. Is it wrong for the audience to have this expectation? Well, without an audience as a composer, you're pretty much dead in the water.

But of course it's going to be about your priorities. If your attitude is, "To hell with my audience, I don't care if they like it," then good luck keeping it. It really bugs me when composers complain about small attendance at their concerts when their attitude generally doesn't exactly invite anyone to give up their time to come and listen. Then they go and blame popular culture, traditionalists, and everyone that just wants to hear good music. It doesn't have to be tonal music, either to be good.

Also I think that you have to switch your mentality when listening to modern music. You have to listen to it within the context it was created for(at least it helps if you don't like it). If you try to listen for the smooth flowing melodies, for example, then you generally won't find any and you'll be confused why. If you understand what your suppose to listen for then it will be a more enjoyable process. (of course you still might not like it but that's your choice... it's really not a big deal)

Yeah, I usually need drugs to understand the pieces I normally can't stand. But I don't do drugs (anymore). So, I'll pass on adjusting my mentality when listening to these works.

A huge simplification. Var

I find it more "honest" than any expert in music could ever be. And indoctrination into music today occurs mostly with popular music in the United States which is why it's such a big industry.

The "establishment" bias against popular music needs to end, too. There's nothing fundamentally right about the contemporary composer who wonders where his audience went after he failed to give them anything they expected to hear. Is it wrong for the audience to have this expectation? Well, without an audience as a composer, you're pretty much dead in the water.

But of course it's going to be about your priorities. If your attitude is, "To hell with my audience, I don't care if they like it," then good luck keeping it. It really bugs me when composers complain about small attendance at their concerts when their attitude generally doesn't exactly invite anyone to give up their time to come and listen. Then they go and blame popular culture, traditionalists, and everyone that just wants to hear good music. It doesn't have to be tonal music, either to be good.

I think you are misleading one more time.

what I said has nothing to do with whether or not composers are writing communicative music.

It has to do with your denial that there is historical continuity between "musical tradition" and the avantgarde, and your use of the "if you play X music to someone who knows nothing about music" argument.

THAT is a false argument.

Obviously, if I read some Beowulf to some shmoe off the street, then a poem by Edna St-Vincent-Millay, that good ol' shmoe will have NO idea that there is in fact a linguistic continuity between the two. As a matter of fact, he will not undertand any of the Beowulf, not realizing that the language has evolved and changed over the years.

Ask any passerby on the street to tell you the approximate number of years between the composition of Bach's B Minor Mass and Strawinski's Rite of Spring, play them excerpts, and I can ASSURE you that they will have absolutely NO idea of the number of years, approximate or otherwise. Better yet, play them The same Bach and Rachmaninov's Vespers, to at least keep them both vocal excerpts, and see if they can tell that there are nearly 200 years between them. Again, I can assure you that none will know.

THERE is the fallacy of your argument.

Whether you have a stick up your donkey against contemporary composers or not, whether your master's degree prepared you or not for the real world, this is all completely irrelevant to the actual point of this discussion.

You cannot ask "joe common-person" to express a view that is anything but superficial regarding a concept as complex as historical lineage in music. You cannot then turn around and say that your superficial take on the matter is the only one that matters, since you think like "joe common-person".

So, you don't care for Carter, Boulez et al. Well, neither do I. So what? Doesn't mean it's any less valid as musical expression. It just means neither you nor I have developed a taste for it, and probably not an understanding of it either.

By the way, concerts of good contemporary music are quite often sold-out in my home town. Concerts with premieres are also quite often standing room only.

As a matter of fact, music that is "in between" (ie: not historicist and not avant garde) is probably that which has the greatest difficulty in getting performed.

Seriously? We're talking BIG PICTURE, SSC. Sure, you're going to talk about Mozart like he "revolutionized" and "turned things upside down" to try to make a point about Classicism. But it's more than accepted by most authorities on the topics that the "goal" in Classicism was attaining perfection, not nuance.

You tell me to go learn history, but I think it's you that could stand to take a step back from the music text books and look into other resources for your information.

Start providing your sources, otherwise this is just hot air. I don't NEED to give you sources because I just explained the actual argument and you can verify it quite well on your own. Whatever "authorities" you're referring to, either they're a minority or you're misinterpreting what is being said. That "Classicism is about attaining perfection" is entirely ridiculous. Where the hell did you get this?

Likewise, it's a ridiculous statement also because every single epoch of music history can be accused of "attaining perfection!" It's a subjective opinion, one which I have no idea where it finds its evidence to support itself as any kind of historical fact as you pretend it is.

If you don't want to give sources, point to the evidence this is the case only for Vienna Classic and not for any other period. I've already pointed to the evidence in my case, and I can also point at Beethoven's last quartets or Haydn's last pieces which are also sometimes rather bizarre (quartet in Eb major with the pauses, though that was not a late piece, I think.) Likewise, prove that the romantic period (Schubert onwards) was focused on "emotion", as if any of the previous weren't.

If it's an opinion, fine. No problem. But you're talking about authorities, about objective reality. Let's have some proof or at least point at where someone MAY get these ideas, because I fail to see it.

Anyways; you have not really addressed my other points and I presume is because you are unable to. That's fine. All things considered, I don't know how you're in any position, given what we've seen so far, to talk about these matters.

I'm not going to address your points on audiences and "good music" being necessary to attract said audiences, because honestly that's a non-argument. I could as well say that you shouldn't write any music but "good music" and if you fail to do so you're a failure as a composer...but I won't becuase that's insane.

As for your view of the establishment, I'm sorry to tell you that only your unfortunate experience does not account for the actual state of musical education worldwide. But, alas, it's your job to do proper research before you start saying scraggy, not mine to educate you after you've done so.

It seems to me no that learning history properly is the least of your problems, but that the whole attitude seems to be completely founded on the fact you don't like X or Y music. The completely absurd comparison you did with Jazz and atonality is show enough that you absolutely have no idea or are not willing to actually learn anything.

Taste has no place in education.

No, Varese was many things, but not a traditionalist did he make. At all. Period. End of point. The futurist movement is something Varese admired a great deal in his studies and his work with electronic music almost parallels this understanding. And sorry, but most of the futurists never really made it into the history books. Maybe it'll work out better for Varese.

Right, Var

... where I read page after page trying to explain in some long, academic research why the audience isn't growing for contemporary music concerts, then I hear about when John Cage walked out on a stage, sat down at a piano in front of paying customers, and played nothing for 4'33", I can't help but laugh. You can call that art all you want (the silence is music, blah blah blah), but I call that a waste of my money if I'm the one paying to see his concert.

"The audience isn't growing for contemporary music concerts" because, for one reason or another, the composers threw them out. I would really have felt Cage was mocking me if I had been to that concert. For me, as an -apprentice- composer, to write something I wouldn't like to listen to is hypocrite. If the composer IS sincere but anyway gets no audience, well, it's up to him. We shouldn't make a drama out of it.

The thing is that that split between composer & audience did occur. Whether it'd be good or not, I don't care. But it happened, hence as an historical consequence of whatever came before. The link between any composer in the XXth century, were he a rebel or not, and the common practice is UNDENIABLE. Even if he would deny it.

You cannot base your conclusions on some uneducated guy's opinion, as QcC's Beowulf example shows. Contemporary music is a consequence of earlier music. If you find it an undesirable one, then play your role to change the course of things from now on. And don't listen to avant-garde guy's crap, and attack them how much you need to. I would rather accept their role in recent music history, and reject them if you may -just as you say they did with previous practice. But again, understand your link to them, that your views and practice as a composer is a consequence of many many things, even Cage silence.

Not a big deal, really.

I would really have felt Cage was mocking me if I had been to that concert. For me, as an -apprentice- composer, to write something I wouldn't like to listen to is hypocrite.

Are you saying you think that Cage didn't like listening to his own music?

Are you saying you think that Cage didn't like listening to his own music?

Nope. I don't know if Cage, or anyone else in the list, liked their music or not. I am sure that many of these composers we're discusing did what they did sincerely. Then if I feel I'm being treated like an idiot when I listen to their music, we have probably a big communication problem, and what I should do is go back home and forget about the guy. Maybe try another day.

But I am also sure that many people have gone ahead with the avant-garde stuff just to get their part exploiting the trend. Like "if you are innovative or scandalous no one can tell you what you've done sucks", then... what if I include a live horse in my next opus? Then I can envelope it in esthetics verbiage and, pop!, I'm an artist!

Even if one, as a musician, composes believing they are doing what they should, for the "sake of innovation" or whatever... well, then, regardless of the positive consequences which this work may lead to, from the composers' viewpoint I find this trend, in its limit, to be the mask of lack of creativity or, much worse, of laziness. Back to Cage, may I venture to say that when a composer just plays no note...? You know what I mean.

I have no special problem with Cage. But the silent music is a paradigm for me, just like the blank canvas or the empty plate. In fact, all the thing about "writing music I wouldn't like to listen to" came to my mind through the art cuisine thing: you can convince me, maybe, that pure silence is music (another completely different thing is why should I pay then for it, in a concert hall...); but you'll never convince me that an empty plate is an acceptable meal!!!:laugh:

Ok, I understand what you're saying then. As Cage's 4'33'' has already been discussed to death on these forums I'll just throw in that it is not "silent music", but indeed consists of sounds. But as I said, this has been discussed in other threads enough.

THAT is a false argument.

Obviously' date=' if I read some Beowulf to some shmoe off the street, then a poem by Edna St-Vincent-Millay, that good ol' shmoe will have NO idea that there is in fact a linguistic continuity between the two. As a matter of fact, he will not undertand any of the Beowulf, not realizing that the language has evolved and changed over the years.

Ask any passerby on the street to tell you the approximate number of years between the composition of Bach's B Minor Mass and Strawinski's Rite of Spring, play them excerpts, and I can ASSURE you that they will have absolutely NO idea of the number of years, approximate or otherwise. Better yet, play them The same Bach and Rachmaninov's Vespers, to at least keep them both vocal excerpts, and see if they can tell that there are nearly 200 years between them. Again, I can assure you that none will know.

THERE is the fallacy of your argument.[/quote']

Here's the difference in my example and yours. First, my example calls for an individual to make a subjective assessment based on their own common sense. They don't (or rather, shouldn't) need anything more than to hear two pieces and be able to discern if they hear SOMETHING that relates to the other. Your example calls for additional information to make an objective assessment, thus, not at all what my example asks of the lay person.

To me, the entire argument for "inevitable" is nothing more than a sales pitch by proponents of the style who have phished that out among academics who have bought it, hook, line, and sinker. More on this after I respond to SSC...

Likewise, it's a ridiculous statement also because every single epoch of music history can be accused of "attaining perfection!" It's a subjective opinion, one which I have no idea where it finds its evidence to support itself as any kind of historical fact as you pretend it is.

Here, let me give you an example rather than a "source". This isn't an academic website, and I'm not about to write a thesis out of this just to appease you. If you don't like it, stop posting and go entertain yourself elsewhere.

In the middle of the 18th century, Europe began to move to a new style in architecture, literature, and the arts generally, known as Classicism. While still tightly linked to the court culture and absolutism, with its formality and emphasis on order and hierarchy, the new style was also a cleaner style, one that favored clearer divisions between parts, brighter contrasts and colors, and simplicity rather than complexity. The remarkable development of ideas in "natural philosophy" had established itself in the public consciousness, with Newton's physics taken as a paradigm: structures should be well-founded in axioms, and articulated and orderly.

Coinciding with Classicism was a German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831), whose discourse, when compiled, creates an interesting and important parallel to the Sonata Form, one of the distinctive forms of the Classical Music Era. Hegel's "Dialectic" (or, compilation of discourse) is also very consistent with the form itself. Here is the breakdown of Hegel's position:

In all cultures in all of history (before the World Wars of the 20th Century), there have always existed two groups that oppose one another. One holds to a thesis, the other an "anti" thesis, or ideals in opposition to the other. When these differences lead to conflict and the conflict is resolved, neither the ideals of the thesis nor the antithesis exist in purity. Instead, both resolve to form a synthesis of the ideals of both cultures. Hegel claims that when all conflicts of all cultures in all of the world reach their penultimate conclusion, the result is, simply put, heaven on earth. Perfection.

The Sonata form, whether by purpose or by intuitive processes, follows this very same paradigm. A tonic "thesis" and a dominant "antithesis" present themselves in the exposition, clash in the development, and synthesize in the recapitulation of a well-composed work. Look at the first movement of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, Eroica. This very clearly plays itself out, and if you look at the Golden Mean of the movement (if that interests you), you'll see that the calculation lands you precisely on the measure that synthesizes the two keys with the theme in tonic over a dominant harmony (an ostinato between the two harmonies connecting them). Beethoven didn't just haphazardly do this. The intent is more than obvious. Perfection WAS the goal of Classicism. Take a look at the 5th Symphony and you'll find the whole concept of the Sonata Form turns itself upside down, but you can see it in many Classical works of the period.

So, you can go back and read your text books and cite your authorities all day. I'll do my own research and post my own ideas, thank you very much. And you can go to hell if you don't like it and want me to provide you with a loving scientific journal by some joke of a researcher who can't draw a rational conclusion if it hit them in the face. Those that can't do, teach. Those that can't teach, research. This has proven itself, at least to me, time and again.

There is so much music that was written in the mindset "what the audience wants to hear" that I didn't want to hear and I too am a part of "the audience".

Well, what do you want me to say? Sorry?

Understand that I'm not arguing some "Hitler Extermination" for this kind of music. What I'm advocating is to not lose sight of the fact that it, alone, does not account for the vast tradition of music in history. And if the university establishment is going to endorse contemporary music at the level I've experienced it, not as a follow-up but as a "primary study" for a composition student (not reinforcing the 500 year tradition of music by teaching them how to put it into practice today), then things are getting pretty bad.

I know a guy who just finished his Master's who is going on to get his doctorate in music at a very prestigious school in the Northeast ON A SCHOLARSHIP. But if you held a gun to his head and told him to write a contemporary tonal piece, he wouldn't be able to. He lacks the technical ability to write tonal music, and he'll openly admit that to anyone. That's not because he performed poorly in theory - he did very well. He never wrote the music, never had to, was never required to at his university. Mind you, he went to different schools than I did, we only got our Masters at the same place. He even has it in his mind that if he could have it his way, we would never teach music theory because it ruins our ability to truly create music. Wow. Just. Wow.

It is these people that concern me, not because they have such vision, but because the way the modern condition of our society works, there is a very real possibility that several generations down the timeline, there will be no such thing as a study of tonal music at all. Judging from the way our society's education has changed over the past 50 years, can you imagine how much worse it could get in the next 100 years? We can only hope it would get better, but really... it's something to think about.

Here's the difference in my example and yours. First, my example calls for an individual to make a subjective assessment based on their own common sense. They don't (or rather, shouldn't) need anything more than to hear two pieces and be able to discern if they hear SOMETHING that relates to the other. Your example calls for additional information to make an objective assessment, thus, not at all what my example asks of the lay person.

actually, your original situation was to give ordinary "man on the street" a work by a classical composer, and one by a contemporary composer and ask them to define whether there is a continuity or not.

This is EXACTLY the same thing as my Beowulf/illiterate example.

The way you are arguing, you are setting up the exercise in such a manner as to GET the result you want. Again, a fundamentally dishonest approach to research. And yes, by proposing the exercise you do, you are proposing a form of research.

Here, let me give you an example rather than a "source". This isn't an academic website, and I'm not about to write a thesis out of this just to appease you. If you don't like it, stop posting and go entertain yourself elsewhere.

In the middle of the 18th century, Europe began to move to a new style in architecture, literature, and the arts generally, known as Classicism. While still tightly linked to the court culture and absolutism, with its formality and emphasis on order and hierarchy, the new style was also a cleaner style, one that favored clearer divisions between parts, brighter contrasts and colors, and simplicity rather than complexity. The remarkable development of ideas in "natural philosophy" had established itself in the public consciousness, with Newton's physics taken as a paradigm: structures should be well-founded in axioms, and articulated and orderly.

Coinciding with Classicism was a German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770

Actually, your original situation was to give ordinary "man on the street" a work by a classical composer, and one by a contemporary composer and ask them to define whether there is a continuity or not.

This is EXACTLY the same thing as my Beowulf/illiterate example.

Cute. And no. I'm not asking the lay person for any kind of theoretically supported analysis of two works from two different periods of music history. Obviously, to reach the conclusion one with an education in music would be expected to make, obviously, you need to be "literate" in music. But I also addressed this in my response.

Proponents of the style have distributed this justification to academics who have bought the sales pitch, hook, line, and sinker. So, no, we're NOT talking about the same thing.

The way you are arguing, you are setting up the exercise in such a manner as to GET the result you want. Again, a fundamentally dishonest approach to research. And yes, by proposing the exercise you do, you are proposing a form of research.

That's pretty hard for me to do. I'm asking a simple, yes or no question to someone with little to no musical knowledge. There's a 50/50 chance they'll say both pieces relate simply because they don't know how to answer. It's a simple question. There's a simple selection of answers, yes or no. If you think it's a loaded question, then you figure out a way to get an "outsider's" subjective understanding. If you have to study music to provide a simple answer to a simple question, one should question it's legitimacy. Too bad if you disagree with this... I'm a realist, what can I say?

As for the last part, that's pathetic. You bite [off] more than you can chew, you clearly don't have enough knowledge of this field and certainly you're not willing to invest time backing up your statements and justifying your stance in the face of criticism.

You go and do your own research.

I will do my job properly.

Okay, then go on and do your job. You can't seem to put anything I say into your own words. You can't understand even the most basic points of my argument. And more sadly than this, you can't demonstrate a working ability to form your own opinions. You'll sit here and cite every so-called expert in this field while showing no capacity for a genuinely original thought of your own.

I'd say that's much worse than not providing sources on a message board, of all things, where we can freely discuss our ideas on music outside of the rigor of academia. Give me (and yourself) a loving break.

And just to clarify on my inclusion of Hegel...

It seems incredibly unlikely that the publications of Hegel's Dialectic and the construct of the Sonata form is so haphazard. Sure, leaps of logic they may be to say the Hegelian Dialectic inspired the Sonata form or vice versa. In fact, it would be a false statement to claim as much. The truth is, neither influenced the other. That they follow the same thought pattern along the same time period, each completely independent of the other, speaks volumes. It is my understanding that Beethoven had one of Hegel's first publications in his study where he composed. I didn't bring this up as I've yet to confirm it, so you don't need to hold me to it.

So, whatever.