On the Modern Condition of Music

I don't think there ever was a problem, like Gardener and Niko and so on pointed out: Education is goddamn fine. You got unlucky, but the trend today is that there's a LOT of people specializing in old/ancient music, tradition analysis, bla bla bla. History-related matters.

You clearly have some sort of misunderstanding going on and I remember hearing your issue with wanting to learn "modern tonal" techniques or what, and I was baffled as to what you actually meant by that because I don't think I ever really understood what you said.

To your defense, while your intention does seem to be a good one, you should probably take the word that there's a lot of good music education going on. There is no problem today, and nothing bad will happen in the future because there simply is an overwhelming evidence of how the academia views history as utterly important (again, all the specialists, the actual musicology courses which are very VERY heavy handed in history/theory/etc.)

As for calling me a bookworm and the other attacks(?) you made, do I really need to go into that? Clearly your bad experience has dominated the way you've been acting thus far, and precisely that was the point of my insistence on that little point on historical assumption. I think it's not only evident that you should probably adopt a different stance if you're to really understand things, but that if you don't you'll probably never be taken seriously by the very academia you so hate since they are in charge of education, not you.

If you want to influence the education at an academic level like you say you want, you'd be best off at least being able discuss on a proper level something so trivial; how'd you expect to accomplish anything any more complicated like discussing education, etc?

Nevermind that my point from my very first reply still stands rather accurately, you're not helping much when you're raging on about a problem that is simply not there. There are a lot of real problems concerning musical education, such as how to decide a proper curriculum of study or how to deal with modern composition (or composition what so ever is always a hard issue to handle,) what should be taught as "theory" and where modern music should stand, if separate or that 12 tone music should be taught to everyone just like everyone is taught Palestrina counterpoint.

That "history" doesn't play a big enough role in music education is not one of these problems, unless we pick and choose examples of the opposite, these don't represent the majority of the institutions teaching music at any proper level. I'd argue is the entire opposite, modern techniques and aesthetics fly under a lot of people's radars unless they are specifically musicologists or composers, though quite a lot of places enforce modern literature on performance majors/etc it's still very different from the actual rigorous study of counterpoint for example like I mentioned that most of these institutions provide.

I've addressed this before, but there is no "right way" to establish a musical education curriculum that covers every single epoch and composition style for ALL majors in all areas of music. Everything is relative to the specific field each student is studying. For a composer, it's crucial and very important that they'll have a more in-depth course study on modern music as it is very relevant to composition today. They'd get all the historical stuff by default, as most systems stand, so it makes sense to emphasize exactly what isn't by default.

Anyways, this is really just a summary of a lot of stuff I've already said in this thread or elsewhere and I rather not keep repeating myself...

Anyways, this is really just a summary of a lot of stuff I've already said in this thread or elsewhere and I rather not keep repeating myself...

K.

..."Education is what you make of it"

...There would obviously be differences if you went to the New England Conservatory, or if you went to Sante Fe Community College.

Ooh!! The new guy swoops in with a trombontastic point!!

You get out what you put in. Professors are not there to hold your hand and tell you it's all going to be okay. They're there to show you the doors and it's up to you to decide which ones you walk through. Their job is to provide you with the tools to give you a fighting chance at being successful in this seemy business.

BUT, antiatonality, you seem content to dismiss an important facet of modern music. Which, to be honest, is fine with me - it's your career!

:whistling:

[ Also, youplaytrombone - don't be so quick to discount the SFCC, it's a top-notch institution....I think Miles Davis went there, or something... ;) ]

Ooh!! The new guy swoops in with a trombontastic point!!

You get out what you put in. Professors are not there to hold your hand and tell you it's all going to be okay.

Dude, just stop right there.

Anyone care to know what I believe to be the best education in music composition that's out there right now? Film Composition. Before you go making assumptions, hear me out.

The reason an education in Film Composition stands out to me is because it does two important things. It helps you answer "why" and "how". "Why" do you write certain musical material in a specific way and "how" do you craft your own music to reveal what you envision in the work? These are things I've been fighting tooth and nail to get out of the dozen or so composition professors I've had (with some success, mind you, but not with most of them). Some seem intent on not only introducing me to contemporary music but insisting that I write in that style to find my true musical voice - as though I can't find it on my own, I need their avant garde material to break me free of the years of oppression I've spent being exposed to popular music. It's a sales pitch - nothing more, nothing less - that has been pushed on me over and over and over again.

You may be asking yourself, "Why didn't you go get a Film Composition degree then?" Hindsight is 20/20. There was the finance issue, of course, the distance from family, the engagement to my wife, and some advice from people I thought could help me get to where I wanted to be as a composer. But thinking about it now, the only thing I ever really wanted to know was why and how so I could just go and write music that I wanted to write. I got the "why" in music theory, but all I got fed in composition lessons was "why" I should compose this way and hardly ever "how" to compose to make the most of my music. It's just been my experience with several composition faculty, what can I say?

I really don't care if you blame me, if you think I'm just whining about it, or whatnot. I can only share my experience with this and let people make their own decisions about whether this kind of education is right for them.

The reason an education in Film Composition stands out to me is because it does two important things. It helps you answer "why" and "how".

Good point. But this is also a dangerous thing, if it gives a definite and easy answer. To the "why" particularly. If your "why" solely becomes "support the pictures by all means necessary", or even more extreme "just do exactly what the director wants me to do" the artform of composition quickly degenerates into a "technical service". It is of course good to ask yourself the question of "why" and maybe find partial answers, but it's dangerous to comfort yourself with a very simple answer, regardless whether you're composing for a movie or the concert hall. I do not believe it is the job of an academic institution of music to provide you with a simple "why". If anything, it is their job to open your mind to a wide range of possible "why's" without giving you a "solution".

I have two fellow students who both study film composition. They are extremely different from each other. One keeps saying "I compose what the director wants me to compose", seeing himself as a craftsman with a very clear, straightforward job. He does his stuff really well. If he writes for a theatre or a movie, the music fits perfectly, it merges well with the pictures and never stands out awkwardly.

The other is a very eclectic composer who's interested in all sorts of music, experiments with them for all kinds of different "purposes", from atonal concert music, over melodrams, to film music, which is sometimes very traditionally tonal. He isn't devoted to a simple "why" or a simple "how", he just studies film music because he has a particular interest in incidental music. Personally I find both him and his music a lot more fascinating and stimulating than the first composer I mentioned. Maybe one reason for that is that it just seems more "alive", as the whole question of "why" and "how" is always present, always challenged, instead of just decided, closed and buried once for all.

but insisting that I write in that style to find my true musical voice - as though I can't find it on my own,

Very true, "finding your own voice" (whatever that's supposed to actually mean), is not only something you can, but even must do on your own. And it's certainly dubitable if you're told you must look in a specific direction to "find your voice". It is certainly not the job of a composition teacher to show you "your voice", but it is their job, at least to some degree, to make you familiar with other kinds of music, to help you expand your horizon, if you want.

"Finding your own voice" is another way of saying "finding a groove you like to write in." (OR SO I BELIEVE....) If that is the case, and based on what gardener said about the 2nd composer, I concur that more interesting music can be written by the composer who touches everything. The more styles you write in, the more fluent you become.

A voice isn't about "writing neo-romantic" music, but knowing how to write.

But then again, who am I?

Good point. But this is also a dangerous thing, if it gives a definite and easy answer. To the "why" particularly. If your "why" solely becomes "support the pictures by all means necessary", or even more extreme "just do exactly what the director wants me to do" the artform of composition quickly degenerates into a "technical service"...

I think we're getting somewhere. The question is where to draw the line between the why and how, and a balance is difficult to maintain. But at the same time, it's just as problematic to be so focused in the advanced methods and philosophical questions of music composition without concerning your student with the basics. I've seen it both ways, as I attended a festival where all the students of the music program there only presented traditional tonal music with absolutely no contemporary content. I've also attended concerts of music where absolutely no musical craftsmanship went into it on a very basic level, leaving me (and silently, others) unfulfilled and unimpressed.

I have two fellow students who both study film composition. They are extremely different from each other. One keeps saying "I compose what the director wants me to compose", seeing himself as a craftsman with a very clear, straightforward job. He does his stuff really well. If he writes for a theatre or a movie, the music fits perfectly, it merges well with the pictures and never stands out awkwardly.

The other is a very eclectic composer who's interested in all sorts of music, experiments with them for all kinds of different "purposes", from atonal concert music, over melodrams, to film music, which is sometimes very traditionally tonal. He isn't devoted to a simple "why" or a simple "how", he just studies film music because he has a particular interest in incidental music. Personally I find both him and his music a lot more fascinating and stimulating than the first composer I mentioned. Maybe one reason for that is that it just seems more "alive", as the whole question of "why" and "how" is always present, always challenged, instead of just decided, closed and buried once for all.

Sure, but how can we determine whether that's the university at work or simply the intuitive processes of both composers? Both composers have the freedom to decide which direction to take their music because they presumably have the same skill set (why else would you use this example?). The way I see it, if you give each composer the same skill set, both composers have the same opportunity to explore their own preference of sound and build upon their skill sets from there.

Very true, "finding your own voice" (whatever that's supposed to actually mean), is not only something you can, but even must do on your own. And it's certainly dubitable if you're told you must look in a specific direction to "find your voice". It is certainly not the job of a composition teacher to show you "your voice", but it is their job, at least to some degree, to make you familiar with other kinds of music, to help you expand your horizon, if you want.

Problem being, the development of your own voice must include, at least with the university setting of most institutions, your own "modern" voice. This distinction is important, as it assumes without justification that the student is unable to discern for themselves what it is that is "modern" in music. Then we branch into subjective decisions on the part of the instructor where none should apply to the student. In other words, it's not the instructor's place to decide for the student how "modern" applies to them. Like you said, that should be left up to the student where in several of my own experiences it has been left up to the instructor.

Sure, but how can we determine whether that's the university at work or simply the intuitive processes of both composers? Both composers have the freedom to decide which direction to take their music because they presumably have the same skill set (why else would you use this example?). The way I see it, if you give each composer the same skill set, both composers have the same opportunity to explore their own preference of sound and build upon their skill sets from there.

Of course. This was just about the general dubiety of all to clear and definite "why's". If a university would indoctrinate the students with the mindset "composing film music is doing what the director says and nothing else" it might be a different matter than in my example. If the university tells you "what your why is", you simply might not even start to explore other possibilities. That's why I said it can be dangerous when a course of study (be it film music or otherwise) "helps you answer 'why'" too easily. And this does happen quite a lot, particularly in film music education and especially if it's a very "business oriented" course of study.

Of course. This was just about the general dubiety of all to clear and definite "why's". If a university would indoctrinate the students with the mindset "composing film music is doing what the director says and nothing else" it might be a different matter than in my example. If the university tells you "what your why is", you simply might not even start to explore other possibilities. That's why I said it can be dangerous when a course of study (be it film music or otherwise) "helps you answer 'why'" too easily. And this does happen quite a lot, particularly in film music education and especially if it's a very "business oriented" course of study.

I think the distinction to be made centers around the sensibility of the student. Take this example:

Two students both studying music of the avant garde have the same knowledge base to compose music in that style, but only in that style. If one of the students wants to compose advanced tonal music, without a full skill-set of composing tonal music, the student wanting to compose in that style has to go elsewhere (spending more money) in order to gain that set of skills.

Two students both studying music in the contemporary tonal style have a much better skill set from which to move on into the style of their choosing. The avant garde composer can move into whatever style he decides will satisfy his musical tastes. After all, if contemporary avant garde music is, as many here believe, a logical progression from the traditional style (which I'm not convinced has been the case), then the avant garde composer has every opportunity to apply the skill set he learns in contemporary tonal music to the language he chooses in avant garde.

If this is unclear, examine the skill sets side by side:

Avant Garde Music:

• Harmonic Unity is almost entirely intuitive
  
• Formal Unity is intuitive, generally through-composed if not significantly altered from a traditional Form
  
• Rhythmic Complexity in connecting ideas, harmonies, and motives
  
• Motivic Unity is the thin thread that generally creates cohesion in the work if present at all
  

Contemporary Tonal Music:

• Harmonic Unity is a combination of limited functionality (the mechanics of Tonality) and the intuition of the composer
  
• Formal Unity is mechanical, expanding on traditional forms and implementing the mechanical elements of Harmony to create structural integrity in the form
  
• Rhythm can be simple or complex dependent upon the character/effect of the section or the whole piece
  
• Motivic Unity creates the melodic content of the work rather than simply connecting the sections of the work, which requires a strong understanding of how to unite a melodic idea using motivic content
  

If this seems to be an "oversimplification" of one style or the other, so be it. I view it as an oversimplification of both styles on a balanced level of the SHMRG (Sound, Harmony, Melody, Rhythm, and Growth [Form]). Obviously both require a working knowledge of Sound, or Timbre, at a basic or advanced level. Where the Avant Garde is more geared towards intuitive processes of the composer, Contemporary Tonal music requires a significant understanding of the mechanics of the language. It's not enough to say, "Okay, well, you'll learn all of this in Theory." You HAVE to understand it in implementing those techniques. The more advanced level of composing in the Avant Garde style lends itself nicely to the skill set of Contemporary Tonal music. You merely eliminate the restrictive nature of the tonal language and do whatever the hell you want - literally.

So, given the two examples and the skill sets involved in both, it's my belief that learning the skills of the latter can only further benefit the composer of the Avant Garde as opposed to hindering their creativity. They can choose to use the tools in their arsenal that will best help them create the sound they want, but limiting the skill set to only that which is Avant Garde only hinders creativity. It's great to encourage creativity in the student, but limiting the skill set for the sake of trying to "improve upon" the student's creativity is not only counterproductive, it's completely backwards.

The main problem here is treating the avant garde as a style in the first place. What is called "avant garde" has no other characteristics than a strive for the new, trying to be "ahead of ones time", so it's meaningless trying to establish general principles for its harmony, rhythm, etc. Surely Serialism, the works of Xenakis or even Spectralism to some degree aren't primarily associated with "intuitition", neither on a harmonic nor on a formal level. Yet Serialism and Spectralism are nothing alike both in sound and philosophy. And no, motivic unity is completely irrelevant for a lot of so-called "avant garde" music. A lot of 20th century music, even in the early 20th century doesn't use anything like motives or themes at all. (I almost never use motives myself. Not that I'd call myself an Avant Garde composer though. Not in the least.)

And there also is nothing like a "contemporary tonal music style". There are just a number of composers for whom tonality matters more than for others, but how they work with it is vastly different. And as much as "Avant Garde music" must have nothing at all to do with intuition, you can perfectly well write "Contemporary Tonal music" without concerning yourself with "understanding the mechanics of the language". These are all independant concepts.

It's hard to argue, since I don't really know what exactly you call "Avant Garde style" or "Contemporary Tonal style". However, the only thing that fundamentally separates non-tonality from traditional tonality is exactly that, the lack of one specific tonality. And writing in a specific tonality is certainly the more special case than writing without exactly this one. Therefore I find your argument unlogical to begin learning to work within one specific set of rules to be able to write other kinds of music too. The more logical approach would be to start with a general approach, writing music that -isn't- bound to one specific tonality and then possibly getting into a certain tonality if that's what you feel you want. Otherwise you might just as well start with any other set of strict guidelines. You might start with Serialism, for example.

But it also depends on what you call "Contemporary Tonal music". Do you mean CPP tonality (I-V-I, Sonata form, etc.) just used in modern times? Or do you mean a further developed tonality? But developed to what exactly then? There are thousands of tonalities that exist in contemporary music. Which one do you call the "Contemporary Tonal Style"?

The main problem here is treating the avant garde as a style in the first place. What is called "avant garde" has no other characteristics than a strive for the new, trying to be "ahead of ones time", so it's meaningless trying to establish general principles for its harmony, rhythm, etc. Surely Serialism, the works of Xenakis or even Spectralism to some degree aren't primarily associated with "intuitition", neither on a harmonic nor on a formal level. Yet Serialism and Spectralism are nothing alike both in sound and philosophy. And no, motivic unity is completely irrelevant for a lot of so-called "avant garde" music. A lot of 20th century music, even in the early 20th century doesn't use anything like motives or themes at all. (I almost never use motives myself. Not that I'd call myself an Avant Garde composer though. Not in the least.)

See, it's entirely possible to take a hyper-sensitive approach to this and argue that "tens, hundreds, even THOUSANDS" of styles exist, so it's IMPOSSIBLE to pin it down in general terminology. But if you can't see the big picture for just that, the BIG PICTURE, then there's no point in debating. For our place in time, we are only a small part of a much bigger musical heritage. What will be grouped together in history will be very general anyway, so why concern ourselves with the hyper-sensitive distinction between Spectralism and Serialism in this? I might as well start drawing distinctions between Schoenberg's and Wagner's tonality. What's the point but to confuse and misdirect the discussion into a debate on style?

The implication is there.

And there also is nothing like a "contemporary tonal music style". There are just a number of composers for whom tonality matters more than for others, but how they work with it is vastly different. And as much as "Avant Garde music" must have nothing at all to do with intuition, you can perfectly well write "Contemporary Tonal music" without concerning yourself with "understanding the mechanics of the language". These are all independent concepts.

Yeah, that's a bullshit statement in many, many ways. It's just not true. There are very basic things in tonality that work, and just plodding through the tonal language with no idea of what you're doing lends you nothing from the language. What you understand as Avant Garde must be either very specific in style or very narrow in scope. The most innovative music of the 20th Century (look at George Crumb for example) has a great deal of intuition behind it, almost entirely intuitive in most cases.

And there is a Contemporary Tonality, not to be confused with Neo Tonality which is more of a revival of the Common-Practice Language than an implementation of the new tonal techniques of today (bi-tonality, centricity, etc.). Strauss's Introduction to Post-Tonal Music Theory covers almost every contemporary tonal concept out there since 1900, though he fails to discuss what changed in tonality that makes it contemporary.

It's hard to argue, since I don't really know what exactly you call "Avant Garde style" or "Contemporary Tonal style". However, the only thing that fundamentally separates non-tonality from traditional tonality is exactly that, the lack of one specific tonality. And writing in a specific tonality is certainly the more special case than writing without exactly this one. Therefore I find your argument un-logical to begin learning to work within one specific set of rules to be able to write other kinds of music too. The more logical approach would be to start with a general approach, writing music that -isn't- bound to one specific tonality and then possibly getting into a certain tonality if that's what you feel you want. Otherwise you might just as well start with any other set of strict guidelines. You might start with Serialism, for example.

Every great composer from Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and Berg to Crumb, Carter, and even Babbitt learned how to compose tonal music from re-writing scores, studying music theory, and having a strong sense of musicianship. Your understanding and recommendation is patently false and ill-advised, shown time and again by composers who have moved on to create some of the most interesting music in the 20th Century. They didn't do it on "innovation" alone, beginning their education with Serialism or the like. They had an understanding of the music they wrote, be it serial, atonal, spectral, or whatever, and they all came from similar skill sets of writing music to go on to create incredibly well-written works.

But it also depends on what you call "Contemporary Tonal music". Do you mean CPP tonality (I-V-I, Sonata form, etc.) just used in modern times? Or do you mean a further developed tonality? But developed to what exactly then? There are thousands of tonalities that exist in contemporary music. Which one do you call the "Contemporary Tonal Style"?

I think I've already explained this, but just think about any example of tonality dating from late Wagner (Tristan and Parsifal specifically) to today. That's Contemporary Tonal language defined, which is more essentially NOT the common practice of tonality.

For instance, who knows the tonal language of Berg? Certainly not the students who understand Berg as atonal. Berg may not have used triadic harmony like Wagner, but there is a tonality at work in Berg that is only skewed by the dissonant harmonies and sometimes random melodic pitches he used. Obviously tonality is at work in Stravinsky, especially his Firebird Suite or even in Petruscka. Benjamin Britten, the minimalists, Charles Ives, and on and on we go. Even today, there are composers like David Del Tredici who compose in the tonal language, which is vast and spacious now compared to what it was in Classicism before Beethoven.

so why concern ourselves with the hyper-sensitive distinction between Spectralism and Serialism in this?

Excuse me, but this just seems like personal bias to me. Just because -you- are lumping the two together while making a strict division between "Contemporary Tonal Music" and "Avant Garde", that doesn't mean that these are the more valid distinctions. Spectralism was created as a counter motion to Serialism. The approaches are complete opposites. This is in no way a hyper-sensitive distinction. And at the same time I would argue that a lot of "Contemporary Tonal Music" can certainly be considered "Avant Garde". From Grisey's "Partiels", over Stockhausen's "Stimmung", to lots of pieces by Steve Reich or Ligeti's "Lontano".

What you understand as Avant Garde must be either very specific in style or very narrow in scope. The most innovative music of the 20th Century (look at George Crumb for example) has a great deal of intuition behind it, almost entirely intuitive in most cases.

When did I ever say intuition and Avant Garde are exclusive? I just said Avant Garde doesn't -have- to be focused on intuition. It can both be the most and least intuitive music, as I said, they are independant categories. Personally, with all due respect, I think your idea of Avant Garde is quite a bit more specific than mine.

They didn't do it on "innovation" alone, beginning their education with Serialism or the like.

You're understanding me wrong again. When I mentioned "starting out with Serialism" I didn't mean it as starting out with "innovation". Serialism is a historic technique today, just like CPP tonality. I didn't say one -should- start out with Serialism (not in the least!), I just used it as a comparative example.

They had an understanding of the music they wrote, be it serial, atonal, spectral, or whatever

I never said anything about having an understanding about the music one writes. Of course that's obviously desirable. You also seem to have understood me wrong when I said that you can write tonal music without an "understanding" of it. I never said that's something to strive for. I'm ALL for trying to understand what one does. My point was merely that whether there is an understanding behind it or not is not a criterion for the distinciton between what you call "Contemporary Tonal" and "Avant Garde".

I think I've already explained this, but just think about any example of tonality dating from late Wagner (Tristan and Parsifal specifically) to today. That's Contemporary Tonal language defined, which is more essentially NOT the common practice of tonality.

Yes, I am thinking of these examples and the only thing I gather from it that they're so vastly different that it's useless to define them as a style of any sort. I mentioned some clearly tonal works, like Grisey's "Partiels" or Stockhausen's "Stimmung" that still can be seen in an "Avant Garde" context. And they have nothing to do with the tonalities of, say, Bartok, Stravinsky, P

Which is exactly my point. Why treat contemporary tonal as something with clear definite rules, as a style even, when it clearly isn't? And why make a distinction to the Avant Garde?

Your entire post seems to dwell on this alone, so if it's okay with you, I'll just respond to this...

Your understanding of music in the 20th century IS limited in scope, though not necessarily in knowledge. It's limited because while you KNOW what creates distinctions among composers on an individual level, you don't seem to be able to assess (or maybe you just refuse to accept) that distinctions CAN and often ARE made quite frequently by people between the use of a tonal language and a non-tonal language. This can be done by listening alone in most cases.

By and large, Stockhausen's interests in music are not represented by his tonal works. We do not recognize Stravinsky's style by his attempts at Neo-Classicism. We don't think of John Williams by his many works for concert but for his work in film scoring. And there's nothing wrong with making these generalizations to grasp the nature of the composer's interest and his specialization.

And it's this that leads to further levels of abstraction. We can take the broader understanding that these composers, all diversified in some way, have significant contributions to music that are particularly relevant. And on we go. While we can't predict that these will be recognized as significant to future enthusiasts of music, we can determine, to a limited extent, where our own interests are in music and where we can contribute the most while not losing interest in what we do.

So, while it may make little sense to you to make these distinctions, to the uninformed, uneducated individual, it makes all the difference, especially now. This is the point I'm trying to make... that in order to be educated today in the area of music that interests you the most, here are the hurdles you must be able to navigate:

1. Know the area of music with which you are most interested
   
2. Find a well-educated individual with expertise and interest in that area
   
3. Know the course offerings necessary to study the music of interest to the student, AND
   
4. Find a school with proper support for that particular area of interest for the student (providing the courses that will best suit the particular needs of the student)
   

That's a LOT for a young student, especially one who probably doesn't fully understand what areas of music exist that fit their particular interests. Nevermind the endless array of professionals out there, each with their own bias and their own commentary to offer about the music they wish to write (generally not objective in the least in most cases). Moreover, even after the student finds the right instructor, they still have to navigate the school offerings. Not only do they need to understand what the courses offer, they also need to have a general understanding of the total courses available in order to determine if they're getting the most at that particular institution.

By the time the fortunate, informed student has accomplished these tasks, their list of 50 schools (let's pretend the student is a great researcher) quickly diminishes to at best 5-10 and usually 4 or less. And maybe one of those institutions is even in the student's price range. Like my situation, the institutions I was interested in were thousands of miles away from my home town. As a high school student of a lower to middle-class family, there's NO way I'd get by in a higher standard of living that far away from home. But that was when I was a student.

So is it necessary to make these distinctions and can they be made? Sure they can, if you need to and if the information is suited to the needs of the person who needs the information the most... which in this case is the uninformed musician who could give a flying faun (expletive supplement) whether Stockhausen composed five tonal works in his career or if Grisley's language is a different tonal language from Stravinsky. Most have probably never heard of him and will learn about him like most people... in time and on their own accord.

For my part, I only seek to help people like me that have been expected to just buy into the rhetoric. It may make perfect sense to YOU and YOUR interests, but for me it's nothing more than a sales pitch for a gimmick product that holds very little value for what someone like me wants to accomplish. Some of us are fine with learning the technical and reaching our own conclusions on what is important about contemporary music, tonal or not. You think of it as liberating. I see it as convincing someone of a particular perspective of an academic environment that could only be plausible from an advanced knowledge of theory in many cases. THAT is a leap of musical logic in my view, but that's just my view. What is an even FURTHER leap of logic is to believe that being able to do what every memorable composer of the 20th Century has been able to do will... not make them a better composer?

Well, that's about it from where I stand, I guess. If you want to continue the discussion, then feel free to respond with something other than, "You can't generalize this... or this... or that..." which is how you seem to be responding. Of course, correct me if I'm not comprehending what you're doing, because that's my impression of the point at issue between us.

You need to look harder.

I think it is very easy to write some place off.

I'm pretty sure that's what you did.

Think what you will. Your situation may be different. It's hard for someone with a different experience to appreciate the situations that don't work out so well for others.

And the proof is kind of in the pudding. I'm going to be going to a place that fits all of those descriptions you made.... and you didn't... and I'll be getting money... and you didn't even apply because you could afford it.

Actually, that's not entirely true. I was told that I could apply for positions as a TA, and I applied for those positions, and they were farmed out to others for reasons I wouldn't presume to know. Not enough positions? Maybe a preference of the degree-seeker?

I dunno.

THEN, you make weird and funny assumptions and conclusions about contemporary music... which is more diverse and awesome than ever...

It's weird and funny to have a differing opinion of contemporary music than you? Yeah, right, because it's totally set in stone and completely and utterly THE BEST thing since sliced bread. I'm really glad you're convinced of this, because you NEED to be convinced of this to succeed at the Master's level. I'm not convinced that all contemporary music is "more diverse and awesome than ever," but then again, what do I know? I haven't heard it as a Graduate with a Masters degree or anything.

Wait! Yeah... that's right... I had to hear it every day... and I had to love it! And about 5% of it I actually liked... like when we listened to Harmonielehre by Adams or the Berg Violin Concerto. Those occasions were few and far between compared to all the Carter, Varese, Feldman, and Cage I had to learn to appreciate my first semester. That was a LOT of fun...

not really...

I don't get it... wait.. I DO get it...

I guess I'm smart... or at least a lucky bastard getting what I want and possibly deserve...

Nahhhhh... your whining is right.

Please see my public service announcement thread.

Thank you, kthnxbye.

Hey, you know, it's great that you found an institution that will pay your way while you attend. Your interests obviously meet well with the professor interested in accepting you. You'll do well, you'll hopefully enjoy your experience, and maybe you'll end up making it in the big leagues. Good for you!

Not everyone has your specific interests in music. Not everyone has offers from universities to pay their way. Most of them probably don't even bother coming to these sites or giving it a second thought. My interest is in those people who, for whatever reason, ended up in the wrong situation. You can chalk it up to inexperience, poor research, poor advice, poor planning, or any combination of the above. But those people didn't get what they needed, and you can sit on a high horse and blame them or you can acknowledge that not everyone's situation is the same.

Make whatever assumptions about me that you want - I could care less. I'll just assume you weren't working 60-70 hours a week when you were looking for schools to apply for your masters (I don't know you, have you ever managed a restaurant? Not conducive to a research environment, but what else are you going to do without an income to pay your bills?). Still, for the amount of time I had each week, my research was pretty exhaustive for what would work and I went with the cleanest dirty shirt hoping the professor that interviewed me would be able to back up what he said. And he did when I was finally able to enroll in his section of private study a year later - too little too late though as I quickly came to realize just how indoctrinating the mentality of the university education system really is.

Every situation is different, and yours just seemed to work out better for your interests. What do you want me to say?

Good job! Way to go! Give Corbin a cookie!

Good for you. Really. Congratulations, and best of luck!

Two things,

Cage, Varese, Feldman... not the contemporary I speak of.

Secondly,

If you weren't such a n00b, you'd know of my situation... which I assure you Mr. Anti, was just as difficult as yours.... I don't need YOU or anyone else lecturing me on difficult situations or appreciating experiences....

Lecturing? Dude... really. You're not the first, nor will you be the last, to assume anything about me. You don't see me sitting here scalloping at you, do you?

I've paid my own bills since the age of 16... I've never had my own room.... until I got to college that paid for it... and I've lived on the streets... I've even had to prostitute myself at points... yeah.. so suck it up.

Prostitution is illegal.

...

I think that's all I'll say about that..

His name on the street was "Corbin the cock sucker" and he made quite a shiny penny! He's a legend 'round these parts! Don't insult him Mr. Anti-Everything... damn, you even have to be against prostitution!!! The oldest profession in history!

His name on the street was "Corbin the cock sucker" and he made quite a shiny penny! He's a legend 'round these parts! Don't insult him Mr. Anti-Everything... damn, you even have to be against prostitution!!! The oldest profession in history!

Never said I was against it...

And I'm not Anti-Everything. I like kittens.

We do not recognize Stravinsky's style by his attempts at Neo-Classicism. We don't think of John Williams by his many works for concert but for his work in film scoring. And there's nothing wrong with making these generalizations to grasp the nature of the composer's interest and his specialization.

That made me lol.

That made me lol.

Well, the Strawinski comment didn't make me laugh.

Honestly, it made me cringe. And shake my head in disbelief a little as well.

Well, the Strawinski comment didn't make me laugh.

Honestly, it made me cringe. And shake my head in disbelief a little as well.

I know, I know. But I try to see comedy where otherwise I'd probably shed a tear, y'see? At least that's better on the internet than taking things so seriously, I think.

Well' date=' the Strawinski comment didn't make me laugh.

Honestly, it made me cringe. And shake my head in disbelief a little as well.[/quote']

I know, I know. But I try to see comedy where otherwise I'd probably shed a tear, y'see? At least that's better on the internet than taking things so seriously, I think.

Yeah, whatever. Ask the average person what their favorite works by Stravinsky are... you'll be hard pressed to find many who find his Octet his best work. His neo-classical works are good, but there are just better pieces by Stravinsky worth more attention.

The Rite of Spring, Petruska, The Firebird...

Yeah, whatever. Ask the average person what their favorite works by Stravinsky are... you'll be hard pressed to find many who find his Octet his best work. His neo-classical works are good, but there are just better pieces by Stravinsky worth more attention.

The Rite of Spring, Petruska, The Firebird...

Ask the average person what their favorite works by Stravinsky are and they'll likely respond along the lines of: "Is he the guy who did the beats for Justin Timberlake?"

:whistling:

Just sayin' ...

Continue.

Ask the average person what their favorite works by Stravinsky are and they'll likely respond along the lines of: "Is he the guy who did the beats for Justin Timberlake?"

:whistling:

Just sayin' ...

Continue.

Heh. There's that also. Anyone with an average awareness of Stravinsky's music will know him as "the composer of The Firebird," but not most of them will think, "Oh, was he that guy who wrote all that really cool Neo-Classical stuff like his Octet for Wind Instruments?" Not by a long shot...

Really? I mean, it's a difference of popularity. Any student with a basic knowledge of this stuff isn't going to need to know these distinctions to basically find what they want. But keep poking, QcC and SSC. Your incessant nagging and apparent disgust with my views is entertaining.

Yeah, whatever. Ask the average person what their favorite works by Stravinsky are... you'll be hard pressed to find many who find his Octet his best work. His neo-classical works are good, but there are just better pieces by Stravinsky worth more attention.

The Rite of Spring, Petruska, The Firebird...

I'd say that Symphony of Psalms is a far better work than any of those you've listed. Better, and far more representative of who Strawinski really was. And I know a slew of musicologists who would agree with me.

So I'd have to disagree with you, since some of Strawinski's neo-classical works are actually far better identifiers of his greatness and his musical identity.

Yeah, whatever. Ask the average person what their favorite works by Stravinsky are... you'll be hard pressed to find many who find his Octet his best work. His neo-classical works are good, but there are just better pieces by Stravinsky worth more attention.

The Rite of Spring, Petruska, The Firebird...

Yeah, ask the average person about Ravel, and they'll think of his Bolero... Are you really taking that system to measure goodness or relevance?

Otherwise I lost you guys in the discussion long ago...