Music's Limits?

Do you think there are still novel concepts in music? That true innovation is possible? Please show examples if possible.

I find it very frustrating to compose sometimes because, 100 years after the end of tonality's monopoly, 50 years after the advent of computer music, 30 years after heavy experimentation with sound as opposed to music per se, and 20 years of pure noise, I end up feeling like music has so few places left to go...

Thoughts?

For all practical purposes, I consider music to be an infinite study. Even if you limit yourself to 12 notes per octave, the variety of possible arrangements is staggering.

If you dump things into big boxes ("pure noise", for example), you might be frustrated because the number of big boxes is limited. But within those boxes, there is plenty of room for innovation. Sometimes you need to make the box bigger. The Grateful Dead were a "rock band".

Art doesn't die if it doesn't innovate. That's technology. Art is expression. It won't die man. Innovation is arts appendix. It's not really needed for to reach the ultimate goal of feelings, thought, and dancing.

See, it's not superficial innovation that I'm looking at. it is my opinion that any art -- you brought up a slough of them -- needs to be expanding or it is contracting. When an art has become, as opposed to is becoming, there is an increasing problem of legitimacy. This problem comes from the original social intent of the art being warped. It is like people using straight serialism today: the society that created it no longer exists, so there is the question of "why?" I'd argue most of the time, it is reverence for the innovators, not the innovation itself, which drives the new composer of old music. But what do we do when "old music" is all that's left?

Something important -- I'm not saying that this is the state of music. As I said, I feel that an outright rejection of the "out of big boxes" idea is correct, but I haven't really seen anything (aside from serious social changes, but that's not where I'm coming from) that changes the boxes.

In fact, some of the things you fear most you might actually find beneficial. Poetry experienced what you would call a "death" as post-modernism began, Ginsberg being the last classic perhaps? Well Dylan, who doesn't constitute much of a singer has shouted his poetry into ears and has changed more lives than most pen-and-paper guys.

I'm not trying to be Spengler here, saying what is or isn't the height of the culture or anything like that. But I'd argue Dylan harkens back to older folk forms before calling him a poet outright. And that's the problem, especially with commercial music -- people have short memories. To me, a 100-year gap is nothing; music is over 5000 years old. That a style was ignored for a bit and comes back onto the scene isn't an innovation. But you're totally right again, this "Post-Modern Conundrum" carries over to other subjects -- it's like reading modern philosophy, eventually it starts eating itself or differentiating itself by VERY tiny differences (Berlin and Gray, for example).

If you want to do something new, consider opera. Not opera as in the genre that was popular in the previous centuries, but opera as it would be now! Aesthetics will constantly shift unnoticed, so your "new" is now.

But again -- the human voice has done quite a bit, even strictly in the world of opera. There has been throat-singing, sprectsang, rock opera, ABBA-opera, various levels of spoken word... it is hardly a wide-open field. Not to mention, I find music with text to be "lower," but that's just taste. More importantly, I've got my own thing going, just like anyone else. I'm not trying to judge or anything -- I'm a scrafty composer -- but I feel one can discuss evenly the state of the art and be a bit negative about it, especially in light of the evidence brought forward.

Example, the peak of this culture of revivalism you speak about is probably something like the Strokes. They're often compared to Television and the Velvet Underground. Listen to VU&Nico, Marquee Moon, and Is This It back to back to back. You'll notice how different they are when you stop focusing on how similar they are.

I haven't listened to all the Strokes, but that song "Last Night" and the marketing has much more to do with the Ramones than VU&Nico or Marquee Moon.

Well, to be honest, this discussion is kinda silly in my opinion. The limits of art are only bound by the limits of our imaginations. If you can't think of anything "new" to do, it's not arts fault, it's *your* fault.

But the search for innovation by other people is a folly too? I'm not trying to be an innovator -- I'm in the same boat you are. but I find it at the very least interesting that there isn't really a market for new music.

I'm sure a hundred years ago, many people felt the same. That there was nothing new to do with music....

Quite right, but you could point to Wagner and say "this is fundamentally different." Or Webern, or Stockhausen, or Handel in their times. It's not a matter of there isn't -- I'm sure there is. But WHO?

If we remain true to ourselves, then we will create something that's at least partly original. And if it's not mind-blowingly revolutionary, then all I have to say is....

OH WELL!

Sometimes, you just need to accept that your place in history will be a mere foot note (if that). For every Mozart, there are about 10 Mary Linwoods.

Right, but I'm not talking on a personal level. Do what you want, I'm not proselytizing for everyone to be making new music. Art need to be varied, as well, lest it become singular. But without growth (and with it too), the variations slowly disappear, become essentialized, and converge to set "styles" which neither expand nor enrich the lineage up to that point.

For all practical purposes, I consider music to be an infinite study. Even if you limit yourself to 12 notes per octave, the variety of possible arrangements is staggering.

If you dump things into big boxes ("pure noise", for example), you might be frustrated because the number of big boxes is limited. But within those boxes, there is plenty of room for innovation. Sometimes you need to make the box bigger. The Grateful Dead were a "rock band".

Yes, it's a large number, but a finite one. Where/what is that finality?

Well, how else would you classify white noise artists?

And the Dead were almost 50 years ago. I feel rock has more than eaten itself, as a small folk music trumped up with way too much money might. But, in the same way, I feel jazz has done the same thing -- I haven't heard a jazz record that was really innovative since the late 70s, even though I might even love some of the "non-innovative" records. Even free music has eaten itself and split into its (gutter)punk and academic worlds -- when did Brotzmann last put out something that expanded the repertoire, and he's still considered a luminary in his world.

But again, I'm not saying that music is dead, or even dying. I'm poking around looking for who actually IS creating futuremusic.

S...I feel jazz has done the same thing [eaten itself] -- I haven't heard a jazz record that was really innovative since the late 70s, even though I might even love some of the "non-innovative" records. Even free music has eaten itself and split into its (gutter)punk and academic worlds -- when did Brotzmann last put out something that expanded the repertoire, and he's still considered a luminary in his world.

:hmmm:

art will never die because everything is art.

end of story.

A nice little quote from Mr. Holland's Opus:

"Well, you can cut the arts all you want, Gene. But sooner or later, your students will have nothing to read or write about."

I'm sure one of these days there will be a CD:

Silence:

1) Noiseless 0:00

2) Soundless 0:00

3) So quiet that you forgot you existed 0:00

LOL :D

Unless you have perfect speakers (which, to my knowledge, don't exist) you'll still hear some noise on such a CD!

I'm sure one of these days there will be a CD:

Silence:

1) Noiseless 0:00

2) Soundless 0:00

3) So quiet that you forgot you existed 0:00

LOL :D

I think you'll actually open the CD case and find no CD at all. Instead, a note will prominently display reading:

"Due to the inability to create perfect silence on CD, we encourage you to find a place where you can experience such silence for yourself. Thank you for buying our case and we hope you have been enlightened."

Let's face it. Music is more novelty than anything else :(

Perhaps as culture changes, though, music will experience more interest in the future from a cultural standpoint. And composers would be celebrated as "real men of genius" in Budweiser Beer radio commercials... all would then be right in the world.

Let's face it. Music is more novelty than anything else :(

What?

They used to be "Real American Heroes"

I think it'd be cool to do a cd of just lead-in time in different lengths,especially considering gardener's post... maybe not...

What?

Didn't stutter. Where culture is concerned, music is more novelty than anything else. It serves no other purpose than to be experienced, possibly remembered through multiple hearings, and ultimately forgotten (the exception for this being those who actually study, perform, and write music).

For the general public, music serves no purpose above and beyond novelty :(

Too bad, too. We live in a society that commodifies EVERYTHING. Music is no exception.

By the above two posts, I have hereby concluded that spoken language is a mere novelty. Thank you YC for this wondrous insight! How could I ever live not knowing this outstanding morsel of knowledge? *cough*

nfw. you should read steven mithen's book "the singing neanderthals" to shake off a bit of this ignorance.

The information is quite intriguing, actually. I've heard of the basis of Mithen's book (haven't read it though) and hardly "disagree" with it within its ethnomusicological context. I think my statement is being taken a bit too extremely. I'm merely pointing to the society more in general TODAY, not thousands or tens of thousands of years ago, whatever the time frame is.

EDIT: ethnomusicology is the broader term that applies to the study of music in culture.... i'm sure people who dedicate their lives to this would not appreciate your comment. within this field there are people who study music from an anthropological perspective

I mean no offense. I don't think it's that much of a leap to say that the average person of our culture has very little interest in each work of music they listen to, which is why I distinguish between the educated and the non-educated. By and large, the world of music in the Western world is a commodification of art. This is by no means a hard and fast rule applied to everyone, but it's not without merit either. Music is a novelty to a majority of people. For those who experience music through some sacred means or identify deeper meanings in what they hear, this obviously does not apply. But how many people are you going to pull off the street and get a solid explanation from about why music is important to them? I'd venture a guess the first words out of their mouth will be, "I just like having something to listen to..."

If it's not novelty, then I suppose you can call it what you will. We're not really Neanderthals anymore, which is a real pity... we might have more appreciation for music if we were still mystified by its effect on us and could come to those "epiphanies" of sorts on how music creates such effects.

Bah, I encourage you not to take me so seriously. Most here have learned by now that I'm probably not going to say something agreeable most of the time that I post. No offense intended, but you might want to lighten up on the "clarify the ignorance" crap. I'm just not in the mood tonight to argue... or I would... and it would make life miserable for all involved. Better to just let it go and move on.

"Music is the organisation of sound to decorate time." - Frank Zappa

That's become my favourite definition of music, and also one of the broadest I've ever seen.

Bolanos, I'd counter with you reading Attali, though fair enough, he is a hxcx Marxist and not an ethnomusicologist.

But none of this has to do with the limits of music...

The organization of sound definition has come up -- if that's the case, then what do you do with things like Alvin Lucier's Wire? Unless you want to extend organization of sound to setting up the "world" in which the sound can be produced, but I'd say that's a long stretch.

I don't think so at all. It's a very organized installation. It's not an "organisation in time" maybe, but it is a conscious organisation that forms an acoustical result. Even some of John Cage's "Variations" which neither set any time structure, nor define any sounds, but simply define an aleatoric technique to determine locations of sound sources of any kind are a form of sound organisation. (Just as much as a piece by Bach, which defines pitches, but doesn't say anything about the placement of the musicians in the room - which also leaves an important acoustical parameter completely open, but we still call it an organisation of sound.)

Your base definition of "music" is missguided.

You consider the music you *currently know* to be the "music world".

Music that will be written in the year 2,459 is still music - you and I just don't know it yet.

So, there are only limits where *you* place them.

The music we know today is limited to it's boundaries - but our grasp of it doesn't have to be.

People are always looking for innovations and some find them, I'm working on a few surprising experiments in music and sound at the moment, if they turn out as I please... I'll post you an update here :)

Omri.

So what do you foresee in 2459? I'm fascinated that

A) this thread keeps getting revived, after it was pretty soundly put to bed by SSC and others; and

B) that most of the responses seem to assume that I'm thinking of music in a very limited sense. Avoiding an overlong post of all the music that i've at least glanced at, suffice it to say that my current favorite genres are white noise artists (such as Sunn0)) and Merzbow) and Free Jazz. Now i'm not saying this just to try and pretentiously sound cool, but to say I've been around the block with music.

What are you working on, don't be shy :)

Missed a parenthesis there with SunnO))). If they didn't try to sell the whole look, I'd like them a lot more hahahaha.

What the heck... if this thread won't be dying anytime soon, I guess I'll just enjoy myself and discuss/argue my point.

Just to catch everybody up, I made the comment that music in modern culture is more novelty than art in our society. In other words, what effect music had on culture before, say, 1900 is FAR different than its influence on culture today. I can go on, but I'll just keep it short for now and elaborate later if necessary.

It seems like you're belittling music for no reason whatsoever, which is strange coming from a musician. Music elicits very strong responses from people (both general listeners and musicians themselves)... in fact, I would be surprised to find someone who didn't have particularly strong emotional responses to at least one song.

See, this is the problem. How am I "belittling music" to make a statement of cultural conditions that apply to music today? Why should this be so "offensive" to people, even those who study music? My criticism is more directed at those who create misguided narratives glorifying the importance of music. Times have changed. If you want to make a truly enlightening statement about music, at least have the evidence today to show for it.

We'll go through my evidence as I tear through this rant of yours... I encourage you not to bring your emotion into this and just hear me out.

Why would music have evolved as an innate trait of all human beings if it does not serve some purpose beyond entertainment?

You forget that the evolutionary process of humanity is taking place alongside the evolution of music. This comes down to a paradox of sorts... did music spark the evolution of man, or did man spark the evolution of music? There is little doubt that the two are connected, but there is an issue of practical application today. Let's look at this "mystical influence" of music on mankind's development today through the following...

Why would most people you speak to immediately know what kind of music they like and what kind they dislike?

Taste? Some emotive element? Maybe some level of comprehension if they have a musical background... this is certainly not an enlightenment or influence on the development of mankind. It's merely someone expressing their interest in a particular kind of music. That's it.

Some people have an uncontrollable urge to dance when they hear certain music.

Primitive, tribal cultures had an uncontrollable urge to dance when they heard music, too. Some eastern cultures still carry on traditions involving music and dance today. I get it. In Western Culture, which Paul M Johnson more accurately defines in Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties, the cultural model is dramatically different.

To try and equate the interest in dance today when one listens to music with the "uncontrollable urge" of tribal cultures is just silly. You're giving music some supernatural feature that just doesn't exist today. Even the behavior of more primitive cultures in reacting to music can be explained in a rational way that doesn't mystify music's affect on people.

Music is particularly well suited to establish an emotional link to a particular person, place or time period, and can even affect people's behavior...

Affect behavior, eh? How? Uncontrollable urges? ...

(think of couples' songs, or the tunes your grandparents always went on about...

Trends in music, both past and present, aren't proof of some mystical power of music.

...or when teenibopper girls start screeching when britney spears or whatever starts playing on the radio...

Popularity and a herd mentality have more to do with that than her music...

...or when mosh pits get so out of control that the russian government calls in tanks and metallica doesn't even notice... there are so many examples)

I can appreciate your passion about music. I just hope it's becoming clear that there is an aspect of "practicality" in talking about music.

It's a major part of people's lives, and not in the same way that TV or playstation is, because its fundamentally rooted in all human societies.

Everyone's doing it, so it MUST be a fundamental quality of mankind instead of an extension of mankind's own creativity. See the difference in this? It goes back to that paradox I spoke of earlier, that mankind's evolution has just as much to do with the evolution of music as music's affect on primitive cultures of the past. Music takes no such hold on culture today that it did in the past.

Of course almost nobody can clearly express with words exactly what they take from a particular song or style - if you could speak it, there would be no need for the music. It's inherently abstract and affects people on a level that very few can really explain (that's arguably the reason we have music theory, although I don't think it's always that effective), but simply because they can't express it in words does not mean it doesn't affect them. I don't understand anything about biology and couldn't tell you the first thing about how my liver works, but this doesn't mean it's not important.

No, the argument isn't whether music affects us... it's whether or not we, as a society, have the kind of integration of music in our society today that mankind of the past may have had... and moreover, how music influenced culture then compared to now. Let's be very honest with ourselves. Our cultural make-up today is nothing close to the traditional, tribal, or religious societies of the past.

I understand you're probably talking about elevator music or the scraggy they play in grocery stores, which is a total bastardization of the art, but some of your arguments are pretty out of place, and there's plenty of theoretical literature that deals with these subjects. I recommend you read some of this stuff (also take a look at Steven Pinker if you're interested) before making sweeping statements like that.

I'm not talking about elevator, restaurant, or grocery store music. I recommend you read literature outside the subject of music to gain more perspective on culture and music...

I've dedicated considerable time and effort to this (specifically the relationship between music and language, which touches upon this topic) and I do get annoyed when people who have not read any of the literature and only have the foggiest concept of these ideas barges in and feigns expert. I'm definitely not an expert and I show respect to the field - I think others should at least be informed before they engage in the discussion and try to reinvent the wheel.

I admire and respect your passion, but I think a healthy dose of reality is always a good thing. There are many a composer aiming high in the stratosphere in seeking music's potential. But there's nothing wrong with coming down to planet earth to explore that same potential. Refer to the use of music in therapy or other non-media. These don't have to be strictly "utilitarian" approaches either. There's a thread on soundpainting which more or less allows the composer to assume the role of a "performer" or "improviser." There are practical applications of the art form that can be explored in their own way.

Novelty. The negative implications of the word merely suggest we should be broadening our perspective, and you need not have this impression that my attitude or interest in music is any different than yours. I don't think it's such a bad thing to take a critical look at music if it helps us explore the art that much more.

Lighten up, Bolanos.

Why would music have evolved as an innate trait of all human beings if it does not serve some purpose beyond entertainment?

HALT!

Before you go on with this you should well know that one of the most solid conclusions from Neuro/Evolutionary musicologists in terms of why music even exists is because it's simply auditory cheesecake.

... Hell, isn't this what Steven Pinker himself argues?

So dunno, music most likely exists just cuz some mutation allows for it for an entirely unrelated reason. At least it seems that way, and personally I think that entertainment is a damn good reason if we even NEED a reason at all. You can chalk up any positive musical/aural experience to "entertainment" unless you think hearing music you like is not entertaining.

And, y'know, I love the music they play in elevators and grocery stores. Total bastardization of the art my donkey, you apply that label to anything you apply it to everything. Mozart is a bastardization of the art compared to Palestrina OMG OMG OMG (but we are all mediocre compared to Mozart) etc.

Anyways, I may be a musician myself as well but I don't really think music is anything special. I can also speak pretty and glorify, uh, sculptures or visual arts, movies or even games (!) but I don't think that any of these is "better" than any other, they're all different and that's that.

I dunno, I'm kind of convinced by Spengler's interpretation of music as the fulfillment of the Western "soul" in art.

And yeah, you're right, Muzak isn't inherently worse -- but I think most people would subjectively say it is, based in part in its commercial bent. I think music might be the last bastion of Marxism in academia...

The thing is that Muzak is obscenely well thought out. The playlists are designed to fit the work day, the music is all intentionally homogenized to be less distracting... It's brilliant stuff....

To each his own, AA. I'm just not a fan of ambiguity, which seems to be your comfort zone. Sorry if I came off as angry or hostile, but I can't stand careless statements.

I'm a fan of expression of ideas, ambiguous or not. It's a pretty abstract subject, so forgive me if the nomenclature of the subject matter is getting in the way. I used to be fairly strict with people in discussions about word usage. Over time I got sort of fed up with argument after argument reducing itself to petty semantics. I find the best way to discuss here at YC is to just be as short and sweet as possible, let others react, then clarify my position specifically to what objections they have.

On another note, my second major was political science (I do have interests other than music, AA), and there's nothing more repulsing to a rational mind than Marxist theory.

If you're referring to my "then and now" application of primitive culture to modern civilization in the examples from your argument, I don't think it's a strong relationship to Marxist theory, per se. I'm simply acknowledging that music is not a constant underpinning the development of humanity over the evolutionary cycle. At first, there very well could have been some mutually beneficial developments in the world of sound and the evolution of man (most assuredly), but I think we're past the mysticism surrounding music that we had pre-whenever.

And there are certainly other ways to advance music, other contributions to be made, without aiming high for the next revelational development in music. Beethoven may have hoped his music would survive as long as it has in the record of human creativity, but I don't think it was his intent to create the next great development in music. He composed what he wanted to compose and people enjoyed it. He made his living this way and died. No need to make more of him than that... it's his music that's more important to the pedagogy than the ambitions of the man.

I guess I'm sort of rambling a bit. Maybe it's about doing the best with what you have to work with than it is trying to create something "new". And we have a LOT to work with, so we have a LONG way to go before we'll ever find ourselves wanting more from what we have now. I guess that's sort of what I've been trying to say the last few pages...

To sum up this thread:

The limit of subjectivity is that of which its possibility is no longer perceived to be considered a nuance.

In English. There's you, and there's the world. Get the crap out from behind this media wall and explore the realms of sound if you want answers. Discussing here is nothing practical.