Music's Limits?

New genres usually take 60 years to happen. Look at the periods of music. Classical started 1750, and ended roughly 1810ish. Then Impresionism/atonality happened 1900. Then minimalism happened 1960.

My dates may be a it off. I don't remember the exact dates from music appreciation. lol

Fair enough, But I'd argue the last revolution was 50+ years ago, when computers were first used, so we're about due. For chrissakes, the seminal program Max is over 20 years old itself!

I thought the thread was dead anyway - everyone sort of agreed to disagree.

But as a closing note, an article I found muy interesting, since it in many places was correct about where music was going, such as new forms of transit, new audiences, and new producers of music, as being the only ways to expand it further. We have hit all these points, as brought up in this thread by a host of posters.

Sorry that my link is JSTOR, and there will be those who can't access it.

Cookie Absent i'm pretty sure that was it....

crap no, that one was just interesting - this is the one!!!

Cookie Absent

Yeah, it took how long for tonality to totally emerge? And that's just hitting harmonics on a string...

New genres usually take 60 years to happen. Look at the periods of music. Classical started 1750, and ended roughly 1810ish. Then Impresionism/atonality happened 1900. Then minimalism happened 1960.

My dates may be a it off. I don't remember the exact dates from music appreciation. lol

BUT, now everything moves SO much faster. Even since the turn of the century, we had blues and trad jazz evolve into swing in 20 years, then bebop in another 20; cool and hard bop in 10; then free, modal, fusion, ecm all happened at once, and NOW we have this ever expanding plethora of fragmented styles all at once.

Information moves at such a velocity that devlopment of a revolution may happen literally overnight.

;)

Information moves at such a velocity that devlopment of a revolution may happen literally overnight.

Oh man, if revolution can happen overnight, and if the cycle of revolutions is speeding up, then its possible that revolution not only can but will happen on a day to day basis, meaning that we will eventually be in a constant state of revolution, which means...

which means...

which means...

which means...

which means...

which means?

That the next revolution is...

...

...

...

...

um...

...

...

...

the end of revolution altogether?

I think I may be having a paranoid delusion.

the end of revolution altogether?

Wasn't that Attali's point? Or am I confused?

BUT, now everything moves SO much faster. Even since the turn of the century, we had blues and trad jazz evolve into swing in 20 years, then bebop in another 20; cool and hard bop in 10; then free, modal, fusion, ecm all happened at once, and NOW we have this ever expanding plethora of fragmented styles all at once.

Information moves at such a velocity that devlopment of a revolution may happen literally overnight.

;)

Granted. Look at how the time periods between the eras gradually get smaller and smaller expoentially. Here's a great graphic that shows that. Classical Composers Poster - 900+ composers by Music Period

We can only hope that it doesn't decrease linearly at a constant degree.

Otherwise we'll reach the point in time when the time between revolutions becomes zero and then negative, and new revolutions happen earlier than the previous ones! The music of the future may actually be invented two years ago, only to become obsolete when five years ago music is completely redefined and twenty years ago the world ceases to exist. :(

We can only hope that it doesn't decrease linearly at a constant degree.

Otherwise we'll reach the point in time when the time between revolutions becomes zero and then negative, and new revolutions happen earlier than the previous ones! The music of the future may actually be invented two years ago, only to become obsolete when five years ago music is completely redefined and twenty years ago the world ceases to exist. :(

What stops this from already being the case?

Oh shi--

Granted. Look at how the time periods between the eras gradually get smaller and smaller expoentially. Here's a great graphic that shows that. Classical Composers Poster - 900+ composers by Music Period

That's only because people now don't recognize as much development within periods as they used to, when in reality, there should be at least four or five different subdivisions within the classical period alone.

lets just hope i live a life long enough to see music change into something TOTALLY different.

I already said it, given the mindset of "everything is possible," no "revolution" is possible since anything new is totally expected and therefore not much of a "revolution." Also, the gradual process of diversification ensures that "revolutions" will run alongside everything else just as well, so it won't change much at all or even be considered revolutions.

In other words, a "revolution" in the classical/contemporary modern circle does not affect people who like Jimi Hendrix at all.

PS: What CAN happen and is actually more likely is a large mass of people focusing on an X specific trend which has never been "so popular." It may seem as well like a revolution, but a lot of people would know better. This is generally what it always ends up as.

I already said it, given the mindset of "everything is possible," no "revolution" is possible since anything new is totally expected and therefore not much of a "revolution." Also, the gradual process of diversification ensures that "revolutions" will run alongside everything else just as well, so it won't change much at all or even be considered revolutions.

In other words, a "revolution" in the classical/contemporary modern circle does not affect people who like Jimi Hendrix at all.

PS: What CAN happen and is actually more likely is a large mass of people focusing on an X specific trend which has never been "so popular." It may seem as well like a revolution, but a lot of people would know better. This is generally what it always ends up as.

Examples? I guess computer music would be one, but what was initially happening is nothing like what was played at the ONCE festivals, and even that stuff was mad early and sounds little like a good merzbow or sunn0)) track.

But I don't think (and please please please correct me) that there was anything akin to serialization on the scale that Schoenberg took it; though certainly retrogrades and inversions were common.

Additionally, I'd fairly sure that 12-tone was not nearly as popular, even in learned circles, as less "sterile" forms of composition; yet I'd consider that a revolution based on the form it provided to the freedom opened by the expressionists...

It'd be far easier to look at examples of it in, say, baroque music. The jump between baroque and vienna classic could be considered a "revolution" because of the consequences it had, likewise Schoenberg, while not extremely popular during his lifetime, becomes VERY important in the evolution of modern music throughout the 20th century.

These days there's not much room for these things anymore. However, masses can become obsessed with, say, 12 tone music. It'll be "revolutionary" as it was them being obsessed with rock music, despite the fact that rock music comes as no surprise to anyone who knew where it came from.

Likewise, revolutions don't come out of nowhere. If you're in the know, you can see things coming (if there are things coming at all) and certainly whatever happens is explainable by looking at what came before. Schoeberg and the Vienna classic as my examples above are deeply rooted in the influence from other composers (namely CPE Bach for the vienna classic and Wagner/Mahler/etc for Schoenberg.)

Much more has changed in 100 years than is usually accounted for, to the extent that such a type of musical revolution is extremely unlikely today.

You should all listen to SSC.

This question is known as the "Post-Modern Conundrum" and it applies to all of the arts, architecture, and ideologies of today. It argues itself: meaning most of the posts and views expressed in this thread are actually a part of the question.

The clearest way for this question to be presented is often thought to be its political manifestation.

IF a governments role is to serve and represent the needs and views of its people, then there is simply no better form of government than a social democracy. The conundrum is that this must be an endpoint in political ideology, since a social democracy has the capacity (barring external forces i.e. war, incurable illness, etc.) to both serve and represent its people fully.

This idea of government cannot be improved upon or put through a "revolution" that wouldn't change the concept so much that it could still be called "government."

So, to the people in this thread who are begging for a revolution: the ages of art never really existed, they are a system of classifications we've used to study scientifically and philosophically the nature of human expression. Monet wished to paint light. Debussy, like all composers, wanted a mood out of his compositions. They did not set out to create impressionism. The main philosophic virtue of romanticism existed in many baroque pieces. Modernism recognizes this and thusly makes the first active decision to "innovate" in the arts and here is where Pollack, Burroughs, and Cage have left the world their ultimate gift:

We now live in an age of pure aesthetics. There is even an aethetic of experimentation as evidenced by the growing number of "noise" fans in a demographic typical of underground ROCK fans. They enjoy the cacophony for the cacophony. But as I said, this number is growing which leads to my last point...

Music will sound so different by the time we die. It will change, however, in a way that is unclassifiable following the line of thinking that classifies impressionism as being distinct from romanticism. "Revolutions" are dead, yet "new" is all around you... as 4'33'' made clear, music is anything and everything.

This question is known as the "Post-Modern Conundrum" and it applies to all of the arts, architecture, and ideologies of today. ...

So, to the people in this thread who are begging for a revolution: the ages of art never really existed, they are a system of classifications we've used to study scientifically and philosophically the nature of human expression. Monet wished to paint light. Debussy, like all composers, wanted a mood out of his compositions. They did not set out to create impressionism. The main philosophic virtue of romanticism existed in many baroque pieces. Modernism recognizes this and thusly makes the first active decision to "innovate" in the arts and here is where Pollack, Burroughs, and Cage have left the world their ultimate gift: We now live in an age of pure aesthetics.

But the corollary to this is that the length and depth of the human artistic experience is wholly mapped -- something that if I don't fight on first face, I'm bound to admit is a pretty depressing situation.

And while there was no way to set out to create a revolution, you could still push the boundaries consciously, right? Debussy tried to make music he hadn't heard before, right? (history people? I'm sure you can determine this from his personal letters?)

There is even an aethetic of experimentation as evidenced by the growing number of "noise" fans in a demographic typical of underground ROCK fans. They enjoy the cacophony for the cacophony. But as I said, this number is growing which leads to my last point...

But this aesthetic of "experimentation" is a false one - the pure noise aspect was championed over 80 years ago by the futurists and dadaists. What people like Merzbow and Thurston Moore are doing is different only in lineage (and even that's debatable, since they both come out of disillusionment with the industrial revolution), not even the end meaning.

Music will sound so different by the time we die. It will change, however, in a way that is unclassifiable following the line of thinking that classifies impressionism as being distinct from romanticism. "Revolutions" are dead, yet "new" is all around you... as 4'33'' made clear, music is anything and everything.

That sounds great, but "new" sounds very, very old far too often. This thread is severely lacking in names to look up - non-western influence goes back at least as far as Messiaen, Cage was over 50 years ago, computer music is about that old, pure noise was about 80, tonality was about 100-150.... Who is "new?"

But the corollary to this is that the length and depth of the human artistic experience is wholly mapped -- something that if I don't fight on first face, I'm bound to admit is a pretty depressing situation.

Actually, I think that's pretty neat... if it were the case. I don't really care since I can write whatever I want to write anyways. If the whole of human artistic experience, bla bla, is mapped? GREAT! Means I have more options.

Depressing? I think it's rather fortunate.

Who cares if it's not new? There's nothing new under the sun, as they say.

Actually, I think that's pretty neat... if it were the case. I don't really care since I can write whatever I want to write anyways. If the whole of human artistic experience, bla bla, is mapped? GREAT! Means I have more options.

But it means that the options do not enrich the world of art. The is no more enrichment to do, which means that for all intents and purposes the art is dead.

Take say, science: once science becomes rote or axiomatic, that is no longer "science" per se, but a practical application of science that is removed from science enough to be called something different - an equation perhaps. Once there is no more ability to seek, to use methods to further understanding; it stops being science.

In the same way, take the modern cartographer. He's no longer poking around trying to find new things - I really can't think of what a modern cartographer would do - all of the area has been mapped. There is nothing left to discover, so the art dies.

But it means that the options do not enrich the world of art. The is no more enrichment to do, which means that for all intents and purposes the art is dead.

There is nothing left to discover, so the art dies.

LOL.

What? Who the hell cares about enriching the world of art? Personally, I write music I want to write and that's it.

I don't have any grand plans, I just like music. I don't particularly care for artistic doomsday when there's no evidence of it (at all.) If what you were saying was true, there would be a huge decline in the number of composers since, LOL, everything's already done so why bother?

Clearly, that's thankfully not reason why most people compose.

PS: Furthermore, how the hell do you figure that art dies if there's no innovation when that very concept is dodgy at best. No, really, those are the single worst examples I've ever seen of artistic doomsday. Cartographers, jeesh. We still need these people today, just like everyone will always need music anyways. Maybe not many people will keep writing... oh screw that, everyone will keep writing all sorts of music regardless if it's new or not. It doesn't matter, "new" is relative to how much YOU know, unless you're an encyclopedia of all art knowledge in the world, there's no escaping "newness" on a personal level. EVEN if you ARE an encyclopedia, past experiences != future experiences.

No matter how you cut it, you can't escape "new" unless you define "new" differently, and even then who are you kidding? Damn zombie threads should remain dead, lol.

You misunderstand Ferkun, it is not that the depth of the human experience is mapped, it is that it will no longer continue to expand in a way comparable to the way it has expanded.

EDIT: And art will live as long as emotion. Plus it seems to me that you think of the periods as the articulation and mapping of the human experience, when it is merely border-making. A dozen periods, a BILLION works of art. It is not romanticism that moves you I say, it is the Third!

LOL.

What? Who the hell cares about enriching the world of art? Personally, I write music I want to write and that's it.

I don't have any grand plans, I just like music.

That's fine, but I feel that art "cares." What I mean is that it IS meaningful to discuss the development of the "superform" that is art. Dismissing that discussion dismisses the whole of this thread, which is fine, but means that there's no reason to continue.

If what you were saying was true, there would be a huge decline in the number of composers since, LOL, everything's already done so why bother?

PS: Furthermore, how the hell do you figure that art dies if there's no innovation when that very concept is dodgy at best.

We still need these people today, just like everyone will always need music anyways. Maybe not many people will keep writing... oh screw that, everyone will keep writing all sorts of music regardless if it's new or not.

Based on? I could equally as validly say that people don't need music, they could substitute it for Muzak, utilitarian music, and no one that mattered would care.

It doesn't matter, "new" is relative to how much YOU know, unless you're an encyclopedia of all art knowledge in the world, there's no escaping "newness" on a personal level. EVEN if you ARE an encyclopedia, past experiences != future experiences.

No matter how you cut it, you can't escape "new" unless you define "new" differently, and even then who are you kidding?

On a personal level, you're totally right. But I'm working from a more general perspective -- one where the holistic scope of art is meaningful.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cheer up my Ferky, music is ALIVE. I know plenty of people who really can't sit through a movie, but everyone with hearing has a favorite band when they're young.

Cuz Science is exactly like art! Right!

... Except it isn't.

Also, validity of the art? Jeesh. This is over-thinking a problem that doesn't exist. :>

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. I'm not trying to be pious here. I can freely admit that I am not creative enough of a person to ever do anything particularly innovative with music and if I ever remembered in history (which the chance of that is about zero), it will not be be as an innovator. I'm sure a hundred years ago, many people felt the same. That there was nothing new to do with music. Of course, the following century turned out to completely and utterly prove them wrong and in retrospect, it's almost saddening to see how close-miinded some people were a century ago. And I'm sure, when musicologists in the 2100s are studying our century of music, they will too shake their heads at us in our ignorance.

Also, what's the point of this discussion? Whoever said one had to be original, fresh, creative to write music? Whatever happened to the tradition of composers simply writing music that they enjoy? It's my opinion that if one remains true to themselves, writes music that they themselves like, and are constantly studying and keeping an open eat for new music, they will write something that is not quite like anything else that has been heard before. Now, some people may write stuff that is only marginally different from existing music, and others might write stuff that is way, way out there. The point is, we're all individuals and therefore, none of us will have the same exact taste in music. 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.