The thread to end all "Is X relevant?" threads. Ever.

[SSC]

In your defense, you do try to salvage the argument. But not in your defense, you do everything to bring the argument to the point where it needs salvaging.

I like people to be able to explain and defend their positions, what's wrong with that?

[Tokkemon]

I like people to be able to explain and defend their positions, what's wrong with that?

Because then you'd be a hypocrite. You vehemently denounce other people's opinions and never explain your own.

[Salemosophy]

I like people to be able to explain and defend their positions, what's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with challenging an idea so long as you understand the idea being offered. You don't get to that step before you start attacking the idea. This is why people (like myself) get frustrated with you. You swing for the fences before you even understand why you're swinging.

On three separate occasions, you've almost agreed with part of my position. What you've disagreed with has sometimes carried weight and merit, but more often, you point to some random, off-topic detail that has no significance to the discussion. Once you find one insignificant detail you disagree with, you often dismiss the entire position.

So, no, I don't think you like people to be able to explain and defend their positions. I think you like to see people tell you you're right or admit defeat when you find something you disagree with... and if they don't, you call them ignorant and stupid.

[Tokkemon]

*looks at SCC's page and sees that he/she has no referals. Wonders why.*

[Daniel]

What's that, you have none either? So shut up.

[robinjessome]

I like people to be able to explain and defend their positions, what's wrong with that?

Because then you'd be a hypocrite. You vehemently denounce other people's opinions and never explain your own.

Justin,

SSC actually does a remarkably good job of explaining and outlining his positions. He's one of the few members when I know where he stands and how he approaches music on a philosophical level. Something that can't be said for most folks around here.

------------------

*looks at SCC's page and sees that he/she has no referals. Wonders why.*

WTF do referrals to YC have to do with anything?

[Salemosophy]

Justin,

SSC actually does a remarkably good job of explaining and outlining his positions. He's one of the few members when I know where he stands and how he approaches music on a philosophical level. Something that can't be said for most folks around here.

No, SSC does no such thing, at least where it concerns challenging people to defend their positions.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/tonalitys-purpose-today-17059-5.html#post260289

[Old Composer]

What's that, you have none either? So shut up.

Haha. Owned.

Now see, I feel that this comment is fine, because it was deserved. Referrals have nothing to do with the quality of person.

However, when someone is at least trying to explain a viewpoint or explain their reasoning, I don't think harshness is necessary. Unnecessary derogation is ultimately harmful. When you cover honey with gravel, the sweetness is negated. Likewise, when you present a clear, well-thoughtout viewpoint in a derogatory, "f-you" manner, it basically negates any potential good you could do with your statement.

Maybe it's just me though. To me, I feel like we are here to expand our worldview and our thought-processes and our musical philosophies. If this is true, then the statements "I'm right" or "You're wrong" or any variant of those are out of place in response to a post where the member is legitimately trying to discuss something.

We are all students, and we are all teachers.

For instance, if I say "I think Bach is better because I like his harmony", it doesn't seem appropriate to follow that with "Troll more" or "O RLY?!" or "You obviously don't know anything about music, now gtfo." To me, it seems that an appropriate response would be something that conveys how quality does not correlate with personal taste.

That's just kind of an example of what I mean, to clarify in case anyone is confused. Obviously SSC has much to contribute, especially in the field of objective thinking, but I often find myself skipping over his posts due to the extremely condescending tone they are created with. There are a few other members like that as well - I'm sure you have a lot to offer, but I'm disinterested because you are quite rude.

[Tokkemon]

Justin,

SSC actually does a remarkably good job of explaining and outlining his positions. He's one of the few members when I know where he stands and how he approaches music on a philosophical level. Something that can't be said for most folks around here.

Oh, well if your talking about those 5,000 word essays in his posts, I don't bother to read them. And on the oft occasion that I do, they are incredibly boring. Who was the guy that said conciseness is a virtue?

WTF do referrals to YC have to do with anything?

SCC deserves many referrals for the way he/she treats people. He no fair!!! *sob* :sadtears:

[Old Composer]

I believe referrals are when you get someone to join the forums.

I could be wrong though.

[Tokkemon]

I believe referrals are when you get someone to join the forums.

I could be wrong though.

If that's true then I completely misinterpreted what they are. I apologize to all!

[Daniel]

Daniel, do you need a hug?

Yes.

[cygnusdei]

Jumping in late in the discussion .....

I'd like to challenge this premise:

NO IDIOM, TECHNIQUE OR STYLISTIC EVER DIES, IT ONLY BECOMES LESS POPULAR.

Contrary to this claim, there is in fact a real danger of extinction in the musical world. In order for something to be relevant, first it must exist! For one I'd like to hear music from the Biblical times, but alas no records exist, and therefore they're irrelevant.

A more recent example would be Geirr Tveitt (1908 - 1981), who lost 80% of his music to fire. 300 opus numbers, gone forever.

In this digital era the danger is less menacing. Damn, that reminds me I need to make backup copies of my work.

----

EDIT: I just learned that Mozart actually wrote 3 bassoon concertos - only one survived (K. 191).

[MatthewSchwartz]

In this digital era the danger is less menacing. Damn, that reminds me I need to make backup copies of my work.

Tell me about it. When reformatting my laptop, I lost a few Finale files (thankfully I have them saved as PDF's, but re-inputting the notes to either revise the pieces or re-record them will be an absolute scallop), and I also lost one of my very favorite and very earliest recordings. Listening to it brought back fond memories of the past, and now I've lost the recording forever. :(

[SSC]

Contrary to this claim, there is in fact a real danger of extinction in the musical world. In order for something to be relevant, first it must exist! For one I'd like to hear music from the Biblical times, but alas no records exist, and therefore they're irrelevant.

A more recent example would be Geirr Tveitt (1908 - 1981), who lost 80% of his music to fire. 300 opus numbers, gone forever.

In this digital era the danger is less menacing. Damn, that reminds me I need to make backup copies of my work.

Good point. But I guess it's hard to talk about music that simply doesn't exist, or count it for that matter. I'm simply talking about the music we DO have history of, or is widely spread.

PS: To people who think I'm this or that: Do you really honestly think I give a flip? Think what you will, skip my posts if you want, I don't give a scraggy either way if that's all you have to say. It's kind of funny the only people speaking against me are those who have disagreeing views and have always somehow failed to substantiate them significantly.

As for your remark, Jamie, I'm not going to sugar coat the crap I say for anyone nor do I really care if you like my "tone." Honestly, your tone in the last few posts has been rather obnoxious but hey whatever. If you're going to post just to say "SSC IS A MEANIEFACE" then don't bother, I don't really care about what you think in this case if you can't tell content from package.

[robinjessome]

SSC IS A MEANIEFACE

[SSC]

SSC IS A MEANIEFACE

OMG ;_;

[Old Composer]

...I certainly hope you got a lot more out of my posts than "SSC is a meanieface"

I was trying to convey the fact that we are at a website geared, ultimately, towards young composers. It doesn't seem to me that being a jerk is a good example to set.

In any case, my posts (or 'remarks' I guess) weren't pointed at you, you just happened to be the point of discussion presently. It's a general attitude that I see everywhere on the internet. I would just hope that at a website where we all, ultimately, have a common interest that we would be able to act at least somewhat mature, especially those of us who are older.

Likewise, you preach objectivity but can't seem to respond in an objective manner yourself. If you are truly an objective thinker then you should be able to take my comments without taking them personally.

[SSC]

...I certainly hope you got a lot more out of my posts than "SSC is a meanieface"

I was trying to convey the fact that we are at a website geared, ultimately, towards young composers. It doesn't seem to me that being a dick is a good example to set.

In any case, my posts (or 'remarks' I guess) weren't pointed at you, you just happened to be the point of discussion presently. It's a general attitude that I see everywhere on the internet. I would just hope that at a website where we all, ultimately, have a common interest that we would be able to act at least somewhat mature, especially those of us who are older.

Likewise, you preach objectivity but can't seem to respond in an objective manner yourself. If you are truly an objective thinker then you should be able to take my comments without taking them personally.

Oh so you're saying I act like a dick and at the same time I shouldn't take it personally? Right, whatever you say.

[Old Composer]

SSC, there is no way I can continue to have any kind of discussion with you if you refuse to acknowledge all that I have said. I mentioned that I was making broad generalizations about the internet, and this forum as well, and that your name just happened to come up because someone else brought it up, and that what I was saying wasn't specifically geared towards you.

Now if you insist on taking single lines out of my posts and somehow trying to make me seem like I'm attacking you, then you can do that. But I will no longer cordially discuss things with you, as that is, in my eyes, a very childish way to act.

This is part of the problem. We are here to learn and to enjoy talking with other composers. We're going to have differences - else it would be boring and unproductive. But to scorn those with different views than us? That seems a bit immature to me. That is my point.

[Salemosophy]

SSC, there is no way I can continue to have any kind of discussion with you if you refuse to acknowledge all that I have said. I mentioned that I was making broad generalizations about the internet, and this forum as well, and that your name just happened to come up because someone else brought it up, and that what I was saying wasn't specifically geared towards you.

Now if you insist on taking single lines out of my posts and somehow trying to make me seem like I'm attacking you, then you can do that. But I will no longer cordially discuss things with you, as that is, in my eyes, a very childish way to act.

This is part of the problem. We are here to learn and to enjoy talking with other composers. We're going to have differences - else it would be boring and unproductive. But to scorn those with different views than us? That seems a bit immature to me. That is my point.

I hate to be the one to say it, but there's no point in even wasting your time trying to explain yourself to SSC. If he was really interested in behaving like a grown adult, he'd do just that. SSC chooses to behave as he does, and there's nothing you can do or say to convince him otherwise.

It's sort of like trying to rehabilitate a drug addict. At the end of the day, you can do your absolute best to remedy the situation, and you may even feel like you're gaining ground, but the next thing you know they're off the train using again. It's an issue of choice, not misunderstanding. SSC chooses to behave the way he does, and some folks here actually think the world of him for it. Why? Who knows? Who cares?

So, my advice is just don't waste your time explaining yourself to him.

[SSC]

This is part of the problem. We are here to learn and to enjoy talking with other composers. We're going to have differences - else it would be boring and unproductive. But to scorn those with different views than us? That seems a bit immature to me. That is my point.

Well if you meant no harm then no harm done.

As for scorn those with different views? I only scorn people who are unable to actually reason or form logical arguments, like AA. After all, what would be the fun in just saying "oh poor you" and leaving it alone? If you say retarded things on a public forum be prepared to face the consequences.

I think there's obviously a measure by which something is just nonsense, where nothing can come out of it. This bullshit with tonality is a non-issue and I dare anyone take this up in the actual academic arena for a proper debate... of course it'd be the shortest debate ever.

I mean, take this for example:

Not every system is complete (yet). Tonality just appears to have reached such a point where no matter what you want to express, you can express it.

Fine, it's his opinion, right? There are people who think Elvis is still alive too and people also thought the earth was flat at some point, but a nonsense opinion IS nonsense, no matter how much you "respect it." Furthermore, we know EXACTLY why he thinks that (old is better) and that is ultimately what makes it worthless.

So, I see no problem being harsh to this kind of thing, after all what else can you do with something like that but ridicule? Specially after all the bullshit that has already gone on? I think it's clear that I shouldn't even need to explain this at this point anyways.

Another bit of wonderful nonsense from AA:

Eliminating that filtering process only weakens the subjective value of music written today. This "test of time" is what helps in determining why YOUR music should be studied INSTEAD OF JOE BLOW'S music long after you're dead. Popular or not, if a composer's music draws an audience and the public (educated or not) has grown to appreciate it, there MIGHT JUST BE something worth studying.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that because X is popular, X is "worth it." Sure, it CAN be! But since this is a subjective thing (art) drawing such parallels is absurd at best. This is someone who seriously believes music has a had a "filtering process" which somehow ensures that "the best" music survives and the "worst" doesn't.

This MUST be some sort of twisted joke. Opinions like these are meant to be crushed as they bring absolutely nothing to the table. He fails to define what is so "wonderful" that has survived the so called "test of time." What is that "something worth studying," which is derived solely by public appeal (which can be explained rather easily without any reference to any music at all by learning a bit about sociology and how culture works.)

Nevermind that the entire thing is just an appeal to popularity and an appeal to tradition at it's best. There's no real evidence that any of what has survived the "test of time" is really objectively better than what exists now and certainly taking as a sign of superiority the mere fact it survived is stupid, if not downright delusional. Taking into account the fact that what has survived is popular to determine if it's "better" and then attributing it to it being OLD is something I'd expect of an 11 year old writing a discourse on art history and appreciation.

Sorry, I just don't have the patience to be nice or "respect" these sort of things. If I come out with a musicology paper where I say ANY of what he claims or tries to argue my career is ruined before it even begins, so I don't see a problem being highly critical of any of it and neither should anyone interested in not polluting the forum with such garbage.

[Salemosophy]

Just wait until I tear into your "pure dumb luck" argument. Oh, wait... one problem with that, SSC. You don't have one posted.

Awfully convenient for you... what with all this criticism and nothing to show for it.

You're not applying either logical fallacy accurately, which is funny because you use them like you know what to do with them. You don't. But what strikes me most about this is:

If I come out with a musicology paper where I say ANY of what he claims or tries to argue my career is ruined before it even begins, so I don't see a problem being highly critical of any of it and neither should anyone interested in not polluting the forum with such garbage.

This is why I do what I do, because in academia, you'll never get this kind of viewpoint anywhere, nor will it be anything but taboo to discuss it openly.

Hence, OMG!!!!!! a YOUNG COMPOSER'S FORUM!!!!!

[SSC]

This is why I do what I do, because in academia, you'll never get this kind of viewpoint anywhere, nor will it be anything but taboo to discuss it openly.

Hence, OMG!!!!!! a YOUNG COMPOSER'S FORUM!!!!!

... You just said exactly why you would never put your neck or reputation out for your opinion in the actual academic arena, nobody would take you seriously because your opinion is SIMPLY WRONG.

Sure, here in the interwebs you're more or less safe, you can say whatever you want.

But yeah, "taboo"? "Viewpoint?" Oh, kind of like people who think the earth is flat, right? Yeah nobody discusses THAT anymore in the scientific academic world, wonder why that is?

That you don't know anything about art, sociology, psychology is not my fault, it's too sad you never got a proper education, that's all.

---

Now, if you want me to clearly explain why it's "dumb luck" that X music or X culture survived, it's very easy really. It's not my "theory," really, it's what is actually agreed on in the fields that deal with this matter.

A given cultural tradition exists because this tradition has been perpetuated through various means, be it political, by force or conquest, or simply because people liked it better. An example? The religious traditions around the world, the culture pertaining to each country/group of people/etc.

Now, music and art are a special kind of thing, they are subjective. This means that there is no objectivity to speak of, much less in terms of X is better than Y (and there is an accumulating body of evidence on behalf of neurologists and neuro-musicologists that, biologically, we do NOT have a bias for any given sound sets, systems, anything. All is constructed through education and in the process of culturization.)

Which makes sense if you look at the actual variety of music out there in the world outside of the European-influenced cultures. None of it sounds like eachother and in fact many use entirely different systems, scales, tunings and use parameters in entirely different ways.

I don't think you realize that in the only fields which what the majority of people think doesn't matter is in science, and musicology deals exactly with this. In German obviously Musicology IS a science like biology or sociology, and as such it remains objective. For it to do so, it must look to other sciences (sociology) where the phenomena of culture-formation and tradition are well understood.

Couple this with the fact music is subjective, it means that X music is invariably the same as Y and all that changes is, besides the actual physical properties, the cultural baggage and context.

Argue what you want, but if you can somehow prove the opposite of all I've said here, you should be well on your way to earning a couple of Nobel prizes or at the very least a good number of recognitions for the advance of human understanding. As music is only a byproduct of an evolutionary and biological process, therefore when I say "Music is subjective" it's not only my opinion, it's exactly what the researchers are finding with increasingly more certainty.

I've posted about this before, with sources and where to read more on the topic, if you're curious.

What I'm doing is really simple, I don't claim I invented or that any of what I'm saying is really my opinion, I'm just stating things as the are. Music cannot be objective unless you MAKE it objective and then that in itself IS already only possible because it's subjective.

This subjectivity argument is the trump card to any "value" arguments, to any "test of time" argument, as time can't test anything that is entirely dependent on taste, culture, context, etc. Most likely that the music any of us likes, we only like because we have been conditioned to do so by other factors that have nothing to do with music.

So, with all that, right back to my "dumb luck" argument, it's very simple really. Since objective judgment is impossible, the only possible, logical reason that any music today survives as it stand is that people have kept it from being destroyed for their personal reasons. Since their personal reasons are SUBJECTIVE and influenced by culture, context, taste, etc, they are no measure at all what so ever of anything but their own appreciation.

In essence, it's just lucky that people liked Bach's music and thus it survived, otherwise it would've been almost forgotten or it would be just a historical footnote if evidence of his existence had not been erased, like Zelenka's music which Bach was himself a fan of. Yet, only recently are people paying more attention to other composers which were eclipsed by the surge of popularity Bach had.

If you want to "prove me wrong" or, as you so elegantly put it, "tear into my argument," you would have to prove that there is something objective in all the pieces that have, ahem, "survived the test of time" which we can measure, quantify and therefore prove that any piece containing those characteristics, by those characteristics alone should be able to therefore always survive any length of time or it's destruction.

Like in science, ideas that DO really "stand the test of time" do so because they have been found to work and be objectively true despite constant testing, probing and skepticism. Newton's laws of motion are rather old, yet they all hold not because they are old, but because they WORK.

If you can prove such thing exists in the music you have said "stands the test of time" I will gladly concede your point, but you must first overcome the subjective problem, then prove that all the music that has survived the "test of time" must all contain characteristics that hold true BY THEMSELVES rather than depending a culture or tradition to uphold it (after all, Newton's laws don't depend on any tradition, context or cultural conditioning, they stand on their own here and in mars, no matter where you go they will still hold true.)

(To complicate your job even further, you have to account for the fact that you need to find the same exact objective, quantifiable things you find in the western music you claim "survived the test of time" in music from all over the world, some of which is MUCH older than anything western we have historical knowledge of.)

Good luck with all of that, seriously! There are a lot of awards waiting for you if you manage to pull it off and you should MOST CERTAINLY present this idea if it's so good in the academic arena, you would be famous.

[Salemosophy]

I had a much longer response almost ready, but then I didn't get it finished when it was time to leave work. So, I thought on it more and think a shorter response is in order. Here goes...

... You just said exactly why you would never put your neck or reputation out for your opinion in the actual academic arena, nobody would take you seriously because your opinion is SIMPLY WRONG.

Sure, here in the interwebs you're more or less safe, you can say whatever you want.

But yeah, "taboo"? "Viewpoint?" Oh, kind of like people who think the earth is flat, right? Yeah nobody discusses THAT anymore in the scientific academic world, wonder why that is?

That you don't know anything about art, sociology, psychology is not my fault, it's too sad you never got a proper education, that's all.

---

I have no intention of starting an academic career for the very reasons I've given in post after post. Your remarks about this are assumed and dramatically overstating the situation... which is typical for you.

I mention that you will not find positions such as mine for this very reason - not because they lack validity, but rather because stating as much goes against the interests of the institutions employing these academics.

I'll move on now, because further explanation of this just falls on deaf ears. I keep trying to impress on you that you need to learn to comprehend what you read, but you're just going to continue to assume I'm saying something I am not saying...

I'm breaking up the posts because there's just too much to put in one.