Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems

There's an equally as powerful quote from a German bassist: "Kill the fathers."

Of course, we're all indebted to the past. I'm really influenced by strides in the 60's and 70's with improvisation and weird for the sake of weird. You might be influenced by Mahler and whatever else floats around. But that quote from Peter Kowald really means that subversion of what came before is the [a] way to progress music, especially in postmodern music. (Oh wait, are we still there? How many posts happen in 20 years?)

I love how everyone's all over Exa, and yet, he just posts some quotes from something that SHOULD make us think as composers and artists: what is our goal? [Warning: gross and possibly incorrect assumptions coming up.] For Exa, that's making music that is "natural." For SSC, it's anything and everything. For me, it's making the listener go, "Huh." We're all making art. We're all writing music, yet we're at odds when it comes to the path we take to arrive to our art. And that's OK.

I'm right and you're wrong in my world, and that's OK. Does that transfer outside of me? Probably not, but we're all entitled to go, "That? Pah." Pluralism only can go so far: it's a philosophy that's on equal footing with every other one.

And that's really my point: that a manifesto of what is good music doesn't change anything, especially under a pluralist standpoint; why is it making such a ruckus?

First of all, find an opinion of your own.

Wait wasn't that his point?

actually the author justin cites takes his examples from a very closed western culture (sample), which still believed in linear development (still believed in GOD as a goal and meaning) and this belief has made it (culture) so easy to retro analyze and retro determine and thus be very useful sample to support the belief (much later) author still has and is subscribing to it. it doen't take to be rocket scientist to see vicious circle there.

after century of decentralization and kuhn's inquiry into scientific revolutions, it is no more such a strong argument and we can, with all thinker's conscience, admit a possibility at least there being much more to world than its supposed oneness, closedness and linear development.

what is mostly interesting is the fact that knowledgeS after periods of innovation must be and are rewriten. and this fact is a pretty nice reason to think that you cannot get innovation and novelty simply relying on known rules and relations. there's always some different factor at work. a choice, a guess, an accident.

I also think Mueller is completely wrong by assuming that anyone ever hears something as completely unique/new/alien. We are disposed to project our own ideas and preconceptions on everything we see. There is no such thing as "neutral perception"; we automatically connect new experiences with our past experiences and fit them into certain models, even if those experiences are not per se related.

Otherwise you wouldn't even have terms to describe those "alien experiences". But you can play an entirely random sequence of sounds to people and they will come up with a certain vocabulary, even if it's just "ugly" or "noise", meaning that they automatically place it in a certain category with certain other things they have heard before, which is already a form of relating to it. It's silly to say we can only relate to something we have knowledge of beforehand, or which lies in the "nature of the human mind". Why would anybody like a flower or a sunset then? They definitely don't have anything to do with "the stream of human thought". And I really don't think "understanding the language of a flower" is very helpful to gain pleasure from it.

And like Jujimufu I'm somewhat sick of the implication that people who do enjoy things that Mr. Mueller, Mr. Tokke, or Mr. Anybody don't enjoy are aberrations, and are probably just lying if they say they like a certain music, because that's "impossible for natural reasons" or something like that. Why can't people accept that some people might actually genuinely like this music (and not just for "intellectual reasons"), and accept that those people are quite as much part of "the audience" as anybody else?

I don't ask anybody to like the music I like. But I'd find it decent if they at least believed me that I like it.

And like Jujimufu I'm somewhat sick of the implication that people who do enjoy things that Mr. Mueller, Mr. Tokke, or Mr. Anybody don't enjoy are aberrations, and are probably just lying if they say they like a certain music, because that's "impossible for natural reasons" or something like that. Why can't people accept that some people might actually genuinely like this music (and not just for "intellectual reasons"), and accept that those people are quite as much part of "the audience" as anybody else?

I don't ask anybody to like the music I like. But I'd find it decent if they at least believed me that I like it.

At the core of all those arguments is somewhat a need to fight what is new or modern, or what people simply don't "like" right away, or what takes effort to hear because it is so different from everything else.

So, obviously, the first thing is to cast doubt on people who "enjoy" the stuff they're fighting against. Sadly for them, like you said, we DO enjoy stuff and that has been my main argument against all this aesthetic bullshit. I don't try to trick myself into thinking "Oh I don't REALLY like it," but instead I take that as evidence that music of all sorts can be aesthetically appealing (and not just for me either!) Hell I also share Cage's opinion that sound by itself (any sound) is great, that it doesn't need to "say" anything to me and I like sound just the way it is without any attached value or meaning (which all flies in the face of music being like language, lol.)

But it really is a way of degrading and demeaning someone, isn't it? "Oh those modernists," as if we were somewhat anti-normal. I think it's absolutely hilarious how people making these arguments fail to see the lovely diversity. There's no reason why you can't like Mozart if you like Boulez as well, there's likewise nothing preventing you from writing in both styles if you really feel like it (or mixing them up, lol.)

At the end of the day, all arguments that boil down to "YOU CAN'T DO X" are all irrelevant if you simply go and do X anyway. Likewise for all arguments that try to tell you how you should think about music or how supposedly it must "work," you can override all of it. Plus, given that there's no "neutral" hearing (hearing is dynamic and context-sensitive, etc) there are tons and tons of factors that can influence how people hear things.

And indeed you can write music outside of the hearing spectrum and call it music anyway. Sure, people aren't going to "hear it" but isn't that the point? Hell if they know what's going on, I bet they would imagine stuff or at least feel things (react to it all the same) in spite of not "hearing" the music. Playing with the construct of music can also be very well music, and it can be deeply rooted in people's psychology.

If the 20th century hadn't happened, it wouldn't make me so angry that all these people are saying this.

I also think Mueller is completely wrong by assuming that anyone ever hears something as completely unique/new/alien. We are disposed to project our own ideas and preconceptions on everything we see. There is no such thing as "neutral perception"; we automatically connect new experiences with our past experiences and fit them into certain models, even if those experiences are not per se related.

:huh:

Umm, this is exactly what he proves in his book! No one can listen to something as an alien because one's previous experiences with listening will after what comes after.

First of all, find an opinion of your own.

Honestly, I'm not well-read enough on this aestheics concept to have an infalliable opinion on the subject. I do agree with Mueller's assesment though hence my quotation of him.

Well, I've heard compositions which were "actually unique" to me (i.e. never having heard anything similar before in the past - and that occured many times, in the instances of listening to Xenakis, Stockhausen, Nono, Feldman, Cage for the first time, among many others), and yes, bewilderment exists but I've also found these pieces I'm hearing for the first time very beautiful indeed. So what am I? Am I a monster in Mueller's little world?

And I don't understand Xenakis' "language", nor do I know how he composed his pieces. Does this mean I cannot appreciate them artistically/aesthetically or I cannot find them beautiful?

Juji, you have heard them before. You may not realize that you have, but there is always material that has been heard before. Society defines what tastes should be and the most successful composers adhere to that whether they know it or not. Xenakis is not unique. He still used sounds, he still used instruments, he still used the 12-tone scale (perhaps not always, but he did at some point), he still used rhythms that were able to be broken down in time, he still used the expectations of his particular society (the avante-garde), which was quite small at the time.

He's not arguing against you're ability to concieve of it's beauty (which he explains later on in the chapter). He is talking about why musical taste the way it is. Taste is defined by what comes before in the context of a sociological perspective. That's what he's arguing. If you are the only one in your society, then you would have no opinion at all and/or you'd like everything. But society, by definition, is impossible to have only one person it in. ANY sociological influence will influence your opinion, no matter how small. If you have been encouraged to make your own opinion, then, right there, that's an influence on your opinion.

To all:

Do keep in mind that this book was written in 1951. A lot has changed in the aceptance of "Modern" music and the advancement of technology. So while his exmaples are a bit outdated, his social theories still hold true with startling clarity.

:huh:

Umm, this is exactly what he proves in his book! No one can listen to something as an alien because one's previous experiences with listening will after what comes after.

Honestly, I'm not well-read enough on this aestheics concept to have an infalliable opinion on the subject. I do agree with Mueller's assesment though hence my quotation of him.

Juji, you have heard them before. You may not realize that you have, but there is always material that has been heard before. Society defines what tastes should be and the most successful composers adhere to that whether they know it or not. Xenakis is not unique. He still used sounds, he still used instruments, he still used the 12-tone scale (perhaps not always, but he did at some point), he still used rhythms that were able to be broken down in time, he still used the expectations of his particular society (the avante-garde), which was quite small at the time.

He's not arguing against you're ability to concieve of it's beauty (which he explains later on in the chapter). He is talking about why musical taste the way it is. Taste is defined by what comes before in the context of a sociological perspective. That's what he's arguing. If you are the only one in your society, then you would have no opinion at all and/or you'd like everything. But society, by definition, is impossible to have only one person it in. ANY sociological influence will influence your opinion, no matter how small. If you have been encouraged to make your own opinion, then, right there, that's an influence on your opinion.

To all:

Do keep in mind that this book was written in 1951. A lot has changed in the aceptance of "Modern" music and the advancement of technology. So while his exmaples are a bit outdated, his social theories still hold true with startling clarity.

For once I actually agree with what you're saying, save for the "If nobody else existed you would have no opinion or/and like everything" which is utter nonsense. In any case, that taste is largely a social construct I agree with, but the tone in which that book was written is largely aggressive against those that deviate from the popular norm.

In fact, that very fact that taste is social means that you can really influence people's tastes to get them to like practically anything! That is really the best explanation for aesthetic diversity because it doesn't exclude any particular tendency or tries to establish X is/must "be better" than Y.

So at this point, I can't help but wonder if you really understand what you're talking about here. Not because you're wrong, since I wouldn't think so in this particular case, but because it flies in the face of what you typically say!

Juji, you have heard them before. You may not realize that you have, but there is always material that has been heard before.

How about a blind person who, after having lived 40 years being blind, has an eye operation and he can now see? Is this person physically impossible to consider anything he sees "beautiful" because he's never seen anything like that before in his life? Is he not allowed to look at an apple and say "this is beautiful"?

And yes, you say that we have heard everything before - well, have we really experienced everything before? Because fi we have, then we must also have had experienced all these for the first time at some point in the past, potentially when we were born. So, as soon as someone is born, they can't see anything new.

Just as I assume that having your hand chopped off is not something new, since you've been wounded in the past. Would "death", then, be the only potential "new" experience we will all (animals and plants) ever live?

Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. It all depends on how you define "new".

Assuming that "making sense" means anything here.

I think you mean that it depends on what you mean by making sense. By making sense I am not referring to what we ought to compose, but if we do compose that we ought to consider the similar biological qualities in humanity and how this would affect perception of a music.

I rather my music not "make any sense" to anything/anyone sometimes.

Again, depends on what you mean by "making sense" and what I mean by "making sense."

Cool thing about art is that it doesn't matter if it "makes sense" since all that scraggy is optional~

You are grouping conceptual art with musical art. They are different. No one is stopping you from doing anything, but dog whistle music (or just sound which is imperceptible to us) is conceptual art, not musical art, since the medium of perceiving such a work does not involve the musical senses.

Unless you want to SELL a product and do market research, which is really all these "studies" are good for.

Really? What if I'm creating an electronic music piece and I want to know how high in pitch I can go before it doesn't matter because we won't hear it? (The only instance it would matter, from what I know of acoustics, is that even though frequencies may be inaudible, they affect audible frequencies. So your piece for garbage can and dog whistle would work if the high frequencies of the whistle alter sound coming from the garbage can). Otherwise, in speaking of this piece, I am assuming that that one high pitched sound is the only one being played.

Also, I'm a person who is not writing music for money (I can hope to get paid but that isn't at all the primary goal, at least not for composing, maybe teaching). I'm creating art that I personally love aesthetically and which involves the acoustic medium of perception, thus I am a composer (or want to be).

If it ever comes down "scientists say that people like music written in X manner" and prove it and all that jazz, I bet that there'll be tons of people who will use that in exactly the inverse.

Seems then as if their intent is not to necessarily create aesthetic art but to make a conceptual point. Aiming to make an extra-musical point suggests a philosophically inclined motivation rather than an aesthetic one.

So they can go ahead and they will be creating conceptually based art. There was a conceptual art movement in the the 20th century. It was a social/cultural rebellion rather than an musico-acoustic one.

After all, people have played with others' perception of music before... ...break it with conditioning or suggestion.

I would say people have played with others' expectations given our similarities in perception. How can we play with something/alter the pattern, etc. if there isn't a pattern with which to begin?

SSC, thanks for being less invective this time around. Always a pleasure to debate with you. This extends to everyone else.

-Alex

Lets see if I get the gist of this thread so far, humans are machines (incapable of any emotion, incapable of personal associations, etc). Also, I suppose science has made far more strides in associating the human species than I previously though - has science really advanced that far in the last 6 months? And finally, the question:

It comes down to a choice then: do you want to write music that makes sense for dogs or music that makes sense for humans? This is essentially all I am saying.

If that was your argument, Ex, I don't see why you referenced an article from wiki or even made the statement that we are cold machines. In reference to your question, I write the music that I want to write and the way I want to write it. If at a moment I want to write an etude for a pile of scraggy and decomposing chicken carcass - I'll do so. If at another I want to write a sonata for tuba which utilizes randomization. If yet at another moment I want to compose a full unaccompanied choral chant, I will. It's all to the composers tastes first and foremost - everything else is a second thought (and I'm quite sure if you read the journals and private correspondence of many composers living and dead - they will all share in this same philosophy, with maybe a few exceptions.)

Just two sentences here; for the first paragraph:

Big assumption. I never said that machines are cold, emotionless or impersonal. I need to stop using loaded terms, thanks for reminding me :)

Second paragraph:

Go ahead, write that awesome death corpse farm animal piece, but I think you may need to ventilate the room after wards. (This piece would be most likely offensive to our perception of smell) But I am not against such a work, as you could be very rhythmic, with volume contrasts in beating and complex poly rhythms involving the wishbone and chicken wing. You could use the scraggy as a mute effect.

How would/could music ever possibly make sense?

Because when we can perceive it we can make value judgments. Perceiving it also can inspire us or suggest ideas for one's own art. To listen for pleasure, etc. All these are sensible reasons that music makes sense, at least from our standpoint.

And I don't understand Xenakis' "language", nor do I know how he composed his pieces. Does this mean I cannot appreciate them artistically/aesthetically or I cannot find them beautiful?

But you do understand his language, not his compositional techniques or procedures, because you see beauty in his creations you can 'get' what he was doing and why a lot of his music is aesthetically interesting or worth studying. One easily can get the sense from listening to a work whether or not a person put effort into it, and this feeling becomes pronounced upon engaging increasingly with the musical language of the work.

You are grouping conceptual art with musical art. They are different. No one is stopping you from doing anything, but dog whistle music (or just sound which is imperceptible to us) is conceptual art, not musical art, since the medium of perceiving such a work does not involve the musical senses.

Turns out that that's also up to debate. I think it's "musical art" the moment the concept of music becomes involved in ANY way.

After all, the definition of music itself is arbitrary and subjective.

Aiming to make an extra-musical point suggests a philosophically inclined motivation rather than an aesthetic one.

So they can go ahead and they will be creating conceptually based art. There was a conceptual art movement in the the 20th century. It was a social/cultural rebellion rather than an musico-acoustic one.

Ahem, then we have to define what "aesthetic" means now since to me producing something, ANYTHING, can be done because of aesthetic principles. Yes, even if you don't hear the dog whistle, the mere fact that it's there can be attributed to aesthetic conception AS WELL AS philosophical one. Yes, including musical aesthetic despite the fact that you can't hear it, and precisely BECAUSE you can't hear it.

This is a dangerous statement on your behalf, since you are effectively calling things like John Cage's 4'33 non-musical art and asserting they can't be made out of an aesthetic conception.

I would say people have played with others' expectations given our similarities in perception. How can we play with something/alter the pattern, etc. if there isn't a pattern with which to begin?

Then we have to define perception as well. To me, perception is the sum of sensory input + context + influences of the environment + taste and so on since quite literally I'm not concerned with how the ear hears, but what the brain does with what the ear is hearing and that specific portion is subject to many things which DO NOT apply equally and in the same way to everyone.

That you can play with people's expectations, obviously, but I mean that it reaches further than just the individual's senses & cognitive mechanisms.

Furthermore:

By making sense I am not referring to what we ought to compose, but if we do compose that we ought to consider the similar biological qualities in humanity and how this would affect perception of a music.

See, now, nobody "ought" to do jack scraggy. That's precisely my problem with the entire argument, since it restricts on grounds which, honestly, are completely optional. Sure, YOU can follow your own advice, but I don't see why anyone should if they don't feel like it.

Human perception and the biological processes are not as simple you think they are, not by a long shot. Also, what does "considering the similar biological qualities in humanity and how this would affect perception of music" really mean in terms of actual reality? How does that translate into music? Into composition what so ever?

I'm beginning to wonder, do you write your own music according to your own standards? If so, please demonstrate how it takes into account what you preach others "ought" to do.

It just seems to me that all this is not grounded in reality to begin with since what you're suggesting either has no practical application, or if it has it is entirely and completely optional.

I love how everyone's all over Exa, and yet, he just posts some quotes from something that SHOULD make us think as composers and artists: what is our goal? [Warning: gross and possibly incorrect assumptions coming up.] For Exa, that's making music that is "natural." For SSC, it's anything and everything.

For me, it's making the listener go, "Huh." We're all making art. We're all writing music, yet we're at odds when it comes to the path we take to arrive to our art. And that's OK.

Is, going "huh" from not hearing a sonata for dog whistle better than the "huh" given from hearing said sonata? Is it better to go to a new music concert and experience musical surprise or experience conceptual surprise(which can be achieved outside a concert hall and in a much more effective way)?

Pluralism only can go so far: it's a philosophy that's on equal footing with every other one.

I'm not thinking really about philosophy when I reference such articles.

And that's really my point: that a manifesto of what is good music doesn't change anything, especially under a pluralist standpoint; why is it making such a ruckus?

Wait wasn't that his point?

It will be a sad day if all composer's decide (because apparently we can do anything at all we want, right? .....) to write dog whistle music and no one but dogs hear music anymore.

The question then becomes: Do I want to write music for dogs, or for human beings? If I want to write music for human beings, I think I should know (or at least be aware of) the similarities in and physiological foundations on how human beings perceive sound and convert it into music.

The question then becomes: Do I want to write music for dogs, or for human beings? If I want to write music for human beings, I think I should know (or at least be aware of) the similarities in and physiological foundations on how human beings perceive sound and convert it into music.

If YOU want to, sure you can!

But if anyone else wants to, why should they?

Cuz you say so?

PS: What about music for dogs AND for humans? What then?

Because when we can perceive it we can make value judgments. Perceiving it also can inspire us or suggest ideas for one's own art. To listen for pleasure, etc. All these are sensible reasons that music makes sense, at least from our standpoint.

Where does "sense" come in all this? Assuming that by "sense" you meant:

sense: A meaning that is conveyed, as in speech or writing; signification

Music is not language. That's what it mainly differs at from language: it cannot represent things, it doesn't have symbols, icons or any such characteristic that language has. Music has no meaning.

That's why the Overlords from Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End don't understand why humans compose, play and listen to music.

After all, the definition of music itself is arbitrary and subjective.

Organized, perceivable sound by the composer? Counterargument: That would mean that aleatoric techniques and compositions are not music, which they are.

But, the composer still deliberately chose to randomize such events within a musical framework, and in that way it is still organized sound by the composer

Counter: What about non-organized sound not by the composer? Such as a setting in nature, birdsongs, etc. Answer: We can hear it, and if we can make musical attributions to it, which we do all the time, then it's musical.

Ahem, then we have to define what "aesthetic" means now since to me producing something, ANYTHING, can be done because of aesthetic principles. Yes, even if you don't hear the dog whistle, the mere fact that it's there can be attributed to aesthetic conception AS WELL AS philosophical one.

Sure. But do you want to be a philosopher or a composer, and do you want to force an audience to transpose the beautiful music into audible range or write it in audible range.

Finally: if you want to write music for dogs, that's also a possible avenue (but humans still couldn't hear it, so make sure the concert hall has doggy treats).

This is a dangerous statement on your behalf, since you are effectively calling things like John Cage's 4'33 non-musical art and asserting they can't be made out of an aesthetic conception.

He has stated contradictorily in different interviews that he isn't sure if he wants the audience to just try to listen to silence/become bored/annoyed etc. or to listen to the sounds (like I mentioned about nature) in the natural environment and how they can easily be perceived as music.

But why not just write a book about it? People can listen to the musical qualities of nature anywhere. Maybe he wants the sounds amplified by the acoustics of the concert hall? Okay. But then we don't really need Cage to hear this music of the environment, all we need is the incentive to engage in such an activity as Cage so brilliantly provided.

PARAPHRASED

"Then we have to define perception as well. To me, perception is the sum of sensory input + context + influences of the environment + taste [+similarities in perception] and so on since quite literally I'm not concerned with how the ear (human ears?) hears (shouldn't you be? hearing will occur and will influence how your work is perceived. If you wrote a masterpiece that's imperceptible it's not a musical masterpiece for human beings, but a philosophical one. Just like words organized can be seen as a masterpiece because of the aesthetic constructions they invoke in the reader, seeing a score may do the same thing, but then it's just a masterpiece of a different "written" language.) but what the brain does with what the ear is hearing and that specific portion is subject to many things which DO NOT apply equally and in the same way to everyone. This is where I largely disagree, while I agree that taste is highly subjective (and that's fine, like what you like) I argue that our ability to appreciate beauty is highly intrinsic and based on standard from which we judge other objects."

END PARAPHRASE

The study to which I am referring is one in which an individual is trying to engineer the way to find the average face of a criminal. He does this by taking each face in a prison and averaging their facial qualities. What he came up with was an individual perceived to be handsome. He showed others and, in agreeing with him suggested he do a study with many more individuals. They also perceived the face as beautiful. And it worked for any average of faces from any group. The average was always very beautiful. This suggests we have an intrinsic aesthetic standard in our brain which we use to determine value. Whereas there are too many variables to know what any of these "valuable" qualities are, there is strong evidence that we make value judgments which, at least in the case of the face, are quite similar to one another.

See, now, nobody "ought" to do jack scraggy. That's precisely my problem with the entire argument, since it restricts on grounds which, honestly, are completely optional. Sure, YOU can follow your own advice, but I don't see why anyone should if they don't feel like it.

No, but you ought not to jump off a cliff, or cause unnecessary pain. You can do all these things, but you shouldn't.

Human perception and the biological processes are not as simple you think they are, not by a long shot. Also, what does "considering the similar biological qualities in humanity and how this would affect perception of music" really mean in terms of actual reality? How does that translate into music? Into composition what so ever?

Already answered with the study.

I'm beginning to wonder, do you write your own music according to your own standards? If so, please demonstrate how it takes into account what you preach others "ought" to do.

I'm not there yet, still learning the basics of composition.

It just seems to me that all this is not grounded in reality to begin with since what you're suggesting either has no practical application, or if it has it is entirely and completely optional.

Huge practical application. Dog whistle music for humans, or human music for humans?

No, but you ought not to jump off a cliff, or cause unnecessary pain. You can do all these things, but you shouldn't.

I'm done with this "debate."

also:

I'm not there yet, still learning the basics of composition.

Good, then when you actually DO WHAT YOU PREACH, cough, come back and we'll give it another go.

In fact, that very fact that taste is social means that you can really influence people's tastes to get them to like practically anything!

Absolutely not.

I'm done with this "debate."

also:

Good, then when you actually DO WHAT YOU PREACH, cough, come back and we'll give it another go.

LOL. I obviously am not writing for dog whistle. And I do take perceptual similarities into account (perception of dissonance and consonance, etc)

And by not doing it wouldn't I just be wrong? I do many things that I say I shouldn't do, doesn't mean I still shouldn't do them.

What part of:

I'm done with this "debate."

Don't you understand?

And by the way, you're comparing writing for dog whistle to SUICIDE. Unless that's meant to be a joke, and even if it was a joke, I'm not wasting my time with people who don't do what they preach. Nevermind you dodged the questions entirely. :>

At the core of all those arguments is somewhat a need to fight what is new or modern, or what people simply don't "like" right away, or what takes effort to hear because it is so different from everything else.

So, obviously, the first thing is to cast doubt on people who "enjoy" the stuff they're fighting against. Sadly for them, like you said, we DO enjoy stuff and that has been my main argument against all this aesthetic bullshit. I don't try to trick myself into thinking "Oh I don't REALLY like it," but instead I take that as evidence that music of all sorts can be aesthetically appealing (and not just for me either!) Hell I also share Cage's opinion that sound by itself (any sound) is great, that it doesn't need to "say" anything to me and I like sound just the way it is without any attached value or meaning (which all flies in the face of music being like language, lol.)

But it really is a way of degrading and demeaning someone, isn't it? "Oh those modernists," as if we were somewhat anti-normal. I think it's absolutely hilarious how people making these arguments fail to see the lovely diversity. There's no reason why you can't like Mozart if you like Boulez as well, there's likewise nothing preventing you from writing in both styles if you really feel like it (or mixing them up, lol.)

At the end of the day, all arguments that boil down to "YOU CAN'T DO X" are all irrelevant if you simply go and do X anyway. Likewise for all arguments that try to tell you how you should think about music or how supposedly it must "work," you can override all of it. Plus, given that there's no "neutral" hearing (hearing is dynamic and context-sensitive, etc) there are tons and tons of factors that can influence how people hear things.

And indeed you can write music outside of the hearing spectrum and call it music anyway. Sure, people aren't going to "hear it" but isn't that the point? Hell if they know what's going on, I bet they would imagine stuff or at least feel things (react to it all the same) in spite of not "hearing" the music. Playing with the construct of music can also be very well music, and it can be deeply rooted in people's psychology.

If the 20th century hadn't happened, it wouldn't make me so angry that all these people are saying this.

I agree with most of what you say here, except the part where you say 'YOU CAN'T DO X!'

I'm not saying you can't. I'm suggestions reasons why you shouldn't, based on observation of the possible worlds of "Doing what I argue you shouldn't" and "Doing what I argue you should." What does each mentality lead to and does it lead to better music being composed or worse music? If it leads to better music then I am all for it, whatever world.

I didn't really care to read through all of what was posted, but I have to say, for me, my understanding and connection to music comes from three basic concepts (yeah, I kinda just pulled a random number out), the latters of which are based on the formers:

One - Exposure: Most of the time, to fully appreciate any given type of music, I have to either have a good deal of exposure to it, OR more preferably, actually play it, or part of it, myself.

Two - Emotional Stimulation: If, after being exposed quite a lot, I have no emotional connection to the music, I suspect whether it is even worthy of my attention. This is extremely rare, and I am in fact not even sure it's possible, unless the composer is a dolt.

Three - Intellectual Stimulation: After hearing the emotional aspect of said music, I (and this is more personal than anything) would like there to be some sort of profound structure, meaning, or something of the sort; that is to say, I would like something that gives the piece of music depth and durability in the face of time. However, this last thing also varies widely depending on my mood.

Also, make no mistake, I like 'modern' music more and more each day. For instance, the concept of microtonality has recently begun to fascinate me.

*sigh*

So...who here likes pie? :D

spinach pie!