Great troll or Greatest troll?

you can probably say very little with much confidence, and this is not one of those things. Someone could spend days or years on these 8 seconds and the piece could be spectacularly much more interesting than your 10 minutes, even if you spent just as much time. The reverse is also true, that your piece can be better. But to make an objective claim that 8 seconds of music is better or worse than 10 minutes is in err. I much rather listen to the first 8 seconds of beethoven's 5th (to be very cliche and straighforward) than listen again or in full to most of the 3-5 minute works on here of which sometimes I've experienced less than 8 seconds.

The question isn't whether one work is better than another... the question is how much is intellectually involved in one work or the other. I don't care how you slice it, nitpick it down to the finest detail if you want... but the soundscape of 8 seconds of time vs 10 minutes of time speaks for itself. Much more occurs in a timespace of 10 minutes... thus, there's much more to think about.

Now, you make the argument that said 8-second-composer could slave away over those 8-seconds of material and spend the same amount of time as said 10-minute-composer. Simply put, if both individuals invested the same level of detail, thought, and interest in their work, the 8-second-composer will always finish before the 10-minute-composer. All things being equal theoretically (of course, they're never exactly equal in reality admittedly), there is not one leg to stand on if you're going to make the case that an 8-second piece consisting of a single 12-tone row involves more thought than a 10 minute orchestral work. The number of variables to consider are so extremely polarized, the only way your argument will hold up is if you convince me to make an extreme leap of logic... and I'm just not interested.

I'm still confident because all your rebuttal boils down to is your taste in music, without any objective support for your opinion.

...the question is how much is intellectually involved in one work or the other.... the soundscape of 8 seconds of time vs 10 minutes of time speaks for itself. Much more occurs in a timespace of 10 minutes... thus, there's much more to think about.

I LOL'D ...

Good grief! :laugh:

Quantity over quality? Gimme a break!

"more happens" in 10 minutes? What does that mean? I'm pretty sure there's more going on (musically AND intellectually) in 10-seconds of Carl Stalling than in any 10, 20, 30 minute peice from 12-year-old amateur composer Billy Johnson from Idaho.

"more time to think about it" ... ... What? Why does the length of a piece affect/effect how we consider it? I've been to many forgettable 40-minute symphonies, while there are minute-long Zorn pieces that make me think all day long.

What's your point?

Simply put, if both individuals invested the same level of detail, thought, and interest in their work, the 8-second-composer will always finish before the 10-minute-composer.

So, if I took any random piece (let's assume it is 1 minute long originally) and sped it up so it is played in 8 seconds "I will finish first" before another person who takes the same piece and stretches it to 10 minutes? You may say that this is just a constructed hypothetical example, but in fact a lot of choices concerning the durations of pieces (or sections within those pieces) come from such considerations of "how long does this thing here have to last", "how dense should this section be", "how fast do I want this" etc. Some pieces have their actual quality in a spare material being spread out over a really long duration (say, a lot of Feldman's music), whereas others draw from an extreme density that makes it impossible for pretty much any listener to grasp all details of the music. And those are of course just extremes, with other music being more moderate, or oscillating between both sides. And these questions are fundamental aspects of the music that often take much thought to work out, and not just something that is added on top to "give your piece a form".

As you put it, it almost seems as if time in a piece of music was just an empty space "to fill with musical information". But the active structuring of timelines and proportions, densities, the conscious use of "emptiness" and so on are just as much aspects of the compositorial process that defines a piece of music, to me even one of the most important ones. Making qualitative assessments about music based on "how much happens in it" simply ignores this aspect of music as an artistic time structure. Time considerations and the decisions of what not to write can already be a major "intellectual investment", that you simply ignore with your argument.

Finally something we can all agree upon!

Quantity over quality? Gimme a break!

Well... no, normally, but in the extreme example of 8 seconds vs 10 minutes, it is important.

"more happens" in 10 minutes? What does that mean? I'm pretty sure there's more going on (musically AND intellectually) in 10-seconds of Carl Stalling than in any 10, 20, 30 minute peice from 12-year-old amateur composer Billy Johnson from Idaho.

It's easy to compare 8 seconds of genious to 10 minutes of crap. What if you compare 8 seconds of genious to 10 minutes of pretty good writing? Quantity is a factor too.

Though I guess when a work feels "finished" (which is a qualitive aspect), it doesn't matter if it's 2 minutes long or 30. It depends on the work. These extreme examples aren't helping any, because no piece can be finished in 8 seconds.

Actually, I should have just repeated what Gardener said (the first thing), he was on the right track.

At no time have I argued that the 'quality' of a work is equivalent to the timespan of the work. In every case so far where someone has objected to my point, you've used the example of one composer writing 10 minutes of crap and the other writing 8 seconds of pure genius. Sure, okay, in that rare instance, of course, my statement wouldn't apply.

I've heard my share of works that last one or two minutes in duration that are total crap, in my opinion, and I've heard works spanning 8-12 minutes that are pure genius. The length of time is not important unless both composers are investing the same amount of intellect and approaching their work intelligently. You can have a perfectly wonderful piece of music that lacks any intellectual understanding to enjoy it whatsoever, and it can still be a quality work (i.e., Film Scores, musicals, pop songs, etc.).

We can toss this around all day long and contort it into any number of arguments about musical taste, quality, etc... that wasn't my point at all. Given the timespace a composer decides to work in, more time = more variables to consider... that's my position. If that is not agreeable, of course we can discuss it... but hopefully with something other than appeals to taste.

ew.

This all goes back to taste, arguments about the "test of time" and "intellectual investment" and length and all that scraggy fail hard. It should be pretty goddamn obvious to anyone that a person can like a 12 second piece by a 12 year old better than he likes Beethoven's 5th and vice-versa.

In any case, the link in the original post is just lols, wtf is with this huge debate.

"more time to think about it" ... ... What? Why does the length of a piece affect/effect how we consider it? I've been to many forgettable 40-minute symphonies, while there are minute-long Zorn pieces that make me think all day long.

Tsk, tsk, Robin...don't you know you aren't supposed to refer to jazz, er, works as "pieces"? Next, you'll start calling it art!

Ignoring AA's usual impossible arguments, let me remind everyone that this thread is NOT for those discussions. For obvious reasons.

It's about that goddamn website, and should remain that way thx.

Ignoring AA's usual impossible arguments, let me remind everyone that this thread is NOT for those discussions. For obvious reasons.

It's about that goddamn website, and should remain that way thx.

I was addressing a point that comes up from looking at the website. I launched the discussion point based on reading the material from the website. If that's not what you intended, then what did you expect?

This whole discussion is going to pander to the interests of a handful of people on this site... so sue me if I think it's important to point out another perspective. You're not the only one entitled to an opinion on music. At least I used something objective to illustrate the point, unlike so many here who would quickly dismiss it on the petty basis of taste without anything concrete to support their disagreement.

And finally, if you want a "possible" argument about music, you can forget it. Such arguments don't exist. Two composers of equivalent skill, knowledge, and experience composing two separate works, one 8 seconds in length, the other 10 minutes in length, and both works involving comparatively similar degrees of intellect, will yield the same result each and every time. The longer work will always involve more thought.

Sure, those 8 seconds of music might have the highest degree of thought put into them, but if the same degree of thought is put into 8 seconds of a 10 minute work, then you have 'more thought' involved in the work. Want another example? Consider the amount of time space one has to account for, the formal structure, and the number of musical ideas required to maintain interest/musical flow in both an 8 second work and a 10 minute work.

Anyway you cut it, drawing the comparison based on equivalent knowledge and training for both composers, the more time space one has to work in, the more variables there are to consider. The only real objective rebuttal I've heard so far is taking an equally long piece of music and condensing the whole performance time down to 8 seconds. This is entirely hypothetical, I've not seen it done. I don't really see the point of writing ten minutes of music just to condense it down to 8 seconds either... I find it an entirely unreasonable hypothetical, but it's at least a response based on something other than taste.

Uh. Having more time means ... that you have more time. You can say what you want to say musically in 1 second or in 1 hour, who cares? Besides, Stockhausen compressed Beethoven pieces for example to seconds, etc, as well as modern pieces to see what kind of "noise" they'd produce when compressed. That's interesting stuff.

The impression I garner from the site under discussion is that its author is possessed of fundamental disagreements with the way modern society is structured, and is using music as a form of scapegoat or outlet for expressing these feelings.

I would consider myself opposed to the tenets of consumerism, although not opposed to capitalism in general, but I can hardly agree with the author's stances, nor fail to notice the bitterness residing in many of his/her statements. Fundamentally, of all the malaises afflicting society, I can't think of one for which music is primarily to blame.

I would think that commercial or "commodified" (thank you Adorno!) music maintains its current standing largely because people in the west, particularly the young, seem to lack affinity to the larger community as compared with say 50 years ago. Personal identity tends to be formed more individualistically - music represents one avenue through which this may be achieved.

But I'm sure fashion designers would look upon my clothing as terribly kitsch and unimaginative, interior decorators upon the decor in my house as bland and hollow, and so on. By studying a discipline in depth, you are guaranteed to move beyond a rudimentary appreciation into a critical mode of understanding. Through this, you can also gain wider perspectives, although a lot of people don't seem to. Instead, they can grow blinkers and form some kind of superiority complex. Wider understanding is replaced with what essentially constitutes narrow-minded, zealous fundamentalism. Maybe those words are too strong - the principles does seem to operate along those lines, however, and it really helps no-one.

It's late over here, the above might make less sense if I were to read it tomorrow morning...

By studying a discipline in depth, you are guaranteed to move beyond a rudimentary appreciation into a critical mode of understanding. Through this, you can also gain wider perspectives, although a lot of people don't seem to. Instead, they can grow blinkers and form some kind of superiority complex. Wider understanding is replaced with what essentially constitutes narrow-minded, zealous fundamentalism. Maybe those words are too strong - the principles does seem to operate along those lines, however, and it really helps no-one.

I don't think it's just a matter of perspective... sure, there are misinformed opinions and there are opinions based on a sound knowledge base who simply don't agree with the general majority.

My personal experience in learning about different music was more or less an indoctrination, and I felt as though I was expected to just accept what it was without any thought or concern. Would I consider myself a zealous fundamentalist? No. Would others? Maybe. I drift along certain lines that are uncomfortable for those who more or less conform to the traditional, open-minded role.

In context with my current example, I'm all for people doing what they want to do creatively. If you want to write something 8 seconds long and call it your dream work, your stamp on music history and its literature, then be my guest. Don't be surprised if I don't accept it as anything more than an 8 second arrangement of sounds, because I'm just not interested in your justifications or rationalizations (not you, specifically, Mike, just in general) for why your work is so incredible when my 10 minute work involved a considerable intellectual and monetary investment (my expensive education in composing music).

I wouldn't want to belittle anyone's interest in creating such works if they weren't such a slap in the face. As it stands, I may have been better off never studying music at all, if all it took for me to become the next great composer was slapping together 12 notes in a tone row and called it a piece. There's writing for yourself, and there's sharing a stage with someone who spends maybe one minute arranging 12 tones and actually programming the work. It's not meant to belittle anyone, but seriously... I invest my time, energy, and thought into a work and someone comes along with something they spent one minute of time actually creating... and that deserves to be the finale work on the concert (this actually happened, by the way)?

So, there's being intolerant and there's standing up for your interest (and yourself) in music. If it didn't involve the time and thought that it does, maybe it wouldn't matter. That composition involves both implies at least 'some' kind of standard... and if those who stand opposed to this view think that's unfair, that you should get to just write whatever you want and not have to know what you're doing in the process, well... it's an insult and I'll respond accordingly. I'm not positive, but I can safely assume that anyone with the amount of complaints this website creator has (and his/her ability to articulate them as well as s/he does) has more than enough knowledge to create an educated opinion. As fanatical as it may seem to those thinking, "I like this kind of music, what the heck is this guy's/gal's problem?" well, there it is.

I don't agree with most of the points on this website either, (and I certainly don't agree with the course of action sought... it's downright laughable) but I think I can understand where it comes from better than many people here... and it's so much more important to understand the position before you attack it.

I wouldn't want to belittle anyone's interest in creating such works if they weren't such a slap in the face. As it stands, I may have been better off never studying music at all, if all it took for me to become the next great composer was slapping together 12 notes in a tone row and called it a piece. There's writing for yourself, and there's sharing a stage with someone who spends maybe one minute arranging 12 tones and actually programming the work. It's not meant to belittle anyone, but seriously... I invest my time, energy, and thought into a work and someone comes along with something they spent one minute of time actually creating... and that deserves to be the finale work on the concert (this actually happened, by the way)?

Oh, please. Sorry you're butthurt because somebody liked the other guy's piece better, but that's just how it works out sometimes.

You win some, you lose some - and if you really think that someone else's music is somehow "not as good" because it wasn't as much work to produce...come on now. A Mozart symphony takes less orchestration (and time) than a Brahms symphony - I can say right now that I think Mozart's whoop the scraggy out of the ones by Brahms.

And I like Webern's 3 Pieces for Cello better than any of them! Bahahaha.

In context with my current example, I'm all for people doing what they want to do creatively. If you want to write something 8 seconds long and call it your dream work, your stamp on music history and its literature, then be my guest. Don't be surprised if I don't accept it as anything more than an 8 second arrangement of sounds, because I'm just not interested in your justifications or rationalizations (not you, specifically, Mike, just in general) for why your work is so incredible when my 10 minute work involved a considerable intellectual and monetary investment (my expensive education in composing music).

Is this just a way of saying "I like my music better because I think I'm awesome?" Are you seriously turning this scraggy into a sort of penis-measuring thing?

Plus for someone who badmouthed his education and how horrible it was, you still have absolutely no problem noting that you had an EDUCATION composing music. But I assume this was not from your university studies. It better not be unless you want to be seen as a total hypocrite.

And, in case you were just talking hypothetically and "me" in there wasn't really you, I have my doubts as to whether or not you actually really think what you just wrote for yourself. In fact I'm 99% sure considering:

As it stands, I may have been better off never studying music at all, if all it took for me to become the next great composer was slapping together 12 notes in a tone row and called it a piece.

What's the matter, AA? You just NOW come to realize that music education is only meant to help you (at BEST), not do all your work for you? You're just now realizing that no matter if you study or not, the final product is taken entirely subjectively by everyone?

Nobody really cares if you spent 6 years thinking if your piece starts with a B flat or an A sharp, in the end. And, indeed, maybe someone who came up with an idea in 2 seconds and wrote it in 2 minutes ends up outshining you. There's nothing you can do about this, it's not up to you. Once you put your music out there, you are at the mercy of everyone and anything and they usually aren't going to care if you spent your entire life writing that one piece if they just don't like it. You SHOULD know this by now.

Plus, how are they gonna know? Are you going to go around telling people "But this was really hard to write! I put a lot of intellectual effort into it!" that's pathetic. You're doing it right now, too.

Oh, one more thing:

I'm just not interested in your justifications or rationalizations

Indeed, AA, neither is anyone else in yours... though you're allowed free pass, right? Is that how it works?

You're so much more eloquent than me, SSC. :S.

SSC:

If all you plan on doing in the rest of this thread is slinging personal insults at me in the hopes I'll shut up, then it should be more than apparent you're not interested in discussing ANYTHING... which really boils down to posturing on your part...

So yeah' date=' I know that some of YC actually hold opinions like these, but honestly this must be a sort of joke (but I know that's not the case...)

[b']Note, this is not a thread about those topics (whether art music is better than pop music, bla bla,) but a about the site itself and its contents.[/b]

I express a dissenting opinion... rather, I make a rational argument in opposition to your views... instead of discussing the position, you posture up... "That's not what this thread was meant to discuss, only the content of the site!!!" That's exactly what we're discussing, and you're throwing a hissy fit over it.

You're so much more eloquent than me, SSC. :S.

I agree with this... SSC, you're great at making a thread asking for everyone to agree with you that this website you're ranting about is pure stupidity, etc.. I was entertained. I was under the impression you wanted to discuss it, too. Turns out, all you want to do is attack it without having the slightest understanding of the perspective of the author.

And in many ways, I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS WEBSITE! It's not very informative, it's not really necessary, it's just some perspective/attitude/opinion on music, it's fanatical... yadda yadda. The funny part is, the only thing I'm saying is I understand where the website's author is coming from... and after a clearly objective example is provided, you eloquently revert back to the same, tired, obnoxious rebuttals and assumptions about me, my experiences, my life, and so on. You eloquently duped me into thinking you were intelligent enough to actually discuss this with something more than your attitudes...

That's all you have in your arsenal of 'rationalizing' your positions... that and your constant, circular logic that leads into a conundrum of paradoxes and false truths. All you have left are ad hominem attacks and poor comprehension skills that result in strawman fallacies on which you base your disagreements with me. So, yes, you've eloquently demonstrated exactly how badly you 'discuss' anything when someone disagrees with you.

I'm not interested in discussing something with someone that has no clue how to intelligently discuss anything. That's a complete waste of time for you and for me, especially considering your unwillingness to acknowledge or learn from your mistakes of logic and comprehension.

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

By the way SSC, the word 'extensive' was supposed to be 'expensive'... so I just made the edit and ignored that part (you know, where you called me a 'hypocrite'?) in your post.

I wouldn't want to belittle anyone's interest in creating such works if they weren't such a slap in the face.

...

It's not meant to belittle anyone, but seriously...

If all you plan on doing in the rest of this thread is slinging personal insults at me in the hopes I'll shut up...

...

All you have left are ad hominem attacks and poor comprehension skills that result in strawman fallacies on which you base your disagreements with me.

I'm not interested in discussing something with someone that has no clue how to intelligently discuss anything. That's a complete waste of time for you and for me, especially considering your unwillingness to acknowledge or learn from your mistakes of logic and comprehension.

I said to keep the discussion on topic because I didn't want you to embarrass yourself, like you're doing right now. Oh, and I only really addressed your little rant because it's the first time I see you be honest like that.

No, really. I understand you better now, I see where the delusion comes from. You got rejected or you saw people who you think didn't deserve it getting attention/fame/? and you can't understand it. You give an example of it:

I invest my time, energy, and thought into a work and someone comes along with something they spent one minute of time actually creating... and that deserves to be the finale work on the concert (this actually happened, by the way)?

You know from experience just how subjective things are, but I'm guessing it only makes you deny it further and harder. I'm really sorry to hear all of this; maybe education really DID fail you if nobody was there to tell you that it wasn't really up to you. You aren't doing anything wrong and if people don't want to play your music or care for it, it's their problem.

And, yeah, I know you're agreeing with me, I never said otherwise. But really, don't start stuff. I told you once already but you didn't listen, so I'm telling you again, as nicely as I possibly can.

I agree with this... SSC, you're great at making a thread asking for everyone to agree with you that this website you're ranting about is pure stupidity, etc...

I wasn't referring to the original post in my quote, obviously. Please read and don't take quotes out of context as you so often accuse SSC of doing. Way to only address that part of my post btw.

My biggest issue with that website was that it treated serialism and total serialism as different things; one "art" and the other postmodern kitsch... Now, of course, they're different to degrees, but that application of a concept to other realms seems right in line with "art" to me...

can anyone explain why people hate postmodernism? i'm serious, i think i'm stupid for not getting it.

I said to keep the discussion on topic because I didn't want you to embarrass yourself, like you're doing right now...

...But really, don't start stuff. I told you once already but you didn't listen, so I'm telling you again, as nicely as I possibly can.

LOL

I especially laughed when you thought the 8-second composer got this grand recognition... by the way, he didn't get the kind of recognition you think he did. Some people thought it was funny. Most of us thought it was annoying... still others were a little aggravated that after patiently waiting for 10-12 minutes for setting up instruments on stage, arranging performers (there were 12 performers, by the way), and just looking forward to a great finale performance, we get - well - I'll call it crap. That's what it was. Maybe some YCers would have found it funny. Maybe others would have been annoyed. Still maybe some others would have been aggravated.

Honestly, I thought it was embarrassing for him. He wasn't even in town for the premier of the work. When he got back and I asked him about it, he postured up with some philosophical rambling about the 'deepness' of the work... whatever. In the end, nothing about the music was memorable for anyone... it was forgotten in a week.

The example was actually intended to offer perspective on the website's author and his/her position... not to justify it. The only one really starting ANYTHING here is you. Take your own advice.

In the end, nothing about the music was memorable for anyone... it was forgotten in a week.

And yet, you seem to remember it quite alright. I assume a week hasn't passed yet and this is actually a prediction, then.

Anyway:

can anyone explain why people hate postmodernism? i'm serious, i think i'm stupid for not getting it.

I don't even understand entirely what postmodernism is supposed to BE, let alone in which way I can go about hating it.

And yet, you seem to remember it quite alright. I assume a week hasn't passed yet and this is actually a prediction, then.

To my knowledge, no one remembers the music.

To my knowledge, no one remembers the music.

They seem to remember everything BUT the music, which may as well be the entire point. Honestly from what you're telling me I think it sounds real cool; I'd actually love to hear what that guy was intending with it.

AA is making the argument that man hours expended contributes to or defines value. I personally see that as another guise of the commodification idea: an "hourly wage" for music composition. The more time you put in, the more compensation you should receive.

Unless we can agree on certain extra-musical presuppositions, there is nothing to say that a piece which took 12 years to compose is superior to one which took 12 seconds. It may be that we can indeed agree that the former deserves more praise and championing, but for no reason having to do with the music itself.

I don't actually think that we need to find some kind of enchanted over-arching rationalization for music in and of itself. For me, music is very much a social, psychological, economic and cultural phenomenon We can do very well looking for an understanding from these angles. We can also look at its bare bones to understand the raw material from which it is derived, an activity which certainly has its place, but at that point the grounding becomes softer and matters more unsettled.

This is why I'm not sure music fits so well into the academic world just by itself. You normally have to add other grounding before it makes much sense. There is sort of an exception in that inter-subjectivity arises (a la memes) so people start to agree things because everyone else agrees them...again though, that's sociological, psychological and historical.

AA, your own musical story seems to be largely sociological and psychological, much like everyone else's. Nothing to be ashamed of, it's just human nature. I also think you are expecting too much of music academia. If you want to stand up for your own interests, write music which is true to you, collaborate with it, get it heard, see what people think, have fun. The world outside academia is full of rich musical traditions/disciplines which are barely even acknowledged inside institutional walls. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that music has to be paid respect in an academic context for it to have some kind of value.