Another article on modern music.

A person can be engaged in his/her surroundings while at the same time living in a vacuum - and Beethoven, as well documented, was one individual that provides a very clear and concise case on the matter.

No, from a completely practical standpoint of psychology, it's not possible to be engaged in one's surroundings and live in a vacuum - something is being absorbed through the interaction with one's environment. Beethoven may have perceived himself to be emotionally isolated from the world, but by and large, he didn't abandon the principles and conventions of the time to express himself artistically. He couldn't for fear of being institutionalized, for that matter. But that's the point I'm making, sorry if you feel I've misconstrued what you said. I happen to think you're taking Beethoven's journal entries without any larger context in mind.

I hope that adds more light on the matter. I was nearly on the floor when I saw you misconstrue what I said. :blink:

What I saw was a response implying "it's not much different today as it was then," (I'm paraphrasing). Quite frankly, the details in the previous post that you later expounded on in your reply to me do considerably more to restore my confidence. I'm sitting there reading this material like you're using it to prove a point, but no point should be proven by omission of relevant details.

For example, returning back to Beethoven, his early education spent studying music is a pretty critical piece of information that should apply to how Beethoven was not composing music in a vacuum and that he was drawing on that knowledge to express himself. We should also consider how the attendance of the peasantry at some of Mozart's concerts is categorically different to the condition that modern music experiences such a profound resistance today.

These are pretty significant points to make that establish the differences in music then and music now (culturally speaking), because the middle class isn't showing up in droves to performances of Stockhausen or, more ironically, Charles Ives (whose interest in composing music of the peasantry is quite well documented by now).

So, clearly, while there is a case to be made for the similarities, these in and of themselves do nothing to shed any light on the environment when we omit relevant information from our positions. At least you know that information. Next time, I hope you'll do more with it.

Heh, call it my take on reality. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Our artistic freedom extends to the last listener. So, if you're composing with only yourself in mind, obviously your artistic freedom is whatever you make of it. When we then bring the issue of "who is listening" to modern music, I stand by my assessment... our artistic freedom extends to the last person who listens. If the issue is whether or not anyone is listening to modern works, clearly there are people listening. If the issue is why more people are not listening, this is my opinion on the matter.

That's all I have to say about it.

of course this is your take on reality, not mine. i mean, it's obvious (that what you believ is what you believe) isn't it?

our artistic freedom extends far beyong any listener, for one who composes does not qualify as a listener, at least not in a sense as other listeners. if one composes for himself, it does not mean he composes for himself as a listener (he might, of course to a degree), but something else. like possible listener, do you include in your listeners the future listeners, the possible(of the infinite)? you can't say nothing about the last listener since there exists none! here, thus, your logic breaks down and not without terrible consequences.

which are - if you single out any type or group of listener(s) as your target, you do no better than adolf did by singling out aryans as master race. inclusion by things like worthy/capable/analysed (sure, you KNOW your target, right) creates what one could call a violence of social(nice, isn't it?). the excluded, those for whom you don't compose, dominates the largest field of possibile listeners, but they undergo genocide already in your head. i think this whole logic of exclusion/inclusion is wrong. and terribly so. i so wish the artists deal less with sociology for they come to produce catacombs for living.

why one can't accept that he/she composes for anyone who might come into relation with one's work, no matter how and where? you mentioned charles ives in another post. well, he wasn't wrong to include 'peasantry' in his possible audience. the failure to reach them on large scale means not that he somehow' miscomposed' what peasantry likes, it's rather that peasantry as a possible audience does not exist, or if it does, it does not exist in a form of being open to works (of ives). thus his desire to reach them is not necessarily supposed to mean that he wants to please them, to be a butterfly for peasantries tired dicks, but rather to say something to them that, maybe, is not seen by them. he, thus, wants universalism through local proccedings. local functioning as possible space for infinite, which alone can be universal. with logic of finitude (i.e. definite boundaries for listeners) you only reach totalitarism in arts, segragation based on circling in and out. sectism. particularism. fundamental terrorism.

and i'm not saying that this is what you intend as a person, but that is what logic you subscribe to implies.

of course this is your take on reality, not mine. i mean, it's obvious (that what you believe is what you believe) isn't it?

I said nothing to the contrary, did I?

our artistic freedom extends far beyong any listener, for one who composes does not qualify as a listener, at least not in a sense as other listeners. if one composes for himself, it does not mean he composes for himself as a listener (he might, of course to a degree), but something else.

Regardless of what the composer desires to do, the composer is a listener. Just because the composer controls the sound doesn't mean the composer is not a listener in the process. Whether the composer hears the work before or after putting it to paper or notation, the composer relies on some kind of musical judgment to make decisions about it, from what to include to what to exclude. All of this ultimately results in a final product, one of which the composer intended others to hear (presumably) and by doing so listens to him or herself.

like possible listener, do you include in your listeners the future listeners, the possible(of the infinite)?

No, I do not. The last listener is the one to which artistic freedom extends. Ergo, it is a finite construct with infinite possibilities that depend solely on how long the work is listened to, performed, etc. Yes, I assume that ultimately a work will cease to be performed as aesthetics and expectations change over time. But in the moment, music offers insight into other social factors on which to understand cultures of the past.

you can't say nothing about the last listener since there exists none! here, thus, your logic breaks down and not without terrible consequences.

It can be demonstrably shown that, as we understand it now, fewer and fewer works will receive infinite performances as more and more music is created. The human being cannot hear every work ever written as it stands now, even spending 24 hours a day 7 days a week listening with no breaks and no sleep.

which are - if you single out any type or group of listener(s) as your target, you do no better than adolf did by singling out aryans as master race. inclusion by things like worthy/capable/analysed (sure, you KNOW your target, right) creates what one could call a violence of social(nice, isn't it?). the excluded, those for whom you don't compose, dominates the largest field of possibile listeners, but they undergo genocide already in your head. i think this whole logic of exclusion/inclusion is wrong. and terribly so. i so wish the artists deal less with sociology for they come to produce catacombs for living.

Far from targeting an audience, it's a matter of identifying what most audiences connect with, absent the specifics of any one musical language. This is largely conceptual and open, not, as you put it, the production of "catacombs" for the living. And this whole comparison of my approach to Adolf is too melodramatic and plainly ignorant for me to waste any time with, so I'm moving on.

why one can't accept that he/she composes for anyone who might come into relation with one's work, no matter how and where? you mentioned charles ives in another post. well, he wasn't wrong to include 'peasantry' in his possible audience. the failure to reach them on large scale means not that he somehow' miscomposed' what peasantry likes, it's rather that peasantry as a possible audience does not exist, or if it does, it does not exist in a form of being open to works (of ives). thus his desire to reach them is not necessarily supposed to mean that he wants to please them, to be a butterfly for peasantries tired dicks, but rather to say something to them that, maybe, is not seen by them. he, thus, wants universalism through local proccedings. local functioning as possible space for infinite, which alone can be universal. with logic of finitude (i.e. definite boundaries for listeners) you only reach totalitarism in arts, segragation based on circling in and out. sectism. particularism. fundamental terrorism.

and i'm not saying that this is what you intend as a person, but that is what logic you subscribe to implies.

No, I disagree entirely, and it's not the first time I've heard these thoughts regarding "totalitarianism" in arts. I don't care to expound on this further. It's a tiring argument to have with anyone who turns a blind eye to "the now".

'we as composers should.' your opinion enlarged to a set of composers. not logically valid.

'regardless of what composer does, he is a listener' again, logical nonsense.(hint - listening is doing)

'the last listener is the one to whom artistic freedom extends'. you haven't given the case of who is this 'one', it can't be empirical construct. no go. then, you say, it's conceptually open. well, it is, because it's conceptual and not empiric construct. but - gain you go - knowing the audience is conceptually open. here is an empirical swing ('audience') with conceptual indexing ('opennes of concept that could define an audience). no go.

it may be melodramatic, but it does not mean that your logic works differently than that of herr adolf. could we have a case here? i don't know. i suggest an analogy, which may or may not be transdisciplinary, so to say.

'the now'? are you saying you have a good grip of 'the now'? 'the now' is time to take the power in our hands and fry the infidels, for we know what is 'the now' wanting us to do!

it does not matter whether music is performed a lot. mozart is performed more now than in his lifetime. did he know 'the now' or 'the now now'? if 'the now' is so important why wouldn't we start composing what is cool for most of the audience to have more hits on youtube? hey, who cares about that lone possible listener scrolling past millions of musics of 'the now' to find some music!? screw him. and her as well.

we, as a new breed of socioposers, should do what 'the now' is!

'we as composers should.' your opinion enlarged to a set of composers. not logically valid.

AGAIN - did I imply that my views are not "opinionated"? Of course not. I have an opinion, just as you have an opinion.

'regardless of what composer does, he is a listener' again, logical nonsense.(hint - listening is doing)

If the composer is not LISTENING to what they are doing, what is the composer doing to qualify their work?

'the last listener is the one to whom artistic freedom extends'. you haven't given the case of who is this 'one', it can't be empirical construct. no go. then, you say, it's conceptually open. well, it is, because it's conceptual and not empiric construct. but - gain you go - knowing the audience is conceptually open. here is an empirical swing ('audience') with conceptual indexing ('opennes of concept that could define an audience). no go.

1) Composition is performed for an audience. People like it so piece is programmed again.

2) Composition is performed again. People like it, so piece is programmed again.

3) Sometime down the road, people's interests and aesthetics change. Piece is not programmed.

4) Expression ends at the final listening of the work by anyone. Artistic freedom expressed in the work is no longer expressed, ergo, it ends with the final listener.

it may be melodramatic, but it does not mean that your logic works differently than that of herr adolf. could we have a case here? i don't know. i suggest an analogy, which may or may not be transdisciplinary, so to say.

Okay, well, Adolf used Eugenics to justify his racial prejudices. This was hardly a "logical" application to bettering the world - Eugenics never had a valid basis in science or in logic.

It was propaganda, nothing more and nothing less. Transdisciplinary? No. Try "outright wrong."

'the now'? are you saying you have a good grip of 'the now'? 'the now' is time to take the power in our hands and fry the infidels, for we know what is 'the now' wanting us to do!

No, what I'm saying is that until you demonstrate the relevance of your views to the world as it exists today, with real examples that offer something demonstrable reflecting your position, I have no desire to explain myself to you.

it does not matter whether music is performed a lot. mozart is performed more now than in his lifetime. did he know 'the now' or 'the now now'? if 'the now' is so important why wouldn't we start composing what is cool for most of the audience to have more hits on youtube? hey, who cares about that lone possible listener scrolling past millions of musics of 'the now' to find some music!? screw him. and her as well.

Mozart doesn't have millions of hits on Youtube.

Still, why is that person, the one lone person scrolling through all the millions of musics of 'the now' more important than me? Why should I be indoctrinated into composing music for that person instead of the millions of others who seem to have a better grasp of what they want? After all, the implication is that all of the music out there is inferior to the music this one person is looking for, at least as I see it.

But no, the illusion here is that this person scrolling past millions of musics of 'the now' to find some music even knows what 'some music' is or what to look for... and maybe he or she doesn't. Maybe that person is so cynical and withdrawn from the world or the aesthetics that it is up to them, NOT US, to cope with that.

We can't save everyone, not in THIS society. Now, maybe the day will come when that is no longer the case, that we can survive doing what we do and reach every last human being searching for something, something they have no idea of and might not even know it if they were to come across it... but that isn't MY concern, and the only totality of music I see is this kind of indoctrination, this endless search for something "new" and innovative for, what, the sake of this one person?

Please, let's keep piling on the melodrama... because maybe if you continue to do so someone will come along and agree with you, or how about instead... PLEASE, SPARE ME THE RHETORIC!

we, as a new breed of socioposers, should do what 'the now' is!

Said by you, not by me.

man, you're such a bore. seriously, you keep repeating same thing without further reflexing into your agenda.

can't you connect that what is your opinion doesn't cound as a 'shoulds' 'is's' and 'now knows' that you spread here.

your four step program is not so good, really. listeners don't like stuff because tastes change? how radically? why in several hundred years people still listen to old school scraggy like bach, mozart and stuff? do you predict that at some point there will be no listener for them (barring sun explosion or anythins else ending rational beings' race)? if so, sigh, you are not only wrong, but quite unempirical, thus.

it does not matter what adolf used, it matter how he used it. you use your modern hypotheses of dynamical theory mixed with sociologisms and art theory in much the same way adolf used his knowledge of things. the logic is flawed. i don't care about the premises (which may turn out to be flawed as well, for all i know)

yes, why would one compose for you, and not for me? that answers your stubborn geography of musical taste. maybe we, the few, will save humanity for all i know. maybe you and your taste sucks and you are bound to have the last show before getting extinct? hey, this only follows your logic.

new and innovative is the thing you use now replying to me. why do people search for new and innovative? because they love the possible, they are not satisfied with existing and because it simply kicks donkey. and because you can't stop us from creating amazing robots that will never compose one single piece sounding the same and there will be audiences enjoying creativity and burning blood of robocells! that's why!

SPARE YOUR RHETORIC

man, you're such a bore. seriously, you keep repeating same thing without further reflexing into your agenda.

Ok.

can't you connect that what is your opinion doesn't cound as a 'shoulds' 'is's' and 'now knows' that you spread here.

When there is substance to challenge my view, I'll be glad to invest the time into making those connections for you.

your four step program is not so good, really. listeners don't like stuff because tastes change? how radically? why in several hundred years people still listen to old school scraggy like bach, mozart and stuff? do you predict that at some point there will be no listener for them (barring sun explosion or anythins else ending rational beings' race)? if so, sigh, you are not only wrong, but quite unempirical, thus.

Oh! So, I suppose new and innovative is supposed to address this condition? How's that been going, exactly?

it does not matter what adolf used, it matter how he used it. you use your modern hypotheses of dynamical theory mixed with sociologisms and art theory in much the same way adolf used his knowledge of things. the logic is flawed. i don't care about the premises (which may turn out to be flawed as well, for all i know)

Yes, YES, it DOES MATTER what Adolf used. It was "the new" research based on scientifically invalid information that Adolf and his supporters used. IT ABSOLUTELY DOES MATTER THAT THE INFORMATION WAS UNRELIABLE! It wasn't even LOGICAL, nor could it be logically deduced or empirically derived!

yes, why would one compose for you, and not for me? that answers your stubborn geography of musical taste. maybe we, the few, will save humanity for all i know. maybe you and your taste sucks and you are bound to have the last show before getting extinct? hey, this only follows your logic.

Maybe Bananas will learn how to communicate in English, too, and tell us how much they hate the genocide of their populations under the oppression of gorillas! Hell, if we're talking in absurdities, why stop with half-assed stupidity? Next time, go all out when you're going to completely dodge my point!

new and innovative is the thing you use now replying to me. why do people search for new and innovative? because they love the possible, they are not satisfied with existing and because it simply kicks donkey.

Okay, so I'm going to correct your statement:

"why do -I- search for new and innovative? because -I- love the possible, -I am- not satisfied with existing and because it simply kicks donkey."

Don't speak for everyone else next time. Speak for yourself when expressing YOUR OPINION.

and because you can't stop us from creating amazing robots that will never compose one single piece sounding the same and there will be audiences enjoying creativity and burning blood of robocells! that's why!

Yes, of course! Let's mock the work that so many people who specialize in electronics, robotics, and computer intelligence architecture are doing. That will totally convince people that this position of yours is relevant when the next technological breakthrough rolls off the assembly lines leaving humanity to stand, once again, in awe and marvel at its collective brilliance.

SPARE YOUR RHETORIC

Sure, when you offer something substantive. Keep posturing, and I'll continue boring you with more of "my rhetoric".

substantial. yeah, right. as eugenics got bad name because of nazism. dynamic system theory may get bad rap because of derivative politics you try to make out of it. this is only false logic of inclusion/exclusion. eugenics, for all i know, only means we can enhance society through manipulating genes. and it's really not out of date. how we do that is a problem and ethical, moral and social one. the same with your postion. and what you say cuts to me the same thing as nazism. albeit in more moderate form, of course, one only would need practical movements to support/expose what you are saying. because without that, what you are saying is speculation with many logical gaps, which you fail/ignore addressing.

new and innovative does not need to change the 'condition?' of art appreciation. there's no obstacle for one loving mozart and something as stockhauzen or supersilent, for all i know. the logic of social change does not map out the logic of taste. seriously, you'd be a good bartender mixing cocktails that give headaches.

do i need to continue through your logical lapsuses?

i need. it feels good.

if you haven't noticed i said i'm using your logic in 'one lone listener' example. that means, i use 'we' insted of 'i', the same way you do, saying, 'we, the composers'. it's easy, i don't need to mock your position - it is a mockery of itself and anyone caring to understand the logic of it, can see that. you simply engage in ideology, not discusion. there is no discussion between the peers of the same postition. it's only infinite blow job situation. and i'm not liking it.

i did not mock the robotics. i actually love it, because i hope robots of the future will put humanity where it belongs - at the service of higher creatures. and while humans (as you suppose) can't love all music without necessary cuts into geography of liliputs and giants, i hope robots will (be capable of), for i see no logical obstacle to that.

while i see tons of conceptual (and retrograde socially, politically, artistically) obstacles in your position of 'writing music for specific audiences'.

you truly believe you have substantial position here?

spare me some change, then, please.

substantial. yeah, right. as eugenics got bad name because of nazism. dynamic system theory may get bad rap because of derivative politics you try to make out of it. this is only false logic of inclusion/exclusion. eugenics, for all i know, only means we can enhance society through manipulating genes. and it's really not out of date. how we do that is a problem and ethical, moral and social one. the same with your position. and what you say cuts to me the same thing as nazism. albeit in more moderate form, of course, one only would need practical movements to support/expose what you are saying. because without that, what you are saying is speculation with many logical gaps, which you fail/ignore addressing.

new and innovative does not need to change the 'condition?' of art appreciation. there's no obstacle for one loving mozart and something as stockhauzen or supersilent, for all i know. the logic of social change does not map out the logic of taste. seriously, you'd be a good bartender mixing cocktails that give headaches.

do i need to continue through your logical lapsuses?

i need. it feels good.

if you haven't noticed i said i'm using your logic in 'one lone listener' example. that means, i use 'we' insted of 'i', the same way you do, saying, 'we, the composers'. it's easy, i don't need to mock your position - it is a mockery of itself and anyone caring to understand the logic of it, can see that. you simply engage in ideology, not discusion. there is no discussion between the peers of the same postition. it's only infinite blow job situation. and i'm not liking it.

i did not mock the robotics. i actually love it, because i hope robots of the future will put humanity where it belongs - at the service of higher creatures. and while humans (as you suppose) can't love all music without necessary cuts into geography of liliputs and giants, i hope robots will (be capable of), for i see no logical obstacle to that.

while i see tons of conceptual (and retrograde socially, politically, artistically) obstacles in your position of 'writing music for specific audiences'.

you truly believe you have substantial position here?

spare me some change, then, please.

You have no case for any logical fallacies on my part until you CONNECT what you are saying to the world we live in... you know, like society as it exists now, for example. All you are doing is POSTURING on some ideological pedestal. Your remarks, while humorous and borderline obnoxious, offer little if anything at all that convinces me to change my opinion.

Until you step down from your pedestal and engage in a rational, well-formed discussion that offers something more substantive (meaning, something with substance, with concrete examples - preferably relevant to the cultures of today), then we have nothing to discuss. You can attack my opinion with your pandering, pseudo-philosophic views all you want, but without anything concrete to support it, I have no reason to change my mind. 

You have no case for any logical fallacies on my part until you CONNECT what you are saying to the world we live in... you know, like society as it exists now, for example. All you are doing is POSTURING on some ideological pedestal. Your remarks, while humorous and borderline obnoxious, offer little if anything at all that convinces me to change my opinion.

Until you step down from your pedestal and engage in a rational, well-formed discussion that offers something more substantive (meaning, something with substance, with concrete examples - preferably relevant to the cultures of today), then we have nothing to discuss. You can attack my opinion with your pandering, pseudo-philosophic views all you want, but without anything concrete to support it, I have no reason to change my mind. 

logical fallacies have nothing to do with the world we live in whatsoever, it's a form of an argument, that is - of a language. hence your requirement itself is a logical fallacy!

sorry, i have nothing else to say. as i told you, i do not care for your premises so much (i'm not a sociologist, i know little of the world we live in, because there's no ONE world we live to start with), but your logic of arguing, which is unconvincing at best, incorrect at worst and contradictory in the middle.

logical fallacies have nothing to do with the world we live in whatsoever, it's a form of an argument, that is - of a language. hence your requirement itself is a logical fallacy!

sorry, i have nothing else to say. as i told you, i do not care for your premises so much (i'm not a sociologist, i know little of the world we live in, because there's no ONE world we live to start with), but your logic of arguing, which is unconvincing at best, incorrect at worst and contradictory in the middle.

No connections. Nothing. Just words. Thank you for expressing your OPINION. 

Now maybe we can all move on.

These threads are always a Typing Speed Contest, to make it more interesting, let's do it using iPhone/iTouch ONLY.

:lol:

These threads are always a Typing Speed Contest, to make it more interesting, let's do it using iPhone/iTouch ONLY.

You have no case for any logical fallacies on my part until you CONNECT what you are saying to the world we live in... you know, like society as it exists now, for example.

No offense, homie, but you wouldn't survive very long in a philosophy program. I think you're trying to handle thinking that is beyond your current grasp because you're demanding things that - especially to the analytic - are fairly pedestrian.

Nevertheless, good luck. I am reading.

The real problem is in my opinion is this:

a piece of music that needs to be understood necessarily an explanation, is musically autonomous extra-musical elements?

For me the music should not need an explanation in the concert, the music that needs an explanation has something that does not work ...

When we listen to Vivaldi we necessarily need an explanation?

not for me

is for this reason that I think the music that is too abstruse language:

is not autonomous, and it only works if you turn to extra-musical elements such as theater

Ascolta

Trascrizione fonetica

Dizionario - Visualizza dizionario dettagliatoarticolo0.the

When we listen to Vivaldi we necessarily need an explanation?

Music that is from your own culture that you're familiar with isn't hard for you to understand?

Stop the swollenfooting presses.

My rant:

I think this article, as well as myself, has made a mistake just giving one label to modern classical music. I understand what is generally meant when one refers to the "modern" movement; the lack of traditional tonality or the use of very bizarre instrumentation, or extreme pitches and techniques. However we can't put every atonal, minimalist, etc kind of classical music into a single "Modern" genre. I can't stand "modern" classical music, but I love modern film scores (and I mean stuff like Zimmer, Williams, Jablonsky, etc). So to say I hate "modern" classical music would be inaccurate.

The problem that I personally have with most modern art forms is that their whole philosophy is based on the idea of destroying the exact opposite of the past. I feel like up until about the Early Romantic, the main goal of most composers and artists in general was to "perfect" what was already done. To improve. Recently though the thought it "I'm going to just do the exact opposite of the past." which I believe is a mistake. We have arrived at the current styles of modern classical not because the composers were trying to improve upon the old, but because they wanted to loose the "restrictiveness" of the old styles by creating the antithesis of every traditional technique, be it range, tonality, form. Instead of saying "I want to create a new form, perhaps tweaking the sonata form?" a modern composer's first thought is usually something like, "Since forms were used in the past, I will not be using it."

My problem isn't with the results (in a sense), but with the methods used to obtain them. The current trend in all art is rebellion. Rebellion not because the old systems are bad or outdated, but rebellion simply to be rebellious, as well as to have an appearance of creativity.

Also, I feel like there is a certain level of pretentiousness, in ALL forms of classical, to some degree. Yes, I feel like music shouldn't simply be a passive thing, we should be actively engaged when we listen to music. That's why I don't like pop music. The core idea of it is "This will create a good atmosphere for a club, dance, party, etc." instead of "I wonder how my listeners will react to this?". I like classical music because it demands your attention, and your thought. However, at the same time our arguing back and forth shows the pretentiousness that our genre of music is so famous for. Why can't we agree to disagree? I'm not naive; no matter how much I may hate "modern" classical music, I realize that won't change much. Why can't we simply enjoy music? Analyze yes, debate on meaning and technique yes. But why this stigma towards having music being something that soothes, or creates various emotions in the listener? If I'm not mistaken, most people listen to music because of what it does to us emotionally. Am I wrong?

My problem isn't with the results (in a sense), but with the methods used to obtain them. The current trend in all art is rebellion. Rebellion not because the old systems are bad or outdated, but rebellion simply to be rebellious, as well as to have an appearance of creativity.

1) Sadly most people who talk about modern/contemporary music don't know about art history. Actual rebellion were movements like futurism and modernism, over 100 years ago. This right now is a rather tame state of things where people are doing whatever they want, there's still the massive pressure from tradition and asphyxiation due to the warhorses, but it's much less than back then. Now at least it's possible to escape it somehow, back then there was nothing else.

2) What's the difference between appearance of creativity and actual creativity? Isn't this a kind of "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

2) What's the difference between appearance of creativity and actual creativity? Isn't this a kind of "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

Never head that expression. Googling...okay. What I mean is that doing that exact opposite of an established system doesn't make one a "rebel" or a visionary in every example.

For example, I have created a new language. I feel the use of words and letters is too restricting, and therefore should be substituted with nothing. This will allow the reader to draw from my new language what they will. Below is an example:

End of example. My refusal to use conventional systems doesn't make me a genius. I simply went in the opposite direction of REAL genius; the CREATION of language. To simply base an art form on destroying prior systems is exactly the same; it's not genius, and it isn't "abstract thought". One could perceive that I am creative, because in all my wisdom I decided that using a language made of structure through grammar was outdated, and that this new "language" was more free and expressive, etc. But I'm not creative. All I did was take the inverse of what was already there.

For example, I have created a new language. I feel the use of words and letters is too restricting, and therefore should be substituted with nothing. This will allow the reader to draw from my new language what they will.

Er, what?

No seriously, what? That's complete rubbish, if you say you're making a new language then you have to make a new language (as in do something that fits the definition of language, at least to some VAGUE degree.) Doing NOTHING is the opposite of what you're saying you'll do, in this case. This is if I said "I'm going to make a cake" and instead I do nothing and say it's a "Nothing cake."

But at least it's creative, if completely insane. :>

people should not forget that classical period was itself creative of new forms like sonata and whatever else. there is no history from single note throught logical path to any form whatsover. forms happen, yes, they do not happen out of nothing, but they happen out of something else than a form - various points in treating musical material. that is - we must necessarily invent new forms and things, because the points of treating musical material expand in number, intensity and so on. to say that all we should do is to perfect the form implies that the points of treating musical material are finite, which is not true.

also, some forms reach their peak and there's no need to perfect them anymore. the idea of perfecting the existing form runs contrary to the idea that it can be reached. i assume that certain forms can and have reached their perfectness, there's no more need to run over the same points again and again, it has been solved.

also, creating new forms is not negative whatsoever, i don't know where the idea comes from (?!). it is creating forms for new ways of sensibility - sense the noise, sense the different proportions between tones, sense different rhythmic patterns. the horses in the caveman art, the horses in the picasso painting. the thread, with multiple knots of new forms for sensible. that is - be alive. the negativity is only a side effect, and social rather than musical.and i'd rather leave the muddy waters of 'the now' of social to antia.

I think this article, as well as myself, has made a mistake just giving one label to modern classical music. I understand what is generally meant when one refers to the "modern" movement; the lack of traditional tonality or the use of very bizarre instrumentation, or extreme pitches and techniques. However we can't put every atonal, minimalist, etc kind of classical music into a single "Modern" genre. I can't stand "modern" classical music, but I love modern film scores (and I mean stuff like Zimmer, Williams, Jablonsky, etc). So to say I hate "modern" classical music would be inaccurate.

Good start!

The problem that I personally have with most modern art forms is that their whole philosophy is based on the idea of destroying the exact opposite of the past. I feel like up until about the Early Romantic, the main goal of most composers and artists in general was to "perfect" what was already done. To improve. Recently though the thought it "I'm going to just do the exact opposite of the past." which I believe is a mistake. We have arrived at the current styles of modern classical not because the composers were trying to improve upon the old, but because they wanted to loose the "restrictiveness" of the old styles by creating the antithesis of every traditional technique, be it range, tonality, form. Instead of saying "I want to create a new form, perhaps tweaking the sonata form?" a modern composer's first thought is usually something like, "Since forms were used in the past, I will not be using it."

I think your view of the history of classical music, western speaking, is a little flawed. Classical music, from the time of the earliest periods up till today, has always been a 'reactionary' art. The contrapuntalists of the Renaissance reacted to the simplicity of the period preceding them. The early Baroque artists reacted with simplistic monophony to the rich counterpoint of the Contrapuntalists. The early classicists, with their focus on brevity and form, were a clear reaction to the perpetuo moto that is highly illustrative of the Baroque. Etc. The only thing that was built upon is the 'perceived' musical theory laid down in the process. This is no different than today, really. That said, the last thing to correct in the above is your view on form. Through each period of classical music, composers have created, disposed of, and completely abandoned forms left and right. I could make a list of forms that would stretch from New York to Los Angeles of just the ones that have been abandoned between the Renaissance and Romantic periods alone!

My problem isn't with the results (in a sense), but with the methods used to obtain them. The current trend in all art is rebellion. Rebellion not because the old systems are bad or outdated, but rebellion simply to be rebellious, as well as to have an appearance of creativity.

This really shows a lack of understanding or knowledge of modern music... totally.

Also, I feel like there is a certain level of pretentiousness, in ALL forms of classical, to some degree. Yes, I feel like music shouldn't simply be a passive thing, we should be actively engaged when we listen to music. That's why I don't like pop music. The core idea of it is "This will create a good atmosphere for a club, dance, party, etc." instead of "I wonder how my listeners will react to this?". I like classical music because it demands your attention, and your thought. However, at the same time our arguing back and forth shows the pretentiousness that our genre of music is so famous for. Why can't we agree to disagree? I'm not naive; no matter how much I may hate "modern" classical music, I realize that won't change much. Why can't we simply enjoy music? Analyze yes, debate on meaning and technique yes. But why this stigma towards having music being something that soothes, or creates various emotions in the listener? If I'm not mistaken, most people listen to music because of what it does to us emotionally. Am I wrong?

Your not wrong, at all. And as far as I can see, no one here (or anywhere, as far as I know) is saying that music doesn't 'effect' one emotionally. However, that said, I think that your sort of displaying here the problem with classical music today. It's not so much the 'pretentiousness' but instead the vehement disregard for anything post 1920 common at all levels of music from musicians to composers. Instead of just passing off anything post 1920 as being something you hate, I would recommend actually taking the time and listening to the music. There's a LOT of modern music that is worth listening to AND taking in. I'm not talking about the stuff that regurgitates Beethoven or Brahms or Mahler either. Venture out of your box a little bit - it's not as bad as your making it out to be nor is it something to cower in fear OR lash out against in vehement anger as many in this thread (and elsewhere on the forum) have done.

Instead of just passing off anything post 1920 as being something you hate, I would recommend actually taking the time and listening to the music. There's a LOT of modern music that is worth listening to AND taking in. I'm not talking about the stuff that regurgitates Beethoven or Brahms or Mahler either. Venture out of your box a little bit - it's not as bad as your making it out to be nor is it something to cower in fear OR lash out against in vehement anger as many in this thread (and elsewhere on the forum) have done.

But this requires actual effort! Screw that, the entire site is happy to regurgitate Mahler and Beethoven, well I'm through telling people to get out of the boxes they live in. They're not really serious about music or composing since if they were at least they'd show actual knowledge and we wouldn't be needing to say any of this.

It's not hard to go check out 20th century composers, it's not hard to learn modern art history. The fact that these kids don't think it matters is what sets them really as kids as opposed to actual composers who are devoted to music. Tastes are one thing, but blinding yourself from more than a century of music is retarded if you're meaning to tell me that music means something to you, it doesn't fly.

And it also goes, of course, back in time as well. They're probably just as ignorant to everything pre-baroque as they are to post-romantic music, since what's most popular is right there in the middle. The periphery of history is never visited since it requires actual effort and curiosity. If the barrier is so big that you can't cross it and dive into music that you may or may not like, that you don't know or understand,, then music I guess as a whole doesn't mean much to you.

And it also goes, of course, back in time as well. They're probably just as ignorant to everything pre-baroque as they are to post-romantic music, since what's most popular is right there in the middle. The periphery of history is never visited since it requires actual effort and curiosity. If the barrier is so big that you can't cross it and dive into music that you may or may not like, that you don't know or understand,, then music I guess as a whole doesn't mean much to you.

Consider this, it took the world roughly 50 years to get into the music of Schubert. It's taken the world roughly 80 years to get into the music of Schoenberg. It took the world, what, 100 years to get into Bach? Do the math, that's roughly 2 - 6 generations. I think that says something about the world of music... literally. It took a century just to digest, somewhat, what Beethoven did.

It's not like I've never listened to modern music. I give it a try, and it usually sounds awful to me. Usually. Yes there are exceptions. But they're EXCEPTIONS. I never meant that I've disregarded an entire century of music. I gave it a chance, learned a little bit, and then I came to the conclusions that I listed earlier. Maybe I'm misinformed yes, ignorant of EVERY SINGLE piece of music composed in the last 100 years or so yes, but I've said it before; I didn't just wake up one day and decide that I hated modern music. I hear it all the time, because it's modern music; it's all around.

Your comment about this site "regurgitating" Mahler and Beethoven is just as biased and closed minded as any of my statements. I could easily say that you not liking the past periods shows that you didn't take the time to research, and that you're disregarding an entire era of music. But I doubt YOU woke up one day and decided you didn't like older music. Just like myself, you probably gave it a try, listened to various pieces, and came to the conclusion that it wasn't your favorite style, for whatever reason. I don't see how my dislike of modern music makes me close-minded, but if it was the other way around, well then that's alright. There's nothing wrong with hating certain styles of art. This isn't a children's cartoon; we all don't love everything. We all can't stand certain forms of music I'm sure, but that doesn't make us close minded. What does make us close minded is if we've never given those other forms a chance, which I'm sure we all have.

On a side note, if you recommend anything that you think I would like modern wise, I'll be more than glad to give it a listen. I liked the horn piece that article referenced a lot.