And now for something horrible!

Check out this little amazing nugget of "music history:"

In the realm of music the story is fundamentally the same, differing only in the details. Setting aside classical music (which, rooted in a largely ecclesiastical-liturgical tradition stretching all the way back to the ninth century, finally reached during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the highest stage of richness and complexity of music ever achieved by man), the peasant/folk traditions from which jazz, blues, country, soul, funk, etc. were descended, finally gave rise to rock and roll, and thence to heavy metal — a style of music which, though nowhere near as complex as classical music, was still a relatively demanding art, especially in its "epic" and "power" varieties. But then along came punk rock, a far simpler, far easier (both on the ears and the musicians) form of rock, in short a degenerate form — though still of course to an extent enjoyable (in short, the "Impressionism" of rock and roll music), basically the kind of music perfectly suited for the masses of "rebelling" middle-class baby-boomers who were coming of age at the time, and who, being young and ignorant and stupid, lacked the necessary adequately refined taste faculty to demand more from their musicians.

Punk rock would consequently further degenerate to various even simpler subgenres (grunge, etc.), at which point any slightly-stoned unshaved dude in a flannel shirt could pass himself off as a master musician by simply strumming a couple of power chords while jumping up and down and yelling incoherently (and finally committing suicide — this being the distinguishing mark of the successful musician, the cherry on the top of his performance, as it were, the coup de grâce of the virtuoso, with music as clown- and freak-show) — all this being a process which, to make a long story short, occurred also in a similar manner (which is to say in form, not in the details) in every other genre, all these trends finally leading down to and coalescing into various forms of so-called "experimental music" which, once again, had abandoned all pretense at style, thus signaling the final dissolution of music.

Once you get to smelly rastafarian dudes standing on their heads and banging pots and pans (it's called "environmental music", a style of "music" which had basically regressed to the stage of half-naked savages with chunks of bone stuck in their hair sitting on trees and banging snake-skin drums), you might as well go home because the whole farce is over.

Indeed.

I love the "Rastafarian" bit at the end, it's hilarious.

But if the mental image isn't clear enough, this is what the guy actually postulates as his hypothesis on art history (I guess?)

The evolution of an artform can thus be divided into the following four stages:

1. It is created and taken to its zenith by the men of taste: the experts and connoisseurs.

2. It is led into decline by the masses, a decline that accelerates in proportion to the increasing size of the mass, in accordance with the mechanics of the lowest common denominator.

3. It is taken all the way down to its lowest point, that of absolute wretchedness, by the posers: the absurdly rich and the artfagots (the former of whom become involved only with primitive artforms, the latter in all of them).

4. And it is finally killed off by the scientists and engineers at the same time as they bring into being the tools required for the creation of a higher art, at which point the cycle begins anew.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaah~

Cuz the last article I linked to was too intelligent, so I need to compensate.

It came from this unreadable post:

httx://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_genealogy_of_art_games/

It's a hilarious (un?)read if you're in for some LOLs. As a sidenote, I find it worked best by just randomly jumping to different paragraphs rather than start at the beginning, it's all stupid anyway. Plus it's kind of like a box of surprises that way.

Happy new year, everyone.

I know I'm gonna get some heat for this, but I actually agree with most of this. Now would I word it this way? Absolutely not. I don't agree with it to the letter, but I do think that as a whole music has progressively gotten simpler and simpler, and not in a good way. The "master musician" of today is required to know very little musical, and pieces of little to no variety is popular now. As far as classical goes, I've never been for the whole "modern movement". IMO it's all just ridiculous, random sound; an attempt to SEEM creative, but really just doing random random garbage and asking ridiculous questions is just that-ridiculous. I'm sorry, but "What is music? What isn't music?" just doesn't hold any weight with me.

*Tokkemon agrees with Marius Chamberlain

His wording is a big pretentious, but the content is agreeable. Music that is getting so dumbed down to the point that it loses any sort of artistic merit is not a good thing. But then again, where's the objective standard to measure this against? Music that is good, just is good.

When you say "music", are you sure you don't mean "pop music"?

There's always been "high art" and "low art" music.

As far as the article goes, it's kinda true. Styles beget spin-offs. But then there're always new styles in the so-called "complex" vein.

Music isn't dying. And it isn't declining. It's just changing. It always has, it always will.

When you say "music", are you sure you don't mean "pop music"?

There's always been "high art" and "low art" music.

As far as the article goes, it's kinda true. Styles beget spin-offs. But then there're always new styles in the so-called "complex" vein.

Music isn't dying. And it isn't declining. It's just changing. It always has, it always will.

Dude, current pop music > current classical.

Between Zorn's little scene in NY, post-rock, and bands like the Books... there's a lot of cool, complex music going about. That's not even the surface, just three of my fascinations....

There needs to be less complaining and more active searching for cool music.

Dude, current pop music > current classical.

Between Zorn's little scene in NY, post-rock, and bands like the Books... there's a lot of cool, complex music going about. That's not even the surface, just three of my fascinations....

There needs to be less complaining and more active searching for cool music.

qft

bizarro-academic

bizarro-academic

Obviously a lot of people on the site would agree, including the Bizarro-academics.

But that's the entire point of why this is funny.

I know I'm gonna get some heat for this, but I actually agree with most of this. Now would I word it this way? Absolutely not. I don't agree with it to the letter, but I do think that as a whole music has progressively gotten simpler and simpler, and not in a good way. The "master musician" of today is required to know very little musical, and pieces of little to no variety is popular now. As far as classical goes, I've never been for the whole "modern movement". IMO it's all just ridiculous, random sound; an attempt to SEEM creative, but really just doing random random garbage and asking ridiculous questions is just that-ridiculous. I'm sorry, but "What is music? What isn't music?" just doesn't hold any weight with me.

Also, this is pretty much bullshit.

Guess what a large portion of all the big-name composers you've ever heard of did?

So what IS the Bizarro-academic?

Someone who behaves with the exact same elitist/extreme all or nothing mindset that the cliche "ivory tower" academic displays, but applied to a style of music/aesthetic which is contrary to what many academics have obnoxiously tried to push on as what "modern music" should be.

I know I'm gonna get some heat for this, but I actually agree with most of this. Now would I word it this way? Absolutely not. I don't agree with it to the letter, but I do think that as a whole music has progressively gotten simpler and simpler, and not in a good way. The "master musician" of today is required to know very little musical, and pieces of little to no variety is popular now. As far as classical goes, I've never been for the whole "modern movement". IMO it's all just ridiculous, random sound; an attempt to SEEM creative, but really just doing random random garbage and asking ridiculous questions is just that-ridiculous. I'm sorry, but "What is music? What isn't music?" just doesn't hold any weight with me.

The above poster exhibits the typical Bizarro-academic syndrome.

NO COMPROMISES, no middle ground. It's all just "ridiculous, random sound," and so on. Throwing trash at a music style, inviting back of course that people throw trash on HIS style as well, I suppose. He says that asking what music is, is a ridiculous question.

There's always been "high art" and "low art" music.

The great irony of the Bizarro-academic is that they claim to be in for the "high complexity" of "high art," and so on. Yeah, sure! Yet philosophical questions that are the underpinning of what has ALWAYS been music composition (people were fighting about the conception of art during ALL of art history, not just the 20th century. People were asking what "art" was in general, what "music" should be, for centuries and centuries.) The complexity of modern art is due in part for what it's drawing from which is all the centuries of history before it.

But beyond giving or not giving explanations as to why something is one way or another it still boils down to something the Bizarro-academic has a fundamental problem working with: The concept that people have different tastes in things.

The main characteristic here isn't exactly what kind of music they think or don't think is "real music," "good music," or any of those things, instead it's the interweb-powered way all this comes off extremely elitist. It's this elitism that characterizes it. No middle ground, no compromises and always absolute opinions.

While it's fine for people to have opinions, the bizarro-academic must go a step further and actually attack music that opposes their particular tastes, always in a manner as to imply that people who like it are no better than pigs that consume trash.

IMO it's all just ridiculous, random sound; an attempt to SEEM creative, but really just doing random random garbage

Inviting of course the appropriate "No u" reply.

Of course true academics that aren't jerks or incompetent wrecks won't behave this way at all, in part due to having an actual education that didn't cripple them mentally. Plus of course the fact that just saying "academic" means nothing, as from university to university the contrast can be vast and the diversity staggering. But that's why I make clear I'm basing it off a cliche regardless how many people actually fit the cliche or not.

It's a bag of LOLs.

I couldn't bear to read that whole article -- I did in fact just end up skipping around it, but even then couldn't finish a sentence.

What a nonsensical little (big?) rant that article is :blink: But I guess it happens to every one every once in a while.

So what IS the Bizarro-academic?

Someone who behaves with the exact same elitist/extreme all or nothing mindset that the cliche "ivory tower" academic displays, but applied to a style of music/aesthetic which is contrary to what many academics have obnoxiously tried to push on as what "modern music" should be.

Translation: This "Bizarro-academic" is the individual who supports and cheers on genres of music that "modern" composers are quite eager to debase as "less" artistic.

The above poster exhibits the typical Bizarro-academic syndrome.

NO COMPROMISES, no middle ground. It's all just "ridiculous, random sound," and so on. Throwing trash at a music style, inviting back of course that people throw trash on HIS style as well, I suppose. He says that asking what music is, is a ridiculous question.

Yeah, well, to each their own, right?

The great irony of the Bizarro-academic is that they claim to be in for the "high complexity" of "high art," and so on. Yeah, sure! Yet philosophical questions that are the underpinning of what has ALWAYS been music composition (people were fighting about the conception of art during ALL of art history, not just the 20th century. People were asking what "art" was in general, what "music" should be, for centuries and centuries.) The complexity of modern art is due in part for what it's drawing from which is all the centuries of history before it.

If this was even remotely true of the 20th Century, composition studios the world over would be engaging students in all of those areas upon which modern art supposedly derives its complexity. Instead, students are shuffled into line to hear music that challenges their sensibilities, their interests, their very intuition even. No, modern art has been doing quite the opposite of what you are saying, and Schoenberg was only the beginning of this trend of "abandonment" of the history of music. I'm not even saying Schoenberg actually abandoned history, only that he set a precedent of his own that others then followed to ends that make your final statement patently absurd.

But beyond giving or not giving explanations as to why something is one way or another it still boils down to something the Bizarro-academic has a fundamental problem working with: The concept that people have different tastes in things.

Taste is one thing... it is not the end-all-be-all trump card (the bomb in rock/paper/scissors, for example). There is no difficulty, it simply remains that "taste" is assumed in the discussion. We can all have our various flavors of artistic expression and still manage to create with the listener and audience in mind.

The main characteristic here isn't exactly what kind of music they think or don't think is "real music," "good music," or any of those things, instead it's the interweb-powered way all this comes off extremely elitist. It's this elitism that characterizes it. No middle ground, no compromises and always absolute opinions.

Absolute opinions... and you'd expect, what, opinions that aren't absolute? Opinions are beliefs, and beliefs are hardly ever "not absolute." Opinions are absolute until someone is given a solid justification or rationale for changing their opinion. Believe it or not, your rant about this cliche "Bizarro-academic" expresses an opinion. Is it absolute? Is it subject to change? Of course not.

How utterly deconstructive. Moving on...

While it's fine for people to have opinions, the bizarro-academic must go a step further and actually attack music that opposes their particular tastes, always in a manner as to imply that people who like it are no better than pigs that consume trash.

Of course, this is one person's belief that music without particular aesthetic elements is absurd to them. So what?

Inviting of course the appropriate "No u" reply.

Of course true academics that aren't jerks or incompetent wrecks won't behave this way at all, in part due to having an actual education that didn't cripple them mentally. Plus of course the fact that just saying "academic" means nothing, as from university to university the contrast can be vast and the diversity staggering. But that's why I make clear I'm basing it off a cliche regardless how many people actually fit the cliche or not.

It's a bag of LOLs.

Right...

Of course, this is one person's belief that music without particular aesthetic elements is absurd to them. So what?

So it's okay to call music that you don't like rubbish and assume that everybody who claims to enjoy are lying "art-fagots"?

So it's okay to call music that you don't like rubbish and assume that everybody who claims to enjoy are lying "art-fagots"?

As if tolerance for opinions meant anything.

Translation: This "Bizarro-academic" is the individual who supports and cheers on genres of music that "modern" composers are quite eager to debase as "less" artistic.

I don't think you understood.

It's not about music. It's about the aggressive/elitist/destructive attitude towards everything they don't like.

Case to point:

As if tolerance for opinions meant anything.

See? gently caress tolerance, says the Bizarro-Academic. Instead, it's much better to outright insult and denigrate people who have different tastes than you. No compromises, no middle ground, nothing.

See? gently caress tolerance, says the Bizarro-Academic. Instead, it's much better to outright insult and denigrate people who have different tastes than you. No compromises, no middle ground, nothing.

Why should I tolerate music I don't like? You don't tolerate music you don't like either. It's no different.

But, for the sake of argument, what compromises/middle ground to you propose?

I don't think you understood.

It's not about music. It's about the aggressive/elitist/destructive attitude towards everything they don't like.

I generally think this is attributed to the wrong thing. It isn't about the attitude as much as about the manner in which the subject matter is assessed and the goals associated with that matter. It has nothing to do with taste and everything to do with how the predominant, "cliche" academic study in music composition (at least in the general sense over the past 100 years) imposes certain goals like "artistic freedom" and the lifestyle THAT creates for people who have different goals and aspirations. Yet, it becomes two things, a referendum on contemporary music that isn't "Modern Art" and spawning pool of indoctrinating impressionable minds into adopting the single view that artistic freedom trumps all. Yes, artistic freedom is a wonderful thing to have and to experience as an artist, but having a pool of professionals touting "do what you want and forget about everything else" is just as debilitating an attitude for those who have different aspirations for our work product as "gently caress artistic freedom" is demeaning and offensive to you.

So, who here is the "Bizarro-Academic"? It's not me, I'm just calling it like I see it.

Case to point:

See? gently caress tolerance, says the Bizarro-Academic. Instead, it's much better to outright insult and denigrate people who have different tastes than you. No compromises, no middle ground, nothing.

So, let's just stop teaching music and learning about it. Let's all just do whatever we want.

Why should I tolerate music I don't like? You don't tolerate music you don't like either. It's no different.

But, for the sake of argument, what compromises/middle ground to you propose?

How about accept that people have different tastes instead of mindlessly insulting them and claiming they are pretending to enjoy the music. I think most people who have the maturity level higher than that of a thirteen-year-old can do that.

I'm sorry for the quote below:

Personally, I think the whole "artistic freedom" thing is a bunch of baloney invented by composers to justify their music when its not received well by audiences.

I don't know what I was talking about and for that I'm sorry.

How about accept that people have different tastes instead of mindlessly insulting them and claiming they are pretending to enjoy the music. I think most people who have the maturity level higher than that of a thirteen-year-old can do that.

Seems like a wonderful idea, Sir. Thank you for your suggestion.

I have no problem that other people have different tastes; it is their right to have them. However, they should not be forcing it on me if I don't like it, nor should they insult people who think their way is the way.

BTW, insults are never mindless. Mind you, sometimes the reasoning isn't always sound, but there's always a reason behind it, something premeditated.

Yet, it becomes two things, a referendum on contemporary music that isn't "Modern Art" and spawning pool of indoctrinating impressionable minds into adopting the single view that artistic freedom trumps all.

Personally, I think the whole "artistic freedom" thing is a bunch of baloney invented by composers to justify their music when its not received well by audiences.

I propose something.

How about we ban the note F# above middle C. Anyone using it in a piece of music uploaded here will be banned for it. We can make a little banner saying this. Or how about changing the arbitrary restriction every week with something else? Maybe the week after we can ban quarters and major thirds, or how about banning string instruments?

Loving the idea already, right? You must be.

But wait, wouldn't it be even better if it wasn't just a ban, but we'd take the offending person's music and post it along with denigrating comments and attacks? You know, making an example out of it?

Wouldn't that be great?

Wouldn't it?

How about I also go and censor one of your posts as well? I mean what's the difference if it's music or text, or anything right?

Let's get rid of some of the freedom. Must be a dream come true for you guys, I know!

I propose something.

How about we ban the note F# above middle C. Anyone using it in a piece of music uploaded here will be banned for it. We can make a little banner saying this. Or how about changing the arbitrary restriction every week with something else? Maybe the week after we can ban quarters and major thirds, or how about banning string instruments?

Loving the idea already, right? You must be.

But wait, wouldn't it be even better if it wasn't just a ban, but we'd take the offending person's music and post it along with denigrating comments and attacks? You know, making an example out of it?

Wouldn't that be great?

Wouldn't it?

How about I also go and censor one of your posts as well? I mean what's the difference if it's music or text, or anything right?

Let's get rid of some of the freedom. Must be a dream come true for you guys, I know!

Yes, because THAT'S the issue, isn't it? You're on a slippery slope as it is, but now you're taking freedoms with your position of authority in this discussion that you don't have and using them to bolster your position. I have in mind to correct your edits to Tokkemon's post and take it up with admins, but I trust you can correct this on your own without further recourse.

See, that's why we have rules, which are merely expectations in concrete form. This enhances communication and makes for a more positive collaboration of viewpoints into something informative. However, in the case of music, we have no "rules." What we still have are expectations - of ourselves and others, as well as expectations of music by others - this certainly doesn't eliminate artistic freedom, but it does hold us accountable for our choices as artists.

Choosing to ignore those expectations others have for us as artists and for music isn't a huge deal to some, but over the past 100 years, that appears to be the predominant approach to teaching composition. This approach is not without its drawbacks, because the student that says I want to write music like this because I like it and other people like it (commonly music of the commercial realm) is more often chastised for not knowing more contemporary art music, for not giving it a chance, and so on.

You seem to think you're the oppressed minority here. You, SSC, are in good company among academics the world over. It may not seem so to you, but from my vantage point, I've spent several years taking it upon myself to fill in the huge gaps in my knowledge that this approach to educating me as a composer has led to. You, on the other hand, are quite clearly where you chose to be, and if you don't like where that is, it's your own damn fault. You didn't think there would be criticism? You didn't think there would be completely closed minded bigots that could care less about what you are trying to do?

News Flash! You have no reason to complain about the Bizarro-Academic or any other bigot, because you make art and must stand by what you make. Unfortunately, if people don't want to listen to it, that's not anyone else's problem but YOURS! If you want full and complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want, you have no basis to scallop and argue with people over the classics and these old warhorses that time and again you complain about, and you have no basis to complain about the contemporary music environment, the trials and tribulations of securing performances and so forth. THAT SHIP SAILED ALREADY.

I've done enough complaining of my own about the academic approach to music composition. As infuriating as it is to me, I made my choices as well and accept the consequences. That's what we do as adults, so stop throwing a fit.

Yes, because THAT'S the issue, isn't it?

Yes that's the issue.

And you know what else?

Thread locked!