How to learn melodic dictation?

With all due respect, but I suppose you (and many others as well) are way too caught up in this essentially 19th Century - and by no means universally valid - idea that creativity and originality is the alpha and omega of art (music in particular). I simply think it's not. Is writing a good 18th Century style fugue - which I'd really be interested in doing by the way, if I had the talent - necessarily inferior as art to, say, inventing your own new harmonic language? I'd say no. (A lovely example of neo-baroque composition:

Personally I believe that this overemphasis on innovation and revolutionizing, and the corresponding de-emphasis of what I call the craft or trade of music, which has been growing gradually worse since about 1850, has lead to a major crisis in Western aesthetic ideals, to the point of almost eroding them into non-existence. What's the point in writing exciting new music if it's so new and exciting as to be only accessible or enjoyable to an elite few? (I'm thinking serialism or aleatoric music here, not your own compositions, which I respect.) I'm not saying that we should just stupidly repeat or regurgitate the past, if that were even possible. The major challenge of art in our days, as I see it, is to use and carefully transform old traditions in order to express things that are relevant to us today. But that of course entails thoroughly knowing and understanding those traditions. My "archetype" of the truly modern composer is Arvo Paert (his later, tonal phase, that is), or even more extremely John Tavener.

[snip]

I don't see what "trade" is here, it's not like composing is similar to being a fisher or a butcher. There's no "right" way to write music, therefore which wheel are we "reinventing" again? Or are you implying that the spectrum of music is so narrow that it can be compared to the goddamn wheel?

Of course, music is a "higher" trade than fishing or butchering. (Though not necessarily more useful. :)) But I do see that creating music is a trade in that it consists of certain fixed skill sets, certain procedures and, up to a point, a certain objective standard of quality. A better analogy than the wheel - you're right about that - would be the making of shoes. Shoes should fit and, although some ladies disagree, be suitable for walking and be sturdy enough to withstand wear and tear. That's the trade part of shoe making. Similarly, music should be pleasing to the ear and/or mind, though not in any facile way (I'm not against atonality per se), and should at least reflect some part of the emotional spectrum of the listener. Also, there should be some minimal amount of structure present; otherwise my beautifully whistling tea kettle would produce "music". The art part of shoe making is to make the shoe pleasing to the eye and to imprint something called "style" on it. The art part of music is to speak with one's own voice so to say.

Personally I believe that this overemphasis on innovation and revolutionizing, and the corresponding de-emphasis of what I call the craft or trade of music, which has been growing gradually worse since about 1850, has lead to a major crisis in Western aesthetic ideals, to the point of almost eroding them into non-existence. What's the point in writing exciting new music if it's so new and exciting as to be only accessible or enjoyable to an elite few?

Interestingly, that's fine and dandy but it's been over a hundred years since modernism, and even guys like Boulez don't think the same way they did in the 50s (if they still live.) I don't care about being "innovative" or "revolutionary" in as much as I care about opening the door for it to naturally happen by way of actually allowing people to be creative.

There was no "crisis" of aesthetic ideals, just a large diversification of what was being made. For diverse music, a diverse public. Hell I'm going to a festival this weekend for modern compositions (the majority are premieres.) There's plenty of people interested in this stuff.

The entire issue tackled by the futurists of early 20th century was the asphyxiating grasp of tradition which suffocated anything different than "the greats" (whoever they may be.) And certainly this still exists today sadly given what you're saying and how I hear this often from people who themselves only aspire to be copies of those they admire. It's fine if you want to do that when you're young, you don't know any better. Later on however, being able to think for yourself is way more important.

As for 1850? That's quite an arbitrary date, isn't it? Why not trace it back to 1400? I mean goddamn that Machaut, loving up rhythms and the classic polyphony!

Honestly, again, if you want to just copy your heroes, that's your business. I'm just saying that others don't have to necessarily follow this, or that it's even something to recommend. It's the typical stance of people who just started and I hear it extremely (EXTREMELY) often here on the site and outside. Most do get over it eventually.

ps:

Also, there should be some minimal amount of structure present; otherwise my beautifully whistling tea kettle would produce "music".

The only one stopping it from making music is your own perception of what music is, which is only personal to you. This is the typical, again, stance from people who haven't really studied 20th century art history. After all, can sound along a timeline lack a structure at all? If you get down to it, everything has a defined structure in retrospective.

With all due respect, but I suppose you (and many others as well) are way too caught up in this essentially 19th Century - and by no means universally valid - idea that creativity and originality is the alpha and omega of art (music in particular). I simply think it's not. Is writing a good 18th Century style fugue - which I'd really be interested in doing by the way, if I had the talent - necessarily inferior as art to, say, inventing your own new harmonic language? I'd say no. (A lovely example of neo-baroque composition:

.)

A statement like this really represents your lack of knowledge concerning music pre-1850. Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Handel, Machaut, Palestrina, Dittersdorf, and many others felt that creativity and originality was important in art. Yes, they built on foundations - much as we do today - but you can clearly hear differences when listening to each. Take Vivaldi and Handel, for example, you can't really say there are no differentiating characteristics between the two. The same is true for Beethoven and Mozart. Haydn and Schubert. Mendelssohn and Schumann. Wagner and Verdi. Schoenberg and Webern. Xenakis and Ligeti. I could go on. I think the historical record of music clearly reflects that creativity and originality have ALWAYS BEEN a defining force, so much of the idea that this force is NOT universally valid.

Personally I believe that this overemphasis on innovation and revolutionizing, and the corresponding de-emphasis of what I call the craft or trade of music, which has been growing gradually worse since about 1850, has lead to a major crisis in Western aesthetic ideals, to the point of almost eroding them into non-existence. What's the point in writing exciting new music if it's so new and exciting as to be only accessible or enjoyable to an elite few? (I'm thinking serialism or aleatoric music here, not your own compositions, which I respect.) I'm not saying that we should just stupidly repeat or regurgitate the past, if that were even possible. The major challenge of art in our days, as I see it, is to use and carefully transform old traditions in order to express things that are relevant to us today. But that of course entails thoroughly knowing and understanding those traditions. My "archetype" of the truly modern composer is Arvo Paert (his later, tonal phase, that is), or even more extremely John Tavener.

The three points I gleamed, highlighted above, are:

1. The overemphasis of innovation, revolutionizing, and lack of emphasis on craft has lead to a crisis and erosion of Western Aesthetic Ideals.

2. Why write music that is so new and exciting that it can be accessible or enjoyed by an elite few, i.e. serialism or 'chance' music?

3. The challenge to art today is to use and carefully transform the old traditions in order to express things that are relevant to us today - as in the vein of Arvo Part and John Tavener.

Ok, to address these three points:

1. So, your saying that we overemphasize innovation in music. The more innovative and original the work, the better the composer. The history of Western Classical Music has, for the past 1000 years, been built on a tradition of musical expansionism. We see this from the simple monophony of early composers to the extreme polyphony of composers in the Renaissance to the contrapuntally rich fugues of Bach to the extremely complicated formalistic fugues of Mozart and Beethoven to the richly harmonic polyphonic works of later day composers - each have built upon innovation, revolutionization, and creativity/originality. In these composers lifetimes, ALL OF THEM, were faced with an audience that did not understand there works. We often look back at the works of these Masters as being widely accepted and listened to IN THERE TIME by everyone. The truth is, that was not the case. In the 1700s and 1800s, at most 95% of the population couldn't even afford to feed themselves - let alone attend a concert. Classical music, at this time, was the music of the aristocracy - and was attended by the aristocracy. Yes, as the Industrial Revolution rose there emerged a Middle Class. As the 19th Century faded into the 20th Century, the Middle Class was able to become 'cultured'. I would recommend, by the way, taking a class on Folk Music. I enjoyed the course - it really opened my eyes on the evolution of that often forgotten -on this forum- music of the 'common folk'. Bach, while we love him today, was NOT a composer wildly known amongst the largest class of people at that time, unless of course, you were lucky to be in the congregation of the church he was organist at.

2. Why should I write music that is inaccessible to a few (i.e. serialism or alleatoric music) Well, my answer to that is simple: because I can. I find that kind of music to be challenging on a number of fronts. For one, it is NOT easy to make either style of music well. With both types, you have a lot of factors you have to take into account. Avoidance of a key, or supremacy of one note over another, means you have to do other things to sustain interest. Many of these things are barely focused on in writing 'tonal' music (whatever that term may truly mean.) Not relying on a 'tried and true' progression means you have to overcome obstacles in different ways. This is no different, really, than the obstacles Bach created for himself in his fugues. Or the obstacles Mozart created for himself in his vocal writing. Or the obstacles Beethoven created for himself in the forms he adapted to fit his ideas.

3. I agree with the countless of composers who have come before me. The challenge of my art today is to build upon the old traditions and contribute to them with my own unique perspective. I don't just look at composition as an 'old tradition' that has to be adapted for relevancy today. I view music as being relevant regardless of whether it takes into account old traditions or not. It's an appendage of human culture. The whole of human culture does NOT transform old traditions. We, as a species, have continuously added new things to our cultural expression. Many of these new things have, many times, conflicted with old traditions. That is what being human is - constant change and adaptation. You can't have it both ways. That said, I think the challenge to composers today is not to transform old traditions to express things that are relevant but instead is to take the things that are relevant today and express them humanistically. I don't speak the language of my forefathers - nor do I dress/act/behave the way that they did. I'm sure you don't either. So why should I use their musical language?

The only one stopping it from making music is your own perception of what music is, which is only personal to you. This is the typical, again, stance from people who haven't really studied 20th century art history. After all, can sound along a timeline lack a structure at all? If you get down to it, everything has a defined structure in retrospective.

Yeah sure, everything has a structure, as per the laws of physics and mathematics. So, does that make everything art? If so, what's the point of saying "art" instead of "just anything"? I recently listened to 4:33 by John Cage, for example. It, or rather what it stands for, cannot cease to annoy the crap out of me. By the way, I think I'm going to compose this really beautiful symphony, using my own farts.. :)

By the way, who says that I didn't study 20th Century art history? (Which you seem to be implying.) Not everyone who studies, say, 13th Century art history necessarily accepts 13th Century art as having much merit in and of itself. Simply because we were born in the 20th Century (I suppose you're older than 11) and still live in its wake, so to say, doesn't mean that we don't have the right to say that much of the "art" produced in that century is worthless, indulgent, self-congratulating rubbish.

I seriously believe that Western civilization is in a state of decay, and that its art reflects it. This conviction is growing stronger and stronger, the more I study modern society and its art. A wholesale return to our cultural or even religious roots would do us lot of good.

But on the other hand, the antagonism between reactionaries and progressives can't really be resolved, not now at least. History will decide perhaps. I can at least see how the 20th Century might possibly be viewed as somewhat of an anomaly, a period of extreme decadence - or not. I'm happy to have mathematics as an escape; at least there's real progress in that.

A statement like this really represents your lack of knowledge concerning music pre-1850. Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Handel, Machaut, Palestrina, Dittersdorf, and many others felt that creativity and originality was important in art. Yes, they built on foundations - much as we do today - but you can clearly hear differences when listening to each. Take Vivaldi and Handel, for example, you can't really say there are no differentiating characteristics between the two. The same is true for Beethoven and Mozart. Haydn and Schubert. Mendelssohn and Schumann. Wagner and Verdi. Schoenberg and Webern. Xenakis and Ligeti. I could go on. I think the historical record of music clearly reflects that creativity and originality have ALWAYS BEEN a defining force, so much of the idea that this force is NOT universally valid.

The three points I gleamed, highlighted above, are:

1. The overemphasis of innovation, revolutionizing, and lack of emphasis on craft has lead to a crisis and erosion of Western Aesthetic Ideals.

2. Why write music that is so new and exciting that it can be accessible or enjoyed by an elite few, i.e. serialism or 'chance' music?

3. The challenge to art today is to use and carefully transform the old traditions in order to express things that are relevant to us today - as in the vein of Arvo Part and John Tavener.

Ok, to address these three points:

1. So, your saying that we overemphasize innovation in music. The more innovative and original the work, the better the composer. The history of Western Classical Music has, for the past 1000 years, been built on a tradition of musical expansionism. We see this from the simple monophony of early composers to the extreme polyphony of composers in the Renaissance to the contrapuntally rich fugues of Bach to the extremely complicated formalistic fugues of Mozart and Beethoven to the richly harmonic polyphonic works of later day composers - each have built upon innovation, revolutionization, and creativity/originality. In these composers lifetimes, ALL OF THEM, were faced with an audience that did not understand there works. We often look back at the works of these Masters as being widely accepted and listened to IN THERE TIME by everyone. The truth is, that was not the case. In the 1700s and 1800s, at most 95% of the population couldn't even afford to feed themselves - let alone attend a concert. Classical music, at this time, was the music of the aristocracy - and was attended by the aristocracy. Yes, as the Industrial Revolution rose there emerged a Middle Class. As the 19th Century faded into the 20th Century, the Middle Class was able to become 'cultured'. I would recommend, by the way, taking a class on Folk Music. I enjoyed the course - it really opened my eyes on the evolution of that often forgotten -on this forum- music of the 'common folk'. Bach, while we love him today, was NOT a composer wildly known amongst the largest class of people at that time, unless of course, you were lucky to be in the congregation of the church he was organist at.

2. Why should I write music that is inaccessible to a few (i.e. serialism or alleatoric music) Well, my answer to that is simple: because I can. I find that kind of music to be challenging on a number of fronts. For one, it is NOT easy to make either style of music well. With both types, you have a lot of factors you have to take into account. Avoidance of a key, or supremacy of one note over another, means you have to do other things to sustain interest. Many of these things are barely focused on in writing 'tonal' music (whatever that term may truly mean.) Not relying on a 'tried and true' progression means you have to overcome obstacles in different ways. This is no different, really, than the obstacles Bach created for himself in his fugues. Or the obstacles Mozart created for himself in his vocal writing. Or the obstacles Beethoven created for himself in the forms he adapted to fit his ideas.

3. I agree with the countless of composers who have come before me. The challenge of my art today is to build upon the old traditions and contribute to them with my own unique perspective. I don't just look at composition as an 'old tradition' that has to be adapted for relevancy today. I view music as being relevant regardless of whether it takes into account old traditions or not. It's an appendage of human culture. The whole of human culture does NOT transform old traditions. We, as a species, have continuously added new things to our cultural expression. Many of these new things have, many times, conflicted with old traditions. That is what being human is - constant change and adaptation. You can't have it both ways. That said, I think the challenge to composers today is not to transform old traditions to express things that are relevant but instead is to take the things that are relevant today and express them humanistically. I don't speak the language of my forefathers - nor do I dress/act/behave the way that they did. I'm sure you don't either. So why should I use their musical language?

Only the ignorant readily accuse others of ignorance. Did I say that originality and creativity were absent pre-1850? Well, did I? No. What do you think I am? Some kind of moron who only listens to Bach? Of course I know that music from 1300 is vastly different from that from 1700, and that this didn't come about by composers just copying another. And you know what, I think that's a good thing. What I was saying is that in the Romantic period there arose this ideal of the artist (composer) as one who against all odds expresses him/herself in a way that is radically, and in a sense absolutely, original. This ideal, I repeat, did not exist prior to the 19th Century, except perhaps in a few isolated eccentrics. Also, I meant to say that this ideal has become so thoroughly perverted over the course of the 20th Century that it has lost all touch with reality and given us "music" such as Cage's "4:33", or random noise as ordinary people call it.

I won't address your other points right now, as it's rather late and I need some sleep. Let me just say that I don't particularly enjoy being lectured to on "what it means to be human" (whatever you mean by that). You're not in a better position to know what a human is than I am, pal.

Only the ignorant readily accuse others of ignorance. Did I say that originality and creativity were absent pre-1850? Well, did I? No. What do you think I am? Some kind of moron who only listens to Bach? Of course I know that music from 1300 is vastly different from that from 1700, and that this didn't come about by composers just copying another. And you know what, I think that's a good thing.

Personally I believe that this overemphasis on innovation and revolutionizing, and the corresponding de-emphasis of what I call the craft or trade of music, which has been growing gradually worse since about 1850, has lead to a major crisis in Western aesthetic ideals, to the point of almost eroding them into non-existence.

You are stating in this above sentence that you personally believe that there is an overmphasis on innovation and revolutionization, and the corresponding de-emphasis of what you call the craft or trade of music, which has been growing gradually worse since about 1850, and that this has lead to a major crisis in Western aesthetic ideals, to the point of almost eroding them into non-existence. Those are your words. Yes, I realize that your not saying that music from 1300 is the same as the music of 1700. But, your stating that the innovation and revolutionization in music was not as bad as it is today - when this is clearly not true! If it were true, then we would expect to see much more similarity in the music of Machaut and the Music of Bach. Or the music of Monteverdi and the music of Beethoven. This is SIMPLY not the case. Thus, your concept is severely flawed.

What I was saying is that in the Romantic period there arose this ideal of the artist (composer) as one who against all odds expresses him/herself in a way that is radically, and in a sense absolutely, original. This ideal, I repeat, did not exist prior to the 19th Century, except perhaps in a few isolated eccentrics. Also, I meant to say that this ideal has become so thoroughly perverted over the course of the 20th Century that it has lost all touch with reality and given us "music" such as Cage's "4:33", or random noise as ordinary people call it.

Did it not exist?? So Bach, for example, didn't view himself as an 'artist' who expressed himself in a way that is original? Keep in mind, Bach was contrary to his peers - many of whom considered him to be starkly old fashioned. Clearly, if Bach were not sticking with the 'artistic ideal' that (you claim) came into being in the 19th century, then we would expect Bach to be identical to Vivaldi, Handel, Buxtehude, etc. Since Bach is not similar to these other contemporaries of his time, it is safe to assume that Bach was indeed originally expressing himself in a radical way that is characteristic of the 'ideal of an artist'. This is NO different than Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Cage, Beethoven, Schumann, Mozart, Haydn, Dittersdorf, Monteverdi, Palestrina, Xenakis, etc. If you want to remove the 'ideal of an artist as one who against all odds expresses him/herself in a way that is radically, and in a sense absolutely, original' and completely isolate from periods post 1800, then by all means, Bach was clearly not an artist at all. Right?

I won't address your other points right now, as it's rather late and I need some sleep. Let me just say that I don't particularly enjoy being lectured to on "what it means to be human" (whatever you mean by that). You're not in a better position to know what a human is than I am, pal.

Well, I don't particularly appreciate you coming here and stating things that you assume to be fact that are not. I also don't appreciate you taking offense to things said in a 'discussion forum' over a topic such as this. If you don't want to hear opinions or read statements that are contrary to your, rather close minded, view on music history, then please don't post and save those of us who are serious about our craft our time.

Dontcha just love false dichotomies and non sequiturs?

BTW, Jason, if its SUCH a waste of time, then don't bother to respond. Walls of text don't mean much on the internet. In the time it took you to reply, you probably could have written a short piano sonata or two (optimistically of course :P).

Dontcha just love false dichotomies and non sequiturs?

BTW, Jason, if its SUCH a waste of time, then don't bother to respond. Walls of text don't mean much on the internet. In the time it took you to reply, you probably could have written a short piano sonata or two (optimistically of course :P).

Meh, I'm just saying really. I mean, if he is getting all flustered over someone calling him out on his assumptions and pointing things out, then really why is he even bothering? It's that simple really.

As for false dichotomies and non sequiturs, I didn't see any in what anyone has written really.

BTW, good job on conducting last night ;)

Meh, I'm just saying really. I mean, if he is getting all flustered over someone calling him out on his assumptions and pointing things out, then really why is he even bothering? It's that simple really.

As for false dichotomies and non sequiturs, I didn't see any in what anyone has written really.

BTW, good job on conducting last night ;)

O_O

How did you know about that?!

O_O

How did you know about that?!

A lil birdy told me! And they also said you were an amazing conductor!

A lil birdy told me! And they also said you were an amazing conductor!

Those darned birdies! New York has a real bird-in-concert-hall problem. Why can't get those hunters out to shoot the darned things?! :headwall:

*so dramatic*

Ah, one of those guys. We haven't had one of them in a while. Here let me mop this scraggy up real quick:

First says:

Also, there should be some minimal amount of structure present; otherwise my beautifully whistling tea kettle would produce "music".

Thus my reply:

After all, can sound along a timeline lack a structure at all? If you get down to it, everything has a defined structure in retrospective.

Rather straight forwards, but then:

Yeah sure, everything has a structure, as per the laws of physics and mathematics. So, does that make everything art?

According to you this is the difference between something being music or not that you yourself have stated. So yes, it would indeed make everything at least music, according to you. Don't look at me now, I didn't make ridiculous definitions for what music can or can't be.

I recently listened to 4:33

Oh yeah, bonus brownie points for bringing up Cage into this whole mess. He's like Music's Hitler, the moment he gets mentioned you know the entire discussion is not salvageable. Specially not as it's often addressed like you're doing. You can't possibly have "heard" 4:33 as you can't actually stop hearing 4:33, ever. That's just an attention timeframe, the music itself never stops.

But I doubt you can understand that and even if you do you wouldn't accept it as you'd rather fight against the existence of an entire century. Good luck with that, half of YC is probably trying really hard to do the same thing so you'll fit right in.

In the meantime I'm just going to keep LOLing at the hypocrisy of typing:

A wholesale return to our cultural or even religious roots would do us lot of good.

On a computer, on an internet forum. I'm sure you'd be thrilled to go back to the dark ages, but I think I'll pass.

And as a last bit of advice:

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'm sure you're perfectly fine with people shitting all over your art and preferences, but some of us don't think that's very polite.

I seriously believe that Western civilization is in a state of decay, and that its art reflects it. This conviction is growing stronger and stronger, the more I study modern society and its art....

I'm not a student of history, but I'd totally agree with this. I have issues with this as a negative, though. Sure, there could have been some magic time when there was a majestic moment of fulfillment, but even the will to return to it is a reflection of the impossibility to ever reach it.

And that's not a bad thing to me. Incorporation of other ideas means the decay of the "ideal," but it also means the creation of something else. I hesitate to say "better," but certainly different. But say I include a Bolero rhythm into a piece -- is that moving away from Western civilization? Or keeping with it because it's been subsumed into it by this point? A clave? A kotekan? The concept of Ma? What's the line when it becomes "too foreign" and therefore worse? When is something Westernized? Isn't there a word for that -- uh -- blanciamento?

Meh, I'm just saying really. I mean, if he is getting all flustered over someone calling him out on his assumptions and pointing things out, then really why is he even bothering? It's that simple really.

As for false dichotomies and non sequiturs, I didn't see any in what anyone has written really.

BTW, good job on conducting last night ;)

Ridiculous! I appreciate all your arguments, up till the point where you suddenly derail and start jabbering about "being human". I just think it's very unfair of you to pontificate about such non-musical issues, of which everyone is equally knowledgeable or equally ignorant (depending on one's view). "Being human means X" almost always amounts to egocentric special pleading.

In the meantime I'm just going to keep LOLing at the hypocrisy of typing:

On a computer, on an internet forum. I'm sure you'd be thrilled to go back to the dark ages, but I think I'll pass.

And as a last bit of advice:

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'm sure you're perfectly fine with people shitting all over your art and preferences, but some of us don't think that's very polite.

What IS your problem? Did I say I hated the 20th Century and wanted to return to the dark ages? No way. I quite like living right now, because of the freedom we're enjoying (in the West at least), the endless technological possibilities, etc. I'm just saying that our times really are troubled and have fundamental issues, reflected in its art, and that a return to earlier modes of thought could very well result in something positive. Yes, I know, you can't have your cake and eat it, but can't we at least try to change our ways by reflecting on the past a bit more? I repeat: Western culture as it stands is leading us nowhere, and no amount of modern technology will be able to save us from either the Chinese or the Muslims from running us over, both culturally and otherwise. (No racism intended. On the contrary, I admire the vitality of Islam as compared to half-dead Christianity.)

Ridiculous! I appreciate all your arguments, up till the point where you suddenly derail and start jabbering about "being human". I just think it's very unfair of you to pontificate about such non-musical issues, of which everyone is equally knowledgeable or equally ignorant (depending on one's view). "Being human means X" almost always amounts to egocentric special pleading.

Well, it's certainly a better thing than what you were saying. At least I'm allowing for people to be creative and original. You act like we're not working in a medium of cultural expression. I think I see what SSC is saying though: A troll is a troll. I'll save my time for a more serious discussion.

I repeat: Western culture as it stands is leading us nowhere, and no amount of modern technology will be able to save us from either the Chinese or the Muslims from running us over, both culturally and otherwise. (No racism intended. On the contrary, I admire the vitality of Islam as compared to half-dead Christianity.)

Why did I suspect this has something to do with religion to begin with? I'm an atheist, of course, so to me returning to any "religious" roots is an extremely poor idea.

Either way, your view of the western culture is certainly getting us nowhere. I mean, what, so people write things other than fugues and all's going to scraggy? I really don't get what's this got to do with music.

My problem with things like this:

Simply because we were born in the 20th Century (I suppose you're older than 11) and still live in its wake, so to say, doesn't mean that we don't have the right to say that much of the "art" produced in that century is worthless, indulgent, self-congratulating rubbish.

Is that I can just turn it around and say that much of the "music" that came out of late 1700 was simplistic rubbish, and so on. It's much, much easier to do this than with the 20th century as, really, there wasn't much going on in comparison.

So my point is, I really, really, hate people who put the word art in quotes. Are you implying you don't think it's art, right? Well that's good for you, but just as well someone can come along and label everything YOU think is art as "art" as well, but considering how you behave you must be totally OK with that.

That you don't like the stuff doesn't automatically make it not art or any less valuable to others, which is something you're forgetting. To me the 20th century is the most interesting century by far in all the arts (yet.) The point where finally some of the euro-centrism was dismantled and entire fields were invented allowing for composers to reach much further than they have ever before. I said this before, but the average student is considerably more well informed about music than Bach, Beethoven or whoever pre 20th century ever was. Or they're just a click away from a wealth of knowledge that the classic warhorses couldn't even dream of.

Either way, I suspect that your motives for having such closed opinions may stem from religious nonsense (or age, or both.) It's surprising how often this is the case, but it's just a hunch.

PS: Funny you didn't address how you admitted that everything is music. Oh well!

(A lovely example of neo-baroque composition:

.)

So, I gave this work a listen. It was not bad at first but then it went on and on and on. It was horrible. I thought I heard horrible neo-baroque composition before, but this piece takes the cake! Absolutely horrible! Not to mention, I commented on it and the person deleted my comment JUST because it wasn't a positive comment!!! What a dick.

You must enjoy having an opinion I see.

EDIT: After listening, I have to say its interesting to say the least, but its nothing like Bach's or Vivaldi's amazingness. It took this guy four harpsichords what it took Bach 1 to do.

BTW, things going on and on and on and on and on is a trademark of Baroque and classical music, in case you forgot.

You must enjoy having an opinion I see.

EDIT: After listening, I have to say its interesting to say the least, but its nothing like Bach's or Vivaldi's amazingness. It took this guy four harpsichords what it took Bach 1 to do.

BTW, things going on and on and on and on and on is a trademark of Baroque and classical music, in case you forgot.

It is yes, BUT, in perpetual motion there are generally slight changes occurring - and that is what makes it interesting to me. This work, as far as I could tell, didn't have that.

It did have changes, but it was so ridiculously obscured by four harpsichords playing trills that it can get lost. But, like I said, the quality of the development certainly ain't Bach.

HAHA, and now the baroque guy has voted ALL of my works negative on YOUTUBE!! I love how he doesn't take well to criticism. Yep, that is a true artist.

It's Youtube! Idiocy abound!

I don't mind, to be honest. Just so nice to know that he thinks I know nothing about the: fundamentals of Harmony, Melody, Orchestration, and Theory. :P