# With all the knowledge and tools now available, where is the great music?



## Arbee

When I was in music professionally during mostly the 1980's, there was no Internet to give me the vast wealth of knowledge I now have access to, and there were no cheap home studios capable of producing anything like we have available now. You really had to write in your head or at the piano and hope like hell you got it right before walking into the studio or on stage.

So, with all that is available to us these days I'd expect to be hearing the most incredible music ever written. Where is it? Or is it there and I'm not connecting with it? If it's not there, why not, what possible excuse do we have for not blowing our forefathers completely out of the water? Or has music peaked/plateaud in terms of the public's interest with all the other media forms now available?

Just imagine, once upon a time you couldn't hear any music unless someone was actually there playing it for you >8o 

o[]) 

Thanks

.


----------



## RiffWraith

Arbee @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> ... there was no Internet to give me the vast wealth of knowledge I now have access to, and there were no cheap home studios capable of producing anything like we have available now.



If you think about it, those two comments right there pretty much answer your question.

Cheers.


----------



## synergy543

Arbee @ Thu Mar 07 said:


> Just imagine, once upon a time you couldn't hear any music unless someone was actually there playing it for you >8o


People used to have to work very hard at learning to play and practicing an instrument to hear some music. Today, you can press a button and get an orchestra. Or "download a MIDI" and play it back with samples (who cares about adding 'expression' - its all about the notes right?)

So guess which one sounded better? And which inspired the art of composition?

But it doesn't really matter, because today, people don't have the time to be bothered by such issues (its not worth their money and time), and there are too many distractions to elevate this concern to any level of importance.

Its also interesting to note that today if anyone DOES attempt serious tonal music (with or without samples), they are not taken seriously, and often viscously attacked on the internet - or likened to dead composers (I hear a hint of Debussy). Yet, banal music is applauded. I always wondered why is this?

In fact, this forum is infamous for attacking anyone who even attempts to perform an existing orchestral composition with samples unless done so under the warning that its "Just for test purposes" (ever wonder why guy's like Jay Bacal never post anymore?). So even "trying" to do an orchestral realization seems frowned upon. Why instead wouldn't we all be trying to work on developing better performance skills just as orchestral musicians with "real instruments" do? Maybe samples aren't considered a serious tool by the very people that covet them?


----------



## mverta

RiffWraith @ Thu Mar 07 said:


> If you think about it, those two comments right there pretty much answer your question.



Yep.


But it's not everyone. People have been signing up for my masterclasses and sending me pieces they're working on afterwards, and I'm hearing bonafide, honest-to-goodness improvements in everything from thematic development to orchestration. I'm just teaching them the stuff from the "old days," but which obviously still applies. 

In the end, those who want to work, get better no matter what the climate or tools. And so far I've noticed no shortage of young guys really like the feeling of having music which connects with more people, more predictably. It's encouraging, and inspiring, and I'll bet in the end, it's about the same number of people working hard that it ever was!


_Mike


----------



## Guy Bacos

That's an interesting question.

I'm one of those who isn't very optimistic about where music is heading. The craft is gone for good. We will never see great composers again, everything changed, technology made everything so simple for our brains, we hardly need to use it anymore to write music. How can one develop his craft??? Seems better the technology gets, lazier we will get. Of course, one can't complain about the great things of technology, I, myself enjoy it every day, but it's like the secondary effects. Just look here, how many people wants their samples ready out of the box? The idea of putting an effort in is out of the question, despite that the effort may be more worthwhile at the end.

Nobody today comes to the heel of Debussy, Ravel, Rachmaninov, or Gershwin. We will never see that level of writing and originality again. I know this is debatable, so don't get a heart attack.  But that's me, and I bet the top 10 film composers of today would admit that themselves.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I would debate that, Guy. Adams is really good, Arvo Part, Essa Pekka Salonen writes some esoteric but still really interesting stuff...there's good concert music being written.

The problem is pop music, because the record industry is gone.


----------



## germancomponist

RiffWraith @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> Arbee @ Fri Mar 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... there was no Internet to give me the vast wealth of knowledge I now have access to, and there were no cheap home studios capable of producing anything like we have available now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think about it, those two comments right there pretty much answer your question.
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...


+1

A wide field!


----------



## Stiltzkin

The demand for it is not as great as it was back then - at the times they were composing, they were what everyone wanted to hear, so they could make a living from it (although lets face it, many of them were not the most wealthy of people). Nowadays if you were to write the same music it would be very hard to make a living, although there is a demand for it, it would be very hard to get the name out there and be taken seriously without people thinking you are just living in the past.

Some of the skill is in virtuosity of course, the performance is what people often wanted to see (take Liszt for example) the showmanship of soloist will always keep classical music alive - the problem with modern virtuosity is that it is often less pleasing to the ear for the average listener, so it is harder to break through writing "clever" music. It IS there, but probably not in the way you want it to be - it is generally considered musicians music.

I think the recent topic someone made on the forum would be a great reference; http://tiagovideira.com/2013/01/02/my-m ... hing-else/


----------



## Caedwallon

I think the problem begins with the sheer number of people around.

For every exceptional mind, there are now thousands, if not millions, of mediocre minds clogging up the pipelines. This is true for everything, not just for music. To make it worse, due to excessive standardization/homogenization, it's far more difficult to spot and nurture the diamonds in the rough. They've been buried under. Modern civilization sustains mediocrity; and this won't stop because one generation of mediocre people will likely produce the next generation of equal mediocrity. Our gene pool is screwed up.


----------



## Scrianinoff

Guy Bacos @ Fri 08 Mar said:


> We will never see great composers again, everything changed, technology made everything so simple for our brains, we hardly need to use it anymore to write music. How can one develop his craft???
> 
> Nobody today comes to the heel of Debussy, Ravel, Rachmaninov, or Gershwin. We will never see that level of writing and originality again. I know this is debatable, so don't get a heart attack.  But that's me, and I bet the top 10 film composers of today would admit that themselves.



At least John Williams agrees with you, AND Spielberg: When Spielberg asked JW to compose the music for Schindler's list, JW allegedly replied: "You need a better composer than I am for this film." To which Spielberg responded, "I know. But they're all dead!" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List#Music )

JW being mostly a non-tech composer, it appears there's more than just the technology to blame. Food for thought.


----------



## Leosc

Guy Bacos @ Thu Mar 07 said:


> The craft is gone for good. We will never see great composers again...



Oh Guy. Reading that makes my heart bleed.


----------



## Daryl

I think that you're sort of missing the point. By its very nature film music can't be great music. If it was, the film would be at best an irrelevance. Therefore you are looking in the wrong place if you expect to find great music. A great composer is unlikely to be satisfied by working to film for very long.

Then comes the problem with getting concert music performed. It is not only expensive, but with budgets dwindling, it is very difficult for a concert promoter to justify new music in their programmes.

D


----------



## Goran

Daryl @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> Then comes the problem with getting concert music performed. It is not only expensive, but with budgets dwindling, it is very difficult for a concert promoter to justify new music in their programmes.



This is a major problem for a great majority of composers writing concert music for larger ensembles today. Most of their pieces, no matter how good they may be, will never see the light of the day, at least not in any time coming...


----------



## Waywyn

Arbee @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> When I was in music professionally during mostly the 1980's, there was no Internet to give me the vast wealth of knowledge I now have access to, and there were no cheap home studios capable of producing anything like we have available now. You really had to write in your head or at the piano and hope like hell you got it right before walking into the studio or on stage.
> 
> So, with all that is available to us these days I'd expect to be hearing the most incredible music ever written. Where is it? Or is it there and I'm not connecting with it? If it's not there, why not, what possible excuse do we have for not blowing our forefathers completely out of the water? Or has music peaked/plateaud in terms of the public's interest with all the other media forms now available?
> 
> Just imagine, once upon a time you couldn't hear any music unless someone was actually there playing it for you >8o
> 
> o[])
> 
> Thanks
> 
> .



I think the problem here (at least to 50%) is our selective cognition, because the great music is still here. The other 50% is, that there are much more possibilities to compose and share your music with the world than it has been before (so one has more problems "finding" it).

If you believe it or not, want to accept it or not, but music simply behaves like evolution. It adapts to the people as people adapt to the environment as our environment adapts to the solar system and universe ... this is not ment to be philosophical or anything, it is just a fact.

If people "whine" about music, it is simply a sign that they are not open enough the appreciate the new stuff. They simply lock down, denying to experience the unknown/unfamiliar!

You could "whine" the same about no more horses and carriages. Damn, it looks so beautiful! Every time I see one my mouth is just open and I think: This is how it looked like on the streets a few hundred years ago ... and today? Thos weird iron things with four wheels, is that it? Really?

This is the future, this is the unknown, this is life, accept it, make the best out of it and be a happy person, or slowly sink down in whining about how everything has been better in the past!


----------



## germancomponist

An interesting read about pop music I found last year:

“We found evidence of a progressive homogenization of the musical discourse. In particular, we obtained numerical indicators that the diversity of transitions between note combinations – roughly speaking chords plus melodies – has consistently diminished in the last 50 years.”

Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/26/us-science-music-idUSBRE86P0R820120726

And yes, I agree with what they have found out! 

_http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120726/srep00521/full/srep00521.html_


----------



## Dan Mott

There is great music around. You just have to go to the effort of searching. I have find some real cool tracks on Youtube and Grooveshark. The stuff that's on the radio, ect, is only a fraction of what's out there.

Also - Someone can have all the knowledge about his/her tools, but it doesn't mean they will produce great tracks. It all comes down to what they do with those tools. IMO.

Just keep searching in the genere you like on websites, ect and I'm sure you will find something awesome to add to your collection.


----------



## Waywyn

One more thing to add to the intial poster/question.
You could also ask:

With all the knowledge and tools now available, where are the intelligent and healthy eating people?

The answer is: Disregarding the world is getting more uneducated, fat, eating more burgers and fast food and is getting more sick because of their nutrition ... the healthy bunch is still there, alive and doing well!

Therefore, if someone enjoys good music s/he will always find it.
To be honest, I personally give a damn about masses, I follow what I like ... I always loved progressive metal and there was never really a platform for it. You ALWAYS had (or still have) to dig for good progressive metal.

So at the end of the day, who cares if pop rules the world. If you prefer to listen to something else which is, in your eyes, crafted more suitable and "great music" for you, then simply listen to it - it is still there and will always be!


----------



## Resoded

Isn't this thread already filled with some exaggerations? Through history, there has always been people skilled at what they do, and some people skilled enough to be legendary. Why would it be any different today? I find the idea of great music being some sort of an endangered species odd. Maybe it's just you not finding the great, or that the greats reside in genres outside of your taste? Or maybe the music industry has become so huge that we have been constantly pushing our definition of greatness to a point where we have become desensitized to mastery. Maybe your expectations are way off.

This whole conversation reminds me of people discussing the best movie of all time. Somehow, there seem to be some sort of a law that only some movies are allowed on that list. The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption are two examples. These movies have become legends almost, just as the master composers, and that category of legends doesn't seem to be open for newer additions. It all comes to a point were a movie isn't a movie anymore and a piece of music isn't a piece of music anymore, but rather legends and myths. Personally, I'd rather watch The Anchorman than The Godfather, and have rated it higher on IMDB too.

Just my perhaps confusing and irrelevant 2 cents.


----------



## Arbee

Wow, great feedback - thanks!

To add to this further then, are we looking in the wrong place for "greatness" in music and the world has moved on? Good underlying craftsmanship of harmony, development etc will always make a difference at the foundation level and be highly respected and engaging. I guess much as we are always in awe of the building architecture of the past. Like grand old buildings though, isn't it unrepeatable because the modern mind isn't in that place any more with the same values or social structure? I try to imagine Bach coming to grips with the concept of "swing", guitar amps or synths, or the incredible sound design that goes into the work of HZ and others on this forum.

Perhaps greatness in music today, and I mean emotive greatness in the general public sense, now often lies in a blend of somewhat simplified traditional craftmanship plus jaw dropping sound design, and both have become equally necessary as dual attributes to the public ear. I for one couldn't imagine life without those Omni/Zebra sounds, nor could I imagine life without orchestras. Putting the vast modern sonic pallette together though, and knowing when not to, is the challenge. I see many folk on this forum use orchestral samples as just another great sound colour, and I totally applaud that in the right context.

Sorry, it's late here - I must put the top back on that bottle :oops: :lol:

.


----------



## Arbee

Waywyn @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> One more thing to add to the intial poster/question.
> You could also ask:
> 
> With all the knowledge and tools now available, where are the intelligent and healthy eating people?
> 
> The answer is: Disregarding the world is getting more uneducated, fat, eating more burgers and fast food and is getting more sick because of their nutrition ... the healthy bunch is still there, alive and doing well!
> 
> Therefore, if someone enjoys good music s/he will always find it.
> To be honest, I personally give a damn about masses, I follow what I like ... I always loved progressive metal and there was never really a platform for it. You ALWAYS had (or still have) to dig for good progressive metal.
> 
> So at the end of the day, who cares if pop rules the world. If you prefer to listen to something else which is, in your eyes, crafted more suitable and "great music" for you, then simply listen to it - it is still there and will always be!


Not sure if this link is going to work, and it's slightly off topic, but I think this is the kind of modern thinking you mean:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...9976035.-2207520000.1362746734&type=3&theater

PS I grew up on Beethoven, then Led Zeppelin, then Michel Colombier - so I'm totally nuts and non-genre specific anyway.

o-[][]-o


----------



## Scrianinoff

To put it into another perspective, Bach's Matthaeus Passion hasn't been performed as often in any time span in history as in the last decade. More people listen to classical music than ever before. There are more high quality orchestras than ever before. More people consume music of any flavour than ever before, disregarding whether they pay for it or not, but that issue will pass.

So while the number of ears open to music is at its largest, the number of orchestras being able to play the most sophisticated types music is at its largest, and the technical tools like DAWs and VIs are coming close to being a real help in creating music as sophisticated as by some of the great historic composers, we're now surely going to outshine those old geezers, right?!


----------



## rJames

Evolution...







...is slow.







Patience...


----------



## dcoscina

I think ascribing a qualitative marker to art is largely subjective. These days I just embrace what I enjoy and learn from it. I was at the ballet last night where they had Scheherazade and Shostakovich's 11 symphony underscoring the dances. My wife leaned over mid way through the first act and said with marvel and delight "who is this"? I replied Rimsky Korsakov. I had heard the piece many times in my youth but hadn't heard it ever played by a live orchestra and the colours, harmonies, and melodies were gorgeous. The Shostakovich symphony was like a long very structurally adept film score with a few central ideas developed throughout the course of the piece. Both works floored me and the set design, choreography and pure fusion of artistry gave me a sense of elation that I've not experienced from film in ages.

The point is, this kind of music still astounds and resonates with me. New music film or concert usually doesn't. Part of it is craftsmanship. Part of it is the idiom that fails to captivate me. But it's always my perception of these things. The best thing I can do is stay true to what matters to me musically. I can afford to do this as I'm not making a career at music. It's harder for guys who need to pay bills and hence have to bend to the will of their employer.

It's not as polarized a topic as it appears to be.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

rJames @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> Evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...is slow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patience...



But devolution is fast!!!! 

But according to Alex, we should just embrace it because after all, who can say that death metal is not the equal of Ravel? >8o


----------



## Ian Dorsch

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 07 said:


> I would debate that, Guy. Adams is really good, Arvo Part, Essa Pekka Salonen writes some esoteric but still really interesting stuff...there's good concert music being written.
> 
> The problem is pop music, because the record industry is gone.



Absolutely 100% correct, IMO. Just in the last few months I have heard beautiful concert music from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3fOVDTg9pU (Max Richter), Dan Visconti, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5SrdmgB63M (Einojuhani Rautavaara), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp63c81go2U (Ola Gjeilo) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8VZdskClTg (Joseph Schwantner).

I guess we can argue about the relative merits of these pieces and composers, but there is no question that there is interesting, challenging, stirring art music being written and recorded. It's just harder than ever to discern the signal through the noise.


----------



## dcoscina

I think it's better to focus on specific idioms or genres of music. Are orchestral compositions as deft as ones conceived by the likes of Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky and their ilk? No. That can be said. Have there been some terrific concert works composed in the new millennium? Probably but I haven't heard anything that's as competent and confident as those mature works by composers mentioned above. But it's a double edged sword. They were pioneers of their day and if a composer wants to emulate that kind of writing today they would be accused of ripping off those masters. To diverge into a wholly new area is a tall order and it probably wouldn't match up to the quality that is engrained in our minds as excellent orchestral music.

That said, I'm fine with composing what I call stylistically regressive music or else try to fuse genres and styles together in an interesting way. Sometimes it meets with success and other times it doesn't. 

I will offer one thing from personal experience. Notation programs, for me, help to distill the fundamental components of music without distracting me with imposed tempi (ie fascist click track), production value (samples, mixing, etc), and visual artifice (DAW arrange page). When composing an orchestral piece, the best vantage point is seeing the blank full score. I can then concentrate on phrasing whereas playing lines in real time I find I'm too busy. Very often I feel like a sculptor taking things away from my DAW composed pieces. With notation, clarity of thought and attention to contrapuntal textures is so much easier.


----------



## Rob

dcoscina @ 8th March 2013 said:


> ...
> I will offer one thing from personal experience. Notation programs, for me, help to distill the fundamental components of music without distracting me with imposed tempi (ie fascist click track), production value (samples, mixing, etc), and visual artifice (DAW arrange page). When composing an orchestral piece, the best vantage point is seeing the blank full score. I can then concentrate on phrasing whereas playing lines in real time I find I'm too busy. Very often I feel like a sculptor taking things away from my DAW composed pieces. With notation, clarity of thought and attention to contrapuntal textures is so much easier.



I find this true for me as well, extending notation to pen and paper of course... even after having a completed piece in midi format, transferring it to the written score reveals all kinds of (missing) details and interactions between instruments...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> I think the problem begins with the sheer number of people around.



Actually I think it's sort of the opposite. There may be more people playing *at* music today, but that's not the same thing as a thriving industry of people making it their life's work.

When the record industry was firing on all wax cylinders, the way it worked was the same as films and book publishing: a few hits support the industry. There was a minor league system, and record companies invested the time to develop talented bands.

That's how all human endeavor works: lots of people work on something and only a small fraction of it is great. Most music sucks, and most scientific experiments fail.


----------



## Rob

it might also be that there's a limited/fixed number of talent around, no matter the available amount of information...


----------



## windshore

Daryl @ 3/8/2013 said:


> I think that you're sort of missing the point. By its very nature film music can't be great music. ...
> D



This made me laugh. By this way of thinking, all music composed for Opera and Ballet is by definition, crap.

In these times we suffer from sensory overload and that certainly affects the way people perceive music. good or bad...


----------



## jaredcowing

An interesting (free) documentary that deals with this subject:
http://youtu.be/-rvlaTg3vPg

The question they grapple with in the video: does our new age of technology mean we are experiencing a wave of new creativity, or simply drowning in a sea of mediocrity?

It also talks a bit about other forms of art as well (film, literature), but there is a big emphasis on music.

When I watched it I noticed that it stated the obvious in many parts (and has wayy too much slow-motion footage of people dancing), but it's still very interesting to watch... just the first 3 minutes sum everything up very well. Speaks very much to this discussion topic.


----------



## Leosc

Rob @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> I find this true for me as well, extending notation to pen and paper of course... even after having a completed piece in midi format, transferring it to the written score reveals all kinds of (missing) details and interactions between instruments...



Exactly. Personally, I find it almost meditative to write down the score only with a pencil and a rubber. Just me and the paper - and a computer screen, if I'm copying the digital score to my manuscript. There's no better way to understand the inner workings of the score if you ask me.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> I would debate that, Guy. Adams is really good, Arvo Part, Essa Pekka Salonen writes some esoteric but still really interesting stuff...there's good concert music being written.
> 
> The problem is pop music, because the record industry is gone.



Absolutely. I don't recall saying anything that would say the opposite. They are indeed excellent composers, just like there are excellent composers on this forum. But Nick, you really believe these composers will rank as high as the ones I mentioned? In my opinion, no, and that is the point, the craft is slowly fading away. 20th century was an amazing time for technology, but at the expense of something we are loosing, and we don't even know anymore what it is we lost since we are now a custom to a whole different way of living.


----------



## TheUnfinished

What is it people think is missing? There is talk of the craft of the likes of Mozart, Ravel, etc. - greats from the past. Well, the new 'greats' are going to have to do things differently aren't they? There's not much great about copying previous greats.

Perhaps we're too close to it all to see what is truly great happening now? 

Or perhaps we're looking for it in the wrong places?

Or perhaps you have a preconditioned view of 'great' that doesn't match other people's ideas of 'great'? It is after all a very vague term.

I think there is much truth in the signal to noise ratio argument. There are far more people making music, listening to music, using music than ever before.

Personally, I discover new artists that enthrall and amaze me every day. Admittedly, rarely in the mainstream. But in film music, game music, electronica/ambient, ethnic, folk... I never tire of enjoying new music.

I'm not worried if who I'm listening to is a great or will one day be seen as a great, if their music touches me, then as far as I'm concerned they ARE great because they've made my life a better place. And bless them for that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> But Nick, you really believe these composers will rank as high as the ones I mentioned?



Probably not those composers, but time will tell. What I was responding to is:

"...Debussy, Ravel, Rachmaninov, and Gershwin. We will never see that level of writing and originality again."

I don't see anything going on that will lower the level or originality of composers writing concert music relative to what those guys did. The demise of the record industry, however, is bad news for popular music - for the reasons I mentioned.

(Ignoring that Gershwin is a separate case.)


----------



## jaredcowing

TheUnfinished @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> What is it people think is missing? There is talk of the craft of the likes of Mozart, Ravel, etc. - greats from the past. Well, the new 'greats' are going to have to do things differently aren't they? There's not much great about copying previous greats.



I agree, although at the same time it doesn't hurt to listen to and study these composers in order to build on/learn from their music- if nothing else, then to "know the rules before you break them." I think a musician could write amazing music without ever listening to a note of Mozart or Ravel (consider all the great music from outside the western world where Mozart was never the "rule" in the first place), but it would probably take a whole lot of trial and error and practice... it seems so much more efficient to me to learn from these masters and re-imagine what you think worked in that music, while leaving out what you think doesn't work. You're right that copying old music would be pointless, but I also think that when Schoenberg wanted to make a clean break from these guys, he probably ended up throwing out the baby with the bathwater (though the results are still very interesting to listen to). My point is, it seems like we have to balance the need to do something different with the need to not ignore some of the lessons learned in the past and repeating some musical "mistakes" that we might not have made if we paid a little closer attention to Mozart/Ravel.


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> That's how all human endeavor works: lots of people work on something and only a small fraction of it is great. Most music sucks, and most scientific experiments fail.



How about some experimental music by a former scientist then? :wink: 

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Go for it! You'll be contributing to the brute force pool even if it sucks.


----------



## Arbee

So, when we think of "greatness" in music most people seem to think almost immediately of orchestral acoustic instruments. Does, or can, great music exist that doesn't need an orchestral instrument somewhere in it? Can a beat that has everyone jumping out of their chair ever be described as "great" music? We have some of the best synths ever, can they produce "great" music?

.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Arbee @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> So, when we think of "greatness" in music most people seem to think almost immediately of orchestral acoustic instruments. Does, or can, great music exist that doesn't need an orchestral instrument somewhere in it? Can a beat that has everyone jumping out of their chair ever be described as "great" music? We have some of the best synths ever, can they produce "great" music?
> 
> .



Well now we have to define "great". Does it mean artfully composed, intelligent and creative musicianship, and meant to stand the test of time, or does it mean "stuff that people love."I love pop and rock music but there is no pop or rock music, not even my favorites, like the Beatles and Bacharach, that I consider on the same level of "greatness" as Mozart and Ravel.

But we have had 40 threads arguing this kind of stuff and it gets us nowhere in the end.


----------



## Guy Bacos

I may have a hard time expressing myself here. I'm trying to not just make it a personal opinion but attribute this to other factors. 

Let's just take TV. By the age of seven, a child born today will have spent a full year glued to screens, and with the new generation, you can add time on video games and computer to that. But let's just take that TV year, something very passive for the brain, as we all know. What did young student musicians do over 100 years ago with that year? Perhaps benefited from activities involving music? So just imagine replacing the time you spent watching TV by some kind of activity in which you would develop: ear, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration etc. Since TV had never existed, it maybe wasn't that bad. When you take the most gifted among them, add more studies to that, still no TV, you're going to get some damn fine composers! 

Today, it would be inconceivable to deprive your kid from watching TV, it would be close to child abuse. Sesame Street is educational, ok, but it will probably add up to 2% of your TV time at the end, before you start watching re-runs of I Love Lucy, 3 times a day. So just with that alone, you already have a huge difference in our living styles between today and pre-TV times.


----------



## Arbee

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> But we have had 40 threads arguing this kind of stuff and it gets us nowhere in the end.


OK, I'll drop it - I just find the responses interesting because on this forum we do experience some fascinating spats occasionally between those with very fixed ideas and values, and those with completely open minds. The future belongs to the latter.....

.


----------



## Guy Bacos

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> But we have had 40 threads arguing this kind of stuff and it gets us nowhere in the end.



Might be some fresh blood out there. Not all have taken part of these 40 threads, (as you old timers.  )


----------



## Arbee

Guy Bacos @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> I may have a hard time expressing myself here. I'm trying to not just make it a personal opinion but attribute this to other factors.
> 
> Let's just take TV. By the age of seven, a child born today will have spent a full year glued to screens, and with the new generation, you can add time on video games and computer to that. But let's just take that TV year, something very passive for the brain, as we all know. What did young student musicians do over 100 years ago with that year? Perhaps benefited from activities involving music? So just imagine replacing the time you spent watching TV by some kind of activity in which you would develop: ear, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration etc. Since TV had never existed, it maybe wasn't that bad. When you take the most gifted among them, add more studies to that, still no TV, you're going to get some damn fine composers!
> 
> Today, it would be inconceivable to deprive your kid from watching TV, it would be close to child abuse. Sesame Street is educational, ok, but it will probably add up to 2% of your TV time at the end, before you start watching re-runs of I Love Lucy, 3 times a day. So just with that alone, you already have a huge difference in our living styles between today and pre-TV times.


Really well expressed Guy and so very true. Modern society is a real paradox - there is no patience or commitment to developing craft because so much is competing for our attention, but great examples of that craft are still treasured.

Getting back to my original post, I think the knowledge and tools available today should propel those with the talent and the dedication to greater heights than ever. If we're listening from an outdated perspective however, we may not recognise it.

.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Arbee @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> If we're listening from an outdated perspective however, we may not recognise it.
> 
> .




Explain more, please.


----------



## Arbee

Perhaps an analogy. If my measure of great buildings is the magnificent architecture and craftsmanship of several hundred years ago, and my new home is an ultra modern design with great use of space, light and energy efficiency - I may not appreciate or value it in the same way that someone else would with a different background and values.

.


----------



## Waywyn

You know in the end, I just can say one thing:

In the last months these discussions about great music, sophisticated music and all the great masters vs. "modern crap" has become that much, that I have the impression that several or specific music styles are treated like races ... and while in general all people are completely tolerant and open minded and no race should never run into trouble, you still see those grumpy faces when someone from a specific race walks into the bar ...

"For sure, you are welcome here (but this place was a bit better before you entered)"

I mean, don't get me wrong, I love and enjoy this place since a very long time now, I have met friends here and of course enjoy discussions, no matter if they turn a bit into an aggressive thing. This happens with discussions ... and I also learned helluvalot of stuff here!

... but all these threads during the last months look like: I would be so much happier if I could compose my next paid gig with 7th chords and change keys 5 times while at least a few arpeggios can contain full dotted quintuples over a few 17/16 beats!


----------



## Waywyn

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> But according to Alex, we should just embrace it because after all, who can say that death metal is not the equal of Ravel? >8o



You know, besides the "noise" you may just recognize, just sit down for a moment and technically try to analyze a few rhythm structures of e.g. Meshuggah. On a few tracks this is far more complex than most of what the old masters have ever written! It is simply you not (willing to see and accept) it. Even worse, assuming (again, just ASSUMING) if you would just hear noise, I would go even that far and say that your ears and brain is way too closed minded to understand the structure of it. Again, just assuming IF you would just notice noise when listening to Meshuggah. (Besides that 80% of the people try to then distract from the initial point and state that the singer is not really singing!)

However, this doesn't mean on the other hand, that I am saying you HAVE TO like Meshuggah more than Ravel. Taste is a totally different thing. It is just the point of recognizing that there is a lot of modern stuff equal to the old masters, even though they sound totally different!


----------



## Arbee

Waywyn @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> ... but all these threads during the last months look like: I would be so much happier if I could compose my next paid gig with 7th chords and change keys 5 times while at least a few arpeggios can contain full dotted quintuples over a few 17/16 beats!


I would be so much happier if I could put a piece of music on youtube and a million people would immediately rush online to buy it :lol: - end of story. Everything else, including peer group approval, is (nearly) irrelevant.

.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Guy Bacos @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Mar 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we have had 40 threads arguing this kind of stuff and it gets us nowhere in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might be some fresh blood out there. Not all have taken part of these 40 threads, (as you old timers.  )
Click to expand...


But they all go the same way: There is no greater or lesser, just taste- No there are empirical standards as well- no there is just taste- no, there are standards, and so and so on.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Arbee @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> Perhaps an analogy. If my measure of great buildings is the magnificent architecture and craftsmanship of several hundred years ago, and my new home is an ultra modern design with great use of space, light and energy efficiency - I may not appreciate or value it in the same way that someone else would with a different background and values.
> 
> .



But by saying that, aren't you automatically saying anyone who likes A but not B, it's because he has different values or background? Shouldn't you be equally fair to both sides and respect that he may be able to appreciate A and B equally, but just hasn't been seduced by B? 

It's so easy to be seduced by Mozart that all our own barriers and prejudices fall when listening to his music. That is the ultimate power of a great composer. He will touch your soul even if you resist.  It should be that simple to listen and appreciate music. No pre-requisites.


----------



## Musicologo

Ok, let's bring some new perspectives into the discussion:

1) People are assuming Mozart, Beethoven, etc to be great. What's so great about them? I can see thousands of people nowadays writing equally great than them. *Music has no intrinsic quality - the value is always attributed externally - this is a fact. *

You have to think what made mozart, beethoven being valued TODAY as great, when there were at least 2000 composers in vienna at that time and noone can recall them now.
Political factors? The writing of history? innovations? *Were they the first ones to do something, that become banal afterwards and entered the "canon"*? 

2) when something is repeated into the exhaustion becomes true. The "cannon" is about 70 composers and works. Check out which operas are performed around the world. about all the same from german-french-italian composers roughly from XIX century. That's the cannon. That's all the music there is to be. That's what you call great music?...


All the music from countries besides those is non-existent.* Is not performed in the "great houses", is not shown in the media, is not taught in schools. Those 3 factors in themselves justify part of the "problem" or the skewed perception and ideas we're grown into. *


3) Have you tried to check out for chinese music? Music from India or Java? There are masters out there, noone hears about them. I went to a workshop about indian music and theory. I was appaled with so many names I new nothing about, a system I couldn't understand and a lot of ancient "masters" and "composers" highly gifted and crafted I totally ignored and still ignore. Because I'm outside that livehood and context.

And why great music is orchestral music? nonsense, technology brought us new pallets of sound, endless possibilities.


Someone up there was pointing out meshugga. they're great, not my cup of tea for personal subjective reasons but there's a lot of craft and work there.

I find genius and mastership on bosques de mi mente. On Bjork (yes, roar at me, i don't like her either, but I find her experiences great). And on Manu chao. Manu chao is absolutely delicious - the perfect example of a "crafter" - the guy has been collecting samples for over 20 years all over the place and they keep appearing all the time everywhere with a lot of wittiness. It's an art of recombination.

4) everything is a remix. If you equate greatness with craftsmanship and inventiveness you'll not find great music nowadays in the genres you expect because novelty has been exhausted on those contexts. You have to find it in the people who are producing and remixing new things. old ideas with new ones. Some spectralists are great. There are a lot of great masters out there, you just don't know they're masters yet because the criteria and context to become a "master" has changed. Again, you'll have to perceive how the "cannon" and "history" is being written now, and how it will be written in a thousand years. Have you ever wondered if Bach was considered "great master" in his time? and 100 years later? and how often was he played... moreover... will bach still be great 500 years from now?...


5) Finally: what do you attribute value at? You talked about 1 000 000 people going to check your video.

I guess gangam style is great and a work of master then. 
It was NOT predicted. It was not planned that way. it HAPPENED. Viral phenomenas are the greatest challenge nowadays, everyone wants to be one... but no one can make one before it happens.

If it happened the question is: why it happened? People must have seen something great in there. 

So now you just have to extrapolate that to someone doing that over a lifetime and consistently.

And considering film/classical music what do you have regarding XX/XXI century? Bingo, john williams. I have little doubts he will be an iconic figure - because he has been consistent year, after year, after year, keeping all the standards that make him appeal a reasonably vast audience inside his "niche" or "cannon".

Do you have any other so consensual? You have to look up the various niches, and there you'll find your guys. What is the living and most consensual chinese guy? Bollywood guy? etc...

And then analyze their work. Probably you'll find nothing special per se. As I can't find anything SO special in mozart or beethoven. A lot of V7-I and great melodies.
And then a lot of other tiny details that make a difference.

*In the end - it's the WHOLE OVER TIME that makes someone great, consistency, context, coherence.* And when You have someone like that - eventually you'll consider the works of that someone memorable, examples of a great "style", "voice", "genius" or whatever you want to call it. And they will enter the "canon" pushed by the media and the many, many fans.

That's why I believe Bjork and John Williams ARE the great music nowadays (in "Western Cannon", there are other "cannons" as I've exposed); just like Stockhausen, Xenakis and Berio were the most "great recent" ones - they already made into the "history books". You might just not believe it/see it now...

my 100 cents. :D


----------



## Guy Bacos

Ok Jay, you are right. I'm out. Not ready to debate this all over again.


----------



## Arbee

Musicologo - great post, great sense!

We talked about arrogance on another of Guy's posts. All I'm really saying is being dismissive of any genre, particularly a popular one, is in my view arrogant. This puts down the shutters thereby preventing learning opportunities. If there are millions of people who enjoy a particular style of music, I really want to tap into that consciousness because I'm obviously missing some listening pleasure and some potential learning experience.

If longevity is a measure of greatness, at the risk of ridicule, where do bands like Abba and Queen feature in all this? I distinctly hear some traditional craftsmanship, although in a simple form, in their music. And as I get older I notice these seem to pop up every now again from seemingly nowhere. Perhaps the public ear isn't as crude as we think it is. And by the way, I also think pure "fun" is also a valid artistic expression as it simply makes people feel good.

.


----------



## Arbee

Guy Bacos @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> But by saying that, aren't you automatically saying anyone who likes A but not B, it's because he has different values or background? Shouldn't you be equally fair to both sides and respect that he may be able to appreciate A and B equally, but just hasn't been seduced by B?


Yes exactly, equally fair and respectful in both directions, not dismissive as we seem to so often experience.

.


----------



## Musicologo

> It's so easy to be seduced by *ANyone_who_composes_singable_melodies_in_diatonic_temperament *that all our own barriers and prejudices fall when listening to his music. That is the ultimate power of a great composer. He will touch your soul even if you resist. Wink It should be that simple to listen and appreciate music. No pre-requisites.



That's my own empirical requirement so far perceived, all the rest is built. Perhaps I'm not a good example because of that but I'm deeply moved by music with a beautiful syncopated melody and 2 chords... I keep asking professors and all around why does that happen. If I'm an analyst and I should know better bla bla bla, why simple melodies over 2 chords are the ones that keep "working" and "move me"... (context? life experience? some kind of universality in predictability? In human interaction?)

The ones that are "great" often use singable-beautiful-melodies as the base of their works.
And pop music respects that. And modern contemporary classical composers have forgotten that in most part, that's why they are mostly forgettable too.

my 2 cents on music that touches my soul without asking permission.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Guy Bacos @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> Ok Jay, you are right. I'm out. Not ready to debate this all over again.



Good choice, Guy. :lol:


----------



## Scrianinoff

Is it a coincidence that Guy and Jay posted they're out right after the valuable posts of Musicologo? I hope it's not meant in a condescending way, that would be quite unbecoming.


----------



## Scrianinoff

Our time might be seen by future historians as the start of a new golden age of music. The works of the historic great masters, up to some 50 years ago, were only available to the elite, solely sponsored by and created for that same elite. In reference to my first posts, Waywyn's and Musicologo's posts, there have never been as many different styles of music active at the same time, for all kinds of people, with some really valuable treasures in most of them. It's just a matter of being able to acknowledge it and being able to appreciate them.

And about cultures or cultural manifestations being equal, or of equal value? If that were true than cannibalism would only be a matter of taste!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Scrianinoff @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> Is it a coincidence that Guy and Jay posted they're out right after the valuable posts of Musicologo? I hope it's not meant in a condescending way, that would be quite unbecoming.



I take it you did not read the whole thread. Many posts before his, I wrote that it was pointless as we had had these discussions many times and not good came of it.

Then 2 posts before his, I wrote:

"But they all go the same way: There is no greater or lesser, just taste- No there are empirical standards as well- no there is just taste- no, there are standards, and so and so on."

So it had nothing to do with his post on my part. Guy can speak for himself.


----------



## Scrianinoff

EastWest Lurker @ Sat 09 Mar said:


> "But they all go the same way: There is no greater or lesser, just taste- No there are empirical standards as well- no there is just taste- no, there are standards, and so and so on."
> 
> So it had nothing to do with his post on my part.



Well, this is exactly why it triggered the thought in me that you might have meant it to be condescending, since Musicologo's posts were far more nuanced than that and clearly not belonging to the category of discourse you were pointing out. Anyway, I am glad I was wrong, sorry about that. Let's stay on topic.


----------



## synergy543

Guy Bacos @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> I may have a hard time expressing myself here. I'm trying to not just make it a personal opinion but attribute this to other factors.
> 
> Let's just take TV. By the age of seven, a child born today will have spent a full year glued to screens, and with the new generation, you can add time on video games and computer to that. But let's just take that TV year, something very passive for the brain, as we all know. What did young student musicians do over 100 years ago with that year? Perhaps benefited from activities involving music? So just imagine replacing the time you spent watching TV by some kind of activity in which you would develop: ear, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration etc. Since TV had never existed, it maybe wasn't that bad. When you take the most gifted among them, add more studies to that, still no TV, you're going to get some damn fine composers!
> 
> Today, it would be inconceivable to deprive your kid from watching TV, it would be close to child abuse. Sesame Street is educational, ok, but it will probably add up to 2% of your TV time at the end, before you start watching re-runs of I Love Lucy, 3 times a day. So just with that alone, you already have a huge difference in our living styles between today and pre-TV times.



+1000

Well said Guy! That's exactly the problem, and also why it can't be mentioned as seen from the responses of many of the above posters. As you say, it borders on suggesting child abuse or inequality (which are really absurd metaphors). Fortunately, there are still some societies which value more rigorous training and hopefully those kids will carry the deeper arts into the next generation while other nations may just become passive consumers. Fortunately Comcast® offer 400+ channels to keep them pacified.


----------



## MikeH

Being exposed to a vast variety of television shows and movies when I was younger lead me to being a composer. I soaked it up and studied them (repeatedly) with a great intensity and joy. Now, at the time I was solely watching them for fun and not 'study', but looking back I realize that I was studying them subconsciously. 

Later on down the line came the study of composition, harmony, counterpoint, etc. etc. BUT, my dramatic instincts (arguably the most important tool for a composer) were learned and ingrained in me from those early experiences in front of the flickering screen.

If my parents had said, "No TV!", who knows if I would have ever gotten bit by the bug. 

John Barry spent a lot of his youth watching films in his father's cinemas. Food for thought.


----------



## TheUnfinished

I remember when this forum was all fields...


----------



## Guy Rowland

TheUnfinished @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> I remember when this forum was all fields...



Post of the month goes to Mr Matt Bowdler.


----------



## Rob

TheUnfinished @ 9th March 2013 said:


> I remember when this forum was all fields...



:D


----------



## Guy Bacos

Scrianinoff @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat 09 Mar said:
> 
> 
> 
> "But they all go the same way: There is no greater or lesser, just taste- No there are empirical standards as well- no there is just taste- no, there are standards, and so and so on."
> 
> So it had nothing to do with his post on my part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is exactly why it triggered the thought in me that you might have meant it to be condescending, since Musicologo's posts were far more nuanced than that and clearly not belonging to the category of discourse you were pointing out. Anyway, I am glad I was wrong, sorry about that. Let's stay on topic.
Click to expand...


Every post could of easily been argued, but I don't have time to deal with this repetitive shit anymore. The same goes for Jay, Greg, and many others who simply feel it's a waist of time. 

The late Normand Corbeil was asked, who do you think is the greatest composer of all time? He answered Bach. He was also asked, if you could have been someone else who would it be? He again said: Bach. Normand was a great film composer while holding the deepest respect for the greatest composers.

*That's what I call class!*


I think most of the great film composers would have similar responses. Maybe you should test it yourself?


----------



## Scrianinoff

That's fine Guy. I only disagree with you that this topic is "repetitive shit", and in fact so do you, because that's only a small part of you talking, your temperament.

So we can add Normand Corbeil to the list of John Williams and Spielberg, see the quote in relation to Schindler's List in my first post. And in fact we can add Bach, who apparently was not arrogant at all, while he was already during his life being perceived as the greatest musical genius of all time by most of his musical peers. When asked why he worked so hard to improve his skills even in his later years, he allegedly responded he was doing it for those listening to his music who will grow into greater musicians than he will be. That's class too.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Scrianinoff @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat 09 Mar said:
> 
> 
> 
> "But they all go the same way: There is no greater or lesser, just taste- No there are empirical standards as well- no there is just taste- no, there are standards, and so and so on."
> 
> So it had nothing to do with his post on my part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is exactly why it triggered the thought in me that you might have meant it to be condescending, since Musicologo's posts were far more nuanced than that and clearly not belonging to the category of discourse you were pointing out. Anyway, I am glad I was wrong, sorry about that. Let's stay on topic.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but in the end, Musiclogo's eloquence notwithstanding, the basic argument STILL comes down to variants of his assertion "Music has no intrinsic quality - the value is always attributed externally - this is a fact. "

If you believe that is a fact, you feel that all levels of musical creativity are equal as art, regardless of the amount of training, knowledge, and depth of feeling required to produce it. If you do not accept it as a fact, despite his proclamation that it is, then you may reach the conclusion that pop music is a lower form of art than Ravel or Ravi Shankar.

But asI said, there have been a fair number of these threads over the years and I cannot remember even a single person writing something like, "Gee, I never thought of it that way. You may have changed my mind". Which makes it a waste of time IMHO.


----------



## Waywyn

Guy Bacos @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Let's just take TV. By the age of seven, a child born today will have spent a full year glued to screens, and with the new generation, you can add time on video games and computer to that. But let's just take that TV year, something very passive for the brain, as we all know. What did young student musicians do over 100 years ago with that year? Perhaps benefited from activities involving music? So just imagine replacing the time you spent watching TV by some kind of activity in which you would develop: ear, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration etc. Since TV had never existed, it maybe wasn't that bad. When you take the most gifted among them, add more studies to that, still no TV, you're going to get some damn fine composers!



This is actually a pretty interesting approach, but out of experience I realized that it is a matter of education or interest/focus. It is not to blame on the TV but what grips your attention. Are you a passive guy or an active one?
I started to play games with the age of 9 ... when I started watching Headbangers Ball back then on MTV I was fascinated with the artistry and virtuosity of all those metal guitarist. I wanted to learn that too. By the age of 14 I totally dumped my computer and all games and went on guitar like crazy ... with the same nerd factor. So in fact on my own I took away that TV and cared for music.

The same way round a kid a 100 years ago would have found also something distracting which may be similar to TV today? Maybe instead it went to the woods and enjoyed watching the people doing the farmwork or collecting leaves. Of course this is much more healthy than sitting in front of the tv, but if we just stay with the distracting point of view, it is almost about the same as tv today 
It always depends on the kid and the willing to get into something and nothing really changed. A kid which wasn't really willing to learn an instrument back then is the same as today. However, of course it is much more easy to get distracted really fast ... and as we already know, it is much more easy to share bad music faster than a 100 years ago ...

... and on a side note, we all know that Mozart in general behaved worse than some rockstar today :lol:


----------



## SergeD

+1 for Musicologo, 

1) "the value is always attributed externally". More than ever with medias. Business rules. 

2) It's great for upper social class as Hip Hop is great for another social class. Let me know what you hear and I'll tell you who you are. 

3) Could we agree that Pink Floyd version 1975 is no less great than Stravinsky version 1915? 
The last century allowed to pop up more new musical and mixed genres than ever. It's really not bad at all! Ravel itself has been inspired by Jazz.

4) Today, Satie is millionaire and died unknown in a small room having only few candles to warm it up.
Bach will always be great because he was the first to compose Bach music. All others Bach composers are carbon copies. 

The problem, as always, is money. Composers go where the money is, the crude reality is no money no candy. And composers like Satie made the choice to feed their soul instead of their belly. 

And I love Britney, leave her alone...


----------



## Guy Bacos

When I told my wife that Normand Corbeil had past away, she didn't know him, but she asked if he attended this forum, I said, no, he's too smart to get involved in these kind of discussions, and I often say that about other excellent composers. I think I will do like Jay and only occasionally chime in. 

If anything I said is seen as "arrogant", than be it, because I stand firmly behind everything I said.

Guy Bacos
(The arrogant composer)


----------



## germancomponist

Guy Bacos @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> When I told my wife that Normand Corbeil had past away, she didn't know him, but she asked if he attended this forum, I said, no, he's too smart to get involved in these kind of discussions. I think I will do like Jay and only occasionally chime in.
> 
> If anything I said is seen as "arrogant", than be it, because I stand firmly behind everything I said.
> 
> Guy Bacos
> (The arrogant composer)



You are in no way arrogant, Guy! Did you read the article what I posted here on page one?

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120726/srep00521/full/srep00521.html

Ok, it is about pop music, but.... . Not infrequently someone will insulted if he tells the truth.


----------



## Scrianinoff

Guy Bacos @ Sat 09 Mar said:


> When I told my wife that Normand Corbeil had past away, she didn't know him, but she asked if he attended this forum, I said, no, he's too smart to get involved in these kind of discussions, and I often say that about other excellent composers. I think I will do like Jay and only occasionally chime in.
> 
> If anything I said is seen as "arrogant", than be it, because I stand firmly behind everything I said.
> 
> Guy Bacos
> (The arrogant composer)



Nobody called you arrogant Guy. I wrote that Bach was not arrogant, and although Bach shares three quarters of his name with yours, I meant him. And as far as I am concerned you're not arrogant either. I am also glad that you'll chime in less frequent here, that is, only if you use the time you'll gain towards writing music for your future legacy. Why? Because you're one of the very few composers that I think could grow into a composer that will be revered in the future as one of the great composers. Also in that respect I too 'stand firmly behind everything I said', and everything I said in my first post ever here on this forum ( http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... ht=#274417 ).


----------



## presetfreund

Asking for great music? okay, there you go:
https://soundcloud.com/andreas-adler/mu ... oop_v4_wip
only kidding, I just couldn´t help posting...

Um, what really is the definition of "great" music?


----------



## Darthmorphling

presetfreund @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Asking for great music? okay, there you go:
> https://soundcloud.com/andreas-adler/mu ... oop_v4_wip
> only kidding, I just couldn´t help posting...
> 
> Um, what really is the definition of "great" music?



Apparently anything in the last 30 years does not qualify. Most definately anything with distorted guitar, any electric guitar really, cannot be listened to by the masses, and has to be studied in a conservatory. _-)


----------



## Arbee

“It does take great maturity to understand that the opinion we are arguing for is merely the hypothesis we favor, necessarily imperfect, probably transitory, which only very limited minds can declare to be a certainty or a truth.” 
― Milan Kundera, Encounter

Peace! I didn't mean to solicit such bitterness with this topic but I've learned quite a lot nonetheless in the process of following it.

.


----------



## synergy543

Darthmorphling @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> presetfreund @ Sat Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking for great music? okay, there you go:
> https://soundcloud.com/andreas-adler/mu ... oop_v4_wip
> only kidding, I just couldn´t help posting...
> 
> Um, what really is the definition of "great" music?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently anything in the last 30 years does not qualify. Most definately anything with distorted guitar, any electric guitar really, cannot be listened to by the masses, and has to be studied in a conservatory. _-)
Click to expand...

Huh? Say what? 

You really think so? (Or could it possibly be that you're being biased yourself?)
I doubt there's a subborn-ass academic here who wouldn't agree that something like the Beatles "Come Together" isn't great music. Within its genre, it stands out as great music despite its distorted guitars and the fact that its counterpoint isn't studied in the hallowed halls of universities. So I think you're missing the points some were making. 

My suggestion - Go back to the beginning of the thread and try re-reading with a different frame of mind. And download "Idiocracy" from Netflix and enjoy some popcorn. o[])


----------



## Musicologo

> Sorry, but in the end, Musiclogo's eloquence notwithstanding, the basic argument STILL comes down to variants of his assertion "Music has no intrinsic quality - the value is always attributed externally - this is a fact. "
> 
> If you believe that is a fact, you feel that all levels of musical creativity are equal as art, regardless of the amount of training, knowledge, and depth of feeling required to produce it. If you do not accept it as a fact, despite his proclamation that it is, then you may reach the conclusion that pop music is a lower form of art than Ravel or Ravi Shankar.



edit: sorry, changing the argument. 

Actually not all levels of musical creativity are equal as art. The external attribution of value does exactly differentiate them.

When you say "pop music is a lower form of art" you are indeed establishing a series of personal/social/cultural values and criteria to reach that conclusion.


If you believe that spending an entire life working a craft is a value, you'll treasure a work that comes out of that mind and put it into a higher place.

If you believe that the product by itself is the value that you'll value it regardless of who produce it and with what means...

If you believe that symbols mean nothing and you only care about sound you will end up only liking acousmatics and devaluing pop or even classical music...

So in the end, I do not see how that challenges the basic assumption.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Waywyn @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just take TV. By the age of seven, a child born today will have spent a full year glued to screens, and with the new generation, you can add time on video games and computer to that. But let's just take that TV year, something very passive for the brain, as we all know. What did young student musicians do over 100 years ago with that year? Perhaps benefited from activities involving music? So just imagine replacing the time you spent watching TV by some kind of activity in which you would develop: ear, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration etc. Since TV had never existed, it maybe wasn't that bad. When you take the most gifted among them, add more studies to that, still no TV, you're going to get some damn fine composers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually a pretty interesting approach, but out of experience I realized that it is a matter of education or interest/focus. It is not to blame on the TV but what grips your attention. Are you a passive guy or an active one?
> I started to play games with the age of 9 ... when I started watching Headbangers Ball back then on MTV I was fascinated with the artistry and virtuosity of all those metal guitarist. I wanted to learn that too. By the age of 14 I totally dumped my computer and all games and went on guitar like crazy ... with the same nerd factor. So in fact on my own I took away that TV and cared for music.
> 
> The same way round a kid a 100 years ago would have found also something distracting which may be similar to TV today? Maybe instead it went to the woods and enjoyed watching the people doing the farmwork or collecting leaves. Of course this is much more healthy than sitting in front of the tv, but if we just stay with the distracting point of view, it is almost about the same as tv today
> It always depends on the kid and the willing to get into something and nothing really changed. A kid which wasn't really willing to learn an instrument back then is the same as today. However, of course it is much more easy to get distracted really fast ... and as we already know, it is much more easy to share bad music faster than a 100 years ago ...
> 
> ... and on a side note, we all know that Mozart in general behaved worse than some rockstar today :lol:
Click to expand...


I'll just stick to this point.

Ok, You are saying that 100 years ago, instead of kids watching TV, went to the woods and enjoyed watching the people doing the farmwork or collecting leaves, as an example, could be other things too. The problem with TV is it's addictive. I remember when I thought "Dallas" was a ridiculous show and was the last thing I would watch on TV. What do you know? I got hooked on, "Who shot JR?", I couldn't stop thinking about that show, the cliffhangers and all. I was addicted. Hi, my name is Guy Bacos and I'm *addicted* to Dallas and TV. I don't think I can stress that word enough, I'm not sure if people, 100 years ago, said things like: "Adam, you've got to try this, picking up leaves is a gas, I'm so addicted to it!!! Seriously, I'm sure they had other forms of entertainment back then, board games and such, but nothing of that time can be compared to the addiction of TV and its passive effect on us. 

Here is something I found quite interesting on the subject, it better explains it:
_
"If you experience "mind fog" after watching television, you are not alone. Studies have shown that watching television induces low alpha waves in the human brain. Alpha waves are brainwaves between 8 to 12 HZ. and are commonly associated with relaxed meditative states as well as brain states associated with suggestibility.
While Alpha waves achieved through meditation are beneficial (they promote relaxation and insight), too much time spent in the low Alpha wave state caused by TV can cause unfocussed daydreaming and inability to concentrate. Researchers have said that watching television is similar to staring at a blank wall for several hours..

I enjoy watching television on occasion, and this article is not meant to suggest that people should never watch TV. However, it is only fair that people understand what happens to the brain each time it is exposed to television.

In an experiment in 1969, Herbert Krugman monitored a person through many trials and found that in less than one minute of television viewing, the person's brainwaves switched from Beta waves-- brainwaves associated with active, logical thought-- to primarily Alpha waves. When the subject stopped watching television and began reading a magazine, the brainwaves reverted to Beta waves.

One thing this indicates is that most parts of the brain, parts responsible for logical thought, tune out during television viewing. The impact of television viewing on one person's brain state is obviously not enough to conclude that the same consequences apply to everyone; however, research involving many others, completed in the years following Krugman's experiment, has repeatedly shown that watching television produces brainwaves in the low Alpha range

Advertisers have known about this for a long time and they know how to take advantage of this passive, suggestible, brain state of the TV viewer. There is no need for an advertiser to use subliminal messages. The brain is already in a receptive state, ready to absorb suggestions, within just a few seconds of the television being turned on. All advertisers have to do is flash a brand across the screen, and then attempt to make the viewer associate the product with something positive.

Implications for those with ADD and ADHD:

Most people would benefit from cutting television time; in addition, research has shown that persons with ADD or ADHD tend to have too much Alpha, Theta, and Delta wave activity and, therefore, would benefit significantly from a reduction in TV. Television certainly contributes to a reduced ability to concentrate for anyone, but especially those who already have an overabundance of Alpha waves.

Better alternatives:

Reading (a book or magazine, for instance-- not televised text. It is the radiant light from a television set that is believed to induce the slower brainwaves ) and writing both require higher brain wave states. If you want to keep your brain focused and your attention strong, it is a good idea to cut your television time. Sitting quietly for a few minutes, painting, singing, reading, or going for a walk, are better for you in all ways."_


----------



## Sasje

I think that having too many ways of doing something heavily limits creativity. 
Necessity is the mother of invention. I think we live in a very limiting age, because of the immense possibilities. 
It distracts. A noisy/busy environment kills creativity. Too much noise gives a weak signal. 

As a child I was always dreaming about having a real piano that I could never buy. 
So I got a $50 keyboard for Christmas, and to be honest, I enjoyed that silly cheap keyboard more than the instruments I got now. 




SergeD @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Bach will always be great because he was the first to compose Bach music. All others Bach composers are carbon copies.



Hmmm... not fully agreeing here. :D 

I'm thinking: Guillaume Dufay, Thomas Tallis, Dieterich Buxtehude et al. Sheer geniuses on the same page as well.


----------



## Arbee

Thanks for keeping this going, I know some don't feel there is any benefit in doing so but the posts so far have been very enlightening.

I sense we are in danger of encroaching in the area of personal beliefs and, like religion, it can inflame sensitivities. My sincere apologies if this has happened, it was never my intention. I sincerely respect the very diverse input and talents of everyone on this forum. I hope everyone else does too.

The posts about TV prompted me to think about the "purpose" of music in this modern age, as we seem to literally drown in it every day through the various media. During past centuries with no modern technology, I can imagine that listening to the music of the great composers was a very focused and treasured acitivity. As such, the craftsmanship and nuances were exposed and appreciated. These days, apart from in the concert halls, what is music realy for?. In my mind, the purpose of most music these days is rather like a drug, to sedate as an escape from the frenzy of modern life, to excite people to a primal state of animation in the clubs, to grieve and reminisce about lost love, etc etc. I doubt that many people today sit in front of their sound system at home for an hour or two and just _listen_. Therefore, if the purpose of music has changed, does that not change the context of "great music"? Perhaps not, at least in the absolute sense of traditional craftsmanship.

.


----------



## Darthmorphling

synergy543 @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Darthmorphling @ Sat Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> presetfreund @ Sat Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking for great music? okay, there you go:
> https://soundcloud.com/andreas-adler/mu ... oop_v4_wip
> only kidding, I just couldn´t help posting...
> 
> Um, what really is the definition of "great" music?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently anything in the last 30 years does not qualify. Most definately anything with distorted guitar, any electric guitar really, cannot be listened to by the masses, and has to be studied in a conservatory. _-)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Say what?
> 
> You really think so? (Or could it possibly be that you're being biased yourself?)
> I doubt there's a subborn-ass academic here who wouldn't agree that something like the Beatles "Come Together" isn't great music. Within its genre, it stands out as great music despite its distorted guitars and the fact that its counterpoint isn't studied in the hallowed halls of universities. So I think you're missing the points some were making.
> 
> My suggestion - Go back to the beginning of the thread and try re-reading with a different frame of mind. And download "Idiocracy" from Netflix and enjoy some popcorn. o[])
Click to expand...


Everyone is biased, which is why we have debates. Since I discovered this forum, my listening habits have changed dramatically. I went from listening to predominantly guitar centric music, to 20th century composers I have never heard of. I have also learned to appreciate a lot of electronic music, and the art of crafting synth sounds. I never would have listened to that, even a few years ago. It seems as if the older I get, the more open minded I have become about what kinds of music I will listen to. This is not something I am seeing from some here though.

You have Alex talking about great progressive metal bands. Then you have Jay commenting that Alex seems to believe that death metal is considered great. I'm not sure that some of you can tell the difference between death and progressive metal. They are quite different. Just like bluegrass and country are different. If you personally do not like a style of music, you are more than likely not going to be able to find anything good about it. That doesn't mean there isn't good music in that genre.

It's funny to me that The Beatles are the only rock band that seems to come up as being "great". Will their music stand the test of time? Probably. Are there other bands that will do the same? I am sure of it.

My impression from this thread is that, on one side, you have a group of people that believe music, as an art form is dying. There are no composers/songwriters that will stand the test of time and be listened to centuries from now. The ease with which people can create music nowadays has brought about an influx of bad music.

On the other hand, you have a group that believes there are still composers/songwriters to be found that are creating great music. The ease of creating music today is allowing people that may not have created music in the past, to be able to craft unique sounds and styles. You just need to wade through the mass of mediocre music to find the truly great nuggets.

These new styles of music are not seen as great by the first group because these musicians did not go about building their craft in the traditional way.

I truly believe that the great composers were a product of their time. If they were alive today, I doubt their music would be listened to centuries from now. Of course there is no way to prove this, but music is no longer the same experience it used to be. Also, do you think that Mozart was played in taverns, and in the average person's homes? Or did people sing folk tunes and other unsavory songs?

The traditional group, also seems to believe, that the dumbing down of our society has created a passive group of media consumers that do not want to be challenged with art. I do not believe that people's intelligence has decreased, but rather media is consumed in far different ways than it used to be. With that media we seem to be exposed to the idiots in society on a far more regular basis than we used to.

I will tell you that sometimes my 5th graders earn music while they are working. More often than not, they choose classical over film music. There is hope guys :D 

I have already seen "Idiocracy" numerous times and find it quite funny.


----------



## Sasje

Darthmorphling @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> The traditional group, also seems to believe, that the dumbing down of our society has created a passive group of media consumers that do not want to be challenged with art. I do not believe that people's intelligence has decreased, but rather media is consumed in far different ways than it used to be. With that media we seem to be exposed to the idiots in society on a far more regular basis than we used to.
> 
> I will tell you that sometimes my 5th graders earn music while they are working. More often than not, they choose classical over film music. There is hope guys :D
> 
> I have already seen "Idiocracy" numerous times and find it quite funny.



The arts are a mirror of who we are. All arts have declined heavily over the last 5 centuries. Through the ages, music has become simpler until we got stuck with songsmiths that follow those boring verse, chorus, verse recipes. Today people want instant gratification with 3 minute popsongs that all follow the same recipe. (One definition of insanity is to do the same thing repetitively) No-one seems to want to sit down and listen to an organic composition that lasts one hour. But there are more factors involved. Instrument tuning is one of them, that whiny and overly bright A440 we use today instead of the excellent Pythagorean A432. (Verdi tuning), or a Baroque tuning of A415, in which stringed instruments sound way better than they are at 440. Especially Violins! that's why I hate Violins that play tuned at 440. Think about Stradivarius that used specially hand-selected wood to resonate beautifully at A432. By forcing the A440 pitch standard, we basically lost the ability to discern between slight tuning needed to get the best possible sound out of an instrument. We're saturated with this mathematically skewed pitch of 440. And to great annoyance, I hear the difference. For me the pinnacle of Western musical music was the Renaissance until the Baroque period. Everything after that is a mere shadow of what once was.


----------



## KEnK

Darthmorphling @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Of course there is no way to prove this, but music is no longer the same experience it used to be.


Actually this is easily proven~ by the existence of the sound system, speakers.

People overlook this fundamental difference in the music experience because it is so ubiquitous.

Once upon a time...
If a person wanted to hear music, it had to be performed by a human being on a 3 dimensional instrument. 

Now we simply push a button.

But is this the same experience? Hardly.
And in fact- the great ease with which I can turn an Artists work off or on has devalued it beyond repair.

Think about it. 
Without effort I can switch my speakers from Stravinsky to Meshuggah.
I can choose to listen for only a few seconds.
There is no commitment or effort on my part.

I did nothing to "meet" these Artists. (To see them play)
I do nothing to experience what they have created.

Further, the "Speaker" has changed the live music experience.
Usually we think we are seeing and hearing a band when we go to a concert-
But the fact is- Once the sound system is louder than the acoustic instrument,
you are hearing an electronic reproduction, not the instrument.

You are in effect, hearing a recording of the music.
You may think you are experiencing a "concert",
but most often, you are hearing a live recording, even though you are in the room when it's being done.

I began my career playing electric guitar.
Over time I grew to love playing nylon string guitar.

Sorry to all you speaker based musicians,
but my acoustic guitar has much more detail and definition
than any sound I've ever made from an electric guitar.

It is 3 dimensional- a speaker is not.

An acoustic instrument has a vastly superior sound that cannot be reproduce through a sound system.

Before the electronic dudes get all in a huff- I love synths-
Use them all the time.
But as is the electric guitar,
they are forever imprisoned by the speakers they require.

k


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I am not going to argue these points yet again but I will make one statement that I think is valid, at least from my perception.

The difference between an artist and other people is that most people mostly like that which is easy for them to like, because it is simple, accessible, and/or part of their culture. True artists dig deeper and are willing to do the hard work it sometimes takes to be able to understand and appreciate that which is not as easy to understand and appreciate.


----------



## KEnK

Sasje @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> All arts have declined heavily over the last 5 centuries. Through the ages, music has become simpler until we got stuck with songsmiths that follow those boring verse, chorus, verse recipes.


I don't agree with that statement.
Certainly we've seen some decline in the 20th century, (w/ the advent of recording technology)
but there were huge strides made in all aspects of civilization during the last 500 years.

As to musical evolution-
Cuban music, Flamenco, Slavic, Indian, African,
are all musics ripe w/ complexity.

When you stop listen to Western Pop, 
things start to get a lot more interesting.

k


----------



## Guy Bacos

Arbee @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Thanks for keeping this going, I know some don't feel there is any benefit in doing so but the posts so far have been very enlightening.
> 
> I sense we are in danger of encroaching in the area of personal beliefs and, like religion, it can inflame sensitivities. My sincere apologies if this has happened, it was never my intention. I sincerely respect the very diverse input and talents of everyone on this forum. I hope everyone else does too.
> 
> The posts about TV prompted me to think about the "purpose" of music in this modern age, as we seem to literally drown in it every day through the various media. During past centuries with no modern technology, I can imagine that listening to the music of the great composers was a very focused and treasured acitivity. As such, the craftsmanship and nuances were exposed and appreciated. These days, apart from in the concert halls, what is music realy for?. In my mind, the purpose of most music these days is rather like a drug, to sedate as an escape from the frenzy of modern life, to excite people to a primal state of animation in the clubs, to grieve and reminisce about lost love, etc etc. I doubt that many people today sit in front of their sound system at home for an hour or two and just _listen_. Therefore, if the purpose of music has changed, does that not change the context of "great music"? Perhaps not, at least in the absolute sense of traditional craftsmanship.
> 
> .



I've been thinking about this and I realize it's very hard to express it without being dismissed so quickly. So I won't bother saying much about what I think could be the solution. But in short, I think there will come a time where all this instant technology gratification bombardment will become stale and a return to some basic values where people can appreciate them, enjoy a new way of doing things, and there will have to be a balance between technology and disappeared values. This is why I admire so much Gershwin, in my mind, he was the last composer to get the best of both sides in a truly original way, traditional values mixed with modern influence. I don't blame all the music that came after that, Elvis, The Beatles, ABBA, Michael Jackson or Lady Gaga, and I'm a big fan of this culture, but something had to go, and that something, again in my mind, was a refinement of a craft over 5 centuries old, and more. I'll never accept the argument that Van Halen, or whoever, is the Bach of today, because if you don't see it like that, you have been brainwashed with values from your teachers, daddy and mommy, and so your value system is fucked up. But I said I won't go back there, so to move on. When the Beatles came out with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band , that was a step forward, suddenly what rock fans thought wasn't cool became the new standard in rock music. This was with the help of someone with high traditional values, George Martin, of course. Unfortunately with technology going 200MPH today, nobody has time anymore to sit back and think, we are trapped. 

Having said that, and despite what I said in a previous post, I am hopeful that this will turn around someday. We are doing it with our environment now, recent generations, especially this one, seriously looked himself in the mirror and realized, if we don't act now, we will loose our planet. We now have to work our ass off to do this. 50 years ago, however, all we were thinking of is progress, technology, chemicals, nuclear energy etc and look at what cost today. Had people back then been more aware of the damage this would be for the future, some laws would of been enforced. Some people will say, this argument is not the same thing, you cannot compare the environment problem with music, but I do see similarities on some important aspects. But anyway, to be more optimistic, I can see a time where there will be a renaissance in music, and new Bachs, Mozats and Beethovens will emerge from that in their own original style. But as I said, it will take new values, not everything focused on modernism. I think there's a movie in the making here.


----------



## synergy543

Darthmorphling @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> On the other hand, you have a group that believes there are still composers/songwriters to be found that are creating great music. The ease of creating music today is allowing people that may not have created music in the past, to be able to craft unique sounds and styles. You just need to wade through the mass of mediocre music to find the truly great nuggets.


Darth, you citied some albums earlier which you thought were "great" and would stand the test of time. You have since removed these (too bad as I'd like to see your list again). 

However, your own example reinforces the point of decline that the OP was asking about. For example, what do you think of albums today? Don't you think the entire concept of "an album" is a dying art form? Do your students buy and talk about albums? Are individual downloadable mp3s really "better"? Do you think they offer the experience you enjoyed listening to an entire Satriani experience as a single album? (maybe better examples of the complete album concept would "Hair", Dark Side of the Moon, ELP, YES, Led Zepplin, Jeff Beck, etc.). Different does not always equal better. In this case, we've gone from stories to soundbytes. 

Take Sarah "You Betcha"! - would she really have had more to say with an entire interview or album? The soundbyte mentality becomes different than the storyteller or messenger (Gore as opposed to Palin). So these declining standards and changes are in other areas of our society too. Do you not agree? You could argue that in someways there's more information (google) and music (youtube) than ever, which is true. The question though is how is it being digested? Do tidbits and snippets offer a similar experience to a book, album or symphony? For example, we couldn't be having this conversation over Twitter but this forum allows us to express slightly more in-depth thoughts. So what if we lived only in a Twitter world? And in some ways (such as the decline of the album) we are seeing that materialize.


----------



## SergeD

Sasje @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> All arts have declined heavily over the last 5 centuries. Through the ages, music has become simpler until we got stuck with songsmiths that follow those boring verse, chorus, verse recipes.


I remember the good ol' days when Colombus discovered America. Then, Cartier discovered Canada, then...
Too bad, in the last century nothing like that happened. Well, some guys walked on the moon, but who cares... the moon! 

Seriously, they also had very basic structured music at that time. It's called traditional folk music.



KEnK @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> As to musical evolution-
> Cuban music, Flamenco, Slavic, Indian, African,
> are all musics ripe w/ complexity.
> k


+1
Modernity brought some fantastic African music and rhythm to our ears.


----------



## rJames

Re: With all the knowledge and tools now available, where is the great music?

Let's talk about the evolution of the tools. (speaking of virtual orchestra)

Virtual instruments are in their infancy. So what "tools now available," are you talking about. 

We can't play 90% of what a real instrument can play. Think of all the times you've wanted to write a particular sound and have changed the score to match a sample...

...all the variety of noises that happen when instruments jump larger intervals...


----------



## Arbee

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> The difference between an artist and other people is that most people mostly like that which is easy for them to like, because it is simple, accessible, and/or part of their culture. True artists dig deeper and are willing to do the hard work it sometimes takes to be able to understand and appreciate that which is not as easy to understand and appreciate.


Yep, I guess that's how art evolves. The gradual, and sometimes painful, introduction of new (or borrowed) characteristics into popular culture. I am eternally grateful for the blues, and for being "tuned in" to Indian music and for African, Latin and Asian rhythms. "World Music" is such a large space, how/where does all that fit into "great" music?

.


----------



## Arbee

Guy Bacos @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> This is why I admire so much Gershwin, in my mind, he was the last composer to get the best of both sides in a truly original way, traditional values mixed with modern influence.


No argument there 8) 



Guy Bacos @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> Having said that, and despite what I said in a previous post, I am hopeful that this will turn around someday. We are doing it with our environment now, recent generations, especially this one, seriously looked himself in the mirror and realized, if we don't act now, we will loose our planet. We now have to work our ass off to do this. 50 years ago, however, all we were thinking of is progress, technology, chemicals, nuclear energy etc and look at what cost today. Had people back then been more aware of the damage this would be for the future, some laws would of been enforced. Some people will say, this argument is not the same thing, you cannot compare the environment problem with music, but I do see similarities on some important aspects. But anyway, to be more optimistic, I can see a time where there will be a renaissance in music, and new Bachs, Mozats and Beethovens will emerge from that in their own original style. But as I said, it will take new values, not everything focused on modernism. I think there's a movie in the making here.


I believe the parallel between art, values and the environment is extremely valid, and I'm very optimistic. I think the modern generation, despite all the criticism of them, is probably more attuned to "cause and effect" than any before them. They are accustomed to divorced parents, environmental damage, corporate greed etc etc. Sooner or later I believe they will realise we have turned everything into a "commodity" item and they will start to re-assess.

In many ways this is not very different to the corporate cycle. As companies expand and turn whole markets into bland, high volume customer experiences, new niche businesses start up underneath them to capture the remnants of what customers value that has been left behind. And the cycle starts again.

The thought rattling around in my head today is "Electricity is the most significant development in music since Bach". o[]) 

.


----------



## Arbee

rJames @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> So what "tools now available," are you talking about.


Fair question:

1 The tools that allow us to try an adventurous orchestral voicing or colour combination at home before having egg on our face in the studio.

2 The tools that give us such an incredible pallette of sounds to choose from.

3 The tools that allow us to record at reasonable levels of quality so econonically, thereby reducing the monetary payback required for us to eat and to keep doing it, and which allow us to experiment almost endlessly until we are happy with the result - without having to sell the house to do it.

4 The tools that now allow us to fix just one note in a recorded performance that we are otherwise extremely happy with.

These are just the first things that come to mind.

.


----------



## Niah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL9bylhDkcc


----------



## rJames

Of course we have those tools. My point was more about how current tools limit us from really exploring music.

A (midi) piano is as good a tool for exploring music in that sense. But that won't help you learn how to leverage an orchestra.

I'm just saying that in order to really advance the art, you still need access to a real orchestra. (strictly regarding orchestra music)


----------



## TheUnfinished

Or perhaps to actually 'advance' the art you need to be able to do things with an orchestra that weren't previously possible? 

Maybe that's where technology can take us and that's the new 'craft'?


----------



## Arbee

Niah @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL9bylhDkcc


That is such a powerful message, thanks.


----------



## Darthmorphling

synergy543 @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Darthmorphling @ Sun Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you have a group that believes there are still composers/songwriters to be found that are creating great music. The ease of creating music today is allowing people that may not have created music in the past, to be able to craft unique sounds and styles. You just need to wade through the mass of mediocre music to find the truly great nuggets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> synergy543 @ Sun Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, your own example reinforces the point of decline that the OP was asking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think my quote proves what you say it does. Simply put, there are more people creating music, because the tools allow for it on a much larger scale then before. Just because there is more music being created by people, does not mean the great music is not increasing proportionally with the bad.
> 
> example: in the '80's you had the Bay Area thrash movement. The biggest band to come out of that was Metallica. The 2nd was Testament, much less known, but still great. Then there were the numerous bands that could be found there as well, but I wouldn't call them great. ie: Exodus, Heathen, Death Angel...
> 
> the '90's brought Seattle into the picture with of course Nirvana, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, and a whole slew of bands that were nowhere near as good.
> 
> You see small amounts of great and large amounts of meh.
> 
> When I searched Youtube a year ago for "film" music I came across a lot of "Epic" music. Most of it was just bad, but I did find some great tracks, by some members here. I then eventually found this site and came across a lot more music that was great. Will these people be spoken about centuries from now. More than likely not, but that doesn't mean the music isn't great.
> 
> Let's be honest here. If you were to ask a non musician, forty years ago, to name a great classical composer the answer would be Mozart, Beethoven, or maybe Bach. If you were to ask them to name a piece of their music, the only one that would probably get mentioned would be Beethoven's 5th. If you ask the same question today will the answer be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, what do you think of albums today? Don't you think the entire concept of "an album" is a dying art form? Do your students buy and talk about albums? Are individual downloadable mp3s really "better"? Do you think they offer the experience you enjoyed listening to an entire Satriani experience as a single album? (maybe better examples of the complete album concept would "Hair", Dark Side of the Moon, ELP, YES, Led Zepplin, Jeff Beck, etc.). Different does not always equal better. In this case, we've gone from stories to soundbytes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that my kids, both students and my own children, do not buy albums. When I was younger, I was the only person in my group who bought albums. I did so, because I was much more interested in music than my peers. We listened to the same genre, but to them it was more about being 'metal' than the music itself. I immersed myself in music and listened to all kinds of bands. No one else in my house bought albums either. My parents, and my sister, were content with the radio. This was during the '70's and '80's. I don't remember any of my friend's parents just listening to music unless it was in the garage while working.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take Sarah "You Betcha"! - would she really have had more to say with an entire interview or album? The soundbyte mentality becomes different than the storyteller or messenger (Gore as opposed to Palin). So these declining standards and changes are in other areas of our society too. Do you not agree? You could argue that in someways there's more information (google) and music (youtube) than ever, which is true.The question though is how is it being digested? Do tidbits and snippets offer a similar experience to a book, album or symphony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I pointed out above I was one of the only people I knew who would sit and listen to albums and experience them. I believe that as musicians, we naturally experience music in a different way than the average person. To us, we can appreciate all that goes into it, but to my wife who didn't have a large collection of albums, music is just something she loves listening to while she is doing chores or driving to work.
> 
> I don't think the listening habits of the average person has changed. People consume music in much the same way as they did before. It's just that nowadays it is easier to listen to what ever you want, whenever you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, we couldn't be having this conversation over Twitter but this forum allows us to express slightly more in-depth thoughts. So what if we lived only in a Twitter world? And in some ways (such as the decline of the album) we are seeing that materialize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the decline of the album happened a long time ago. Napster really killed it to be honest. There are many cd's that I purchased where there were only 2-3 tracks I really wanted to hear. Napster showed the record companies that people only want what they want and nothing else. Apple made them actually adopt that model.
> 
> My daughter loves Taylor Swift. I bought her the last album. Her playlist only has two of the songs on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darth, you citied some albums earlier which you thought were "great" and would stand the test of time. You have since removed these (too bad as I'd like to see your list again).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I edited my post as my list was heavily biased in the 80's-90's metal realm, but here it is:

"Master of Puppets" Metallica (This is an album that is their defining album, but unfortunately the "Black" album is the one they will be remembered for.)

"Operation Mindcrime" Queensryche

"Metropolis Pt. 2" Dream Theater

"Surfing With the Alien" Joe Satriani

"Rising Force" Yngwie J. Malmsteen (To be honest this was his only good album)

"Reign in Blood" Slayer (Now technically speaking, they are not the greatest technical musicians, but this album is perfect. Even if you took away the out of key solos it would diminish the music.)

"Texas Flood" Stevie Ray Vaughn

These are all albums I consider great. Metallica is the only one that I believe will stand the test of time. Even Stevie Ray will be forgotten by the non-musicians


----------



## Arbee

TheUnfinished @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> Or perhaps to actually 'advance' the art you need to be able to do things with an orchestra that weren't previously possible?
> 
> Maybe that's where technology can take us and that's the new 'craft'?


I often wondered if synthesisers would expand our thinking and lead us to develop new acoustic instruments, a kind of mock up in reverse. This may have happened but I'm sadly not aware of it.

.


----------



## Waywyn

Guy Bacos @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Ok, You are saying that 100 years ago, instead of kids watching TV, went to the woods and enjoyed watching the people doing the farmwork or collecting leaves, as an example, could be other things too. The problem with TV is it's addictive. I remember when I thought "Dallas" was a ridiculous show and was the last thing I would watch on TV. What do you know? I got hooked on, "Who shot JR?", I couldn't stop thinking about that show, the cliffhangers and all. I was addicted. Hi, my name is Guy Bacos and I'm *addicted* to Dallas and TV. I don't think I can stress that word enough, I'm not sure if people, 100 years ago, said things like: "Adam, you've got to try this, picking up leaves is a gas, I'm so addicted to it!!! Seriously, I'm sure they had other forms of entertainment back then, board games and such, but nothing of that time can be compared to the addiction of TV and its passive effect on us.



LOL, man I didn't know that you were THAT picky about my example 
I could name you thousands. I just used a few stupid to find something from 100 years ago which didn't have to do with tv.
However, sorry, I don't know this glued to TV and addiction thingy because maybe it was my parents education about tv. Yes, we did watch some, but the center of our lives wasn't the tv, it was the table playing games, it was Lego or Playmobil in the winter and the garden outside in summer. Until today I NEVER switch on the tv before 5-7pm except I found a good docu (e.g. Through the wormhole) and really want to watch it and take a bit off from work.

As an example. Back then I was addicted to bike driving. I just couldn't get enough of getting on my crossbike, build little jumps and so on ... my and my buds knees were always wounded ... but it was fun. Surely it was sort of too much and I am aware that you can not get addicted to bike driving as much as you can get to watching TV, BUT we are just talking about distraction. It doesn't matter what you do instead practicing. If you do anything except practicing music, it doesn't matter if you have lived/live today or 100 years ago.


----------



## germancomponist

I have always had a big smile about the comments from Alex Pfeffer....! The guy, who told in another forum, that he had bought followers on his twitter channel,

Guy, please be as you are!


----------



## Peter Alexander

Arbee @ Thu Mar 07 said:


> When I was in music professionally during mostly the 1980's, there was no Internet to give me the vast wealth of knowledge I now have access to, and there were no cheap home studios capable of producing anything like we have available now. You really had to write in your head or at the piano and hope like hell you got it right before walking into the studio or on stage.
> 
> So, with all that is available to us these days I'd expect to be hearing the most incredible music ever written. Where is it? Or is it there and I'm not connecting with it? If it's not there, why not, what possible excuse do we have for not blowing our forefathers completely out of the water? Or has music peaked/plateaud in terms of the public's interest with all the other media forms now available?
> 
> Just imagine, once upon a time you couldn't hear any music unless someone was actually there playing it for you >8o
> 
> o[])
> 
> Thanks.



Getting back to the original question, the one word answer (from my perspective) is _*training*_. I say this because starting with the DX7, Alexander Publishing has a long history of training in music, music technology, and music business with:

individuals
academia
OEMs.

I'm reading now Jim Collins' _Great By Choice_ and recognizing that as a micro 10X leader, I look for empirical evidence to help form my decisions and the marketing actions I take rather than just opinion. So the comments following are based on my empirical observations stated below.

In the 1920s there was a radical shift in education, including musical education, where we went from skill-based instruction (intellectual + skills) to intellectual only. 

Thus, the idea of knowing something changed from craft to being able to answer the questions correctly. 

The late Stephen Covey discovered the same thing when he wrote _The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People._ There he discovered that success literature had changed from that of character to technique citing Dale Carnegie's _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ as a prime example. 

You can see this in music education in the US. You might be surprised to know that in the USA, there are only about 400 high schools that teach harmony. This means that many in the USA who go to music school, only have instrumental skill and lack the music basics (Music 100 generally) that the great composers learned when they were junior high age. That was me when I went to music school. I had had band class and one summer's worth of private lessons in harmony and that was it.

Guitar players have less than that because they're often learning by ear without notation and basic harmony instruction.

Pianists are often further ahead since piano lessons are taught privately and many piano methods have a harmony set of books to go along with the keyboard instruction.

By the time many graduate from school with comp degrees, unless they had been doing a lot of composing/arranging before they got to school, all they've had (or some of us) has been the basic harmony and counterpoint STARTED by Debussy, Ravel and others when they were junior high age (12). Look at the textbooks of that period and you'll see that weren't just taking a subject, they were equally learning a skill.

I have a copy of the original Fux Gradus ad parnassus translated by Bach's student Lorenz Mizler from Latin to German. For those of us who've had counterpoint in college, seeing the Fux book and all the exercises in the back is shocking. It's nothing like what we were taught. And BTW, the paperback version that's out is only through 4-parts. The original is light years beyond that.

The four counterpoint/comp books that Percy Goetschius wrote have never been equaled by any collegiate text. And, Fux and Goetschius wrote mostly for the student who was NOT in music school so they could learn on their on. 

Point being - if you didn't get it earlier in life, it's not too late.

BUT! You must be willing to set aside the time and delay instant gratification to build these skills.

Virtual is its own art form. If you come to virtual with craft, and you learn the virtual, you'll create great music through that genre which is recording-based, not live performance based.

Because virtual is a recording genre, if the mp3 is ever discontinued, and the original files can be read or updated, your work is lost due to lack of backward compatibility. 

In this situation, I define great as: memorable and licensable beyond the composer's lifetime.


----------



## Darthmorphling

germancomponist @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> I have always had a big smile about the comments from Alex Pfeffer....! The guy, who told in another forum, that he had bought followers on his twitter channel,
> 
> Guy, please be as you are!



It's amazing how you seem to just comment with personal attacks at every opportunity.

Maybe you have been exposed to too many modern composers :twisted:


----------



## Guy Bacos

germancomponist @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> I have always had a big smile about the comments from Alex Pfeffer....! The guy, who told in another forum, that he had bought followers on his twitter channel,
> 
> Guy, please be as you are!



This looks like a friendly comment, I'm not sure I get the previous post about this comment. Anyway, the exchange is going well with Alex. So why the comment?


----------



## Darthmorphling

Guy Bacos @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> germancomponist @ Sun Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always had a big smile about the comments from Alex Pfeffer....! The guy, who told in another forum, that he had bought followers on his twitter channel,
> 
> Guy, please be as you are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This looks like a friendly comment, I'm not sure I get the previous post about this comment. Anyway, the exchange is going well with Alex. So why the comment?
Click to expand...


The whole thread seems to be a healthy debate, with dissenting opinions, but with a sense of respect. 

However, alleging that Alex purchased Twitter followers, is just rude. And has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Now that I think about it, my comment about modern composers was simply to irritate Germancomponist so I guess I am just as bad.

This is why I don't discuss politics and religion at work. It just never seems to work out. 

I offer Germancomponist a o-[][]-o


----------



## Darthmorphling

Peter Alexander @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> In the 1920s there was a radical shift in education, including musical education, where we went from skill-based instruction (intellectual + skills) to intellectual only.



Peter, you will be happy to know that education in this country is shifting back to skill based learning along with pure knowledge. 

Here is a cool video showing how the current method is failing our kids and common core will change how we teach.

Crudely done, but funny!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY2mRM4i6tY&sns=em (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY2mRM4i6tY&amp;sns=em)


----------



## Arbee

Peter Alexander @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> Virtual is its own art form. If you come to virtual with craft, and you learn the virtual, you'll create great music through that genre which is recording-based, not live performance based.
> 
> Because virtual is a recording genre, if the mp3 is ever discontinued, and the original files can be read or updated, your work is lost due to lack of backward compatibility.
> 
> In this situation, I define great as: memorable and licensable beyond the composer's lifetime.


Thanks for this very thoughtful response Peter, much appreciated. Perhaps "beyond the composer's generation" rather than lifetime?

.


----------



## presetfreund

germancomponist @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> The guy, who told in another forum, that he had bought followers on his twitter channel



Cool. This really works? Have recently been temptated by this:
http://www.soundcloudplaysincreaser.co.uk/

1000 plays only 10 bucks. Epic!
... at the end of the day I decided to better spend the money for a good drink. So I never found out.
o-[][]-o 
-------------------------------------
Back to topic: Sorry for not having read each post in its entirety, and thus possible redundances. However let me add:
If you want to discuss great music you may end up in a situation in which you will want to define what art is in the first place. And thats rather tricky. About as tricky as defining the division by zero.
You may end up by saying: It is art if at least one person declares it as art.
Or: It is art/great music if it touches something thats deep inside of me.
Or: It is art/great music if its a result of sophisticated craftsmanship.

Surely everyone will agree: Great music IS art.

I think it is difficult to create art by using sample libraries. Because art has to do with being genuine, individual, new, of which samples are exactly quite the opposite by nature. (Having said that it is more likely to eject some real art by miking, recording and designing one´s own sample libraries.)

Increased availability of computers, samples and information has a relation to the quantitative output of musical sound events. But not to the emission of art.
New technology* does IMO not lead to "more" art, not to more great music but to new forms in which art expresses itself (*examples? Kraftwerk, Brian Eno). 

But thats not "more" art, just as little as a new species in animal world means "more" nature. Its another manifestation.


----------



## Peter Alexander

Arbee @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Mon Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virtual is its own art form. If you come to virtual with craft, and you learn the virtual, you'll create great music through that genre which is recording-based, not live performance based.
> 
> Because virtual is a recording genre, if the mp3 is ever discontinued, and the original files can be read or updated, your work is lost due to lack of backward compatibility.
> 
> In this situation, I define great as: memorable and licensable beyond the composer's lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for this very thoughtful response Peter, much appreciated. Perhaps "beyond the composer's generation" rather than lifetime?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I chose the word "lifetime" for copyright/licensing purposes.


----------



## Waywyn

germancomponist @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> I have always had a big smile about the comments from Alex Pfeffer....! The guy, who told in another forum, that he had bought followers on his twitter channel,
> 
> Guy, please be as you are!



Gunther, during the last weeks (I will leave out all the stuff from the very beginning) I tried to stay out of discussion with you but if I replied to a post of yours I never looked forward to be rude or something, but your recent personal attacks against me are actually really annyoing and the more I think about it, I have no clue about what I have done to you?!

I once warned you about twisting facts about what one says. If you say something stick with the true facts!!!
I wrote on another forum that, yes, I did it once for a project and its connected Twitter acccount! I never said that I bought Twitter followers for my channel ...

Of course all roughly 2000 Twitter followers on my channel are all REAL! The same goes for all Facebook likes, YouTube subscribers, Google plussies and SoundCloud plays!
However, Gunther is coming along, reading just what he wants to read, mixes it up and creates some new tool to defame me. I ask again: What have I done to you that I deserve so much personal attacks during the recent weeks?

On the Lumina thread here on VI you suddenly started posting a demo of Thomas Bergersen in combi with my Lumina demo and asked people to compare it!

The day before you did the same on another German sideforum on Facebook. You stated that people who copy music are fools, scum and that you abonimate them, especially those who copy TJ ... and that there is a special person on this forum "who knows who you are talking to". Right after this statement you posted my Lumina demo. Before mods could take action you left the forum with a rude comment towards Germans (what was your nationality again?). A few days later you have been removed from the main forum over at FB because of your actions.

As I said before, I have nothing against a sometimes heated discussion, but in general it should work without getting personal!

Again, I really tried to stay out of it, I really tried to breathe it away and ignore it. Believe me, I have nothing against people who are writing bullshit about me. It happens every day out there and it is their absolute right to do so! Discussions on VI-Control here towards different libs, music styles and writing skills are definitely sometimes heated, but they all stay within the respect zone.

But your little personal crusade against me has become really annoying ... I am writing this completely calm and not even with an accelerated heartbeat, because we all know, the only person you are hurting is actually yourself ... and I am seriously asking how long it may take until you will be kicked from this forum.

As a sidenote and just to go sure: I will NOT take any action against you nor will I contact VI moderators about your false and accusing statements (which you obviously enjoy) and if any mod is contacting me, I will say what I say here: I leave this decision to you and your team!

Now Gunther, if you prefer go ahead and enjoy your little rampage, but please remember the only person you are hurting is yourself, because you can't hurt the Pfeffer!


----------



## R.Cato

Waywyn @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> because you can't hurt the Pfeffer!



_-) 


Sometimes it's really annoying to read such personal attacks againts you, considering the fact how much you've done for the whole online composer's community. Anyway, I am sorry to say but to be honest sometimes it's also kind of amusing to look at the way how these discussions progress. ---> o[]) 0oD 

:wink:


----------



## Guy Bacos

Wow, I had no idea what Gunther was talking about. Surprising, Gunther always well mannered. 0oD But yeah, it didn't have its place here.


----------



## audiot

I disagree: Gunther is NOT always well mannered. I don't know him as well as Alex, but as a silent reader of most of the threads here I have also been aware of personal attacks and harsh comments. I appreciate Gunther's opinion to some topics, but some comments left a sour taste in my mouth, they were unnecessary and irritating.
I like this forum, but I dislike some of the "modern manners".
Back into silence...


----------



## Alex Cuervo

[deleted by moderator]


----------



## JohnG

Among the rules of this forum:

"7. When posting, please maintain a respectful tone towards all members of this forum. If you cannot agree to disagree respectfully on a subject, please refrain from posting."

There is no excuse for posting derogatory names toward other forum members. Equally, insinuating behaviour that is negative and not accurate is wrong.

Please stick to the original topic.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

JohnG @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> Among the rules of this forum:
> 
> "7. When posting, please maintain a respectful tone towards all members of this forum. If you cannot agree to disagree respectfully on a subject, please refrain from posting."
> 
> There is no excuse for posting derogatory names toward other forum members. Equally, insinuating behaviour that is negative and not accurate is wrong.
> 
> Please stick to the original topic.



I wish there was an emoticon with an audience applauding, but as there is not, John,
o-[][]-o


----------



## Niah

So whoever breaks rule number 7 get its post deleted? Like it never happened? That's quite a punishment... :roll: 

Whatever happened to warnings? Closing threads? Not allowing members who break these rules to post for awhile? etc, etc,...

With actions like these you're giving reason to the people who have been accusing VI-Control of attacking "freedom of speech".

I have seen many ugly comments in my years here, including ones of xenophobic nature, and they have never been removed, the person who made them was though. I think it is important to leave things as they are as a record for future action. Also to make sure vi members get to see if the mods are being fair or not.


----------



## Arbee

Sigh.... :| I was really happy with how this conservation was progressing. Oh well, lesson learnt. 

Sincere thanks to all of you who took the time to give this topic some thought and to post your diverse, enlightening, interesting, professional and respectful responses. o-[][]-o 

.


----------



## germancomponist

Guy Bacos @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> germancomponist @ Sun Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always had a big smile about the comments from Alex Pfeffer....! The guy, who told in another forum, that he had bought followers on his twitter channel,
> 
> Guy, please be as you are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This looks like a friendly comment, I'm not sure I get the previous post about this comment. Anyway, the exchange is going well with Alex. So why the comment?
Click to expand...


I have had only a bad day....., Guy. o/~ 

Without joking: Mr. Pepper seems to follow me.... . :mrgreen: Everywhere on the Internet where I write something, he suddenly appears to refute my posts. That sucks with the times! I do not know his reasons for it, but he obviously has a problem with the fact that I work as a ghostwriter. I will take no notice at him in the future and will never write a single word about him again... .

Salut my friends! o-[][]-o


----------



## germancomponist

Waywyn @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> germancomponist @ Sun Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always had a big smile about the comments from Alex Pfeffer....! The guy, who told in another forum, that he had bought followers on his twitter channel,
> 
> Guy, please be as you are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunther, during the last weeks (I will leave out all the stuff from the very beginning) I tried to stay out of discussion with you but if I replied to a post of yours I never looked forward to be rude or something, but your recent personal attacks against me are actually really annyoing and the more I think about it, I have no clue about what I have done to you?!
> 
> I once warned you about twisting facts about what one says. If you say something stick with the true facts!!!
> I wrote on another forum that, yes, I did it once for a project and its connected Twitter acccount! I never said that I bought Twitter followers for my channel ...
> 
> Of course all roughly 2000 Twitter followers on my channel are all REAL! The same goes for all Facebook likes, YouTube subscribers, Google plussies and SoundCloud plays!
> However, Gunther is coming along, reading just what he wants to read, mixes it up and creates some new tool to defame me. I ask again: What have I done to you that I deserve so much personal attacks during the recent weeks?
> 
> On the Lumina thread here on VI you suddenly started posting a demo of Thomas Bergersen in combi with my Lumina demo and asked people to compare it!
> 
> The day before you did the same on another German sideforum on Facebook. You stated that people who copy music are fools, scum and that you abonimate them, especially those who copy TJ ... and that there is a special person on this forum "who knows who you are talking to". Right after this statement you posted my Lumina demo. Before mods could take action you left the forum with a rude comment towards Germans (what was your nationality again?). A few days later you have been removed from the main forum over at FB because of your actions.
> 
> As I said before, I have nothing against a sometimes heated discussion, but in general it should work without getting personal!
> 
> Again, I really tried to stay out of it, I really tried to breathe it away and ignore it. Believe me, I have nothing against people who are writing [email protected]#t about me. It happens every day out there and it is their absolute right to do so! Discussions on VI-Control here towards different libs, music styles and writing skills are definitely sometimes heated, but they all stay within the respect zone.
> 
> But your little personal crusade against me has become really annoying ... I am writing this completely calm and not even with an accelerated heartbeat, because we all know, the only person you are hurting is actually yourself ... and I am seriously asking how long it may take until you will be kicked from this forum.
> 
> As a sidenote and just to go sure: I will NOT take any action against you nor will I contact VI moderators about your false and accusing statements (which you obviously enjoy) and if any mod is contacting me, I will say what I say here: I leave this decision to you and your team!
> 
> Now Gunther, if you prefer go ahead and enjoy your little rampage, but please remember the only person you are hurting is yourself, because you can't hurt the Pfeffer!
Click to expand...


Oh no, I will not say a word on this. It would be the waste of time! o/~ o=<


----------



## Peter Alexander

Arbee @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> Sigh.... :| I was really happy with how this conservation was progressing. Oh well, lesson learnt.
> 
> Sincere thanks to all of you who took the time to give this topic some thought and to post your diverse, enlightening, interesting, professional and respectful responses. o-[][]-o
> 
> .



It's a good question!


----------



## david robinson

the difference between what one hears now, as opposed to what is actually in one's head, is still great. an abyss, actually. j.


----------



## Arbee

I spent most of my forties studying and came across this which I still find both amusing and accurate - "Wiio's laws of Communication".

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/wiio.html

I particularly like law number 2:

_If a message can be interpreted in several ways, it will be interpreted in a manner that maximizes the damage_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> 1) People are assuming Mozart, Beethoven, etc to be great. What's so great about them? I can see thousands of people nowadays writing equally great than them. Music has no intrinsic quality - the value is always attributed externally - this is a fact.



You know, this is one of those statements that can't be debated...and yet I think most people know that it's totally wrong. I mean, sure, all communication (including music) requires a listener to make sense.

But next thing you know, someone going oom-pah oom-pah with a C chord on the piano has created the greatest f-ing piece of music in the history of mankind. It's been attributed externally, and you can't debate otherwise.

Well, some music simply contains so much soul that it's still relevant hundreds of years later. If I say Beethoven's Fifth is one of the greatest pieces of all time and you say Justin Bieber's latest is, I'll lose the debate but you're the loser.


----------



## Musicologo

> Well, some music simply contains so much soul that it's still relevant hundreds of years later.



That's the whole point - it does NOT.
That "soul" is the external value attributed by you and by the hundreds, thousands, etc of your cultural community/society/species, whatever, because you (solo or group) interpret that way.

For someone who could not make sense of those frequencies the soul lying there is zero.

I bet there must be a community where whistles around 25 000 hz make sense and are the great work of the creator, I'm not able to interpret them and give them a value.


Moreover, I think that the "soul" you're referring to, most of the times is attributed based on several other parameters than the mere "sound" - concerning Beethoven is attributed also regarding the concept that "Beethoven was a man, learned a craft, his work reflects a suffering, a living, an experience on the planet, represents symbolically a whole set of values that are praised in our civilization, etc, etc, etc". But all those "values" and "characteristics" are given subjectively and from the exterior.


----------



## Arbee

Since everything we sense - music, painting, sculpture, theatre, and even debate itself, is measured internally against our life experience, our intellect, our emotional makeup and our values, it makes it just so challenging to quantify. I wonder what a local in the rice fields of Asia would make of Beethoven's fifth, great as we all know it is.

.


----------



## Guy Bacos

The argument that "soul" is the external value attributed by you, shuts down any further discussion. 

Having said that, I think I'll go listen to some Beethoven now. :wink:


----------



## Pontus Rufelt

Guy Bacos @ Fri 08 Mar said:


> That's an interesting question.
> 
> I'm one of those who isn't very optimistic about where music is heading. The craft is gone for good. We will never see great composers again, everything changed, technology made everything so simple for our brains, we hardly need to use it anymore to write music. How can one develop his craft??? Seems better the technology gets, lazier we will get. Of course, one can't complain about the great things of technology, I, myself enjoy it every day, but it's like the secondary effects. Just look here, how many people wants their samples ready out of the box? The idea of putting an effort in is out of the question, despite that the effort may be more worthwhile at the end.
> 
> Nobody today comes to the heel of Debussy, Ravel, Rachmaninov, or Gershwin. We will never see that level of writing and originality again. I know this is debatable, so don't get a heart attack.  But that's me, and I bet the top 10 film composers of today would admit that themselves.



Wow, as a young composer I feel genuinely hurt and almost insulted. 

I'm a 22-year-old guy who is dedicating his life to music. 5 years ago I knew nothing about the orchestra or music theory. I had been playing the piano for a few years but started creating my own lil' doodles at 13-14 in Reason 2.5. Having the playground that is digital music has allowed me to try and experiment in incredible ways and has helped me grow so much. 

At 17 I started getting interested in orchestral music, and in discovering the orchestra the internet became my number one tool in learning. I've studied up on music theory online, discovered vast wealths of old music to study. The internet is an incredible tool that my generation has the pleasure of today using to learn and create wonderful things. 

But most of my generation is still in their early 20s, so is it really fair to lay judgement on how my generation has utilized the great tools of today already? Is it really time to start calling my generation failures already? I'm a 90s kid so I'm kinda among the first generations that grew up with the internet and computers constantly around. 

Give us some time and help us instead of laying such harsh judgement. For example I've found Mike Verta's masterclasses incredibly helpful in developing my writing and orchestration and I'm very thankful that he is willing to share that knowledge. 

Thanks to online communication I've not just been able to study, but also been able to connect with so many wonderful talented composers out there that I learn from every single day, and that have become mentors and friends that I work with and care for. 

I think there's an incredible amount of fantastic music out there, but of course also a lot of bad music. The internet allows for instant distribution and digital tools are widespread allowing everyone to make music. There is simply such a vast quantity of music out there now that it can be harder to find the music one likes. Thankfully there are all kinds of online tools to find artists and composers that suits one's taste. 

I think the whole discussion is a bit exaggerated. When Charlie Parker, Bud Powell and Thelonius Monk started raising the 4th of major chords it was proclaimed by "purists" that "jazz is dead".


----------



## jb

So much great music out there; takes some effort to find, but it is there.

I just read the first few posts, but saying that we won't see great composers again is just wild to me.

Not only because it kind of marginalizes all the great composers that are putting out great music right now, but also because it is an extremely pessimistic outlook to have. It just sort of reminds me of the old guy down the block who constantly tells the kids to get off his lawn.

I'd hate to be a young guy trying to get into the biz and run into someone with that kind of outlook.

I think the whole "music is going downhill" ideology stems directly from academia. Young-ins now a days can go through a course on theory, composition and history and learn nothing about Williams, Goldenthal or Zimmer (to just name a few). It is mental. There is a wealth of music that is pushing sonic boundaries and people just ignore it or pass it off "untrue" art because they are trying to quantify it wearing their "Beethoven goggles."

Music is more than the intricacies of the melody/harmony. Especially today, with all these sonic tools, ways to expand the 'classical' composition unlike no other ever seen. I wonder what all the "greats" would do with these tools if they were around today...(probably just disregard them as technological junk, right)

[premptive clarification, I saw no one call the sonic tools available now "technological junk," just making a point]


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> That's the whole point - it does NOT.
> That "soul" is the external value attributed by you and by the hundreds, thousands, etc of your cultural community/society/species, whatever, because you (solo or group) interpret that way.
> 
> For someone who could not make sense of those frequencies the soul lying there is zero.



Is your heart really in that argument, Musicologo? Seriously? You don't feel the incredible depth in the best music? To me that's the soul of humanity! Saying it's just a bunch of frequencies is like saying that being in love is just a bunch of chemical reactions.

I mean, unborn babies respond to music while they're in the womb! Actually, I've even had cats who responded to it - it soothes the savage beast. It's a universal language.

That doesn't mean that people only respond to the best music, of course, but I have a hard time believing you really believe what you're saying.


----------



## Musicologo

I can add one more hint into the discussion to not been accused of "shutting" whatever there is to shut.

If one is trying to seek some kind of universal argument in music that is "ineffable" and "intuitively understood" by human beings just because they are "human", I'd go for biology/physiology and neurophysiology, and look out for what is present in every human being that can really connect us all.

If everything is externally attributed because it is within ourselves and not in music - then we must find out what is inherent and equal in everyone of us 

That being said, we all have a heart beat that is somewhat steady around 60bpm...

This is one objective and mensurable reason for our inner time and pulse have a common feeling regarding steady beats and rhythms and perceive slow music and calmer and fast music as exciting.

Also there must be something universal that can be deducible out of the harmonic series or the harmonics, although I don't know exactly what, after being baffled discovering that there are actually some cultures in Indonesia area that have "larger octaves than octaves" and thus breaking the "universality consensus around the octave pattern"... 

I think the path might be something along these lines - you'll have great music when you know exactly what makes great music great, or even if you don't know what, you accidentally strike one of those "things" that are "universal" to every (or almost every) human being living in the world, in whatever time and context.


----------



## Arbee

Agreed Musicologo, there is some fundamental human physiology behind tempo and rhythm and some beautiful mathematics behind harmony (I assume everyone has read Music of the Spheres).

To all the "20 something" composers, I guess that was really part of my original question as posted. We will marvel at the great traditional composers for many generations to come, but with the young composers of today being equally attuned to sound design, are or will our points of reference be open minded and objective enough to appreciate it as great music?

.


----------



## Scrianinoff

Modern listeners attribute different external values to old music than the listeners at the time the music was performed when it was new. For example Bach's music is filled to the brim with melodic themes that were known by the listeners of that time, from church songs, folk songs, lullabies, etc. Most of those melodic themes are now totally unknown to us, except as a theme used by Bach in for example his Passions, Cantatas or Concert pieces. The music is so great we modern listeners do not need these references to be in awe by the sheer greatness. We attribute the external values because of the intrinsic values of great beauty, intelligence and meaning, all of which we can not define with our current psychology and philosophy.


----------



## TheUnfinished

What may well be seen as 'great' in the future, long after we've stopped gassing on internet forum, are those people behind the birth of new genres.

Though the development of any new genres is a collaborative and evolutionary process, there are those who stand out at the crest of such waves.

I can't think of anything more exciting about music than those moments where new genres arise and then blossom: blues, punk, house music, whatever it is.

I really fail to understand why some people think that the greatness of music has to be couched only in its reference to Western classical music? Why dismiss 75% of genres and about 50% of the globe like that?

If there is still electronic dance music, in any form, in two hundred years' time, surely this would cement the likes of Kraftwerk, Marshall Jefferson and Afrika Bambaata (hell, even Delia Derbyshire's pioneering synth work if you want to regress that far!) in the hall of greats? And if not, why not?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

TheUnfinished @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> What may well be seen as 'great' in the future, long after we've stopped gassing on internet forum, are those people behind the birth of new genres.
> 
> Though the development of any new genres is a collaborative and evolutionary process, there are those who stand out at the crest of such waves.
> 
> I can't think of anything more exciting about music than those moments where new genres arise and then blossom: blues, punk, house music, whatever it is.
> 
> I really fail to understand why some people think that the greatness of music has to be couched only in its reference to Western classical music? Why dismiss 75% of genres and about 50% of the globe like that?
> 
> If there is still electronic dance music, in any form, in two hundred years' time, surely this would cement the likes of Kraftwerk, Marshall Jefferson and Afrika Bambaata (hell, even Delia Derbyshire's pioneering synth work if you want to regress that far!) in the hall of greats? And if not, why not?



Because, once again, when it is truly great, music is about depth as well as skill. Some genres, while appealing, are not deep.

Ravi Shankar used to state this frequently, and he was not a Western Classical music composer. His music was great because it was both skilled and not superficial.


----------



## Waywyn

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Because, once again, when it is truly great, music is about depth as well as skill. Some genres, while appealing, are not deep.



But wouldn't it be fair to say, that "deep" or whatever expression we use for - let's say - emotionally grabbing, is a matter of definition?

I mean, I know people who would totally get goosebumps when listening to hardcore trance when Gandalf returns and riding down that hill in Lord of the Rings or wouldn't mind rock music in Star Wars?

What gives one the right to e.g. say, that these peoples "deep" is wrong or even absurd?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Waywyn @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, once again, when it is truly great, music is about depth as well as skill. Some genres, while appealing, are not deep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But wouldn't it be fair to say, that "deep" or whatever expression we use for - let's say - emotionally grabbing, is a matter of definition?
> 
> I mean, I know people who would totally get goosebumps when listening to hardcore trance when Gandalf returns and riding down that hill in Lord of the Rings or wouldn't mind rock music in Star Wars?
> 
> What gives one the right to e.g. say, that these peoples "deep" is wrong or even absurd?
Click to expand...


This is respectfully, sophistry. We ALL know what "deep" is. Beethoven is. Bill Evans is. Ravi Shankar was. Barry Manilow, much as I like his records, is not.

Getting "goosebumps"is only deep to a shallow person.


----------



## Waywyn

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> This is respectfully, sophistry. We ALL know what "deep" is. Beethoven is. Bill Evans is. Ravi Shankar was. Barry Manilow, much as I like his records, is not.
> 
> Getting "goosebumps"is only deep to a shallow person.



Okay, so if there is a person on this planet who just loves Barry Manilow and feels like "99 unicorns jump over a double rainbow" when listening to his music ... and s/he can't stand Beethoven or doesn't care about Bill Evans, but both of you would go under an EEG or MRT analysis and it turns out that her "deep" and her feelings neurologically reacts more to Barry Manilow than yours listening to Bill Evans or Beethoven ... then what? You are still saying that Barry Manilows music can't be deep?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Waywyn @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is respectfully, sophistry. We ALL know what "deep" is. Beethoven is. Bill Evans is. Ravi Shankar was. Barry Manilow, much as I like his records, is not.
> 
> Getting "goosebumps"is only deep to a shallow person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so if there is a person on this planet who just loves Barry Manilow and feels like "99 unicorns jump over a double rainbow" when listening to his music ... and s/he can't stand Beethoven or doesn't care about Bill Evans, but both of you would go under an EEG or MRT analysis and it turns out that her "deep" and her feelings neurologically reacts more to Barry Manilow than yours listening to Bill Evans or Beethoven ... then what? You are still saying that Barry Manilows music can't be deep?
Click to expand...


Yes, I am saying that with Barry Manilow, who I know a little btw, his music is not deep and has no pretensions to depth and that as a trained guy and Classical and Jazz lover himself, if you seriously compared him to Bill Evans or Beethoven, he would fall over laughing.

Depth is not defined in any dictionary "that which I like and that which inspires easy emotions in me"


----------



## presetfreund

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Depth is not defined in any dictionary "that which I like and that which inspires easy emotions in me"


Thats true. Because it is not defined at all in any dictionary.
Thus, there is an infinite number of ways in which it is not defined.
Of which you have named one.


btw: everytime I sit down at any piano I play Copacabana -feeling it deeply while playing

Cheers


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Of COURSE it is defined in dictionary :roll: 

Among the definitions, surely when we talk about greatness in music or any other art this is the relevant one:

4 a work of great depth: complexity, intricacy; profundity, gravity, weight.


----------



## TheUnfinished

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> 4 a work of great depth: complexity, intricacy; profundity, gravity, weight.


Okay. Out of curiosity, I've just watched about ten videos of Bill Evans (who I will confess that I had not heard of before you mentioned him).

I may have merely hit a bad streak but, I saw no great complexity, intricacy, profundity, gravity or weight. I saw an excellent saxophonist and some enjoyable tunes. But nothing that made me think he was 'a great'. Nothing that even made me think he hugely stood out as a saxophonist, let alone a great in music full stop. Don't get me wrong, he was clearly very talented, but you've put him up there as some obvious example who will stand the test of time and I honestly don't see it.

I have no idea where that leaves us! Except perhaps to say that 'greatness' may be a bit more complicated after all.


----------



## Waywyn

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Of COURSE it is defined in dictionary :roll:
> 
> Among the definitions, surely when we talk about greatness in music or any other art this is the relevant one:
> 
> 4 a work of great depth: complexity, intricacy; profundity, gravity, weight.



Okay Jay, let's spin this a bit further. These terms define greatness in music to you.
Since you put a simple definition of a dictionary above not only scientific research but also the human emotion (I mean hello? We are talking music)

Complexity? Which complexity? From the mind of a composer or a listener?
I would say that to a normal person which Manilowes music may sound deep to, would definine music as complex in general!
How do you think about atrophysicists? Do you think Brian Cox is deep? Or is maybe Neil deGrasse Tyson more deep? How do you define that. On about he explains you stuff or the one who fascinates you more?

Intricacy?
Really? Listened to some Meshuggah tracks yet and found out how to play a few of their rhythmic patterns yet?

Profundity? If my dictionary isn't wrong, this is the same as "deep" so we can leave that out!

Gravity? Really? Gravity? You mean the term gravity when something emotionally attracts you? The same as maybe Manilows music has gravity for this specific woman? How do you wanna defne that? Use the Higgs boson and CERN and clash waveforms to see which got more gravity? This is an emotional term!! Therefore you can't define more or less emotion from your person taste!

Weight? This again is an emotional term. If not, please explain how weight can be defined. How much complex music theory you fill in?


After all this. What are you trying to say with all this? Beethoven is more deep than Manilows music. Okay ... therefore ... what? Are people who listen (or create) to not that deep or complex music more shallow? Would one be happier when listening to Beethoven instead of Manilow. What is the purpose and the meaning of all this definition of what makes music great?

You know, what would the world do if a group of very very accurate scientists comes along and find out that there are genetical differences in each race on this planet which would define all races to be from much complex to less complex in terms of all kinds which can be measured and proven. Would the race at the very lower end be not great? Would the race at the top be the greatest?

Therefore, what is the meaing of all this definition and the constant question about what defines great music?
In my opinion there is no, because it is all a matter of taste!

Speaking of taste! How could you also say that a 5 order menu is better and greater than just a bite into a super juicy fat and awesome burger?!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Okay. Out of curiosity, I've just watched about ten videos of Bill Evans (who I will confess that I had not heard of before you mentioned him).
> 
> I may have merely hit a bad streak but, I saw no great complexity, intricacy, profundity, gravity or weight.



Try and reharmonize "The Dolphin" on paper, never mind on the fly the way he did. You'll understand what's deep about him!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> it is all a matter of taste!



Alex, I also don't believe that you truly believe that.

Is Shakespeare crap because most people would rather watch the Kardashians?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

TheUnfinished @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 a work of great depth: complexity, intricacy; profundity, gravity, weight.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Out of curiosity, I've just watched about ten videos of Bill Evans (who I will confess that I had not heard of before you mentioned him).
> 
> I may have merely hit a bad streak but, I saw no great complexity, intricacy, profundity, gravity or weight. I saw an excellent saxophonist and some enjoyable tunes. But nothing that made me think he was 'a great'. Nothing that even made me think he hugely stood out as a saxophonist, let alone a great in music full stop. Don't get me wrong, he was clearly very talented, but you've put him up there as some obvious example who will stand the test of time and I honestly don't see it.
> 
> I have no idea where that leaves us! Except perhaps to say that 'greatness' may be a bit more complicated after all.
Click to expand...


Bill Evans was a pianist, not a sax player.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> it is all a matter of taste!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex, I also don't believe that you truly believe that.
> 
> Is Shakespeare crap because most people would rather watch the Kardashians?
Click to expand...

'
Nick, you don't get it. If someone LIKES it better than it is just as good.

OK, I need follow my own advice to Guy and get out of this thread or I will start intentionally insulting people.


----------



## BoulderBrow

TheUnfinished @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 a work of great depth: complexity, intricacy; profundity, gravity, weight.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Out of curiosity, I've just watched about ten videos of Bill Evans (who I will confess that I had not heard of before you mentioned him).
> 
> I may have merely hit a bad streak but, I saw no great complexity, intricacy, profundity, gravity or weight. I saw an excellent saxophonist and some enjoyable tunes. But nothing that made me think he was 'a great'. Nothing that even made me think he hugely stood out as a saxophonist, let alone a great in music full stop. Don't get me wrong, he was clearly very talented, but you've put him up there as some obvious example who will stand the test of time and I honestly don't see it.
> 
> I have no idea where that leaves us! Except perhaps to say that 'greatness' may be a bit more complicated after all.
Click to expand...


Yo, probably doesn't make a difference but there are two notable Bill Evans - the other is a jazz pianist; perhaps ew was referring to him - great music imo (what ever that means..)


----------



## Darthmorphling

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Okay. Out of curiosity, I've just watched about ten videos of Bill Evans (who I will confess that I had not heard of before you mentioned him).
> 
> I may have merely hit a bad streak but, I saw no great complexity, intricacy, profundity, gravity or weight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try and reharmonize "The Dolphin" on paper, never mind on the fly the way he did. You'll understand what's deep about him!
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that be a technical feat as apposed to an emotional feat?

Look at the guitar player Michael Angelo Bateo. He has the technique down cold for playing guitar. He is equally adept at playing right handed or left handed. However, his music has the emotional depth of a three bean salad.

You then have someone like Hendrix, who arguably didn't have much theory, but listening to his playing, live, and on record could generate tremendous feelings for the listener.


----------



## TheUnfinished

Haha, ah well. My mistake.

One could comment on the 'greatness' of someone who I couldn't find any information about in any hurry though. But I WILL check him out and educate myself.


----------



## Waywyn

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> it is all a matter of taste!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex, I also don't believe that you truly believe that.
> 
> Is Shakespeare crap because most people would rather watch the Kardashians?
Click to expand...


Nick, this is exactly what I am NOT saying. Of course Shakespeare is NOT crap, but there are people who may not like him (and even think that he is crap because they can not understand and comprehend it) and prefer to watch the Kardashians.

If someone believes Kardashians are crap and Shakespeare is it, then fine .. but you can not simply come along and say: Kardashians are by definition crap or stupid or whatever!

What would you say if someone comes along and says: Asians are the superior race?
What would you say about someone who is convinced that Christians are deluted? (which I do NOT think)
What if I say that overweight people (the ones who are not sick) are stupid, because all they should do is eat less?

Again, to prevent the apocalypse, these upper questions are pretty aggressive and are not my opinion but I just used it to reflect how stupid is that music/artist comparison.

At the end of the day it matters how entertaining something was. If I accidentally checked out a Kardashians show and someone dropped some stupid phrase which made me think about something in my life ... and it cause to change something. YES, then Kardashians are great!

If I watch a Shakeseare piece and fall asleep in the middle. I don't care what people said how great he is, when I didn't even manage to stay awake!


So what now in the end? Only because one thinks that Beethoven, Shakespeare, Holdsworth and Meshuggah are not great, does this makes the unintelligent ... shouldn't the main point in life simply be happy? If someone is happy watching Kardashians or (back to topic) writing music in the key of Emin by hardly using fifth. How can this be not great to someone?

ALl this would result in one thing. Because most people watch Kardashians, enjoy Britney Spears and adore Justin Bieber, this planet obviously must be doomed!
Quick quick we great, sophistcated, overeducated and deep people, off to a new planet! (taken with a few grains of salt!)


----------



## Scrianinoff

EastWest Lurker @ Tue 12 Mar said:


> OK, I need follow my own advice to Guy and get out of this thread or I will start intentionally insulting people.


Do you honestly think anybody is going to believe you? Well, perhaps concerning the insulting part. Bring it on, do your worst! 

Rachmaninov (allegedly), uhm no, thanks Leosc, Horowitz said that:

An artist,
without a heart is a machine,
without skill is an amateur,
without a mind is a fiasco.

@Waywyn About the EEG, if such measurements would show roughly the same intensity in playing Manilow for person A as Bach for person B (or even more interesting for the same person A), then it would show exactly this, the _*same intensity*_ of emotion, nothing about the depth of emotion.

Interestingly, I saw a documentary years ago about exactly this, although it was a PET scan I believe and the stimuli were pictures instead of music, If I find a link to some information about this I will post it. Although the scan showed the same emotional _*intensity*_ to different stimuli, the _*depth*_ of brain response was different. For the 'deeper' responses more regions, and more disparate regions of the brain were active at the same time.

In my mind this couples well with what Horowitz said. Perhaps it takes an artist with a heart, mind and skill to really deeply appreciate deep stimuli  

Rachmaninov also believed that a pianist who does not have composing talents can never have a full appreciation of a composer's work and hence can never hope to fully emulate a complete representation of it.


----------



## Leosc

Scrianinoff @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Rachmaninov (allegedly) said that:
> 
> An artist,
> without a heart is a machine,
> without skill is an amateur,
> without a mind is a fiasco.



Actually, this was Horowitz. And he was referring to pianists.


----------



## Guy Bacos

I thought it was Barry Manilow.


----------



## Scrianinoff

Leosc @ Tue 12 Mar said:


> Actually, this was Horowitz. And he was referring to pianists.


Indeed, you're right, Horowitz said this, quoting Rachmaninov


----------



## Scrianinoff

Guy Bacos @ Tue 12 Mar said:


> I thought it was Barry Manilow.


No, it's this other east coast Jew, Vladimir Horowitz.


----------



## Leosc

Scrianinoff @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Leosc @ Tue 12 Mar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this was Horowitz. And he was referring to pianists.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you're right, Horowitz said this, quoting Rachmaninov
Click to expand...


Hmm, do you have any source on that? I've only ever heard Horowitz as originator of that quote - including other pianists mentioning it.


----------



## Scrianinoff

Leosc @ Tue 12 Mar said:


> Hmm, do you have any source on that? I've only ever heard Horowitz as originator of that quote - including other pianists mentioning it.


I was joking , here is a source: http://www.eliranavni.com/docs/TMC_document.pdf 

The complete Horowitz quote appears to be:

"For the virtuoso, musical works are in fact nothing but
tragic and moving materializations of his emotions: he is
called upon to make them speak, weep, sing and sigh, to re-
create them in accordance with his own consciousness.
In this way he, like the composer, is a creator, for he must
have within himself those passions that he wishes to bring
so intensely to life. You see, playing the piano is a
combination of Brain, Heart and Means. And all three
should be even. If one falls short of the others, the music
suffers. Without Brains, you are a fiasco. Without Means,
you are an amateur. Without Heart, you are a machine. It
has its dangers, this occupation... "


----------



## Scrianinoff

By the way, this pdf holds more interesting information than just the quote. Some of you might it an interesting read.


----------



## Waywyn

Scrianinoff @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue 12 Mar said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I need follow my own advice to Guy and get out of this thread or I will start intentionally insulting people.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think anybody is going to believe you? Well, perhaps concerning the insulting part. Bring it on, do your worst!
> 
> Rachmaninov (allegedly), uhm no, thanks Leosc, Horowitz said that:
> 
> An artist,
> without a heart is a machine,
> without skill is an amateur,
> without a mind is a fiasco.
> 
> @Waywyn About the EEG, if such measurements would show roughly the same intensity in playing Manilow for person A as Bach for person B (or even more interesting for the same person A), then it would show exactly this, the _*same intensity*_ of emotion, nothing about the depth of emotion.
> 
> Interestingly, I saw a documentary years ago about exactly this, although it was a PET scan I believe and the stimuli were pictures instead of music, If I find a link to some information about this I will post it. Although the scan showed the same emotional _*intensity*_ to different stimuli, the _*depth*_ of brain response was different. For the 'deeper' responses more regions, and more disparate regions of the brain were active at the same time.
> 
> In my mind this couples well with what Horowitz said. Perhaps it takes an artist with a heart, mind and skill to really deeply appreciate deep stimuli
> 
> Rachmaninov also believed that a pianist who does not have composing talents can never have a full appreciation of a composer's work and hence can never hope to fully emulate a complete representation of it.
Click to expand...


Haha, thanks for that. Yes, please if you find anything on that. I would be happy!
Music in combination with neurology is always interesting!

I totally hear ya that the deeper brain only gets activated when listening to complex classical music, but in general I am just asking what about this all? Isn't it all about emotions in the end? Doesn't it all come down about how entertaining, emotionally deep, fascinating something is? Doesn't every style of music deserve the respect it deserves? How can someone come along and say that dubstep or progressive metal is just noise? To me this simply shows that the person claiming that there is greater music and less greater music is not even able to fully understand it. This is like observing music through a Burka and to me personally it feels wrong.

Or to speak with other words. One could write the most intense, sophistcated, deepest lyrical poem and perform it in front of his girl in order to win her heart.

Another one is simply looking deeply at her eyes and honestly saying: I love you!


What has more weight? What is deeper? (I am aware that the poem is way way complex and deserves more attention and whatnotall, that people can learn from it, blablaabbabla ) ... but in the end. Are those three simple words really worth less or not that great?

Therefore I would say, the mind shouldn't be a fiasco, some skill is cool too, but the heart should be biggest, since without you would be just a complex machine! 


PS for the hardcore nitpickers: NO, I am NOT saying that EVERY skilled jazz/classical composer is a cold machine!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Try and reharmonize "The Dolphin" on paper, never mind on the fly the way he did. You'll understand what's deep about him!
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be a technical feat as apposed to an emotional feat?



Not in this case!

***
Alex, my point is that there are objective standards that make music great (and any other art for that matter). We all recognize them, I think we all agree about most of them, yet it's easy to argue with whatever words you use to explain why we recognize them.

And obviously there would be no television industry if they just put on Shakespeare all day long. So I'm not saying that there's only room for great stuff in the world, just that Miles Davis amounts to more than the Spice Girls.


----------



## Arbee

Isn't one of the big challenges making sense of the rapid changes during the past 100+ years? Once upon a time we only had to look at new ways of using orchestral instruments to produce great music and progress from baroque to classical to romantic. Probably a lot easier at that time to focus and develop the fundamentals of melodic development, harmony, counterpoint, form, orchestration etc. Now we've added the blues, jazz, swing, electricity, instant access to the whole world's musical influences, computers, etc etc. To me it feels like we've thrown all the cards up in the air in a short time and are struggling to make sense of how they fall, keeping the best of the old while adding the best of the new.

.


----------



## Waywyn

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> So I'm not saying that there's only room for great stuff in the world, just that Miles Davis amounts to more than the Spice Girls.



Every ten year old girl would stone you to death right now, even more after listening to Miles :lol:


----------



## Waywyn

Arbee @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Now we've added the blues, jazz, electricity, instant access to the whole world's musical influences, computers, etc etc. To me it feels like we've thrown all the cards up in the air in a short time and are struggling to make sense of how they fall.
> 
> .




I would still say that it is a problem for many people to adapt to the unknown. People learned so much about e.g. classical music and studied over years ... suddenly (just in terms of surviving) it somehow has become less. Stages close, samples arrive, styles change, much more competition and so on ... 

I for one can just say, I enjoy fiddling around with Massive as much as I have fun when writing something orchestral complex, the same as when doing some sound design or playing some hardcore metal riffs ... to me it is all complex if you try to really do it right ... and if on the next day something new comes around the corner, I just open my mind and eyes and get curious about it, instead of turning around and trying to grab that last rope to the past.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Scrianinoff @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Tue 12 Mar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was Barry Manilow.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's this other east coast Jew, Vladimir Horowitz.
Click to expand...


----------



## Guy Bacos

Nick, why is it when you "quote" you leave out the person's name? Isn't it better to leave the name in case someone wants to read the entire post? Just wondering.


----------



## Musicologo

> Alex, my point is that there are objective standards that make music great (and any other art for that matter). We all recognize them, I think we all agree about most of them



Now we're just going in circles the last page.
There are NOT objective standards. You haven't shown me a single one. Please show me a single objective standard in music that hasn't been built by a system in a culture, and that is universal.

I've shown the only one I known is the heartbeat equating rhythm. All others are artificial and not universal.

I'm trying to have an objective discussion here, and many people lose themselves with personal beliefs instead of arguments. That is why noone goes nowhere.

"music is about depth" - what is depth? "Oh it can't be defined" - if you can't define something then it's a personal belief to you and you don't expect others to understand what you're referring to.

I say, Beethoven is not great nor depth. Now what?
"You're stupid".
"What's so great about him?"
"If you can't really see, then I can't tell you!"

These kind of discussions arise all time. Well, these are not discussions, because someone refuses to have a point at ALL! What is obvious to you, might not be for others, think about that when you express a point.

It seems it's obvious for most people around here that shakespeare and beethoven are great. I keep insisting they aren't (at least not for the reasons you believe they are). 

Pretend I'm the african native that just heard beethoven's 5th for the first time, when ethnomusicologists from the mid 40's arrived in africa with gramophones and fled running afraid of the thundernoise!...

"you are not expecting an african native, a savage to understand the beauty in beethoven?? he doesn't have the knowledge to understand it!"

Exactly. Because it's not universal. IT's a culturally built concept (chords, harmony, etc), and you have to be exposed to some kind of cultural knowledge and background to understand it!! If you are exposed to ANOTHER form of base-knowledge your values will be different and you're be unable to see the greatness in beethoven. You'll see the greatness in other things.

I have a friend (for real!) that only listens to electroacoustic music. only sounds. That is great music. He finds melody and harmony boring. he never listens to it and fails to see the value in it - he understands the concept but doesn't FEEL it. Because he never grow under those values. 

If you really think there is something GREAT and UNIVERSAL about music that can't be explained - then think twice, three times, research more until you really find out what is it and why so many people are not grabbing it... perhaps it's because... well, there isn't!!!!!


----------



## Leosc

Nice to see that postmodernism has arrived in musical discourse, and that it's about as welcome and shared as its counterpart in philosophy.


----------



## Musicologo

Think of it more as post-structuralism :D

Nothing and noone exists in a void. Context is *almost* everything


----------



## Guy Bacos

I'll go along with Jay, these questions just keep going around in circles. I read Musicologo's post and despite I totally understand where he's coming from, I find he's trying a bit hard to force a logic. I also see others who agrees with him and think my views and others are full of shit. 

It's time to agree to disagree.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Musicologo, I might be tempted to continue if I didn't know that you don't really believe what you're saying.


----------



## Musicologo

Please don't quit. Quitting now just means "I believe coz I believe coz I believe and anyone who doesn't think like me I respect but I don't agree. I have no argument to prove my point, neither how to refute yours, but I refuse to think more".


----------



## Arbee

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> ... to me it is all complex if you try to really do it right ... I just open my mind and eyes and get curious about it..


Exactly :idea:


----------



## Inductance

Arbee @ Thu Mar 07 said:


> So, with all that is available to us these days I'd expect to be hearing the most incredible music ever written. Where is it?



How do we measure the level of "good music," or the level of "good composers" at any given time? And even if we agree on some kind of metric, will any two music fans even agree when they take a "measurement"? I doubt it.

I think there's plenty of incredible new music out there. The only thing technology and the internet have done is that they have allowed all the good AND bad composers to get their music out there more easily. So it's probably more material for us to sift through before we find a gem. But honestly, I don't mind one bit. Twenty years ago I probably wouldn't have discovered a lot of the music I now enjoy. And the good music can come from anywhere, whether it's from a film, a TV program, the radio, a rock festival, or even the Soundcloud profiles of composers on this very message board! And if not for technology, we wouldn't all be posting on a message board that is frequented by at least one Hollywood composer (that we know of).

I think the state of music is just fine. It might be changing, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

*groan*


----------



## Rob

I personally don't believe I could ever really judge things, not only music, in a completely "super partes", objective way, I don't even want to do that... I'm the product of my culture, of whatever has happened in my life, and if I devoid myself of all the cultural heritage I have gotten I'd feel like an empty puppet. So I happily embrace the frame I have grown in, actually I consider it to be the real "me". Beethoven's sonatas are an incredible work of art, while most of the music I hear on tv/radio is not.


----------



## Arbee

Rob @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Beethoven's sonatas are an incredible work of art....


When I was about 9, my music teacher would only let me play Beethoven sonatas for months on end. To me, Beethoven's sonatas became the work of the devil, not of art :wink: 

.


----------



## TheUnfinished

I never really understand why people get so angry in these threads.

I don't agree with many of the things said in this thread, but I really enjoy people with a love of music explaining their position and their ideas. From this thread I've discovered music/artists I'd not heard of before. May not have liked all of them... but sometimes it's okay to have a discourse without the primary purpose having to be 'being right'.

The discussion of ideas is its own reward.


----------



## Arbee

TheUnfinished @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> I never really understand why people get so angry in these threads.
> 
> The discussion of ideas is its own reward.


I'm 100% with you on this, but there again, people also get angry about religion, politics and football  

.


----------



## Rob

I'm not angry at all, my point was that, since out of a cultural framework there's no objective way to define the value of a music piece, I judge music on that premise... otherwise I don't know what I can talk about. Sorry my english isn't that good...


----------



## TheUnfinished

I didn't think you were Rob. Though you said you couldn't frame your thoughts in the logic that others had, you explained why. Which meant there was something to learn. That's what I'm enjoying about this discussion.


----------



## Arbee

I just read back through some of the recent pages of this thread and wonder if we sometimes get confused between our intellectual and our emotional response to music. There is so much music that I respect immensely on an intellectual level, and similarly some virtuoso performers, that doesn't touch me at all emotionally. Like Shakespeare as the example perhaps. And the opposite is also true, some of the music and performers that touch me deeply emotionally are probably not that "great" in the intellectual and sophisticated sense (and yes, I love blues and trance for example as well as much classical and jazz). 

I guess having both responses at the same time is a good measure of "great"? For me, this includes some Bach but not all. If I can only have one though, an emotional response will get my money every time, regardless of which century it was written.

.


----------



## Musicologo

I don't get angry at all. I enjoy greatly these discussions (no wonder I have a masters in philosophy), and for me they are a beautiful example of what a forum should be. I always learn a lot in the forums. It's just a pitty that some people never follow their arguments till the end and I feel incomplete.

I still believe that there are no universals (agree with Rob, Arbee, etc), and that our responses are product of our culture and how we were raised, context, etc and that they are mostly emotional.

I can "understand" all the hype in beethoven and bach and mozart - they were inventive, they mastered a craft (but a craft that is only relevant in west after 1300 - symbolic notation), and they were socially relevant (noble connections, etc) to the point that they were mediated and made their ways to the scholar system when other valid and crafted men were totally forgotten. These are some of the factors that I believe contributed to their hype, and they are all subjective and cultural and artificially built. 

Honestly most of the times they don't "push my buttons"... (2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th does, but a thousand other works from many other composers also do that)

On the other hand Dulce Pontes, Satie, Yann Tiersen and Danny Elfman do. They are the greatest!... I know my background and my values and I get excited when I hear them in action, it's intuitive, I don't have to think about it!... I grew to feel that way.

So, in the end, all I was asking was for the defenders of "universals" and "objective things in music" to prove their point by pointing out concrete things so I could understand their point and learn. Well, they refuse or can't do that... So I just remain ignorant.


----------



## Rob

I understand what you say, but I'm not fully with you... I think there's something we could call "relative objectivity"... a group of people that share a similar background can rightly refer to things in absolute terms. When you say that Dulce Pontes, Satie, Yann Tiersen and Danny Elfman are the greatest, you are talking to "your people"  Your position isn't any different than that of the Beethoven enthustiasts...


----------



## Guy Bacos

Arbee @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Rob @ Wed Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beethoven's sonatas are an incredible work of art....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was about 9, my music teacher would only let me play Beethoven sonatas for months on end. To me, Beethoven's sonatas became the work of the devil, not of art :wink:
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I hope you're not saying piano teachers should have a more open mind and if they feel Barry Manilow is a better and more fun way to start off a piano student rather than Bach, Clementi and Beethoven, they should not hesitate to do so?

On the other hand, Manilow does write the songs the whole world sings.


----------



## JAM

I feel there's a lot of decent music out presently and with regards to what defines great music - I think of it like this... If you are the only person on a planet and you compose a piece of music, how do you know if it's any good?

If you are one of two people on a planet and other person tells you your music is great and they want to listen to it again and again - then you can rest assured you have composed great music.

If you are on a planet with 7 billion people and 4 billion let you know you've done a great piece of music and they want to listen to it again and again - then you can rest assured you have composed great music.


----------



## re-peat

Musicologo @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Music has no intrinsic quality - the value is always attributed externally - this is a fact.


(1/2)
Where your argument falls flat on its ugly map, Musicologo, is that you appear to appreciate/approach/value music mainly based on how it is perceived rather than on what _it actually is_. You’re evaluating music through the filter of ‘compromised perception’ — a term which has an element of tautology in there, cause all perception is by definition compromised if only for the fact that there is always a disfiguring distance between viewpoint and target —, agreeing and disagreeing with what one is supposed to like or dislike, but you’re never approaching music on its own, entirely musical terms, let alone that you reflect upon what that extremely intimate encounter means to you.

It is true, up to a point anyway, that when looking at (or thinking about) music the way you seem to do, there is no easily and objectively quantifiable ‘thing’ in music that makes one work intrinsically better than another. (Within the boundaries of what is commonly accepted as decently written music, obviously.) Perception is, after all, a very subjective affair, depending just as much, if not more so, on the competence of the perceiver than on the quality of what is being perceived. When ‘who perceives’ is as important as ‘what is perceived’, it becomes quite difficult to know if what is conveyed (by the perceiver) actually reflects the reality (or, at least, part of it).
For example: Alex saying that Shakespeare invariably lulls him to sleep, tells us a lot more about Alex than it does about Shakespeare. It tells us, above all, that Alex somehow lacks the antennae — or, if he has them, can’t be bothered to switch them on — to pick up on any of the poetic/linguistic/musical/imaginative beauty and human insightfulness which set Shakespeare apart from most everybody else and make him one of the most important writers in all of history.
Or, someone else rating Manilow higher than Beethoven, tells us again a whole lot about that certain someone, but absolutely nothing about Manilow and certainly not about Beethoven.

Now, if that’s how things work best for you (and it seems to be working best for a whole lot of people, possibly even the majority of people), then fine, no problem, but going from there to telling the rest of us that “music has no intrinsic quality”, is a seriously misguided leap, if I may say so. And it certainly is not ‘a fact’, as you claim (in overly confident bold type, so as to make sure we certainly wouldn’t miss it). Instead of being a fact, it is a highly dubious and, in my opinion, a deeply unmusical assumption, no more no less. If you really believe there is no intrinsic quality in (good) music — in other words: that the only quality which music might be said to have, is the one attributed externally and in hindsight, through perception — you are in fact telling us that the very essence of what makes good music good completely eludes you. 
No self-respecting scientist would ever say that there’s no intrinsic quality or mind-boggling beauty in science. (And I’m not talking ‘applied science’, I’m talking ‘pure abstract science’.)

The problem with these discussions is that we have people talking to and across one another, who all seem to look for different things in music. Some seek emotional stimulae (the simplest, most instinctive level of music appreciation), others find more pleasure in the narrative and descriptive powers of music, while yet others may be looking for something entirely different still. However, the further you move up the scale of music appreciation, the more undiluted things get, up to the point where you listen to music for no other than strictly musical reasons. (Which is where great music requires you to be, and also where you want to be if you have a true love for music and want to approach it in a manner worthy of the care, passion and attention with which it was created.) Not for its story-telling capacity, not for its emotional impact (insofar as this stands apart from the emotional reaction with which one marvels at abstract greatness), not for the brilliance of its exterior virtuosity or whatever, but simply for the interplay of musical elements in their purest, most absolute form. That’s the level where the intrinsic qualities of music become clearest. The level where nothing, and certainly no extra-musical considerations or any perception-determined bias, distracts from the naked musical tissue of a composition (or improvisation). People who are unable to, or refuse to approach music through that, admittedly quite narrow, door, shouldn’t really be talking to people who do. It only causes irritation and serious disagreement.

Sure, there is a certain, unavoidable degree of subjective appreciation in all of this. That is in fact part of art’s wondrous and often unanalyzeable appeal. My most-treasured masterpieces aren’t necessarily Rob’s or Guy’s and, vice versa, I don’t rate Gershwin quite as highly as Guy seems to do. But that’s not the point. The point is that musical activity can reach a level where we all three will agree, with complete conviction, that we’re in the presence of ‘great music’. We may not agree on, say, Gilbert O’Sullivan, but we surely will agree on Ravel. So, personal favourites and preferences aside, good music does have that intrinsic quality that is quickly recognized by anyone who’s able to recognize it. 
And that right there, that is the core problem, isn’t it? The ability to recognize it. Not everyone has it. Me, I don’t recognize a great football playerina, not even if I slept with one. Can’t tell a dilligent amateur from a truly gifted phenomenon. Many people do, but I lack the affinity and love for the sport and the knowlegde about what makes a great player, so I haven’t got a clue. I do recognize a great composer though. But … not everybody does.

J.S. Bach is a far greater composer than, say, Johann Strauss Jr. (even if most of the latter’s music is far more ‘sing- & dance-along popular’ than the former’s), and this distinction is not based on arbitrary or subjective reasons, but on very specific musical ones. Unfortunately, trying to explain what these reasons are, is quite impossible when addressing someone who lacks the musical knowledge/curiosity/intelligence/insight to ‘hear’ it for him/herself. If he/she did hear it him/herself, there would obviously be no need explaining it, cause he/she would already have arrived, a long time ago, at the exact same conclusion.
And again: this is not a matter of taste, personal preference or even historic perspective (often conveniently unambiguous, if you’re not quite so sure yourself), but a very objective ‘abstract’ musical truth: the good music of Bach is, intrinsically (i.o.w. following an honest and strictly musical observation), superior to that of Strauss. Strauss may bring more pleasure to more people (ranging from very superficial to profound delight), but that doesn’t make him a greater ‘composer of music’. (And this is coming from someone who loves Strauss’ music immensely.)
But again: explaining exactly why Bach, and not Strauss, is rightfully revered the world over as possibly the greatest musical mind ever to walk this planet, is a futile endeavour. The fact that an explanation is required renders the very act of explaining pointless and a waste of effort. That’s the ‘intrinsic quality of music’ for you. Bugger, isn’t it?

Other example (and possibly a bit more controversial): even though Tchaikovsky’s catalogue of brilliantly inventive, divinely inspired and unforgettable melodies is noticeably greater than Beethoven’s, it is Beethoven’s melodic invention which is musically superior to Tchaikovsky’s. Paradox? Subjective and therefore rather questionable opinion? Not at all, but again: explaining it requires (from the person it is explained to) a degree of musical understanding that allows him/her to look beyond the rather limited and superficial (even if intense, very satisfying and long-lasting) appeal and value of a ‘great melody’. And not everyone is blessed with this, just like not everyone is blessed with creative musical talent in comparable measure. Or with ‘great football player’-spotting abilities.

...


----------



## re-peat

(2/2)

What I’m trying to say is: Shakespeare shouldn’t be discussed by those who fall asleep while watching his plays. He can only be discussed sensibly by those who have the required affinity, passion, commitment and intelligence to savour the bard in a way he hoped (and deserves) to be savoured. Same with Beethoven: if Manilow is your musical nec-plus-ultra, you are ill-equipped to measure/value/discuss the greatness of Beethoven. Beethoven simply happens on a totally different musical level than Manilow does and if, for whatever reason, you can’t make it onto that level, fine, no quarrel, but then leave Beethoven alone and certainly don’t try to squeeze him into the same narrow frame of observation with which you measure Manilow. The musical frame which encompasses Manilow quite comfortably, is far, far, far too small for the giant proportions of a Beethoven.
Put differently: a brain that hears all there is to hear in Manilow but falters beyond that point, doesn’t suffice to hear all there is to hear in Beethoven. A window that looks out on no more than an alley, doesn’t give you a view of the entire city. In order to view something as expansive as an entire city, you’re required to climb several levels up. Same thing with music. (It does work the other way round of course: if you hear all, or much, of what there is to hear in Beethoven, you also hear immediately why Manilow doesn’t even begin to compare.

But telling all this to people often meets with irritation, accusations of elitism and ivory-tower snobbery. I don’t mind. I quite agree in fact. I even believe that this is how it is supposed to be. Art isn’t always a democratic divertissement. Some of it is and very successfully so, sure, but it shouldn’t be a prerequisite. Not all art is for everyone. Not even everything in a single piece of art is for everyone: some people like the tunes in Beethoven’s 6th but loose the will to live when they have to sit through the entire thing, while others derive immense pleasure from witnessing the overal structure of the symphony slowly unfold. 
Savouring art in a way its creator hoped it would be savoured, is not always obvious. My sister, for example, doesn’t like ‘serious, difficult music’. She likes simple songs, things that require no effort, jolly tunes she can sing. Zephyrs from Melodyland. But luckily, Wise Woman that she is, she doesn’t suffer from the arrogant delusion that all music can be done full justice by looking at it through the small ‘sing along’ window which she happens to prefer. She’s fully aware that there’s plenty of music which will never fit in her window. 
(By the way, and totally unrelated, there are two things you need to know about the Wise Woman.)

Appreciating art (in an honest, dedicated and respectful way) requires insight, affinity, a certain capability or understanding, talent, engagement and empathy, … in short: a collection of qualifications and considerations that allow you to walk the same route passively which the artist (composer, writer, painter, architect, scientist, cook, athlete, thinker, actor, …) first walked actively and creatively. In order to fully appreciate Beethoven, there has to be a little something of Beethoven in you. In order to fully grasp the magnitude of music’s many intrinsic qualities, you have to have the DNA of these qualities stirring inside you. Is what I believe.

Finally, if music has no intrinsic quality, Musicologo, can you name something which does? I really am curious. And if you insist that music (or art in general, if there remains any logic to your reasoning) has no intrinsic quality, you're also saying that music can have no appeal (intellectual, esthetical or emotional appeal), right? Because appeal, in whichever degree it is present, always requires the presence of some underlying quality. Can't have one without the other. Wherever there is appeal, there is quality. So, now I'm wondering: if you're listening to music and you really like what you're hearing, how do you explain that?

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Guy Bacos @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Arbee @ Wed Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob @ Wed Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beethoven's sonatas are an incredible work of art....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was about 9, my music teacher would only let me play Beethoven sonatas for months on end. To me, Beethoven's sonatas became the work of the devil, not of art :wink:
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you're not saying piano teachers should have a more open mind and if they feel Barry Manilow is a better and more fun way to start off a piano student rather than Bach, Clementi and Beethoven, they should not hesitate to do so?
> 
> On the other hand, Manilow does write the songs the whole world sings.
Click to expand...


In point of fact, he did not write "I Write The Songs', Bruce Johnson did.


----------



## Guy Bacos

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Wed Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arbee @ Wed Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob @ Wed Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beethoven's sonatas are an incredible work of art....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was about 9, my music teacher would only let me play Beethoven sonatas for months on end. To me, Beethoven's sonatas became the work of the devil, not of art :wink:
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you're not saying piano teachers should have a more open mind and if they feel Barry Manilow is a better and more fun way to start off a piano student rather than Bach, Clementi and Beethoven, they should not hesitate to do so?
> 
> On the other hand, Manilow does write the songs the whole world sings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In point of fact, he did not write "I Write The Songs', Bruce Johnson did.
Click to expand...


I know.  

It should of said: "I write the songs the whole____ word sings, except for this one which I did not write_____, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la"


----------



## BoulderBrow

We need some girls on this forum stat!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I think there's great music everywhere, happening all the time. My problem is that I don't have the time to find it all and to spend the good time all great new music needs. There are amazing composers all around, but most of us don't have the patience and the open ears/minds to realize it. If you can't hear the good stuff out there, I feel sorry for you, as you're missing out.


----------



## Guy Bacos

I may have differences with repeat on JW vs Gerswhin, but as he says, this isn't the point on this thread, and I agree with his 2 posts, well said!

One thing I don't understand. The people who believes, for example, Beethoven being a greater genius than Barry Manilow, are seen as close minded, since the ones who believes it's all relative to this and that, they feel more open minded. My question is, how do those people know what we are thinking? What is this assumption that we are close minded? It has to be this assumption, since there is so much talk about this healthy open mind.


----------



## Waywyn

re-peat @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> For example: Alex saying that Shakespeare invariably lulls him to sleep, tells us a lot more about Alex than it does about Shakespeare. It tells us, above all, that Alex somehow lacks the antennae — or, if he has them, can’t be bothered to switch them on — to pick up on any of the poetic/linguistic/musical/imaginative beauty and human insightfulness which set Shakespeare apart from most everybody else and make him one of the most important writers in all of history.
> Or, someone else rating Manilow higher than Beethoven, tells us again a whole lot about that certain someone, but absolutely nothing about Manilow and certainly not about Beethoven.



May want to clear some thing up. First I am not sure when you write "for example" that you are talking about me dealing with Shakespeare of if you have been aware that I just used it as an example. I am aware that I should have added, "for instance" or "for example" when writing my post. Of course I wouldn't fall asleep during it ... and even if I would be drop dead tired I wouldn't do it since I find it disrespectful towards the actors practicing that much!


----------



## Waywyn

Also let me do a pretty straight forward answer to that Manilow vs. Beethoven thingy.
Maybe my perception of life, this universe and our planet is totally different from you guys.

I have a heavily disabled daughter and this daughter can't even manage to play a regular beat on a little drum.

The thing is she is more happy and reactive and whatnot all if I play Icona Pop "I don't care, I love it" on my cellphone (mind the bad speakers) than if I would run Beethoven on a high class stereo.

Of course, you would say, this is something compleeeeeeeetely different.
I say, IT IS NOT!! She got just a different perception than you!

What I am trying to say is, that no matter if someone is healthy, handicapped, def or whatever. Everyones perception of music is different and everyone can decide on their own when music is more complex than other music.

Of course I am totally absolutely megahuge on your side when you say that Beethoven is way more complex in music writing than e.g. Icona Pop .. but in the end what? The only thing you do, is judge music only because it used a more complex formula than some other music.

Let me also ask you about blues? You can notate all kinds of classical music. I am aware that the expression of each orchestra and conductor is different, but in the end, there are notes describing what the orchestra does.

But what about blues? How do you even notate a track played by Robert Johnson??
I would say this is only possible to a certain resolution (if music would be a picture) but you fully can not even write down blues.

So where are we now, when people say that classical music is probably the most complex music on this planet, whereas you are not even able to use the theoretical language of music to write down a blues track!
Wouldn't this automatically mean that a well played blues track is so complex you can't even use formula and math anymore?


----------



## Guy Bacos

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> So where are we now, when people say that classical music is probably the most complex music on this planet, whereas you are not even able to use the theoretical language of music to write down a blues track!
> Wouldn't this automatically mean that a well played blues track is so complex you can't even use formula and math anymore?



Of course you could notate any blues piece, see Oscar Peterson's or Art Tatum's complex transcriptions. What you can't reproduce on paper is the interpretation, but that goes the same for any classical piece of music as well, the notation would look ridiculous. In blues and jazz, the style blends itself better to leave more freedom to the player. 

So having said that, I'm not getting your point.


----------



## Waywyn

Guy Bacos @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> In blues and jazz, the style blends itself better to leave more freedom to the player.
> 
> So having said that, I'm not getting your point.



Well, you could go deeper and deeper into arguing. In the end you could ask how classical music is complex, since it is "just" a lot of musicians playing what has been written on paper conducted by a guy composed and arranged by just one or several guys over a loooong period of time? You could argue that improvised blues and fusion is way more deeper because it happens right in a moment and is being created almost instantly right from synapses onto the instrument and is changing its beauty on every evening (yes, classical music sounds different of every gig too ... sometimes the oboe is a bit upfront and the string section played it more magic ... but is always the same repeating structure with a few variables) ... while at the same time someone couldn't stand the sound of e.g. Mahavishnu Orchestra because the complexity slowly becomes "noise" to him. The same "noise" which Jay may experience when listening to Meshuggah ... etc. etc.

If you say that there is a definite ultimate complex music defined on standards, you can also say that for everything on this planet can be measured one thing of each category ultimately complex too. How about religion? Is there an ultimate religion? Is there an ultimate race? Is there an ultimate love? Are two couples have a more perfect relationship then others, measured on what? Is there an ultimate reason or meaning of trying to define THE ultimate greatest music?

I can't find it right now, but I remember seeing some video of an autist woman who was creating music and notes by moving her finger of a hand under flowing water out of a faucet! She explained how she does it ... if you see it with your complex, sophistcated classical brain. Do you have a right to say, poor woman, can't appreciate Beethoven!?
There are studies of people with epilepsy and everytime they are experiencing a specific kind of a seizure they experience the ultimate godlike moment. Some are eagerly waiting when it happens next because what they experience is far more beautiful and complex than anything else on this planet!

... and then there are people who try to define classical music as the nonplusultra ... with a brain which maybe doesn't "receive" at full capacity?! Think about it!


----------



## SergeD

re-peat,

I always read your comments and respect very much your opinions. Please tell me :
Is chineese language has intrinsic quality? If you do not understand chineese you can't even answer yes or no.

You can agree with Rob and Guy, with complete conviction, that you’re in the presence of ‘great music’ 
only because you share the same cultural background.

Music itself is only a bunch of sounds collated together. As well as languages. The value, the quality itself can be weighted only if you possess the culture from where the music comes from.


----------



## dcoscina

I will re iterate that we need to define which music has suffered due to technology. I think electronic music, rock, most popular forms of music have probably benefited in some ways. For orchestral music, I do persist that traditional nomenclature rules supreme. Playing in lines on a keyboard for orchestral music isn't as effective as writing it out as one has a better idea of instrument range, timbral combinations, phrasing, rhythmic sensibilities and meter changes. You can hear the difference in Jerry GOldsmith's music to illustrate this. Listen to Papillon or First Blood then compare it to The Edge or his late 90s work. The '70s material was more dynamic, had more rhythmic diversity and freedom, while his later stuff was chug-chug along rhythms with stuff added over it. It was still a lot better than newbies doing the same thing but it's no wonder that John Williams' music rarely suffers from this affliction as he still notates his stuff out traditionally.


----------



## dcoscina

As for Barry Manilow, well, he did adapt a Chopin Prelude for "Could it Be Magic" so he's not the best candidate to illustrate "pop art" vs "high art" especially compared to the current crop of pop stars who wouldn't even know Chopin from Manilow...


----------



## Inductance

re-peat @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> No self-respecting scientist would ever say that there’s no intrinsic quality or mind-boggling beauty in science.



They'd say that, but they'd be speaking not as scientists, but as beings with emotions. How do you measure beauty?

If "good" music can be objectively defined, then how would we measure this? Based on what you wrote, I'd probably agree with your opinions of "good" music. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that I can define an objective standard to good music.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Wed Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In blues and jazz, the style blends itself better to leave more freedom to the player.
> 
> So having said that, I'm not getting your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you could go deeper and deeper into arguing. In the end you could ask how classical music is complex, since it is "just" a lot of musicians playing what has been written on paper conducted by a guy composed and arranged by just one or several guys over a loooong period of time? You could argue that improvised blues and fusion is way more deeper because it happens right in a moment and is being created almost instantly right from synapses onto the instrument and is changing its beauty on every evening (yes, classical music sounds different of every gig too ... sometimes the oboe is a bit upfront and the string section played it more magic ... but is always the same repeating structure with a few variables) ... while at the same time someone couldn't stand the sound of e.g. Mahavishnu Orchestra because the complexity slowly becomes "noise" to him. The same "noise" which Jay may experience when listening to Meshuggah ... etc. etc.
> 
> If you say that there is a definite ultimate complex music defined on standards, you can also say that for everything on this planet can be measured one thing of each category ultimately complex too. How about religion? Is there an ultimate religion? Is there an ultimate race? Is there an ultimate love? Are two couples have a more perfect relationship then others, measured on what? Is there an ultimate reason or meaning of trying to define THE ultimate greatest music?
> 
> I can't find it right now, but I remember seeing some video of an autist woman who was creating music and notes by moving her finger of a hand under flowing water out of a faucet! She explained how she does it ... if you see it with your complex, sophistcated classical brain. Do you have a right to say, poor woman, can't appreciate Beethoven!?
> There are studies of people with epilepsy and everytime they are experiencing a specific kind of a seizure they experience the ultimate godlike moment. Some are eagerly waiting when it happens next because what they experience is far more beautiful and complex than anything else on this planet!
> 
> ... and then there are people who try to define classical music as the nonplusultra ... with a brain which maybe doesn't "receive" at full capacity?! Think about it!
Click to expand...


On the improvisation point:

If we take Bill Evans, who I and many consider a giant if not the greatest jazz pianist, so you think his best works were strictly improvised? As I understand he would plan out carefully and in more details we think his improvisations, which resulted more depth and greater legacy. More later, gotta go.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Musicologo wrote:



> It's just a pitty that some people never follow their arguments till the end and I feel incomplete.



Frankly, I get the feeling that you're the only one who hasn't followed his arguments through, and who has a problem accepting that word games aren't always the same thing as reality.

re-peat did a great job of explaining what we all know intuitively. He has more patience than I do.

Inductance, part of the beauty of music is that you *can't* define exactly what makes it great. That's why it's called *an art* - its beauty is intangible. You can list all kinds of attributes most if not all great music shares, but then there are also billions of examples of crappy music that has all of them.

And we all know that, and we all know that's why this is such a silly discussion! I'm with BoulderBrow - let's talk to girls instead of having such a manly discussion.

Or let's go back to the original topic about where the great music is, not whether it exists!

***
Alex, I don't think anyone has said that only classical or only concert music is great, much less that it has to be notated to be great. The most amazing concert I ever went to was Miles Davis in 1985, and other than the lead sheets that stuff wasn't written down. Yet every note was perfect.


----------



## Waywyn

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Alex, I don't think anyone has said that only classical or only concert music is great, much less that it has to be notated to be great. The most amazing concert I ever went to was Miles Davis in 1985, and other than the lead sheets that stuff wasn't written down. Yet every note was perfect.



Yep I know, the notation probably wasn't my best example! Have to admit!
Yet there are people who think that Miles is crap, while they admire Beethoven.
I guess their antennas are somewhat in a wrong angle only partly covered with aluminium foil :lol:

Anyway, I think SergeD used an pretty easy yet perfect example of what I was trying to say with religion, race and so on ...


----------



## Arbee

Guy Bacos @ Thu Mar 14 said:


> Arbee @ Wed Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob @ Wed Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beethoven's sonatas are an incredible work of art....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was about 9, my music teacher would only let me play Beethoven sonatas for months on end. To me, Beethoven's sonatas became the work of the devil, not of art :wink:
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope you're not saying piano teachers should have a more open mind and if they feel Barry Manilow is a better and more fun way to start off a piano student rather than Bach, Clementi and Beethoven, they should not hesitate to do so?
> 
> On the other hand, Manilow does write the songs the whole world sings.
Click to expand...

 :lol: I always blame Beethoven for driving me from classical piano to rock guitar although I found my way back eventually :D

.


----------



## Hannes_F

re-peat, thank you for participating here, I was waiting for that tbh.

Please do me a favor and don't delete it again before I can brood on it a bit


----------



## Arbee

Wow, thanks re-peat for wading into this, your input is very much appreciated. 

The issue of "absolute" points of reference is an intriguing one. When one signs up for university or any long term formal education, one is really signing up for what I call "voluntary indoctrination", and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense at all. This frequently results in the establishment of absolutes in people's minds, and again I don't mean anything negative in saying that (I've willingly done it in several fields during my life). If I take Einstein as an example, the magic here is to fully understand and respect the absolutes as taught while retaining the ability to think creatively and challenge those absolutes. Isn't this how the world evolves, by respectfully challenging "sacred cows" that many believe to be absolute truths?

.


----------



## Musicologo

re-peat thank you so much for writing such an extensive text that was a pleasure to read and digest. This is the kind of discussion I like to have, with concrete reasoning and arguments and that can lead to someplace.

I understood quite well why you think what you think and how you reached your conclusions. However, I still find it flawed and I can you explain why, based on the same assumptions you think I'm flawed!... lol



> Where your argument falls flat on its ugly map, Musicologo, is that you appear to appreciate/approach/value music mainly based on how it is perceived rather than on what it actually is.



Exactly this.

We are humans. We have access to the world through our senses and we build reality and a sense of reality based on that. On perception! 

You seem to have a concept of an IDEAL music, and IDEAL reality that is there beyond us. You seem to conceive a world that just lies there indifferent to us.

Well, you might be true. Reality is out there. but our only way to access it is to our flawed, imperfect, skewed perception.

My perception of reality is mine. Yours is yours. And everyone else is each one. That is why there are no universals concerning music, art, science or whatsoever.

The consensus is built trough language (wittgenstein studied this very deeply, how our language was our world!) and a series of cultural conventions. We only share some things out of sharing the same background and cultural conventions, yet we differ in so many other things because we grew up in so different conditions...!


So yes. My mind is closed because I can only see that dark alley... My senses only show me that..

But guess what, yours too! and everyone else's! We only have access to a tiny portion of reality.

So your ideal that music is there, and great music is there and there is a way to grasp it without using our flawed senses and our cultural constructs seems very suspicious to me... seems more faith or romanticized than anything else.

You may believe that you can grasp that ideal out of nowhere with paranormal senses. I don't think so, I have no evidence of that whatsoever. Therefore I believe we only grasp that with our senses and only what we perceive is real.

"Beauty in in the eye of the beholder"... the cliché is true. 

When we talk about music we are talking about ourselves not about the work. I support your words there - me enjoying dulce pontes says a lot more about me than about dulce pontes. You admiring beethoven and believing in extrasensorial capacities says a lot about you too. 

I reaffirm what I said before: I only believe in universals when it comes to things that we ALL share. Like a heart beat at around 60. That sense is universal. it's objective it's there. 

Now "the interplay in beethoven" is symbolic and it's only in the mind of those ones who grew into that tradition and studied it. - so it's tautology : only the ones who studied those values will perceive them. Only the ones who perceive them (as you referred) are "privileged" to realize they're there! Not everyone can grasp them. Of course not, because not everyone had those values in the first place! So the values make you perceive greatness, and because you perceive that greatness you assume it was there regardless of you perceiving it or not! oh my... :roll:


----------



## Waywyn

Thx Musicologist!
It gets even weirder when realizing that we just roughly perceive 1% visually and acoustically of the whole electromagnetic spectrum!


----------



## Waywyn

Thx Musicologist!
It gets even weirder when realizing that we just roughly perceive 1% visually and acoustically of the whole electromagnetic spectrum!


----------



## Arbee

Waywyn @ Thu Mar 14 said:


> Thx Musicologist!
> It gets even weirder when realizing that we just roughly perceive 1% visually and acoustically of the whole electromagnetic spectrum!


OK, my brain just exploded ~o) 

.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

And yet the amplitude range of what we do hear within the spectrum we perceive is a range of about 10 million to 1. Our threshold of hearing is about 200 trillionths of an atmosphere; one atmosphere is the weight of air pushing down on us.

The ear is pretty freaking amazing.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I'm understanding is that some are saying that there is no way you could prove that one thing is better than another, and in our discussions, it's about composers. That's all nice and dandy if you want to get philosophical about life. However, the point that some of us in this thread are trying to make is that there have been some widely agreed consensus over the centuries on what is of greater interest musically to us. What would be the point of conning people into what's better music? If Bach is considered so great, it's because his greatness has been supported over and over again, through several centuries. It has been supported by who? By the living people of our planet. Other than that, there is no way to prove his greatness, so you can get as philosophical as you want and believe that Beethoven's 9th has no more value than Barry Manilow, you can say that, if you want. At some point you have to accept some consensus, doesn't mean you have to like that music, but at least appreciate that some things are of the highest quality. I've mentioned before, the late Normand Corbeil, an excellent film composer, surely didn't write in the style of Bach, however, was able to admit Bach was the greatest composer of all time. If you ask John Williams the same question, I suspect he will say one of the great composers as we know, maybe Beethoven or Stravinsky, but I doubt very much he'll say Barry Manilow. So this is reality and we have to deal with that. What is behind all these great composers? An incredible refined craft, now you want to dismiss this with just some nice philosophy, you could do that, but as much as some people will agree with you, you'll never be able to take away the immense support these composers have had in the last centuries and will continue to have as long as there is life on this planet. If that doesn't mean anything to you, than I don't know what will.


----------



## Arbee

Guy, maybe I'm not following the diverse contributions to this thread correctly, but I'm not sure that anyone is disputing the accepted greatness of Bach and all the other incredible composers who have led us to this point in time. Perhaps one of the underlying questions is "if we accept that the greatest music of all time has already been composed, where do we go from here?". How do we take this highly skilled craft and project it into our current electrified, computerised world where the available palette is so vast and so different, as is the social environment in which art needs to evolve, and not just be admired as an iconic museum piece.

.


----------



## synergy543

@re-peat - very eloquent and clearly stated. I wish I could write like that. You inspire me to try (in my spastic way).

I think the problem with this discussion is that some people are trying to rationalize aesthetics with logic and science. It doesn't work any more than trying to define what 'consciousness' is with logic and science. It can't be quantified and therefore, as much as we 'know' that we do have a conscious, we can't discuss it scientifically as we really don't know enough about it yet. Thus, the study of psychology is a far less accurate than the science of physics. Even scientist such as Feynman were able to appreciate the differences and beauty of both science and art. Can we as artists not also recognize these differences in order to have a meaningful discussion about our craft?

Music, like consciousness, is similarly hard to quantify and measure scientifically as it is an aesthetic art. But what is art? Art is only art when it is appreciated by someone. Thus one man's art is another man's garbage. And as Guy and re-peat say, we have come to some general consensus's among those who appreciate and understand various composer's works over the past few centuries. And in discussing these works, we have to step out of the realm of individual perception (or one's limited perception - my cat for example likes certain kinds of sounds but not others although it would be ridiculous for me to argue that therefore some of those sounds are more musical than others). And, out of the realm of scientific and pure logic analysis as it impossible to quantify in that way. Otherwise, its like trying to discuss religions with scientific logic (which however Mark Twain succeeded quite well with in his "Letters from Earth"). Thus, we can recognize musical greatness based on historical consensus and yet still prefer another genre or composer.

We can only have a sensible discussion on the greatness of music when we agree to narrow the defining criteria to respecting those who have devoted their lifetimes to a having a deeper understanding of the genre we are discussing. This doesn't negate the Blues, the Beatles or Headbangers from possibly being great within their specific genres. But these are not classical composers nor orchestral music (was that the implied topic? Maybe not?). So to have any kind of meaningful and sensible discussion, we must limit our discussion to certain criteria such as the genre, the fact that its based on human experience and familiarity within that genre, and recognition that it is still 'aesthetic choices' we are discussing so there will still be varying 'qualified' opinions by experts (not cats and children).

Without such limitations to a discussion, it becomes a ridiculous internet free-for-all that makes Idiocracy look like a laudable goal to aspire towards (Electrolytes anyone?). I wish in threads such as this, we could leave the trolls behind and elevate the discussion to a higher level by recognizing the limitations and restrictions required to have such a discussion. However, on an internet forum, this may not be possible.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Even scientist such as Feynman were able to appreciate the differences and beauty of both science and art.



He was also an excellent drummer!

And you're saying the same thing I, re-pete, Jay, and I think other people have written in this thread, just in different words (not that they're not good ones!).

Guess why? Because this is one of the stupidest conversations in the history of stupidity. Musicologo's arguments are just annoying enough to tempt immature people like me to want to argue with them instead of leaving him to his philosophy wanking.


----------



## Inductance

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Inductance, part of the beauty of music is that you *can't* define exactly what makes it great. That's why it's called *an art* - its beauty is intangible.



I agree 100%. If we could objectively define "good" music, then it would no longer be art. It would be science. Then we could simply sit down at our desks and follow our formulas and write, depending on how "good" we wanted our music to be that day. And anyone else that heard our music would agree on the level of "good." 

That sounds kind of boring to me. 

Now, I know what I like to hear in music, so I can certainly appreciate a skilled performer or a well-written composition. But I don't listen to music to assess skill or to judge a composer's use of music theory. I listen to it to enjoy it--an emotional response.


----------



## Musicologo

This is not necessarily stupid. This just fits the purpose of enlightening a discussion and provide some background for new perspectives pertaining the topic. As an ethnomusicologist after having these assumptions sorted out, one can understand easily that if you can't measure great music outside a scope of social and cultural values (as synergy very well said), this will lead that what is relevant is not "music" but "the processes". What happened in order to get "the music".

And THAT is the main point of this topic. Because the XX century changed the whole process of making music, like symbolic notation already did in 1300.

You are judging all that greatness in orchestral music after bach, roughly because he was the first composer to achieve "greatness" in mastering the craft of symbolic notation! Without it, and prior to notation you have emptiness because you couldn't make music that way.

Well, we are living a new paradigm now, because you have THE COMPUTER, a new tool that also enhances the possibility of making music in a whole new way - namely mastering the craft of synthesis, of sonic objects, sampling, impossible textures to obtain in real life, and even impossible spaces or combinations.

Basically, this NEW craft will set a change in the way music is faced, valued and judged.

Alas, is setting right now. But history is always seen according to the past and constantly rewritten.

So, What I am saying -again - is that the great music and composer are already out there. But they are still not being evaluated according to those values, at least by not many of his peers, historicists neither taught in schools. 

THE PROCESS is not moving yet!...

In conclusion:
I believe in 200 years or so, people from that time, living under those values will look back, put all into perspective and say "Composer X was a master in crafting all these tools - not only he understood symbolic notation perfectly, he dominated technology as well - he was the greatest!!"

We are not able to see the world through those lenses yet, so we can't predict exactly who are they going to be. I'm just saying they already exist. 

And if the world population changes in shift the centers of power (which is already happening) - for instance the indians really having a bigger impact on the planet and its history, then you can even re-write history from another not euro-centric perspective and reach the conclusion that an indian bollywood composer was the greatest - because he dominated several theoretical systems and crafts and that Lata mangeshkar was for sure the "greatest singer of all times" (anyone wants to contest on this one? - I can easily see this happening).

It takes time, but it will depend on what society we will have in the future and what values will be valued. They keep changing. That's all I am saying. So yes, bachs and beethovens are "the greatest" now, under our glasses, but there already other "greatest" ones out there under other glasses and time will make justice for them.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Arbee @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Guy, maybe I'm not following the diverse contributions to this thread correctly, but I'm not sure that anyone is disputing the accepted greatness of Bach and all the other incredible composers who have led us to this point in time. Perhaps one of the underlying questions is "if we accept that the greatest music of all time has already been composed, where do we go from here?". How do we take this highly skilled craft and project it into our current electrified, computerised world where the available palette is so vast and so different, as is the social environment in which art needs to evolve, and not just be admired as an iconic museum piece.
> 
> .



When I mentioned craftsmanship way back in this thread, it was dismissed for the reason that today we have the same equivalent but through other forms. I believe musicologo said something like that. So is that saying that Bruce Swedien is a modern equivalent of Beethoven? I'm sure Swedien developed his craft and has a lot of merit, but does that put him as the same level as Beethoven? So for me, this argument doesn't cut it. So back to the main issue, I'm not sure what the answer is, even though I've talked about this in an earlier thread, but I'm not ready to say there are hundreds of modern Beethovens in our society today.

But hey, this doesn't mean there still won't be excellent composers.


----------



## Musicologo

A tiny more "provocation" or not into the fire, that NOONE mentioned yet: I can easily see it happening and already have some evidence that the process could go that way - that Frank Zappa was clearly the greatest composer of the XX century. He mastered and fused the relevant concepts and worlds, and left behind a legacy of theory and aforisms and explanations to support it. He has all the "ingredients" to be picked up by future peers and historicists to get mediated into the relevant canons.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Give it a rest!


----------



## Inductance

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> It gets even weirder when realizing that we just roughly perceive 1% visually and acoustically of the whole electromagnetic spectrum!



Alex beat me to it! I was planning to point out something similar while at work, but I didn't get around to it.

The range of human hearing is from around 20Hz to around 20kHz--it varies slightly from person to person. There is also a lower limit we can hear when it comes to low volume, and an upper limit that will utterly destroy the eardrum.

Also, we evolved in a nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere, which serves as a medium for the soundwaves our ears perceive. If the atmosphere were denser, or thinner, or if its chemical composition were different, perhaps our hearing would have evolved differently. Or perhaps not at all.

Even our perception of time might have been determined by evolution. We've never had to dodge extremely fast predators the way some insects do--all the animals that might eat us come after us at "medium" speed compared to how the insect world moves. So moving around the world at "medium" speed probably affected our perception of events in time, i.e. what we think of as "fast" and "slow."

All of the above (and probably much more) affects how we perceive music. The notes seem louder, quieter, shriller, or softer to our ears as they react to the pressure exerted by soundwaves as they move the air. And a musical piece seems "faster" or "slower" to us because of how we perceive time. 

Now, we could probably use some of the above to come up with an objective definition of what "good" music is. But what if one day we met an alien that perceives the universe in a completely different way? What if his ears are more, or less sensitive, or they're more sensitive than ours in certain ranges but less sensitive in another range? What if he doesn't have ears? What if he "hears" electromagnetism instead, something we as humans can't perceive? Can we explain to him what beautiful music is? Probably not. Our definition wouldn't be meaningful to him. Beautiful music can't be objectively defined. On the other hand, we could probably explain to him the concept of "meters" and "kilograms" without much problem, and given these objective definitions, he'd probably be able to make measurements that agree with ours. 

As others have pointed out, most of us would probably agree with each others' opinions of what is "good" music or not. But that doesn't mean there's an objective definition.


----------



## Guy Bacos

synergy543 @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> @re-peat - very eloquent and clearly stated. I wish I could write like that. You inspire me to try (in my spastic way).
> 
> I think the problem with this discussion is that some people are trying to rationalize aesthetics with logic and science. It doesn't work any more than trying to define what 'consciousness' is with logic and science. It can't be quantified and therefore, as much as we 'know' that we do have a conscious, we can't discuss it scientifically as we really don't know enough about it yet. Thus, the study of psychology is a far less accurate than the science of physics. Even scientist such as Feynman were able to appreciate the differences and beauty of both science and art. Can we as artists not also recognize these differences in order to have a meaningful discussion about our craft?
> 
> Music, like consciousness, is similarly hard to quantify and measure scientifically as it is an aesthetic art. But what is art? Art is only art when it is appreciated by someone. Thus one man's art is another man's garbage. And as Guy and re-peat say, we have come to some general consensus's among those who appreciate and understand various composer's works over the past few centuries. And in discussing these works, we have to step out of the realm of individual perception (or one's limited perception - my cat for example likes certain kinds of sounds but not others although it would be ridiculous for me to argue that therefore some of those sounds are more musical than others). And, out of the realm of scientific and pure logic analysis as it impossible to quantify in that way. Otherwise, its like trying to discuss religions with scientific logic (which however Mark Twain succeeded quite well with in his "Letters from Earth"). Thus, we can recognize musical greatness based on historical consensus and yet still prefer another genre or composer.
> 
> We can only have a sensible discussion on the greatness of music when we agree to narrow the defining criteria to respecting those who have devoted their lifetimes to a having a deeper understanding of the genre we are discussing. This doesn't negate the Blues, the Beatles or Headbangers from possibly being great within their specific genres. But these are not classical composers nor orchestral music (was that the implied topic? Maybe not?). So to have any kind of meaningful and sensible discussion, we must limit our discussion to certain criteria such as the genre, the fact that its based on human experience and familiarity within that genre, and recognition that it is still 'aesthetic choices' we are discussing so there will still be varying 'qualified' opinions by experts (not cats and children).
> 
> Without such limitations to a discussion, it becomes a ridiculous internet free-for-all that makes Idiocracy look like a laudable goal to aspire towards (Electrolytes anyone?). I wish in threads such as this, we could leave the trolls behind and elevate the discussion to a higher level by recognizing the limitations and restrictions required to have such a discussion. However, on an internet forum, this may not be possible.



+1


----------



## Arbee

Musicologo @ Thu Mar 14 said:


> A tiny more "provocation" or not into the fire, that NOONE mentioned yet: I can easily see it happening and already have some evidence that the process could go that way - that Frank Zappa was clearly the greatest composer of the XX century. He mastered and fused the relevant concepts and worlds, and left behind a legacy of theory and aforisms and explanations to support it. He has all the "ingredients" to be picked up by future peers and historicists to get mediated into the relevant canons.


Well, I'm from that era and haven't thought about Frank Zappa for many years let alone a lifetime. Guy and I have reached consensus on this one - give it a rest! :wink:  

.


----------



## Inductance

Guy Bacos @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I'm understanding is that some are saying that there is no way you could prove that one thing is better than another, and in our discussions, it's about composers.



Well, I think we could kind of measure a performer's proficiency with his instrument. And I suppose we could test a composer on his knowledge of music theory. These would be kind of objective. But I think we'd all agree that a person could pass these tests and still be considered a mediocre composer. 

So how do we measure "good" music?



Guy Bacos @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> At some point you have to accept some consensus, doesn't mean you have to like that music, but at least appreciate that some things are of the highest quality.



Hm... So if most people prefer Coke over Pepsi, does that mean that Coke IS better?

I have no problem with consensus. In regards to Bach, I'd be in agreement. But what about the guy that likes Pepsi? Is he "wrong"?



Guy Bacos @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> So this is reality and we have to deal with that. What is behind all these great composers? An incredible refined craft, now you want to dismiss this with just some nice philosophy, you could do that, but as much as some people will agree with you, you'll never be able to take away the immense support these composers have had in the last centuries and will continue to have as long as there is life on this planet. If that doesn't mean anything to you, than I don't know what will.



Whoa, whoa! I'm certainly not trying to take anything away from anyone. I am just one guy, chugging along, trying to make sense of the world during the short time I'm here! I don't think anyone is trying to take away anything from anyone. We just happen to have a different opinion, that's all. 

Unfortunately, I didn't get much of a chance when I was younger to study music theory, so I'm trying to catch up as an adult. I do so because I believe this will help me express myself better musically--it will help me say what I want to say. But does this mean that I am "more right" than an electronic music artist that chooses to learn synths and sound design instead of music theory? I don't think so.


----------



## Musicologo

Thanks everyone for helping me out building an entire argument from scratch up to a conclusion.
I've copied my entire text into a document and this will be an essay! It was very fun to do this and I've organized a lot of "lose" ideas along the way. This is pure reasoning happening in real time and a fun way to write pages and pages of stuff.

I hope noone gets mad or pissed off, or takes personally with these rhetorical exercises. They are just that.

Now I'm back to 2 chord songs and danny-elfmanish cues  not great but I like them. And believe me I need much help improving that craft!


----------



## Rob

Musicologo @ 14th March 2013 said:


> Thanks everyone for helping me out building an entire argument from scratch up to a conclusion.
> I've copied my entire text into a document and this will be an essay! It was very fun to do this and I've organized a lot of "lose" ideas along the way. This is pure reasoning happening in real time and a fun way to write pages and pages of stuff.
> 
> I hope noone gets mad or pissed off, or takes personally with these rhetorical exercises. They are just that.
> 
> Now I'm back to 2 chord songs and danny-elfmanish cues  not great but I like them. And believe me I need much help improving that craft!



I'm going to ignore all of your future posts :mrgreen:


----------



## Waywyn

Guy Bacos @ Thu Mar 14 said:


> I suspect he will say one of the great composers as we know, maybe Beethoven or Stravinsky, but I doubt very much he'll say Barry Manilow. So this is reality and we have to deal with that.



Guy, why do I have the impression that you didn't get what I was trying to say? OF COURSE no composer will never ever consider Manilow to be a complex or great composer! But you have to include not just the perception or music understanding by a musically trained person. You have to include ALL human beings. This is the point!... and if one would state that e.g. people who are not understanding Beethoven are somehow shallow, stupid, unintelligent or however you want to express it, then this is simply not fair!


----------



## Arbee

I suspect this thread is getting to the end of its natural life (some would argue "well past" ). In closing off I'll just say that whoever the great composers of the present and future are, I suspect their music will not be appreciated purely from score notation (although the main structure will still display at least some of the craft), you will actually have to _hear it_, as the recorded soundscape will be as important as the structure and form.

Again, thanks to everyone for pitching in on this thread. I intentionally avoided the word "orchestra" in my original question to see where it went.

.


----------



## germancomponist

*Good reads, re-peat and synergy543!*

My too cents: Discussing about quality is something completely different than to discuss about preferences for something. The quality of a poorly crafted song is not getting better because it is liked by many. A tearjerker novel has by far not the level of the great poets just because it is read by many people. 

Apples & pears!

But, don't get me wrong: Everyone should listen to the music that he likes. No question!


----------



## re-peat

Waywyn @ Thu Mar 14 said:


> You have to include ALL human beings. This is the point!... and if one would state that e.g. people who are not understanding Beethoven are somehow shallow, stupid, unintelligent or however you want to express it, then this is simply not fair!


No, you don't have to include all human beings. Sorry to have to break it to you but the animal known as 'human' is an extremely varied species, ranging from utter imbeciles to specimen of amazing ability. You can't expect that all human self-expression has to appeal to all human beings in similar measure before it is worthy of our consideration, respect and admiration, can you? If you apply that parameter, you'll be left with frightfully little to begin with, and whatever measly crumbs you're left with, will be, without exception, of the most mediocre and compromised quality.

Nobody of sane mind writes to please all of the people all of the time. Some have foolishly tried, they all failed. Even God.

Beethoven didn't write for my sister. Well, maybe he hoped he did, but my sister just isn't interested. Nor equipped to hear what Beethoven has to say. Her musical window is too small to begin with, and not turned in Beethoven's direction anyway. Not Beethoven's fault, is it? See, if Beethoven were writing for my sister and get her attention, he wouldn't have been Beethoven. He'd have been an entirely different composer. He would have had to turn out short, simple tuneful ditties that don't require any effort whatsoever to digest. He'd have to have been _Ludwig And His Tijuana Brass_. And we wouldn't have had the fabulous, mind-blowingly beautiful body of musical work we now have.

And it's the same with all art: 'Guernica' isn't for everybody. Nor is 'Ulysses'. And it's not Picasso's or Joyce's fault that large parts of the world's population remain deprived of the things they had to share. It's nobody's fault in fact. That's just how it is. Humans' varied nature. If Picasso and Joyce had to appeal to the "stupid, shallow and unintelligent' segment of the world's population --- and this segment *does* very much exist, I'd even venture to say that the majority belongs to it ---, we would never have heard about them. They wouldn't be remembered and treasured as the unique and important artists who have made our world a slightly better and more agreeable place to live in. Not for everybody maybe, but for a significant some.

All men are not equal. If you address one group, you inevitably loose the interest and attention of others. What appeals to one group, falls on deaf ears with another. Unfair? I don't think so. Besides, the shallow have their own pipers, masters, heroes and favorites.

People who excel at something, automatically distance themselves from the crowd (whether they like it or not). That is, in fact, what 'excellent' means: out-standing, as in "standing out from the crowd". And excellent musicians, those of unusual talent who commit themselves seriously and passionately to their art, with every creative fibre they have in their body and all the energy they can muster, deserve nothing less than equally serious and passionate attention. And serious and passionate attention requires (or at least assumes) intelligence, dedication, education and affinity. Unfortunately, intelligence and affinity are not distributed equally among all men, and as for dedication and education, that is up to each individual to decide for him/herself (assuming the option is there, of course).

There is nothing unfair about any of this, it seems to me (except for the option-to-educate-oneself not always being available in every part of the world, which is deplorable).

_


----------



## TheUnfinished

Although some wish to shut this thread down, I actually think we've just had some of the best, most interesting posts on either side of the argument.

However, one thing that has struck me... Is there a contradiction in saying that music shouldn't or even couldn't be judged purely on a logical, objective basis (as Musicologo has tried to do) and then declaring that it is an intuitive fact that Bach/Beethoven are the greatest (as re-peat did)?

Not that I'm disagreeing with the conclusion, just feeling a bit of a disconnect with the method.

All in all, I'm not convinced there's a massive disagreement in this thread. Certainly not with respect to what might be considered great music. The route might be different and some people might enjoy discussing the idea of ideas more than others, but I think this would have made a pub conversation we'd have all enjoyed in the real world.


----------



## Rob

re-peat @ 14th March 2013 said:


> Waywyn @ Thu Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to include ALL human beings. This is the point!... and if one would state that e.g. people who are not understanding Beethoven are somehow shallow, stupid, unintelligent or however you want to express it, then this is simply not fair!
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't have to include all human beings. Sorry to have to break it to you but the animal known as 'human' is an extremely varied species, ranging from utter imbeciles to specimen of amazing ability. You can't expect that all human self-expression has to appeal to all human beings in similar measure before it is worthy of our consideration, respect and admiration, can you? If you apply that parameter, you'll be left with frightfully little to begin with, and whatever measly crumbs you're left with, will be, without exception, of the most mediocre and compromised quality.
> 
> Nobody of sane mind writes to please all of the people all of the time. Some have foolishly tried, they all failed. Even God.
> 
> Beethoven didn't write for my sister. Well, maybe he hoped he did, but my sister just isn't interested. Nor equipped to hear what Beethoven has to say. Her musical window is too small to begin with, and not turned in Beethoven's direction anyway. Not Beethoven's fault, is it? See, if Beethoven were writing for my sister and get her attention, he wouldn't have been Beethoven. He'd have been an entirely different composer. He would have had to turn out short, simple tuneful ditties that don't require any effort whatsoever to digest. He'd have to have been _Ludwig And His Tijuana Brass_. And we wouldn't have had the fabulous, mind-blowingly beautiful body of musical work we now have.
> 
> And it's the same with all art: 'Guernica' isn't for everybody. Nor is 'Ulysses'. And it's not Picasso's or Joyce's fault that large parts of the world's population remain deprived of the things they had to share. It's nobody's fault in fact. That's just how it is. Humans' varied nature. If Picasso and Joyce had to appeal to the "stupid, shallow and unintelligent' segment of the world's population --- and this segment *does* very much exist, I'd even venture to say that the majority belongs to it ---, we would never have heard about them. They wouldn't be remembered and treasured as the unique and important artists who have made our world a slightly better and more agreeable place to live in. Not for everybody maybe, but for a significant some.
> 
> All men are not equal. If you address one group, you inevitably loose the interest and attention of others. What appeals to one group, falls on deaf ears with another. Unfair? I don't think so. Besides, the shallow have their own pipers, masters, heroes and favorites.
> 
> People who excel at something, automatically distance themselves from the crowd (whether they like it or not). That is, in fact, what 'excellent' means: out-standing, as in "standing out of the crowd". And excellent musicians, those of unusual talent who commit themselves seriously and passionately to their art, with every creative fibre they have in their body and all the energy they can muster, deserve nothing less than equally serious and passionate attention. And serious and passionate attention requires (or at least assumes) intelligence, dedication, education and affinity. Unfortunately, intelligence and affinity are not distributed equally among all men, and as for dedication and education, that is up to each individual to decide for him/herself (assuming the option is there, of course).
> 
> There is nothing unfair about any of this, it seems to me (except for the option-to-educate-oneself not always being available in every part of the world, which is deplorable).
> 
> _
Click to expand...


amen


----------



## Arbee

I can't argue with any of re-peat's last post, most eloquently communicated, thanks again for joining this thread.

.


----------



## Inductance

re-peat @ Thu Mar 14 said:


> He'd have to have been Ludwig And His Tijuana Brass. And we wouldn't have had the fabulous, mind-blowingly beautiful body of musical work we now have.



Agreed. He wouldn't have been the Beethoven we all love. 

But WHY is his body of work fabulous and mind-blowingly beautiful? It seems like people have moved from claiming that there's an objective means of measuring good music, to simply saying that we kind of, sort of feel good music. In our guts, I suppose.


----------



## reddognoyz

I just found out that the Pet Shop Boys are releasing a new album this June, so stay tuned! there could be some really amazing music happening there.........


----------



## Inductance

TheUnfinished @ Thu Mar 14 said:


> All in all, I'm not convinced there's a massive disagreement in this thread.



Yeah, there is. But those that think the thread should be shut down should consider that this debate has been going on for centuries.

Also, now we regard Beethoven as one of the greats, but in his day he had some very harsh critics--and many of them made comments about how his music was less than musical, was hard to follow, and was ruining the state of music.

In other words, the more things change... :roll:


----------



## Guy Bacos

Musicologo @ Thu Mar 14 said:


> Thanks everyone for helping me out building an entire argument from scratch up to a conclusion.
> I've copied my entire text into a document and this will be an essay! It was very fun to do this and I've organized a lot of "lose" ideas along the way. This is pure reasoning happening in real time and a fun way to write pages and pages of stuff.
> 
> I hope noone gets mad or pissed off, or takes personally with these rhetorical exercises. They are just that.
> 
> Now I'm back to 2 chord songs and danny-elfmanish cues  not great but I like them. And believe me I need much help improving that craft!



I'll have to go along with musicologo this time and time to move on. It was interesting to have this healthy debate and although we each have our opinions on the subject, I found it very interesting seeing different sides to this. 

This debate is far from being over, fresh blood now, and rebuttal over rebutall.  But time to do some composing now. o-[][]-o


----------



## Waywyn

Okay re-peat, I appreciate your detailed and well written posts, but according to you specific beings are not ready for specific music but I am still waiting for that answer of what you are trying to say. You mildly used the word „not ready" when you were talking about your sister, but all in all this means what? That your sister is less intelligent than you are? That her cognitive spectrum is distorted somehow? No matter what you would try to explain, you - according to what you say - are the same shallow/not ready yet person when it comes to e.g. Chinese language? Quantum physics? Space exploration? In the end whatever topic you choose.

Even though this really is an interesting topic, I have to move on here (to later on write some music for the shallow crowd j/k )


----------



## KEnK

SergeD @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Music itself is only a bunch of sounds collated together. As well as languages. The value, the quality itself can be weighted only if you possess the culture from where the music comes from.


I disagree-

I listen to a lot of "World Music".
W/o having cultural references, I can hear the difference between a beginner,
a pop artist, a true master of a given folk-form, and a high level virtuoso.

I'm talking mostly about Chinese, Middle Eastern and Indian traditions here.

Further- w/o speaking a language other than English, in my travels I always notice dialects. 
I can the hear difference between High Deutsch, Platt Deutsch and some other "East-German" dialects.

I once recognized that a native Swiss German speaker was in fact Italian.
I heard the difference.

I bring this up because you can hear a "quality" in various dialects.

I don't need to be an Architect to recognize the difference in quality between
a pre-fab apartment and an incredibly beautiful one of a kind building.

All things are not equal-
If that were so, then all things would at best be mediocre.

k


----------



## re-peat

Waywyn @ Thu Mar 14 said:


> (...) but all in all this means what? That your sister is less intelligent than you are? That her cognitive spectrum is distorted somehow? No matter what you would try to explain, you - according to what you say - are the same shallow/not ready yet person when it comes to e.g. Chinese language? Quantum physics? Space exploration? (...)


Modesty prevents me from going into too much detail regarding the intelligence level of the mighty De Ridder clan — my family, that is — but I can divulge this: my sister is in no way deficient in the intelligence department. She just doesn’t have a particularly remarkable gift for music, that’s all. A bit, yes, but nothing out of the ordinary. It happens. She plays the piano a bit, she sings in a choir (more out of a social than a musical urge), but when she turns to music to ‘enhance the moment’ in whatever way she expects music to do that, it is invariably ultra-lightweight stuff that she chooses. And when I say ‘ultra-light’, it really is ultra-light: flimsy hitparade-material from the sixties and seventies, easy listening, wallpaper-music, … that sort of thing. I can’t remember her ever having picked a piece of more serious music to listen to. I can’t even remember her ever actually having sat down to *really* listen to music at all. 
So, in short, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my sister, she simply doesn’t have her brain attuned to receive Beethoven and men or women of his ilk.

I never said that you *have* to like Beethoven to qualify as intelligent in my book. Oh no. I said that a modicum of intelligence is required to begin giving Beethoven the attention he deserves. And if you really want to get all the way inside Beethoven — eager to peel away layer after layer of both the microcosmos and the macrocosmos of his music —, you have to have not only intelligence, but also a significant musical talent and more than a fleeting acquaintance with the techniques and conventions that govern the symphonic tradition in general and those of Beethoven in particular. (It might sound like quite a bit of effort, but it isn’t. Not if you love music. It’s pure joy and the rewards are immense.)
But again: you don’t have to like Beethoven in this intense way, to earn my respect as a musician. Absolutely not. I know several admirable musicians to whom Beethoven means very little. Although, I find that anyone who is truly blessed with genuine musical talent and sensibilities, sooner or later discovers Beethoven and never returns.

As for me being possibly and partially shallow because I don’t know Chinese, I don’t think so. Well, no more shallow than anybody else is. In some respect or other, everybody can be declared ‘shallow’ in one or more areas, isn’t it? But isn’t that being just a little bit silly? 

I am, after all, a human being, flawed and limited in my own charming way, just like everybody else. And I can’t know or study everything, can I? Even if l wanted to. But, if I had all the time in the world, I might spend the necessary amount of it to learn Chinese, yes, but since that is not the case, I have to limit my time, talents and energy to satisfy those areas of my brain (or is ‘soul’ the word I want?) where the creative / intellectual / identity-defining hunger is experienced most acutely. And that area, for me, is music. And arts. Not Chinese, I’m afraid. I don’t even have enough time to satisfy my musical hunger, which is frustrating enough as it is already, so forgive me for deciding not to spend my precious time studying Chinese, fēicháng gǎnxiè.
Besides, one shouldn't spread oneself too thinly anyway. 

But yes, supposing I *did* have all the time in the world, I still wouldn’t nurture much of an interest in things like quantum physics or space exploration, or law, or military affairs, or economics, or reality-tv … Some areas of human endeavour will always remain a closed book to me. Just like my sister’s, my brain is also attuned the peculiar way it is. And none of those things I mentioned awaken the essence of me, you see. Music does. Through music I can be my most complete self, I find. Music brings out the best and the worst in me: the hero and the villain, the victor and the coward, the beauty and the beast, and I am — like it or not — defined by those extremes. You have to know who you are if you want to become all that you can be.

_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Alex, let's say that members of an indigenous tribe that has never been exposed to Western culture listens to some seriously great music. Their eyes roll in circles and their brain isn't able to process it.

(Never mind that I don't believe that's likely to happen, because as I said, music is a universal language.)

The music doesn't become less great; they just haven't learned how to process it. And going off into the limits of human perception - let alone our experience of time and space - is about as irrelevant as saying that our perception of the distance between two frets is wrong because it's ignoring Planck length differences.

Okay, it really is time to give it a rest.


----------



## germancomponist

Why pop music sucks.... .


----------



## Waywyn

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 14 said:


> Alex, let's say that members of an indigenous tribe that has never been exposed to Western culture listens to some seriously great music. Their eyes roll in circles and their brain isn't able to process it.
> 
> (Never mind that I don't believe that's likely to happen, because as I said, music is a universal language.)



Nick, sorry I got to "round it up" a little and add some more confetti to this ... but what would happen if they suddenly hear Manilow to finall fall on their knees and start praying o=?
PS: .. and re-peat thanks again for your detailed reply. Think I will read through that wholle thing with a bit of distance in a few days from now.


----------



## TheUnfinished

I think you meant "Why badly made, poorly thought through, amateur documentaries suck".

I'll take posts from Musicologo, re-peat, Alex and Guy over that nonsense every day of the week.



germancomponist @ Thu Mar 14 said:


> Why pop music sucks.... .


----------



## Niah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIpr0Qy5_m4


----------



## Sasje

I think pop music is the prostitution of music. It's hallmarks are: debasement, quick satisfaction, hammering beats, no real story line and lasts at most 5 minutes. Music for the body.

....Whereas renaissance, baroque and classical music is romantic intimacy. Music for the soul and spirit.

Sorry, couldn't help myself thinking it. :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Alex wrote:



> Nick, sorry I got to "round it up" a little and add some more confetti to this ... but what would happen if they suddenly hear Manilow to finall fall on their knees and start praying



That just means they're gay (not that there's anything wrong with that).

But seriously, I suspect that most of us (not including Sasje) love many kinds of music, not all of it music for the ages. Barry Manilow is lighter fare, that's all. I even like Gangnum Style - but don't tell anyone. 

And thank goodness not everything has to achieve heavyocity (in the Woody Allen sense, not the company).


----------



## Sasje

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 15 said:


> Alex wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nick, sorry I got to "round it up" a little and add some more confetti to this ... but what would happen if they suddenly hear Manilow to finall fall on their knees and start praying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just means they're gay (not that there's anything wrong with that).
> 
> But seriously, I suspect that most of us (not including Sasje) love many kinds of music, not all of it music for the ages. Barry Manilow is lighter fare, that's all. I even like Gangnum Style - but don't tell anyone.
> 
> And thank goodness not everything has to achieve heavyocity (in the Woody Allen sense, not the company).
Click to expand...



Hmmm... I like many different kinds of music. From ancient Greek music to the Metal wizardry of Meshuggah. 
Talk about contrast and the willingness to be open minded. The only genre I deeply loath is pop music. I refuse to open my mind to that pile of crap.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

http://thoughteconomics.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-role-of-music-in-human-culture.html (http://thoughteconomics.blogspot.com/20 ... lture.html)


----------



## Consona

Sasje @ Fri Mar 15 said:


> Talk about contrast and the willingness to be open minded. The only genre I deeply loath is pop music. I refuse to open my mind to that pile of crap.


Saying the whole genre is a pile of crap is very simplistic approach, isn't it?


----------



## germancomponist

http://thoughteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-role-of-music-in-human-culture.html


----------



## Musicologo

The wrap up: 
http://tiagovideira.com/2013/03/26/what ... after-all/


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Consona @ Tue Mar 19 said:


> Sasje @ Fri Mar 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about contrast and the willingness to be open minded. The only genre I deeply loath is pop music. I refuse to open my mind to that pile of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> Saying the whole genre is a pile of crap is very simplistic approach, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Yes, but sometimes the simple response is correct. :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I like Michelle Bachman's physics better than Einstein's therefore she's a genius physicist and he wasn't.


----------



## germancomponist

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> I like Michelle Bachman's physics better than Einstein's therefore she's a genius physicist and he wasn't.



Einstein got many of his ideas and theories from his wife. She was the genius and not he. Just google a little bit..... .


----------



## Musicologo

It seems to me that the whole main point and perspective regarding my "essay" and discussion regarding this post was missing and misleading or shutting off people around the core of the discussion:

In the era of digital age and technology, computers and digital media changed our perception and values regarding making and consuming music. However, it seems to me that history (and specially academia) haven’t reflected that change and still regard on values connected with symbolic musical notation to write their values – what was adequate to judge and value music that goes c. 1300 – 1950 in western world, is still being used as a paradigm, and often, erroneously applied to other musical traditions that do not and ever depended on that paradigm (namely popular music). I will try to challenge all those assumptions.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Oy gevalt.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Run for your life! This thread has opened up again!!


----------



## Musicologo

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Top0_xZayDU/T ... eanuts.jpg :twisted:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Shakespeare didn't write his own plays either, Gunther!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Why pop music doesn't suck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jLGa4X5H2c

(Earth Wind and Fire "Boogie Wonderland")


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Ooh!

I can't stop dancing!


----------



## Farkle

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> Why pop music doesn't suck:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jLGa4X5H2c
> 
> (Earth Wind and Fire "Boogie Wonderland")




OOO! OOO! I want to get in on this!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37ZaSINRDGM

- Toto, Africa -

I don't care if it's considered "pop drivel", I get a big smile on my face whenever I sing along with this, and the harmonies on the chorus are awesome!

Mike


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Farkle @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why pop music doesn't suck:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jLGa4X5H2c
> 
> (Earth Wind and Fire "Boogie Wonderland")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OOO! OOO! I want to get in on this!!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37ZaSINRDGM
> 
> - Toto, Africa -
> 
> I don't care if it's considered "pop drivel", I get a big smile on my face whenever I sing along with this, and the harmonies on the chorus are awesome!
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


Steve Porcaro is one of my Logic clients, I'll tell him.


----------



## Farkle

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> Farkle @ Tue Mar 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why pop music doesn't suck:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jLGa4X5H2c
> 
> (Earth Wind and Fire "Boogie Wonderland")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OOO! OOO! I want to get in on this!!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37ZaSINRDGM
> 
> - Toto, Africa -
> 
> I don't care if it's considered "pop drivel", I get a big smile on my face whenever I sing along with this, and the harmonies on the chorus are awesome!
> 
> Mike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Steve Porcaro is one of my Logic clients, I'll tell him.
Click to expand...


Hah! That's great, Jay, please do, and compliment him on some great writing and arranging for the Toto songs.

I use Toto when I teach my students at U of Arts, talking about how you can use smart jazz arranging techniques, and still make a fun, accessible "mainstream" pop song.

Mike


----------



## Arbee

Musicologo @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> It seems to me that the whole main point and perspective regarding my "essay" and discussion regarding this post was missing and misleading or shutting off people around the core of the discussion:
> 
> In the era of digital age and technology, computers and digital media changed our perception and values regarding making and consuming music. However, it seems to me that history (and specially academia) haven’t reflected that change and still regard on values connected with symbolic musical notation to write their values – what was adequate to judge and value music that goes c. 1300 – 1950 in western world, is still being used as a paradigm, and often, erroneously applied to other musical traditions that do not and ever depended on that paradigm (namely popular music). I will try to challenge all those assumptions.


I think what you're trying to say is that there are some very highly skilled blacksmiths who still believe the motor car is just a passing fad?

.


----------



## Musicologo

YES!
Not only that but that horses are the only thing that is real and great, and that car engines are inferior and will never be real horses.

Why should we even compare horses to car engines? All I care about is transportation and effective ways to move. I don't want to discuss horses neither car engines.


----------



## synergy543

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> Steve Porcaro is one of my Logic clients, I'll tell him.


Fine, and also tell Joseph (John William's son, the lead singer) to come on over and join vi-control. 

The blacksmith's here need some serious support. :wink:

We need Close Encounters of a different kind.


----------



## Justin Miller

Music is great as long as it fulfills it's purpose above and beyond expectation.
I think plenty of music does that today, actually more so than any other point in history. You just have to sift through the b/s because there's definitely more of that too.

If it's film music it must amplify the emotions of the movie goers.
If it's pop music then it must excite a very large amount of people, thus selling well and selling out concerts. 
If it's concert music... let's just say it's on a hiatus, and it's happened before.

All that matters is if it connects with the listener/viewer on a deep level, it will be great. Everything else (the "art") is a necessary step to learning the tools to connect better, but many of us are too caught up in this.


----------



## Arbee

synergy543 @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> The blacksmith's here need some serious support. :wink:


It's refreshing to see someone engage in this topic from a good humoured and secure state of mind - thanks 

.


----------



## Inductance

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> I like Michelle Bachman's physics better than Einstein's therefore she's a genius physicist and he wasn't.



But Einstein's equations give us measurable and repeatable results, which is how we determine whether a scientific theory is valid. In other words, they are provable.


----------



## Anonymous

Well...Joe Hisaishi 's alive...


----------



## Daryl

Inductance @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like Michelle Bachman's physics better than Einstein's therefore she's a genius physicist and he wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Einstein's equations give us measurable and repeatable results, which is how we determine whether a scientific theory is valid. In other words, they are provable.
Click to expand...

They are only provable to people who have the requisite knowledge to understand that proof. To apply that to music means that you would have to be qualified to be able to judge the quality of music, and in that case one would assume that qualified people would also come to the same conclusions. And they do. :lol: 

D


----------



## Darthmorphling

Daryl @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> Inductance @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like Michelle Bachman's physics better than Einstein's therefore she's a genius physicist and he wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Einstein's equations give us measurable and repeatable results, which is how we determine whether a scientific theory is valid. In other words, they are provable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are only provable to people who have the requisite knowledge to understand that proof. To apply that to music means that you would have to be qualified to be able to judge the quality of music, and in that case one would assume that qualified people would also come to the same conclusions. And they do. :lol:
> 
> D
Click to expand...


This is elitism to the nth degree. It is not possible to "experience" Einstein's theory of relativity. However, with music you do not have to understand how the major and minor collections are constructed to "experience" the great music that has been written using them. Even my kids can enjoy the great classical composers.

While I do agree that a musically educated person is able to appreciate the same music in a more "intellectual" way, that does not diminish the layperson's ability to judge great music.

Conversely, many academics tend to get bogged down in their knowledge and cannot simply enjoy great music from other genres. It's sad and laughable at the same time really.

Here is some music constructed with all of the rules of composition and it just plain sucks. Please use all of your "qualifications" to analyze and dissect it.



;/c] 

However, please enjoy the music that you enjoy! Life is to short to argue about such subjective things o-[][]-o 

Don
A highly educated educator, who is becoming more educated in music as each day passes.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Darthmorphling @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> [
> While I do agree that a musically educated person is able to appreciate the same music in a more "intellectual" way, that does not diminish the layperson's ability to judge great music.
> 
> /quote]
> 
> Yes, it does. My mom loves Jerry Herman and cannot appreciate Classical music but she is a highly intelligent woman and will readily concede that she is not as qualified as me as to judge their relative musical value.


----------



## Darthmorphling

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> Darthmorphling @ Wed Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> While I do agree that a musically educated person is able to appreciate the same music in a more "intellectual" way, that does not diminish the layperson's ability to judge great music.
> 
> /quote]
> 
> Yes, it does. My mom loves Jerry Herman and cannot appreciate Classical music but she is a highly intelligent woman and will readily concede that she is not as qualified as me as to judge their relative musical value.
Click to expand...


You are comparing a person's appreciation for great music with a judgement on its musical value. A person is perfectly capable of appreciating great music without understanding it's complex harmonic structure.

According to your logic you are more capable of appreciating how John Williams writes for brass and woodwinds than I am? For the simple reason that you have the academic knowledge to explain why he does it? True, that I am unable to write that way, and you may be able to, but that does not mean I am unable to appreciate how he uses instrumentation to convey his music.

Now I realize that the two sides of this argument are never going to agree so I will say that I respect your opinion, and knowledge, and will agree to disagree. o-[][]-o


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Darthmorphling @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darthmorphling @ Wed Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> While I do agree that a musically educated person is able to appreciate the same music in a more "intellectual" way, that does not diminish the layperson's ability to judge great music.
> 
> /quote]
> 
> Yes, it does. My mom loves Jerry Herman and cannot appreciate Classical music but she is a highly intelligent woman and will readily concede that she is not as qualified as me as to judge their relative musical value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing a person's appreciation for great music with a judgement on its musical value. A person is perfectly capable of appreciating great music without understanding it's complex harmonic structure.
> 
> According to your logic you are more capable of appreciating how John Williams writes for brass and woodwinds than I am? For the simple reason that you have the academic knowledge to explain why he does it? True, that I am unable to write that way, and you may be able to, but that does not mean I am unable to appreciate how he uses instrumentation to convey his music.
> 
> Now I realize that the two sides of this argument are never going to agree so I will say that I respect your opinion, and knowledge, and will agree to disagree. o-[][]-o
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes and no. Sure you (not literally you, but untrained people in general) are capable of _enjoying_ JW's brass writing as much as me, but not to truly _appreciate_ it as well as I can because if you are untrained you do not understand what makes it great, only that it sounds pleasing to you.


----------



## Lex

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> Yes and no. Sure you (not literally you, but untrained people in general) are capable of _enjoying_ JW's brass writing as much as me, but not to truly _appreciate_ it as well as I can because if you are untrained you do not understand what makes it great, only that it sounds pleasing to you.



You see this is where it gets very confusing for me. If your vast knowledge and education makes you understand and truly appreciate music that is truly great more then most people, how come you don't have the ability to apply any of that to your own work? I'm trying to understand how are they two completely separate things?

alex


----------



## Darthmorphling

> You see this is where it gets very confusing for me. If your vast knowledge and education makes you understand and truly appreciate music that is truly great more then most people, how come you don't have the ability to apply any of that to your own work? I'm trying to understand how are they two completely separate things?
> 
> alex



The way Jay quoted my original post made it look like his quotes were mine, and mine were his. 

My quote



> You are comparing a person's appreciation for great music with a judgement on its musical value. A person is perfectly capable of appreciating great music without understanding it's complex harmonic structure.
> 
> According to your logic you are more capable of appreciating how John Williams writes for brass and woodwinds than I am? For the simple reason that you have the academic knowledge to explain why he does it? True, that I am unable to write that way, and you may be able to, but that does not mean I am unable to appreciate how he uses instrumentation to convey his music.
> 
> Now I realize that the two sides of this argument are never going to agree so I will say that I respect your opinion, and knowledge, and will agree to disagree. o-[][]-o



Jay's quote



> Yes and no. Sure you (not literally you, but untrained people in general) are capable of _enjoying_ JW's brass writing as much as me, but not to truly _appreciate_ it as well as I can because if you are untrained you do not understand what makes it great, only that it sounds pleasing to you.



If this question was directed at Jay then never mind.


----------



## Lex

It was for Jay, I have edited the quote in my post so that it's less confusing.

alex


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Lex @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. Sure you (not literally you, but untrained people in general) are capable of _enjoying_ JW's brass writing as much as me, but not to truly _appreciate_ it as well as I can because if you are untrained you do not understand what makes it great, only that it sounds pleasing to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see this is where it gets very confusing for me. If your vast knowledge and education makes you understand and truly appreciate music that is truly great more then most people, how come you don't have the ability to apply any of that to your own work? I'm trying to understand how are they two completely separate things?
> 
> alex
Click to expand...


Because I am limited by my talent and intellect to whatever potential it can be. I can only make the most of what I have been blessed with.


----------



## Arbee

There is some danger I believe in deep musical knowledge making us better musicologists rather than better composers. Herein perhaps lies the difference between being driven by creative artistic expression and highly developed craftsmanship? Ideally both of course, and this in my view is what separates the good from the great.

.


----------



## Lex

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Lex @ Wed Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. Sure you (not literally you, but untrained people in general) are capable of _enjoying_ JW's brass writing as much as me, but not to truly _appreciate_ it as well as I can because if you are untrained you do not understand what makes it great, only that it sounds pleasing to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see this is where it gets very confusing for me. If your vast knowledge and education makes you understand and truly appreciate music that is truly great more then most people, how come you don't have the ability to apply any of that to your own work? I'm trying to understand how are they two completely separate things?
> 
> alex
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because I am limited by my talent and intellect to whatever potential it can be.
> 
> And IMHO, I AM a better composer than most. Certainly not great, but better than most.
Click to expand...


Then, does that mean that appreciating and truly understanding what is great music, and what makes it great is a skill that can be acquired by anyone and everyone who reads the right books about composing and orchestration theory?
Considering that your talent and skills are limited (compared to great music), you are basically saying that you are somehow more qualified to judge relative value of music simply because you studied basics of music composition and orchestration? 

_And IMHO, I AM a better composer than most. Certainly not great, but better than most._

We'll just agree to disagree on that one.

alex


----------



## Darthmorphling

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> Lex @ Wed Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. Sure you (not literally you, but untrained people in general) are capable of _enjoying_ JW's brass writing as much as me, but not to truly _appreciate_ it as well as I can because if you are untrained you do not understand what makes it great, only that it sounds pleasing to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see this is where it gets very confusing for me. If your vast knowledge and education makes you understand and truly appreciate music that is truly great more then most people, how come you don't have the ability to apply any of that to your own work? I'm trying to understand how are they two completely separate things?
> 
> alex
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I am limited by my talent and intellect to whatever potential it can be. I can only make the most of what I have been blessed with.
Click to expand...


So then your qualifications do not warrant the opinions you have been giving? :twisted:


----------



## Lex

Arbee @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> There is some danger I believe in deep musical knowledge making us better musicologists rather than better composers. Herein perhaps lies the difference between being driven by creative artistic expression and highly developed craftsmanship? Ideally both of course, and this in my view is what separates the good from the great.
> 
> .



Couldn't agree more. Probably the simplest and most accurate definition I saw.

Problem with majority of mediocrity is that often good musicologists get confused and think they are really good at creating , and talented creatives think that deep musical knowledge is over rated. 

alex


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Then, does that mean that appreciating and truly understanding what is great music, and what makes it great is a skill that can be acquired by anyone and everyone who reads the right books about composing and orchestration theory?



The answer is yes. But normal people don't even have to do all that - they just feel it.


----------



## Arbee

Lex @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Arbee @ Thu Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is some danger I believe in deep musical knowledge making us better musicologists rather than better composers. Herein perhaps lies the difference between being driven by creative artistic expression and highly developed craftsmanship? Ideally both of course, and this in my view is what separates the good from the great.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more. Probably the simplest and most accurate definition I saw.
> 
> Problem with majority of mediocrity is that often good musicologists get confused and think they are really good at creating , and talented creatives think that deep musical knowledge is over rated.
> 
> alex
Click to expand...

Exactly o-[][]-o


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Seriously, I have to explain this?

I grew up with basketball, played a little. I know the game really well because I have studied it. I understand the mechanics of setting screens, running the pick and roll, etc. and therefore I can tell you when a team is executing these well and when they are not.

But I am a 5,9" white guy with poor coordination and no leaping ability. so even if I had practiced the game 10 hours a day, I would never have been good enoguh to play for a good college team, much less the NBA.

But my knowledge DOES make me a better judge of a good basketball team than someone who does not have that knowledge.

It is not that difficult a concept, folks. The more you know, the better you can appreciate and judge. Knowledge IS power.


----------



## Lex

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Then, does that mean that appreciating and truly understanding what is great music, and what makes it great is a skill that can be acquired by anyone and everyone who reads the right books about composing and orchestration theory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is yes. But normal people don't even have to do all that - they just feel it.
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree more. Great music makes people feel, or it moves them, intrigues them, and they don't need all that at all. Which is why I am trying to understand Jay who is saying the exact opposite.

_"people in general) are capable of enjoying JW's brass writing as much as me, but not to truly appreciate it as well as I can because if you are untrained you do not understand what makes it great, only that it sounds pleasing to you."_

alex


----------



## Lex

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Seriously, I have to explain this?
> 
> I grew up with basketball, played a little. I know the game really well because I have studied it. I understand the mechanics of setting screens, running the pick and roll, etc. and therefore I can tell you when a team is executing these well and when they are not.
> 
> But I am a 5,9" white guy with poor coordination and no leaping ability. so even if I had practiced the game 10 hours a day, I would never have been good enoguh to play for a good college team, much less the NBA.
> 
> But my knowledge DOES make me a better judge of a good basketball team than someone who does not have that knowledge.
> 
> It is not that difficult a concept, folks. The more you know, the better you can appreciate and judge. Knowledge IS power.



Yeah, but you know but even in this ill chosen analogy you are forgetting one thing again. Credibility based on personal capabilities, talent and achievements. You don't have any in the field of judging the basketball teams, therefore you can't really judge anything, you can only have your personal preference for a certain team, like everyone else. You will make your preference based on vast basketball knowledge you have but without the credibility it has the exact same value as a preference of a person who picked their favorite team based on the color of their emblem.

Same thing in music, without the credibility you just have your personal preferences like everyone else.

alex


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

There's an intellectual side to music that you can only appreciate fully if you know what's going on. 

Why is any of this even an argument?!


----------



## spectrum

Lex @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> Yeah, but you know but even in this ill chosen analogy you are forgetting one thing again. Credibility is based on personal capabilities, talent and achievements. You don't have any in the field of judging the basketball teams, therefore you can't really judge anything, you can only have your personal preference for a certain team, like everyone else.


Not true. 

If that were the case then all referees, umpires, coaches, sports journalists, commentators and scouts would have to have been great players that achieved great things first. Very few have that kind of achievement level, yet they are the ones whose opinions and judgements are most in demand.

The same is true of music producers. Many great ones have not achieved great levels of achievement as artists or musicians themselves, however their vast knowledge is often the cornerstone of why they are good at what they do. 

So clearly, someone with a lot of knowledge and experience can often be a respected opinion in any given field. Their opinion is far more valued than an average person that is not particularly knowledgable about that field.

Certainly the most respected opinion comes from someone who has all the desired qualities: knowledge, experience and accomplishment. 

Obviously though, these people with every quality are more rare.




> Same thing in music, without the credibility you just have your personal preferences like everyone else.


Knowledge is one of the primary sources of building credibility.


----------



## Darthmorphling

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> There's an intellectual side to music that you can only appreciate fully if you know what's going on.
> 
> Why is any of this even an argument?!



Does great music need to be appreciated only from an academic standpoint? Can I not truly appreciate a great string quartet without understanding the subtle nuances of the different bowing techniques? Of course I can.

I am not arguing that the more knowledge you have in a subject, the better able to judge something from a pure academic standpoint. I am also not arguing that theoretical knowledge is overrated. In fact over the past year, due to many on this site, Jay included, have made me more eager to learn all that I can about music.

My only gripe is that many here believe that "average people" are incapable of "appreciating" great music. They can simply "enjoy" it.

Don


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Oh, I'm not saying that at all, Don. My argument is with the people who say that genius/great music is purely subjective. It isn't.

Eric, the late Joel Dorn is a perfect example. He produced "Killing Me Softly," among other things, yet he couldn't play a note of music (at least that's what he told me when I met him a few years ago).


----------



## Darthmorphling

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> Oh, I'm not saying that at all, Don. My argument is with the people who say that genius/great music is purely subjective. It isn't.
> 
> Eric, the late Joel Dorn is a perfect example. He produced "Killing Me Softly," among other things, yet he couldn't play a note of music (at least that's what he told me when I met him a few years ago).



That's good to hear. I don't think that great music is subjective. I do believe that people's perceptions of certain musical genres interferes with their ability to listen for greatness in all forms of music. Don't get me wrong, each genre has a lot of crap, but there are great composers to be found. I am not particularly fond of jazz, but I am well aware there is great jazz out there.

This whole thread started out complaining about the lack of quality music, but it is out there amidst all of the mediocrity. Many also complained that young musicians do not bother with learning theory, but in my search for theory lessons on line I have come across many lessons from young electronic musicians. All hope is not lost.


----------



## Arbee

Darthmorphling @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> This whole thread started out complaining about the lack of quality music....


That's not quite correct, there were deliberately two parts to my question - quote "So, with all that is available to us these days I'd expect to be hearing the most incredible music ever written. Where is it? _Or is it there and I'm not connecting with it?_"

The second part of the question was really about whether our traditional judgements of "great music" are broad enough since sound design also plays such an important role now.

Edit: my take from monitoring this thread throughout is that human beings tend to highly value the skills they have and devalue the skills they don't have, particularly if they suspect they should have them. I suspect you would get the same mix of responses on many other topics, it's not just about music.


.


----------



## Darthmorphling

Arbee @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> Darthmorphling @ Thu Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This whole thread started out complaining about the lack of quality music....
> 
> 
> 
> That's not quite correct, there were deliberately two parts to my question - quote "So, with all that is available to us these days I'd expect to be hearing the most incredible music ever written. Where is it? _Or is it there and I'm not connecting with it?_"
> 
> The second part of the question was really about whether our traditional judgements of "great music" are broad enough since sound design also plays such an important role now.
> 
> Edit: my take from monitoring this thread throughout is that human beings tend to highly value the skills they have and devalue the skills they don't have, particularly if they suspect they should have them. I suspect you would get the same mix of responses on many other topics, it's not just about music.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I stand corrected and I do agree with you in regards to how people value skills.


----------



## Lex

spectrum @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Lex @ Wed Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you know but even in this ill chosen analogy you are forgetting one thing again. Credibility is based on personal capabilities, talent and achievements. You don't have any in the field of judging the basketball teams, therefore you can't really judge anything, you can only have your personal preference for a certain team, like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> If that were the case then all referees, umpires, coaches, sports journalists, commentators and scouts would have to have been great players that achieved great things first. Very few have that kind of achievement level, yet they are the ones whose opinions and judgements are most in demand.
> 
> The same is true of music producers. Many great ones have not achieved great levels of achievement as artists or musicians themselves, however their vast knowledge is often the cornerstone of why they are good at what they do.
> 
> So clearly, someone with a lot of knowledge and experience can often be a respected opinion in any given field. Their opinion is far more valued than an average person that is not particularly knowledgable about that field.
> 
> Certainly the most respected opinion comes from someone who has all the desired qualities: knowledge, experience and accomplishment.
> 
> Obviously though, these people with every quality are more rare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing in music, without the credibility you just have your personal preferences like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Knowledge is one of the primary sources of building credibility.
Click to expand...


Well, you are just amplifying my point because I never said you need to be the best player, only that you need some credibility. Referees, umpires, coaches, sports journalists, commentators and scouts have all put their knowledge to use and reached various levels of credibility depending on how good they are at what they do. What credibility does Jay have in the world of basketball?

And yes knowledge is one of the primary sources of building credibility, but you still need to build it, as someone who has vast knowledge, experience and accomplishment in their field himself you know this better then most I presume.

alex


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Lex @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lex @ Wed Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. Sure you (not literally you, but untrained people in general) are capable of _enjoying_ JW's brass writing as much as me, but not to truly _appreciate_ it as well as I can because if you are untrained you do not understand what makes it great, only that it sounds pleasing to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see this is where it gets very confusing for me. If your vast knowledge and education makes you understand and truly appreciate music that is truly great more then most people, how come you don't have the ability to apply any of that to your own work? I'm trying to understand how are they two completely separate things?
> 
> alex
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because I am limited by my talent and intellect to whatever potential it can be.
> 
> And IMHO, I AM a better composer than most. Certainly not great, but better than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, does that mean that appreciating and truly understanding what is great music, and what makes it great is a skill that can be acquired by anyone and everyone who reads the right books about composing and orchestration theory?
> Considering that your talent and skills are limited (compared to great music), you are basically saying that you are somehow more qualified to judge relative value of music simply because you studied basics of music composition and orchestration?
> 
> _And IMHO, I AM a better composer than most. Certainly not great, but better than most._
> 
> We'll just agree to disagree on that one.
> 
> alex
Click to expand...


Well I deleted that last line for a reason and it would have been nice if you had respected that. I will only say that literally I get fan letters and PMs even here that say "I visited your website and I love your music." Can I ask your advice about......."

But that is beside the point, which is why I deleted that statement. As for "you are basically saying that you are somehow more qualified to judge relative value of music simply because you studied basics of music composition and orchestration? ", compared to someone who has not, yes. Any educated person's opinion on the subject they have studied should cary more weight than one of a person who is not. It is not definitive, but it should carry more weight.

This used to be generally understood by people when I was growing up and it is IMHO one of the really sad things about where modern culture has gone that in the service of misguided egalitarianism, it no longer is.

OK, I am done because I know my views are not in sync with most here so I will cease torturing the deceased equine.


----------



## Lex

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Well I deleted that last line for a reason and it would have been nice if you had respected that. I will only say that literally I get fan letters and PMs even here that say "I visited your website and I love your music." Can I ask your advice about......."
> 
> But that is beside the point, which is why I deleted that statement. As for "you are basically saying that you are somehow more qualified to judge relative value of music simply because you studied basics of music composition and orchestration? ", compared to someone who has not, yes. Any educated person's opinion on the subject they have studied should cary more weight than one of a person who is not. It is not definitive, but it should carry more weight.
> 
> This used to be generally understood by people when I was growing up and it is IMHO one of the really sad things about where modern culture has gone that in the service of misguided egalitarianism, it no longer is.
> 
> OK, I am done because I know my views are not in sync with most here so I will cease torturing the deceased equine.



I'm sorry mr. Asher, you have deleted that line after I have made the quote, and I didn't go back to re read the posts, so I couldn't have known.

As for educated person's opinion on the subject they have studied carrying lots of weight, it makes all the sense and it should work like that but in practice, especially in the art world, I have met far too many people who have excellent education coupled with poor taste, misguided talents and sketchy careers. All of them have this strange need to emphasis how their education is automatically putting them in a position where they can JUDGE the "relative value of art" (what an idiotic concept) better then those without education.

Which I find incredibly strange and hard to understand, this education gives one the ability to teach the others, make serious music analysis, orchestrate, conduct and many other amazing things that many people can't do. Why is this not great by itself and enough? Why this need to see yourself as someone who has the authority to judge better then others whats great and whats not. Without serious credibility this behavior is just funny if not sad.

alex


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Fair points, Alex, and believe me, I spend very little time and effort doing so myself. Hey, my favorite music to listen to is probably Burt Bacharach and The Beatles.

What simply riles me however is the assertion that "if I like it, it is as great as anything else" as if there are no empirical standards or ways to assess music. 

It is the principle that there ARE standards and people qualified to assess music by those standards that I am standing up for, not my right or qualification to make those judgments.

OK, can I please be out of this now?


----------



## rJames

I think we are mostly arguing semantics.

"Great," is the convergence of popular appeal and expert analysis (with popular appeal having the greater weight).

Beatles' songs were not "great," when they were just becoming popular in America. They were denigrated by a lot of experts; one being a professor I had at CSUF.

I don't think their construction was a part of the definition of "great," until that time. Now, their music defines "great," for some.

Where is the great music? Wait for it.


----------



## SergeD

Once, I heard that Beethoven was at the tavern when suddenly a guy came in with a Cd player and the Cd "Selling England By The Pound". Ludwig listened to it...

Wow, terrific, love it, it's a great orchestra... 
Actually, they're only five guys Ludwig...
Holy crap man, they're f...ing good...


----------



## Lex

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Fair points, Alex, and believe me, I spend very little time and effort doing so myself. Hey, my favorite music to listen to is probably Burt Bacharach and The Beatles.
> 
> What simply riles me however is the assertion that "if I like it, it is as great as anything else" as if there are no empirical standards or ways to assess music.
> 
> It is the principle that there ARE standards and people qualified to assess music by those standards that I am standing up for, not my right or qualification to make those judgments.
> 
> OK, can I please be out of this now?



Thank you mr. Asher.  I'll stop quoting you in this thread.

alex


----------



## Darthmorphling

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Fair points, Alex, and believe me, I spend very little time and effort doing so myself. Hey, my favorite music to listen to is probably Burt Bacharach and The Beatles.
> 
> What simply riles me however is the assertion that "if I like it, it is as great as anything else" as if there are no empirical standards or ways to assess music.
> 
> It is the principle that there ARE standards and people qualified to assess music by those standards that I am standing up for, not my right or qualification to make those judgments.
> 
> OK, can I please be out of this now?



I don't think that anyone is arguing that "if I like it, it is as great as anything else". Or that there are not academic standards with which one can judge music.

I for one do not like most of the pop music my kids, and wife, force me to listen to when I am in her car. However, I do "like" some of it. I would not call it great by any definition of the word. 

I love Nirvana, I would never try and compare it to Mozart, Beethoven, or Stravinsky. Needless to say some of their songs I would consider great. Not great in that Kurt Cobain really knew his counterpoint and harmonic structure, but great in that the raw emotion and the way the songs were put together were perfect. If you tried to put theory into Kurt's songwriting process it would have ruined the songs. Academics can analyze their work all they want and dismiss it is simplistic drivel, but it does not change the fact that their work will outlive all of us. The problem with a lot of academics is that they put so much focus on rules, that their ability to judge works, by a great deal of artists, is just lost.

Please don't claim that I am against learning theory. I am on a quest to do just that.

To say that an uneducated person is incapable of judging great music is wrong. Can they judge it in the same way that an academic can? No. Can they compare its complexity to other styles of music. Yes. Would they be able to notice the different timbres that are present? If they really are critically listening to it, then I believe so

I do compare/contrasting with my students almost daily. If I were to play them some Mozart symphonies and then Stravinsky, they would most certainly be able to point out differences and similarities in each. As a matter of fact, after STAR testing is done, probably during the last week of school, I will actually do this and report back the results. They will probably not like any of it, but they will be able to compare/contrast it.
:D


----------



## Arbee

Not because I drink too much of it :D , but wine always comes to mind in these kinds of discussions. I've learnt a lot about wine over the years and cringe when I hear someone describe a glass of white liquid sugar as "great wine". They think it's great because they enjoy the taste of it. I'd say I can "appreciate" wine more because I know something about it. I think the word "judge" however is a slightly different and somewhat problematic area. "Judging" that music/wine A is better or worse then music/wine B is different to simply appreciating. If youre comparing very high quality wine with very low quality wine of the same type then judging is not really a problem. If the quality is similar however, or you're trying to judge the better of two completely different styles of wine, then you're in trouble. With basketball, judging doesn't really need to be debated because one team wins and the other loses.

Sorry, more waffle..... :oops: 

.


----------



## gamalataki

It's like the difference between talking about music and talking of the music. Talking about music requires nothing more than a basic aesthetic feedback, but talking of music requires an analytical feedback, which only someone with an education can reliably give.

For me personally it's often a chore to enjoy music, tv, film or any other art I'm educated in, because I have to turn off my educated brain so I don't see the gears of execution moving in the background, which ultimately distracts me.

I find music much more enjoyable when I can let it wash over me without having to think about what's going on; and that's a discipline in and of itself when your education involved so much analyzing.

I like the freedom of saying, "this music sucks, but I really like it."


----------



## EastWest Lurker

gamalataki @ Fri Apr 12 said:


> It's like the difference between talking about music and talking of the music. Talking about music requires nothing more than a basic aesthetic feedback, but talking of music requires an analytical feedback, which only someone with an education can reliably give.
> 
> For me personally it's often a chore to enjoy music, tv, film or any other art I'm educated in, because I have to turn off my educated brain so I don't see the gears of execution moving in the background, which ultimately distracts me.
> 
> I find music much more enjoyable when I can let it wash over me without having to think about what's going on; and that's a discipline in and of itself when your education involved so much analyzing.
> 
> I like the freedom of saying, "this music sucks, but I really like it."



Very eloquently stated.


----------

