Page 41 of 41 FirstFirst ... 313738394041
Results 601 to 604 of 604

Thread: Music that is OK to deride

  1. #601
    Senior Member Strange Magic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Nova Caesarea
    Posts
    3,416
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    millionrainbows: "Stockhausen and other such composers are largely frowned upon today in these institutions, because they represent a scientific, totally rational, individualistic, non-sensually based, secular orientation that is completely removed from Church tradition.
    As Woodduck observes, "those composers" have not been churning out religious music for the church to accept or reject. No music for line dancing either. But I understand millionrainbow's reason for this part of his post: it's yet another opportunity for him to mightily smite, hip and thigh, Science, Rationalism, Individualism, and Secularism yet again--his eternal bugbears. It's like the scene in The Omega Man where Anthony Zerbe accuses Charleton Heston of practicing electricity, chemistry, magnetism.....
    Last edited by Strange Magic; Today at 21:52.

  2. Likes eugeneonagain liked this post
  3. #602
    Senior Member eugeneonagain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Les Pays-Bas
    Posts
    2,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Perhaps no more or less than, say, traditional counterpoint; which has strict rules, but produces great music depending upon who is writing it.
    "I expect I shall have to die beyond my means." — Oscar Wilde, on accepting a glass of champagne on his deathbed.

  4. #603
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,564
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Music is a form of mathematics, according to the Greeks and their "quadrivium." This is the big paradigm shift that "regular" music lovers can't get past. It's what fuels Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc.

    Forget the Greeks and their quadrivium. Music is not a form of mathematics. No such "paradigm shift" occurred. A few composers have behaved as pseudo-mathematicians, and consequently only a handful of people are interested in their music. But as one of them is said to have said, "Who cares...?"
    Yes, it is; a form of it. It is related to physics, because sound is a physical vibration. As soon as the tonal hierarchy, based on harmonics, was abandoned as a way of organizing music, then the shift became apparent: sounds were once again sounds, freed from the ideological hierarchy of Western tonality and the church, as well as the simplistic knee-jerk effect of harmonic sound on the ear. The brain could now be engaged; music was now conceptual again, like mathematics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Classical music/orchestras is just a 'museum' tradition that is kept alive by specialists for the 'museum' industry of CM. It survives by being in academic institutions which serve that aim.

    Classical music survives by being performed and listened to by people who love it. If that's a museum industry, three cheers for museums.
    The point being that "museums" (or perhaps "cathedrals") of classical music do not reflect the realities of the modern era. They celebrate a paradigm of the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    My experience is that these academic institutions are serving that aspect of classical music which is congruous with, and still in keeping with Church traditions. Church organists, choirs.

    That's your experience? That's not my experience. Who else has had that experience, I wonder?
    That's where you go to learn to play the organ, or sing in a choir. How are these things relevant to today's artist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    The notion of popularity and mass appeal has been used as an argument against the new paradigm of music. That appeal is from the old world, when orchestral music was the only game in town, and served as entertainment.

    There's keyboard music, chamber music, choral music, opera music, song, and dance music too, and in the "old world" much of it could be enjoyed at home. That's a pretty multifaceted "game."
    Now there is recorded music and media, and new electric instruments, and new idioms of jazz, rock, and cinematic soundtracks. Classical forms of music you speak of no longer have an exclusive hold on the public's attention. In fact many new smaller niche areas are created, which makes the paradigm of Classical, which flourished because of its past dominance, less relevant as a measure of "what appeals to Joe Public."

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    That appeal represents the old paradigm of music as being tonal, and tonality being the "artistic/sensual ideology" which serves the Church, has always served the Church,

    What's this obsession with the Church? The fact that atonality isn't popular in church has implications deeper than religion. It isn't popular anywhere else either.
    Not just atonality, but any form of music, such as electronic, will be rejected by the status quo. That status quo represents the norm, the essence of Western man, which is well-represented by his thinking, values, and religion, and manifest as his tonal language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    and will continue to represent a simple sensual solution to music, which appeals to the basic sense of harmonic perception in a very simplistic way, like a dependable, ubiquitous stimulus which always works,

    Tonality isn't "simplistic" (look it up), but it sure as hell does "work."
    Yes, essentially it is a simple system, as all harmonic music is. It is more sensual than it is conceptual. It is based on hearing and its phenomena, like seeing color.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    whether in the service of techno/dance music, pop music, folk music, soundtracks to movie myths, and every expression which Humanity has devised to "hypnotize" and charm the populace.

    Ah yes: music, the opiate of the people. BTW, you left out "classical music," which I've always thought does more than hypnotize and charm me. But maybe that's all it does to you. Too bad.
    Classical music is not as powerful as a market force as popular musics are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Stockhausen and other such composers are largely frowned upon today in these institutions, because they represent a scientific, totally rational, individualistic, non-sensually based, secular orientation that is completely removed from Church tradition.

    Um... I don't think that's the reason "such composers" haven't produced popular settings of the gloria, crucifixus, et resurrexit or agnus dei.
    Those are trappings of art forms, religious rituals, etc; they are not qualities of the actual music I am speaking of, which was produced by more rational methods than traditional tonality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    In this sense, serialism is not an "ideology;" it is an "anti-ideology" which threatened to destroy the status quo of institutionalized tonality.

    Tonality, which is intuitive, is not rooted in ideology...
    I think it is, in that it "represents" that ideology in its structure: every note in a scale refers to a keynote (I, or "God") and is an hierarchy which reflects this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    ...while serialism, which is not intuitive, began in one man's ideology and became an ideological movement.
    Serialism represents a non-hierarchical system in which all things are relative. This is much more like Einstein's thinking, which is scientific. I see The Enlightenment, rational thinking, and science as the new paradigms of our era, which replaced the old paradigm of religion. Yet, classical music still reflects the old paradigm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Tonality never had to be "institutionalized," and serialism never threatened to destroy it. However, the ideological, institutional serialists gave that the old college try.
    Tonality is the ubiquitous manifestation of an ideology; it did not have to be created, only recognized.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Things have settled back into a Church-oriented mode, and the "chickens have come home to roost" as we knew they always would, eventually.

    The only true thing here is that "we" - most of us - knew that serialism's claims to the future were fraudulent. Serialism happened, and now its just one more choice available to the makers of music. Or at least those so quasi-mathematically inclined.
    I'll accept that.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Today at 22:12.

  5. #604
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,176
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    Yes, it is; a form of it. It is related to physics, because sound is a physical vibration. As soon as the tonal hierarchy, based on harmonics, was abandoned as a way of organizing music, then the shift became apparent: sounds were once again sounds, freed from the ideological hierarchy of Western tonality and the church, as well as the simplistic knee-jerk effect of harmonic sound on the ear. The brain could now be engaged; music was now conceptual again, like mathematics.



    The point being that "museums" (or perhaps "cathedrals") of classical music do not reflect the realities of the modern era. They celebrate a paradigm of the past.



    That's where you go to learn to play the organ, or sing in a choir. How are these things relevant to today's artist?



    Now there is recorded music and media, and new electric instruments, and new idioms of jazz, rock, and cinematic soundtracks. Classical forms of music you speak of no longer have an exclusive hold on the public's attention. In fact many new smaller niche areas are created, which makes the paradigm of Classical, which flourished because of its past dominance, less relevant as a measure of "what appeals to Joe Public."



    Not just atonality, but any form of music, such as electronic, will be rejected by the status quo. That status quo represents the norm, the essence of Western man, which is well-represented by his thinking, values, and religion, and manifest as his tonal language.



    Yes, essentially it is a simple system, as all harmonic music is. It is more sensual than it is conceptual. It is based on hearing and its phenomena, like seeing color.



    Classical music is not as powerful as a market force as popular musics are.



    Those are trappings of art forms, religious rituals, etc; they are not qualities of the actual music I am speaking of, which was produced by more rational methods than traditional tonality.



    I think it is, in that it "represents" that ideology in its structure: every note in a scale refers to a keynote (I, or "God") and is an hierarchy which reflects this.



    Serialism represents a non-hierarchical system in which all things are relative. This is much more like Einstein's thinking, which is scientific. I see The Enlightenment, rational thinking, and science as the new paradigms of our era, which replaced the old paradigm of religion. Yet, classical music still reflects the old paradigm.



    Tonality is the ubiquitous manifestation of an ideology; it did not have to be created, only recognized.



    I'll accept that.
    The link you make between tonality and the church is tenuous. I am rather confused about what your actual point is MR.

Page 41 of 41 FirstFirst ... 313738394041

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •