Ultimate Modernism-hater discussions + Vents

[viking]

Ditto
(except I don't love him)

[cygnusdei]

I think it's beneficial if we can come up with some basic principles that we ALL can agree with, sort of like a common denominator.

My 2 cents: if something is out of the mainstream, isn't it expected that it will be less appreciated, demographic-wise? Isn't this a fact of life - why does it seem to be objectionable? Classical music is already out of the mainstream in terms of the general public. Based on quotes by proponents of 'modern' music here, there seems to be yet a mainstream in classical music ('Beethoven' is mentioned a lot). As modern/post-modern/contemporary music is out of the mainstream classical music (again, I'm merely reiterating the views expressed here), is it not expected that it is less appreciated? What is the problem here?

[pies]

a

[mephisto]

I think it's beneficial if we can come up with some basic principles that we ALL can agree with, sort of like a common denominator.

My 2 cents: if something is out of the mainstream, isn't it expected that it will be less appreciated, demographic-wise? Isn't this a fact of life - why does it seem to be objectionable? Classical music is already out of the mainstream in terms of the general public. Based on quotes by proponents of 'modern' music here, there seems to be yet a mainstream in classical music ('Beethoven' is mentioned a lot). As modern/post-modern/contemporary music is out of the mainstream classical music (again, I'm merely reiterating the views expressed here), is it not expected that it is less appreciated? What is the problem here?

What you write here seams perfectly rational, and should be apparent to everyone.

[indutrial]

What is the problem here?

As if it hasn't been stated about 100 times in the past few months, the problem is that, despite the fact that classical is a non-mainstream genre, a lot of the opinions here sound just as bad and unsubstantiated as the pejorative tripe that one could read written about rock albums in Blender or Spin magazine. Like annoying critics, people here will swing their opinion about recklessly not caring whether they upend a thread or steer the conversation into a another god-damned flame-war. It shows a distinct lack of tolerance and credibility when these annoying and self-absorbed individuals feel the need to stake out the territory of their tastes and lash out at people on the outside. It's okay to dislike modern music or to choose to not listen to jazz, but neither of those should be interpreted as an open invitation to start talking crap and trolling threads. As on any forum, that is the problem.

[cygnusdei]

So it is acceptable to state, as a matter of preference, one's dislike for certain music?

Is this something that we ALL can agree on?

[webern78]

could someone explain the difference between the two please?

Modernism = braking off with tradition. 

Post-Modernism = braking everything else.

[webern78]

It immediately appears to be noise, but it's later revealed to be intricately structured noise

Or rather, you can convince yourself that there is a structure, even if there's none.

I believe they call it "cognitive dissonance".

[ole]

I just think people are wasting their time arguing to and listening to modern music. It doesn't make sense. Just forget for a moment all your prejudices and ideas about music, then contrast a Chopin ballade with some of the "compositions" posted here like the one where is nothing but scream. Which one moves you, which one doesn't? I think in your heart of hearts...you know the answer...

[thalbergmad]

Chopin does not move everybody.

Just when we were getting somewhere........................

[tehpro]

I just think people are wasting their time arguing to and listening to modern music. It doesn't make sense. Just forget for a moment all your prejudices and ideas about music, then contrast a Chopin ballade with some of the "compositions" posted here like the one where is nothing but scream. Which one moves you, which one doesn't? I think in your heart of hearts...you know the answer...

I think they do know but they are too busy trying to make themselves look sophisticated to listen anything normal. I think we can safely assume that most of the modern music "lovers" here are like 19 years old and try to pretend they know the meaning of life and everything else in the universe and have found out that crappy noise produced with orchestra is the key to understanding everything.

[pies]

a

[thalbergmad]

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[pies]

a

[pies]

a

[ahinton]

I loathe the very term "modernism", since it can be seen to imply (albeit not always correctly) some kind of proto-élitist sectarianism on the part of some of those who use it. As for "vents", there need to be a few in this thread just to let abit of fresh air in. This utterly absurd and wholly contemptible notion that no on can possibly appreciate Xenakis as well as Beethoven, or Ferneyhough as well as Chopin, or Finnissy as well as Pinto (there's one for you, Thal!) is just the kind of thing that's destined to ensure that threads such as this one are replete with entrenched positions, spleen-venting and all the other kind of accreted rubbish without which music, above all things, could well do.

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

Chopin does not move everybody.

Just when we were getting somewhere........................

Chopin's music is very moving, but so are lots of the post-1900 pieces I've heard... But I must just be some pretentious quack for daring to lump the two together in a category of things that I'm capable of appreciating.

While I'm being such a psuedo-intellectual fake I may as well just say that Webern, Tehpro, and Ole could certainly be lumped together into the categories "retroactive", "stubborn", and "annoying." I won't say that any of you are retarded, because retarded people have a damn good excuse for being difficult in intellectual situations.

[cygnusdei]

Here's another spin:

I suppose some of us who are proponents of modern music are religious. What kind of music do you think is heard in heaven? Does it include all spectrum of music? Only a subset?
PS: this is not an attempt to start religious discussion. I just thought there could be interesting hidden dichotomies to be revealed here.

[thalbergmad]

Changed my mind.

He ain't worth it.

Thal

[webern78]

you know that saying modern music doesn't make sense is a ridiculous overgeneralization.

True, but since the progressives here are stepping in defense of music that make no sense it's a bit redundant for you to point that out.

 

[ahinton]

So, Thal - "you have better things to do"? - (it's quote from Norman Douglas; go find in in that 3-CD set of whatever-it-is that you allegedly need all those beers and valium to get through!...)

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

True, but since the progressives here are stepping in defense of music that make no sense it's a bit redundant for you to point that out.
 

Does everything need to make sense to be acceptable as art. Doesn't progress usually go hand in hand with the growing pains of people coming to grips with things that are irrational and unusual. Does everything have to be immediately discernable and easy to gauge into to ensure that you're never threatened. I wish you would just retreat back to your boring hidey-hole and stop squeaking in my ear.

[cygnusdei]

Is pianostreet an anarchy?

[ahinton]

Is pianostreet an anarchy?

Am I finding it possible not to yawn?...

Best,

Alistair

[cygnusdei]

This discussion would benefit from a moderator.

[daro]

I suppose some of us who are proponents of modern music are religious. What kind of music do you think is heard in heaven? Does it include all spectrum of music? Only a subset?

Let's see, 50 years ago, the religious right here in America declared categorically that rock 'n' roll was the work of the devil, so I guess one wouldn't hear that stuff. (The blues, also, was often denounced in similar terms).

OTOH, there's this:

, which Lawrence Welk himself declared was "a modern spiritual", so I suppose it would fit right in up there.

Does everything need to make sense to be acceptable as art. Doesn't progress usually go hand in hand with the growing pains of people coming to grips with things that are irrational and unusual. Does everything have to be immediately discernable and easy to gauge into to ensure that you're never threatened.

I think people forget that in Chopin's time, there were plenty who considered his music to be excessively harsh and unlistenable. Going back a few decades earlier, it would also not have been unusual to pick up a newspaper and read something like, "This latest work by Herr von Beethoven is exactly the kind of senseless noise one would expect from someone who's deaf."

Plus ca change.

yd

[mike_lang]

Is anyone missing our resident pseudo-intellectual troll?

[cygnusdei]

I think people forget that in Chopin's time, there were plenty who considered his music to be excessively harsh and unlistenable.

Textbook anecdotes seem to suggest the opposite, that is a myth that " ... Chopin's playing  was like that of one dreaming rather than awake - scarcely audible in its continual pianissimos and una cordas ..." That was of course an account of Carl Mikuli (Chopin's pupil) who promptly set the record straight.

A more fitting example of a composer not appreciated in his own time would Bach, but it was because he was perceived as old-fashioned, not because he was too progressive.

[webern78]

Does everything need to make sense to be acceptable as art.

Yes. The first precept for art is that it must imitate nature, which means it must conform to forms and structures which exists within the realms of what is humanly perceivable. Those forms can be as complex or as simple as you want, they still need to follow basic structural precepts.

Doesn't progress usually go hand in hand with the growing pains of people coming to grips with things that are irrational and unusual.

For starters, "progress" isn't the principal function of art and indeed many of the greatest composers in history made a sour name for themselves by actively resisting change which, if not irrational or unusual they probably saw as indulgent and banal. That said, while it is true that all innovation has met it's due share of general rejection and mistrust, it does not stand to reason that everything that generates rejection or mistrust will, nay, must eventually lead to general acceptance and confirmation, and just because innovation was seen as "irrational" at first it doesn't imply that it actually ever was, unlike many modern compositions, which ARE irrational, and will stay that way for ever.

Does everything have to be immediately discernable and easy to gauge into to ensure that you're never threatened. I wish you would just retreat back to your boring hidey-hole and stop squeaking in my ear.

Strawman much? We are merely asking that music be at all discernible, not immediately so. Bach isn't exactly easily comprehended either and a lot of superficial listeners seem to have an hell of a time coming to terms with his music. Indeed, classical music has a whole is rarely accepted by the general public and will probably remain a purely elitist affair until the end of time. Yet, those composers are still well known, well liked and still followed generations after their passing.

Heck, even several not-so-easy contemporary composers have met with relative commercial success (a useful meter to determine accessibility among the general population), such as Ligeti, or Schnittke, which implies complexity isn't the problem here.

[cygnusdei]

Does everything need to make sense to be acceptable as art. Doesn't progress usually go hand in hand with the growing pains of people coming to grips with things that are irrational and unusual. Does everything have to be immediately discernable and easy to gauge into to ensure that you're never threatened. I wish you would just retreat back to your boring hidey-hole and stop squeaking in my ear.

If I may offer an analogy of classical music being similar to pornography (I know ), as both are forms of non-mainstream art (pornography as art is debateable, but bear with me). Within pornography itself there is a mainstream; what you'd call vanilla porn. Outside the mainstream there is a genre for everyone's fancy - fetish, kinky, voyeurism, what have you. BUT there is a definite line that even the most permissive culture would not allow, that is child pornography. I'm sure proponents of pedophilia have convincing arguments for it, but the boundaries seem to be pretty absolute and universal on this one. Any other porn may be permissible, but kiddie porn is ILLEGAL.

Could it be that there are analogous boundaries in classical music that just shouldn't be crossed? Could it be that not just anything new can be progress? Could music be perverted?

[ole]

Hey, I notice something: You guys seem to have more fun arguing about modern music and whether it is good or bad than actually listening to it. Me I don't want to spend much time arguing about it, I'd rather listen to and play good music. If Stockhausen, Xenakis and others haven't inspired you to stop posting so much on the internet so you could go play their music then maybe the "haters" really do have a point. They are spending more time with piano playing and music.

I think if I stopped seeing threads like this I might be convinced the modern music guys are actually having fun out there, playing all that stuff...until then, I'll be under the impression they've all got some kind of musical heartburn.

[pies]

a

[indutrial]

I think if I stopped seeing threads like this I might be convinced the modern music guys are actually having fun out there, playing all that stuff...until then, I'll be under the impression they've all got some kind of musical heartburn.

I like how we're being branded as "modern music guys" as if any of us have forcibly severed our ties with traditional music. The idiotic equation of modernism in art with the destruction of tradition is really hard-wired into some of you and it's amazing that you're all continuing to harp on this like a bunch of smug idiots. Saying that we've got musical heartburn is like saying that a person who's critical of the Bush administration's policy choices is suffering from "political heartburn" and is thereby objectively wrong. Pretty much every individual I've actually been able to talk with on this forum about post-Debussy music has expressed a far more positive attitude and respectful air than the multitudes of you who piss and moan about the music and conjure up worlds of mind-numbing bull$hit to justify your annoying venom. Rather than myself feeling anything remotely like musical heartburn, I'd say the worst of you guys are suffering from musical malnutrition and intellectual bulemia.

[indutrial]

Yes. The first precept for art is that it must imitate nature, which means it must conform to forms and structures which exists within the realms of what is humanly perceivable. Those forms can be as complex or as simple as you want, they still need to follow basic structural precepts.

For starters, "progress" isn't the principal function of art and indeed many of the greatest composers in history made a sour name for themselves by actively resisting change which, if not irrational or unusual they probably saw as indulgent and banal. That said, while it is true that all innovation has met it's due share of general rejection and mistrust, it does not stand to reason that everything that generates rejection or mistrust will, nay, must eventually lead to general acceptance and confirmation, and just because innovation was seen as "irrational" at first it doesn't imply that it actually ever was, unlike many modern compositions, which ARE irrational, and will stay that way for ever.

precept (noun)
1. a commandment or direction given as a rule of action or conduct. 
2. an injunction as to moral conduct; maxim. 
3. a procedural directive or rule, as for the performance of some technical operation. 

Your definition of art as something that needs to follow any sort of guidelines is the worst kind of high school humanities class dookie I've ever heard. The definition of art in the same dictionary is a little more convincing:

art (noun)
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Much of this definition seems to divorce art from any specific set of precepts, especially since "aesthetic principles" can stem out of any individual's mindset and can maintain any level of contour as regards nature, civilization, rationality, or irrationality.

The idea that precepts are necessary to art pretty much extinguishes the possibilities of art and only allows it to function as a subserviant b|tch to a bunch of bull$hit ideals and morals touted by people with big egos and small imaginations.

It must suck to be you, considering you seem to have discovered the outer limits to what art is, can, and should be. If artistic discovery and innovation is pretty much over for you (since it isn't allowed to deviate from your precepts), it's no wonder you're trying to suck me into that horrible void by telling me how "wrong" I am to still nurture faith and curiosity. I'll continue to take a pass on the illustrious notion of knowing everything there is to know. Sounds like a boring scene.

[thalbergmad]

you seem to have discovered the outer limits to what art is, can, and should be.

I really feel it is unwise to put boundaries on anything.

Thal

[bob3.1415926]

I agree.  Those who compose or enjoy the music in question are the pedophiles of music.

This is a disgusting belittling of paedophilia. As much as you may hate the music, it doesn't destroy anyone's life. There is no analogy. Get a grip.

[Petter]

This discussion would benefit from a moderator.

Or from a modern-ator haha... .

[ole]

I like how we're being branded as "modern music guys" as if any of us have forcibly severed our ties with traditional music. The idiotic equation of modernism in art with the destruction of tradition is really hard-wired into some of you and it's amazing that you're all continuing to harp on this like a bunch of smug idiots. Saying that we've got musical heartburn is like saying that a person who's critical of the Bush administration's policy choices is suffering from "political heartburn" and is thereby objectively wrong. Pretty much every individual I've actually been able to talk with on this forum about post-Debussy music has expressed a far more positive attitude and respectful air than the multitudes of you who piss and moan about the music and conjure up worlds of mind-numbing bull$hit to justify your annoying venom. Rather than myself feeling anything remotely like musical heartburn, I'd say the worst of you guys are suffering from musical malnutrition and intellectual bulemia.

Ok...let's hear some recordings from you and I Heart Xenakis and Ahinton playing all these great modern pieces...if you start spending more time really getting into all this amazing music and showing it to me...well, you know the saying: "actions speak louder than words."

[tehpro]

Yeap, if they really liked it as much as they claim, they surely would struggle to play and record it in all its greatness.

[cygnusdei]

This is a disgusting belittling of paedophilia. As much as you may hate the music, it doesn't destroy anyone's life. There is no analogy. Get a grip.

Does it mean that music is a special, incorruptible form of art? Does it mean that boundaries don't apply in music?

[tehpro]

You could always record a soundtrack of pedophiles in action and call it modern music. I'm sure some people would find it very innovative and thought provoking. "What a wonderful composition, the composer surely is expanding the boundaries of modern music let's call this new genre childpornism"

[bob3.1415926]

Does it mean that music is a special, incorruptible form of art? Does it mean that boundaries don't apply in music?

You could always record a soundtrack of pedophiles in action and call it modern music. I'm sure some people would find it very innovative and thought provoking. "What a wonderful composition, the composer surely is expanding the boundaries of modern music let's call this new genre childpornism"

For god's sake. The reason that child pornography is illegal is nothing to do with boundaries in art. It is because the children involved do not have a choice, it is due to perverts taking advantage of them. This causes all kinds of trauma which they have to deal with for the rest of their lives. The 'art' part of it doesn't figure. It's about human life, basic liberties. I can't believe this actually needs spelling out.

Don't stand by a highly offensive point of view, that is blatantly ridiculous, just to attempt to win an argument. That's pathetic.

[retrouvailles]

You could always record a soundtrack of pedophiles in action and call it modern music. I'm sure some people would find it very innovative and thought provoking. "What a wonderful composition, the composer surely is expanding the boundaries of modern music let's call this new genre childpornism"

You are seriously one of the stupidest and most immature people on this forum. Leave forever.

[cygnusdei]

For god's sake. The reason that child pornography is illegal is nothing to do with boundaries in art. It is because the children involved do not have a choice, it is due to perverts taking advantage of them. This causes all kinds of trauma which they have to deal with for the rest of their lives. The 'art' part of it doesn't figure. It's about human life, basic liberties. I can't believe this actually needs spelling out.

Don't stand by a highly offensive point of view, that is blatantly ridiculous, just to attempt to win an argument. That's pathetic.

Pedophilia may be offensive to you, but not to its proponents. My point is that even when the boundaries of tastefulness can be pushed further and further by "keeping an open mind", eventually it may hit a limit, as in the case of child pornography.

The analogy to music doesn't carry the same moral weight, that's why it's only an analogy. But my question remains: if we continue "keeping an open mind" in music, will it eventually fall apart? Or is music inherently incorruptible?

[bob3.1415926]

Pedophilia may be offensive to you, but not to its proponents. My point is that even when the boundaries of tastefulness can be pushed further and further by "keeping an open mind", eventually it may hit a limit, as in the case of child pornography.

The analogy to music doesn't carry the same moral weight, that's why it's only an analogy. But my question remains: if we continue "keeping an open mind" in music, will it eventually fall apart? Or is music inherently incorruptible?

I will concede that you may have a fraction of a point. If a composer decided to beat unwilling people to death and record their screams, then yes, they would have gone to far.
While the music is playable wholly by willing participants with instruments and electronics of some sort, then there are no boundaries.

Paedophilia is wrong for moral not artistic reasons. The same is definitely not true of any form of instrumental music. I hope you can see the difference.

Please don't liken the suffering of children who are abused, to the sensation you feel when you listen to music you hate. I can guarantee that they are not comparable.

[mattgreenecomposer]

Here it is folks!  My concerto for Riding Lawnmower with "weedwacker" accompaniment.  Watch out for the cadenza-IT'S A SCORCHER!!!!   

[retrouvailles]

Here it is folks!  My concerto for Riding Lawnmower with "weedwacker" accompaniment.  Watch out for the cadenza-IT'S A SCORCHER!!!!   

Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here?

[indutrial]

Ok...let's hear some recordings from you and I Heart Xenakis and Ahinton playing all these great modern pieces...if you start spending more time really getting into all this amazing music and showing it to me...well, you know the saying: "actions speak louder than words."

Okay, now you're just shifting the argument into territory that has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. I am a music history grad student and Alastair is a composer and archivist (for Sorabji's work). Besides, even if I was a talented enough pianist to provide a cogent recording of something by Xenakis, Carter, etc..., I don't see why presenting that to your petulant ass (because that's likely where your head will be) would do anything to push this debate forward. Besides, there are plenty of excellent recordings to be heard. One of us shouldn't have to be the spearhead to penetrate your egotism. You say actions speak louder than words. Why don't you prove that by presenting an argument that actually cites something to back up your own ludicrous statements.

I can't believe that you're suggesting that musical appreciation is inseverably linked to performance ability.... I suppose you don't listen to any CDs of music that you haven't mastered then?

[tehpro]

Well if it's such a great music, why are you not even trying?

[thalbergmad]

Here it is folks!  My concerto for Riding Lawnmower with "weedwacker" accompaniment.  Watch out for the cadenza-IT'S A SCORCHER!!!!   

You might be onto something here. Has this been recorded yet? If not, I would like to purchase the European Rights.

Forget "modernism", we now have "mowerism".

Incidently, my symphony for 3 boomerangs and a 1975 Ford Pontiac is nearing completion.

Keep up the good work.

Thal