Now Playing

[Enrico_sw]

19 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

 

First of all, it's not noise. It IS music, wether you like or not. In fact much of that kind of stuff I don't like it either but I won't go there denying it's music just because of a matter of personal taste. Even if not necessarily liking it, it's very interesting and it doesn't hurt to open the mind and ears a little to forms of music that differ from the traditional.

It's not even John Cage's 4'33'' or works of that sort we're talking about here. The above isn't even a too "Avant-Garde" piece by Schoenberg.

 

 

Art is not mathematics. Everybody is free to define what they call music and noise. In the Middle Ages, the tritone was considered as noise (they called it "Diabolus in Musica", the devil in music). Peremptory statements won't convice people that this atonal stuff is music if they don't like it. Art is essentially subjective. We are humans who are free to make our own choices.

 

Being an artist is being exposed to be liked/disliked by people. The work of an artist is listenned/viewed by people who will inevitably criticize it.

 

My main criticism to many of these "post modern artists" is that they have a totalitarian approach (their "art" is supposed to be uncritical... ) and their worshippers threaten, despise or disdain those who don't like this "art". That's the same with painters. I'm free to say that this crap painting below is not art, even if some guy bought it for $70M (!!) and even if the NY Times says it's "sumptuous".

 

19 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

These composers are all highly accomplished and skilled musicians - much more than me to start with - who pushed barriers and took music to new horizons, even if there's often a snobbish side to such a quest.

 

I'm glad we share this point. Sociological analyses often show that postmodern arts are for the wealthy bourgeoisie. Sometimes, this "art" is used the upstarts to cement their position.

 

19 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

And, like it or not, Mahler and the such have A LOT to do with the atonal composers that came after them.

 

Restating your point with capital letters is not proving it.

 

19 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

These composers are all highly accomplished and skilled musicians

 

Sure, it takes some skills to create this "stuff" (as opposed to the painter guy who did some doodles on a blackboard), but it doesn't mean that it's art or music. They employed their skills to create noise. Skills are not enough.

 

BTW, there are lot of highly skilled musicians who hate this atonal stuff, like Jérôme Ducros:

https://www.college-de-france.fr/site/karol-beffa/seminar-2012-12-20-15h00.htm

 

19 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

Soundtracks from movies, video games, etc owes a lot to these guys and their new and different treatment of music.

 

I don't think so. Ennio Morricone always said that he was nostalgic of classical music and that it inspired him. Same for Nino Rota. James Honer has been very inspired by classical music (which attracted a lot of criticisms BTW). Philip Glass has a minimalist style with a very regular music (rhythmically and melodically), there's no link with this atonal stuff. Actually, I can't find any skilled OST composers who's been inspired by these atonal guys.

 

19 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

And that is quite the narrow concept of what music is or what should it be.

Not every music seeks beauty. Music as every form of art seeks to express something, and that something doesn't have to be beautiful neither has to aim to be it.

Feelings - or whatever else someone wants to express - can be unpleasant, can be violent, etc... music, and all art just expresses them. To claim that "real musicians" should always looks for "beauty in music" in terribly narrowed minded and even quite naive. 

 

You confuse Beauty and sweetness. That's a quite narrow-minded view of what Beauty is (thanks for your compliments BTW, and, this is mine in return ). Beauty can be violent, nice, tender, tough, wild, aggressive, etc. The definition of Beauty is actually "the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind". The link between Art and Beauty has been discussed by philosophers for centuries. "Beauty" is defined by them in opposition to "useful/functional things".

Nowadays, postmodernists deny the existence of Beauty, and, very often, they propose these as substitutes: political messages/agenda, tools to draw social lines, etc. That it is not my cup of tea. I think they are nihilists (and the way some postmodern artists make a very lucrative business out of their "art" makes me very doubtful of their "art" dimension).

[Enrico_sw]

 

[Prettyphile]

 

[Stormbringer]

5 minutes ago, Prettyphile said:

 

 

The original!

 

[Enrico_sw]

 

[Prettyphile]

 

 

[Prettyphile]

 

 

[Stormbringer]

22 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

Art is not mathematics. Everybody is free to define what they call music and noise. In the Middle Ages, the tritone was considered as noise (they called it "Diabolus in Musica", the devil in music). Peremptory statements won't convice people that this atonal stuff is music if they don't like it. Art is essentially subjective. We are humans who are free to make our own choices.

 

Being an artist is being exposed to be liked/disliked by people. The work of an artist is listenned/viewed by people who will inevitably criticize it.

 

 

Music can be defined (and since you're bringing in maths... music is filled with it), and while there's indeed works where it can be argued wether if it's music or not (4'33'' is probably the best example), the pieces I posted are far from that ambiguity. 

No one is forcing anyone to enjoy this stuff, which IS weird music to say the least. But liking or disliking something has nothing to do as to wether it's music or not. Or if it's art or not.

Are there pieces where the line between being music (art) or not becomes blurry and be debatable? Of course. There's plenty of them. Those I posted above which you are dissing as "noise" and not made by "real musicians" are far from that line. The one by Boulez being the only one that goes closer to it (and which I personally don't like, but I still find very interesting).

 

And the tritone wasn't considered noise. The thing with the tritone is that it's a difficult to sing interval, in which it's easy to go out of tune. Medieval composers whose music has reached us wrote mostly for vocal ensembles, and as such they avoided the use of the tritone in melodies. But the interval would always appear here and there as part of a chord (when there was some accompaniment instrument, or later when they began writing polyphonic stuff). The "Diabolus in Musica" association thing came after and mostly to further stress the trying to avoid the interval in melodic lines.

The tritone btw is pretty much the basis of the tonal system.

 

40 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

My main criticism to many of these "post modern artists" is that they have a totalitarian approach (their "art" is supposed to be uncritical... ) and their worshippers threaten, despise or disdain those who don't like this "art". That's the same with painters. I'm free to say that this crap painting below is not art, even if some guy bought it for $70M (!!) and even if the NY Times says it's "sumptuous". 

 

As I said, there's an obvious snobbish side to the academic art, in all it's disciplines. 

And I'm not getting into that painting, but focusing in the music: that still doesn't stop those pieces I posted from being actual music, even if unpleasant to most ears.

 

43 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

Restating your point with capital letters is not proving it.

 

Neither it's disproved by you not wanting to believe it or hear it.

The music proves it itself. It's as easy as listening to it.

And it may not be that easy to do, but analyzing the written music makes it even more clear.

 

1 hour ago, Enrico_sw said:

Sure, it takes some skills to create this "stuff" (as opposed to the painter guy who did some doodles on a blackboard), but it doesn't mean that it's art or music. They employed their skills to create noise. Skills are not enough.

 

Nah, only skills, and lots of study, a deep knowledge on harmony, counterpoint, etc. and plenty of works and pieces of more traditional sounding stuff before actually experimenting and using such skill and knowledge for pushing barriers.

 

44 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

BTW, there are lot of highly skilled musicians who hate this atonal stuff, like Jérôme Ducros:

https://www.college-de-france.fr/site/karol-beffa/seminar-2012-12-20-15h00.htm

 

And plenty of highly skilled musicians who respect and even admire them. So what's the point?

There's a variety of points of view among skilled musicians as in everything else.

 

And what's the point in linking me a site in French when I don't speak French?? 

 

53 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

I don't think so. Ennio Morricone always said that he was nostalgic of classical music and that it inspired him. Same for Nino Rota. James Honer has been very inspired by classical music (which attracted a lot of criticisms BTW). Philip Glass has a minimalist style with a very regular music (rhythmically and melodically), there's no link with this atonal stuff. Actually, I can't find any skilled OST composers who's been inspired by these atonal guys.

 

You may not think so, but it is. The "commercial" niche for atonal music is in movies and video games soundtracks. It's used as a resource and it's used quite often.

Ennio Morricone is not the only guy writing music for movies, and his style is far from being the only one there is. And you may no find them because you don't want to: John Williams or Hans Zimmer, or Howard Shore they do use atonal resources for some passages here and there. And they do it quite often.

 

Phillip Glass having no link with the atonal stuff? He was influenced by the likes of John Cage! Who was much weirder and extreme in his experimentations that Schoenberg, or Boulez...

 

1 hour ago, Enrico_sw said:

You confuse Beauty and sweetness. That's a quite narrow-minded view of what Beauty is (thanks for your compliments BTW, and, this is mine in return ). Beauty can be violent, nice, tender, tough, wild, aggressive, etc. The definition of Beauty is actually "the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind". The link between Art and Beauty has been discussed by philosophers for centuries. "Beauty" is defined by them in opposition to "useful/functional things".

Nowadays, postmodernists deny the existence of Beauty, and, very often, they propose these as substitutes: political messages/agenda, tools to draw social lines, etc. That it is not my cup of tea. I think they are nihilists (and the way some postmodern artists make a very lucrative business out of their "art" makes me very doubtful of their "art" dimension).

 

Getting semantics now?  

No, I'm not confusing beauty with sweetness.

You clearly pointed out that "all 'real musicians' (as in opposition to those who dare experimenting I guess) are looking for beauty in their music".

And if it's by taking your now so convenient concept of "beauty" it can be argued that these guys - say Schoenberg, Boulez, Stockhausen, etc-  are actually looking for beauty in their work, but in their own particular way. Because Beauty can be "tough, violent, wild, aggressive, etc" And they may get intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to their minds with what they craft. 

 

But music has not the need nor the obligation to seek for beauty. Even using such a broad and convenient concept of it.

[Stormbringer]

 

[Stormbringer]

The God That Failed - Metallica

[Stormbringer]

Cats In The Cradle - Ugly Kid Joe

 

@Prettyphile

[Stormbringer]

Dear Prudence  - The Beatles       

[Stormbringer]

Where The River Goes - Stone Temple Pilots

 

Maybe my favorite STP song

[Enrico_sw]

23 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

As I said, there's an obvious snobbish side to the academic art, in all it's disciplines.  

 

I know it's "as you said", we actually agree on this point

Generally speaking, in today's media world, there's a snobbish way to impose ideas by using pseudo-science. I hate that, because art is essentially subjective.

 

21 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

Music can be defined (and since you're bringing in maths... music is filled with it),

 

The definition of arts have varied over time. It's not such an easy task to define art.

Sure, maths helps to understand a lot of things in music, it brings explanations on some consonant intervals (special ratios, etc.), but, maths fails to completely explain consonance/dissonance. Thank God, tastes are subjective and maths hasn't made us robots yet.

 

22 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

And the tritone wasn't considered noise.

 

It was forbidden by monks during a long time!

Anyway, my point was to show that the definition of dislikable music (= noise) has changed over time. So, it's essentially subjective and that's Schönberg's point (I agree with him on that). My strong disagreement with Schönberg (and I have the right to disagree with him, even if he's supposedly "brilliant") is the following: inventing weird stuff that come from nowhere, throwing away his predecessors' work is not a sufficient prerequisite for good music. Being "original" doesn't necessarily imply being "good".

 

22 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

The tritone btw is pretty much the basis of the tonal system.

 

The Perfect fifth is the basis of the tonal system, it's the most consonant interval after the unison and the octave (and maths are useful on this one: it's a 3/2 ratio).

The tritone was used to be employed (brilliantly sometimes) to show ruptures/disruptions in classical pieces. It's a very interesting interval and some musicians made great things with it.

 

23 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

Ennio Morricone is not the only guy writing music for movies, and his style is far from being the only one there is. And you may no find them because you don't want to: John Williams or Hans Zimmer, or Howard Shore they do use atonal resources for some passages here and there. And they do it quite often.

 

There are lot of other composers that Ennio, of course. I love Williams, Zimmer and Shore. If by the "use atonal resources" you actually mean introducing ruptures, originalities, some dissonance in their music... then a lot of composers have been doing this for a long time. These are not "atonal resource".

Composers know how to introduce dispruptions without knowing anything of Schönberg's theories.

 

22 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

Phillip Glass having no link with the atonal stuff? He was influenced by the likes of John Cage! Who was much weirder and extreme in his experimentations that Schoenberg, or Boulez... 

 

Philip Glass said that Boulez's music was "crazy and creepy"!!

 

Glass brings a lot of regularity in his music. In fact, he's obsessed with regularity, that's in nearly every piece he created.

 

John Cage? His 4'33'' is just him making fun of the audience (like the guy who crapped in a tin can and sold it), but Cage's creed was often to play with non instrumental sounds (which I don't dislike per se). Glass uses original sounds, sure, but he has regularity! With Glass you see paths, that have ruptures, surprises and changes, but the flow is mostly smooth and graspable. Atonal pieces are just random notes with no regularity, no meaning and I don't think that anyone (including the writers) can grasp it when the piece is played.

 

21 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

Neither it's disproved by you not wanting to believe it or hear it.

The music proves it itself. It's as easy as listening to it.

And it may not be that easy to do, but analyzing the written music makes it even more clear.

 

Still not proving it

And if these guys have to deeply analyze their written stuff to understand themselves, then can they really learn their pieces, replay them in their heads? If not, is it really music?

 

21 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

And plenty of highly skilled musicians who respect and even admire them. So what's the point?

 

The point is that you brought the skills of your musicians has an argument to prove that you were right. So, I brought skilled musicians who disagree with your point. Both of our statements were pretty useless, I agree

 

21 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

And what's the point in linking me a site in French when I don't speak French??

 

I studied music in my language, that's why, but the language in this video is not so useful when I explain its goal (which I should've done before). The guy (who's a highly skilled pianist ) is debating two pieces: one tonal, the other atonal. He plays them and then he changes the pitch of several notes in both of them. The result is that everybody is shocked by the slight change in the tonal one, but everbody can't determine the difference in the atonal one (and he changed a lot of the notes).

 

22 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

Getting semantics now?

 

This is not a "convenience" (that was a dictionary extract, not a construct) or "just semantics".  This definition of beauty has not been created by me for the sake of argument, it's a real philosophical debate that has been happening since the 20th century. There are lots of philosophical thesis/books about this.

 

BTW, semantics is important, otherwise it's just two people sending messages in two voids.

 

22 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

You clearly pointed out that "all 'real musicians' (as in opposition to those who dare experimenting I guess) are looking for beauty in their music".

 

Wrong guess . I love experiments, I love Sonic Youth (nois rock - which is music!) for example (you know that, because we've already shared about it), but being experimental is not a sufficient prerequisite for being good. I don't like Schönberg or Boulez because of their lack of regularity (which is a lack of flavour IMHO) and them being original is not a proof of being good, otherwise every cat on a piano can be a Schönberg.

[Enrico_sw]

 

[Shepherd]

 

[Prettyphile]

 

[Prettyphile]

 

[Prettyphile]

 

[Enrico_sw]