The Death of Classical Music?

[Gesticulator01]

Right. So why demand of Jess that he provide you with objective historical viewpoints to backup his statement that we can know what were reactions to music at different ponts in time?

[SeanHannifin]

Right. So why demand of Jess that he provide you with objective historical viewpoints to backup his statement that we can know what were reactions to music at different ponts in time?

Because I don't think that such objective evidence exists... we can't objectively know how exactly those audiences reacted to the new music of their time (edit: and the audiences themselves probably didn't all have the same reactions anyway). ("Newness" itself may not necessarily be objective either.) We can certainly speculate and make educated guesses based on what music has survived and what "contemporary accounts" we can find through Google and such. But we still can't truly say "we know how audiences reacted." We still theorize and speculate about how audiences reacted, such as my own doubt that ancient audiences would have been dismayed by hearing thirds. I can't go back in time and test everyone's reaction, but I can cite the source I did, and perhaps find some music from that time that made extensive use of thirds, so as to show that at least some audiences certainly didn't mind them. (Unless people were writing music to hurt their own ears, which is unlikely... unless it was meant to use on enemies.)

Edit: Plus, somewhere along the line someone had to start writing them (pieces with a more extensive use of thirds), which begs the question: were they introduced and largely hated at first, and just needed time to seep into the audience's consciousness (I doubt it), or did they come about naturally precisely because that's what people began wanting to hear more of?

[jesshmusic]

Because I don't think that such objective evidence exists... we can't objectively know how exactly those audiences reacted to the new music of their time (edit: and the audiences themselves probably didn't all have the same reactions anyway). ("Newness" itself may not necessarily be objective either.) We can certainly speculate and make educated guesses based on what music has survived and what "contemporary accounts" we can find through Google and such. But we still can't truly say "we know how audiences reacted." We still theorize and speculate about how audiences reacted, such as my own doubt that ancient audiences would have been dismayed by hearing thirds. I can't go back in time and test everyone's reaction, but I can cite the source I did, and perhaps find some music from that time that made extensive use of thirds, so as to show that at least some audiences certainly didn't mind them. (Unless people were writing music to hurt their own ears, which is unlikely... unless it was meant to use on enemies.)

Edit: Plus, somewhere along the line someone had to start writing them (pieces with a more extensive use of thirds), which begs the question: were they introduced and largely hated at first, and just needed time to seep into the audience's consciousness (I doubt it), or did they come about naturally precisely because that's what people began wanting to hear more of?

You are worrying too much about semantics. You think that the classical period is the be-all end-all of music and it was less than 50 years long. You think music historians have no clue what they are doing. Their evidence may not be 100%, no one can ever know for sure, but it is so close to certainty that what you are arguing is pointless. If almost ALL composers were bothered by the sound of a major third at the time, and pieces NEVER ended with anything other than a unison or perfect fifth, it is reasonable to believe that it was considered a dissonance. Not to mention, that it was recorded during that time as such.

I do not have to justify statements like this with others who have taken musicology courses, and themselves studied music, because they were convinced by the overwhelming evidence. No historian ever says 'all'. MAJOR AND MINOR modes are a FRACTION of the history of music. The Classical period is a FRACTION of the history of music.

But none of this has any point as far as I can tell. I, and most other people knowledgable in music, know that Mozart's music was considered too 'modern' by many people during his time. And never did I imply that this made him unpopular. In fact, I have a theory that made him the 'vogue' of the day. Especially among performers, who much like today, enjoyed the challenge.

I have heard some people speak in this thread as if they know anything about modern music, and that they are somehow better than modern composers... and most of these people have heard little if any modern music. And some may not say it, but I honestly thing that they believe that they are a better composer than Schoenberg because they write triads.

Here is the one TRUE fact of art. The audience means crap. Period. Great artists could care less. They make art for ART. So I say if one enjoys writing simple music. It is their business. As long as they don't think for one minute that because they are writing something accessible they deserve a fraction of the enormous amount of reverence the Schoenberg's, Berg's, and others deserved for sticking with their guns and saying "I am going to write what I want to write!"

That is also the difference between pop music and art music. Pop is for the audience. It is for money. I NEVER NEVER said ALL rock, country, etc. was pop. Not all Classical is serious, either. Mozart himself composed some 'pop' music in his day. And most of it is largely unperformed and only remembered in dusty scores in libraries. Beethoven would have BURNED the stuff he wrote "just to pay the rent" if he would have had a chance. Every composer sometimes writes pop because it is EASY. Some pop songs get lucky and transcend pop culture, but this is RARE, simply because the way it is created... by a formula.

And, lastly, I am amazed that so many are ready to argue with an artist about his or her art when that is their PROFESSION and life's work. I would never presume to tell a doctor how to treat a cold, or to tell a carpenter how to hammer a nail, and if the carpenter tells me the cabinet is from the 14th century, and that NO one liked that type of cabinet back then... I believe him, because he likely knows better.

So, maybe, just freaking maybe, I might know a little bit about Mozart...

[SeanHannifin]

I have heard some people speak in this thread as if they know anything about modern music, and that they are somehow better than modern composers... and most of these people have heard little if any modern music. And some may not say it, but I honestly thing that they believe that they are a better composer than Schoenberg because they write triads.

I'm not sure you if you mean me or not, but I'm going to take this personally... The music I write is stupidly simple, often just melody with triads. I believe if you were to get everyone in the world to listen to my "Waltz of the Penguins" and, say, Schoenberg's "Piano Piece, Op 33A" my piece will be more popular, more people will be able to relate to it and feel emotion from it. That says nothing about which is objectively better. I'm not personally attacking Schoenberg or his admirers just because of this. What's "better" will never be universally agreed upon, it will never be objective, it never has been.

Just about everything else you say seems a reiteration of things we've already discussed.

The biggest point, though, is no one can force music or a society's most popular musical tastes (or any artistic tastes) to change or to go in any one direction. You [in the general sense of the word] can look at artists of the past and say "but, gee, it sure looks like that's what he did," and perhaps we could argue about whether he really did or not, but that doesn't mean you can do the same just because you become popular yourself or get your name in a music history book. Music and public opinion will still find their own paths and go where they want to go. They're not being controlled by academies or record labels.

[jesshmusic]

I believe if you were to get everyone in the world to listen to my "Waltz of the Penguins" and, say, Schoenberg's "Piano Piece, Op 33A" my piece will be more popular, more people will be able to relate to it and feel emotion from it.

For someone who has argued about objectivity for so much of the thread, that seems quite subjective. To turn it around, how do you know that people will relate better to your piece than his? ;P

I do feel, since we got it narrowed down to just you right now (no, I never direct stuff at one person intentionally, otherwise I would send a PM), please at least listen to Verklarte nacht before you judge Schoenberg in particular.

[SeanHannifin]

For someone who has argued about objectivity for so much of the thread, that seems quite subjective. To turn it around, how do you know that people will relate better to your piece than his? ;P

I don't know, I'm not claiming to know. Of course it's subjective. But I believe that my music, especially with its simplicity, will have much more in common with what people have heard before, and will therefore be easier to relate to. If I justified this by saying "we know this objectively because of what many musicologists and historians have written," aside from that hardly making any sense with the context anyway, I'd probably argue with myself against such justification. Granted, we have an advantage when discussing what's happening now because we're alive now and able to get first hand experience with such issues, but even then we have different perspectives based on where we are and who we talk to, and probably what we're looking for.

I personally have seen many more popular references (musical and word-of-mouth) to more contemporary composers like Copland and Bernstein than to Schoenberg. By looking at their overall differences in styles, I can make some personal conclusions about what makes someone's music more popular based on such correlations, one of which is that innovation alone isn't going to mean much in the long run (nor is a music critic's opinion). Blah, blah, blah, stuff I've already said.

I do feel, since we got it narrowed down to just you right now (no, I never direct stuff at one person intentionally, otherwise I would send a PM), please at least listen to Verklarte nacht before you judge Schoenberg in particular.

I'm not judging Schoenberg, or any contemporary composers for that matter. What difference would it make if I love 'Verklarte nacht' or hate it?

[LouisD]

....and now for some relaxation and relief of tension, an excerpt of a great melody of one of the great composers of the...oh, I forgot which century....well, does it really matter??



Have fun and write music....

[Gesticulator01]

Sean, you've made a statement regarding whether your piece would be more widely understood and appreciated by the public than a piece by Schoenberg. You wisely recognise that this is necessarily subjective.

The three people currently talking here ( you,me and Jess) all agree that complete objectivity is unacheivable and meaningless in these critical contexts. So we can now just put that to the side, can't we?

A thought experiment: Imagine that you are lauded by you peers as a commentator and cultural critic - by musicians, scholars, the papers ring you to ask your opinions, etc,etc. You dont literally speak for every person that attends the same concerts as yourself, but your opinions have so much weight and contemporary respect, that you are regarded as a 'voice of your generation'.

700 years from now, electro-archaeologists discover the important writings of Hannifin - scholar, opinion maker and all-round renowned knowledgable guy regarding music, from the early 21st century. From their readings of Hannifin, they know that, while Schoenberg is still a name known to many serious music lovers, contemporary audiences would have still reacted much more favourably to the simpler, triadic (alas, now unknown) ditties of Hannifin.

Now, still assuming that you are the cultural heavyweight I've described above, we can say that future readers of Hannifin will know something about how audiences reacted to the music of his times. The timeframe is irrelevant, as long as the source is good, and its reported accurately.

Now, back to reality. Why does any of this matter? Because, the converse, which you (the real Sean) are trying to argue, is that, because opinions are subjective, we can never really know about general trends of opinions, or how audiences for music have reacted. This is false!

You have wanted to argue this in this thread, to negate the veiw that new music has often been misunderstood by its audiences. At least, thats how I have understood it.

But, because we can map general trends in the history of the arts, we can show that in every era, there have been those who have understood their times more readily than others, both as creators of music, and audiences. This is a disconcerting idea for more reactionary people in the community, because it tells them that they really may be missing out on something thats happening 'right now'. Its a painful idea really, and I understand your attempts to throw some water on the fire with a bit of epistemological doubt.

[Gesticulator01]

...while I was writing the above, the last two posts added on also. Sorry, not meaning to ignore anyone!

[SeanHannifin]

A thought experiment: Imagine that you are lauded by you peers as a commentator and cultural critic - by musicians, scholars, the papers ring you to ask your opinions, etc,etc. You dont literally speak for every person that attends the same concerts as yourself, but your opinions have so much weight and contemporary respect, that you are regarded as a 'voice of your generation'.

700 years from now, electro-archaeologists discover the important writings of Hannifin - scholar, opinion maker and all-round renowned knowledgable guy regarding music, from the early 21st century. From their readings of Hannifin, they know that, while Schoenberg is still a name known to many serious music lovers, contemporary audiences would have still reacted much more favourably to the simpler, triadic (alas, now unknown) ditties of Hannifin.

Now, still assuming that you are the cultural heavyweight I've described above, we can say that future readers of Hannifin will know something about how audiences reacted to the music of his times. The timeframe is irrelevant, as long as the source is good, and its reported accurately.

Now, back to reality. Why does any of this matter? Because, the converse, which you (the real Sean) are trying to argue, is that, because opinions are subjective, we can never really know about general trends of opinions, or how audiences for music have reacted. This is false!

I'm not sure I fully understand your thought experiment (though I do like the idea of my own opinions and writings lasting so long). Though my opinions may carry much weight and respect, how could someone from the future know how similar they were with true contemporary opinions? What if my opinions for the most part are true for only me, the colleagues who gave me the powerful position, and a small audience of supporters? (Edit: In other words, how can they know the source is good?)

For example, in 2700 how will historians deduce how movies were received by audiences? By their ticket sales, or by what movie critics say? How will they determine what concert music was the most popular? (Edit: Because, as I've previously argued, I do not think all current musicologist books necessarily reflect the truth about current musical trends as a whole. Instead, they may apply only to the composers and audiences of 'academic' music, if they even apply at all. If future historians relied only on these sources, what would they know of John Williams? Would they know how popular his movie themes were if they relied only on these certain books that contained no references to them?)

You have wanted to argue this in this thread, to negate the veiw that new music has often been misunderstood by its audiences.

Yes, and I still hold that view (edit: in other words, I'd say when most new music was written, it was often not misunderstood by audiences)... though I suppose it depends on what you mean by "misunderstood." I would replace it with "mostly disliked" though I understand that may be more subjective, and I certainly don't mean to argue that this was the case for all new music. Also it depends on what you mean by "new music" ... does that refer to music that was strickingly innovative by itself, or merely music that was composed at that time, though it may have been similar to what music already existed and filled with certain cliches of the time?

Though Mozart may have been critisized, he still seems to have been popular and influential in his day (he didn't have to wait for a generation to grow up on his music to be enjoyed), but I'm not sure how we can tell exactly how his music was heard or perceived by audiences even from the sources we have, or, more importantly, what the general consensus of his music was (i.e. what did most people think?). And how many people even heard his music in his day anyway? It certainly wasn't like today, in which recordings and radio stations and televisions are all over the place, ready to pump out music.

However, one of my original points was that whether or not a musical trend or a piece of music is "understood" in its time is not a sign of where it will end up historically, or how much influence it will end up having.

But, because we can map general trends in the history of the arts, we can show that in every era, there have been those who have understood their times more readily than others, both as creators of music, and audiences. This is a disconcerting idea for more reactionary people in the community, because it tells them that they really may be missing out on something thats happening 'right now'. Its a painful idea really, and I understand your attempts to throw some water on the fire with a bit of epistemological doubt.

I don't see how I'm trying to put out the fire of that idea. I agree with it wholeheartedly. To say we can't know how audiences reacted to the new music of their time is not to say we can't map out artistic and musical trends, unless they always correlate, which I don't think they necessarily do.

And, to apply that idea to nowadays, how can we determine who understands these times more readily than others? After all, that's what started this discussion... someone's observations about today's trends.

P.S. Very good post, thank you.