@Errikos said:

. Anybody that wrote anything harmonic would get a professorial response like "if I wanted to listen to Haydn I'd listen to the real thing and not a poor imitation"... Nobody writing a sorry imitation of Webern or Boulez got the same; the least the processors - oh, I meant professors -  could have done, is apply the same standards for everyone. Instead, standards kept falling and falling until these post-thinking, post-mortem, errr - I mean post-modern days, everything is a soup. Now, finally you can write minuets at university, as much as you can write palindromic, pseudo game-theory based, half-integral serial spectral pieces and get through. In these politically quorrect, ahhh I mean correct (what's wrong with me today...), brotherly and sisterly times we live, there can be no disrespect, no dismissal of anybody's ideas or artistic expression... After all, who's to say what's right anymore? What would he know?...

Yeah that is really true unfortunately.  There is a double standard when it comes to tonal vs. atonal music.  If you write something terrible that is tonal, everybody laughs at you.  If you write something terrible that is atonal everyone exclaims that you are a genius because they are afraid that the fact they are experiencing pain while listening to your music is the result of their not being sophisticated enough to appreciate your genius.  So that is why university professors uniformly go into atonal music.  It is a great cover.  With tonal music, you are naked before the world and your competitors are Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Mahler, etc.  With atonalism, you have many places to hide and no competition because there are no masters of atonal music.  Just "pioneers" who went forward alone into their brave new world, leaving all the audiences in concert halls behind.  Because in the opinion of these composers audiences are too stupid to understand their great music.

If you really want to do something radical today - write some tonal music.  That is absolute insanity for someone safely ensconced within the illusory comforts of the academic world.

@William said:

There is a double standard when it comes to tonal vs. atonal music.  If you write something terrible that is tonal, everybody laughs at you. 

I remember when a very fanatical and knowledgeable lecturer reminded us (as we were vomiting over something) of one of Cage's famous dicta that went something like: "If you think that something is awful, listen to it again, and again, and again.... Eventually you'll find that it is not awful, but actually very interesting"... I asked him whether he would be prepared to apply that to himself and test it by listening to Andrew Lloyd Webber's 'Phantom of the Opera' over and over, and whether he thought he would end up finding it very interesting. (Silence)....

People tend to forget how hard it is today to write something tonal that will sound fresh and interesting to trained ears (I am not referring to Webber).

Tonal vs. atonal.... Please! Wasn't Stravinsky's example/experiment enough?... And to combine this with the original thread's topic of themes - and I will add musical "giftedness", I think it was David in some earlier post that remarked on how people have forgotten that music is an art that has been developing for many hundreds, actually thousands of years, and people today confuse its totality with one of its recent by-products, pop-music (as a blanket for everything).

Well in the days of Guido d'Arezzo and for hundreds of years before and after, not everyone was admitted as a music student. The master carefully screened and accepted only a handful on whom to pass down the secrets of the venerable art. Other than that, there were no printed materials in order to self-study. No orchestration or counterpoint  books, and certainly no sampled 8-part choral chunks by Hollywoodsteals available for hacks to "write" motets with. Maybe not such a bad idea today....

@Errikos said:

I remember when a very fanatical and knowledgeable lecturer reminded us (as we were vomiting over something) of one of Cage's famous dicta that went something like: "If you think that something is awful, listen to it again, and again, and again.... Eventually you'll find that it is not awful, but actually very interesting"

Good point!

Get someone who specializes in atonal to write some tonal music. It works one way but seldom the other. And lets not get  minimalism mixed up with nihilism. 

It's a lot like art. A lot of art is whacko, of-the-wall stylistically. It's basically crap most of the time but the more it gets intellectualized the more intellectuals start to believe it out of herd instinct. Ironically the proles don't. Get one of these so-called artists to paint something they usually hate - like say a Turner and see what comes out. The minute you start pricing things up - anything goes.

@Errikos said:

music is an art that has been developing for many hundreds, actually thousands of years

Yes, but it is also a language, isn't it?  In other words, it communicates instantly from one person to another.  But one of the overriding characteristics of all modern music has been that each composer, in order to be original at all costs, must develop HIS OWN LANGUAGE.  And be damned to anyone who does not understand him.  So what you have by this analogy is almost exactly what happened in the 20th century.  Every composer gibbering incomprehensibly (except for a few annointed disciples) in his own language. 

I am not trying to reject all modern music though.  There are many great composers in the modern era.  But the escalation of "advancements" in musical language has resulted in more and more phonies, not to mention even great composers such as Stravinsky getting sucked into meaninglessness.  Who here for example likes to listen to "Rite of Spring" ?  Probably everyone. It is total fun and inspiration to listen to.  But who listens to "History of a Soldier" ?  For fun?  Honestly.  So even great musical minds have gotten sucked into this maelstrom. The basic universal concept among modernism has been above all - ORIGINALITY AT ALL COSTS INCLUDING QUALITY.  This is in contrast to the fact that many of the greatest composers such as Bach were NOT VERY ORIGINAL.  They were in fact old fogeys in their own day who were not "advancing" music but instead refining and making it more perfect.  Another example of this phenomenon - Shakespeare.  He was so unoriginal that  some of his plays are REWRITES.  But he is also the greatest playwright/poet of the English language.  This basic fact - that art is a meaningful language connected to and not severed from the past - has been absolutely forgotten in all the modern era.

BTW the mention of John Cage is appropriate to this.  That is a particularly disgusting example of the hypocrisy of someone who is a complete phony.    He is not really a composer at all as far as I know.  But no one in intellectual circles is aware of that because absolutely anyone today can be a modernistic composer simply by claiming to be one.   He started off as a Dadaist, and applied those principles of artistic anarchy and nihilism - which were abandoned by the surrealists as no longer useful for creating anything meaningful - to music. 

Right. I remember back when I had lost all balance and was so confused by having strapped myself into a straitjacket, a teacher of mine advised me: "Don't try to write the masterpiece every time, just write what comes to you; if there is any Beethoven in there (pointing at my chest) it will come out anyway". 

That didn't help then unfortunately, but it was good advice and something that should be impressed upon every student of composition, instead of extolling other people's techniques and pseudo-revolutions, thus inviting students to become apes really, instead of encouraging them to express themselves (well they do but only in so many words, not by curriculum). 

@Another User said:

BTW the mention of John Cage is appropriate to this.  That is a particularly disgusting example of the hypocrisy of someone who is a complete phony.    He is not really a composer at all as far as I know.  But no one in intellectual circles is aware of that because absolutely anyone today can be a modernistic composer simply by claiming to be one.   He started off as a Dadaist, and applied those principles of artistic anarchy and nihilism - which were abandoned by the surrealists as no longer useful for creating anything meaningful - to music.

Hey MikeZaz - how you doing mate. Good to to see you here after so long. Fantastic. How's Trevor mate? Alright?

Didn't I mention to you the last time that you talk fucking shyte. Well you're still talking fucking shyte Mike. Good to hear from you again mate. Keep up the good work. :) 

@William said:

With tonal music, you are naked before the world and your competitors are Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Mahler, etc. With atonalism, you have many places to hide and no competition because there are no masters of atonal music.  Just "pioneers" who went forward alone into their brave new world, leaving all the audiences in concert halls behind.  Because in the opinion of these composers audiences are too stupid to understand their great music.

With this I have to disagree on multiple levels. There are, in my opinion, composers who definitely deserve to be labeled masters of atonal music - not merely because of they absolutely mind-numbing (meaningful) compositional virtuosity and technical polish  - Schoenberg and Berg coming immediately to mind as most "egregious" examples, with Schoenberg especially displaying equal mastery in both his tonal and atonal idioms - but also because of the absolutely sublime beauty of their best work. In my experience as a listener (and not merely as an analyst), Schoenbergs Variations for Orchestra Op.31 or Berg's Wozzeck rank among most profound and moving works ever to have been put on paper by human hand. It is true, however, that this music does take some effort - I certainly needed some time of "accomodation" of my listening apparatus to begin to respond to the qualities of this works - the rewards were, however, immense.

I don't think that modern composers generally consider the public to be stupid - I most certainly know that these two didn't. It is one thing to consider the public to be too stupid to comprehend something, and another thing to insist on the necessity of changing listening perspectives and habits as a necessary prerequisite to appreciate something.

I also don't believe that somebody finding a section from a Beethoven symphony attached to a commercial "pretty" or "pleasant" has arrived at an understanding of that music in any meaningful sense.       

@mikezaz_27157 said:

I usually like to know what I'm talking about before I insult people

You just contradicted yourself. 

 Your entire post is ignorant and arrogant.  Why do you call someone a "layman" whom you know nothing about?  You know nothing about me or what I do.  What are you? What do you do?  Besides come onto forums where a simple discussion of music is taking place and act superior?   People here should be able to discuss orchestration and composition and composers without somebody insulting them.

I am obviously aware that the motif was extensively and elaborately used by Beethoven in the 5th symphony.  It is famous for its symphonic development.  It is also famous for not having longer "melodies" or themes in its main movements as usually defined  - complete, longer phrases which develop within themselves.  It uses extremely simplified motifs which are brilliantly developed.  No one would argue with this obvious statement so it is equally obvious you are trying to be argumentative as well as insulting.   

One other thing - just because something is "old news" doesn't mean it isn't worth mentioning.   People often ignore things that are "old news."  

One more irritating post from this guy and I am out of here.  I am not trying to insult people, just discuss things with the other interesting people here which is enjoyable and stimulating, but when it becomes arrogance and insults like this mike zaz  it is no longer enjoyable. 

Jasensmith,

Just for the record, George Soros is sitting out this election cycle.  He was quoted in the NY TImes as saying, "When there's a landslide, I get out of the way."  All in all, I'm glad that the election is almost over, and that this thread is back discussing music.

Dear Forum Members,

please don't make me close yet another thread. Stick to a friendly tone, and stay on topic. Thanks!

@William said:

I am obviously aware that the motif was extensively and elaborately used by Beethoven in the 5th symphony.  It is famous for its symphonic development.  It is also famous for not having longer "melodies" or themes in its main movements as usually defined  - complete, longer phrases which develop within themselves.  It uses extremely simplified motifs which are brilliantly developed.  No one would argue with this obvious statement so it is equally obvious you are trying to be argumentative as well as insulting.  

Exactly. The first movement of the 5th is completely athematic. There is no sense whatsoever in widening the notion of themes to encompass motifs, as it blurs the difference between compositional procedures of formal construction which necessarily stem from using short motivic fragments as building blocs of large-scale movements on the one side, and using "complete, longer phrases which develop within themselves", that is, themes, on the other side. F.e., there is no way Berlioz could have used the same methods of formal construction as Beethoven in the 1st movement of the 5th to construct the 1st movement of Symphonie Fantastique - precisely for the reason that he uses full-fledged themes as building blocks, not short motivic fragments.

@PaulR said:

Hey MikeZaz - how you doing mate. Good to to see you here after so long. Fantastic. How's Trevor mate? Alright?

Didn't I mention to you the last time that you talk fucking shyte. Well you're still talking fucking shyte Mike. Good to hear from you again mate. Keep up the good work. :) 

Hi there, I didn't know we had talked before 😊 Who is Trevor?

Anyway, I'm sorry if my post came off as angry, it wasn't directed at you actually. William was merely incorrect on a number of things and I wanted to clear them up.

In regards to the topic at hand, they even use themes (Less so There Will Be Blood, but they're still there)

@mikezaz_27157 said:

I usually like to know what I'm talking about before I insult people

You just contradicted yourself. 

 Your entire post is ignorant and arrogant.  Why do you call someone a "layman" whom you know nothing about?  You know nothing about me or what I do.  What are you? What do you do?  Besides come onto forums where a simple discussion of music is taking place and act superior?   People here should be able to discuss orchestration and composition and composers without somebody insulting them.

I am obviously aware that the motif was extensively and elaborately used by Beethoven in the 5th symphony.  It is famous for its symphonic development.  It is also famous for not having longer "melodies" or themes in its main movements as usually defined  - complete, longer phrases which develop within themselves.  It uses extremely simplified motifs which are brilliantly developed.  No one would argue with this obvious statement so it is equally obvious you are trying to be argumentative as well as insulting.   

One other thing - just because something is "old news" doesn't mean it isn't worth mentioning.   People often ignore things that are "old news."  

One more irritating post from this guy and I am out of here.  I am not trying to insult people, just discuss things with the other interesting people here which is enjoyable and stimulating, but when it becomes arrogance and insults like this mike zaz  it is no longer enjoyable. 

Apologies for the angry tone then. I actually didn't really care about the Theme discussion, since it's mostly an issue of semantics. We both clearly know how Beethoven's 5th works, it's just a matter of whether we have the same definition of Theme. I wasn't trying to lecture you that Beethoven used Motif, I was trying to explain that a Motif can also be a Theme, in the way that Bananas can also be Fruits, and in Beethoven's 5th I would say that it is. 

Here is a quick internet definition: http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/textt/Theme.html

Again, I also acknowledge that many would consider the 5th to be "unmelodic," especially using more conservative definitions of melody.

Anyway, we're completely on the same page in that regard, and to argue further about what exactly a "Theme" is would probably be pointless.

I also didn't call  you a Layman, I simply recommended a book for that target audience so as not to take up too much of your time, as well as a more technical book if you were so inclined. It's a really good book! I wouldn't consider myself a layman and I got something out of it.

It's true my post was arrogant in some regards, but so was your ignorant dismissal of John Cage. I notice you don't have any response, which isn't surprising. Some things are opinions (whether a piece of music is good or not), some things are gray areas (what exactly a theme is) and some things are just flat out untrue (whether John Cage is a nihilist, or whether he actually is a composer). Only the last one really pisses me off 😊

I don't know why you and Paul seem to think that I've posted irritatingly in this forum before, but maybe I have? I apologize for that if so. 

To the mods: Let me know if this is polite enough 😊

@goran c said:

Exactly. The first movement of the 5th is completely athematic. There is no sense whatsoever in widening the notion of themes to encompass motifs, as it blurs the difference between compositional procedures of formal construction which necessarily stem from using short motivic fragments as building blocs of large-scale movements on the one side, and using "complete, longer phrases which develop within themselves", that is, themes, on the other side. F.e., there is no way Berlioz could have used the same methods of formal construction as Beethoven in the 1st movement of the 5th to construct the 1st movement of Symphonie Fantastique - precisely for the reason that he uses full-fledged themes as building blocks, not short motivic fragments.

I guess you can choose to have "Melody" and "Theme" be synonymous if you like, but that's not how I use the word. There is certainly some debate about what exactly "Theme" means. Here is another definition from a music dictionary:

TheEncyclopédie Fasquelle (Michel 1958–61) defines a theme as "Any element, motif, or small musical piece that has given rise to some variation becomes thereby a theme."

I would certainly say the 5th qualifies in that regard, wouldn't you?

Well!... I can't leave you guys unsupervised for a few hours and there you are at each others' throats again.... SImply incorrigible aren't they Dietz?...

@mikezaz I don't exactly understand what you suggest I did by looking into Rochberg by siting the Haydn example, unless you were referring to collage works (imitation?) such as he, Berio, and others wrote. If that is the case and you disapprove we are in agreement; the only person that quotes successfully in my view is Crumb.

You must be joking or need to elaborate when you say that soundtracks during Herrmann's time were anything like today's garbage. We are talking about film music from the '40s to the mid '70s and going backwards it encapsulates much of Goldsmith's, Legrand's, Barry's, Rota's, North's, Delerue's, Jarre's, Mancini's, Fielding's, Bernstein's, Rosenman's, Addison's, Tiomkin's, Rozsa's, Steiner's, and of course Herrmann's own, careers. Unless I'm mistaken this is close to a pantheon, unless you mean that most film music has always been garbage, which is a different discussion to this one.

You are right in saying that Beethoven's 5th is unbelievably thematic throughout including the 1st movement in question; the second subject is almost Brahmsian after all; but surely you realized that the misunderstanding was purely a semantic one among the contributors here; however, the record is straight now and nobody disagrees.

Yes, some of what Williams is saying is old news indeed and to recommend Ross' book to anybody is fine as it is well thought out with a great range. However, to use the word  l a y m a n  on him is just too much for a guy with his great output, both in quality and quantity, and I fully understand his wanting out of this discussion and I'm actually surprised at the restraint in his post... The principle of a lot of what he says is still latent these days in much of the academic world. 

And no! Tonality is not the norm everywhere and atonality is very much alive! Let's procure most composition competitions' finalists' works and compare. The fact that these works are not Boulezian in toto and somewhat freer in pitch construction and allocation does not make them tonal works.

Taruskin is a formidable figure and I don't know his specific view of Cage, but he is not the exact opposite of a nihilist. In fact, he is the epitome, the dictionary definition of a musical nihilist.

Best wishes,

E.

P.S.: There have been some new postings since I started writing this (damn telephone) and some things have been sorted out, I am glad.

My "ignorant dismissal"  - thanks for mentioning it that way.  Apparently "mikezazz" is a candle-carrying, robe-donning, gibberish-chanting Disciple of the Great Annointed One, John Cage.  And I was insulting by DARING to criticize....    Him.   

But you did apologize, and so I accept that.  And may I offer in response my deepest, and most sincere apologies to both you - a Disciple, and..... He.   I hope you can picture the sincere genuflections and obeisances I am now offering before the computer. 

Also, since you wonder how old I am - as if that has anything to do with this (though it apparently does in your brain) ---- I am over the hill.  I am ancient.  Why, I am so old that I can remember when there was NO MIDI.  In fact, I can remember when there was NO DIGITAL EXCEPT FOR HANDS AND FEET.  So of course, my opinion must be taken with a grain of salt both for my not being a Disciple as well as my being so shockingly aged.  

And now sir, I am retiring from this thread and leaving it to you to continue enlightening others who have follow into the darkness.  I think I'll go out onto the porch and sit in the rocker a spell, and then I'll go and take a little nap.  And then, why, I may go into the parlor and have me a mint julep and play on the ol' pump organ a spell. Yessir, that's what I'm a fixin to do.

Hi Errikos,

I brought up Rochberg because had a very dramatic turn later on in his life, from strict atonality to Beethoven style tonality. It's very interesting and very dramatic. He  was literally "writing like Beethoven." I thought you would be interested in this - I certainly was, when I found out.

Here is why I argue most film music from the era of Herrman was garbage: There were sooooooooooooooooooooooooo many films being made then that have been forgotten. Even a lot of the films that we remember culturally have awkward or kitschy music, but if you've ever watched some of the movies that haven't survived in the collective memory: hoo boy.

Herrman himself was of course the best film composer of all time, and probably remains as such.  And he himself thought most of the music in films was garbage (if you really want me to cite that, I can, but I'll have to dig it up).

Actually I think the best film composer of all time was Stanley Kubrick, haha. In the second that it took him to fire Alex North, he wrote the greatest film score of all time. 

As you probably know by now (via your PS), I do realize the Beethoven/Theme issue was semantic. 

I apologize for using the "L" word. I just wanted to make the distinction that the Ross book is clearly not academic, but apparently that got lost in the way, and it seemed like I was using it at William. (and let's be honest here, I was talking down to William: I was angry at him for talking with so much confidence and such a dismissive attitude about things that he didn't have the knowledge to accurately talk about). I come from, I guess you could say, Angrier forums, where we really get on people's cases for not knowing their shit. But I shouldn't have resorted to my pseudo ad hominem, so I apologize for that.

As for whether tonality is the norm... well, I'm still in school, and I can say with a great deal of confidence that it is the norm here in Academia on the west coast of the US (again, with the exception of electronic music programs, which are still clinging with rigor mortis to the 1950s and 60s). Unless of course you're talking about tonality in the traditional common practice sense, in which case it definitely isn't (although again, this is why I recommended Rochberg to you - he made a dramatic shift towards common practice tonality late in life - so did, to a lesser and more ambiguous extent, Penderecki, who now writes like Bruckner). 

In other words, there has been a wide realization in both "western music literature" or "contemporary classical" or whatever word you want to use, that atonality was fiercely alienating to basically everyone who wasn't in the club. Of course there was always a resistant school of tonality throughout the 20th century, but in the 60s, 70s and 80s it started to really really pick up steam. By the 90s and 00s, Academia had caught on, with a few notable exceptions (I made sure to mention that stodgy old place Columbia). 

Now, you'll have to forgive my America-centrism, because I'm a lot less familiar with the narrative in Europe. Of course we still have the iron stronghold of the new complexity, but those guys are just so oooolld. They're like dinosaurs now. I saw one of those guys give a lecture and man, he totally knows he's fighting a losing battle. And if you want a great example of a very respected living European composer, now very old and in Academia, and who is very tonal, look for Louis Andriessen, specifically the piece De Staat, if you haven't heard it. I'm gonna feel silly if you're like, Dutch or something, but forgive me cause I have no idea where you're from or what you already know.

Atonality is alive, it's true. But it no longer has the force or the entrenchment in Academia that it did through the 80s. Times have changed.  

If you're in Europe, I'm sorry things are a little bit bleaker there - in America we've had the benefit of minimalism and downtown music to light a few tonal fires. But perhaps more significantly we had the benefit of the Harry Partch -> Ben Johnston trajectory, where basically people became sincerely interested in exploring new ways to achieve fresh tonality through expanded Just intonation. If you haven't heard Ben Johnston's Amazing Grace quartet I really really recommend it, it had a huge impact on me. Expanded just intonation basically makes tonality feel fresh in a way that I imagine dodacephony felt to those early modernists. I can't find a youtube link for the Johnston quartet, but you can hear a preview of it on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Crossings-Ascent-String-Quartet-Amazing/dp/B001U8ALIC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1288731887&sr=1-1

 In terms of context, Johnston, like Pendercki and Rochberg, realized that the "rip it up and start again" ethos of the modernists had run it's course, and it was time to once again try to advance music in a more natural and less alienating way. I imagine that's why he chose such an accessible hymn to base his quartet around. 

I'm not sure why this view of Cage-as-nihilist is as apparently pervasive as it is. Maybe I shouldn't have been as hard on William for parroting it.

 Is it because he said "I have nothing to say and I'm saying it."? I know that's a very famous quote, but even that isn't nihilistic. After all, you can't just focus on the "nothing to say" - he's [i]saying[/i] it. He [i]cares[/i]. He not only cares, he cares a lot. He basically cares with a religious fervor. Hence the "scary purity" of Cage. 

4'33" is kind of dubiously famous, but even that piece, which feels like it's about negation, is actually about the opposite.  

Ok, here is the Wikipedia (I know, I know) view of Nihilism: Nihilism (pronounced /ˈnaɪ.əlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.əlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life.

Cage's philosophy was more about the positiveness of empty space, if that makes sense. It goes quite a bit deeper, and I'm probably distorting with my simplification, but hopefully you can see how those two things differ. 

Do you think Feldman would have been such great friends with Cage, and have learned so much from him, if Cage was simply a nihilist? I don't think Morty would have put up with that shit. 

Maybe I'll bust out that Taruskin article and try to get some quotes for you all. Did you listen to the excerpts from Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano that I posted on the previous page? I'll post them again, because seeing those performed completely changed my opinion on Cage. Maybe you've heard the piece before.

@William said:

My "ignorant dismissal"  - thanks for mentioning it that way.  Apparently "mikezazz" is a candle-carrying, robe-donning, gibberish-chanting Disciple of the Great Annointed One, John Cage.  And I was insulting by DARING to criticize....    Him.   

But you did apologize, and so I accept that.  And may I offer in response my deepest, and most sincere apologies to both you - a Disciple, and..... He.   I hope you can picture the sincere genuflections and obeisances I am now offering before the computer. 

Also, since you wonder how old I am - as if that has anything to do with this (though it apparently does in your brain) ---- I am over the hill.  I am ancient.  Why, I am so old that I can remember when there was NO MIDI.  In fact, I can remember when there was NO DIGITAL EXCEPT FOR HANDS AND FEET.  So of course, my opinion must be taken with a grain of salt both for my not being a Disciple as well as my being so shockingly aged.  

And now sir, I am retiring from this thread and leaving it to you to continue enlightening others who have follow into the darkness.  I think I'll go out onto the porch and sit in the rocker a spell, and then I'll go and take a little nap.  And then, why, I may go into the parlor and have me a mint julep and play on the ol' pump organ a spell. Yessir, that's what I'm a fixin to do.

John Cage was completely nuts. He wrote a lot of great music and a lot of terrible music. He had a lot of great ideas and a lot of awful ones. I love the Sonatas and Interludes, but those are the only works of his I love.

I am a card carrying member of the Morty Feldman fanclub, but that's about as close to Cage as I feel comfortable getting. Again, he was completely nuts.

I'm not so much defending Cage as I am explaining what he was about and why everything you think about him is basically dead wrong. 

I called it an ignortant dismissal because that's what it was. You were ignorant (IE saying things that are wrong as if they were fact) and dismissive (IE disregarding something). It's an awful combination.

I wanted to know how old you are because if you had gone to school for composition in the 70s or 80s, I could see why you'd have the viewpoints that you do. I'm sorry to hear that you're over the hill, and I'm glad you accept my apology for talking down to you. Keep in mind I still think you are 100% wrong, and I hope for your sake that you are still willing to educate yourself in spite of being "over the hill." It is not a matter of indoctrination, it is simply a matter of knowing what you're talking about.  I truly think you will get a lot out of the Alex Ross book (and so does Erikoss)

Keep in mind you apparently are respected on this forum, and that when you say things incorrectly, there will probably be a segment of the people reading who believe you. This is why open ignorance is so pernicious. I'm not necessarily saying you are an ignorant person, but I am absolutely going to say straight up and without apology that you are ignorant about many of the things being discussed recently in this thread. I don't see that as an insult, but rather as something I can demonstrate clearly and politely. 

@PaulR said:

 Herrmann was classically trained - he wasn't a rocker that got up one morning and decided to get into pictures.

Some of the best scores of recent years have been done by these people. See Paul Thomas Anderson's two latest films, There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love. Two of the best scores of the decade done by two different "rockers who decided to get into pictures."

Film scoring in Herrman's day was 99% garbage, just as it is today. The good stuff is rare enough that you have to appreciate anything that comes along, and that means not being biased against how people got their start 😊

OK. Now that you've got down from your PATRONIZING PERCH - I'll tell you this once more.

The music to There Will be Blood is like someone that sounds like Sarah Palin thats just been captured and taken to a recording booth - and then tied down while someone with masochistic tendencies has then proceeded to scrape her a s s with  a cheese grater and the whole thing has been recorded and then called a FILM SCORE!!!

Forget all that. It's the film. The film is overrated crap. The problem with people is they think because the acting is absolutely brilliant then the film MUST be brilliant. When you can work all that out by - as you put it - sitting through endless crap from 1956 onwards then you can TALK! I AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT A COLLEGE LECTURER THINKS!!! College lecturers in music and filmscoring DON'T usually have my qualifications and usually talk shyte. Hell - what do the judges of the Oscar awards actually know about Cinematography just as one instance - never mind 3rd rate college lecturers.

So please - read the the subject of this thread.

Good evening.