fahl5:

I give up. The language barrier has proven impregnable, the chasm unbridgeable.

I never claimed that I offered any 'concrete proof' - even the least... Neither have you; nobody can in such discussions unfortunately.

Whether your posts were inappropriate however, and whether I have argued cogently enough by presenting logical and complete syllogisms, I leave to the rest of our friends here to determine; I will defer to their judgement, for it seems I really have wasted my "breath".

As proof at least of this I quote a part from your last paragraph: To allow others being and thinking different, following others rules and values is (at least in my personal view) nothing "zeitgeistian"...

Anybody wasting their time reading our posts and speaking the language (which I already said there is no shame if you don't; I don't know what you find offensive in that), will have already divined that I have no issue with what people do with their music, but that I reserve my "right" to deplore it at my leisure, should I deem it execrable. And this is where I differ from the zeitgeist, which frowns on any kind of severe criticism on others: "Everyone's got something to contribute", "everyone has artistic ability in them", etc.

We just have to agree to disagree on that.

Finally, I don't care what you Germans did with your own idealism of the late 18th - early 19th centuries, but mine goes a lot farther back, and I am rather proud with what we did with ours... 

As I stated and is demonstrated here, "To be modern is to be mentally ill."  Words of wisdom for all, and something to live by.

In honor of this excellent discussion I've updated my system specs.  I think this will help with future discussions. Thank you.

Lost all respect for you, William.

Tongue legato on the theremin? It seems that in today's day and age, any complete layman can create seemingly "authentic" sounding music by resorting to auxiliaries that do all the work for them.

One of my real frustrations with postmodernism (I have frustrations with modernism as well) is precisely the leveling of the playing field with everyone being viewed as contributing equally, regardless of merit.  To me, when everyone is treated as making equal contributions, one is in danger of actually having nothing contributed.

If everything is of equal value, nothing is of any real value.  If all is of equal value, Cage's Prepared Piano compositions = Beethoven Piano Sonatas = 2 year old banging on the piano.  Thus, Hermann = Zimmer. 

Jimmy, rest assured that my tongue is up to the challenge. 

I always have the film v. classical music conversation with people who are not musicians and don't really know anything about music.

I tell them that, though there might be some similarities in very old films, most film music is not "classical" (meaning Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc.)

Putting it simply, film music (good film music. Themes like Thomas Newman's Little Women and such) is music designed to move a person emotional. Therefore the music is structured like a common folk or traditional song with 2 versus and a catchy chorus, moving to a bridge and then back to the chorus. Put even more simplistic, a well crafted (meaning very moving piece) theme from a movie is structured somewhat like an old scottish "bar" song. The common man loves a good catchy tune and likes to know where the tune is going. With a them like "Raiders of the Lost Ark", the person humming the tune doesn't have to guess where the tune is going. It's memorable and invokes feeling.

"Classical" music does not move modern man today, at least most of modern man. In my opinion, "classical" music is not structured like a scottish bar song. Unless you've heard the piece, you really have no idea where the music is going to take you. I consider this mental music. It makes you think first and feel later... much later. However, some people really love "classical" music for various reasons. I really don't know if it's because they are so overwhelmingly moved by it or it just fits their taste. But I will say, in my opinion, the common man will always be touched and moved more by simplicity and emotion than thinking.

I like writing for the common man because I've always wanted to touch and move the heart of people. I personally listen to particular film theme music for inspiration. I like to listen to classical music as white noise in the background because I really like it as whitenoise, especially when I'm working at my desk doing paper work or reading a book. And that is with no disrespect. I just really don't like to listen to "classical" music for enjoyment sake. However, all I listen to on the radio is classical music so that I can develop an ear for the spacing of the instruments.

I don't think I could write "classical" because it would require me to structure my style different from a scottish bar song and I find that just to emotionally difficult. I would basically have to purpose in my mind to stop and start at every point I don't wish to. Put simply, and in my humble opinion, I would have to write an unemotional, unpredictable piece of music. And that would be the most depressing project I could ever think of.

You're right about the popularity status of orchestral music.  But maybe you're listening to the wrong kind of 'classical' music and it just doesn't work for you.  Try something, closer to home... more contemporary.  There's been lots of good suggestions earlier in this thread.  I just think it's natural to be open to new ways of thinking about music.  Give it more than one listen... remember the music that is the easiest to like is easy to like because it's repeated enough times to get under you skin.  I find the rewards in listening deeply and with my whole body well worth the attention paid to it and they're proportional to what you give it.  I'm sayin' there's potential for deep connection.  I know it because I live it.  Of course the world is a multiplicity... no more master narratives... There are masters of every form.  Those are the ones I'm looking for.  It's a rich world out there... I

A thoughtful composer once put words to our situation like this.

"A mirror is being broken and in each shattered piece different faces are reflected. No longer can you view your image in a single mirror. And a shattered mirror cannot be reassembled."

    Toru Takemitsu, Confronting Silence

And when he started putting the Debussy/Messiaen/Cage pieces together with the Japanese pieces... Wow!

Hi Errikos,

I am really not sure if Plato would have really been that proud of a compatriot with that weird kind of understanding of his philosophy. I personally at least defenitly expect a bit more ability of understanding of someone who pretends to be ready for the realm of ideas. I am likewise no longer interested to show you again each word which is obviously completely wrong cited, missunderstood, or simply wrong insinuated. But however I do respect that you finally gave up. It at least leaves room for a little hope of selfcriticism on your side. (....nosce te ispum"😉)

However I think this discussion is not the right place for any ad personam postings you are posting here again and again against my person. And I hope you will be able to concentrate a bit more on the topics that are really discussed here.

@postmodernism

I myself am far from any apology of postmodernism, but simply can't see any advantage even to fall back behind its most basic insights. I personally was neither interested in any nihilation of value at all no matter if pretended, by Nitzsche, Sartre, Derrida or Sloterdijk.(I alway understood likewise philosophic provocation as attempt to newly reflect overcome idiological conventions) But to relate and restrict values in their own context, is for me not at all an "anything goes" or "everything is the same" position.

Being related in its own context still allows (at least in my view) to judge if something is good. If I would like to do some serial music now for instance it would not be good only because everybody can do what ever he wants. If it does not convince in its own context (for instance the people interested in serial music, or the people interested in the things I do) it is not so good, if there are people who appreciate, than it obviously works well for them. To compare Cage and Beethoven to me at least seems to be simply wrong. I do like Beethovensonatas, and I do like also some Cagesonatas but never would ever see any necessity to put both on any "level" or compare which is better or not. I can not see at all what sens that should make. More likly I would compare, if now someone would compose a sonata for prepared piano. I think he would have some difficulties to convince me if it does not open its own new different contexts beyond those we have already experience in cages sonatas, but who knows perhaps this "new" cage sonatas were in an cagian sense very good, but even than one still can judge if it is "good" or convincing. 

That means in consequence after post-modernism we are not limited by a certain expectation all have to work for, but however, we still have to convince, the people that are adressed with what we are doing. A filmmusician may do this succesfully with completly other means than someone who is working on an autonomous symphonic piece. I would judge both with completly different criteria. 

Thats why I really see nothing nihilating in "post-modernism", but an attitude less ideological but more realistic and pragmatical.

fahl5, please realize I was not personally comparing Cage to Beethoven.  Personally, I don't think one can do that either.  My point was simply that our current culture - since there is no truth per Postmodernism (or if there is we can't know it) in terms of "values" there is no difference, as one cannot make a valid judgment.  Hence, the child banging on the piano is every bit as valid as either Cage or Beethoven.

As for "thinking" vs. "feeling" in music, I agree that most prefer the standard form of the bar song.  Long-term, I have a real concern that, in general, people, for the most part, are thinking even less, and that potentially leads in a very dangerous direction.  But, on another level, one can make a case that thinking has never been the majority position.  It is all too easy to take one's personal position and generalize it out as being held by many others when that is not the case.  However, I do believe that some classical music is very highly emotional.

In terms of my own writing, some of it has come closer to "pop" as I am strongly influenced by traditional folk music, particularly Irish/Celtic folk.  The rest - the majority actually - is more influenced by what would traditionally be called "classical" music.  To me, the question isn't "pop" or "classical" per se, but rather, "What form, best conveys what I am currently seeking to musically say?"

fahl5:

Yes... I am ashamed it took me so long... However it finally dawned on me that I was crossing blades with the ultimate Homo Universalis... What hubris on my part!... Behold everybody:

"But however I do respect that you finally gave up. It at least leaves room for a little hope of selfcriticism on your side"

(Yes, absolutely. What moron enters a staring contest with the sun... I learned my lesson)

ad personam postings you are posting here again and again against my person

(I don't believe it was me who started this, but I'm sure I am mistaken in this as well. I am surprised the 'm' in 'my' above was not capitalized...)

Thats why I really see nothing nihilating in "post-modernism", but an attitude less ideological but more realistic and pragmatical.

(I feel Sartre's 'nausea')

Being related in its own context still allows (at least in my view) to judge if something is good. If I would like to do some serial music now for instance it would not be good only because everybody can do what ever he wants. If it does not convince in its own context (for instance the people interested in serial music, or the people interested in the things I do) it is not so good, if there are people who appreciate, than it obviously works well for them.

(I read the above three times. I think it's a word puzzle).

I've learned my lesson. 

Hi erikos,

Well I cant see in your last posting really not the least contribution actually related to any topic discussed here. So there seems no need for any respons on anything at all.

OK if now really all have learned their "lessons" I hope we are now mature enough to come back to the real subjects of the discussion... 😃

Hi nodlar,

Perhaps we better do not stick to much oin that buzzword "postmodernism". I already pointed out, that I am not at all the guy to propagate any "post-modernism" at all, not at least since this is already kind of oldfashioned it self and more than a quarter century ago that this way to think has contributed anything to the discourse.

To make my point clear:

I understand the reserve against the Idea of any general truth, especially since in most cases there are always subjects who are trying to impose their personal subjective view on others with that kind of generalised argumentation, and when I understand you right than you at least understand this problem of wrong generalisation with terms like "truth". 

Who ever is able to read what I wrote here, knows that I am far from nihilating any judging. The opposite is true: 

In my view any judgement is necessary based on a limited point of view (especially in esthetic questions) and therefor is only possible, when it is concious about its limitations and do not pretend to do more than it could.

In my eyes everyone has no other chance at all than to judge based on his own experiences, feelings, Ideas and how they connect to the object he judges. This is nothing more and nothing less than the "context" in which anyone judges valuable.

To answer your  "there is no truth per Postmodernism (or if there is we can't know it) in terms of "values" there is no difference":

As I said I do not stick that much on the buzzword "postmodernism". To me the Idea, that I am able to ( + as I think only can) judge things as far as I am aware of the limitations aswell of my own notion as the limitations of the "relative" context of the object I judge is nothing nihilating but in my eyes exactly the opposite: the necessary precondition of any reasonable judgement, while the attitude of generalisation of "truth" or "values" finally makes anything thus generalised simply wrong.

I dont care if this ever is allowed by any postmodernism police to be the one and only "true" postmodernism, (which would be an contradicition in it self). It is just my personal conclusion which I think might be inspired from postmodern discourse of relative values.

To relate that on music: there is for me nothing nihilating if I try to judge any kind of music related to its own context. And this seems to me to be always a kind of comunication of Ideas, feelings, experiences.

(I even can personally judge a child banging his head on a piano being in my eyes nonsens in its own context without the assumption of any general truth or comparison with beethoven or anyone else 😉)

In my eyes the most "nihilating" way to judge is to generalise ones own opinions and to ignore the context in which for instance a piece of music is intended to make sense.

The 20th century Idea of "progress" on which "postmodernism" reacts has had in my eyes indeed the problem of inappropriate generalisations, since it tends to nihilate former contexts of musical comunications as "old-fashioned". In my eyes there was nothing wrong with it when postmodernism pointed out, that historical communications still have their "own" values.

It was just the conclusion of early post-modernism that one could (or even has to) stir all together like Bend Alois Zimmermann does in his Collages of musical citings which seem to me more of experimantal character, than to be a really convincing creative consequence.

On the other hand our technical abilities of medial comunication opens possibilities to comunicate a variety of music wich goes very far beyond all limitations of former musical perception. This is also a good reason for me to develop more differenciated musical values and judgments, than was enough to come along with life-concerts of former centuries.

To me at least it would be terrifying boring, if we would have with all our overwhelming abilities to comunicate music still the same limitated Ideas of music developed in times where very  very few peoples very very seldom have had (at least compared to the 21th Century) the chance to listen, enjoy and produce good music at all.

Our century technically opens the chance of a really large universe of possible music accesable to very much people. Should we really come along with just one personal/subjective Idea what is good or true in music? In my eyes comunication just beginns if there is still something more possible than one "truth".

The reason for a multitude of truth is not that there is no truth at all, but only the fact that no one could pretend any truth to be that perfect, that it could not be enriched from another point of view.

@fahl5 said:

OK if now really all have learned their "lessons" I hope we are now mature enough to come back to the real subjects of the discussion... 😃

(Limited-time-viewing response deleted)

FWIW, I would not classify myself as a postmodernist, nor a post-postmodernist, nor a post-post-postmodernist, nor a past post-modernist (i.e. a moderist) nor a past-past-post modernist (i.e. a medieval thnker).  I actually believe that real truth exists, and that we can know it. 😮😃

Anyway, that is another subject, and way off topic, and methinks I am done.  Hmmm... would being done be described as post-conversation? <smile>

@DG said:

I guess that it would depend on why people post music. Most film music is garbage, in terms of music qualtiy. In fact by definition it can't be first rate music, or there would be no need for the film. So, what would be the point in posting film music? How interesting is it to hear interminable drivel that all sounds the same played by a sample library, when it's bad enough hearing it with top session players? Not very, in my view.

So we come back to the question of why people post music? If that can be answered, then the OPs question may be answered as well.

DG

@muziksculp said:

So.. who are the great modern classical composers these days, and what are some of their great works that you can refer me to,  that have composed interesting, and delightiful music during the past five to ten years ?     

Have you checked out Alan Belkin's music? he frequents this forum and has written many symphonies.  You should specifically check out his works done with VSL.

Two names come to my mind (should add a disclaimer that I am not an expert in avant garde art music)

Esa Pekka Salonen - I was blown away listening to his 'LA variations' live 

John Corigliano - His score for The Red Violin is jsut amazingly innovatove and powerful while maintaing a romantic touch: 

These are relatively well known but they are many many more...there are much yonger composers writing incredibly innovatiove stuff.

When it comes to films I thought there are good scores to come out here and there. Not all film music is what I call "thump thump" music (started by Hanz Zimmer!).

I liked the score for the Artist, sort of a homage to old hollywood.

John Williams is probably the truly classical composer in Hollywood living today. He has done many concert works.

@Errikos said:

Finally, I don't care what you Germans did with your own idealism of the late 18th - early 19th centuries, but mine goes a lot farther back, and I am rather proud with what we did with ours... 

Sorry to interject and go off topic. I didnt read much of this post, it started with a genuine inquiry about classical vs film demos, but seems to have diverted into other topics.

My turn to go off topic,..

Errikos, maybe you can clarify how someone can be proud of a 100s of years past history if they had nothing to contribute to that and made no choice in being born in that culture? Where we are born is not in our hands. You can say you feel lucky, thats what it is...pure luck. 

Beethoven doesnt 'belong' to any German today any more than Gandhi doesnt belong to todays Indians or Aristotle to todays Greeks.

If anything,  everyone has a right to be proud of ALL human achievements, and a moral responsibility for ALL human failures.

(This aside, I agree with many things you say about music btw 😉