formulaic, (un)original, and other shallow words..

[VicDiesel]

You tell me that rules of series counterpoint, functional harmony and all those other classical practices (like motive mutations, sonata, recital and other structures etc.) are not exactly that - formulae.

Those rules are what you find in text books. Composers don't work by text books. Good ones at least.

If you (and by that signature praising one of IMHO worst concepts in artistic music i can presume so)

Clearly you've never tried writing anything atonal. You can write gorgeous music in an atonal idiom. It just depends on how good a composer you are.

So, I may be uneducated, uninformend or just plain wrong,

Three strikes. You're out.

Actually, more like: three hits, you're a miss.

V.

[peejunk]

Clearly you've never tried writing anything atonal. You can write gorgeous music in an atonal idiom. It just depends on how good a composer you are.

No, I admit haven't tried writing any "art" music at all, and I haven't heard anything that was both atonal and gorgeous (frankly after the initial introduction to it thru a friend, I lost any interest to explore it).

Most of what I've been shown was dodecaphonics (Shoenberg, Berg and some others), and was all interesting and different, but still overly dissonant and very.. well unpleasant.

I'm not sure do Stockhausen and Cage belong to atonal, but I've listened to some of their work as well. The same thing, initially I was impressed (amused would be closer), but I couldn't imagine myself listening to that more than once or few times.

Afterwards I guess I've built my prejudice and lost any further interest for avantgarde music (it wasn't tough tho, due to the fact that the availability of that kind of music here where I live is near zero). After having some discussions with people that are into it, the snobbery surrounding the whole thing made me dislike it even more.

I'm pretty down to earth guy. I have enough advanced topics and hard to grasp concepts in what I deal with in my primary fields of interest.

I like music that is more, well, primitive (in what side of us it primarily triggers). That's why I like dance music, and strongly emotional music I guess.

Three strikes. You're out. Actually, more like: three hits, you're a miss.
V.

If you say so.

[VicDiesel]

Clearly you've never tried writing anything atonal. You can write gorgeous music in an atonal idiom. It just depends on how good a composer you are.

No, I admit haven't tried writing any "art" music at all,

Why would atonality be "art"? Why would you make a distinction between "art" music and other music to begin with? Isn't whether it's interesting to listen to pretty much the only thing that matters?

Most of what I've been shown was dodecaphonics

A lot of that is not terribly interesting. Have you heard any of the early Stravinsky ballets? Le Sacre du Printemps? Not a lot of tonality in that, and far from boring to most people. Works by Messiaen?

V.

[VicDiesel]

Debussy (although not as far out as these guys) knowingly broke pretty much every rule in the harmony book with his works!

Almost every good composer was partly so interesting of how they broke or at least bent the rules. Beethoven started his 1st symphony on a 7-th chord, and his 5-th piano concerto with a cadenza! Unheard of! Shocking!

The only reason we don't find this shocking anymore is that we've had 200 years of becoming familiar with this music.

Mind you, Haydn still occasionally shocks me. I hold him far higher than Mozart and Beethoven.

V.

[peejunk]

Why would atonality be "art"? Why would you make a distinction between "art" music and other music to begin with? Isn't whether it's interesting to listen to pretty much the only thing that matters?

The quotes did suggest irony. Quite some of the formally educated musicians I've had chance to meet consider anything not coming from academic circless, and eventually some jazz, to be "lesser forms of music". You join the dots.

I personally have a very flat look at the music: I either like it or not. But I need to have some other categorisation when discussing it, or the discussion wouldn't go anywhere, would it.

A lot of that is not terribly interesting. Have you heard any of the early Stravinsky ballets? Le Sacre du Printemps? Not a lot of tonality in that, and far from boring to most people. Works by Messiaen?

No, can't say I have. But I will try to get the hold of it now.

[eternia]

But there is a fundamental difference between form and formula. Form is descriptive, it denotes an identifiable structure of any given thing. Formula on the other hand is prescriptive, it assigns an identifiable shape which a form must take.

Excellent!

I was just reading through this thread before sitting down to reply, and now I don't need to say anything - this is exactly the missing fundamental point in this thread (although I think Wopelka also hinted at the same thing in one of his messages).

D

[Emerald Tablet]

heres my idea about this subject

music created in a conceptualised pre defined method we know will fit to a certain audiance just to gain attention or money is cheap hickery trickery and has nothing to do with the soul of music which imo is pure expression of innerthought and pretty much free from form. in any field.

than theres culture and subculture and memes

[CypherOne]

root beer anyone?

[Wopelka]

No, I admit haven't tried writing any "art" music at all, and I haven't heard anything that was both atonal and gorgeous (frankly after the initial introduction to it thru a friend, I lost any interest to explore it).

Most of what I've been shown was dodecaphonics (Shoenberg, Berg and some others), and was all interesting and different, but still overly dissonant and very.. well unpleasant.

i was like you some years ago. i admit that's not the most "instinctive" music possible. It requires from the listener will and ears "education". If you want to enter in this new world, the best way is to follow the historical path. When your ears will be accustomed to, say: Debussy and Ravel, you'll be able to appreciate, say: Stravinsky; and then the early works of Schoenberg (before he "invented" serialism, mostly post-romantic, polytonal - have you heard the String Sextet "Verklärte Nacht" op. 4 "Transfigured Night"?); and so on...

After a little while, you'll be able to appreciate a wonderful word of unheard sounds and harmonies...

you'll fall in love with atonality. that's what i wish for your own sake.

and each composer has got his own sound universe. that's the richness of 'atonality'. the form, the one that was discussed before, the form is reinvented by each composer for his own purposes.

After having some discussions with people that are into it, the snobbery surrounding the whole thing made me dislike it even more.

if there is snobbery you are not forced to suffer it. i can go to a rock gig without being a rocker... i can appreciate techno music without being a pills eater...

so, just focus on the music itself and let the snobbery to those who need it for whatever reason.

[no_signal]

does anybody like trance here ?





























































just joking

[eternia]

peejunk,

You say art as though it's a dirty word . I do vaguely understand where you're coming from with regard to some forms of atonal music. I have a piece of paper that suggests I am a classical musician. Whilst I can appreciate some music on a purely intellectual level, I believe (as do most non automatons) that the artistry is in taking the numbers, the forms, the concepts, the formulas, the paradigms and shaping them into something organic, living and with emotion. Forms et al simply provide a starting point - they do not write the piece - no matter what the style of music (resist urge to say except trance ).

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention in class, but I believe that this view is consistent with that of the people who were teaching me. I think your comments on academia are more a consequence of the snobbery virus that some academic types contract (regardless of what they are studying/teaching) rather than a rule of thumb for classical musicians (knowledge is power...or soething like that!).

You really should take the suggested listen to Stravinsky and Messian (maybe Quartet for the End of Time). Good examples of atonal music that you would indeed marry.

Another point you make is that classical forms existed for such a long period of time, and (correct me if I am wrong) you assume that meant that classical music was somewhat stagnant and formulaic. Don't forget that early composers didn't have access to the internet and other world shrinking technologies that have shortened humans already miserable attention span. Good grief man, did you know they didn't even have text messaging?

Composers of old had many restrictions placed upon them that many modern musicians just don't have (religion and patronage being two of the most prevalent).

Enough rambling from me.

David

[munchkin]

Trance is fantastic! The last thing you need when you're off your tit's on CK1 and thinking of shagging some hot geezer/bird on the dance floor is to think about conceptualisin' da fuckin' music, man.

It's all about raw tribal beats and f**k-off build-ups that make you come up on your drugs. Who gives a f**k if some people don't like trance - they're not with you on the dance floor getting up on the music (or waiting for a shag in the loo.) I'm sure they're doing what they love best (a guitar solo in the studio perhaps. )

Dance music is inventive and trance is part of that tradition. People used to crack on about disco in the same way and now it's sooooo cool to drop some Cerrone/Petshop Boys in those trendy (we're not into that crass trance stuff) bars that think they're being sooooo ironic.

What goes around comes around, methinks.

[munchkin]

TRANCE! TRANCE! TRANCE!

[eternia]

TRANCE! TRANCE! TRANCE!

I dunno...that looks formulaic to me

[no_signal]

You say art as though it's a dirty word . I do vaguely understand where you're coming from with regard to some forms of atonal music. I have a piece of paper that suggests I am a classical musician. Whilst I can appreciate some music on a purely intellectual level, I believe (as do most non automatons) that the artistry is in taking the numbers, the forms, the concepts, the formulas, the paradigms and shaping them into something organic, living and with emotion. Forms et al simply provide a starting point - they do not write the piece - no matter what the style of music (resist urge to say except trance ).

All my respects go to eternia !
Now don't start that trance war again if you don't want this thread closed.