What is great music and why isn't Beethoven that great after all

[vurt]

It seems then that you all are missing the big point:
Computers/Technology are changing the paradigm and the values by which we perceive, make and evaluate music. THAT is the big point.

We're still evaluating it regarding symbolic musical notation and its consequences, and I believe that is the great paradox. I will make that statement right in the beginning.

there are no "great paradoxes"
just lots and lots of teeny weeny tiny ones.

[schnapsglas]

It seems then that you all are missing the big point:
Computers/Technology are changing the paradigm and the values by which we perceive, make and evaluate music. THAT is the big point.

We're still evaluating it regarding symbolic musical notation and its consequences, and I believe that is the great paradox. I will make that statement right in the beginning.

I didn't read past the first paragraph, but I have to agree with it. Music has been through a paradigm change (or two), but not everyone has really realized the music we are doing now is something at very, very low level, something that transcends notation and stands on its own as a medium.

I like artists who are brave enough to say everything before modernism is not art as most of it was not done for art's sake. I might not say that about music, because music has been quite limited in progress in my opinion, but as with art and photography, being able to capture sound has superseded the idea of writing music down.

I don't want to claim anything drastic, but how some people think of "music" in general, as bunch of notations that are played back by trained people, is very limiting.

[Xenobt]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Thanks, Meffy! I couldn't believe it took THAT long for that reference to pop up!

KVR/eSoundz: Xenobt

[murnau]

I agree that there were many people who were as great (or even greater) as Beethoven and Mozart, but they composed hidden in their chamber, and nobody discovered them.

Without good marketing nobody would know Beethoven & Mozart, they had the luck to get known to a broader audience while others didn't.

yeah, i'm a genius too.

[Musicologo]

I didn't know about this peanuts cartoon but it is certainly more than adequate! It just shows that under a different system of values/references anything can be devalued (or vice-versa). Can I steal it?

[Tricky-Loops]

And without Mozart nobody would know Salzburg/Austria, so he still helps to boost tourism...

[VicDiesel]

I'm sorry, dark grey text on a black background? I'm not even going to start attempting to make a stab at reading this.

Here's a post about what's so great about one particular Beethoven piece

Victor.

[Tricky-Loops]

I didn't know about this peanuts cartoon but it is certainly more than adequate! It just shows that under a different system of values/references anything can be devalued (or vice-versa).

Of course if you go to Africa, for example, they won't play Beethoven because they wouldn't like it and they wouldn't need it. They would take some drums and make polyphonic rhythms, and some house wifes would "sing" (or let's better say: chant) in chorus, and they would have more fun than sitting still in a concert and listening to Beethoven.

A deceased German director (Schlingensief) wanted to construct a Opera house in Africa (and now it's already finished by his young widow, I think). But the question is (even if I liked Mr. Schlingensief): Do they really NEED a Opera house in Africa?

[JumpingJackFlash]

Music has been through a paradigm change (or two)

That's true, but whether "music" is better or worse for it (or just "different") is open to debate.

something that transcends notation and stands on its own as a medium.

You seem to be implying that this automatically makes modern music "better"?

I like artists who are brave enough to say everything before modernism is not art as most of it was not done for art's sake.

Who says that is the definition of "art"?
Many people would claim that "art for art's sake" is frivolous; a hobby rather than a profession.

being able to capture sound has superseded the idea of writing music down.

No it hasn't, at least, certainly not entirely.

I don't want to claim anything drastic

Sounds like you're doing a pretty good job of it though.

how some people think of "music" in general, as bunch of notations that are played back by trained people, is very limiting.

The thing is, "music", like photography (for example) is now very much in the hands of "ordinary" people, in a way that it never really was before. These days, any Tom, Dick or Harry can whack a few keys, twiddle a few knobs, and send the resultant product all over the world in a mater of minutes.

Although there are people who claim this is a good thing, that is has liberated the music industry, there are others would would claim the opposite, that it has in fact resulted in its death.

[Tricky-Loops]

The thing is, "music", like photography (for example) is now very much in the hands of "ordinary" people, in a way that it never really was before. These days, any Tom, Dick or Harry can whack a few keys, twiddle a few knobs, and send the resultant product all over the world in a mater of minutes.

Although there are people who claim this is a good thing, that is has liberated the music industry, there are others would would claim the opposite, that it has in fact resulted in its death.

Compare it with salt: a small pinch of salt can make a meal delicious, too much of it makes it even toxic...

But you're the cook, you can decide how much salt you do into it. Referred to music that means you don't have to listen to all the music of all Toms, Dicks and Harrys -- you can listen to the music that you like.

[fmr]

You have some assertions in your essay that are highly questionable, like:

"And that is the main point of this topic. Because the XX century changed the whole process of making music, like symbolic notation already did in 1300." ??

"You are judging all that greatness in orchestral music after Bach, roughly because he was the first composer to achieve "greatness" in mastering the craft of symbolic notation! Without it, and prior to notation you have emptiness because you couldn't make music that way." ????

These are just two examples that somehow shocked me because of their inaccuracy.

Regarding the main subject: Paradigms in music are just being raised and destroyed all the time (I think that when someone reaches what he/she considers a paradigm, there's already someone else elsewhere destroying it), and music in the XX (and now XXI) century is not different. There wasn't just one paradigm changing there were many, and they were changing continuously during time, year after year.

Of course that we, westerners, refer to "our" music when we talk about great (and not so great) music. Indians will probably refer to theirs, and chinese to theirs too. It's natural. But there are sonorities and rhythms (among other things) that transcend cultural roots and values. That is true for us, westerners, and I believe it will be true also for Indians, Javanese and Chinese.

BTW - Bach wasn't always "great" (and in his time there were others considered greater than him - go figure). And there were other "greats" before him, that were great in their time, were forgotten for centuries, and became greater again much later (like Josquin des Prez, for example). Being great is not a matter of statistics or popularity - it is much more than that.

And I do not consider Mozart and Beethoven the greatest either

[fmr]

The thing is, "music", like photography (for example) is now very much in the hands of "ordinary" people, in a way that it never really was before. These days, any Tom, Dick or Harry can whack a few keys, twiddle a few knobs, and send the resultant product all over the world in a mater of minutes.

Although there are people who claim this is a good thing, that is has liberated the music industry, there are others would would claim the opposite, that it has in fact resulted in its death.

Compare it with salt: a small pinch of salt can make a meal delicious, too much of it makes it even toxic...

But you're the cook, you can decide how much salt you do into it. Referred to music that means you don't have to listen to all the music of all Toms, Dicks and Harrys -- you can listen to the music that you like.

The big problem is finding it. In the past, we had a considerable amount of offer, but it was still manageable.

Today, it isn't. In the end, people (the vast majority, at least) will consume what is promoted and selled by the industry, simply because they have no opportunity to listen to anything else.

Take radio, for example. In my country, radio is almost unbearable, because it plays the very same small playlist over and over. Perhaps there are still some authors that make serious programs where they choose new music and make people listen to it, but I don't know them. And I simply don't care anymore.

[schnapsglas]

Music has been through a paradigm change (or two)

That's true, but whether "music" is better or worse for it (or just "different") is open to debate.

something that transcends notation and stands on its own as a medium.

You seem to be implying that this automatically makes modern music "better"?

I like artists who are brave enough to say everything before modernism is not art as most of it was not done for art's sake.

Who says that is the definition of "art"?
Many people would claim that "art for art's sake" is frivolous; a hobby rather than a profession.

being able to capture sound has superseded the idea of writing music down.

No it hasn't, at least, certainly not entirely.

I don't want to claim anything drastic

Sounds like you're doing a pretty good job of it though.

how some people think of "music" in general, as bunch of notations that are played back by trained people, is very limiting.

The thing is, "music", like photography (for example) is now very much in the hands of "ordinary" people, in a way that it never really was before. These days, any Tom, Dick or Harry can whack a few keys, twiddle a few knobs, and send the resultant product all over the world in a mater of minutes.

Although there are people who claim this is a good thing, that is has liberated the music industry, there are others would would claim the opposite, that it has in fact resulted in its death.

No, I think there is some misunderstanding here. Music is meant to be heard. That is the medium. No matter how much thought and outrageous amount of commentary you put into a screenplay, the film is what it is. By being able to preserve music in the form that was "intended," we have overcome the difficulty of having to play the data that is stored in some other form.

So I would say it is better, not sure what everyone else would say, but it also contains the earlier cases now as well.

About art, I mean someone like Staniszewski's (http://www.arts.rpi.edu/pl/faculty-staf ... aniszewski) viewpoint on book such as "Believing Is Seeing." (http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Is-Seei ... d_sim_b_29) I don't agree with everything there, but I prefer to see things that way.

And no, I'm not talking about long tail. I am saying that music is audio, sound, and their arrangement. Its purest form is something aural.

[Tricky-Loops]

Take radio, for example. In my country, radio is almost unbearable, because it plays the very same small playlist over and over. Perhaps there are still some authors that make serious programs where they choose new music and make people listen to it, but I don't know them. And I simply don't care anymore.

+ 100000000000000000000000000
That's why I don't listen to radio anymore. I've listened to radios all over the world, and most of them (especially in Europe and United States) play the same stuff. Nowadays I only listen to special online radios, and some streams with music of that particular country (in their native tongue), they are hard to find. Because Lady Gagga doesn't sound different in Portugal or Germany or Romania or Greece...

[fmr]

And no, I'm not talking about long tail. I am saying that music is audio, sound, and their arrangement. Its purest form is something aural.

And atmosphere, communion, communication, transmitting something to someone. For that, both transmitter and receptor(s) have to share some common background (cultural heritage).
Music is the strangest art, because it is the most abstract one, and deals with the deepest things in our human nature, touching them and creating memories, sensations, reminiscences, feelings, etc. In itself, music cannot transmit anything (I think it was Stravinsky who said that) but it certainly can transmit lots of things, provided there are communication channels already opened.
The way you say it, any sound is music, and music is any sound. I don't agree