On February 10 2013 13:17 I_Love_Katheryn wrote:
I don't believe that any old thing can be called art. There must be some objective criteria to consider it as such.

+ Show Spoiler +

Suichoy

Canada397 Posts

February 10 2013 05:48 GMT

#22

On February 10 2013 14:05 wo1fwood wrote:
I hope you understand that you hit a nerve (because I am a composer) and that also I was trying not to be derogatory (though it seems unsuccessfully). Let me explain a little better, the primary reason that modern music is so difficult to parse, even for the musically trained, is usually due to the fact that they aren't familiar with the syntax or grammar of these ideas around the theory and presentation of a work.

99.99% of people know and understand functional harmony because that's what the popular genres do on a daily basis, but when a composer develops their own system (Messiaen and Carter come to mind, though there a plethora of others), or diverges from that system further and further, it becomes harder to understand that music on the most basic of levels. Is this something that we are constantly considering and asking of ourselves? Short answer, yes.

As a rather obvious though effective example, did you ever study post-tonal analysis, deal with matricies, tone rows, hexachordal combinatoriality, klangfarbenmelodie, total serialism, or any other technique developed around this school of thought? If you didn't, how can you then fully understand that music and appreciate it? It took me more than 3 years after steeping myself in that theoretical world before I actually started to properly hear the relationships in real time and derive enjoyment from that genre. Some of it is still incredibly dense, and some I would consider poorly written, but once you understand how the thematic material, motives, and gestural ideas work in that setting, you can begin to understand whats going on. Again, this will take years to develop, and you need to actually try to do some kind of application here or it won't sink in. If it's not your cup of tea then fine, but you cannot simply discredit what incredibly brilliant people have done just because its not common practice functional harmony and easy to digest.

Another more modern example would be Spectralist techniques. I find them to be beautiful and provocative processes, and yes I like this music quite a bit, both from a theoretical and an aesthetic standpoint, but its basic principles are founded on formant analysis and natural harmonic spectra which require at least a certain level of knowledge before you can actually hear those relationships. Is it difficult to hear, depends on how estute your ears are. Is it still, at least in a micro sense, organized and treated the way Beethoven or Bach is organized? You bet (though its hard to hear). The overall principles are the same, even if the language is different.

tldr, the difficulty that people have with modern music is their unfamiliarity with its language and its underlying processes, and why many people do not grasp it or think that it is music. Art music isn't supposed to be mindless music after all, that's why we call it art in the first place.

Edit: Not all modern music is the same either. I would suggest you look in to composers such as Nico Muhly, Michael Torke, Steve Reich, John Adams, John Corigliano, and Arvo Pärt as they are all very approachable composers (some of these guys I'm sure you know already).

Very good points about the comprehensibility of modern music. I think OP is also reacting to a perceived elitism to the new music scene and I think this is a legitimate complaint. Modern music is not an accessible genre and I don't think its composers/performers/listeners necessarily want it to be either. Part of the pleasure of classical music in general is that its piece rarely reveal all their answers in the first or even the first few listenings. And there is a joy as you develop you ear and delve further into the structure and details of the piece. It is natural to become proud about developing such a sensitivity.

But while elitism can be perceived negatively, it should not be mixed up in the other issues the OP raised about the actual musical merit of the pieces. Actually I think the SC community has the same elitist issues as I mentioned above.

Fighter

Korea (South)1531 Posts

February 10 2013 17:02 GMT

#23

On February 10 2013 13:03 fatfail wrote:

Show nested quote +

By that interpretation of modern art, anything can be construed as art simply by fabricating a cultural context. Yet again, you are using modern art in the ordinary fashion, which is to feign erudition and superiority by pretending to see what you can't. I'm not completely uneducated trash like you might think; I've been classically trained in violin and piano for 12 years, and I have studied art history through travel, documentary series, and books. What value does "art" hold if it cannot stand alone and holds onto popular culture as its crutch?

Jesus Christ, what a juvenile reaction. No one implied you were "uneducated trash." You might have a PhD in mathematics but that doesn't mean you know anything about 20th century philosophy, art, or aesthetics, so just relax a bit. I'm really glad you've been trained in music like that, I wish I had had such training. Unfortunately, as one of the previous posters showed, that field still has an immense depth to it. The same thing holds for the theoretical side of art, which is what I would like to comment on now.

First, you seem to assume that I'm feigning erudition and superiority by pretending to see what I really don't. Why? I know that's a popular stereotype, but there's no reason to accuse me of that, or to think that there's nothing of any depth actually being proclaimed by the artists or apologists for such art.

You mentioned that art can't hold value if it cannot stand alone. Well, art doesn't exist in a vacuum because neither do humans. That's actually a big part of 20th century theory and art, and that you would suggest that art should be able to stand on its own like that is a remarkably antiquated way of thinking about things (again, no offense, that sort of view is just far out of vogue), and it actually seems somewhat emblematic of why you have such an apparent aversion to some of this art. Do phrases like "the death of the subject" or "historicity" mean anything to you? These are important theoretical ideas that a lot of contemporary art plays upon.

As for using the word "modern art" in the ordinary fashion, I'm actually trying to avoid that term because it's a terrible pitfall. Jackson Pollock, for example, would be a modernist painter, while Andy Warhol could be considered properly postmodern. Unfortunately most people seem to use "modern art" to refer to anything not explicitly realist.

Anyway, you're the one who started this blog, you should probably take the few opinions you're actually getting with a bit more grace. If you're willing to admit that maybe you aren't educated enough to properly critique, then allow me to suggest you a rather fantastic book:

http://www.amazon.com/Postmodernism-Cultural-Capitalism-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822310902/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1360514597&sr=8-2&keywords=postmodernism

It's not for the faint of will. It's in depth, and it's not easy if you don't have the proper background. I would think you would at least need to be vaguely familiar with Hegel, while a general understanding of the proceeding movements in philosophy, particularly existentialism, structuralism and poststructuralism, would be of great help as well. If you're committed though, the book really covers everything in fantastic detail.

I want to part by saying that I completely sympathize with your view. I remember years ago going to museums and thinking to myself, "my God, any child could paint this, there's nothing to it. and their "explanations" are all just bullshit." Well, you live and learn I suppose, and now I realize how actually ignorant that sort of view is. I'm sure that a vast percentage of the art students at a given university will be prone to spouting bullshit without actually understanding what's going on, but that's usually because they're missing the actual theory behind the popular works. If you look at the works that are really famous, they're usually famous for a legitimate reason. But like I implied in my last post, that's not to say that they're actually great works, that they're aesthetically pleasing, or that they express any sort of final truth on aesthetics or beauty. But at least we have to admit, it's not just bullshit.

farvacola

United States18835 Posts

February 10 2013 18:39 GMT

#24

I'm not sure I'd recommend Jameson as my go to for art criticism, but hey, whatever floats your boat!

MasterOfPuppets

Romania6942 Posts

February 10 2013 18:51 GMT

#25

On February 10 2013 02:46 fatfail wrote:
Now we know what music is, we can confidently say that contemporary music isn't music. In both art and music, things went from bad to worse in the early to mid 20th century. We had composers such as Stravinsky and Prokofiev whose music was not very harmonious, but the melody and intention was still recognizable and palatable. Then, a musical vacuum came into existence; nothing good musically has been produced ever since.

Lol ok pretentious, condescending bro.

If you look at mainstream music, that shit is engineered to rake in as much money and attention as humanly possible, that's granted. But the real good music will almost always remain in the underground, because most people simply do not enjoy their music being engaging or stimulating beyond a very shallow "lol this is catchy imma dance to this shit" kind of thing. I'd suggest you don't make such claims until you've explored the vast underbelly of little-known artists that put real passion into their craft. And if you should claim you have, then there's no need to be so elitist about imposing your opinion in a highly subjective matter onto others.