Yesterday, I went to listen to a violin recital at the San Francisco Symphony. This program was as follows.
Program Bach Partita No. 3 in E major for Solo Violin
Avner Dorman Nigunim (Violin Sonata No. 3)
William Bolcom Suite No. 2 for Solo Violin (Music Accord Commission)
Beethoven Violin Sonata No. 9 in A major, Kreutzer
Although I greatly enjoyed the Beethoven and Bach, the two contemporary pieces sounded like trash. I could not hear a single bit of melody, grace, or inspiration. The composers merely tried to appear unique by introducing various ugly avant-garde techniques such as pressing the bow excessively hard to create a "sqeaking" sound or slamming the fingers onto the soundbox to make some percussion noises. Is this music?
MERRIAM WEBSTER
Music: 1. a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
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. Similarly in art, we had stupid assholes create bullshit. Why is "Fountain" a piece of art? Its trash; it takes no skill to create such a work.
Hey asshole, you call this art?
And Jackson Pollock; what the fuck? I might as well piss on a paper and sell it for a million dollars.
So the conclusion of this blog is fuck you. I payed 60 dollars to listen to a concert yesterday and wasted half of the money. Its because of people like you who think you are so nouveau and hip by pretending to see some meaning in modern art that is created merely out of a lack of inspiration and a lack of talent. If you guys could get your heads out of your asses and tell these people that their work is shit, to their face, they might try and create something worth looking at or worth listening to.
Well, in the spirit of your blog, I've decided to pull my head out of my ass and tell you, to your face, that your blog is shit. Maybe you ought to try and create something worth looking at?
Ugh that mandolin concert is just so random it annoys the hell out of me. I wish modern classical composers would focus a little more on harmony and melody, even dubstep manages to do this...
I used to agree, but part of the Modern Art movement, which it seems you are lashing out against, which were the abstract impressionist, was just fields and lines of color. There were many things going on in art and after the turn of the 20th century, art got strange and out there with Picasso, Duchamp, Dali, and others. The point of people like Rothko and Pollack, and the other abstract impressionists that just did splatters or fields of color were to reduce art back down to its basic elements, color on a medium. They were asking the questions of "What is art?" and to them the answer was simple: color and lines on a canvas or other medium. For someone like Pollack, also, it was about the style, the creation process, the spontaneity, and that was what made it interesting.
While they may or may not have been talented, which is up for debate for certain, their art was meaningful, as most art is, because of its station and place in time. Outside of that context, quite often they don't make much sense. I mean, look at something like the Mona Lisa. Before it was stolen from the Louvre, it was not considered that important of a painting. Interest in it grew because of that event. Outside of that, what is it but a picture of a woman smiling?
I am not disagreeing that there are a lot of modern art that is just junk and people thinking that they can put anything on a canvas or weld any random bits together and call it art is just wrong, as most people think they can write poetry just by mixing metaphors to sound pathetically deep. I just say that some art, in order to understand or appreciate it or why it is famous, you have to know or study some of the background, the time frame, or the artist to enjoy.
Some art is amazing just by looking at it, like The Pieta by Michelangelo. It is so perfect in its creation, you don't need to understand anything else about it. Other art, like Rothko's #14, make sense for the time...the statement that was behind them, the artist's view on the state of art or whatever, and without that information they are just shit.
I don't pretend to understand modern music and art, and I've done some hating of my own on them, but look at these composers you're talking about. Avner Dorman has a Doctorate from Juilliard and his works have been performed by several prestigious orchestras. Similar things can be said about William Bolcom. Whatever they are doing with their music, one thing you can be sure of is that they are not some random weirdos whacking together a bunch of notes. I agree with you on the point that music is running out of harmonious and melodious phrases to compose, so composers are turning to weirder and less explored aspects of music to make their art. But really, this is what has been happening for at least the last century, if not the entire history of music. The story of The Rite of Spring's debut is a very well known one; what is now considered one of Stravinsky's greatest works was greeted by a riot and all-around derision. Basically, I think that each era of music brings with it a new element that often can be difficult for its contemporaries to understand
But I still have my doubts about 4:33. What is up with that being a professional work??
My opinion on modern art: Sure it's art, but it's not any art I care about.
You can liken it to builds in starcraft. As terran, you could choose to build 20 supply depots before building your barracks or another command center. Is this a build order? Absolutely. Would anyone really care to use this build order? I hope not.
Edit: Well the brown square isn't that bad. I mean at the time I guess people would find it shocking and invigorating to say "WHOA. He didn't paint a picture, or a scene, he went back to the basics and painted a square! REVOLUTION IN ART!!". It sounds kind of silly in retrospect, but I can somewhat understand their position.
But that's okay, just have to stay away from that, lower my blood pressure, and appreciate the truly inspiring and interesting art that is out there in many galleries. I sympathize with your situation. I guess some people enjoy those orchestras though; I mean its hard to believe that they're *all* trying hard to like avant-garde things that they normally wouldn't listen to just to look good in front of their peers, right?
Wasn't the goal of pieces like "Fountain" and "4:33" to provoke discussion over what art or music was? Given that you had such a strong reaction, I feel like that makes them successes. That being said, I legitimately enjoyed the Bolcolm suite as a piece of music. Different strokes.
On February 10 2013 09:01 Meadowlark wrote: Wasn't the goal of pieces like "Fountain" and "4:33" to provoke discussion over what art or music was? Given that you had such a strong reaction, I feel like that makes them successes. That being said, I legitimately enjoyed the Bolcolm suite as a piece of music. Different strokes.
Yeah, that was often part of the point of modern art and music pieces. I always like to add pieces like "Vexations" by Erik Satie to this group...it was early days of post-romantic music into the modernist stuff.
Here are some tracks that I enjoy, in increasing distance from your dictionary definition of music. Where do you draw the line between music and bullshit?
On February 10 2013 02:46 fatfail wrote:Now we know what music is, we can confidently say that contemporary music isn't music.
Mm I don't think so but I get where you're coming from. Clearly, these pieces aren't doing it for you right now but if you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll find some modern music that you do like, even if it is just 1 piece. That's what did it for me. I found some pieces that I liked and started exploring from there and that was enough to justify the genre for me.
On February 10 2013 11:35 fatfail wrote: Maybe I'm extreme in my response and wo1fwood is correct when he says I am uneducated. Is this modern art something I should try and appreciate?
Only if you actually care, and you really want to understand the cultural and theoretical developments of the last century.
It takes a lot of education to get to the point where you can appreciate and actually understand what such artists are doing though. No offense, but I think you're a little far from that. Suffice to say though, what most people refer to as "modern art" isn't just the bullshit that a lot of people think it is. Whether or not it's actually aesthetically pleasing is certainly still an open question though
On February 10 2013 11:35 fatfail wrote: Maybe I'm extreme in my response and wo1fwood is correct when he says I am uneducated. Is this modern art something I should try and appreciate?
I wouldn't bother, if you don't care already. you should however spend some time considering why such a thing exists, and why THEN.
On February 10 2013 11:35 fatfail wrote: Maybe I'm extreme in my response and wo1fwood is correct when he says I am uneducated. Is this modern art something I should try and appreciate?
Only if you actually care, and you really want to understand the cultural and theoretical developments of the last century.
It takes a lot of education to get to the point where you can appreciate and actually understand what such artists are doing though. No offense, but I think you're a little far from that. Suffice to say though, what most people refer to as "modern art" isn't just the bullshit that a lot of people think it is. Whether or not it's actually aesthetically pleasing is certainly still an open question though
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?
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).
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.
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.
On February 10 2013 11:35 fatfail wrote: Maybe I'm extreme in my response and wo1fwood is correct when he says I am uneducated. Is this modern art something I should try and appreciate?
Only if you actually care, and you really want to understand the cultural and theoretical developments of the last century.
It takes a lot of education to get to the point where you can appreciate and actually understand what such artists are doing though. No offense, but I think you're a little far from that. Suffice to say though, what most people refer to as "modern art" isn't just the bullshit that a lot of people think it is. Whether or not it's actually aesthetically pleasing is certainly still an open question though
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:
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.
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.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EYIK6Pj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.invisiblebooks.com/fountain.jpg)
