/lit/ - Literature

>>22849287
Modern man isn't obsessed with atonality, that was 60-100 years ago. Modern music is extremely pluralistic. Now fuck off and stop making the same thread over and over again.

>>22849303
>Modern music is extremely pluralistic.
Then why does all modern _academic_ music sound like noise? No melody, no harmony, and a whole tome of programs notes that explains the "art" and how to actually perform it.

>>22849306
Because you are a dimwit that knows nothing about music and are going to keep making this thread until people give up taking to you and you can pretend to have won?

>>22849364
I enjoy classical _music_. I do not enjoy noise.

>>22849287
tiziano has discovered 4chan?

>>22849368
A little hint for your future posts, your endlessly bringing up melody is very telling regarding your complete ignorance of theory, melody does not exist in harmony and in western theory literature far more has been written on the psychology of melody—as in why people insist on hearing melody in harmony—than on melody itself with most harmony texts at most mentioning melody as something which may or may not just just arise from harmony or if you need a melody you can borrow one from a bird or something (literally, that is the sum total of melody in one of the older major texts, Prout if memory serves). Most folk traditions have a more developed sense of melody than western theory and that is not an exaggeration.

Also, academia has not been all that interested in atonality since the 60s or so when the early music craze hit which caused the temperament and tuning autism that happened in the 70s/80s and caused everyone to grow sick of pitch and tonality bringing in the interest in rhythm that carried us through the 90s and into the 00s. Right now melody is probably the biggest it has ever been in the history of western classical with a good number of tonal works and theoretical works flipping things around and letting melody dictate harmony and attempting to bring melody into harmony; we may be winding up for the first major change in harmony since Schoenberg wrote his Theory of Harmony and advanced harmony beyond being a handful of rules with an endless list of exceptions but there is still a ways to go here.

Ultimately atonality was an attempt at maintaining western music's autism on the vertical and avoid developing the horizontal beyond being byproducts of the vertical and it worked, it took another 5 or 6 decades before we started to really consider the horizontal in any remotely serious way. But we have yet to really develop any theory for melody or rhythm, we have gotten a few interesting texts on it but two millenniums of ignoring them has left it all a mess.

>>22849306
Again, it doesn't. There's plenty of tonal music.

>>22849368
Noise is what you call sounds that you aren't understanding. Part of the joy we feel from music is from the dopamine release from the recognition of patterns (alongside sympathetic emotional conveyance, rhythmic mood adjustment, and in-group/identity associations that suit our self image).
Melody is usually a very simple pattern to parse. Atonal music relies on subverting the tonal expectations, by 'not doing' what is expected, to convey a different kind of meaning or feeling. While these feelings might be negative, once the intention is understood the rewards for novel pattern recognition can more than compensate. However these days atonal music is no longer novel.

>>22849287
Pic related, unironically

>>22849662
>Melody is usually a very simple pattern to parse.
Only in western theory which treats melody as a side effect of harmony and only because people who do not understand harmony insist on melody. One of the interesting things about melody and rhythm in western music is that now that it is trying to bring them in and flesh out the theory it is completely dependent on external sources because it is so poorly equipped to deal with either; things like Malagasy polyrhythms or the melody of Javanese Gamelan are light years beyond anything western theory can even pretend to deal with.

>>22849662
>dopamine release

>>22849655
>There's plenty of tonal music.
Post one (1) good contemporary classical composer.

>>22849593
fellow music academic, got any good recs for ultra-contemporary movements towards tonal work?

t. music man

>>22849747
>Javanese Gamelan

>>22849782
Tonality was too hard for the (((academic))). You have to have actual creativity, taste and deep thought to write good tonal pieces. Atonality literally can be randomly generated and be praised by academia.

>>22849781
Oh no no no no
Academic sisters, I'm not feeling too good

>>22849784
And? It has taught the west more about melody than it has developed on its own in 2000 years. The use of melody in Javanese Gamelan is at least as developed as Western harmony is and possibly more developed, harmony can be used in Gamelan and has been, Gamelan melody can not be used in Harmony.

>>22849662
>in-group/identity associations that suit our self image)
So much this! Just brought my baby home this week (picture related) and I couldn’t be happier! I recently lost my job at my wife's boyfriend's Waffle House due to Covid-19 and this is the pick me up i really needed. If anyone has any suggestions on games I should get, drop them below! Also, if there are any cool Switch/Nintendo related Funko Pops I can add to my collection definitely drop those suggestions too! Happy gaming eveyone!

>>22849797
>taught the west more about melody
No good composer used it, much less even heard of it. And we have hundreds of good melodies from such composers. It is out-of-tune garbage that academics push as the new fad, same with the Africanization of music, reducing everything to fleshly rhythm.

>>22849797
>It has taught the west more about melody than it has developed on its own in 2000 years.

>>22849803
>No good composer used it,
You do not even know what using it would mean.

We have been writing about Gamelan in the theory sense for 400 years and it has been well known to composers for nearly as long with the "fad" of Gamelan influencing western music primarily being in the 18th/19th centuries as a part of the general Orientalism fad. I can only recall two significant works on the subject from the past 40 years with the bulk of the writings being from the early 20th after Bartok did his part to get the whole musicology thing going. But then Schoenberg and other atonal composers gave the vertical a new lease on life and we forgot about exploring and developing the horizontal until the 90s or so, as I explained.

Western theory has taken huge amount from other traditions going back centuries, the far east helped develop the ideas of temperament and key that enabled Bach to his thing, the middle east and India had influence going back almost to the Greeks.
>>22849807
Seethe, half breed.

>>22849910
Post one (1) good classical piece that "learned" from Gamelan.

>>22849593
yeah but why is classical music so much better than shit like pop and rap and don't just give me some trendy current day drivel about the noblity of soul music its obviously inferior and lacks anywhere near the depth of classical to anyone with taste. If it's not melody and rhythm than why is it better?

>>22849747
>Javanese Gamelan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2937xfI_kKI

I just listend to this and while its nice you can't seriously think this is superior to Bach? You're arguments seem to be much more about trendy theories underlying the art than it is about the actual art piece itself.

>>22849953
Jazz?

>>22849974
What?

>>22849781
Pēteris Vasks
Marc-André Hamelin
Takashi Yoshimatsu

>>22850160
He said good

>>22850171
Oh, in that case
Pēteris Vasks
Marc-André Hamelin
Takashi Yoshimatsu

>>22849287
If you were a musician you wouldn't need such book.

>>22849781
Impossible task.

>>22850190
I'm sure you've given plenty a try.

>>22850223
I've sifted through more of that garbage than actual composers I listen to. Really interested in finding the one based contemporary composer hiding out somewhere.

>>22849784
Javanese Gamelan is fucking good you nigger

>>22849287
>trying to destroy & subvert harmony in music?
why don’t you do some research into the history of classical music and come back when you realize that the introduction of atonality wasn’t an arbitrary choice in an attempt to ruin music but arose out of the very real problem of tonality being pushed to its limits and trying to find a way to authentically extend the tradition

>>22850242
>real problem of tonality being pushed to its limits
What "limits"? Music sounded too good but now it needs to sound ugly and you can only make so much ugliness within tonality?

>>22850241
This. It goes really well with my soilent. I strike the empty bottle when am I done drinking and it makes a Gamelan-type noise. Also the crunchiness of the bugs I consume reminds me of the Gamelalian rhythm I heard my wife's boyfriend rapping to.

>Gamelan
Ethnic good!
White bad!

>>22850268
Art has always developed over time you mongoloid. Imagine someone writing renaissance-style polyphony during Bach’s time or Mozart’s time. It may be well composed but no one is going to take it seriously artistically. Strauss did his best to remain within tonality but the truth is that there’s only so much you can do stylistically within a given system

>>22850287
>New good! World ugly so art ugly!
A very primitive and subversive worldview. Just proving OP's point that atonality is a directed subversive effort, not a natural development in art. Trying to move music away from the harmonic series is pure subversion.

>>22850287
>he thinks tonality is a "style" or "system"
>he thinks you can escape physics and acoustics
>he thinks atonality is real and isn't just badly done tonality with obscured tonics

How many times are you going to post the same thread anon? Have you ever kissed a girl?

>>22850293
Shut the fuck up, there was hundreds of years of western music before tonality.

>>22850290
You sound like the musicians who freaked out over Monteverdi’s unprepared dissonances or the people who couldn’t handle the Grosse Fuge when it was first performed

>>22850305
There literally never was a period of music with pitches without tonality. Functional harmony isn't all of tonality.

>>22850305
Neither promote ugliness, but atonality is created for that exact purpose. Dissonance is an artistic tool, but atonality is a weapon of subversion.

Im banned on /mu/ so I'll ask here.
Good Haydn string quartets to enjoy?

>>22850287
>tonality
>stylistically

>>22850305
>>You sound like the musicians who freaked out over Monteverdi’s unprepared dissonances or the people who couldn’t handle the Grosse Fuge when it was first performed
>Nooo you're like those icky people! Yikes!
Great argument.

>Schoenberg
But it is LITERALLY random noise.

>>22850318
Don't listen to that boring garbage. Upgrade to Schoenberg and Cage instead.

>>22849807
>>22849799
>>22849784
>>22849777
>Depict your enemy as a basedjack
Feeling a bit intellectually threatened there little buddy? Would you rather we were as fragile and bitter on the inside as you clearly are?

I love that the guy who keeps raving about tonal music being present in the current landscape has so far offered no valid example of it, even tho he has been asked for it multiple times.
I bet that if he'll respond to this he will post minimalist shit too lmao

>>22849593
>we may be winding up for the first major change in harmony since Schoenberg wrote his Theory of Harmony
Yo anon don't just say this and then not give some pointers for actual shit to listen to.
In general I have no clue where to actually get "academic music" that I can actually hear, people are always academic music this and academic music that but it's like a parallel world I've never stumbled on. Like are there even academic music labels that put out albums and shit like for pop and classical?
By the way isn't the whole theory of counterpoint about melody?

>>22850952
This is the current academic "music".
https://youtu.be/ePSijWGnRNY?si=Rg5Vck9rMvYq48Tm

>>22849964
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V34MV-S2Fo8
Not him but I really like this gamelan recording.
>>22850973
Did Schoenberg fuck your grandma or something, how the fuck do you get this much autistic rage on this much of an obscure subject?

>>22850981
I will war against despair and ugliness till I die.

>>22850981
>muh Gamelan
Literally can't tune a simple scale. What a complete joke of an "art" movement.

>Gamelann
Yeah, I listen to it, what gave it away?

>nooo don't think for yourself! trust academia. atonality is real. it's the world.

>>22850981
>I really like this gamelan
So true. What are the best Gamelan to blast loudly on my MacBook speakers while reading some Schöenberg? My wife is out with her boyfriend so I can play some music without disturbing them.

>>22850981
>2023
>tfw you have to socially pretend this is good to not appear racist
Sounds like more primitive and detuned children's tunes.

>>22850981
>how the fuck do you get this much autistic rage on this much of an obscure subject?
Stop dodging the question. You've said multiple times that current academia has many good tonal composers. Now, please give us some examples of non-minimalist tonal composers that are worth something.

>the absolute state of contemporary "classical"
https://youtu.be/apPqiVXJkUs?si=YUwwi4AopT8u3lhm

>>22849287
books on how to stop 'conservative' bitching and cattiness?

>>22851114
Im not that idiot who keeps defending contemporary music, but I would still concede that David Bruce is not part of the scene. He's just a nobody who got a bit of fame on youtube

>OP had to stop making it an anti jazz thread because it attracted jazz fans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt6O5cICkX8

Tfw i'll never be a successful composer

>>22851058
>You've said
thats not me in fact I'm mildly interested in the answers myself
>>22851247
lel
OP why don't you try making threads against modernist literature on /mu/ for a change?

>>22849953
Because you are basing your opinion on ignorance and your own subjective taste? I can't really offer much beyond that until you learn theory.
>If it's not melody and rhythm than why is it better?
As I said, western theory lacks those concepts as anything but being a byproduct. The only significant work on rhythm in the history of western theory was printed in the 60s, there is not a single significant work on melody, 2000 years in development and we have nothing to offer here and most people in the west can not even comprehend that these things don't exist in harmony which is why we have more written in the psychology of melody than melody itself.
>>22850952
While we may be winding up for that it is very very unlikely to happen, it is not something that is currently in the air or anything, we are just talking about melody more than we ever have but that does not take much. Sorry to get your hopes up about being on the verge of a new epoch. As I said, we still have a long ways to go here, very much in the academics playing around with ideas stage.

OPs use of academic is not actually correct, I just used it because OP did and it was good enough for the purpose. Academic music is the largely theoretical stuff which often is not even meant to be performed or may not be possible to perform, it is an academic exercise exploring idea. Technology has made this more likely to be heard since they can just have a computer play it now but these pieces being academic are meant more for demonstrating an idea than for any aesthetic quality. Only a tiny minority of these works ever leave the academic community in any direct way. Academic music is essentially the avant garde of theory geeks.

If you want to get into the cutting edge of composition you need to explore your music scene, most of what is new is only performed by small ensembles once or twice and then forgotten until the composer achieves some sort of relevance. Most major metros have at least one orchestra dedicated to contemporary composers, do some searching looking for orchestras and ensembles in your area, find the ones dedicated to contemporary works.

>>22850228
>I've sifted through more of that garbage than actual composers I listen to.
Rank them. Who are the worst? Who are not as bad?

>>22849593
>Ultimately atonality was an attempt at maintaining western music's autism on the vertical and avoid developing the horizontal beyond being byproducts of the vertical and it worked
But isn't dodecaphony/serialism all about the horizontal, and the vertical is the one that's a byproduct? Aren't tone rows focused on the horizontal?

>>22849964
That is not a good recording and just an ok small student Gamelan, far from a full gamelan which includes drums, vocals, wind and bowed instruments. If you must rate and compare every then learn to do it above the level of a gushing teen, learn theory. Here are a couple recordings of the premier Javanese Gamelan,

https://youtu.be/PDLDqh0Xpew
https://youtu.be/DqMkfMQefEw
>>22850981
Thanks anon, have not heard this one, the couple above may interest you.
>>22850992
While a troll you raise an interesting point, ultimately it is the west who can tune and broke their scale because autism. Cultures create their scales based off of the harmonics of their primary instrument, the west created their scale off the plucked string of a monochord which does not sound much like any of their instruments and then went on to futz with the scale for some purely arbitrary idea. All western instruments play out of tune to their scale which forced us to play weird little games with the scale to make everything work but made everything even more out of tune.
>>22852139
>Aren't tone rows focused on the horizontal?
The horizontal aspect here is more about insuring that tonality does not arise, not about developing melody. Still sees the horizontal as a byproduct.

>>22852179
>The horizontal aspect here is more about insuring that tonality does not arise, not about developing melody. Still sees the horizontal as a byproduct.
Not real happy with that response. Atonality viewed from the melodic sense is to say that the way to develop melody is to insure harmony does not arise, it still concerns itself more with the relationship of the voices on the vertical than the development of the horizontal.

>>22849920
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EWaDEy8fJwo&pp=

>>22850293
If it's obscured then it's not tonal (although the term "atonal" has always been nothing more than a smear used by conservative critics to describe even impressionists) cope and seethe.

>>22850936
How is the minimalist shit not tonal, albeit?

>>22852497
Some is tonal, some is not.

Indian classical ragas and khayals are vastly more interesting and intricate than any western piano bullshit, that's just music for butlers and church

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XEtlmFA4AqA

>>22852575
Good morning, sar!

>>22850981
do you actually enjoy that or are you just pretending to own le chuds? seriously there's good black musicians out there (prince, hendrix, armstrong), you don't need to larp over toddlercore.

>>22852590
It's Indonesian not black. Indians, Arabs, southeast Asians, Chinese, Japanese all have their forms of classical music

>>22852083
Ok but you still didn't answer a basic question and just repeated the same trendy theories you said earlier. Explain why western music namely classical is so good. If it lacks melody and rhythm then what makes it good?

I just listened to all the "eastern" examples of music posted here as examples of western classical inferiority and I can't believe this is serious. Some of them literally sounded like music for toddlers. An utter joke. 100% a trendy intellectual fashion where everybody plays along in a desperate attempt to be new and novel. If academics can't come up with anything novel of quality then they resort to coming up with novel garbage, anything to stand out and make a name for themselves. The shills for these theories are also likely in their early 20s and just accept everything they learn at college as God given knowledge as you can see by their arrogant lofty tone, ranting for paragraphs but failing to answer a single quesion. Not to mention it all jives well with the general anti-western leftist sentiment in colleges today.

>>22852719
Harmony. Pay attention.
>>22852755
You listened to 4 hours of music and that is all you can say about it? Other than raga anon I don't think anyone said they were superior.

>>22852497
It's not that it's not tonal, it's that I do not care about it. Also it's the only type off tonal music people ALWAYS post when they're asked for examples contemporary tonal music

>>22852774
how the fuck does harmony not incorporate melody or rhythm?

>>22852774
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V34MV-S2Fo8

this sounds like it should be on playschool, they were using them as examples of things western classical music seriously lacked, if this is what they are lacking then it was probably a good thing

>>22852812
Hey, this is pretty good, not cringe at all.

>>22852978
Yes Bach really needed to learn a thing or two from this toddler song

>>22852806
Because harmony does not actually see them as separate things and there is nothing to incorporate. Melody is just harmony turned sideways and is understood through the tools of harmony and when you play those notes sequentially instead of all at once we just call it a broken chord (arpeggio etc). Rhythm is the same and completely a function of harmony hence quarter NOTE, we don't care when the beat happens just how it effects the harmony. The only way we can understand or analyze melody and rhythm is by looking how they effect harmony, we essentially see the leaves rustle and go look, wind! and hope it actually is wind and not a tiger.

Harmony does not understand anything without key and if it has key it is harmony, not melody or an orange.

>>22853252
Can you actually find any support for this theoretical outlook before, say, the late 19th century?

>>22852083
Could you please tell us why you're refusing to give us any example of contemporary non-minimalist tonal music? At this point at least a dozen people have asked you for recommendations.

Brown people with inferiority complexes and self-hating rich white liberals with a patronizing streak are a horrible combination.

>>22853270
This goes back to counterpoint where they also had the same issue just slightly different.
>>22853277
Show me the dozen anons that asked and I will show you a hyperbolic anon who can not follow the thread. But hey, define minimalism in a concrete way that won't have you bitching about what ever I rec being minimalism and I will find a tonal piece of minimalism which does not fit your definition. Anything I post will be shat on regardless because you would rather be right, hence your repeated making this thread and larping about knowing theory. Just use google if you want to find contemporary tonal works, this is not difficult.

So how about you tell me why I should jump through your hoops and effort post for a bunch of dilettantes who do nothing but trying and win arguments on topics they know nothing about?

>>22853325
holy shit you are the living embodiment of pseud college student you will babble endlessly about theory but can not give a simple fucking answer to a question, nothing real just total rhetorical flourish

>>22853252
you realise this is all just an utterly subjective and is just the current dominant theories of music you are preaching. There is no reason you have to organize along such lines.

>>22853325
>Show me the dozen anons that asked and I will show you a hyperbolic anon who can not follow the thread.
Ok:
>>22849781
>>22849782
>>22850228
>>22850936
>>22850952
>>22851058
>>22851383
>>22853277
Sorry it wasn't 12, it was """"just"""" 8.
>But hey, define minimalism in a concrete way that won't have you bitching about what ever I rec being minimalism and I will find a tonal piece of minimalism which does not fit your definition.
I'll go by whatever definition you think is the most reasonable.
>Anything I post will be shat on regardless because you would rather be right, hence your repeated making this thread and larping about knowing theory.
I'm not the OP.
>Just use google if you want to find contemporary tonal works, this is not difficult.
It is in fact extremely difficult to find good contemporary tonal music that is not minimalist, especially large scale one (say, sonatas, concerti and symphonies, rather than short program pieces). In fact by researching it you will mostly find threads on various sites of people begging for some recommendations, and getting in return either minimal music or, for some reason, Rautavaara.
>So how about you tell me why I should jump through your hoops and effort post for a bunch of dilettantes who do nothing but trying and win arguments on topics they know nothing about?
No one asked you to jump through the hoops. The request was very simple: can you give us some recommendations on non-minimalist contemporary tonal music? Hell, I'll make it even easier: can you recommend us sites/youtube channels that post consistently contemporary tonal music? This way you don't even have to make a list (and since, according to you, finding this music is easy, this last request should be even easier)

>>22853325
>This goes back to counterpoint where they also had the same issue just slightly different.
Uh... No? Your claim was
"Melody is just harmony turned sideways and is understood through the tools of harmony and when you play those notes sequentially instead of all at once we just call it a broken chord (arpeggio etc)."
I challenge you to find a single passage in Fux, for example, that say anything of the sort. In fact he clearly considers contrapunctual writing as distinct from melodic writing, since in the introduction Alosysius assumes that Josephus already knows how to compose singable melodies, BEFORE he has studied counterpoint.

>>22852179
>The horizontal aspect here is more about insuring that tonality does not arise, not about developing melody. Still sees the horizontal as a byproduct.
What about the tone rows that imply tonality? Alban Berg wrote some of them in such a way that they spelled out minor and major chords.

>>22852491
It's just badly done tonal where the composer doesn't wield the tones, but combines them in arbitrary ways to try and subvert the relations inherent in the harmonic series. At its core it is an attempt to subvert nature.

>>22853252
>Harmony does not understand anything without key
>all of harmony is functional

>>22853704
Not that anon, but even in tonal music tone rows that spell out triadic chords to not necessarily entail said triadic chords (e.g. melody going from G to B to D could work with harmonies that do not include a Gmaj chord). In general do not trust that anon, he seems to be clueless about the kind of theory that was employed for most of the history of western canon.

>>22853720
Don't blame that anon, blame his bad teachers. He is clearly parroting what his music school/conservatory (most likely failed musicians/composers) taught him

>>22853726
Music school/conservatory professors*

>>22853726
I agree, modern music education is a complete disaster. Focused on either producing MIDI-players or "sound artists" instead of composers.

>>22853731
That's what you get from an artistic academia that is centered on quantitative criteria. These people cannot teach taste, so they focus on arid abstractions that have never had any influence before the 20th century. And when they try to approach qualitative criteria they have to resort to meaningless aesthetic relativism (see the many instances of him going "you find this ugly just because you don't understand why it is interesting" – he cannot even begin to understand that the great masters in the western of canon could produce work of immense interest without pursuing ugliness).
Im not even talking about non-tonal comp in particular. For example Schenkerian analysis (which he seem to refer to a lot, although I'm not sure he is aware of it) is already a sign of theoretical decadence, especially when it comes to its inability to deal with melodic writing.
I'll leave with a quote by Mozart:
"Melody is the essence of music. I compare a good melodist to a fine racer, and counterpointists to hack post-horses; therefore be advised, let well alone and remember the old Italian proverb: Chi sa più, meno sa—Who knows most, knows least.”

>contemporary noise good
>Mozart and Bach overrated
>Boulanger underrated cause she's a woman! she is le obscure... nobody knows about her!
You can't make this up. They even have the unironic soiface.
https://youtu.be/flXggdtw9NE?si=FAX70twWJuq4tfvE

Isn't the issue just that a thorough theory of melody would be rather pointless? Starting from a scale people can create great melodies just improvising them or fiddling with things until they work, it's a pretty direct method of aesthetic/emotional expression. What would be the point of theorizing that? To find new melodies that people would not intuitively have stumbled upon? I don't think that's possible with melody desu. With harmony there's just much more technical work to be done before you can effect a modulation in 12tet, which after all is a kind of technical trick.

>>22853810
>anon who gets his information from youtube videos with onions thumbnails wants to lecture others about culture

>>22853829
It's more like anon goes to soi gathering place to get their opinion.
I'd have to do that since I do not associate with "modern culture" IRL.

Modern composers seem to be all about finding gimmicks to make their works "original" instead of making good art. Ironic that they end up sounding the same, you can't tell most contemporary academic composers apart.

>>22853821
Pretty much this. It's not because Gamelan is so "advanced", but melody is inherently less technical than harmony and more personal to the composer, while harmony is just the skilful manipulation of the harmonic series.
For example Hindemith has a chapter on melody which is only ~20 pages of his book building up tonality and harmony from the ground up.

>>22850287
>Strauss did his best to remain within tonality but the truth is that there’s only so much you can do stylistically within a given system
Whenever I read bullshit like this I think about how Ravel composed his piano concerto in 1931, right at the peak of the second Viennese school, and about how that piece sounds like nothing else, to THIS day. It really reminds me that people who argue that tonal music has been stylistically exhausted are just having a skill issue. I blame the Germans for that: it was a mixture of a) their tonal music becoming stale and overly academic in the first decades of the 20th century, and b) them being so predominant when it comes to academic music theory and musicology. These two factors unleashed a tsunami of coping that keeps going on to this day.

>>22853821
>>22853862
>Theorycels still don't understand what makes art worthy of this name
So shocking

>>22852179
>All western instruments play out of tune to their scale
Kek. All instruments are keyboards now?
12-tone equal temperament was a mistake by the way and was a symptom of the degeneration of academia. It's bad like the Gamelan "tuning" but for different reasons, Gamelan just can't into the harmonic series (but people pretend it's le culture), while the West doesn't care about objectivity anymore, only about subjectivism and equality and making everything in art grey, meaningless and uniform.

>>22853382
>Sorry it wasn't 12, it was """"just"""" 8.
6. Your asking me why is not really countable here, one is the anon I misled and was not asking for contemporary non-minimal composers. Of the remaing 6 only 1 is addressed to me (hence the not being able to follow a thread bit) and technically he also is not asking for contemporarynon-minimalist tonal composers but I will throw you a bone, I missed that anons post or forgot. But I am not the one saying what is good and what is not, I have kept my posts fairly neutral in that and stuck to things which can be objectively backed up.
>I'm not the OP.
You are.
>No one asked you to jump through the hoops.
Sure it is, completely ignoring the point of my posts which is not to prove what is subjectively good.
>>22853390
Anon, there is no melodic theory for constructing the horizontal, we understand it through harmony and how the voices relate.
>>22853704
Implying tonality is not tonality and there is a good amount of atonal composition is a mix of tonal and atonal.
>>22853720
In context of the discussion it is harmony = tonal and non-functional harmony without a tonal center is atonal. Pay attention.
>>22853726
>>22853729
>>22853744
So when and where did I go to school?

>>22853877
>6. Your asking me why is not really countable here, one is the anon I misled and was not asking for contemporary non-minimal composers. Of the remaing 6 only 1 is addressed to me (hence the not being able to follow a thread bit) and technically he also is not asking for contemporarynon-minimalist tonal composers but I will throw you a bone, I missed that anons post or forgot. But I am not the one saying what is good and what is not, I have kept my posts fairly neutral in that and stuck to things which can be objectively backed up.
All this cope but still not a SINGLE good piece by contemporary academia... Must be a coincidence it's all garbage. Now we have to take influences from Gamelan. Surely that will revitalise classical!
(pro tip, if something is alive you don't need to bother searching across the world for "influences" to make it alive again).

>>22853872
>he still thinks AI-generated tone rows that try to subvert the natural order are art

>>22853877
>You are.
I'm not lmao. Like, do you realize that not everyone who disagrees with you is the same person, right?
>Sure it is, completely ignoring the point of my posts which is not to prove what is subjectively good.
I'll just assume that you actually cannot satisfy that request. If it was so easy you would have at least mentioned some site or channel that could help us, but since you're unwilling to do that I'll just assume that you have literally zero clue on how to find good contemporary non-minimalist tonal music, and that you were just bluffing when you said that it is easy to find it.

>>22853877
OP here >>22853882
I'm not him, but am very interested in witnessing a piece by a good contemporary academic composer.

>>22849368
I enjoy both

>>22853889
I too enjoy things that are not art, but I do not try to claim them as such.

>>22853877
>Anon, there is no melodic theory for constructing the horizontal, we understand it through harmony and how the voices relate.
"B-b-but there is no theory to direct me".
For your sake I'll quote Mozart once again
"Melody is the essence of music. I compare a good melodist to a fine racer, and counterpointists to hack post-horses; therefore be advised, let well alone and remember the old Italian proverb: Chi sa più, meno sa—Who knows most, knows least.”
Also pic related. The sooner you understand that your teachers have turned you into a fool the sooner you might free yourself from this nonsensical outlook on art. And if you don't that's okay, it'll just mean that I will have less competition.
>So when and where did I go to school?
lmao

Books explaining how the search for "freedom" in art ironically made it more bound by theory and rules?

>>22853893
That actually proves my point and it has nothing to do with being "directed" as you think it does. Does harmony direct you?

>>22853901
Not that anon, but a false/bad theory of harmony can direct you in that it inherently limits you, and then gives you the desire to need to "break away" from it and invent garbage like "atonality". There are unironically people here who think tonality is a "style" that limits them.

>>22853901
So you admit that theory is irrelevant when it comes to art, and that your reduction of melody to harmony is an abstraction that has been established only in the past century by academics who, all in all, were divorced from the actual tradition of the western canon? And that, in general, what you've claimed about melody was fucking stupid? Ty for that

>>22853890
Being this territorial about what constitutes 'art' stinks of a fragile ego.

holy dimwit thread
in crudo traditional polyphonic singing or what's the point? commercial slop
get aids

>>22853931
>bruh.... names don't matter, it's like.... whatever
I care about beauty and truth. I assume you profess to do so as well since we are on a literature board?

>>22853927
Are you that stupid or is your ego that fragile?

>>22853944
>Fragile ego
I guess you really had nothing to say. Ill just remind you of what you actually said earlier
""Melody is just harmony turned sideways and is understood through the tools of harmony and when you play those notes sequentially instead of all at once we just call it a broken chord (arpeggio etc)."

As a trained musician, I really can't believe how stupid you people are. please for the love of god stick to reading books

>>22850987
Start by kysing. Or read a book.

>>22853968
>As a trained musician
Completely meaningless credential. Pic related is also a trained musician but can't produce a good melody to save his life. Modern training only imparts one with the tools of the craft, and badly mangled and deformed tools at that.

>>22853972
>nooooo do not fight against ugliness in art
>conform blindly to academia!
I wonder who is behind this post.

>>22853968
I'm a trained musician and composer too, my advice is to start reading theory/comp books written before the late 19th century. Start with Zarlino and Fux

>>22854000
Do you know any books describing various composer's composition process? Like the various stages of how they created larger form works?

>>22849287
Ranting about atonal music is the basic trait of a philistine. Same for poetry that doesn't rhyme or movies about a plot. These things are essential for idiots and they will crave for them. It could not be otherwise, it's out of their grasp.

>>22854011
>To be fair you have to have a very high IQ to understand atonality.
Nah, it's just badly made garbage that avoids tonality because it's too hard.

>>22853999
Fight against moron's notion of 'beauty', that ought to be done. Anyway, discussing about 'ugly and beautiful' in any form of art nowadays, well, then you know for certain that you are in the moronland.

>>22854030
>objectivity doesn't exist! ugliness is beauty! conform! consume!
As someone who loves art, I will fight this till I die.

>>22854009
There are countless books of this sort, but I would advise against reading them, and instead just go for the good ol' route: read the classics of music theory (especially Zarlino, Fux and Rameau), and then study directly the scores of the great masters of the Western canon. The academic literature of the past 100 years has produced no great composer, and as such it shouldn't be regarded as useful to those who want to meddle in music (wether as composers or simply as enthusiasts). "You will know them by their fruit" is a maxim that should be adopted by anyone who has artistic inclinations.
>>22854011
I can see that your professors trained you well, and that you were complacent enough to take it all in without any conscious resistance.

>>22854030
On which ground would you say that people concerned with beauty are morons? Do you have arguments of your own for this claim? Or maybe are you referring to some specific author of your liking? Or maybe you are just partaking in a fad? Please tell me, I'm curious

>>22854044
>study directly the scores of the great masters of the Western canon
Seems to be the best path forward.

Man, wait till you realize that the Jews are intellectually facile because they don't have a Big Jesus Daddy psyche fucked up on gentile western nuclear family relations and therefore disincline from dogmatism (aka Big Daddy's Rules) and that this gives them a creatice edge which places their aesthetic achievements slightly ahead of the mean and that the net effect of all of this is some Viking mut 1,000 years after Charlemagne cannot decipher the work and therefore declares it is some sort of Jewish conspiracy against his very brain and eyes

human nature is wretched and we deserve an asteroid

>>22854050
t. guy who is overdosing on copium

>>22854050
>creatice edge which places their aesthetic achievements slightly ahead of the mean
Post atonal aesthetic achievements.

>>22854067
Chromaticism is the logical culmination of diatonicism you fucking moron go listen to Bach's B minor fugue from book II of the WTC it is literally organized around a tone row thus making Schoenberg and Bach independent discoverers of the same profoundly Western European idea.

Does it sound like something you and your redneck-brained companions will drink Modelo to while Larping as traditionalists as in the manner of Wagner's overtures? No, but it is literally just as Germanic, for German minds span the poetical romanticism of Wagner as well as the analytical designs of Bach, as does the European classical tradition in general.

and maybe study a piece of music before you die you J A C K A S S

>>22854090
>chromaticism is atonality

>>22854090
>Schoenberg was a German composer! He was just trying to save Western traditional music!

>In 1933, Schoenberg wrote an open letter to several Jewish musicians, emphasizing the need to “make the Jews a people once again, and unite them under a government in a determined and precise territory.”
>"It is that I am not a German, not a European, indeed perhaps scarcely even a human being (at least, the Europeans prefer the worst of their race to me), but I am a Jew."

>"It is the task of Israeli musicians to set the world an example of the old kind that can make our souls function again as they must if mankind is to evolve any higher."

>>22854090
>Bach's B minor fugue from book II
So much this! It is literally Schoenberg!

How to revive classical music?

>>22853716
Based, nature is evil

>>22854331
Sorry, wrong picture

>>22853731
You're talking to yourself again....

>>22854340
No, I'm talking to someone brainwashed by Jewish academia

>>22853885
>I'm not lmao. Like, do you realize that not everyone who disagrees with you is the same person, right?
This would be fair if you changed posting-style and subject matter but, as I've told you numerous times in /classical/, you are TERRIBLE at samefagging.

>>22853898
Why would you want a book about some nonsense you just made up?

>>22854363
I'm the guy who spams /mu/ about academicism and can confirm he is not me.

>>22854367
How is it made up? 12-tone was supposed to "free" the musician but ended up chaining him to sounding jewy and distressed all the time.

>>22853938
>I care about beauty and truth
Okay, hold your meatballs there, sailor moon!

>>22853958
>Melody is just harmony turned sideways
Right, because most harmony consists of clusters

>>22854000
Fux is 17th century

>>22853726
>>22854342
Here's your chance

>>22854374
Because nobody was forced to use it? By far the most stifling period was Classical where you had to churn out piece after piece that would appeal to pompous aristocratic laymen.

>Gamelan is real music

>>22854414
Nice photoshop

>Modern academia is helping art not killing it

>>22850287
>Strauss did his best to remain within tonality but the truth is that there’s only so much you can do stylistically within a given system

>>22854415
>piece after piece that would appeal to pompous aristocratic laymen
And they still sound pretty good

>Gamelan
Hard to imagine something more blue pilled than this.

>>22854411

>>22854780
I still don't believe you are different people

>>22854876
>no way two people on 4chan disagree with my blue pilled opinions
Yeah, this is way easier to believe than a person going through the trouble of changing timezones and screenshotting multiple devices.

Post good music coming from academia in the last decade.
*crickets*

>>22854949
Post good music coming from academia ever

>>22855014
Ravel's early cantatas

>>22855072
>Ravel
Not an academic

This post is for AI learning

>>22855179
Did you learn anything?

>>22855092
He wasn't an academic, but the cantatas he composed for the Prix de Rome were in fact highly academic. Of course I wouldn't say the same about the rest of his ouvre

>>22854912
Not in the exact same way (being in full agreement, being cordial to "the other guy" while being insulting to others, ranting about academics, using the same formatting), no. I'm chocking this one up to mspaint.

>>22855092
>Because... He just wasn't, okay?!!!!111

Music is just so immediate (for me at least) that although I sometimes feel the urge to seek out more novel or challenging things, I ultimately will always have a strong desire for simple melodies that hit the pleasure circuits in just the right way. It's not really something I could get "bored" of any more than I could get "bored" of potato chips or orgasms, it's on an equally sub-intellectual level.
I guess some people must not feel that to the same degree, but to me it's very odd that one would apply intellectualism to music. It would be like trying to introduce a complicated multi-layered pattern of strokes when I'm jerking off, why would I not just do what feels good?
You could say that this mentality is animalistic and retarded, and you'd be right, but I just wonder to what extent I am or am not an outlier in experiencing it this way.

>>22855601
You're so mentally ill lmao

>>22855601
Why would one not be cordial to someone who shares the same opinion while insulting others who share the opposite one? Isn't this par for the course on 4chan?

>>22855603
How was he an academic? He literally never held an official teaching position or wrote academic works.

>>22855611
>to me it's very odd that one would apply intellectualism to music
>why would I not just do what feels good?
Some people aren't driven by "dopamine release" or whatever NPCs call their porn addiction these days.

>>22855643
Not the guy you're responding to, but I explained it here >>22855559
I wasn't talking about his entire ouvre, just about the cantatas he composed for the Prix de Rome

>>22855652
The guy seems to imply Ravel was an academic, not that he composed academic works.
>>Because... He just wasn't, okay?!!!!111

>>22855643
Here I mean in the sense of prose/writing, not music. He was also disliked by academics of his time so categorising him as one of their kind is weird.

Searching for a single good piece of contemporary classical.

>>22855685
If you ever manage to find it please tell me

>>22855702
It will be a breakthrough in musicology so you will hear about it on the news but I will make a thread too

>>22855651
Right, I'm just saying that music is natively more well-adapted to direct dopamine release than any other artistic medium and in that sense bears a strong resemblance to those other base animal functions.
But of course it is also natively quite suited to great exploration of complexity and can even map to complex emotions in a semi-detailed manner although I'm highly skeptical of how fine-grained that mapping can really be when it comes to different variations on dissonance.
I guess that tension is just what makes music interesting and unique.

>>22855658
So was every academic disliked by another group of academics associated with a different movement.

>>22855713
I actually think cinema and tv series are better fit for it. Just look at the explosion in popularity regarding short clips from classic movies and series. A 30 seconds video in which Tony Soprano says a cool line will get you hundreds of thousands of views, people will keep watching it over and over.

>>22855798
True, faces and voices exert a powerful influence as well in terms of unconscious responses, but there's a reason those clips also have music added on over them. I think they're both similarly "manipulative" but with music it's more distilled and focused on a single perceptual frequency, whereas the ability for film to simulate a social environment has a more broad but diffuse effect.

>>22855685
The above "debate" or whatever is giving me brain damage so I gave up on following it... But I like listening to contemporary classical:

Adams is an annoying lib sometimes but I really like Shaker Loops, Chairman Dances and his Chamber Symphony. I like early Webern and Schoenberg when they're doing free atonality but not serialism yet -- Webern's Passacaglia and Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony. I also like Webern's pieces for orchestra and string quartet. I think Berg's Wozzeck is based but I'm not strong enough to do all four hours of Lulu lol. Stravinsky's In Memoriam Dylan Thomas is my fav serialist piece though, but ultimately I like his neoclassical and primitivist stuff better (Apollo is a top 5 piece OAT for me).

There's a ton of great tonal contemporary classical I like but I'm not gonna name it bc seems like that's not what's in contention here.

>>22849287
i love shoenberg

>>22854044
Not needed. Literally just study partimento, if you want to compose in a classical/baroque style that is all that you need.

>>22854329
Study partimento and improvise/compose new music in the style

>>22856005
Based

>>22856005
based

>>22856128
lol

I hate academic music.

>>22855903
>lol
>fav
>bc
Are you a homosexual?

>>22856136
this
partimento IS the classical tradition

What's /lit/ listening to recently?
For me it's been Dylan, the Stones, Simon & Garfunkel, Nirvana and Elliott Smith; and Mahler and Chopin on the classical side, plus a lil bit of Monk.
Also I've been reading Greek poetry a lot and it's interesting to reflect on the deep relationship between music and literature.

Why does /lit have better music disc than /mu

>>22849593
>>22852179
tell me you took a semester of introductory music theory without telling me you took a semester of introductory music theory

>>22855903
>There's a ton of great tonal contemporary classical I like but I'm not gonna name it bc seems like that's not what's in contention here.
There's like 5+ anons in this thread (maybe even 10 at this point) who are BEGGING for great contemporary tonal music.

>>22855685
In Vain - Haas

>>22856461
>In Vain - Haas
Ok this seems like it could be good but uh... the personal life section of this dude's wiki page leads to some interesting stuff.

>all those posts replying to some retarded animefag troll
This thread reeks

t. professional composer

>>22856538
>t. professional composer
Yeah so uh I'll have a uhhhhhhhhh grande mocha with whipped cream

>>22856691
It's actually a rather comfy profession

>>22856703
Do you make your living just from writing music?

>>22856822
I'm also an art director at the local orchestra and conduct sometimes

>>22856136
But what if I don’t want to make pastiche? The great composers didn’t fully copy their predecessors. Now there’s a problem of tradition being. Dead so you don’t know who to even draw from.

>>22856538
>professional
That you added this part makes me think you compose noise music and want to legitimise this garbage, but I could be wrong. What type of music do you write, anon?

>>22854374
>12-tone was supposed to "free" the musician
No, it wasn't. You're literally making shit up. 12-tone was invented by Schoenberg to continue the tradition of "German supremacy" and because he wanted to use classical forms again, which free atonality didn't manage.

>>22856477
Yeah, it's disgusting. Literally can't listen to a guy's music if he's that public about his degeneracy.

>>22857602
>nooo the emancipation of dissonance wasn't;t real

>>22857613
If you have something constructive to say, go ahead.

>Haas wrote the piece in response to the rise of the far-right in Austria.
Any contemporary composers that wrote pieces that lead to the rise of the far-right?

>>22857602
>continue the tradition of "German supremacy"
oh no no no no
>"It is that I am not a German, not a European, indeed perhaps scarcely even a human being (at least, the Europeans prefer the worst of their race to me), but I am a Jew."
>"It is the task of Israeli musicians to set the world an example of the old kind that can make our souls function again as they must if mankind is to evolve any higher."

>>22857626
People sometimes say contradictory things, anon. Like I said
>I have made a discovery which will ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years. [Ich habe eine Entdeckung gemacht, durch welche die Vorherrschaft der deutschen Musik für den nächsten hundert Jahre gesichert ist.]

Is his music as ugly and demonic as his "art"?

>>22857631
>using false quotes
oh no no no no no schoensisters
>"I just wanted to give you quickly a sign of life and to thank you for your dear letter. Quickly: for after I paid my Mattsee compatriots — forever deranged by the madness of the times — a tribute in money (very much money) and what is more: work time (3 weeks!) — I have begun again to work. Something completely new! The German aryans who persecuted me in Mattsee will have this new thing (especially this one) to thank for the fact that even they will still be respected abroad for 100 years, because they belong to the very state that has just secured for itself hegemony in the field of music!"

>>22857638
>false quote
Source?

>>22857641
It's recounting what he said with an entirely different context. Schoenberg thought he was an Israeli musician evolving music and that the germans should be thankful that someone as great as him helped pushed their music forward.

>"It is the task of Israeli musicians to set the world an example of the old kind that can make our souls function again as they must if mankind is to evolve any higher."

>I. THE FIGHT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITISM MUST BE STOPPED.
>II. A UNITED JEWISH PARTY MUST BE CREATED.
>III. UNANIMITY IN JEWRY MUST BE ENFORCED WITH ALL MEANS.
>IV. WAYS MUST BE PREPARED TO OBTAIN A PLACE TO ERECT AN INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE.
- Arnold Schöenberg, Jew, Zionist, Composer.

>>22857646
Sure, it definitely sounds like a more extreme and nationalistic version of "will have this new thing (especially this one) to thank for the fact that even they will still be respected abroad for 100 years". What he said or didn't say isn't important, the fact of the matter is that he wanted to use a tool with which he could use classical forms again, and not to "free the musician" (whatever that means) like >>22854374 said.

>>22857654
>a tool with which he could use classical forms again
And not write tonal music, obviously. It's all a bit silly. I don't like Schoenberg, I prefer his two students.

>>22857654
He wanted to free the musician from the "oppressive" limits on the use of dissonance. He thought more dissonance means more progress.

>>22857661
I'm not convinced that's what he actually wanted, sounds like a cope to get people on his side. I don't think he gave two shits about what the musician thought. A man with an ego like that never does (see: Beethoven).

>>22857667
By musician I mean the abstract musician who benefits from the Jew who "evolved" music.

>>22857622
Makes me interested. There are living right-wing writers, but no composers?

>>22856128
Best resources? I just got a piano and want to learn to play to a level that would be beneficial for composing.

>>22854090
>Chromaticism is the logical culmination of diatonicism
But who said anything about emancipating dissonance? Not Bach, not Wagner, not Strauss, not Reger, not anyone but that disgusting modernist Schoenberg.

>>22857844
He also chose the most dissonant timbre to push his garbage. With other instruments what counts as dissonant on the piano could sound more consonant, so it's not even about expanding the "sound world" (he would use higher limit just intonation if he cared about that) but just about making music as ugly as possible.

This is "music".
https://youtu.be/AWVUp12XPpU?si=_PtifnIe10v0wgsI

Nobody is posting written music in this thread, is everyone illiterate when it comes to reading music

>>22852083
>only significant work on rhythm in the history of western theory was printed in the 60s, there is not a single significant work on melody, 2000 years in development and we have nothing to offer here and most people in the west can not even

The reason why there's no significant works in music theory is because academic musicology is a bullshit meme discipline with piss poor scholars and scholarship. I bet you have a degree in music production.

>>22858409
Wtf, it's like a minute too short, their tempo was way too fast.

>>22858409
John Cage is a different strain of avantgardism, Schoenberg would have hated it with a passion (and would have probably thought that Cage was a troll).
That said at least Cage had a pupil who did something interesting, namely Morton Feldman. I really love his Piano and String Quartet, although I don't have the patient to listen to it all.
>>22858457
Pretty much. As a working musician and composer there's nothing that depresses me as much as the sight of a musicologist. I guess they just have a kink for wasting their lives on completely useless nonsense. It's quite sad, really, especially once you realize that at no time in the short history of this discipline they've actually given any meaningful contribution to the production of art.

>>22858409
It's really disappointing to have inherited this era of civilization. All that's left is performance; there's nothing left of substance.

>>22858539
>Schönberg bad
>Feldman good
get the fuck out

>Schoenberg bad
>Feldman bad
The only difference is one is very bad music, while the other isn't music at all.

>>22858689
Feldman was not a theory-freak, he was mostly looking for chords that he liked. I admit that I basically consider it background music, but it's still enjoyable to me. https://youtu.be/TUAxrFQXuO4?si=NHpoCjwo56EfX3wG

Also the main reason I rate him above the likes of Schoenberg and Cage is that at least Feldman was trying to compose by following his own taste, instead of resorting to gimmicks like made up theory (schoenberg) or low brow performance art (cage). In fact I remember a quote by Feldman, where he expressed scorn at Cage because he didn't care what his music sounded like. Feldman on the other hand always cared about that, and I suspect that if more avantgarde artists care about that too, then contemporary art wouldn't be as offensive to my ears and brain as it currently is.

>>22858761
>Feldman was trying to compose by following his own taste
Schoenberg and Cage did that too. But neither of the three cared about good sound, otherwise they would not make actively ugly music.

>>22858770
>Schoenberg and Cage did that too.
Cage did not (apart for maybe a few early pieces of his) and Schoenberg was too involved in his theoretical system to really develop his own style.
>But neither of the three cared about good sound, otherwise they would not make actively ugly music.
Agree to disagree. Personally I think there are countless beautiful sounds in the piece I've linked, especially towards the end.
Then again, I have already conceded that I consider it background music. I guess Im sympathetic yo Feldman mostly because I believe that if he had managed to be more influential we would have gotten a far more musically interesting avantgarde scene. Instead we got stuck for decades with Boulez, Stockhausen and Cage. Truly a tragedy.

>>22856376
This has always been the case. Especially for classical music

>>22858761
>Feldman
Sounds like a worse version of Minecraft music.

>>22856844
ywnbac (you will never be a cat)

>>22858984
Nah

>Minimalism
>Noise
So these are the only schools remaining in classical? Literally how did it come to this sorry state?

>>22858409
>*clapping sounds*
What would you guys do if you were at this "performance"?

I do want to point out the actual effort that the conductor and the musicians put into this performance. The conductor's efforts are obvious, he is actually gesturing and making movements as part of it, but notice also how the musicians are being attentive and present when they're actually 'playing' each movement and then are relaxing and reorienting their bodies in between each movement. It's less effort than actually playing a piece of music would be, but they clearly put on this performance with a lot of thought and consideration to Cage's original meaning. Good job guys!

Interesting choice by the conductor to take '4'33"' at a quicker pace. It's a performance that often invites contemplation and reflection, and the variation in duration can indeed spark some interesting discussions about interpretation and intention in John Cage's work. But still, I find that the original, more extended duration allows for a deeper connection with the piece, letting the silence resonate and immerse us fully in the experience.

>>22859099
Honestly, who cares? They COMPLETELY fucked up the orchestration. You can fix the tempi however you want, it will still be a failure, given this orchestral balance (or lack thereof, to be more blunt)

>>22849287
>Moldenauer's Webern biography.

>>22849593
More or less apt.

>>22857476
You have to walk before you can run. First learn what's been done before, only then can you be creative and original. J. S. Bach famously stole his brother's music collection and copied it by moonlight when he was a small child. Imitation has always been how great composers learn.

As an adult, Bach went on to copy the concertos of Vivaldi and transcribe them for solo organ. Mozart did the same with Bach's fugues, transcribing them for string quartet if I remember correctly, when he wanted to improve his fugue writing.

>>22857698
/r/partimento has a stickied post with some beginner resources. Subreddit is dead though.

>>22859381
Is partimento a good way to achieve my desired goal? I don't have much time but I need to learn piano.

>>22857698
>>22859381
https://www.reddit.com/r/partimento/comments/15xr7f4/new_to_partimento_start_here/

>>22859385
Yes, most definitely. Since I learned partimento, sight reading has been a breeze. Because I don't actually need to read the notes to understand what sorts of harmony the composer may use. All I have to do is look at the bass. Is it tied? Is it a 4th up 5th down pattern?

Just go on YouTube and look up some partimento realizations. It teaches you harmony, counterpoint, composition, and improvisation all at once.

Here are some good examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcH6VuwZsvM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9doP0QAoXg

>>22859385
However you should also get a teacher, partimenti teachers nothing about technique, such as posture, phrasing, fingering, etc.

>>22857476
If you cannot compose a pastiche fugue then you're not capable or ready for anything experimental yet.

>>22859428
>>22857476
However if you want more practical advice, look to the Romantic period of composers, because they effectively asked and answered the same question that you have.

Take Chopin as an example. As a child he learned and mastered the principles of harmony and counterpoint as taught in partimento. As an adult, he used those same principles constantly in his music, but to avoid sounding pastiche, he breaks out of those paradigms with many techniques:
1. Increased chromaticism
2. Unexpected harmonic progressions, using things like enharmonic respellings
3. New forms (ballade, nocturne) that prior composers did not explore
4. Increased attention to virtuosic techniques and texture (think his etudes)

After mastering the fundamentals of partimento, you can do the same, and your compositions and improvisations will graduate from Baroque/classical in style to Romantic in style. You can do the same sort of analysis for more modern composers like Scott Joplin if you want to go further than Romantic.

>>22859402
How long did it take to learn it? How hard did you study and practice?

>>22859715
6 months more or less. I practice at least 20 minutes every day.

I also got a teacher which greatly sped up the learning process. However, in lieu of a teacher, the textbook Harmony Counterpoint Partimento by IJzerman works great.

>>22859753
Thank you a lot for the recommendation, fortunately my uni library has that text

>>22859753
Oh, btw, what was your background when you started studying it, wrt to theory, composition, score studying and piano playing? Were you an amateur at the time, or did you already have a solid foundation?

>>22859779
I was a beginner at piano. I could read sheet music and play all the major and minor scales. No experience with theory or composition, only sight reading/playing.

>>22857633
Might as well answer yourself insomuch as you question yourself

>>22849287
Not exactly what you're asking for, but try "An Evening in the Palace of Reason".

It's about the transition between medieval and Enlightenment values, told through a dual biography of J. S. Bach (representing the old tradition of counterpoint and religion) vs king Frederick (representing the age of enlightenment, the new homophonic classical style, and atheism).

Really interesting read. Bach tried to save us, but society and even his own children (except for W. F. Bach) were against him.

>>22854090
Holy shit, this is a braindead take. Bach's music was textbook tonal. I know for a fact that Bach would be disgusted by modern atonal music.

>The end and final aim of all music is the glory of God and the rejuvenation of the soul; when this is not remembered, there is no music, only a devilish hubbub

>>22859489
>New forms (ballade, nocturne) that prior composers did not explore
The nocturne was invented by John Field.

Lots of cope ITT. I've studied music, music theory, music history, etc. and I've had close encounters with contemporary composers. They're pretentious fucks and absolute charlatans and 99.9% of contemporary art music fucking sucks. They will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify their completely vertical and formless garbage sounding art. It's funny that I studied all of this and I've only grown to dislike art, artists, concert venues, museums, state-funded programs, etc. At least now I have a degree and I can say with complete confidence what each and everyone of us is thinking.

>>22854090
you mean book 1 :)

>>22861220
I know. The point is, it was a form that Mozart and Bach, whom Chopin primarily studied, never explored, due to it not existing during their time.

>>22857695
Right, so like I said, just Schoenberg projecting himself onto other people to justify his inventions.

>>22861271
Correct. There is only one reason too; they do not remember God and the Soul when writing their music
>>22860671

>>22861271
I think this poster is a great reflection of the majority of the opinions ITT and that are active in the general sphere of culture within at least the United States (though it certainly applies to the "western" portion of the current globalized post-nationalist project/superstructure we all live in).

The OP asked for examples of "contemporary" music, and I think it's important to note how that's something A) not easily defined and B) not substantive to present a picture of that which has the most cultural "relevance."

To the issue of the former, it is simply a futile exercise to try and define the temporal parameters of what constitutes "contemporary." In the same way that there are a lot of posters ITT that are absolutely zealous over the music considered "classical" (which spans current academically fungible notions of "eras" that span roughly from the end of the "renaissance" through the end of the "romantic" period, and coincidentally a lot of thee are defined with lifespans of composers which is just laughable), there are substantial amounts of people equally zealous over "contemporary" or "modern" (which is older now) music. The truth of this matter is that, through the ever evolving prism of technological access to "the archive" of musical documentation, it is now possible for human beings to actually create paths of cultural conductivity with the past into today, something which in a sense can create a greater flux of the temporal "relevance" of musics of many eras. Simply put, the access to the archive of documented music can in a sense inflate the perceived relevancy and importance of the past.

As for the latter, the reality is that what constitutes "relevance" is also highly susceptible to differences based on criteria that render the term wholly unable to accurately portray what is important and what isn't. To the OP's question - several of the most recent Pulitzer prize winning "classical" compositions are largely tonal. So, if we are to take "relevance" as the cultural currency that is carried with prestige (which is what the Pulitzer - and all composers who crave it [trust me bro, I'm one of those because I recognize what it does for composer's careers] - does), then he is incorrect in assuming that classical music today is "atonal". But, if we take the brand of academic theorists and musicologists that are exploring things outside of "normative structures", then what you could potentially be left with is an altogether advocacy against traditional structure systems of "western" traditions. That said, it's actually almost always within the European ontological tradition of negating the past in favor of a more "appropriate" future. This is something even the composers that the OP and others ITT clamor for. For every Bach that is idolized, dozens of other composers are abandoned as they are "antiquated."

To sum it all up, OPs a fag and his shit's all retarded. He (and other posters and people IRL) have no clue.

>>22861789
I think people are using "contemporary music"/"atonal music" as a shorthand for the class of academic/musicologist music that you mention.

My problem with them is that by going outside of the "normative structures", they are literally going against God and Nature. Harmony is a divine gift, and without it, it is impossible to make anything resembling music.

I would have much more respect for them if they could make music that actually sounded good. There is a lot they could do experimentally (experimenting with microtonal harmony and counterpoint, new forms, new technologies like synthesizers) that could also sound good, but instead they seem to get pride out of making the most irritating, dissonant, amelodious and aharmonic drivel that no sane human would enjoy listening to. Calling that music is an insult to the divine gift that is real music.

>>22861789
It's not hard to define. Contemporary = new. That's it. And it sucks. Simple as.

>>22861271
this >>22861789 the mental gymnastics you were talking about?

>>22861851
What are the temporal parameters of new? What's the cutoff for "old"? A day? An hour? A year? If you can define those, arbitrary as they may be, there will be examples proving your retarded ass wrong. Undoubtedly you'd still reject them because they don't appeal to your ever changing standard of what confirms your bias, but alas I'm willing to respond because I know there will be /some/ people here who are willing to seek out truth instead of dwelling in the squalor of their stupidity.

>>22861828
As you've given a rather elaborate response, I honestly encourage you to try and step outside your confirmation bias. There is no such thing as "academic" music, even in the sense that people like Milton Babbit elucidated (someone who is painfully irrelevant today, even within "academic" circles). There is also no such thing as "musicologist" music. There are musicologists who happen to also produce/perform/write/record music, and generally their work is a type of artistic praxis that is meant to bolster their arguments. They generally make statements about the "normative" status of things, but they are still making music that is almost always some combination of techniques - pluralist as another anon ITT put it. They are almost not wholly entrenched in making a monostylistic type of music.

That said, one thing I could not talk about in my last pot was musicians operating within conservatory style circles (i.e. Juilliard, Eastman, NEC, Manhattan, Curtis, Yale etc). These are the circles where you'll actually hear people parrot the sort of intellectually and historically stunted opinions about "modern bad old good" like the OP. They'll also reject things much in the same way that single digit IQ troglodytes such as >>22861875 are wont to do. The reality is that there are plenty (too many, IMO) of composers today catering to all types of music, and in fact most modern orchestras - all the way to the top like NY Phil and LA Phil etc - are overwhelmingly playing "tonal" music.

>>22861271
>They will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify their completely vertical and formless garbage sounding art.
What are some interesting justifications they use?

>>22861271
Just like architecture. It's one big "emperor has no clothes"-athon. Nobody is actually clued in, but nobody wants to be outed as being the ONE who isn't clued in.

>>22861789
>I think this poster is a great reflection of the majority of the opinions ITT and that are active in the general sphere of culture within at least the United States (though it certainly applies to the "western" portion of the current globalized post-nationalist project/superstructure we all live in).

>The OP asked for examples of "contemporary" music, and I think it's important to note how that's something A) not easily defined and B) not substantive to present a picture of that which has the most cultural "relevance."

>To the issue of the former, it is simply a futile exercise to try and define the temporal parameters of what constitutes "contemporary." In the same way that there are a lot of posters ITT that are absolutely zealous over the music considered "classical" (which spans current academically fungible notions of "eras" that span roughly from the end of the "renaissance" through the end of the "romantic" period, and coincidentally a lot of thee are defined with lifespans of composers which is just laughable), there are substantial amounts of people equally zealous over "contemporary" or "modern" (which is older now) music. The truth of this matter is that, through the ever evolving prism of technological access to "the archive" of musical documentation, it is now possible for human beings to actually create paths of cultural conductivity with the past into today, something which in a sense can create a greater flux of the temporal "relevance" of musics of many eras. Simply put, the access to the archive of documented music can in a sense inflate the perceived relevancy and importance of the past.

>As for the latter, the reality is that what constitutes "relevance" is also highly susceptible to differences based on criteria that render the term wholly unable to accurately portray what is important and what isn't. To the OP's question - several of the most recent Pulitzer prize winning "classical" compositions are largely tonal. So, if we are to take "relevance" as the cultural currency that is carried with prestige (which is what the Pulitzer - and all composers who crave it [trust me bro, I'm one of those because I recognize what it does for composer's careers] - does), then he is incorrect in assuming that classical music today is "atonal". But, if we take the brand of academic theorists and musicologists that are exploring things outside of "normative structures", then what you could potentially be left with is an altogether advocacy against traditional structure systems of "western" traditions. That said, it's actually almost always within the European ontological tradition of negating the past in favor of a more "appropriate" future. This is something even the composers that the OP and others ITT clamor for. For every Bach that is idolized, dozens of other composers are abandoned as they are "antiquated."

>To sum it all up, OPs a fag and his shit's all retarded. He (and other posters and people IRL) have no clue.

>>22861893
>plenty (too many, IMO) of composers today catering to all types of music
Still waiting for the legendary contemporary classical piece that isn't atonal or minimalism garbage.

>>22861898
This is a hilarious argument made by people who are completely ignorant and, despite this being /lit/, don't actually read or think outside of the limitations of buzzwords, memes, or other diminutive methods of communication that only function as a way to, best case scenario troll, or worst case scenario actually try and say something meaningful like >>22861900 is "attempting" to do.

There are people like this in the professional circles of people contributing to the music sphere of "culture" (unlike you and most of the posters ITT), and undoubtedly they feel some form of insecurity (much like the first poster I quoted) about their craft, and their place in their craft. Similarly, there are also people who are /very/ fake about themselves and their work, and honestly I A) pity them and B) abhor them because of what they contribute to the field's public relations system. Currently, much like anywhere else, there is a big push for "diversity," but, coincidentally enough, much of the music produced in these "diverse" programs is actually entirely "tonal" in nature.

>>22861910
Define the temporal parameters of contemporary, and what constitutes "legendary" and I'll happily provide you with one. But you won't do that because you know you'll be proven wrong and/or you're trolling which is honestly hilarious.

>>22861924
I don't care that you got a musicology degree you mincing faggot. I don't care about you or your faggot trust fund friends or the utterly stagnant and cancerous "music scene" you are part of. You should all be put in concentration camps. You can spew your "um actually, contemporary is, like, trending 'tonal'???" gotchas outside the city limits with the other tattooed fags.

>>22861924
>coincidentally enough, much of the music produced in these "diverse" programs is actually entirely "tonal" in nature.
Why do you think that is the case?

>>22861924
>contemporary
Anything Post-Stravinsky.
>legendary
Based on legends. Essentially a fairy tale in this case.

>>22861924
>>>22861898
>This is a hilarious argument made by people who are completely ignorant and, despite this being /lit/, don't actually read or think outside of the limitations of buzzwords, memes, or other diminutive methods of communication that only function as a way to, best case scenario troll, or worst case scenario actually try and say something meaningful like >>22861900(You) is "attempting" to do.
>
>There are people like this in the professional circles of people contributing to the music sphere of "culture" (unlike you and most of the posters ITT), and undoubtedly they feel some form of insecurity (much like the first poster I quoted) about their craft, and their place in their craft. Similarly, there are also people who are /very/ fake about themselves and their work, and honestly I A) pity them and B) abhor them because of what they contribute to the field's public relations system. Currently, much like anywhere else, there is a big push for "diversity," but, coincidentally enough, much of the music produced in these "diverse" programs is actually entirely "tonal" in nature.

>musicology
Even gender theory unironically has more value.

>>22858761
This is your biggest L ever. Cage and Feldman are cut from the same whole cloth.

>>22858789
>Schoenberg was too involved in his theoretical system
You mean the same Schoenberg who wrote atonality without that system for a decade?

>>22855486
Yes, I learned that abouy 99% of posters on 4Chan's /lit/ board are absolutely retarded when it comes to music.

>>22860662
How were J.C. Bach and C.P.E. Bach against Bach sr.?

>>22861977
They thought his style of music was old and outdated, and they promptly abandoned the baroque style for the new Galant/proto-classical style.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they both respected their father greatly, but their father almost considered total contrapuntal mastery to be a religious duty.

CPE and JC Bach were more focused on what was in fashion at the time, so that they could make money. WF was the eldest child and stuck with his father's principles (listen to WF's music, it is much more contrapunctal than his brothers) and for that devotion, his reward was dying in poverty.

As another example, look at J. S. Bach's musical offering - it is full of advanced contrapuntal forms such as perpetual canons, invertible canons, puzzle canons, crab canons, fugues, etc. CPE Bach could write fugues when he needed to, but when he was younger he despised canons as "dry, pointless, unmusical exercises". It was only in his old age that he came to appreciate his father's style more and more.

>>22861910
He's called Rautavaara...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JPYGRfzfBew

>>22862024
Well yeah, it's pretty retarded to say music should just stagnate at a certain point. I don't see what an artist would get out of that, being an amateur one myself.

>>22862036
Music didn't just stagnate, it regressed. It went from florid, rich counterpoint in many voices, every voice being equal, to only a simple "melody + accompaniment style" with only the absolute bare bones of counterpoint.

Neo-Romanticism and reprogramming of old music certainly gets more funding than the “atonal” stuff.

>>22861932
What the fuck are you on about - A) I don't have a musicology degree because that's basically a hobby that anyone with two braincells to rub together can do (which disqualifies you, sorry buddy you'll have to settle for pretending you're cultured and initiated in music on the internet) and B) Stop projecting.

I already told you that if you give me parameters I can find you works but you refuse because you're just asshurt that your little confidence was shattered the moment you interacted with people outside the resonance chamber of your circles of squalor. Commit seppuku already.

>>22861933
Generally speaking, classical music today exists as an extension of two things:

1. The classist tradition that was acute during the time of royal European courts
2. The current capitalist framework of music "industry" functioning within markets as a form of "entertainment" (as opposed to a crucial part of functional cultures and/or societies that cannot be reduced to "entertainment" and instead is a part of the greater ontological health of humanity)

So, with this in mind, when orchestras and other institutions larp and want "diversity" (read: mostly black/african american specifically), what they are really doing is expanding their market share, or at least attempting to do so. When you have greater "representation" and "inclusion" within systems that are still functioning to do something which is incompatible with true alternative systems of aesthetic value (i.e. the MET Opera of NY being a "cultural gatekeeper" of "fine arts" despite opera being basically irrelevant in the greater sphere of music in the world, and not even putting on opera that insiders actually consider "advanced" or "important" at any given time), what is actually happening is that the systems themselves aren't changing, it's just a way to expand market share and have better public relations. It's American capitalism 101 (think of Bernays and that whole lot).

So, all that said, the most currently "commerical" type of music is still overwhelmingly tonal. And, even if you are "diverse" enough for these institutions, they will still prioritize the same kind of music that will appeal to the two points I mentioned before. Basically - okay, yes this human being is "diverse" (read: not white, or at least not "normative"), but is their music actually something audiences will like? Even within this world there are organizations who "take risks" but only to certain degrees (like Prototype in New York).

>>22861934
Thanks for the actual boundaries. Little Match Girl Passion by David Lang.

It's A) highly celebrated B) post-stravinsky and C) based on fairy tales.

The piece is incredibly diatonic and tonal. It has some experimental techniques but most of David Langs work is celebrated for accessibility and not experimentation.

>>22862028
Isnt' this just minimalism? Sounds like film music.

>>22862110
>Little Match Girl Passion by David Lang.
Minimalism. Wanna try again?

>>22862116
Aren't you just a retard? Sound like a dilettante.

>>22862132
No? Not that I know of at least. Also checked out his Eight symphony, seems like it's straight out of a film. Maybe these aren't representative of his style, I do not know.

>>22862122
You're joking right? A) minimalism is a journalistic shorthand, not a strict set of rules that was systematized for greater usage by composers working (also Lang is much younger than all the minimalists who are in their 80s and 90s if they're still alive - he's literally separated by decades of life you fucking retard) B) even if a piece was "minimalism" (which this one is not but your gooncave brainrot is preventing you from realizing that, consider gooning for less than 12 hour spans) it doesn't prevent it from being tonal, which was your requirement.

If you want a non-minimalist, post stravinsky, "legendary" piece (I am assuming you mean European fairy tales as well), then that can also be easily provided: Eurydice (a classical legend, not quite fairy tale but I can provide that as well) by Matthew Aucoin is polystylistic but mostly tonal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBHy0s4BtfU&ab_channel=MetropolitanOpera

He's, in my opinion, highly overrated, but that's the MET. Can't get much more "sanctioned" than that.

>>22862162
>Eurydice
So you have nothing but minimalistic pastiche?
>it doesn't prevent it from being tonal
"Still waiting for the legendary contemporary classical piece that isn't atonal or minimalism garbage."
Minimalism disqualifies both pieces you posted. Hard mode, post something instrumental, not the modern equivalent of low-effort "speech poetry'" minimalism.

>>22862175
Are you fucking retarded? No one has ever called Aucoin minimalist you fucking twat. I know you more than likely just have a cranial cavity that has robbed you of most of your gray matter, but on the offhand that you're serious and not just "trolling", here's another one; Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (a ballet, no "speech poetry" as you laughably put it) by Christopher Wheeldon. This piece is extremely conventional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq8zqhqjUIo&ab_channel=RoyalOperaHouse

It's clear now however that you're wholly stupid and just move goalposts. That's ok, it's always good to provide these works in these threads for the few actually looking to expand their understanding. As for you, perhaps children's music is more your speed.

>>22862190
>still posting minimalistic "performance art" instead of music
Anon, I know good pieces matching my criteria are hard to find, but surely your musicology education should help at least somewhat? You're just further showing the absolute state of contemporary classical to anyone not ingrained into its academic world.

>>22862200
Buddy it's ok, I know your fragility has robbed you of critical thought. I've provided you with three works, and the last one you didn't even address because it eludes all your retarded criteria that you've shown to have a profound misunderstanding of. It's a common occurrence when your IQ is in the single digits. Perhaps it is best you stick to listening to music that you pretend to understand as opposed to things that require you to put in a little effort - something exhausting for someone with such depth of retardation.

Also, I already told you I don't have a musicology degree - but you can't even read posts. It's ok. I promise you that suicide is actually a great option for you.

>>22862209
>no link to music
I gather you admit your inability to demonstrate such a piece of (non-existent) music?
A little sad, but entirely expected.

>>22862213
You must truly be retarded. I linked you a third piece and named it in this post >>22862190 but you couldn't even read it.

You call it "performance art" but that's literally what music is you absolute retard. One of the "greatest" pieces of tonal music, that is still incredibly "relevant" today - Swan Lake by Tchaikovsjky - is ballet you fucking retarded faggot. Lmao cope harder. Despite what you might think, you saying "unga boonga me no like thing because thing is dumb" doesn't actually constitute an actual understanding or definition of something just because you want it to be that way. Much in the same way your dick won't ever be "big" in its magnitude of the oh-so-impressive 2 inches just because you define it as "gigantic compared to an ant"

>>22862223
>I linked you a third piece
Yes, a piece of minimalistic performance art instead of what was asked for.

>>22862142
No, a lot of Wagner also sounds like film music. Generally, before Zimmer came along, film music had nothing to do with minimalism. Now identify where the piece loops or STFU lurkmoar and actually learn something.

>>22862233
>a piece of minimalistic performance art
You literally are too retarded to understand what you're saying, fucking kek. What I linked you is an EXCERPT (meaning a small part of a bigger whole, can you understand that little buddy? it's like the slice of an apple! a small bit of a larger whole) from a ballet. Nothing minimalist about it either. Or do you think that "minimalist" is just a small amount of instruments in a small part of a larger piece? WIth that criteria you may as well call traviata minimalist you fucking chimpanzee

>>22862236
>no, it's just more complex film music
I agree. But I'm open to his other pieces if they are better. Which ones do you recommend?

>>22862249
>No, you see, you have to watch the full thing to see how it's not minimalistic performance art
Very minimalistic of you. Do you have to consume all of it to get at least some content from the watered down whole? Sounds like minimalist performance art.

>mfw waiting for anons to post good tonal non-minimalistic contemporary classical

>>22862190
>>22862162
>>22862110
>asked to show good music
>posts postmodern performance art
Top kek. You can't make this up.

>woman is speaking on a minimalist set
>some instruments noodle in the background
This is music in 2023.

>>22862252
I recommend you shut up, stop dunning kruegering and being a passive aggressive bitch, which is the course of action I previously prescribed at the end of my other post.

>>22862270
Well this is apt considering your own boneheadedness is the only obstacle here.

>>22862294
>>22862270
>>22862262
>>22862303
literally the same faggot

>>22862352
You missed one
>>22862281

>>22862252
You realize the first film composers were Saint Saens, Prokofiev, Copland and Korngold, right?

>>22862379
Oh Vaughan Williams too apparently. Also many classical pieces were used by directors as aceholders for what the music should eventually sound like, most notably Rite of Spring and The Planets in the case of the Star Wars trilogy.

>>22862346
I'm not trying to be passive-aggressive towards you. Sorry if I came off that way.
It genuinely sounds like film music to me and I'm not closed to appreciating any composer that has some artistic value.

>>22862379
>Prokofiev
The only one out of here who has musical worth.
>>22862411
That's the problem. They take art, copy it and pervert it to their own consumerist ends.

>>22862060
Which further fuels the delusions of atonal noisemakers about being "groundbreaking" and the "underdog". They think their music isn't appreciated because the people are stupid, not because it sounds like ugly noise.

>>22862419
You're not being passive aggressive towards me, just disingenuous at best. That's what the guy sounds like. Simple as. The only alternative is his early serial works which coincide with Stravinsky anyway.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo34Ne7RDY4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FALd0-wm8jg

>>22862429
profoundly dimwitted

>>22862419
You're closed off to a lot of composers like that. You're still learning the ropes; you haven't figured out how to differentiate what you personally like from what is habile.

>>22862437

>>22862493
>You're closed off to a lot of composers like that
Examples? I didn't even deny he could have potential artistic value, only that those pieces sound like film.
>differentiate what you personally like from what is habile.
I don't have to personally like it or listen to it a lot for me to consider it of some artistic value. Hollywood Film music however has no such value because of its very nature.

>>22862560
>Examples
See this is the Dirk-tier passive agression I am talking about. You already know which composers I am talking about. Stop posting like a woman

>>22862470
>disingenuous
Why?
The "symphony" is virtually indistinguishable from a random r/filmscore student work.
The flute and guitar sonata is much better.

>>22862583
Ironically this is more stereotypically female passive aggressive behaviour. Not answering directly.
>You already know which composers I am talking about.
>What's wrong? Nothing...

>serialism? atonality? must be good and artistic!

>>22862584
I don't think you are capable of hearing much nuance if you think it sounds like any random film score. I would bet the music on that subreddit is largely ostinato-driven zimmerslop since the Korngold-type sound is considered outdated now. Personally I see nothing wrong with sounding like the old guard of film composers from Hermann to John Williams and Goldsmith, it's all brilliant melodically rich stuff. Then again I don't hear any especially cinematic sound in these pieces to begin with. the only precedent for Rautavaara is a movement of Honneger's symphony 5, and that's no different than Mozart's Rondo in A minor inspiring Field and Chopin.

>>22861896
Coping mechanism like that it's exactly what old masters would have done. The amount of times I've heard these charlatans compare their compositional process to Mozart, or the counterpoint of Bach, or Wagner's leitmotifs, or something like that is ungodly. They will take a small detail from the any technique of any of these composers and apply it to their compositional process. And Eureka!, they're actually continuing the tradition of these composers and the tradition of Western classical music full stop.
Another cope is the belief that art is similar to technology and science in that it's progressing linearly. By this logic, music is only getting better, and all these people are contributing positively simply by exploring "new sounds" (replace 'sounds' with techniques, forms of expression, or any other buzzword). They look at music as if it were a form of science, so experimenting with it can be only be good.
Another repulsive idea is the obsession with minorities, political activism, philosophy, etc. You MUST pay this minority to "explore sonorities", or else you're a racist, xenophobe, etc. and you believe in the evil canon of dead white males, which must die (I have my own thoughts about the canon and contemporary performance practices, but they're irrelevant in this debate). Music MUST mean something, it can't simply be about beauty (an outdated concept), but rather it must be powerful, must say something, must be political, etc.

>>22862592
GIGO I guess. The general tenor of the conversation is being informed by your faggotry. Anyway they are of course Schoenberg, Korngold, Copland, Saint Saens and Rautavaara thus far. I'm certain the list goes on.

>>22862643
Oh and Vaughan Williams

>>22861893
>What are the temporal parameters of new?
The end of WW2 was very obviously "year zero" for composers of "serious music". That's when the majority decided that the audience wasn't important and that only sonic exploration and experimentation were valid. Coincidentally, also the time when artists became heavily state-funded.
>there will be examples proving your retarded ass wrong.
There won't. This thread has proven that.

>>22862643
>Schoenberg, Korngold, Copland, Saint Saens
Zero artistic value. If their "art" didn't exist, the world wouldn't lose anything, and without the "music" of Schoenberg it would even be better.
>Rautavaara
Checked his piano concerto no 2 and enjoyed it, I will look into him further.

>>22862650
Just glorified film music. I thought we were talking about classical.

>>22862640
>By this logic, music is only getting better, and all these people are contributing positively simply by exploring "new sounds" (replace 'sounds' with techniques, forms of expression, or any other buzzword). They look at music as if it were a form of science, so experimenting with it can be only be good.
This seems to capture all of my problems with "contemporary music".
For example this has an entire series of videos explaining how it's actually good and experiments with "sonorities", they really like this word.
https://youtu.be/nmZHi-9nJGc?si=tTwFyIDHnsAchnN3
https://youtu.be/kRc1nTCp9QM?si=bDYlevP0rCf8MZgP

>musicologists unironically pretend this is "music"
https://youtu.be/tRN2zDale1w?si=0Y3sVHtgjoy7gESK

>>22862667
Lurk moar

>>22862701
Translation: you've not brainwashed yourself into liking Schoenbergian noise. Ugliness is beauty. Falsehood is truth.

>>22862667
Nobody is forcing you to listen to Schoenberg at gunpoint. If it inspires some people, then how can it's absence possibly be better, considering you have to go out of your way to hear any of his works and thus nobody is being subjected to them against his will?

It's essentially impossible to like Schoenberg's music without being socially conditioned into it. Having an eroded sense of aesthetics is necessary for liking such 'art' since it is fundamentally against humanity in its attempt to subvert the natural order of sound.

>>22862667
You seem to have lashed yourself to two quartering horses, where you are claiming melodic and accessible (ie film music) is bad and abstract and inaccessible is also bad. I don't see how you are going to keep it together.

>>22862719
>how can it's absence possibly be better
If it was just some Soundcloud rapper posting his music nobody listens to, it's one thing, but here we have an effort to subvert music itself and the consequences aren't mitigated just by me not listening to it, since it poisons all of music with its attitude and 'philosophy'. Your argument really is like
>Nobody is forcing you to accept gay marriage. But let us accept it and promote it worldwide.

>>22862708
Translation: stop posteuring and acting like you know anything about music unt you actually cultivate some acumen in this area.

>>22862736
Melody is necessary for good music but not sufficient. And abstraction by itself isn't a virtue.
Also melody does not preclude complexity, which is necessary to be above film music.

>>22862744
Well it was Webern and Boulez that removed thematic development. And it was Cage and Feldman that brought in unabashed charlatanism.

>>22862755
>Check
>Check
>Check
>Check
So you like Schoenberg now? What a twist

>>22862758
>Schoenberg is actually good because there are other bad actors who just pushed what he did further, to its logical conclusion
Uh...

>>22862744
You are completely braingooned. I seriously cannot imagine being this autistic and retarded that you parrot these ideas like an absolute fucking dumbass ad nauseam. No one making music that is relevant in the classical sphere today gives a shit about Schoenberg's music besides appreciating some pieces and understanding his contribution to the musical lexicon. You are totally deluded into thinking that there is some sort of crusade against your notions of "truth" and "beauty" and you're borderline schizophrenic in thinking this attack is also directed against you personally, as if you're the ambassador of all that is good and real.

You're worse than a clown because you're not even funny. Literally no one who is serious gives a shit about anything you said, and Beethoven would have laughed your ass out of the room - guess what buddy, he was attacked by "aesthetic conservatives" in the exact same manner that you are choosing to attack people and "atonal music". Literally try talking to people and see if you can penetrate through the penumbra of your retardation to see the true reflection of yourself.

>>22862764
> Check
I didn't provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes musical art.
It not being subversive and in rebellion against creation and God is also necessary, and this is why Scriabin isn't music.

>>22862766
Apparently Beethoven and Wagner were also bad actors. See, the problem is you cannot ground your aesthetics in anything other than your subjective opinion. For me what defines classical is intricacy of aural (not combinatorial) pattern

>>22862781
Beethoven and Wagner weren't trying to subvert music by redefining ugliness as beauty.
>>22862781
>intricacy of aural (not combinatorial) pattern
Randomly generated music can also be intricate. You rejecting AI-generated music is just your subjective and arbitrary opinion.

>>22862779
Nobody cares. Either publish your treatise or ground your aesthetics here. Opinions are like, you know the rest.

>>22862791
Two nonsequiturs in.one post. Now this is what I call podracing!

>>22862691
It's definitely music, you can't deny that. Is it good, however? No, irredeemable.

>>22862791
How can randomly generated music be intricate other than the fact you could technically generate a Bach fugue or something of the like with randomly generated notes. It's such a remote possibility as to be meaningless.

>>22862794
>ground your aesthetics
God's beauty is the only ground.
>>22862803
It's just sounds. Not art. Art has to participate in the beauty of creation.

>>22862791
>Beethoven and Wagner weren't trying to subvert music by redefining ugliness as beauty.
People love to cite Beethoven's Grosse Fuge as an example of something "ugly" becoming beautiful after a century of misunderstanding. But there seems to be a limit to how far you can take dissonance and sonic experimentation. Schoenberg's twelve tone pieces or something more contemporary will never sound beautiful to the average listener. Can somebody explain why? Does it have to do with something that's inherent to human nature like a preference for patterns and a threshold of dissonance?

>>22862834
>randomly generated
The rules for generation are still made by humans, application of such rules can lead to complex/intricate sounds with no artistic meaning.

>>22862842
>God's beauty is the only ground
I agree. What else you got?

>>22862856
No they cannot. For instance to generate anything beyond a simple glider or traffic light in Conway's life takes careful design, where the slightest rogue cell can prevent the desired emergent structures from being generated.

>>22862844
>Does it have to do with something that's inherent to human nature like a preference for patterns and a threshold of dissonance?
For me it's clear that because it tries to sidestep and subvert God's creation, the harmonic series. Reducing music to something other than what it was intended to be from the beginning of creation. The harmonic series also has dissonance and it can be used in beautiful ways, so it's not dissonance itself, but dissonance for the sake of dissonance mixed with either a complete disregard for beauty or just an attempt to generate this beauty by purely artificial and human means.

>>22862865
What else would you like? I don't understand the question.

>>22862687
>This seems to capture all of my problems with "contemporary music".
Yeah, this took me a while to figure it out. It's an outlook on art that I simply can't get on board with. I'll be honest, I like fucking around with noise and random sounds, usually as a humorous activity. I used to fuck around making feedback loops on my mixer and stuff quite a lot, and sometimes the sonic result would resemble something I could've heard in some bathroom venue from an experimental group doing a "performance" or whatever, but I would never feel like I was doing anything actually worthwhile or contributing to humanity. I don't care much for sonic experimentation or discovering new forms of expression and whatnot because I think we've discovered enough of it already and anything more is unnecessary. Like I said in a previous post, there's a limit to how much you're able to take it, and once you've crossed the line, your ears will begin to hurt and you'll ask yourself "Why?".

>>22862876
>What else would you like? I don't understand the question.
Something tangible and less continental.

>>22862875
But AI-generated doesn't mean purely random or without patterns. You can limit the amount of randomness in the final product by making the AI combine different smaller length chunks into a full piece of "sound art" in ways that are random. So there is "structure" but it's not intended by the composer. Intricacy itself isn't enough, there has to be intent and plan for it to be art, otherwise it's not creating but just an imitation and subversion of creation.

>>22862880
>continental
I don't care about this.
>tangible
All humans can recognise beauty since we were created with this capacity, you can just erode or cloud this capacity by willingly following false/degenerate worldviews. Everyone is affected by this to differing degrees so there isn't a set of mechanistic bugman rules you can use to identify art. Ultimately to have the full "set of rules" and never be mistaken you have to see the essences of things by purifying the mind and heart, and it's only possible for the saints who participate in Christ's attributes the most fully.

>>22862844
>a threshold of dissonance
I think dissonance is just a tool to be wielded tastefully. Higher harmonics in just intonation with the correct timbres can sound fairly consonant to the ear, more consonant than the usual 12-tone piece which just seems like aimless dissonance for the sake of dissonance. The emancipation of dissonance is just an agenda to use dissonance as a weapon to subvert beauty, nothing more. Also very telling that they use the inharmonic timbre of the piano to achieve their goal.

>>22862987
>inharmonic timbre of the piano
What's this?

>>22863013
The overtones of a piano string aren't exactly whole number ratios to the fundamental pitch. So it's inherently slightly out of tune with itself, like a bell or Gamelan metallophone would be but to a much lesser degree.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inharmonicity

>Inharmonicity is a physical problem that results in a mathematical one. Because the wire in a piano is made of steel, each string has a degree of stiffness. Because of the stiffness of the wire, the string does not start bending exactly at its theoretical perfect node. This slight stiffness results in throwing off the whole overtone series in a piano which is called inharmonicity. If one were to tune a piano without stretching the octaves, the partials of the low bass notes would clash noticeably with the fundamental and partials of higher keys. To make the low, thick low bass strings sound in tune with the very high treble notes, the whole piano tuning must be stretched by making the octaves slightly wider than pure. This means the notes above the starting pitch will all be a slight but precise amount sharp and the notes lower than the starting pitch will be slightly flatter. This is called a stretched tuning.

>>22861946
Not really, I explained already why their approach to composing is radically different.

>>22861959
Have you ever read any of Schoenberg's writings? He is always explicit in stating that serialism was the culmination of those previous attempts.
Webern interpreted those early atonal works in the same way (check his "The Path to New Music")

>>22862110
Im not that anon.
Please recommend to me contemporary tonal sonatas. I don't care much for program music and for minimalist music, I want developement and themes. Also it shouldn't be mere pastiche of older composers.