/lit/ - Literature

>>22875571
yeah I’d like to know about this.
bump.

dude shut the fuck up already sage

>>22875571
Read Webern's The Path to New Music. It's a short essay written for non-musicians, and it basically explains his entire worldview

>>22875595
no. unsage.
tap 3 mana, green druid attack.

>>22875571
"The Culture of Critique"

I'm just here to repeat what I've already said the previous thread. 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.

The biggest cope they have is the notion that music and the arts are exactly like science and technology, i.e. that they're progressing linearly and that each next step means a better and more enlightened world. By this logic, music is only getting better with time, and all these people are contributing positively simply by exploring "new sounds" (replace "sounds" with extended techniques, forms of expression, or any other buzzword). No matter the final sonic result from the perspective of beauty or the reception of it (as if anybody normal actually wants to listen to this crap, it's just a circle jerk between other composers, musicologists, and critics), experimenting with sounds can be only be a good thing.

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 everyone is thinking but are too scared to say because they get immediately shut down by the people who profit from this, i.e. the institutions and composers who suck on government funding and support, and the musicologists and critics who actually get paid to analyze and talk about this crap.

How do we revive classical?

>>22875676
We don't.

>>22875772
Why not?

>>22875782
Because the world is a corpse.

>>22875820
All the more reason for there to be more beauty in it.

>>22876462
Oh, there's definitely beauty in it, but not on the scale of a revival of any sort.

>>22875571
Ya gotta stop making this thread anon, it's not healthy.

>>22876767
I've failed to fin a single beautiful contemporary piece that wasn't pastiche.
I will try looking into "band" next week. Maybe there beauty is present.

>>22875629
I think this leaves an opening for composers who have actual talent. true they may experience resistance and sneers from their visionless peers, but if someone can start filling concert halls again, there
would be no stopping them.
imagine a modern symphony that people actually knew, actually cared to see…

>>22875571
You can easily read Tom Wolfe's books "The Painted Word" and "From Bauhaus to Our House" and (correctly) extrapolate the arguments to the world of music.

>>22876879
>imagine a modern symphony that people actually knew, actually cared to see…
I can't. Especially not from your pic.

>>22876879
>imagine a modern symphony that people actually knew, actually cared to see…
What if it was just genuinely good? Consumers today might want to see a Marvel or TikTok symphony.

>>22875571
Formalized Music by Xenakis, although this seems like a "stealth" /pol/tard thread.

>>22875571
I'll occasionally listen to a more modern piece and enjoy it for a moment. Like Xenakis's Herma, it sounds like somebody having a seizure. But most post-WW2 classical truly does sound like formless garbage and is aesthetically appalling, just like everything in the world now.

>>22877650
>Xenakis
Entartete.

>>22876879
Classical was never for the masses, nor should it be. The diatribe that you so vehemently rail against is really what people want, there is a forward progression in music in that popular music further and further drifts towards the ideal of the common man. Boulez, Webern, Xenakis, Schoenberg, Grisey, Messiaen, etc. are both incredibly well educated and talented, which is what pushed them to create avant garde pieces, and as it stands today, avant garde classical stands at the pinnacle of western art music; it is also unlikely that there would be any revival, the arts, philosophy, literature, etc. are all mostly dead, art has become totally commodified and intellectual institutions are underfunded and the universities are now essentially daycares and it's only a matter of time before non-practical programs such as philosophy and the arts are cut. It's sad, but it's the way it is, and the avant garde didn't kill it, rather it was the last cry of the artist as the arts become commodified and democratized for the masses.

>>22877668
Imagine outing yourself as a low iq pleb

there is a good collection of John Cage writings, Silence, in which he sheds light on his motivations and methods. It's pretty entertaining and enlightening even if you don't care for his music; he's a witty and enjoyable writer

>>22877713
>Random noise is LE ART!!!

>>22877650
>this seems like a "stealth" /pol/tard thread.
It is. OP used put anti jazz stuff in the OP but he underestimated how much a board of F Scott Fitzgerald readers would like jazz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrXVEoHqt0g

>>22877720
>jazz
Second pressing of Schoenberg.

>>22877702
>Classical was never for the masses, nor should it be. The diatribe that you so vehemently rail against is really what people want, there is a forward progression in music in that popular music further and further drifts towards the ideal of the common man. Boulez, Webern, Xenakis, Schoenberg, Grisey, Messiaen, etc. are both incredibly well educated and talented, which is what pushed them to create avant garde pieces, and as it stands today, avant garde classical stands at the pinnacle of western art music; it is also unlikely that there would be any revival, the arts, philosophy, literature, etc. are all mostly dead, art has become totally commodified and intellectual institutions are underfunded and the universities are now essentially daycares and it's only a matter of time before non-practical programs such as philosophy and the arts are cut. It's sad, but it's the way it is, and the avant garde didn't kill it, rather it was the last cry of the artist as the arts become commodified and democratized for the masses.

>>22877723
>not listening to the song
I see your problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavQY5V0xpg

>>22877702
>it's only a matter of time before non-practical programs such as philosophy and the arts are cut
If anything this is an ideal solution. For too long the academy has platformed the arts as providing some kind of employable skills or monetisable utility, pretending it was no different from the natural sciences or other practical vocations. Once those expectations have been shattered, artists can be free to do whatever they like without any particular end in mind. Art has never really been art for art’s sake - only once all delusions of use-value have been shaken off can we fully realise that notion.

>>22877743
I hope those programs do get cut. Maybe contemporary composers would be forced to care about what their work sounds like instead of larping as intellectuals pushing boundaries.

>>22877650
No, this is just an obsessed /mu/ faggot thread who is also mindbroken by music theory.

>>22877769
annoyingly you can recommend him books to answer his question and he will just ignore them because he is disinterested in books

>>22877743
Universities ideally are intellectual institutions, and they could provide artists with program funding and the like with far fewer conditions than a private company. Philosophy is another issue, as is Classics, both of which depend on universities in other to sustain themselves.

>>22877728
>People who like the most experimental, out there music are the real NPCs, not people like me who can only listen to music which contains normal structure and technique!

>>22877717
It's called mathematics you ingrate.

>>22877790
Not realising that "experimental" music is just music being pushed by the system alongside pop/jazz to pacify different parts of the population is the true NPC behaviour.

>>22877797
>You see, if I use a fancy term it's now not random! This is not like Cage now! It's more respectable!

>>22877844
Who the fuck is Xenakis "pacifying"? Math professors?
>>22877846
Well mathematics is our organizing principle, so it is quite literally not random.

>>22877852
Consumers of "abstract" music. They think they're intellectual for listening to what is essentially noise. It makes them feel more special and lessens their desire to see the subversion of art because they're constantly in search of the new gimmick that will "push music forward", as Schoenberg would want to do.

>>22877852
>mathematics is our organizing principle
Not in music. Mathematics can describe certain relations in music but that is it. Pieces that are based on a set of instructions are soulless garbage that could as well be generated by AI.

https://youtu.be/YXApkEA00iQ?si=ZjoJKp42-LZ1twfR
https://youtu.be/DHcub0LOSoE?si=xlyTtpodlDSJls3F
https://youtu.be/UMQLmsI4DSU?si=3EuhMc0baTp4LnX_

Wow! So deep! This is true art! He truly has something to say! I love Xenakis and contemporary classical! New music is so art!

>>22877870
>Pieces that are based on a set of instructions are soulless garbage
Literally all classical music is based on a set of instructions. It’s called “notation”.

Essentially you can understand that tonal materials where thought to be expended in the early 20th century, and so the composers of the day looked elsewhere. Often times this means it's more cerebral, but still very much spiritual and emotional music. But its a very wide camp. One thing you should not do however, is conflate it with deconstructivist or marxist anti-art, because actually those sorts of people are turned off by the elitism and intellectuality of it, and instead turn to making agitprop children's music (see Cornelius Cardew, who amounted to nothing after becoming infected with the marxist brain virus and turning on his mentor Stockhausen, who saw himself as continuing the tradition of Bach and Beethoven and went on to make 27 hour Wagnerian space operas). Greek statueoids will never understand this however

>>22877896
obvious shill

>>22877981
t. has never composed a piece of music in his life

>>22878656
>Stockhausen
>spiritual
>not deconstructivist
Kek. I agree with the spiritual part, if by that you mean a demonic spirit.

>>22875629
>therefore we should listen only too christ

>>22877702
>there is a forward progression in music
see >>22875629

>"what are some books about x"
>anons have a long annoying argument about x
>if anyone does recommend a book their post is ignored
>no one discusses books
every fucking time

>>22878999
What does sheet music do except literally instruct a performer how to play a piece of music? How retarded do you have to be to even deny this?

>>22879426
Why would you assume OP is asking his question in good faith? we’ve had this thread a million times over and not once has he actually engaged with any sincere on-topic replies.

>>22879440
>(very limited) instructions for a performer are the organising principle of music
I think this is the more retarded view.

>>22879466
I'm looking to go deeper into what I already know, not debate with detached academics on their copes of how noise is actually art.

>>22879470
Point to the part of my post where I said notation is an “organising principle” you fuckwit.

>>22879471
Then why are you doing literally the opposite? Why are you replying to me and ignoring anyone who actually recommends you a book?

>>22879483
>>22877870
>>mathematics is our organizing principle
>Not in music.
>>22877981
>classical music is based on a set of instructions.
Music is not "based" on notation. Only a detached academic would ever entertain this notion.

>>22875629
There an exact guy who got BTFO'd hard in the last thead by like 10 different people who was a caricature of what you described. It's clear he was only concerned with fashionable left-wing theories that predominant in current academia and acts as if these theories are somehow objective and not entirely subjective.

>>22879498
That poster isn’t me. Try again.

>Music is not "based" on notation. Only a detached academic would ever entertain this notion
Answer me this - would classical music even exist without the score?

>>22879519
Yes, you can improvise classical music of very high complexity without ever writing it down. A musician having improvisation skills was the norm until the decline and extensive academization of classical music.
Notation is important to classical music, but not its basis or organising principle. Again, only someone completely detached from music would even entertain this stupid idea.

>>22879426
>discuss the book
>not the contents within the book

>>22879533
>you can improvise classical music of very high complexity without ever writing it down
That doesn’t answer my question. Improvisation is still accounted for by the score, ie. It tells you when and for how long to improvise. Im asking if classical music would even exist as we know it if there were no written notation.

>>22879547
people aren't doing either
they're just pontificating
this thread isn't /lit/

>>22879556
>Improvisation is still accounted for by the score,
>It tells you when and for how long to improvise
Epic cope. If I sit down at my piano and improvise a fugue, what score is telling me for how long to improvise? Kek.
Notation is important in the history of music, especially for organising performances by a large number of players, but by no means is it a basis for the creation or organisation of the music. Nobody is arguing about its importance, but the original dispute was about it being the basis (only a detached academic who doesn't play an instrument would even suggest such a retarded idea).

>X is a feature of Y and important to the history of Y
>X is the basis (and organisational principle) of Y

>>22876879
Redpill me on Alma.

>>22879589
She's shit.

>>22879596
Since we're on /lit/ I'd like a more intelligent response?

>>22879598
She represents a deeper sentiment among the concertgoing populace, i.e. who want some semblance of tonality and melody back, without even remotely reaching the quality of the music she strives to keep alive. For example, Johann Strauss II is an absolute genius when it comes to orchestration and melodic invention, and even though the reception of his work shifted during the late 19th century due to a public artificial split being constructed between "serious" and "light" music (keep in mind that Strauss was praised by forefront composers such as Brahms, Wagner, and Verdi), his music remains popular between the "uneducated" populace. But at least Strauss' music stays in the ear, Deutscher's doesn't. Granted, she's barely 18 and even the greatest composers of all time weren't good at that age. I'm sure there are people out there trying to write fantastic new works in a tonal paradigm constantly, but Deutscher is not one of those, and she's marginally relevant in circles of classical music discussion only because her reputation as the "savior of beautiful tonal music" and a young prodigy still do a whole lot of the heavy lifting.

Right from the beginning, my teacher taught finger and hand extension (although not one-position) and one finger scales. Those kids with one or two years Suzuki would have to go through the re-training. The fingers should be flexible and ready to play any note on the fingerboard; the exact location is guided by the ear and NOT by the position of your left hand. If you so depend on the left hand position, you would have difficulty playing Pag. Caprice (e.g., #5). Many violinists are handycaped by their training and complained that they cannot play this violin or that violin just because it has different feel of the neck or different string length. When I progressed to playing Kreutzer 42, I immediately realized same concept in there.
One summer I was referred to take some lesson with an old man who boasted that he was an expert in Sevcik Method. He immediately put me on a regimen of intense repeative finger drilling. I hated it and stopped going to him after two lessons. By looking back, I really "saved" myself from getting "sick". That kind of repeative drilling will not increase finger dexterity but lead to carpa tunnel syndrom. In his life time, Sevcik never trained any virtuoso performer, probably many tendonitists.

>composers who went full joker and created their own rules

>>22879677
What rules of his own did Paganini create?

>>22879574
>If I sit down at my piano and improvise a fugue
A fugue is still a compositional form that relies on specific musical constraints prescribed by the notation. You can take the score out of classical, but you can’t take classical out of the score. Basis =/= organising principle.

>only a detached academic who doesn't play an instrument
Protip: Name one. You keep regurgitating this same point but I guarantee that no conservatoire or university would admit a professor or even a student who has zero practical ability on an instrument.

>>22875571
Scruton?

>>22880105
>Roger Scruton called Scriabin "one of the greatest of modern composers".
Yeah, I'm thinking he's based.

>>22876767
Sounds like a skill issue. If you're not capable of reviving this artform then you shouldn't go around trying to demotivate new artists.

>>22880373
Not really, just sounds like times have changed.

>>22878656
Stockhausen hated Wagner and writing a long piece of music does not automatically make it a 'space opera'. He was fully against the tradition.

>>22879638
>she's barely 18 and even the greatest composers of all time weren't good at that age
Mozart and Mendelssohn.

>>22879556
>Improvisation is still accounted for by the score, ie. It tells you when and for how long to improvise.

>>22880017
>relies on specific musical constraints prescribed by the notation

>>22880525
Prodigies, but not much more than that at the age of 18. Mozart started producing truly exceptional works around the age of 21. Mendelssohn probably composed the best piece of all time for a 16 year old with the String Octet, but then didn't truly fulfil his potential, he probably even peaked with that piece.

Serious question.
Why is all of tonal works composed today mere pastiche?
The other parts of contemporary classical I understand, minimalism is a cope and atonality is just subversion.

>>22880883
Because they have to somehow revive a dead tradition.

>>22880914
So it's like neopaganism?

bump

>>22880851
Mendelssohn peaked with A Midsummer Night's Dream. And Mozart's 25th symphony is great, not brilliant, but still great music.

>>22877896
Am I retarded for actually enjoying that first one between 2:13 and 7:50~?

>>22877715
I wanna see at least the next page.

>>22877797
>It's called mathematics you ingrate.
Tell me what a group is without looking it up. Or what a topology is. You can't, because you don't know anything about math.

BUMP

>>22880584
>avoids giving an example of even ONE academic without technical ability
What a coward lmao. Keep kicking those strawmen down, why should I give a shit if they don’t exist?

>>22884365

>>22881866
No, since you didn't think those were art or classical music, it's fine.

>>22884369
Composer =/= academic. Also, Schoenberg could play piano. Try again.

>>22884390
>Schoenberg could play piano

>OP can't use jazz to /pol/whistle
>tries to use academic music as a bad thing
>While the entire normie internet explodes in Rush E
We could be listening to Oscar Peterson being the best thing since Liszt but instead we're here with youtube shorts killing your argument with tiger parenting.
https://youtube.com/shorts/ntqI7KhVcy8?si=t4zj1u-uEEgH1OCi

>>22884742
>jazz
Why go after low hanging fruit when it's just more africanised academic music?

>>22884774
So what's your lineage to Liszt?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjMK1k1NlCE

>>22884798
>this piece
Literally background music tier.

>>22884817
Ikr? This is great background music too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpOtuoHL45Y

Can this faggot please be banned?

>>22885120
>anons are discussing their musicality and attempts to revive an art form
>Nooo! Shut it down!
I wonder who is behind this post.

>>22885200
>>anons
it's just (you) and a few poor souls you baited

>>22885314
Two-three anons are sufficient for the war.

I despise atonal music so much

Arnold Schoenberg is actually an extremely competent person who made so much research on tonal music that he eventually exhausted all of it. He then made atonal musc to explore out of the boundaries.

>>22877896
I one day wish to understand music as brilliant as this. My mortal mind is clearly not equipped to comprehend its complexity.

>>22885200
Yeah, all of you are retards. Take this to /mu/ where it belongs.

oh my god this fucking faggot again. where is that anon who tells you you're a retard

Sigmund Krahe is a better composer than most meme contemporary musicians.
Devil Doll should count as art music
Most music prodigies are the music equivalent of high school athletes who peak in high school.

Now take this shit back to /mu/

>>22887319
>Sigmund Krahe
Who?
>Devil Doll
Never thought I'd see someone on /mu/, let alone on /lit/ talk about this band, but yeah, Mr. Doctor is probably as artsy as pop music can get.

>>22887784
I think that unlike the Egyptians, the public of our time are more accepting of change in both technique and representation in graphic art. Whether you like Romanesque or Surrealism doesn't seem to make as much difference to people's perception of you as opposed to talking about Beethoven and literally anybody else within the field of music as equals. Whether Beethoven is your favourite or not doesn't change the fact he's the greatest, as he really does have music for every occasion.

There are good musicians from the last century whom anons here might be missing out due to the bad publicity that certain more famous compositions of the time get: Bartok, Prokofiev, Penderecki even. Hell, a music graduate friend of mine tells me that academic jams in our area tend to be centered around the Blues more than anything else. This century has this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H-Dz_IjpUPM&pp=ygUOTHVjIGxlbWF5IHRyaW8%3D

which was written by a death metal musician, of all people. There's also prog rock bands so I would dare to say that while pop is likely not be the new classical, there is a distinctive presence of classically trained musicians like Nina Hagen who do apply their academic skill sets in forms that are not chamber/opera/orchestra/anything else. And for that matter, there are musicians who themselves have orchestras but do not necessarily play conventional symphonies with them like Devil Doll. Are any of these people the next Tchaikovsky? Perhaps not, but I do like that music is not only "art" music. That truly seems to not exist anymore, and I do see why people look to XVII century music in Germany as it were XV-XVI century Florence for architecture or XIX century Russia for literature. Even within what is established as "real art" there seems to have been certain movements people like, as well as outliers from every century who shine whether by whim of academia or popular choice.

Either way, what you like shouldn't matter

>>22888006
>Either way, what you like shouldn't matter
you will get the goyslop you deserve

>>22888039
Nawh. I'm nawt.

>>22875571
Any literature on the decentralised arts, or on a more accelerationistic attitude towards the centralised concert hall systems and music education in general?
I think we should kill it and return to a more based state of affairs where composers get incentivised for writing works that people want to hear, and to a more master-apprentice style relationship in education. Right now the composer is rewarded for writing noise art that only a small number of (((music professors))) bankrolled by the state (pretend to) care about.

The only issue would be the assumption that there are enough people who want to hear classical art music.

>>22888006
>There's also prog rock bands so I would dare to say that while pop is likely not be the new classical
You don't know what either 'classical' or 'pop' mean. It has nothing to do with complexity or aesthetics, and everything to do with whether it belongs to a certain tradition, and whether it's written down and for whom, and how it's distributed. Pop (prog rock) isn't and never will be classical, no matter how elaborate or pretentious it tries to become or what kind of musicians play what kind of music. Pop music genres can be "artsy", but they can't be classical.

>There's also prog rock bands so I would dare to say that while pop is likely not be the new classical
Not just unlikely, but impossible. And it has nothing to do with complexity or aesthetics, but rather everything to do with whether it belongs to a certain tradition, whether it's written down and for whom, and how it's distributed. Pop (prog rock) isn't and never will be classical, no matter how elaborate or pretentious it tries to become, or what kind of musicians play what kind of music. Pop music genres can be "artsy", but they can't be classical. It would defy both definitions.

>>22888432
Meant for >>22888006
That isn't to say there can be some kind of a crossover, i.e. if these musicians started writing down some music to be performed by professional orchestras, but it's unlikely.

>>22888436
True, I doubt even the best bands from the '60s and '70s ever wrote down their music. In ways classical music is like a recipe that no two chefs will prepare exactly the same way, likewise Tartini's Devil's Trill sounds different if Itzhak Perlman performs than when someone else performs it so today there might be recordings of specific musicians which in and of itself makes elements of music outside of composition and performance a challenge for the classical tradition. Ultimately, more so than entertainment or art, profits are important. Otherwise how would writers, composers, painters, architects and sculptors continue to produce their art? I think that the more 'elevated' popular music is after production value more so that whether it is written down. But recordings are not easier to preserve then sheet music. And for that matter, there do not have to be writers dedicated to orchestra for their work to be art music, there's Chopin whose best known work is solo piano music, choir music, Ignacio Tárrega; some people have attempted to write rock with counterpoint, so it's not all THAT strict.

What the struggle of classical music seems to be is less about performance and how it's preserved, that to me is very specific, no. The problem is axiological, no one today that likes classical wants to listen to NEW classical because the possibilities have largely been exhausted, this apocalypse took place before modernism and even then, those dissonances that most composers had avoided until the XX century had been already explored by Beethoven, Liszt and Gesualdo in the classical, romantic and baroque movements respectively. People itt seem to think that an aristocratic audience who can both appreciate and afford to pay such musicians could bring it back, I disagree. At least Beethoven and Gesualdo largely wrote for themselves, and in doing so, they defied the conventions of their era. It is as foolish as those who mock classical listeners to expect the utopian "retvrn to tradishun" with outcomes that match expectations. And out of those who do have open minds, who would welcome massive talents that not only please but make the audience think, they are not in the majority and unless such talent is really a genius, he or she would have to "sell out" so to say in order to make a living.

As for contemporary "academic" music, stuff like new complexity really should never have left their circles because it is more the experimental, "sciency" part of music that aims to test the limits of how the instrument can be used, how far the performer's body can be strained, the psychology of music, etc. It is hardly heir to Mozart and co. Stockhausen, Halim el-Dabh, Edgard Varese, etc. were imo just looking for new tone possibilities rather than artistic expression through melody.

1/2

I'm sorry to see so many pseuds and plebs in this thread.

The evolution of classical music in europe corelates with the change in means of production and material circumstances. You can't account otherwise for the rise of the 'Sonata' form and its eventual displacement of the Fugue. Two very different compositional structures, and both reflective of society at the time.

Reactionaries hate atonality, but in truth music was doomed to atonality anyway, as demonstrated by Schoenberg. A system that allows for the harmony of 6ths and 3rds and V7-I cadences also is inherently unstable, and can be dismantled from within. Schoenberg merely demonstrated our faulty and misguided faith placed in western tonality, and in our ideas of what makes music 'beautiful' and 'timeless'.

T. Marxist musicologist and Frankfurt School sympathizer.

2/2

Thus I am more inclined to say At The Gates' first two albums or Locomotiv GT's first few albums have more in common with art music than current academia. I would say more than the written down quality of music, what most pop acts are missing is the scientific part which is hardly common in popular music save for maybe Throbbing Gristle and other industrial acts.

Then there's also stuff like black midi which I'm pretty sure is written down. Take a listen at The Destroyer by thesupermariobros7 and tell me that's not art. Ok, it's performed by a machine, but it does have a sense of harmony. So I'm missing what exactly distinguishes proper art music from the romantic period with music that might remotely aspire to that level of quality today that might not be written down. It's like when people look to the Renaissance as the highest art ever, and I may agree, but I also think Dalí was very talented and exceptional, their aims were different, their technique was different and yet both are good.

>>22888862
Just go listen to folk, don't sink yourself deeper into the depression of academia. Where there is a demand there should eventually be a supply. I'm with you in saying jazz is not that cool, and I think rococó is the same, for that matter. But don't be like Jaromil when he disparages surrealism, you sound less educated than you are.

>>22888907
Anon, Atonality isn't Jazz. Some Free Jazz can veer into atonality, but atonality is a very specific movement belonging to the Viennese School in the early 20th century.

>>22888922
Thank you for pointing out my improper redaction.

I was referring to you being a sympathiser of the Frankfurt school in mentioning jazz. If anything, atonality eventually led to Bartok, so it was artistically fertile. Sure, he was not this tortured tragic figure with natural talent and more so reached artistic greatness through study but that is still creativity imo, sure he's not for everyone, but he's relevant because he reconciled the popular music of his time with classical as well as the newer developments in tonality. Like I say here >>22888855 > possibilities have largely been exhausted.
And for that matter, why would I listen to Mozart rip offs when I can just listen to the real thing.

Have you read Prozakhistan btw?

>>22880851
The octet is good but how can you possibly think it’s the best music of all time? Cause it has a big fugue?

>>22889058
The emphasis is on "for a 16 year old".

>>22875571
As rhetorical questions go, this one is simply retarded. Nothing can or ever will destroy harmony or its sweet or more soothing effects, but one can subvert it for the sake of emphasis on more bracing ones. I suppose atonality can seem a bit academic in view of how few take to it, from time to time, but it's hardly that in the sense of taste--that is of academics who want to be comfy all the time.

If you can't find contemporary, elevated culture that is not promoted by academia, a.k.a the government. You probably won't want to dedicate time to the art/literature you do know about and will only wear your knowledge of it as a piece of pseudointellectual cred. Absolute state of this board.

>>22890970
>just delude yourself into thinking great art still exists

>>22888862
>A system that allows for the harmony of 6ths and 3rds and V7-I cadences also is inherently unstable, and can be dismantled from within.
What do I need to learn to understand how this works? I know "music theory" in general, but what specifically is with "Western tones" that causes this flaw and eventual unraveling?

>>22890986
You are so psyopped you subvert yourself and only allow yourself to enjoy things that others already explained for you.

>>22890991
Basic math. You don't need to go looking for science books in the literature board. Possible combinations within a given system or rule set are finite, maybe repetition would be manageable within said system if performance were not contingent on human ability but then it would not be classical music. Sure, video game music can be dank sometimes but anons here specifically want music that is written and performed within a certain tradition. I'd redirect them to baroque but then they'd find something else to nitpick about.

>>22891066
Well, yeah, music theory is mathematics. But, I don't know all the "steps" in the proof, if that makes any sense. Or even what assumptions the ad reductio proof begins with.

I don't understand the rest of your post. Couldn't there still be more creative works left to be uncovered that simply weren't touched in the time of classical music? It might have been done "a lot", but perhaps it wasn't done "to death."

>>22891079
I don't see how music theory IS math, yet like everything else, it can have math applied onto its fundamentals.

The second part of my post refers to performance and tone. The same melody played on a clarinet might have a different mood than if it were played on an overdriven electric guitar, and while it is theoretically possible to write things that challenge what is naturally believed to be pleasurable, it might be so different from what the human heartbeat, ear and muscles can discern as music.

>>22891100
>I don't see how music theory IS math, yet like everything else, it can have math applied onto its fundamentals.
Wait, what about
>A system that allows for the harmony of 6ths and 3rds and V7-I cadences also is inherently unstable, and can be dismantled from within
Isn't that a mathematical progression of kinds? I don't think it has anything to do with the instruments being used, beyond the fact that the instruments are built with certain scales in mind.

>>22891156
You're right, that is largely about harmony and the listener's short term memory. And what I'm talking about refers to how it should be possible for a piece to have these harmonic characteristics but the melody being so differently played that the instability present in that system can be resolved in a new way. And I can't think of doing that with live performers

>>22875571
The Talmud.

>>22891180
Same anon as >>22891180

If you want to look at art like Aristotle did, that is mimesis: the imitation of beautiful nature. With music that is difficult to achieve because you are essentially plotting an abstract pattern on the music sheet that represents a way in which an artist makes sound with a given instrument. Sure, it's possible to play Woody Woodpecker's laugh on the guitar, but it is not actually Woody Woodpecker's laugh. It doesn't help that the indoctrination system implemented in schools aims to make all study of art as "representative" and thus the aesthetic judgment many people will make is not be the actual sound but the concepts that the listener's mind associates with the piece they are hearing. If you make too many steps away in that direction you end up not caring what you listen to.
>oh but it represents the...
No, it doesn't. That's ideological. This is not to say that everyone should just drink wine and dance like in some larpy bohemian party.
>But it's nuanced
I don't care for that word, nuance. It says nothing to me, it is the mating call of the ignorant.

>>22891180
>And what I'm talking about refers to how it should be possible for a piece to have these harmonic characteristics but the melody being so differently played that the instability present in that system can be resolved in a new way.
I just want to learn more about what that instability is, how it can be resolved, and what are the limits to that resolution, theoretical and practical. I would be a very happy man if you could help me with at least a list of topics that I would have to learn (on my own) to understand it, along with any primers, tips, opinions, or hot-takes that you would be willing to provide which could help bootstrap my learning.
>If you want to look at art like Aristotle did, that is mimesis: the imitation of beautiful nature.
Wait, what exactly are you referring to as mimesis?
>It doesn't help that the indoctrination system implemented in schools aims to make all study of art as "representative"
Isn't that similar to an Aristotelian understanding of art? Mimesis = copying, and copies are representations.
>thus the aesthetic judgment many people will make is not be the actual sound
Alternatively, on what grounds could you give for evaluating the actual sound without thinking about what it represents?

>>22891180
>And what I'm talking about refers to how it should be possible for a piece to have these harmonic characteristics but the melody being so differently played that the instability present in that system can be resolved in a new way.
I just want to learn more about what that instability is, how it can be resolved, and what are the limits to that resolution, theoretical and practical. I would be a very happy man if you could help me with at least a list of topics that I would have to learn (on my own) to understand it, along with any primers, tips, opinions, or hot-takes that you would be willing to provide which could help bootstrap my learning.

>>22891263
>If you want to look at art like Aristotle did, that is mimesis: the imitation of beautiful nature.
Wait, what exactly are you referring to as mimesis?
>It doesn't help that the indoctrination system implemented in schools aims to make all study of art as "representative"
Isn't that similar to an Aristotelian understanding of art? Mimesis = copying, and copies are representations.
>thus the aesthetic judgment many people will make is not be the actual sound
Alternatively, on what grounds could you give for evaluating the actual sound without thinking about what it represents?

>>22891295
To answer your first question. 3rds, and 6ths are intervals, it is to say how many pitches from one note to another in an instrument. Cadences are essentially chord progressions that make a piece of a song sound more complete. This is likely a because they have a certain psychological effect on the listener. If this psychological effect does not take place when playing an interval or cadence it is said to be (to put it quite simply) 'dissonant' and some historians believe that some of these leaps between notes are difficult to sing and thus not natural.

Regarding Aristotle. It's not super complicated, you don't COPY, you use beautiful nature as a model to make something beautiful yourself. Think of how people draw aliens but then you watch a documentary on the ocean and see there is crazier stuff living on our planet and it's real.

>Alternatively, on what grounds could you give for evaluating the actual sound without thinking about what it represents?

I think this comes down to personal taste

Also, you could realistically apply atonality to the system of classical, but I don't know how it would be physically possible to perform it with classical instruments.

>>22891399
>To answer your first question. 3rds, and 6ths are intervals, it is to say how many pitches from one note to another in an instrument. Cadences are essentially chord progressions that make a piece of a song sound more complete. This is likely a because they have a certain psychological effect on the listener. If this psychological effect does not take place when playing an interval or cadence it is said to be (to put it quite simply) 'dissonant' and some historians believe that some of these leaps between notes are difficult to sing and thus not natural.
This helps a lot. So, is it more than just "music imitating nature", but also "music imitating humanity" in some sense that seems to make music consonant or dissonant?

>Regarding Aristotle. It's not super complicated, you don't COPY, you use beautiful nature as a model to make something beautiful yourself. Think of how people draw aliens but then you watch a documentary on the ocean and see there is crazier stuff living on our planet and it's real.
Would "copying" still work as long as it's not a 1-to-1 copy? e.g. "rhyming" with nature? Modeling nature is in a sense copying nature, so I'm getting lost in the semantic distinction.

>I think this comes down to personal taste
So, if it's personal taste, then on what grounds do you have to judge the modern indoctrination of music aesthetical judgment? I mean, you're free to hate it, but with what authority can you critique it with? If everybody else is operating off of personal taste, then your taste is as good as theirs.

>>22891601
>Consonant or dissonant.
If it's difficult to sing, I'd say dissonant. And by the way this refers to the tritone, other intervals might be dissonant but not difficult to sing.

>copying
I think you're on the right track here

>your taste is as good as theirs
No, especially if we can tell what effects certain music has on people. Death metal, for instance, is even sleepy to those who enjoy it, marching music serves a purpose, lullabies serve a purpose and these are not just based on social construct. That there are preferences does not mean that people know to choose for themselves.

>>22891689
>Death metal, for instance, is even sleepy to those who enjoy it, marching music serves a purpose, lullabies serve a purpose and these are not just based on social construct. That there are preferences does not mean that people know to choose for themselves.
Oh, I see. So there's many circumstances in which music is good or not, but there's still a right and wrong way to utilize music. So, kind of Aristotelian here too?

>>22875595
Bump just to spite this dork

>>22876879
Popular art has always been nonsense hand picked by the elites to promote their interests. There is never going to be an artistic revolution without a real revolution as well

I love art. This is why I hate atonality.

>>22893089
You're so profound and original, anon. Can I touch you?

>>22891968
I couldn't answer you that one.

>>22893386
No, I just tell the truth as I see it.

Music was always a medium-brow art
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=473-w5R2EvU

>>22893985


Omg hiiiii Prozak!

>>22894197
We mvst retvrn to a comically eugenic, darwinian, ron paul libertarian WASP Imperium permanently stuck in 1986

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSB57dhEIwY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEqRmddzbrQ

>>22894348
And no listening to hard rock!!! Only Wagner, Mortem the first Incantation.

>>22888862
>A system that allows for the harmony of 6ths and 3rds and V7-I cadences also is inherently unstable, and can be dismantled from within.
Haha... Nice jo-
>T. Marxist musicologist and Frankfurt School sympathizer.
oh... you're serious...

>>22875571
adorno is based and red pilled

>>22893985
>music was always
>posts shitty death metal from 1994
What did you mean by this, you fucking retard?

>>22894533
The only based thing he did is dab on jazz. That is it. Otherwise he is highly degenerate and subversive.

>A system that allows for the harmony of 6ths and 3rds and V7-I cadences
>(((he))) thinks it's a system, not inherent harmony encoded in the harmonic series
Oh no no no

>>22888855
>because the possibilities have largely been exhausted
Source?

>>22894534
It's not like current death metal is better but ya lmao. Posting most memed, introductory albums and not even something like Transmetal or anything that would indicate he actually likes the genre. Similar phenomenon to how people here only talk about liking Stoner, 2666 or Moby Dick

>>22894562
Don't need any, my man. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven did it first, they did it best and whatever was not fitting they discarded and did not write anything with it. I'm not so braindead that I'll disparage everything after Wagner but I'd say these 4 names + Bach are more than sufficient. Maybe you got a good source that'll change my mind, I'd like to hear it.

>>22895097
Maybe I didn't understand what you meant by possibilities. If you mean they explored tonality and everything else is just an addition/elaboration building on that, then I agree. Even Ravel/Stravinsky is just extended tonality.
I think the notion that tonality is exhausted, in that no new tonal music is possible without being pastiche, is a very subversive notion akin to what the Schoenbergians promote (while even their leader wasn't that misguided). It's mostly used as a cope by academics due to their inability to create beautiful music.

>>22894544
redpill me on this

>>22894529
>>22894544
>>22894535
Ignore the socialists and listen to Ravel you chuds.

>>22895120
We are of similar views. I think Medtner or Berlioz also had good music, and for anyone here who likes loud music, I recommend Pancrase Royer's Le Vertigo.

>>22895122
Thirds and fifths are literally unavoidable since every note contains them in the harmonic series. You always hear thirds and fifths in any note.
V7-I cadences are just highlighting the tonal centre. You already hear the V in the I. It's a pattern built into sound, not a created system.
Also he thinks that being able to modulate constantly to obscure the tonality is "Destroying" the system, when it's just a specific and very limiting use of the system.

>>22895143
Ravel is based because he had a sense of beauty and masterful use of tonality. While jazz is just an Africanised second pressing of Ravel+Schoenberg.

>>22895179
The biggest acadummy cope is thinking that they can even write dissonances

>>22895199
Literally this. There is no hard dissonances, literally everything is accounted for in the harmonic series and in-tune tritones can sound beautiful and almost consonant. They just cope because they don't want to learn to make dissonance beautiful and just settle for using it in an ugly way to elicit certain "Effects" or convey a "Message". Also a big problem is their tunnel vision on "dissonance" while ignoring consonance, when it's the interplay between different sounds that gives the music more interest and beauty.
Academism is the grayscale Esperanto of music. Unnatural and purposefully stripped of character and soul.

>>22895217
Amen!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m_IYq1WUnpY&pp=ygUPQ2hldmFsIGRlIGZyaXNl

>>22895398
Literally video game music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2evIg-aYw8

>>22895475
This entire game

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-LIZWSapfy8&pp=ygUgVG8gdGhlIGhlYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBkZW1vbiBjYXN0bGU%3D

Bump.

>>22895160
>Thirds and fifths are literally unavoidable since every note contains them in the harmonic series

Holy fuck, an actual retard. Intervals and harmonic resonance are very, very different. There's a reason plainchant sounds wildly different to a Mozart concerto. The tonal language is entirely different. Reactionaries need to lower their tone when speaking to actual, qualified musicologists and neo marxists.

>>22896941
>qualified musicologists
>musicologists
>qualified to speak on anything but a Starbucks Funko Pop
Kek.

>musicology
Might be the most useless discipline around. Even sociology and gender theory has more uses, at least it gives you clout in the (((new world order))).
>I don't make or play music, but speak ABOUT it. That's so meta and important! Much doge! Much reddit!

>>22896948
>Can't refute.

Lower your tone, chud. We understand music the way oracles understood the gods. When you hear 'le nice sounds', we hear a thousand years of tonal evolution. Lower your tone.

>>22896989
>Lower your tone, chud. We understand music the way oracles understood the gods. When you hear 'le nice sounds', we hear a thousand years of tonal evolution. Lower your tone.

>>22896957
It's not useless if it gives you money lol cope and seethe

>>22897011
>It's not useless if it gives you money lol cope and seethe

>>22896941
>Holy fuck, an actual retard. Intervals and harmonic resonance are very, very different.
What's the difference then, smart guy?

>>22896941
>>22898351
yeah, that's what I thought. stupid theorycel Marxoid

>>22896941
>Intervals and harmonic resonance are very, very different.
One is derived from the other.

>>22897001
>We understand music the way oracles understood the gods.
So you're fooled by demons and think you're speaking to "gods"?

>>22897024
Did you want to say something, NEET?

>>22899725
>nooooo you HAVE to work for the system that's dismantling society!!! why? because.... you're contributing!

>>22899814
'The system' isn't 'dismantling society', it's doing exactly what society wants. And I'm not contributing to anything, I'm completely detached from my work and simply only care about money. But you wouldn't know anything about that, right?

>>22899824
>I'm completely detached from my work
As a marxist musicologist? Then you are the product. The 'system' is paying you to accept their views and "contribute" by sedating yourself to them and being a passive node in their larger system of control.

>>22899814
by "system" you mean democratic liberalism and capitalism, and by "society" you mean porn and drug addicted, idiotic, hedonistic and materialistic masses, correct?

>>22899830
I'm not a marxist, you gargantuan retard.
>The 'system' is paying you to accept their views
You don't even know what I do.
>dudeee the system is, like, controlling you, maaan
You're a manchild.

>>22899844
Democratic liberalism and capitalism is just a tool of control by (((the powers that be))). It doesn't really exist.
> "society"
Just the general people who buy into the narratives.

>>22899849
ah yes, the system doesn't really exist, how could I forget
now pass me the pipe

>>22899848
Sorry then, I assumed you were the epic marxist musicologist who I was interacting with. I of course don't think working for money is evil. But the musicologist works for the system and necessarily has to accept an ideology. It's not offering a service but being payed to be molded into whatever (((Academia))) wants you to be.

>>22899852
Oh, no. I'm not that anon.
>But the musicologist works for the system and necessarily has to accept an ideology
Not if you write about old music nobody cares about, and you can write whatever you want and face no criticism. I'm not even strictly in academia.

>>22899851
Capitalism is a false ideal and used as a tool to rally the "left" against a common cause (to control them) and co-opt/control the right.
Democracy also does not exist as used as a tool to make it seem like they aren't pushing society in a very specific direction, that it's just "le organic development and progress". Only the "liberal" part is what they really want, but it's "liberty" from God.

>>22899858
>write about old music nobody cares about
That's not really what musicology is about. It is not a scientific or disinterested study of history, but a greater narrative about music. Just look at what is being pushed.
>"Mahler and Beethoven were fighting against capitalism and tonality!"

>>22899858
>whatever you want and face no criticism
>academia
You're joking, right, anon? Modern academia is a machine to push and legitimise specific views, and if you step outside of them, you're not going to be part of academia for much longer.

>>22899863
That's the reality of the majority of it. And what you say is being pushed isn't really that representative of contemporary studies, even in this climate, but I can only say that's what it's like from where I'm from. Views are very pluralistic, much like contemporary music.
>>22899871
Like I said, I'm not really in academia in the strict sense. And see above.

>>22899874
>Views are very pluralistic
That's the problem. It's apparently pluralistic but all part of the larger deconstructive narrative of "there's no meaning!!!"

>>22899876
>but all part of the larger deconstructive narrative of "there's no meaning!!!"
I'm not sure that's entirely correct either. Quite a few scholars I've come across have a humanistic approach and want to study and document music because they think it's important. Some even do it "for their country", out of patriotic reasons.

>>22898351
Intervals are the difference between two pitches. What intervals are considered 'consonant' and 'dissonant' and 'agreeable' and 'disagreeable' are entirely the product of social evolution. Hence, why an Aug4 was outlawed by the church and labelled the 'Devil's Intervals', yet the interval came to be used in innovative ways by the time we reach the romanticism of Chopin and Beethoven.

All pitches resonante. But resonance doesn't tell us anything meaningful about Music, as a creative endeavour pursued by humans throughout history. Unless you consider listening to a single 440hz tone for hours on end as 'aesthetic experience', but you don't. You rally around 'tonality', which is entirely a historical process that was brought to its logical conclusion by Schoenberg and the Vienese School.

In short, you're all psueds and chuds and if you had any 'real' interest in Music, you'd read a book. But you don't, which is why I have to educate you. Remember, lower tone when speaking to a neo-marxist musicologist. We understand. You don't.

>>22900087
>>>22898351
>Intervals are the difference between two pitches. What intervals are considered 'consonant' and 'dissonant' and 'agreeable' and 'disagreeable' are entirely the product of social evolution. Hence, why an Aug4 was outlawed by the church and labelled the 'Devil's Intervals', yet the interval came to be used in innovative ways by the time we reach the romanticism of Chopin and Beethoven.
>
>All pitches resonante. But resonance doesn't tell us anything meaningful about Music, as a creative endeavour pursued by humans throughout history. Unless you consider listening to a single 440hz tone for hours on end as 'aesthetic experience', but you don't. You rally around 'tonality', which is entirely a historical process that was brought to its logical conclusion by Schoenberg and the Vienese School.
>
>In short, you're all psueds and chuds and if you had any 'real' interest in Music, you'd read a book. But you don't, which is why I have to educate you. Remember, lower tone when speaking to a neo-marxist musicologist. We understand. You don't.

>>22900087
>What intervals are considered 'consonant' and 'dissonant' and 'agreeable' and 'disagreeable' are entirely the product of social evolution.
No, not entirely. The basis for perceiving intervals as more stable or harmonious (or consonant and dissonant) is deeply ingrained in our auditory perception, i.e. neurons in the auditory cortex respond differently to consonant and dissonant intervals. Some studies using brain imaging techniques have shown that consonant intervals evoke less neural activity, and separate studies showed that infants regularly demonstrated preferences for consonant intervals, which could mean that our sensitivity to certain sound combinations might be inherent.

>>22900087
>Hence, why an Aug4 was outlawed by the church and labelled the 'Devil's Intervals'
Also this is literally a myth that midwits perpetuate. Nobody ever banned an interval.

>>22900162
Bunk research. We don't listen to pitches in isolation from one another. Our experience of Music is entirely fluid (it being a literal temporal experience). From the study you're probably referring to:

>Yet when Cousineau and colleagues asked amusic subjects to rate the pleasantness of a whole series of intervals, they showed no distinctions between any of the intervals.

Beethoven, for example, (who I assume you love), wrote plenty of dissonances into his Music - the 'Eroica' Symphony 1st Mov being a great example. Critics at the time 'hated' it, but is today seen as a turning point in the development of Romanticism. All of this is entirely social, regardless of wether we may or may not, on a rudimentary level 'prefer' one type of pitch over another.

Like I said, most Music you probably enjoy is replete with dissonant resonances.

>>22900166
Banned or not banned, it was non-existent and actively avoided by medieval composers. That's what gives the 'Messe De Notre Dame', for example, it's very unique harmonic language. Tritones were avoided at all costs as the general attitude at the time was that they were 'ungodly'.

>>22900087
>Hence, why an Aug4 was outlawed by the church and labelled the 'Devil's Intervals',

>>22900172
>We don't listen to pitches in isolation from one another.
An interval isn't a pitch in isolation. Kek. Is this the true power of musicology?

>>22900179
>Continues to avoid the quoted study, as context would ruin his brain.

The state of this board . . .

>>22900180
>"study"
I don't believe in fake pseudoscience.

>>22900182
Thank you, that's what I was saying.

I refer you back to the middle section of my reply then:

>Beethoven, for example, (who I assume you love), wrote plenty of dissonances into his Music - the 'Eroica' Symphony 1st Mov being a great example. Critics at the time 'hated' it, but is today seen as a turning point in the development of Romanticism. All of this is entirely social, regardless of wether we may or may not, on a rudimentary level 'prefer' one type of pitch over another.

Peace

>unironically believing everything in human life is just subjective and the product of nurture
Reminder this is the implicit metaphysical outlook of all Schoenbergians.

>>22877797
Well it sounds shit.

@22900185
>some anecdote from LE SOCIETY
Utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Intervals are still distinguishable from one another objectively. Society might accept more intervals if they are used to it, but the nature of the intervals doesn't change.

>>22900195
>Literally concedes the argument that 'pleasant' sounding music and 'tonality' is a social construct.

Holy kekekek. It's that easy?

>>22900172
Studies have produced varied results. I'm just disputing your conviction that intervals are ENTIRELY the product of social evolution. It's very debatable.
>>22900176
>Banned or not banned
You have a very free use of language, so much so that I ask myself what the point of it is anyway. You said 'outlawed', which is a very specific word with a specific meaning. Don't expect to be taken seriously if you mince words like that. Not only that, the tritone wasn't non-existent and actively avoided, it was used but with care and specific techniques to manage its dissonance. You're literally full of shit.

>>22900202
uhhhh, sweaty, theorists of the time literally prescribed compositional strategies to avoid creating the interval:

>The tritone is a restless interval, classed as a dissonance in Western music from the early Middle Ages through to the end of the common practice period. This interval was frequently avoided in medieval ecclesiastical singing because of its dissonant quality. The first explicit prohibition of it seems to occur with the development of Guido of Arezzo's hexachordal system, who suggested that rather than make B a diatonic note, the hexachord be moved and based on C to avoid the F–B tritone altogether.

But go ahead, get hung up on the peripheral details if it helps you feel like you have some sort of valid point to make.

>>22880883
Because that kind of music has been fully explored. There is no more to explore and now exists as a repository of pieces and parts to be rearranged.

Tonality is the natural result of interval patterns interpreted by the human mind. It's influenced by human perception but does not arise from it, but rather from how humans are created and how the harmonic series is created.
If tonality is LE SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, you couldn't discern atonal garbage like Schoenberg was different if you brainwashed yourself enough by listening to it. But even they know that it sounds objectively different. Anyone knows. Atonality is a learned disability/deformation of the mind and ear to accept something unnatural and artificially crafted to avoid certain patterns, while tonality arises naturally and inevitably, even if it's not functional harmony.

>>22900213
>fully explored
According to what? Your subjective opinion? Even Schoenberg wasn't delusional enough to think this.
>There is no more to explore
Skill issue.

>tonality - systems to explain it develop after it is used by musicians
>atonality - purposefully created to avoid the patterns used in tonality
Woah... So original... Truly an independent phenomenon with very high value that doesn't derive its existence entirely from tonality...

>>22880883
>Why is all of tonal works composed today mere pastiche?
It's only true of musescore amateur compositions. The rest is not tonal pastiche, but minimalistic or atonal. So the problem is that there are no (very secret few) legit classical composers left in the world.

Even underground music today isn't what it was a decade ago

>>22882196
>>22882196
>>22882196

bump

>>22895097
Mozart could have written a billion more pieces until he died of old age. The idea that we just 'run out' of melodies or music like a quantity is utterly retarded.

>>22901690
God has His ways and that's also why there's St. Hildegard von Bingen

>>22888006
>Whether Beethoven is your favourite or not doesn't change the fact he's the greatest, as he really does have music for every occasion.
So do Mozart and Bach and a few more non-reddit examples. Your litmus test for the greatest is stupid.

>>22896989
i can smell the marxcels low iqness over the internet

>>22901690
wrong. if melody prior to pastiche has time and structural constraints, and melodies do, then the number of pre pastiche melodies absolutely do have a limit. but developments are virtually unlimited, but then why consider them melodies and not melodic structures?

>all these anons filtered by schoenberg
it's sad, really; there are some very beautiful atonal pieces
https://youtu.be/eB5I5iU0OoE?si=6RiY13FjSpDBNy2_&t=1190
https://youtu.be/I9-_tVSrCqs?si=E1NLU9FJ2OpOlJT5&t=133
https://youtu.be/dvjc1oqdoXI?si=c79BiAI0_qzYRfU3

>>22903615
even if the set of pre-pastiche melodies is smaller, or even much smaller, than the set of all melodies, there's still a massive number of pre-pastiche melodies possible of being produced before they are exhausted. it is effectively unlimited.

>>22903617
this sounds like random chaotic noodling, like Indian raga music with none of the warmth and charm. a few moments I could find value, but most of it was just awful.

>>22903663
>there's still a massive number of pre-pastiche melodies possible of being produced before they are exhausted.
duh. ive collected more than 300 that are distinct from preexisting music
>it is effectively unlimited.
no they arent. the masses of melodies similar to the james bond gunbarrel melody should in my framework just be exemplified by that melody, with the others being considered pastiches (or at best versions, even yes the arab melody that inspired the bond theme), if for no reason than to make things manageable. the best case for this is that nobody gives a fuck about most versions that are one or two parts different from a strong melody, aside from their possible classical or folk origins, and especially nobody gives a fuck about the 999 gorillion atonal melodies floating like turds in the music pond

>>22903716
>th-th-they're just aren't okay?!?!
>I counted them all on my day off the other day, it can't be done chud

>>22903770
quiet schoenberg tranny sane people are talking

>>22903458
That's why I am not a critic.

>>22903777
im arguing against the need for schoenberg you drooling retard

>>22905132
that claim is not implicit in your post faggot. learn to be clear or fuck off, otherwise you are spiritually schoenbergian

>>22905178
learn to think clearly and you'll see that somebody arguing that classical music wasn't in any danger of being pastiche (because there were an abundance of fruitful unexplored paths left) is somebody arguing FOR classical music and AGAINST schoenbergian autism.

just don't be an idiot, okay? oh, wait, it's too late for you. you were dropped on your head and studied music theory instead of a real discipline. my apologies for being so insensitive.

>>22905184

>th-th-they're just aren't okay?!?!
>I counted them all on my day off the other day, it can't be done chud

read your post over and over. this post by itself might as well have been the schoenberg faggot. again, learn to be clear because your posts are sometimes atonal

>>22903669
>sounds like random chaotic noodling
listen to the second example I posted. there's a very clear theme that the entire movement is based on. if you are unable to hear this you are musically retarded

>>22905207
if you followed the conversation it'd be clear. stop being a retarded phoneposter with no attention span and you'll stop making stupid mistakes.

>>22905576
no but now its clear youre a schoenberg tranny no matter what you claim

>>22905659
but I hate schoenberg