We've had favourites threads, what about the hates?

[Corno Dolce]

Most Noble Mr. Newman and Art Rock,

May I please share an observation this late in the game? I have followed this thread with great interest, especially since you both with ease can convey your thoughts quite presciently. I would be sad if Art Rock would stop sharing on this forum. I grieve that you feel stressed by sharing your observations and that they, in your mind, seem unanswered. Maybe the medium of a public forum really might pose difficulties in the transmittal and reception of communications, although, not because of technology problems.

I perceive that since we do not visually see our interlocutors, we might feel hampered since we cannot determine the visual bodily cues which we enjoy analysing whilst in face-to-face dialogue with each other. Maybe as members of this most august of forums can agree to perceive our dialogues in the spirit of charitableness, humility, and respect for our fellow brothers and sisters.

Of course, there will be those who come to this forum with other intentions and mind-sets which are not necessarily amenable to the give-and-take character of upbuilding discourse. We will quickly learn how to discern such intentions and then avoid those at cross-purposes, unless we see ourselves as able to help that person become a regular contributor.

Art Rock and Mr. Newman, you give so much, you are gentlemen of a rare cut. Let not a relatively simple yet enlightening discourse be an intractable bone of contention that might cause you to withdraw.

With that being said, I wish to add my $0.03 cents worth about music being both an art and a science.

1. Generally speaking, the craft of music composition entails the study of its particular laws in order for us to make use of it in creating performable art - Might we agree on this?

2. There is a sub-discipline in music such as acoustics which entails a high degree of knowledge in Mathematics and Physics - Might we agree on this?

3. Music interpretation by the performer(s) and its efficacy or non-efficacy in conveying an emotive or non-emotive message is probably un-qualifiable and un-quantifiable by using the Scientific Process - might we agree on this?

4. As a working musician I must bring to bear my whole life and educational experience, my knowledge of music theory, orchestration, arranging, performance practice, music history, musicology, in-depth knowledge of composers and their lives, knowledge of poetry and how its use can convey messages that will invariably cause a person to emote positively or cause dissonance, how history and Faith systems or atheism and agnosticism influence the cultural patrimony of different societies. This last point is but a small cross-section of my working life as a musician. I will not bore people with more details anymore now - Cue-in applause: :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

In closing, I have this somewhat faint recollection about what Rachmaninoff said about music performance: "Music should be the sum of a musician's life, loves, ecstasy, sorrow, their educational experience......."

Respectfully submitted,

CD :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:

 

[Robert Newman]

Well, thank you Art Rock. I certainly had no idea you would be offended by my pointing out that music is a science. That it's based on observable and objective realities. That its foundation is not subjective. And that those who study music best learn that these facts are derived from nature itself. But I suppose that if a person believes (against all the evidence) that excellence in music is determined subjectively (rather than by its conformity at the most fundamental levels to orderly laws) there is little more that can be said.

I am happy neither you nor I have the same difficulties in accepting the Law of Gravity. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Conservation of Matter, etc and I hope you will, in the end, accept the factual basis on which music and the study of it is also based. For it's only on the foundation of these realities that relate to music that strong musical buildings are built. More excellent ones, that is, than we would otherwise hear.

Very best wishes

Robert

 

[Robert Newman]

Thank you very much C.D.,

For myself, I greatly appreciate your comments. Thank you for your help to those who may read this thread and very best wishes.

Robert

 

[jhnbrbr]

Music may well be a science insofar as an existing piece of music can be analysed, and broken down into its constituent parts, but the act of composition is surely a creative art, and while certain "laws" may be observed, the important difference from the laws of science is that the laws of musical composition are dynamic ones. "Rules is made to be broken", so each generation pushes out the boundaries and does things the previous generation would have disapproved of. To give a concrete example of that, consecutive fifths were once considered an absolute no-no, but anyone who objects to them after the 19th century would be considered musically naive. So to some extent the worth of a piece of music depends on how it fits into the perceived ongoing process of development. As for those who claim to dislike all modern music -what about John Adams?

 

[Robert Newman]

Music may well be a science insofar as an existing piece of music can be analysed, and broken down into its constituent parts, but the act of composition is surely a creative art, and while certain "laws" may be observed, the important difference from the laws of science is that the laws of musical composition are dynamic ones. "Rules is made to be broken", so each generation pushes out the boundaries and does things the previous generation would have disapproved of. To give a concrete example of that, consecutive fifths were once considered an absolute no-no, but anyone who objects to them after the 19th century would be considered musically naive. So to some extent the worth of a piece of music depends on how it fits into the perceived ongoing process of development. As for those who claim to dislike all modern music -what about John Adams?

Yes, absolutely Jhnbrbr,

Music is of course a fusion, a union, between the scientifically observable and measurable facts (objective realities) which relate to tones and the creative process. It's not solely a matter of science and nobody suggests otherwise. Subjectivity also has its place. But the foundation of music making, composition etc. is the fundamental and objective reality which relates to tones. This foundation may be and is studied in detail by composers and musicians themselves. Music is the application of lessons nature gives us expressed creatively in tones. Expressed within freedom, great variety etc. within the liberty of art itself. A freedom which has as its basis, as it's entire context, the laws which relate to it. It's not anarchy. It's creativity.

Best wishes

Robert

 

[jhnbrbr]

Hello Robert
I think I agree with everything you said in your latest post. I must be missing something!!

Best wishes,
John

 

[Andrew Roussak]

Music may well be a science insofar as an existing piece of music can be analysed, and broken down into its constituent parts, but the act of composition is surely a creative art, and while certain "laws" may be observed, the important difference from the laws of science is that the laws of musical composition are dynamic ones. "Rules is made to be broken", so each generation pushes out the boundaries and does things the previous generation would have disapproved of. To give a concrete example of that, consecutive fifths were once considered an absolute no-no, but anyone who objects to them after the 19th century would be considered musically naive. So to some extent the worth of a piece of music depends on how it fits into the perceived ongoing process of development. As for those who claim to dislike all modern music -what about John Adams?

Hi John,

happy to see that your job has obviously saved you from the financial extinction!

I agree with your point, and I can of course add some other names to the list of the great modern composers - Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein. I also admire the first ( actually , the single one ) piano concerto written by Keith Emerson.

But the point of Dorsetmike was , I guess , not ALL of the modern composers in general. I can definitely second his opinion on Ludovico Einaudi, for example. This name is simply overhyped, and the man writes exactly the stuff how Mike names it - elevator music. If Einaudi is the great modern composer, then Richard Claydermann must be regarded as the great modern pianist, IMHO.

 

[jhnbrbr]

Hi Andrew
I'm not extinct, but still an endangered species (but let's not go into all that again!) I certainly agree with you about Bernstein, but I have to confess to being totally ignorant on the music of Einaudi, but I know exactly what you mean by "elevator music" - great music has to challenge the listener a little, if it's too insipid it soon becomes plain boring. Also, I don't like the way classical music is often advertised these days as if its sole purpose was as an aid to relaxation. The greatest compliment I can pay to a piece of music is not that it relaxes me, but that it makes me cry!
Best wishes, John.

 

[Andrew Roussak]

The greatest compliment I can pay to a piece of music is not that it relaxes me, but that it makes me cry!

Exactly