The end of classical music(jacobinmag.com)
jacobinmag.com
The end of classical music
http://jacobinmag.com/2013/11/the-end-of-classical-music/
6 comments
>His main argument for advocating classical music is its focus on instrumentals and "a logic entirely based on the abstract relationships inherent in the pitches and rhythms."
>There are many (admittedly postmodern, likely much to the chagrin of the author) tendencies and genres in today's music, such as avant-garde jazz, noise, progressive rock and so on, which also employ eclecticism and complexity on a scale that trumps famous, beaten-to-death classical composers. Of course, these genres aren't popular, but that is to be expected.
Your appeal to eclecticism makes me think that you are not focusing on the feature of classical music the author has in mind. He means, I think, the kind of formal "problem-solving" that one can find in (to cite a comparatively recent example) the [Fugue in Hindemith's 3rd Piano Sonata](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpAIEp6DUo).
Such very elaborated formal structures are much less important in rock or avant-garde jazz. They are also very hard to write, and comparatively hard to decode as a listener. But they are very rewarding once you sort of get them.
Isn't all of that true?
>There are many (admittedly postmodern, likely much to the chagrin of the author) tendencies and genres in today's music, such as avant-garde jazz, noise, progressive rock and so on, which also employ eclecticism and complexity on a scale that trumps famous, beaten-to-death classical composers. Of course, these genres aren't popular, but that is to be expected.
Your appeal to eclecticism makes me think that you are not focusing on the feature of classical music the author has in mind. He means, I think, the kind of formal "problem-solving" that one can find in (to cite a comparatively recent example) the [Fugue in Hindemith's 3rd Piano Sonata](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpAIEp6DUo).
Such very elaborated formal structures are much less important in rock or avant-garde jazz. They are also very hard to write, and comparatively hard to decode as a listener. But they are very rewarding once you sort of get them.
Isn't all of that true?
I listened to your example, and yes I can see what you are referring to. The sonata is complex and involves lots of nuances and subsystems playing together to form a coherent, yet intricate and sophisticated whole.
The "problem-solving" technique you mention is still, I believe, very much present in my aforementioned genres.
They're definitely not accessible to everyone, however, especially the casual listener. That is true.
The "problem-solving" technique you mention is still, I believe, very much present in my aforementioned genres.
They're definitely not accessible to everyone, however, especially the casual listener. That is true.
'Yet, what is popular has for the most part always been mediocre or subpar.'. What, on your say?
You might want to take a look at 'The Culture of the Europeans' by Donald Sassoon to see how wrong you are.
You might want to take a look at 'The Culture of the Europeans' by Donald Sassoon to see how wrong you are.
What makes it "leftist"? I think it is just snobbery.
The magazine is openly left-wing, as specified in their "About Us" page.
In hindsight, the political slant is irrelevant, though leftism is typical of academia.
In hindsight, the political slant is irrelevant, though leftism is typical of academia.
No doubt there were people in 1786 complaining about how that upstart Mozart was convincing "the kids" to stop going to revivals of "1550's Greatest Hits". And don't even get them STARTED on the filth that is "opera"...
Wow, these comments are really frightening. No wonder contemporary software is so shitty, and programmers are clueless as hell.
HN libertarians don't like to be made to feel academically inadequate. Startups care not about this art crap, and the author is obviously not aware of unpopular sub-genres of rock, many of which kick Chopin's ass, so to speak.
> Wow, these comments are really frightening.
How so? Also can you explain the connection you are drawing between the comments and the quality of modern software and programmers?
How so? Also can you explain the connection you are drawing between the comments and the quality of modern software and programmers?
Classical music is alive and well. It's also evolving, as it should. You might find it camouflaged as sountracks. Witness the "views" numbers on Youtube of "Inception" or any "epic music", they're in the millions.
Hollywood movie scores are essentially pornographic. There's little to challenge the logic or problem-solving areas of your mind. There are lots of loud sounds and nakedly manipulative melodies.
Naturally there are exceptions but I'm referring to your basic Hans Zimmer product, which is garbage.
Naturally there are exceptions but I'm referring to your basic Hans Zimmer product, which is garbage.
The same can be said for most popular classical pieces. As someone who mostly listens to classical, I'm not even sure your characterization carries any meaning. But lets not elevate classical music to some rarefied pedestal; the vast majority of the good classical music contains "loud sounds and nakedly manipulative melodies".
> Its author, New York Times religion correspondent Mark Oppenheimer concedes that “(s)tudying music or dance over a long time teaches perseverance and can build self-confidence” and “that there is virtue in mastering difficult disciplines.”
This could be said of programming too
About classical music, because a coincidence, I've downloaded lots of classical music and found out that it helps me greatly to concentrate while I'm studying.
I like it, I would probably want to learn more about it (if and when I have time), but I dont want to become an expert and be pedantic about it.
This could be said of programming too
About classical music, because a coincidence, I've downloaded lots of classical music and found out that it helps me greatly to concentrate while I'm studying.
I like it, I would probably want to learn more about it (if and when I have time), but I dont want to become an expert and be pedantic about it.
Pretentious moron whining about a cultural facet that's recently fallen out of favor and how society is done for, more at 11.
No doubt the author is aggravated by the perceived decadence and decline of contemporary popular music. Yet, what is popular has for the most part always been mediocre or subpar.
The 'classical' (a very generalized descriptor, and completely inaccurate to contrast with 'rock and popular music') music he so yearns for was predominantly enjoyed by the aristocracy of its day and wasn't intended for the common layman. He also comfortably ignores all the hack composers who were likely forgotten and their legacies erased, instead only pointing out one of the three most undoubtedly famous.
His main argument for advocating classical music is its focus on instrumentals and "a logic entirely based on the abstract relationships inherent in the pitches and rhythms."
There are many (admittedly postmodern, likely much to the chagrin of the author) tendencies and genres in today's music, such as avant-garde jazz, noise, progressive rock and so on, which also employ eclecticism and complexity on a scale that trumps famous, beaten-to-death classical composers. Of course, these genres aren't popular, but that is to be expected.
This is simply another example of leftist academic snobbery.