Let’s Talk About Musical Form

As a dogma, it's one that can be accepted or rejected - certainly almost every musical movement in history has been a (sometimes violent) reaction against what was perceived as "bad" music from earlier times - the early Baroque composers against the excess of the end of the Renaissance, early Classical music against the excess of the end of the Baroque era (and punk against the excess of prog... interesting?).


Even restricting ourselves to the last century of art music (sorry for the horrible description, but I don't know of any other), we have Schoenberg, and later through Webern the Darmstadt school who purposefully went out of their way to reject anything from the past, and then within two decades their vision was denounced by minimalists saying the process was a vital part of the final piece.



Until the 1980s, this constant rejection of the past was basically ignored by musicologists - classical music was seen as a Grand Narrative where one master succeeds another (Bach, to Mozart and Haydn, to Brahms and Wagner, to Stravinsky and Schoenberg) and improves on what had gone before. I honestly don't see how denouncing a previous composer can be seen as progress in the same direction - only a new start, presumably in another direction (a better direction? Is north better than northeast? Is southwest more pleasing than northwest?). Thus no two distinct movements can really be judged on the same terms - they are nothing if not a product of their time and place. As soon as different terms come in, any kind of objective comparison becomes useless.

"On the lines of subjectivity. This is another aspect that I will not back down from. I do not believe that music is subjective. Like I said before, there are two types of music....GOOD and BAD....now once again, before people start jumping down my throat."

This is because it is not a subject on which one can have an opinion:  music *is* subjective.  That you are arguing differently is not a result of your having a different opinion, it is the result of not acknowledging the truth.  If you are willing to have a go at putting forth the universal criteria for what music is "good," and "bad," we're all ears.  You'll be doing something that people a lot more learned than you have tried and failed at.

".....I would like to point out..that the great Duke Ellington said that"

Nobody cares what Duke Ellington said about music.  As a student of music theory and history, surely you must know that musicians often make some of the worst critics/theoreticians.  We could post quotes all day about how Great Composer A thought the work of Great Composer B was a pile of dogsh!t.

"....Duke Ellington stated that there are only two types of music...good and bad...and I wholeheartedly agree." 

So have dozens of other prominent musicians.  Oddly enough, it's always somebody else's music that is "bad."

"This goes back to what I was saying about absolute truth in music, or my "dogma" as someone stated......there are things that I hold self evident to be TRUE...and this is one of them. Disagree me if you want......which I'm sure you will."

The burden is on you to prove it.  *You're* the one making the assertion of immutable objective fact.  Until then, it's all subjective.  

"This is not the ideology of Proglover....this is not a shrine built on the foundation of MY THOUGHTS......this is academics, this is teaching that has evolved for hundreds and hundreds of years."

This is both part of the problem and cause for hope. You're right -- your ideas on this subject are not your own -- they are the tired regurgitations of hoary musicalogicial academia, which most music thinkers have distanced themselves from over the last 40 years or so. Critical thinking about music has shifted from the ignorant western art-music bias to a consideration of the values of music from other cultures.  Freed from dependence on analyzing scores, the music theorist can appreciate non-harmonic elements to the music that he otherwise would have glossed over or not considered.   The notion that all music is tonal (this theory rejects pure atonality as not music) and that western art music is the pinnacle of tonal music, is a dead-end. Did it ever occur to you that institutions like the one you attend NEED to perpetuate obsolete notions like the stuff you're addressing? Otherwise, what's the point?  If the degree doesn't give its holder the smugnes of "knowing" what music is good or bad... well, then, how appealing is it?  Since these ideas are not your own, it is possible that you can be saved.  My advice is to listen to more jazz.  You seem like a smart enough fellow to be able to see through this indoctrination.

 

yargh wrote: "On the lines of subjectivity. This is another aspect that I will not back down from. I do not believe that music is subjective. Like I said before, there are two types of music....GOOD and BAD....now once again, before people start jumping down my throat." This is because it is not a subject on which one can have an opinion:  music *is* subjective.  That you are arguing differently is not a result of your having a different opinion, it is the result of not acknowledging the truth.  If you are willing to have a go at putting forth the universal criteria for what music is "good," and "bad," we're all ears.  You'll be doing something that people a lot more learned than you have tried and failed at. ".....I would like to point out..that the great Duke Ellington said that" Nobody cares what Duke Ellington said about music.  As a student of music theory and history, surely you must know that musicians often make some of the worst critics/theoreticians.  We could post quotes all day about how Great Composer A thought the work of Great Composer B was a pile of dogsh!t. "....Duke Ellington stated that there are only two types of music...good and bad...and I wholeheartedly agree."  So have dozens of other prominent musicians.  Oddly enough, it's always somebody else's music that is "bad." "This goes back to what I was saying about absolute truth in music, or my "dogma" as someone stated......there are things that I hold self evident to be TRUE...and this is one of them. Disagree me if you want......which I'm sure you will." The burden is on you to prove it.  *You're* the one making the assertion of immutable objective fact.  Until then, it's all subjective.   "This is not the ideology of Proglover....this is not a shrine built on the foundation of MY THOUGHTS......this is academics, this is teaching that has evolved for hundreds and hundreds of years." This is both part of the problem and cause for hope. You're right -- your ideas on this subject are not your own -- they are the tired regurgitations of hoary musicalogicial academia, which most music thinkers have distanced themselves from over the last 40 years or so. Critical thinking about music has shifted from the ignorant western art-music bias to a consideration of the values of music from other cultures.  Freed from dependence on analyzing scores, the music theorist can appreciate non-harmonic elements to the music that he otherwise would have glossed over or not considered.   The notion that all music is tonal (this theory rejects pure atonality as not music) and that western art music is the pinnacle of tonal music, is a dead-end. Did it ever occur to you that institutions like the one you attend NEED to perpetuate obsolete notions like the stuff you're addressing? Otherwise, what's the point?  If the degree doesn't give its holder the smugnes of "knowing" what music is good or bad... well, then, how appealing is it?  Since these ideas are not your own, it is possible that you can be saved.  My advice is to listen to more jazz.  You seem like a smart enough fellow to be able to see through this indoctrination.

With all due respect....now I have tried to somewhat make amends...however, it seems that some of you just cant have enough of the drama....I appreciated what you said about me in an earlier post....so for that I must thank you. HOWEVER...if you are going to openingly and publically say that"NO ONE CARES WHAT DUKE ELLINGTON SAID ABOUT MUSIC".....you are crazy....because I know plenty of people who DO CARE....Like for example 90 percent of the JAZZ world and even those beyond the jazz walls.

Secondly please do not insult my school, or me, or the great line of music history and theory. It is soo upsetting that even after pouring my heart out in that last thread that Im still receiving responses like this.

It's only knock and knowall?

DarHobo wrote: Chill out, music is music.  I think we can all agree we love it.

NO, no....MUSIC is much more....music is LIFE!

Proglover wrote: Secondly....why wouldnt people want to share the truth?.....why wouldnt people want to share beauty?......why wouldnt people want to share something absolutely amazing that they discovered? The beauty of being a human being is the ability to share and to communicate and fellowship through that sharing... it's a GOD giving gift that people take for granted. I want the WORLD to see the importance, the beauty, the depth, and the power that is MUSIC.....GOD I LOVE IT SOO MUCH!!!!!!!!  Let's all share in a good thing!

Well.... that's why we are here. To exchange ideas, thoughts, revelations, views with fellow peers.

goose wrote: But then there's no space for painting, for philosophy, for literature...

Ahhhh.....any musician worth his salt knows his literature and philosophy, and respects and has high reard for ALL other art...it's a MUST!!

Proglover wrote: Well you ask the question...how can you teach creativiy???.....Well...YOU CAN NOT teach creativity.....HOWEVER you can teach SKILL...you can teach FORM and Structure! It's just like learning math or science.....2+2=4....there is no subjectivity involved at all.

That implies that the form and the structure aren't parts of the creative process...

I'd like to point out to Proglover that in vectors 2+2 can equel 0 and so it depends on were your coming from, as it does with music.

Proglover, i understand your love for music. Music is my life as well. I play in bands, i compose, next year i am going to a music school, music is what i live for. I completely respect your connection and love for music and i do not at all wish to seem hostile towards it, or you, or anything you stand for.
I completely agree with you that having an understanding of the science behind music, why music is, why a piece of music changes the way it does etc. can give a person a greater insight into the mechanics behind the piece of music, but i disagree with you on one point - subjectiveness.

You say you get frustrated when people don't listen to you, they just talk at you and seemingly ignore your posts. To me, that's how you're coming across. Once again, i'm not saying this to rile you up or anything, just stating what i see, which could very well be wrong.
You must understand, however, that others (like me) have the same pride in theif beliefs about music. Like you, i'm not about to back away from what i believe music to be.

You say that there is undoubtedly good music and bad music, and it seems that you are saying good music is music with clean and uncluttered form. That's how it's coming across to me anyway. You've used Yes as an example. But doesn't that mean if a band like Yes creates music that is undoubtedly good, anybody who likes good music must like Yes? See the thing is i don't. You may very well say that the fact that i don't like Yes and i do like bands like Art Zoyd and Univers Zero, with seemingly random and cluttered form means that i have a bad taste in music. But to me my music taste is the best there is. I don't like any bad music, and the music i don't like is bad. Therefore Yes is bad, regardless of form. Do you understand what i'm trying to say?

See music to me is not about form, and it's not about what other musicians say, and it's not about classical composers, and it's not about arrangement. Personally, yes i do find too much clutter and randomness to be 'ugly' and i think that a good composition is one that takes into account textures and arrangements. Having said that, such things are only part of music. Music is not about intelligence, it's about feeling, it's about the heart. And if somebody can feel music within their heart and soul (that sounds so cheesy, but it's true ) then they are as qualified as anybody else to comment on music. And since everybody is different, so is good and bad music.
I'm not saying you have suggested otherwise as i know you have an emotional connection with music, i'm just putting my view on music out there. I'm just saying that music to me is not academic. It has an academic side, but in my personal opinion, it is not what music is about.
You may disagree with me as i'm disagreeing with you, but it won't change anything. We just have different beliefs about music, which is fantastic