Comments on: Shanghai again … http://www.neilrolnick.com/hearingblog/?p=228 Neil Rolnick - down to one ear Fri, 06 Aug 2010 02:28:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: GFieldson http://www.neilrolnick.com/hearingblog/?p=228&cpage=1#comment-5449 GFieldson Fri, 06 Aug 2010 02:28:07 +0000 http://www.neilrolnick.com/hearingblog/?p=228#comment-5449 Neal, I think that you make a fair point. As a non-musician who enjoys modern classical and electronic music, I do think that the world of professional composers (and artists in general) has a sort of hermetic quality, which excludes non-professionals. More importantly, though, it makes those on the inside seem a bit absurd when they condescend to outsiders who disagree with the values placed upon the music by the insiders. When I listen to music, ultimately, what matters to me is "Do I like this? Is it interesting?" Knowing, either consciously or viscerally, that there is a complex structure behind the sound is nice, but it's not essential to my appreciate - I like classical music before I understood how the masters manipulate melody, harmony and counterpoint. To toss a bomb, I do think that what is exciting about electronic generation of sound is the removal of any restrictions upon the composition of music. To remove the set of rules that we used to possess (dictated by the limits of our sound-generating instruments) and replace them with a new set of rules (i.e. sound must be divorced from it's generator) is either folly or weakness. To me, it reflects one of two possibilities: 1. The vast space of opportunity is too daunting for all but a few. In order to step into this space and create a work of art, a less talented individual needs to restrict the space into something smaller and more comprehensible 2. The potential of the space can best be explored or learned by trying out sub-spaces. Imposing arbitrary rules upon the space and then seeing the effect of these rules upon the resulting musical experience is a device for learning how to use the space. The first possibility seems like a refuge for the average. By establishing a world of rules and turning them into dogma, the average composer can create a shield to defend themselves against comparison with the exceptional composer. The second possibility suggests that it is still the time of learning. Perhaps the criticism, then, is that the resulting works really are academic exercises, and it ought to be acknowledged that they are limited exercises in an infinitely wonderful space. When I think about modern music, the one thing that I try to keep in mind is that we haven't had the benefit of the filter of time to eliminate the dull, the boring and the bad music from our experience. I wonder, if we were in the 18th or 19th century would have the same feeling, and is it only that the passage of time has left us with the best of those ages. Neal,
I think that you make a fair point. As a non-musician who enjoys modern classical and electronic music, I do think that the world of professional composers (and artists in general) has a sort of hermetic quality, which excludes non-professionals. More importantly, though, it makes those on the inside seem a bit absurd when they condescend to outsiders who disagree with the values placed upon the music by the insiders.

When I listen to music, ultimately, what matters to me is “Do I like this? Is it interesting?” Knowing, either consciously or viscerally, that there is a complex structure behind the sound is nice, but it’s not essential to my appreciate – I like classical music before I understood how the masters manipulate melody, harmony and counterpoint.

To toss a bomb, I do think that what is exciting about electronic generation of sound is the removal of any restrictions upon the composition of music. To remove the set of rules that we used to possess (dictated by the limits of our sound-generating instruments) and replace them with a new set of rules (i.e. sound must be divorced from it’s generator) is either folly or weakness.
To me, it reflects one of two possibilities:
1. The vast space of opportunity is too daunting for all but a few. In order to step into this space and create a work of art, a less talented individual needs to restrict the space into something smaller and more comprehensible
2. The potential of the space can best be explored or learned by trying out sub-spaces. Imposing arbitrary rules upon the space and then seeing the effect of these rules upon the resulting musical experience is a device for learning how to use the space.

The first possibility seems like a refuge for the average. By establishing a world of rules and turning them into dogma, the average composer can create a shield to defend themselves against comparison with the exceptional composer.
The second possibility suggests that it is still the time of learning. Perhaps the criticism, then, is that the resulting works really are academic exercises, and it ought to be acknowledged that they are limited exercises in an infinitely wonderful space.

When I think about modern music, the one thing that I try to keep in mind is that we haven’t had the benefit of the filter of time to eliminate the dull, the boring and the bad music from our experience. I wonder, if we were in the 18th or 19th century would have the same feeling, and is it only that the passage of time has left us with the best of those ages.

]]>