@ICWC
But there is a problem : this is NOT what happened
I judge concept by their RESULT : post modern art is just NOTHING (at best).

For a simple reason : ppl i will call "globalists" (or "mondialistes" in french) just wanted to mix EVERYTHING inside ONE single recipient.
And what happen when you mix EVERYTHING without ANY DISTINCTION ?

You get something INDISTINCT, ranging from "horrible" to "tasteless".

Culture and ppl are DISTINCT from each other.
"Universal humanity" is just a neutral expression for "global human slavery".

Try this at home : mix every food around you in the same mixer.
And to get a better idea, buy food from all around the world and mix them in the SAME mixer.
You get the idea ?
That's what globalists/mondialistes call "universality".
On my side, i'm a radical french thinker : all humans are DIFFERENT and they have their OWN culture and history.
I will NEVER mix a part of their human being, and their ancestors, pretending to create a "global" culture.
Because it would be simple "commodification".

Globalists/mondialistes didn't wanted to create DISTINCTIVE music : they wanted to mix everything and pretended it was the only and best way.
Killing humanity by mixing and atomizing their IDENTITY (very important) to create an universal slavery all around the world, with the SAME tasteless indistinct culture.

Japan culture and Mexican culture (as an example) are NOT "mixable" by any stretch of mind.
The ONLY mean to get everything in the SAME recipient is just mess everything in small pieces ... and that's called "post modern art".
The "cultural" part of globalization and humanity destruction.
All around the world.

Tasteless mondialiste/globalist mess.

Glory to all cultures all around the world !!!
End to global commodification that destroy human being !!!

I wish this time the message is clearer

 

Post-modernism is the only era that the general folks have been able to make and play music and express themselves globally. You can't expect sagacity, wisdom and excellence or major and intellectual development from this era. At best, the Pluralism is the only major achievement of this era without yielding compositionally anything considerable to the table.

A bit about the PLURALISM:
Pluralism describes a compositional philosophy: the willingness, for expressive reasons, to employ a range of different musical languages within a single piece and even within a single movement . The word Pluralist describes those composers who at the end of the 20th century embraced a language of musical inclusivity and synthesis in the name of heightened musical expression.

 

That's okay. I like dicks. Wait!!! I didn't mean..... Not in that sense. I'm a happily married man and I've never been interested in.... you know.... of course I've wondered... been curious one might say. But I've never.... although I once had a few too many drinks and... I think I'll stop now.

 

Go on, much better than my prates.

 

@tooloud So ... you stopped at "few too many drinks"
Can you tell us more about it ?


@ICWC I like the way you talk. Radical and kind, even with other "grumpy ppl" like me

 

I can't tell you any more. I've already put my foot in my mouth. Just my foot. Nothing else...OK?

 

People pay lots of money to watch stuff like that.

 

Ultraserialist dogma required that a piece of music be based on predetermined formulas of various sorts. Composers of Ultraserial music believed that such processes rendered their music intellectually pure.

High-minded though their intentions, the music composed by almost all such composers was (and remains) extremely difficult to listen to. It is music in which pitch, rhythm, and articulation are entirely objectified, and it is music in which there is no reference to the past.

For Ultraserialists, who employed a self-created, quasi-scientific analytical language in their attempt to render music an informational science, expressive content had no place. Expressive content was irrelevant because it could not be measured, and therefore it could not be discussed objectively.

Also irrelevant to Ultraserialist dogma were the lives and personalities of composers as well as the cultural, religious, social, and economic environment in which they lived and worked. For the Ultraserialist generation, there was no admissible backstory that might shed light on the style, substance, and decisions made by a composer.

The Ultraserialists reserved their greatest contempt for program music, that is, instrumental music that seeks to tell a story and/or invoke visual imagery. Such music, with its recourse to descriptive effects, was dismissed entirely as the refuge of the compositional scoundrel.

Despite Ultraserialist claims, in reality, context is everything. As individuals with varying life experiences and genetic predispositions, composers react to their environment differently and thus create music that can be differentiated from that of other composers living and working at exactly the same time.

The Ultraserialists wanted to purify music by rendering it a science. But music is not a science; it is a language art. Art is as varied and as inexact as the people who make it.

This is what many increasingly disillusioned Ultraserialist composers began to realize moving through the 1950s and 1960s: The music they were creating had nothing to say about themselves, their world, and their personal vision.




Post-Modernism defeated even the ultraserialism. They can defeat anything by such similar reasonings.

 

@tooloud

On the most sensible of levels I completely agree.
If we step outside of the obvious for a minute, every person learns physics from the written word in its principles. While in principle a dance could not technically describe the Sydney opera house, in the Olympics, hundreds of people get together and make giant words and shapes so it's not impossible as sure as music can also be used for description because it is sound. Gary Zukav explains physics in Dancing Wu Li Masters to people who know nothing about it. I am not sure if that is the right way either.

It's not something I want a debate over, nor do I think I am necessarily right or for that matter wrong either. It comes down to interpretation.
People write music often to convey an emotion or a situation or an occurrence or somewhere they have been "I love Paris in the Springtime"....etc etc etc... So I suppose being lateral it "might" be possible to convey something in dance.
BUT it is not the norm.

 

it simply means.....foster is not dead...he just smells funny

 

.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2018

It means at a certain point historically composers switched to another type of system called atonal music for which the sound of each note made no difference , the resulting music was trash to the average public it sounds like a drunk man falling down a flight of stairs with a piano in his arms.

YouTube The unanswered question bernstein lectures Norton 1973 the 20th century crisis

 

Last edited: Dec 20, 2018

I believe the text was lifted word-for-word from....
https://guidebookstgc.snagfilms.com/7006_GreatMusicOfThe20thCentury.pdf
'Great Music of the 20th Century' course guidebook by Professor Robert Greenberg.

See page page 131 of the referenced work.

 

"The task of the composer is to create a work that is consistent, that is stylistically unified within its own self-defined universe. The task of the student is to try to understand what that universe is and how the different aspects of the composition fit into it".

And nobody outside the academic community (a well-defined audience of new music aficionados, mostly made up of composers and a few performers) gives a damn about music stylistically unified within its own self-defined universe.

Live with it!

The general public does not want math, new complexity, and other hi-brow abstractions. They want comfort and familiarity that genres and musical styles offer (hybridizations that do not set up music that is pulverized and rebuilt, every 3 bars, are appreciable), coupled with the sensations of tension and relaxation that comes from tonal, modal music and hybrid scales (in terms of preference for chord progressions, rather than random chords successions).

@Pipotron3000, I Just love it:

"Try this at home: mix every food around you in the same mixer.
And to get a better idea, buy food from all around the world and mix them in the SAME mixer.
You get the idea?"

Even better: How about to create bold new original dishes incorporating ingredients such as coal dust, styrofoam, and plutonium?



In fact, they don't want to realize that they are putting themselves in a coffin and they are burying themselves before the large audience, who categorize what they hear on a gradient of meaninglessness and stupidity and, due to this, they don't give a shit about that. Both composers and defenders of this fragile new music are unable to perceive that these initiatives that deal with purely technical matters related to musical content are bound to vanish sooner. In fact, they struggle to achieve permanency, but will be relocated to general music history's periphery (not that one told by "new music" academic composers): new music will be referred to as a movement restricted to very small audiences that has gained no relevance for society (as a whole), due, precisely, to their delusional isolation.

 

Last edited: Dec 20, 2018