4 ms·

Interesting ideas wrapped up in painfully obfuscated academic references (obviously not intended for this audience). THE FOURTH DEVELOPMENT [of new music], whi

Interesting ideas wrapped up in painfully obfuscated academic references (obviously not intended for this audience). THE FOURTH DEVELOPMENT [of new music], which is in many ways the most interesting, [is] namely the replacement of tones by sounds, and musical by acoustical hearing. Varèse, Pierre Schaeffer and their immediate successors awoke composers and audiences to the many new sounds, some of them produced electronically, that could enter the space of music without destroying its intrinsic order. These experiments are not what I have in mind when referring to the replacement of tones by sounds and musical by acoustical hearing. I am thinking of a more general transition, from Tonkunst to Klangkunst, to use the German expressions – a transition of deep philosophical significance, between two ways of hearing, and two responses to what is heard. The author is arguing that we've moved from lyrical experimentation with tones, to serialization (complete lyrical structure of tones, probably commonly known as musical theory), and now to the avant garde of replacing tones (chords, progressions, structure) with recorded/processed sounds. Sounds (presumably) lack the melodic/harmonic qualities such as notes played together in a classical scale or progression. This leads to: The experience of ‘next,’ and the inevitability of the next, has been chased away. In a concert devoted to music of this kind the audience can know that the piece is ended only because the performers are putting down their instruments. Naturally we can fill in the blanks if we hear 75% of a chord progression, but with sounds, we have no idea what is coming next. They're disjointed. I'm not sure what the author's conclusion is, but this seems to be as close to a summary as he gives: It seems to me that, if there is, now, to be a music of the future it will, in that way, belong with the music of the past. Personally, if I hear a bunch of sounds that my brain can't connect together, and that don't please me or move me, I would have trouble calling that acoustical experience "music".

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Yeah. They've got their very sophisticated musical theory that's tied to their very sophisticated philosophy, and it produces music that is absolute garbage.
- rudolf0 10y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what theories they're referring to here, but if you listen to an avant-garde musician like Stockhausen, you can still hear incredibly beautiful melodies and progressions and rhythms. They're just very different from the norm.
  - iammyIP 10y ago
    These melodies, progressions and rythms you hear are not there, especially with stockhausen, as he made that absence his main point. It's the same if you talk about seeing structures in old terrestrial tv noise patterns.
    - iamatworknow 10y ago
      Even if the only person who can predict the melodies, progressions, and rhythm is the composer, doesn't that inherently make the composition less random than completely unpredictable and truly random TV noise?
      - iammyIP 10y ago
        In historical serial music there is certainly a leftover of human interaction with the compositional rule system, so in practice it resembles more to a chaotic attractor than complete noise, i agree. The core conceptual idea of serial music is however the inevitable disembodyment of historic human music into pure structural sound patterns beyond history and beyond (historic) emotions.
        rudolf0 10y ago
        Even if they're purely structural, how does that make them non-rhythmic or non-melodic?
    - rudolf0 10y ago
      That seems very wrong just on the face of it. Stockhausen has written numerous papers about his theories of rhythm. And if you listen to his music there is undoubtedly a sense of rhythm, just not any conventional ones. There are also definitely melodies. Serialism does not mean non-melodic. Procedural creation of music does not mean the melodies and rhythms "don't exist". If anything, they're more there than they are in traditional music.
21 10y ago
FWIW, one of my beefs with classical music is the extreme lack of diversity in tones (ie: piano, violin, ...) as opposed to popular music (synthesizer) When you listen popular music on a timeline (70s, 80s, ...), you can at the same time see to the evolution of synthesizers and music production software.
- jay-anderson 10y ago
  I tend to believe the exact opposite and it's one of the reasons I dislike much of popular music. Good orchestral music makes use of a wide range of tonal, harmonic, and dynamic colors available. Bad (in my opinion) pop music sounds the same and uses the same limited orchestration of guitars, bass, maybe keyboard, drum set, + vocals and tends to have little dynamic or harmonic variety. I agree that synthesizers in pop music have been a welcome addition (70s & 80s produced some good music with it as you mentioned).
- zodiac 10y ago
  It has been changing slowly and slightly though, I often hear electric guitars in contemporary "orchestral" pieces (film scores like by Hans Zimmer, musical theatre like POTO)
- rifung 10y ago
  > When you listen popular music on a timeline (70s, 80s, ...), you can at the same time see to the evolution of synthesizers and music production software. I wonder how much of this is just due to taste or lack of familiarity? Not that you're wrong but for whatever reason I actually feel like classical music has a much greater variation of sound than pop music. I'm curious whether you feel like there's a lack of diversity among these pieces (which happen to be a few of my favorites =) Scriabin Etude Op42 No5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwqaOGikyNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwqaOGikyNs Schubert Impromptu Op90 No3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxhbAGwEYGQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxhbAGwEYGQ Prokofiev Piano Concerto 3 Mvmt 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AdBi5IBrto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AdBi5IBrto Shostakovich Piano Concerto 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCTEx3w2_jU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCTEx3w2_jU I admit though that I probably am biased, because frankly I enjoy the sounds of the instruments very much. If anything I suspect that having people listen to recorded music probably makes them less likely to appreciate classical music.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Yeah. They've got their very sophisticated musical theory that's tied to their very sophisticated philosophy, and it produces music that is absolute garbage.

rudolf0 10y ago
I'm not sure exactly what theories they're referring to here, but if you listen to an avant-garde musician like Stockhausen, you can still hear incredibly beautiful melodies and progressions and rhythms. They're just very different from the norm.
- iammyIP 10y ago
  These melodies, progressions and rythms you hear are not there, especially with stockhausen, as he made that absence his main point. It's the same if you talk about seeing structures in old terrestrial tv noise patterns.
  - iamatworknow 10y ago
    Even if the only person who can predict the melodies, progressions, and rhythm is the composer, doesn't that inherently make the composition less random than completely unpredictable and truly random TV noise?
    - iammyIP 10y ago
      In historical serial music there is certainly a leftover of human interaction with the compositional rule system, so in practice it resembles more to a chaotic attractor than complete noise, i agree. The core conceptual idea of serial music is however the inevitable disembodyment of historic human music into pure structural sound patterns beyond history and beyond (historic) emotions.
      - rudolf0 10y ago
        Even if they're purely structural, how does that make them non-rhythmic or non-melodic?
  - rudolf0 10y ago
    That seems very wrong just on the face of it. Stockhausen has written numerous papers about his theories of rhythm. And if you listen to his music there is undoubtedly a sense of rhythm, just not any conventional ones. There are also definitely melodies. Serialism does not mean non-melodic. Procedural creation of music does not mean the melodies and rhythms "don't exist". If anything, they're more there than they are in traditional music.

21 10y ago

FWIW, one of my beefs with classical music is the extreme lack of diversity in tones (ie: piano, violin, ...) as opposed to popular music (synthesizer) When you listen popular music on a timeline (70s, 80s, ...), you can at the same time see to the evolution of synthesizers and music production software.

jay-anderson 10y ago
I tend to believe the exact opposite and it's one of the reasons I dislike much of popular music. Good orchestral music makes use of a wide range of tonal, harmonic, and dynamic colors available. Bad (in my opinion) pop music sounds the same and uses the same limited orchestration of guitars, bass, maybe keyboard, drum set, + vocals and tends to have little dynamic or harmonic variety. I agree that synthesizers in pop music have been a welcome addition (70s & 80s produced some good music with it as you mentioned).
zodiac 10y ago
It has been changing slowly and slightly though, I often hear electric guitars in contemporary "orchestral" pieces (film scores like by Hans Zimmer, musical theatre like POTO)
rifung 10y ago
> When you listen popular music on a timeline (70s, 80s, ...), you can at the same time see to the evolution of synthesizers and music production software. I wonder how much of this is just due to taste or lack of familiarity? Not that you're wrong but for whatever reason I actually feel like classical music has a much greater variation of sound than pop music. I'm curious whether you feel like there's a lack of diversity among these pieces (which happen to be a few of my favorites =) Scriabin Etude Op42 No5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwqaOGikyNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwqaOGikyNs Schubert Impromptu Op90 No3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxhbAGwEYGQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxhbAGwEYGQ Prokofiev Piano Concerto 3 Mvmt 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AdBi5IBrto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AdBi5IBrto Shostakovich Piano Concerto 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCTEx3w2_jU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCTEx3w2_jU I admit though that I probably am biased, because frankly I enjoy the sounds of the instruments very much. If anything I suspect that having people listen to recorded music probably makes them less likely to appreciate classical music.