Why is modern music SO UNPOPULAR?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 січ 2025
- Thank you to all my viewers who submitted questions for this video. It was filmed on May 27th, 2024.
==
HELP KEEP THIS CHANNEL GOING!
One-time donations:
www.samuelandre...
Patreon:
/ samuelandreyev
PRIVATE LESSONS IN COMPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Contact me via samuel.andreyev (at) gmail (dot) com
NEW DOUBLE VINYL ALBUM JUST RELEASED!!
Order yours today: divineartrecor...
LINKS
Website: www.samuelandre...
Twitter: / samuelandreyev
THE SAMUEL ANDREYEV PODCAST
On Buzzsprout: www.buzzsprout...
On Spotify: open.spotify.c...
On iTunes: podcasts.apple...
As a rock musician who studies contemporary composition, I really think you have a point, that both domains need each other. And I am glad that one of our professors shares this point of view and always takes examples of all domains in music
Ditto
I agree. The part where he talks about "having nothing to say, but merely gesticulating" is exactly how I feel about a LOT of rock and metal music of the last 20 years. And why imo the band Chat Pile is completely refreshing and wonderful, even if their music is very intense and (probably) quite unpleasant for people to listen to. They clearly have something to say and their art style supports and exacerbates their message.
I absolutely loved your response on the question about "personal harmonic language". I was lucky to have an awesome composing teacher tell from the get go "composition itself can't be taught but what can be taught is form." From that point on I understood that composition has nothing to do with chords and motivs but with the storytelling.
Yes, it is very much like storytelling, or going on an adventure. There needs to be a payoff for listening, something that compels the listener to come back and listen again. If there’s a “formula” for composing, this in my view is at its heart.
Form counterpoint, orchestration etc can all be taught but inspiration cannot.
We used to differentiate between invention and composition. Invention is the idea, there were a few others relating to the evolution, but composition was exactly this - like in art
Real thoughts back-to-back. "You need to get into a different room" - I've been fearing for this to be true. It's so daunting but I need to hear it. I don't even make music. Your commentary was just that all-encompassing.
58-year-old, unemployed guy who loves music, but can't play an instrument, who listened to this video while doing the dishes says:
I absolutely loved this video. Thanks.
vagely similar, agree and feeding the algorithm...
@pkmcburroughs I absolutely loved this comment. thanks for sharing.
As an amateur composer mainly focused on Neo-Baroque-ish fugues and counterpoint, I found your every argument and explanation in this video preciously insightful. Illuminating, even. Elliciting of eye-opening self-reflection while still keeping a firm academic respect for every subject mentioned. Thank you so much.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.
Much of the best music in the "rock" format has not been discovered yet. Witness the Xian Psych genre that has slowly been discovered over the last 20 years. Remeber, a good percentage of the greatest composers in the last 50 years were Christian by choice (as was Stravinsky). There are hundreds of Christian artists now being discovered that were lost. All of it is extremely rare on private press, discovered many years after its release by thrift store crate diggers. Some goes for over $1000 a record now. Not sure if you're aware of the xian psych genre. It's psychedelic Christian music from the 60s to early 70s. It is extremely hot amoung the cogniscenti/hipster crowd. There's a playlist of about 330 songs on youtube in the magmasunburst account. Big money is paid by even non-Christians for these artists that just put out one lp on private press labels. It's because the power of the message shines through and the musicians were usually somewhat trained and sober and this music is just too powerful and people are noticing.
Not in the mood right now - but I am subscribing - looking forward to circling back. I find it interesting that I am passing - but not letting go. Thanks for your work.
I'd like to predict that 100+ years from now: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, DaVinci, Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, Escher, etc. will still be respected
Yup. And none of these contemporary hacks.
In no way was Escher in the same class as those other artists. He knew a few tricks, that is all. He might be remembered and even respected, but he is not all that.
@@theosalvucci8683 Actually, in some way Escher was the Bach of visual art. In a BIG way. I know a lot about Escher because I, myself, have been designing optical illusions for over 30 years. I may actually be the _living_ MC Eshcer. I was even born in the same year that he died. It's very provocative what you say, however, about Escher not belonging to the great art masters of the past. Because you are right, an optical illusion is just a trick. A trick of perception. But, I think Escher did turn that into a world magic. And it wasn't just a "few" tricks he had, as you claimed. To be accurate, MC Escher is the _definition_ of perspective art. And NO ONE has been able to come close to matching him (except maybe me. And I wouldn't even go that far. I'm more of the Debussy of perspective art. Escher is Bach. There is even that famous non-fiction book, "Escher, Bach, Godel."
In the 1950's and 60's there was a new science of crystallography that was still being developed. Now, _before_ MC Escher became world-famous thru the original Hippy communities he was noticed a decade earlier by the European Scientists because they were informed that he had figured out all of the types of the regular division of the plane (which is the basis of crystallography). And he even had notes or "drawings" for each method. He had figured out the whole thing independently of the Scientific community. When asked to attend a seminar, Escher, during the big dinner that night shocked everyone when they asked him about his formulas for the regular division of the plane. It turned out that he had none. He knew nothing of it at all. And, in fact only had an average understanding of math. Nothing much past algebra. He was a below -verage student in high school even. Yet, he had figured out the entire science of crystallography--visually. Which, independently at least, is something on the level of your Leonardo DaVinci. Escher was the Renaissance Man of his own Renaissance.
BUT, maybe you are right; maybe MC Eshcher's works could be nothing more than high-level exemplary studies in visual perception. It's a question I sometimes ask myself as I have been working on similar art for decades now. (I don't reflect on this much at all because I work round the clock. Almost without stop). Yet, maybe MC Escher's works are actually transcendent. Even ultimatey spiritual. Just like JS Bach, that geeky little counterpointalist sitting around connecting those tiny little dots on the page.
Humbly, yous, _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole_ (And yes, that is the name of my uTube channel). Amen.
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole Look, if you draw like him or are inspired by him, I have no criticisms. In fact, I have no criticisms of what you wrote. I just find his work shallow and gimmicky. Once you go through the agony of a complex perspective drawing like one of a dodecahedron that was mastered by Durer and Piranesi, it is all downhill. But I noticed that Escher's prints work because he broke the laws of perspective in one area, obviously under the influence of Ukiyo-e prints. That this is how those stairways to nowhere seemed to work. To my mind, his prints could have been more mysterious and involving. I'm thinking of an old Art News Annual that I had, which used the collages of Ernst to illustrate a short story by Borges. But I am an artist myself, and I studied perspective as a student. So I have my prejudices. I'll check your channel out.
@@theosalvucci8683 I appreciate it! And also, I'm not necessarily defending MC Escher as art (per se, at least). All I'm saying is that there is a spiritual element to Escher in it's message of duality vs unison. Summety vs. Chaos. I notice d you mentioned Druer, who I'm a huge fan of, and it's kind of sad the he is not recognized, or at least spoken of as a Renaissance Man in relation to Da Vinci, or even science people like Tesla or Victor Schauberger, the water-vortex guy. // I'm also interred by your critique that Escher's prints could have been more mysterious and involving. My whole point of tackling the optical illusion is because I want to revel the true cosmic implications of such art.
Thank you so much for this discussion. I've been ever inspired by it.
_The Acoustic Rabbit Hole_
Thank you for taking the time to give such thoughtful answers. clearcut and well informed answers like yours have helped me answer fundamental questions about myself and my music, and getting one step closer to compose with a free mind.
Keep going!!
Extraordinario, gracias Samuel, saludos cordiales desde Argentina.
This was fantastic! Thanks for sharing. I really appreciated the bit about taking time to listen to new things while still acknowledging "the goal isn't to listen to everything." Over my life (I'm in late 30s now) I've cultivated a nice cyclical engagement with music. I go through periods where the majority of my listening is stuff I've never heard; other periods where a majority is focused on a very specific composer, set of pieces, or even a single piece (for example, last year I spent 3 months of an hour+ every day listening to, reading about, or studying the music of Robert Ashley); and other periods where the majority of time is "revisiting old favorites." I do a little bit of each of these practices on the regular, but there are definite periods where the focus is on one more than the others. This keeps my engagement with music fresh and consistently immersive. I don't write music as much these days, and when I do its more akin to "doodling" in that going through the act of making music I'm honing my thoughts/feelings/craft and challenging myself, although I do take it more seriously than the word 'doodling' implies and I am proud to share the results and hope it effects those who listen to it.
The absolute inundation of post-Lachemann and post new-complexity works is something that has made me engage less with contemporary "academic" music.
However, I'm still continually impressed by a lot of the music coming out of the Wandelweiser collective. Jurg Frey has been making absolutely incredible music that I find difficult to place in a "tradition," although I can think of some composers that strike me as "similar" in the effect the music has on me.
I am a printmaker and engraver and a lot of the topics discussed also touch on visual arts and arts in general. Thank you, it was very valuable to listen to.
You had me at the correct and apt use of “phenomenology”. To look to aestheticians to find the source of meaning in beauty was a nice but straightforward explanation. Aesthetics I woefully admit to have overlooked in my philosophy studies, so thank you for opening my eyes
Perhaps you are already familiar, but to me there is nobody who more precisely detailed the phenomenology of the work of art than Martin Heidegger’s essay, ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’. It is for me the most influential text I have ever read and I find perfectly describes the relation to the event of truth that art presents in a manner that goes far beyond the subjective metaphysics of Adorno or Hegel. I am actually currently writing about language and music that attempts to reconcile with the musical implications of this text! On a side-note, I believe I’ll be seeing you in Fontainebleau as a fellow guest-composer this summer :)
Thank you, Samuel. Your insights are fascinating and authentic and I really appreciate your frank delivery. Love the black background, it really helps the listener focus on what you have to say, which in this episode is all very valuable.
When you have the Lost soundtrack resembling Alban Berg, and the Luke scene in the Mandalorian sounding like Bruckner, I think modern music percolates fine into popular culture, it's just a bit behind in the influence. And Bernard Hermann's Vertigo - a huge influence on most film composers - was like fusing Debussy with the Second Viennese School. Movie buffs often recognize Ligeti's or Takemitsu's music. As you point out Bowie (with Low especially) and David Byrne were very experimental with ambient and world influences, as was Bjork and Sonic Youth early on with all their crazy tunings. Jonny greenwood practically lifts Penderecki. Nowadays you have composers into Buchla modular music, Musique concrète tape machine simulations small enough to fit on your desk or in your computer, bands like King Gizzard experimenting with microtonal tuning. Ensemble InterContemporain performances are freely available on youtube, as are Netherlands Bach Society's. Maybe today people listen to pop as background music more, but I think the cross-pollination of serious, formerly "academic" music with popular music persists just fine.
I agree, composers still seep into the culture, it can just take a while.
Perhaps what’s changed is not the appetite for compositional music in the general public, but rather the mode. We’ve exchanged the opera and the ballet score for the film and television score.
I got into watching your videos after your conversations with Jim O'Rourke popped up in my suggestions and have been really enjoying them, as a musician myself who knows little about theory but is interested in the issues involved. And as someone currently trying to branch out from my current discipline to a related one (translation theory to philosophy), I took a lot inspiration from your comments on how best to cultivate an understanding of classical and current works with limited time available. So thanks!
So glad to hear that. Welcome!
@@samuel_andreyev On a totally unrelated note, I checked Kairos out after you mentioned it in your interview with JO'R and found my very own neighbor, Stefan Prins, has released on it! It's a small world indeed.
For some reason I was subscribed to this channel but this is the first video I probably saw. It was interesting thank you.
Excellent thoughtful answers to all of the questions. Your channel is a beacon for all stranded in these existential situations. For what it's worth, I get a shot of inspiration or adrenaline to reinvigorate my own activity..Thank you
Well worth the watch, and refreshing. A couple of years ago, I would not have grasped a lot of your points, but after much time and effort spent trying to make and understand music, this really hit home. I am 100% in agreement with you that the story and the development of the piece in time is essential. I would say that is the most lacking in the music that I encounter today, and the reason why you can listen to so many songs and they don't stay with you. The ubiquitous focus of "listen to my song" and the desire to make a hit, or get likes is the underlying story of a *lot* of music, and regardless of the quality of the production and composition, and lyrics to the contrary, I believe that's what comes through. Music has an uncanny ability to filter authenticity from artifice, and I think that has been sharpened to a point by the excess of content. Thanks, and really enjoying your channel!
Please make a list in descending order of importance / potential impact of music you would recommend to people, if they haven't heard it yet.
You already mentioned three or so, a bigger list would go a long ways.
I'm always on the lookout for music i haven't heard yet, even though I mostly listen to electronic or ambient music. When a producer i follow shares a private playlist of their favorite tunes and inspirations, that's a jackpot day for me.
I could recommend Peter Thoegerson, if you haven't heard of him yet. It's pretty demanding to listen to - polyrhythmic, polymicrotonal...
I love this video. The discussion is very informative.
Thanks for another great video. Although my amateur compositional development is slow, you do a good job of pointing out rabbit holes one should avoid going down, which is very helpful. Your advice is also quite useful in many contexts outside of music.
You are a brilliant speaker! A wealth of knowledge and insight carefully regulated, illustrated and presented with clarity and conviction. I remember in the 1970s, having been present with Stockhausen at one of his musical 'performances' (electronic music) he came up with quite a conventional piece for clarinet and piano! So, a spasm of innovation is often followed by a period of consolidation or even retrospection. Perhaps you'll do a demonstration of your process of compositional trajectory? (No pressure!) Perhaps one chordal sketch and one melodic/motivic development - on either macro or micro level.
Thank you for these insightful perspectives.
Thanks for this. Your observations and analysis are always right on to my view. We are living in a time with a set of dynamics that are not well understood by so many, also university-trained composers. It seems that music, overall, nearly all kinds of music - is situated in the society in a way that is quite different from the previous decades, and certainly different from the centuries and cultures where classical music and composition in general is rooted (Europe). Composers must understand that their work is simply not relevant in any possible way to large audiences, including classical music audiences - for some very basic reasons having to do with emotion, culture, narratology - also the strength of pop culture and its influence on the ear. Composition will evolve as the relationship between musicians and society evolves, as it always has. Composers need to stay true.
"for music to (truly) relate to audiences now, a fundamental shift must take place." - What are you talking about? To relate to whom? Other cultures? Younger audience? Either way, it makes no sense. If it changed just to conform to someone else, it wouldn't be CLASSICAL music. If I was a foodie and went on vacation to Italy should all the restaurants start copying McDonald's, Burger King, etc? Why would I bother going there?
Great insight, in the way that you approach or discuss each topic - Gaining more perspective
re Q1. Neither the perceiver nor the perceived; the magic is in the meeting. Beauty is in the person-meeting-the-thing.
Thank you for answering my question about musical material. I needed to hear that! Totally agreed.
Thank you for the interesting question!
I really like how you approach the last question. Even though I don't think it describes the whole picture (then again, it's not something you should do), I feel like it's the best approach to have in this incredibly competitive professional landscape.
Most people don't even know the difference between "originality" and gimmicks, schtick, and publicly stunts.
Humanity wants to believe itself as the ultimate creator. This is a tragedy, because it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the creative process. The creative process is about finding what already exists as potential and placing oneself second to that.
Just discovered your channel and really enjoyed this video.. Your thoughtful and insightful answers to interesting questions stimulate.my own reflection.
I am not a trained musician (beyond high school choir), but my musical tastes range from 1970s rock, blues, jazz, classical, early music, chant and liturgical music.
I find parallels with questions being raised in mathematics, philosophy, theology, astronomy and cosmology, law,. psychology, etc.
Given the fragmentation western society is currently experiencing (maybe a deconstruction), what are your thoughts on the possibility that we are in the midst of a full-on cultural and intellectual reduction?
There used to be "connective tissue" that bound together branches of learning, thought, morality, and culture. Is this tissue gone?
Are we spinning off into idiosyncratic, self-deterministic, social units?
Question 1: That's why I stopped writing novels; if you don't have an audience you are writing in a vacuum...it's a from of communication and if there is nobody (virtually) being communicated to then a person is writing for their own edification.
Which is no bad thing. After very early success Havergal Brian spent most of a very long life (he was 90-something when he died) writing music that he never expect to hear or be recorded. He did it nonetheless because he had to.
Does it matter if you have an audience of 1, 10, 100, 1,000. What happened to the process of creating art?
Because it becomes masturbatory if there’s literally no one who might appreciate it.
@@redmed10An artist is many times called to bring beauty into the world to uplift and inspire humanity.
What a superb video, glad to be a subscriber.
Love videos like this because I can watch it multiple times
I didn’t hear an answer to the title, but for starters, here is one of several reasons- we are in an age of personality, and classical music inherently undermines itself when it attempts to adopt the image making of pop music. Pop music has the ability to offer a sense of immediate connection that abstract instrumental innovation simply cannot. In fact, I notice many young composers attempting to brand themselves similarly to pop stars, and for myself it tends to come across more than a little cringe, because it simply does not align with what the work is about, and therefore comes across as insincere, thus occasionally diminishing the perceived value of the work itself. Classical music cannot allow itself to become branded content, but at the same time, it must not take itself too seriously and continue to fall prey to the ivory tower syndrome.
Yes 👍
source?
@@жизненный_опытhaha I’m the source. This is my unsolicited $.02. I’ve worked in classical music for over 20 years, but the idea that we’re living in an age where personality is prioritized is certainly not my idea and certainly something that has been said and understood by many as far back as the late 90s/early 2000s. I believe Christopher Lasch (sp?) and Jean Twenge wrote well researched books on this.
@@kristinadutton3259 lmao do you have a degree in unsolicited $.02?
@@kristinadutton3259 i'll check your qualifications first and get back to you on that
As to the first question. I'm reminded of what Alan Watts said, "No matter how hard you hit a skinless drum it won't make a sound." Thanks for the great videos!! Also, congratulations on the new baby
Thanks Tyler
I have been an Alan Watts fan since the 1960s. He had many insights.
No answer is givento the question.
Sir, your justification of the answer in the first question is really advocating for the eye of the beholder option… you are literally saying it: the inert piece of art is not doing anything per se until the cycle of communication closes with an eye that poses on it.
Art is made to be observed. Creation and observation go hand in hand. The first observer is always the artist.
Wholesome answers to some very relevant questions. Thank you for this.
“Interesting” isn’t the attribute most people seek in their music. I like Steve Reich’s quote (on the sleeve of Drumming): “Is this music beautiful? Is it sending shivers down the spine as we play it”.
That’s the problem with modern music: it stopped being ‘beautiful’ and instead became ‘interesting’.
I agree that ‘change over time’ is a key aspect of music but I would also argue that a ‘beautiful change over time’ is very different from ‘interesting change over time’.
Music doesn't have to be beautiful
@ That’s a really thought-provoking comment, thank you!
You may be right, but I’m not sure. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. And it takes a true artist to make us reconsider what we think is beautiful. Like I love Zappa and Beefheart, music which is rarely thought of as ‘beautiful’, but I think it is, and that’s why I listen to it. It can take time for the beauty in a piece of music to emerge, like the audience’s reaction to Stravinsky, or me taking 20 years to hear the beauty in Webern’s music or “Lick My Decals Off Baby”.
You’ve made me think what actually is ‘beauty’? Oxford dictionary talks about ‘something which pleases the senses’ - which clearly does apply to music. So, are there any examples of music which do not please the senses?
@MrMusicbyMartin that one is easy, listen to bird seed by whitehouse, in the clásical music realm, perhaps penderecki, if you find that pleasing, perhaps you should look towards yourseft and ask yourseft if it is pleassure from displeasure, as a masoquist (Idk how to writte that prolerly, english isn't my first lenguage) in this sense.
@MrMusicbyMartin and also, I would't go by that definition, sex is pleseant, sometimes beautiful yet sometimes ugly isn't it?
I do agree that music that is just "Interesting" brings nothing, I feel like that about Jacob Collier
Really a... inspirational video(?)
I keep thinking your answer to those questions, especially with the "attached to one subject" section. As a composer myself, I also find myself entrenched into 1-3 aspects, despite trying to be with more varieties...
To me moving the tonal center is a great way to create diversity in a piece. Nowadays every chord is right is the diatonic key of the song. This means if the songs in C no chord with contain sharps or flats. Hardly ever is a chorus transposed. The best most last songs toy with these ideas even if they're no diving in fully. If your an artist follow your ear not the trend.
care to share any examples? I'm music illiterate.
@canobenitez well each chords has a family persay. On a piano if you play all white keys then you are playing in C. You can very simply find middle C skip a not play E and skip a not again and play G. If you hold this shape and move it up until it repeats you are playing the diatonic chords in that keys. Diatonic is the Do-Re-Mi etc. In jazz and more exploratory music like say Steely Dan or even the Beatles they might start in C but at some point incorporate some of the black keys on the piano to create a little tension or a stronger feeling.
@@gregoryswift9573 thanks, would you consider shareing any particular songe you think this is more notable? it's fascinating.
@@canobenitez Giants Steps by John Coltrane moves keys quite rapidly. This is an extreme example
The last Answer… I wish I wish I wish someone told me that when I was young .
Thank you for your Channel
Don't worry, we will make it popular again.
Amen, brotha! The world resistnace-movement has begun! Robert Edward Grant all the way!
Good Lord, it’s the legend himself!
I listened to some of Samuel Andreev's music on Idagio.
It's good fun.
Thank you--this is a very intelligent approach to some crucial issues. However, your sense of a lack of fresh approaches might very well arise from the sorts of works one is exposed to in "official culture".
There will be certain groups and ideologies that tend to be dominant in any system. If it is 1) an official system, these will usually be most representative of leading "official" teachers in the system, with two common varieties being academic authorities and bureaucratic "expert authorities" (the system in Germany and numerous European countries). If it is 2) an "audience-based" system, it will be more responsive to mid-cult tastes. If it is 3) privately funded, it will be responsive to the funders' (or the delegated authority's) tastes.
The third option has tended to have a narrower pool and can produce dreadful results, but it also allows for extraordinary results, if the funder/delegated authority has excellent taste. Baron von Swieten alone was largely responsible for a string of masterpieces in the late 1700s, and Paul Sacher alone was largely responsible a substantial percentage of the finest works in the mid-20th century. The best results have usually resulted from the funder/designated expert being a highly accomplished musician, or having access to the opinions of such. Koussevitsky was a brilliant conductor and alone s responsible fo a string of masterpieces being written for his group. The greatest deficit here is also the source of the greatest virtue: highly accomplished and distinctive musicians tend to have strong opinions about musical value, and it is easy for unfamiliar styles to trigger their rejection.
The "audience-based" system we have in the US has produced, in my view, largely mediocre results, and has ended up wiping out most styles outside of a extremely narrow norm. The best work was produced through the interaction of adventurous new music ensembles and official funding, but the rules of the system demand "consumer satisfaction". The initial consumers of Bach's music were not nearly as satisfied with his music as with Handel's or Telemann's; the initial performances of Beethoven's symphonic works were often disastrous, and on and on.
The European bureaucratic system is a sort of compromise between the two. I am most familiar with the German system, which I benefited from when I lived there. I am tremendously grateful to have had a chance to participate in this system, but I have to say that the American side of my nature often rose to the surface when I came across a sort of "official avant-garde ideology". I heard countless works consisting of nearly identical gestures and noises, each produced on the basis of a seemingly radically individuated rationale. As with any such system, certain stars arose on the basis of recommendations from older composers already in the system. The advantage of the German system is its regional basis: different regions have different experts with different tastes. The state I was living in supported much more adventurous approaches than found in other states.
I'm not close to the French musical scene, but what I have heard seems to suffer from the centralization problem. I have heard mountains of expertly-realized music that is in its syntax, and often in its style and gestures, nearly identical. Wherever spectralism has become dominant, I have come across the same core problem: the textures are wonderful, but the harmonic motion of the piece is nearly non-existent.
I wonder if some of your response to the situation is influenced by the conditions you know. If you haven't seen unusual styles, perhaps because some unusual composers have simply given up on submitting their work. My new music works have been performed all over in Europe, and I have performed them in many schools in the US. But I don't even bother performing them for public concerts where I live; in fact, none of my main works have been performed in the school at which I have taught for the last 17. years. Luckily, I also write tonal pieces, which I am able to play at my school without the risk of getting fired; I also perform them for local concerts and at schools. But I will almost certainly retire without ever performing one of my "new music" pieces at my school. And outside of one festival in California which I perform and present my pieces in, I am practically non-existent as a composer in the US.
Is it possible that some unusual and gifted composers just don't bother submitting their works to competitions where you are living?
This channel gets better and better. Thank you
Thank you. I’m working hard to improve it.
You were spot on when you said , "transformation of materials." But a successful transformation may require tonality if "popularity" is a value for the composer. I often think of the great transformation in the first movement of Brahms 4th Symphony as one example. The 4th is also an example of tiny cliches brought into a new and compelling whole.
As a composer, I do not care at all about obtaining commissions, nor do I care about currying favor with our current corrupt institutions; I want to communicate with real people, and that (for me) requires tonality. Here is my formula for success: (1) I have a comfortable retirement, (2) I compose symphonies in the style that I like, (3) I put those symphonies on UA-cam, (4) I pay a small marketing fee to get listeners, (5) I get monetized by UA-cam, (6) I repeat 2 through 5 as long as I like. Also, as a side note, I have evidence that those corrupt institutions are beginning to notice me. I do not care to communicate with them, but I am willing to let them communicate with me --- on my terms. Who knows where this might lead someday?
Your argument is premised on the idea of 'originality' -an obsession, for better, or for worse, of the 20th Century - being the be all end-all of composition. I don't think Bach, Mozart, worried about that so much insofar as they employed the language(s) of their day.
Yes. I agree with your observation.
Great compositions need not be "original" nor "radical" nor "breaking all constraints and rules " and yet be great. I have a feeling that after the apogee of Western classical music during the late romantic era, composers wanted to "break away"from the "traditions" of previous masters. This is not only in music , but in the other arts too. I wonder , perhaps , psychologically there is an inherent fear or distaste of being compared to previous masters in terms of talents and skills ? Hence this running away to radical abstractions and reconceptualization of what exactly is music or even art? I don't know ...I am just wondering if this is so.
Bach and Mozart, for starters, relied on pleasing whatever noble/church to stay relevant and survive.
I'd rather be obsessed than bored to death.
@@commentingchannel9776 That's a strange statement considering that Bach got sued by his congregation for writing strange notes and then happily kept on writing them. All composers need someone to prove of their work to really make it. An ensemble is not going to commission your work if they don't like it. I don't really see your point
The trick to music and art will be to find those we resonate with. Bigs changes are happening that I think are moving us towards a new Dark Ages. 2 major art schools closed that ruled the local artworld in Phila. For 100 years. Tenured professors are being asked to take early retirement. Spotify made it more difficult for indies to be found. But artists will keep producing because they can't help it.
The answer to the last question just blew me away. I’ve been a scientist for over a decade and left for an industry earlier this year. Couldn’t be happier with that decision. I also felt that academia was „unfair“ but you absolutely nailed it. It isn’t about fairness. It never was. And if nothing else helps, change the room. Gives my some sort of closure. Thank you!
Glad to hear that. Thanks for watching!
If a tree falls in a wood with no ear to hear it does it make a sound? No, vibration is only sound to an ear, but a Picasso floating around Jupiter is still a work of art, awaiting an eye.
Yet, if a tree falls on Rauchenberg painting in an empty forrest, does anyone appreciate it?
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole if a tree falls on a deaf man in Jackson does he drop a Pollock?
@@sophiafakevirus-ro8cc Does that mean that Micheal Jackson squats to drop a Pollock?
You should totally see my stuff at _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole,_ friend.
You don't need ears to have vibration present.
@@directcurrent5751 the zen koan is:
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to HEAR it, does it make a SOUND?
No. Because sound is the way we translate vibration.
I once read an editorial in an academic newsletter that made the claim that John Cage's 4'33" was every bit as ingenius as the Brandenburg Concertos. My cat then performed the most beautiful rendition of it, ever. But my cat never performed any rendition of the Brandenburg Concertos (not even one movement).
That's a very interesting comment (the cat part)! I like it. If I can add one thing it's this though: the difference between the composer and the performer. While there was a composer to write the score of 4'33", there was also a composer who wrote the Brandenburg Concertos. Now both pieces had a composer behind them and both had scores. But the joke is on both the performer and the audience who listens to 4'33". In a sense, can a cat perform 4'33"? Was their leeway to have that score performed by non-humans? I don't know. But it begins and ends in silence, allowing the sounds to be "the piece". So did your cat then "perform" 4'33"? According to Cage he or she did! Put on a disc or mp3 of 4'33" and you're cat suddenly performs it. But does it? Put on a cd or mp3 of the Brandenburgs and we know for a fact your cat is NOT performing it.
@@teaglass3750 Precisely. Our cat who most often performs contemporary classical music is named "Trouble". I think I can safely say that the other cats aren't really performing 4'33" at all, but she is. That's because just the other day I heard her *nearly* FLAWLESS rendition of "Es" by Karlheinz Stockhausen. It was breathtaking. Her understanding of performing the piece in a "timeless space" shocked and thrilled me, but my wife just thought she was banging on the keys. Sadly, my wife has a very low level of musical sophistication. Unfortunately, I later heard her (Trouble, not my wife) attempt Chopin's "Ballade No. 4, Op. 52 in F minor", but sadly she fell far short of the mark. It leads me to wonder what the difference is between music of the Romantic Era and the Modern/Contemporary Era? How can she struggle so with one, but have absolute mastery of the other?
Sam, regarding the questions raised around @4:50, Jandek and Captain Beefheart seem to be two creative people without musical or compositional training who really couldn't technically play much (Beefheart was a decent blues harp player and singer, though he wrote his most compelling work on the piano, which he could not really play), but they none the less were quite expressive and original, forging something artistic despite their limitations. Based on your videos analyzing their work, I assume you agree? Thanks for another great video.
Yeah, I was surprised he didn't bring them up for that question. I think it's because they did seem to have "something to say" instead of just randomly gesticulating.
Beefheart did need musicians to co compose his songs, otherwise it was just ramblings. He did succed as a painter and sculptor, with little technical ability in both, so who knows...
Art floating around Jupiter is still art. We just haven't discovered it yet. Ancient Cave paintings are art when the artist created them.
In an interview, I believe Burt Bacharach replied to a question as to why he didn't focus on 'serious' composition by deciding that he had to choose between struggling to get his works played and obtaining commissions; which probably meant struggling financially by his standards ... and ... living the life he wanted for himself. He characterized the situation by commenting that he enjoyed his fresh orange juice every morning. Popular music was the better pathway to that. So I suppose as an artist you have to prioritize your wants and desires and make the appropriate call for yourself. Enjoyed your well considered analysis and responses.
Beyond his preference for comfort It's obvious when you know Bacharach that he was too sentimental, too much a 'lover', to stay in pure abstract or spiritual forms. There was no place for the typical expressions of love and straightforward sentiments in modern music. And I reckon it's one of the causes of Bernstein's relative sterility as a composer.
@@cyberprimate Well. I think in part the decision was based on his own assessment of the chances of standing out against the rarified strata of serious composers. I agree he was a romantic, but he really had a drive to succeed and knew where he could. That being said, I'd kiss the ground for the kind of talent it took to compose something like 'Alfie' which I believe is a masterpiece of the songwriter's art.
Thank you for the interesting and thought provoking content. In a sea of mediocre banality, it is refreshing to encounter this sort of high quality content
Thanks
This is great. Where is your right hand, or do you only use it when conducting?
I share the fascination with non-musicians as well as a fascination with outsider art, because I truly believe there are things we can learn about ourselves and our art by simply observing the approaches taken by people who aren't burdened by knowledge of the "wrong" way to make art.
As someone who liked captain beefheart - you should know there’s a lot of good modern contemporary experimental and rock music out there. As well, there’s a lot of good experimental alternative music out there.
I remember what a teacher once told me:
Before a thing can be a Classic; it first must be classy.
Great stuff man !
I don't think music is worthless if a composer doesn't have anything to say (that's how I understood you, but maybe I was wrong) - at least he/she may not have anything consciuosly to say. By saying this, I think you might discourage some (like me) from ever making music. Lets take myself - I LOVE making music, it's the one thing that keeps me happy. But I don't know what the music means, I don't have any purpose to the music except the music itself and I actually don't think it means anything. I tend to give my music titles like 'summer' or 'the forest' but actually there is nothing except music in it. Just like when I listen to music - I don't care what Beethoven or Dvorak thought of when they composed something - it's just beautiful. Often I actually like a piece less when I i hear what it's about or if I understand the lyrics.
I think he meant "something to say" as a synonym for 'reason'. (?)
@@nikolausgerszewski2086 Yes, I was probably being too sensitive, but some of the things hit a soft spot, as I genuinely think that a musician can make wonderful music without having any conscious idea of what it is about. Which is one of the reasons they are a musician and not a poet (some are both I know).
I think you are taking "something to say" a bit too literal. Just joy of being and exploring is indeed "something to say" for most of us. It's not like you need to be able to verbalize it.
It's my favorite kind of music, not popular because it requires concentration and doesn't pander to lazy listeners.
I do enjoy some contemporary music like Stravinskys Rite of Sping and the
more romantic contemporary of Alban
but Shostacovatch leaves me stressed
I remember Hindemith years ago It was
some sort of opera which I found delightful with humor laced into it One
of the most bizarre piece I heard was a
opera by Shoenberg, all the rules of
composition were thrown out, it was
the most unique music I ever heard
I can't say I loved it, but it was interesting I try to be open to different
forms of composition and novelty is
one aspect
You’ve very accurately described what Mark Fisher calls “the slow cancellation of the future”.
It’s not limited to classical music either.
How so?
Regarding the last question, I ultimately agree with the answer, but also recognize that the main point asked was dodged.
Music got destroyed by corporations. The same kind of corporations that have destroyed movies 1-2 decades ago and are now destroying video games.
I’m sure Karl Marx would applaud your ideological loyalty if he were alive, but that doesn’t answer the question of why they do it. Who or what are they ruining it for? If it’s terrible - so terrible it fails to break even in sales - then pure corporatism must not be the only explanation for the behavior.
From my perspective: I heard so much modern classical music in my teens and twenties and somehow it was all serial music or at least very calculated and cold. It put me off modern music for over a decade, but through UA-cam and blogs I’ve discovered that for one, modern, modern music seems to be much better than schönberg et al, or at least much more emotionally resonant to me, and for another (?) so much modern music isn’t played well, because too many orchestras and ensembles won’t put in more time to rehearse it than they put in a standard repertoire piece with standard techniques and form. Forget about all the novel techniques and blends you won’t master; you can’t hope as a musician to achieve any sort of emotional connection to a piece with one to three rehearsals. And if you don’t feel anything how the hell are you supposed to move your audience to feel anything?
Totally
Bingo about interpretations of contemporary music. It is really noticeable when for some reason one late-ish piece is more recorded and slowly becomes more impactful. A nice example is the four different recordings of Per Nogard 3rd Symphony. And UA-cam helps as well, without it, I may think differently about Peteris Vasks VC or Kavakos doing Unsuk Chin 2nd three times in few days with different orchestras and directors. Some people get lucky like Abrahamsen with Hannigan, others not so much.
“Since the ground of the limit [the point of engagement between self and thing] lies neither in self nor thing, it lies nowhere; it exists absolutely because it exists and is as it is because that is how it is.”--Friedrich Schelling
“The limit does not exist.” - Cady Heron
Well said, subscribed. As a musician who only does Medieval and polymetric microtonal stuff, I will heed your advice, and give a listen to this Taylor Swift.
cheers from overcast Vienna, Scott
I think the question of originality in contemporary music is interesting. I think the comparative lack of originality compared to the 20th century is observable in most artistic fields. There's always originality on a smaller scale but even in pop music, I'd say that the 80s and early 90s were probably the last time where something truly new and revolutionary happened with the rise of electronic music (which is of course much much older) and hip hop. Popular music today sounds very different from the stuff that was happening in those days but there haven't been any seismic shifts since then, more just minor changes and a diversification of subgenres. Part of the reason is technology: both electronic music and hip hop were the result of new technological possibilities hitting the mainstream. There has been no radically new technology since then that allowed us to create entirely new sounds that have never been heard before, just a sophistication of the technology we already had.
But of course it's not just technology, especially not in other artistic fields that are less dependent on it. I think there were points in the history of 20th century art, literature and art music where it felt like everything, at least on a formal level, had already been explored. Basically people asking themselves: where do we go from here?
Take art for instance: after many great artists had explored the possibilities of abstractionism in all its myriad forms from monochrome paintings and simple geometric patterns to abstract expressionism and maximalist approaches, how could you go further than that and come up with something radically new? I love the abstract work by Gerhard Richter for example and they're certainly original in the sense that you can't confuse his work with the work of other artists but compared to the radical newness of the first abstract artists, it's not really that revolutionary. I think that's part of the reason why so many artists in the 20th century started to explore representational forms of art again, it probably felt like you could do more original things in that field by incorporating some of the lessons of the avantgarde.
Literature is another good example. I would say that with the complete dissolution of language by the dadaists, the experiments of concrete poetry and the multilingual and multidimensional language of Finnegans Wake, a point was reached very early on in the 20th century that kind of set the limit of how far you can go in literature. I certainly am not aware of any literary work since then that comes even close to the mindbending experiments in Finnegans Wake or the complete destruction of ordinary language by the dadaists. Maybe the experiments of the Oulipo group, but that's about it. There have been attempts to exploit the possibilities of the internet to create nonlinear works of literature but those are still pretty conventional compared to the stuff Joyce and Kurt Schwitters were up to decades before.
I think that's why the avantgarde and the experimental have been less dominant in literature than in other artistic fields: there was simply no way to go further than the most radical experimentalists. There was a return to more conventional forms with some modern twists. Or at least a more mild form of experimentalism like in the works of people like Pynchon, Thomas Bernhard or Nabokov. If the avantgarde view that was so dominant in art music for so long had been as influential in literary circles pretty much every writer after James Joyce would be considered reactionary.
I would argue that you have the same issue in contemporary music. I mean really, after the experiments of serialism, electronic music, aleatoric music, spectralism, microtonality, new complexity, etc. how much further can you go? For some reason the avantgarde discourse remained much more dominant in music than in literature or the visual arts. And this avantgarde discourse still seems to be fundamentally modernist in my opinion, postmodern approaches never seemed to take off in art music with a few exceptions like Schnittke's polystylism.
There doesn't seem to be anything similar to pop art or the eclecticism of postmodern literature in contemporary music. Where's atonal dance music, that's what I want to know. As much as I love contemporary music and avantgarde experiments, I just think it's an illusion to expect something fundamentally new coming from these directions. It's all been explored to death for decades and decades.
When I talk to people in the contemporary music scene, I still hear arguments and approaches that seem utterly antiquated to me, like the idea of shocking audiences with new sounds (where are these new sounds? where are the audiences that can still be shocked?) or even more ludicrous: the downright Platonian idea of waking people from their bourgeois slumber of complacency or the oldschool 60s Adorno-inspired ideas about music having to avoid being incorporated into the capitalist mechanisms of the cultural industry (at least that's what I hear from people in Germany, I don't think Adorno is as popular elsewhere). It seems to me like these views and approaches have calcified at some point and people continue chasing some modernist dream of the new avantgarde sound that will change everything. I don't think that's very productive.
2:10 That's why the white stripes were incredible, that child like enthusiasm can be an ingredient, but not the whole meal
My music is in the category of that painting you talked about going around Mars and Jupiter. It has about as much life as Mars and Jupiter.
As for why contemporary music is unpopular, and I know you don't mean contemporary pop music, I feel it's because it is in constant conflict with physics and acoustics... The desire to come up with an alternative to tonality has led down some deep rabbit holes, hasn't it? Every composer having to compete with physics is just too much. And I trace this all the way back to equal temperament, which in itself is an argument with acoustics. New subscriber here, and I'm going to keep with it! I retired from college music theory teaching in 2017 but I'm not dead yet :)
Welcome!
Great questions, great answers in this video
I would never mistake Antheil's music for Stravinsky's, even if he was influenced by him. The composer that really seems to have been affected by Les Noces is Orff.
Congratulations on the two children!
Thanks! #1 is now six years old, #2 is just over two weeks and doing grand.
Great insights!
I do think that currently today there are some cross pollination between electro acoustic music and electronic/lap top artists that are closing the chasm slightly between popular and avant garde.
“The question, inexorably, is whether it is good. And this is a decision which only you, on the basis of instinct, experience, and association, can make for yourself. It takes independence and courage. It involves, moreover, the risk of wrong decision and humility, after the passage of time, of recognizing it as such. As we grow and change and learn, our attitudes can change too, and what we once thought obscure or ‘difficult’ can later emerge as coherent and illuminating. Entrenched prejudices, obdurate opinions are as sterile as no opinions at all. Yet standards there are, timeless as the universe itself. And when you have committed yourself to them, you have acquired a passport to that elusive but immutable realm of truth. Keep it with you in the forests of bewilderment. And never be afraid to speak up.” - Marya Mannes
Amazing questions and very insightful answers! Thansk for posting this video. There is one thing that puzzles me though. You said that a piece of art floating in space where no one is looking is not art at all, and has no meaning. So what puzzles me is this: take for example Shostakovich's 4th symphony, which lied in the drawer for 25 years, because Soviet authorities halted its performance. Was it not art while it was in the drawer, and only became art when the authorities finally allowed its performance? Did it become art with its first performance, or was it art all along, just waiting to be discovered?
Thought provoking and stimulating on many levels. The “other room”……. I like it!
Thank you! Very good points
SA: I prefer not to let comments get under my skin. Just let it roll off and know you've exposed something that may make a mind more open - in time. Thanks for all your posted efforts.
This was amazing. Thank you.
I think that if people are given total freedom, the best education, and access to anything they want, then mostly they end up doing very repetitive and samey things. It is the grit that creates the pearl.
The topics raised are bloody complicated. But you do an amazing job on answering them. I sit here wanting to type something, but a counter argument appears in my head. The best I can do is explain me. I'm an unsuccessful musician making music that has something of Robert Wyatt about it. I'm 63 and believe if I have any success it comes from the fact that I'm unsuccessful, in the classic meaning, I don't have to do music for anyone except myself. Am I happy with this? Sort of... Is the best I can do. Sometimes yes sometimes no. I feel the subject we are talking about here, is very philosophical, and has no real answers. What does annoy me is when people make sweeping statements about things like success etc.... I could go on but wont as I'm a bit too lazy to type this. All the best David
Love your videos
Most pieces up to the impressionists are flowing. They move along from one not completely unexpected set of notes to another. Modern pieces seem to fall into three mostly irritating categories:
1) Hyphenated: Notes... quiet... notes... quiet... notes... quiet... There is no discernable flow, just lots of dead space. Maybe a musicologist can appreciate the dead air, but most audiences won't.
2) Pseudo-Random: Those pieces with continuous notes employ a series of notes that seem to have no relation to one another. Again, there may not be any dead air, but there is no flow.
3) Continuous Drone (with variation): Minimalist music spares us from the dead air and the pseudo-random arrangement of notes. However, it replaces it with a seemingly endless drone of similar notes with little or no variation. This can be tolerable as background music. Reich is good to listen to on long road trips, but it is not something to sit through in an auditorium.
Thank you, very interesting!
I found these questions intriguing, and your way of approaching them extremely clear and hit the real crux of the matter dead-on, time and time again. You are clearly a very thoughtful, experienced and intelligent person, and the composing community is lucky to have someone of your talent standing up and addressing important matters such as these. Thanks for the questions, and for the great answers.
By the way, the last question had me thinking about Bobby Fischer in the chess world. He did NOT, (as I understand,) make more than a very bare-bones effort to put in the effort to create vibrant social networks amongst the important characters within chess. He just didn't have the personality for that (by and large.) But he was such an overwhelming talent that that alone drew people to him, and many of his fans helped with that side of his career. But folks like him come up once a generation, if that. If you're not the Bobby Fischer of the composition world, you need, like Samuel said here, to put in the hard yards, nurture those important relationships and communities - whilst working hard on your education and your craft - to do well as a composer in this (or, as Samuel rightly reminded us,) any generation.
Every so often there is a talent so transcendental that the music world sits up and takes notice, but this is extraordinarily rare, and just as often, such individuals remain unnoticed because they do not have adequate social support in place; the moral being, don’t bet on it.
On the second question, you're replying about what this person's unskilled brother does. But what about the older sibling, the composer, who uses those unskilled gestures as an element in their work?
Fair point!
@@samuel_andreyev There is a work by Fluxus artist Stanley Brown, where he asked people in the street for the way, and gave them a pencil and paper to make a drawing... just an examply for how to approach 'primary expression' as an artist.
Interesting. I just discovered your channel and will be watching more. I have many opinions@
I liked the advice to listen each day: 'we've got to open things up to find things'
One simple word: Monetized. The art reflects the intent. And because we're caught in a capitalist individualist milieu, the funnel gets smaller and smaller. Oh, this sold quickly and well, let me make more of that and less of this other thing. But the art isn't fooled. It brings forth your interest, your motivations, your intent unbidden. Natalie Goldberg shares a story of her college days when she and some friends had a bakery. She related that when she was happy, healthy, and loved the muffins, they sold out quickly. When she was fighting with her roommate, breaking up with her boyfriend, stressed by exams, the SAME muffins sat there all day. We ignore the hidden dimension to our peril. I'm atheist so no Bronze Age or other "god" for me but there is an energy, what Ralph Waldo Emerson called the OverSoul, that runs through everything and connects it all, that balances to books, that gently advances humanity. Call it that or the Tao or the Force or George, doesn't matter. But pay attention to it.
This video is pure gold
Alfred Wallis, the 'naïve' Cornish artist comes straight to mind on your second question. Interesting things about him - 1, He was so influential. 2, He had zero self promotion.
Loved the video but (sorry) never heard the answer. LOL I have played the piano five decades (Rachmaninoff, Tango, Jazz) and this has come up at dinner parties. The opinion seems to be that it is popular only among a very few musicians. Joe Blow can't stand it and says, "I can't make sense of it" with "sounds like a movie score" a close second.
I attribute it to our neurological makeup. Our brains seek patterns, even subconsciously, and cannot find anything relatable. I have a feeling that some of the admiration is show. At the Hirshhorn, some art students ahead of us were going on about a long vertical pipe, what is was "saying". The guide laughed. It was the A/C vent. Our local conductor introduced a contemporary piece at each concert. I'll give it a 4 on the success scale. What stands out were sensationalist elements - a group whispering in ancient Celtic (I think), someone running from one huge hanging gong to another, violins making a "screeching" noise and cries of "meow" from the "chorus". Local TV covered Joan Tower's "Fanfare for the Uncommon Woman" and asked a man his opinion. "Women deserve better." LOL
Sure, Stravinsky is more or less widely known, but people like Boulez, Stockhausen, Pärt? They are mostly known among those who deliberately seek out modernist/avant-garde/experimental/etc styles of music and art, and not much outside of that.
My thought on this topic is that a lot of 20th century composers had a strong desire to not be populist (and expressed that desire in various pieces of ideological writing), and as a result rejected many musical elements that are popular, like having a discernible sense of tonality, or having a discernible groove. I think it's no coincidence that the 20th century compositions that are widely known outside of modernist music lovers happen to be those that embrace these elements to some degree; for example the Rite of Spring, or West Side Story, or Koyaanisqatsi.
There were certainly some political events in the 20th century that made them strongly distrustful of populism, but in my opinion they threw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's a shame Pärt isn't more widely known I feel like people would really like his work. IMO he's the greatest living composer.
@@NavelOrangeGazerlots of people are moved by his music. all the comments on spiegel im spiegel are people saying how much it means to them
Stravinsky’s music is more powerful
@@NavelOrangeGazer Totally agree! A musical genius! His Kanon Pokajanen is the greatest choral masterpiece since Rachmaninov's Vespers (All-Night Vigil)...
Musicologist here! So in the furst place, i find really funny that this is an actual discussed topic. Its true that what we perceive as "modern (academic) music" is somehow dead. But this doesnt mean at all that the study, experimentation and expansion of the creativity of the form is dead. So, what is actually dead are the institutions that traditionally used to hold what we assume is academic. But in the last 30 years we have been experiencing an amazong expansion of what we think is music. And it wasnt played or composed by what we usually understand as "composers" (this is also very funny, because we dont recognize everyone that creates music with a creative pupouse as composers; but whatever). The really creative music is being made by electronic music artists, is being made by what we know as producers in most of the cases. One good example of this could be Aphex Twin. He is probably one of the most important electronic musicians of our era, and he has some extraordinary weird and experimental music. But he also has millions of listeners, so he is recognized by people, which only means that: new music is done, it can reflect what our reality is now, and people enjoy it. The answer made on this video is just a very old-fashioned and classistic way of understanding music. Why wouldnt Aphex Twin be considered as a composer? Well, there are many reasons: he does not use conventional scoring, nor conventuonal composition rules and materials. And he does not belong in the academic space (he mostly started to develop in the club scenes; which is a space that still is seen as just "popular). So, what i mean is that the problem most of nowadays "composers", are comoletely out of the real and actual music world and the spaces were it is being made. They still try to find a new way of expanding western theory, and completely ignoring what the innovations of the music craft are right now. I get your point, and in some point it looked like you were just going to reach to this idea, but i think you guys in the academia are stucked in it. Discover, open your mind, and feel free to call everyone a composer! Haha
“Classistic”
@@TTFMjock im spanish man cmonn hahaha
That is a cop-out answer. If there is a painting floating around Jupiter, you can find out once you see it if it is a work of art. Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not a work of art. If everybody on the planet goes blind, does that mean there are no works of art? I gave up at that point.