Huh? You go on telling us how skilled you are at appreciating music with lines about inferential distance etc and then you put Brahms at Beethoven’s and Bach’s level?
I’m totally convinced that visual artists became less accessible with time as their ‘inferential distance’ increased, and ditto authors, but in both cases its commonplace for the good moderns to demonstrate their ability to do work of the sort that older artists did.
In contemporary symphonic music, John Williams and Phillip Glass dominate the field and far more people still listen to the older composers. If you and your academic friends are much better, why don’t any of you prove it by out-competing them? It would obviously be lucrative to do so if you could be as popular as they once were. I’d really like to listen to some modern operas with the musical quality of older operas but better plotting and characterization. I can’t be alone in that respect.
It’s remarkable that classical music is the only field where people have to be tempted to listen to new work by having old music in the program.
It’s as though publishers couldn’t get an audience for Rowling unless a few chapters of Dickens were thrown in.
I’m not sure it’s possible to improve operas with better plotting and characterization. If I understand the purpose of opera, it’s to have rapidly changing highly intense emotions, and this may be inconsistent with more realism than is already typical.
Huh? You go on telling us how skilled you are at appreciating music with lines about inferential distance etc and then you put Brahms at Beethoven’s and Bach’s level?
No; the whole point was that I was “modding out” by levels of “greatness” that I didn’t perceive as relevant to the fundamental intent of your question. In other words, I was ignoring the difference between Bach and Brahms. Just as most people who take your point of view do—they express skepticism that there is anybody at the level of Brahms around today.
I’m totally convinced that visual artists became less accessible with time as their ‘inferential distance’ increased, and ditto authors, but in both cases its commonplace for the good moderns to demonstrate their ability to do work of the sort that older artists did.
Musicians do this too! It’s a standard part of one’s training as a composer to learn to write imitations of older styles, such as Baroque fugues, Classical minuets, etc, etc.
And, given the situation in other arts, which you acknowledge, why would you expect otherwise in music? What would account for the difference?
In contemporary symphonic music, John Williams and Phillip Glass dominate the field and far more people still listen to the older composers. If you and your academic friends are much better, why don’t any of you prove it by out-competing them?
I don’t say that “we” are better than they are at what they do, and I don’t claim that what they do is necessarily easy. But what they do isn’t the same thing as what we do. They’re optimizing for different criteria.
They don’t “dominate the field”. They’ve achieved high cultural status while doing something that looks sort-of similar to “the field”.
In the old days (i.e. the 19th century), there wasn’t as much difference; you could get lots more status by doing what we do, because at that time you could effectively do both things simultaneously. That just isn’t possible nowadays; while e.g. Brahms could write the most advanced music of the day (and yes, it was; see Schoenberg’s essay “Brahms the Progressive”), and also achieve high status in contemporary culture, if you try to do the former today, you won’t do the latter, and vice-versa.
This is exactly what you would expect if you understand the notion of inferential distance. Frankly, I have hardly ever come across serious arguments for the contrary position, i.e. a detailed theory explaining why no modern composers are “as good” as Brahms. (*) Most people claiming this simply take it for granted that popular reknown is the optimization target.
(*) A huge exception would be e.g. the work of Heinrich Schenker—an extreme anti-populist whose disdain for Williams and Glass would have easily rivaled his contempt for Schoenberg and Stravinsky.
Is it your contention that modern musicians write Clasical minuets and Baroque fugues which are in some cases better than the best of the older works that are still listened to, but that no-one cares because much of the value of those works is in their role in a canon?
I could easily believe that in those cases, but I simply don’t believe it in the case of Opera. The Opera cannon is just not very large. Some people have heard the whole thing and only like a few dozen operas. It doesn’t seem likely that there isn’t demand among such people for higher quality new material in old styles, so if no new material is becoming popular then the un-met demand makes me think that contemporary music students are failing to produce work that this audience actually values due to now knowing how to replicate the merits of older compositions.
It should really be pretty easy to do a controlled experiment with a naive population to see how common it is for modern artists to be able to impress an audience as much as their 18th and 19th century precursors did.
I’m seriously interested in someone performing some experiments on this subject. It seems to me that it would provide an extremely practically important measurement of the quality of university education in fields inaccessible to outsiders, but I don’t expect to be able to attract funding for such research because it sounds impractical at the face of it.
I guess that my major reason for holding the contrary position was largely because modern musicians and composers, more than painters and authors, are the results of university education and I fairly strongly suspect university education of destorying artistic ability and distracting artists with intellectual games that simply lack the merits of the fields that the academic subjects are derived from. I suspect this in math as much as in music, and I think Von Neumann agreed with me, as this quote suggests.
“As a mathematical discipline travels far from its empirical source, or still more, if it is a second or third generation only indirectly inspired by ideas coming from ‘reality’, it is beset with very grave dangers. It becomes more and more purely aestheticizing, more and more purely l’art pour l’art. This need not be bad, if the field is surrounded by correlated subjects, which still have closer empirical connections, or if the discipline is under the influence of men with an exceptionally well-developed taste. But there is a grave danger that the subject will develop along the line of least resistance, that the stream, so far from its source, will separate into a multitude of insignificant branches, and that the discipline will become a disorganized mass of details and complexities. In other words, at a great distance from its empirical source, or after much ‘abstract’ inbreeding, a mathematical subject is in danger of degeneration.”
Is it your contention that modern musicians write Clasical minuets and Baroque fugues which are in some cases better than the best of the older works that are still listened to, but that no-one cares because much of the value of those works is in their role in a canon?
I myself would guess that none of the works produced over the past hundred years would be judged by the majority of an impartial audience to be significantly more compelling than (for example) Bach’s Chaconne.
It should really be pretty easy to do a controlled experiment with a naive population to see how common it is for modern artists to be able to impress an audience as much as their 18th and 19th century precursors did.
I’m seriously interested in someone performing some experiments on this subject.
Same here.
I guess that my major reason for holding the contrary position was largely because modern musicians and composers, more than painters and authors, are the results of university education and I fairly strongly suspect university education of destorying artistic ability and distracting artists with intellectual games that simply lack the merits of the fields that the academic subjects are derived from. I suspect this in math as much as in music, and I think Von Neumann agreed with me, as this quote suggests.
I’m impressed that you’re familiar with the Von Neumann quote (which is sadly little known in the mathematical community but which my friend Laurens is fond of); but on the face of things it doesn’t seem to directly support your paragraph above. Explain further if you’d like?
Several points here:
My impression is that there are issues of bad social/cultural institutions destroying artistic ability outside of academia. I have some friends artistically genuine who have spent some time as painters and become disillusioned with the signaling games and hypocrisy present within the communities of painters that they’ve come across. Note that fledging painters and authors face greater financial pressures than academics and that this can lead to perverse incentives (to appeal to the lowest common denominator or to current fashions for greater marketability). See Minhyong Kim’s comment here.
The absence of new empirical sources for mathematics seems to me more a consequence of the stagnation of theoretical physics than the social structure of the mathematical community.
In my own view insufficient emphasis on exposition has played a significant role in whatever stagnation has occurred within the mathematical community since, e.g. the 1800′s. The barrier to entry has gotten progressively higher as mathematics has developed and in such a setting, in absence of strong efforts to to cast background material in an accessible and readily digestible form, the pressures toward specialization and fragmentation get progressively stronger. There aren’t career-based incentives for expository work so mathematicians who are interested in exposition either conform to the research-based publish or perish norms or leave.
I’d be happy to compile an annotated list of relatively accessible survey papers if you’d be interested and find it useful for getting a sense for the state of some of contemporary mathematical research.
The absence of new empirical sources for mathematics seems to me more a consequence of the stagnation of theoretical physics than the social structure of the mathematical community.
From my perspective in applied math things are exactly opposite. We’re practically drowning in empirical sources begging for better numerics. There is hardly a scientific or engineering field today that couldn’t be revolutionized by a breakthrough in a relevant area currently under study in the applied math community. The problem isn’t lack of necessity, inspiration, or motivation, the problem is the problems are damn hard, and I’m far from convinced that we attract the best minds.
Even with very clear, objective goals, progress can still be painfully slow!
In my own view insufficient emphasis on exposition has played a significant role in whatever stagnation has occurred within the mathematical community since, e.g. the 1800′s.
I very much agree. Incentives are out of line for most areas of science, but I think the fallout from this is especially poignant for math. I view part of our discipline’s responsibility as curating the common mathematical knowledge used by all other disciplines.
Like mathematicians, musicians who only write for experts are unmoored from empirical feedback and are thus dependent on unusually good taste if they are to do something valuable. It’s not fair to expect people who can’t evaluate their work to conclude that they have such good taste even if they are acknowledge to be very smart.
Fledging painters can paint for both the lowest common denominator AND for themselves if they want to. Academics can’t do popular work without that counting against them with other academics.
There’s lots of need for math in complexity theory and other domains. Quantum computing for instance. Really all over the place. Crypto is very popular. Probably lots of engineering examples.
I’d be happy if someone else we both know who shares this concern would review that list.
Like mathematicians, musicians who only write for experts are unmoored from empirical feedback and are thus dependent on unusually good taste if they are to do something valuable. It’s not fair to expect people who can’t evaluate their work to conclude that they have such good taste even if they are acknowledge to be very smart.
I agree. I guess the reason why I took pause is because Von Neumann’s quote does not immediately suggest that he concurs with
I fairly strongly suspect university education of destorying artistic ability and distracting artists with intellectual games that simply lack the merits of the fields that the academic subjects are derived from.
his quotation more just obliquely raises the possibility that you suggest.
Fledging painters can paint for both the lowest common denominator AND for themselves if they want to.
It’s not clear to me that this is true. Doesn’t it depend on what the lowest common denominator is? Van Gogh painted for himself and is reported to have been unable to support himself by selling his paintings. Are you suggesting that things have changed since his time? If so, how and under what evidence?
Academics can’t do popular work without that counting against them with other academics.
My observation has been that this is mostly true.
There’s lots of need for math in complexity theory and other domains. Quantum computing for instance. Really all over the place. Crypto is very popular. Probably lots of engineering examples.
(1) It should be noted that Von Neumann was in large measure an applied mathematician and so it’s natural to expect him of being biased in favor of applied topics.
(2) There is widespread agreement among most sophisticated contemporary mathematicians as to the high aesthetic value of some of the pure mathematical achievements over the past few decades. I agree that it’s difficult for an outsider to quickly ascertain that there’s something substantive going on here but I give you my word for whatever it’s worth :-).
(3) I’ve had a less pronounced positive aesthetic response to most applied math topics than to some of my favorite pure mathematical topics. I’ve found that applied topics are more ad hoc and lacking in internal coherence and a large part of what I find compelling about pure math is the high degree of internal coherence.
As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, the danger of generalizing from one example here is very serious and I do not question to sincerity of those who are passionate about applied topics (or pure topics like graph theory and elementary analytic number theory which I personally find disappointingly ad hoc and lacking in internal coherence but which some people eagerly devote their lives to).
(4) My own interest in applied math topics comes more from the applications than from the math involved.
(5) I would differentiate between “early” applied math (e.g. of the type that Newton and Maxwell did) which was closer to pure math (on account of the fact that so little of either was developed and the fact that it was necessary to develop pure math further in order to get to the point of being able to do something useful) and modern applied math; the former is not necessarily representative of the latter.
(6) Some theoretical and mathematical physicists draw a sharp distinction between physics and applied math. I don’t have subject matter knowledge here; but have the rough impression that theoretical physics has more internal coherence than most applied mathematical topics. This is why I referenced theoretical physics in particular as a source of inspiration that seems to have dried up on account of lack of empirical feedback.
(7) The utilitarian value of the pure mathematical achievements alluded to above is questionable in light of the fact that (a) very few people are able to appreciate them and (b) they don’t have foreseeable technological applications in the near future. The second point has heightened significance in light of the fact that it seems very possible that an intelligence explosion is not far off.
I’m interested in popularizing some of the pure mathematical achievements that are regarded among elite pure mathematicians as being of great aesthetic value. Aside from the immediate enjoyment attached to enriching people’s lives; my interest in doing this is with a view toward giving people opportunities to develop heightened aesthetic sense and spreading humanistic values, in particular making a case that there are things in the world beautiful enough so that it’s worth working toward the long-term survival of the human race. I feel like I’ve seen a “promised land” of the sorts of intellectual experiences that lie beyond the boundaries of current human mind space.
I’d be happy if someone else we both know who shares this concern would review that list.
Sure, I would too. I’ll probably get around to it sometime over the next few weeks.
My one caveat with your claims here is that Van Gogh was severely insane, which probably impaired his ability to support himself quite a bit.
Also, how likely does it seem to you that applied math lacks pure math’s aesthetic value because its done by less aesthetically sensitive people (positive feedback loop) rather than because it couldn’t be like classical applied/pure math?
My one caveat with your claims here is that Van Gogh was severely insane, which probably impaired his ability to support himself quite a bit.
This is a fair point. I would guess / vaguely remember that there are plenty of examples of psychologically sound great painters who had trouble making a living but don’t have a list off hand. Laurens suggested Cezanne as an example but I have not independently verified that he qualifies. I don’t know very much about visual arts.
Note that in general there’s a selection effect where artists/scientists who have dim prospects for making a living doing what they do are disproportionately likely to leave relative to other artists/scientists of their quality. It’s hard to know how significant this selection effect is in a given domain.
Also, how likely does it seem to you that applied math lacks pure math’s aesthetic value because its done by less aesthetically sensitive people (positive feedback loop) rather than because it couldn’t be like classical applied/pure math?
There’s almost certainly some effect of this type; I’m uncertain as to how large the effect. Two relevant points:
To the extent that applied math involves features specific to how humans interact with the world (i.e. taking into account contingent constraints specific to human needs) arbitrariness creeps in on account of the fact that humans were generated by a random process.
There seem to be arbitrage opportunities for mathematical expertise to bring clarity to areas that were previously somewhat obscure. For example, SarahC has suggested that principle component analysis might be utilized to better understand what’s referred to as autism (a fact that I haven’t previously seen discussed explicitly). The existence of such apparent arbitrage opportunities suggests that there may be quite fertile unexplored ground within applied math.
I’m interested in popularizing some of the pure mathematical achievements that are regarded among elite pure mathematicians as being of great aesthetic value.
Sweet! Do you know of any existing works that attempt this (perhaps at a higher level of sophistication)? Also, what are the mathematical achievements you would focus on?
One good compilation of “pure mathematical achievements that are regarded among elite pure mathematicians as being of great aesthetic value” is Proofs from THE BOOK.
Is the Joshua Bell experiment the kind of thing you had in mind? If so, it pretty conclusively confirms your suspicions.
Not really, because Joshua Bell was playing mostly (maybe even exclusively) old music in that experiment, if I recall correctly.
Vassar’s suspicion was that people nowadays don’t know how to write in old styles well enough to be indistinguishable from old composers.
Edit: but just to go along with it for a minute, do you really think Bell’s status is the result of a random process? Maybe with respect to other “great” violinists, yes, but certainly not with respect to the average person, or even the average professional violinist.
Not really, because Joshua Bell was playing mostly (maybe even exclusively) old music in that experiment, if I recall correctly.
Right, it proves the (arguably) stronger result that even the old music, with its canon status, can’t appeal to the uninitiated. Impressing the indoctrinated is not impressive. The hard part is to impress the unindoctrinated.
But just to go along with it for a minute, do you really think Bell’s status is the result of a random process?
Of course not, just as I can’t make my friends laugh by generating random utterances. But that doesn’t mean that the average person is somehow deficient for not laughing at our inside jokes—or that I can go on denying that it’s an inside joke.
But that doesn’t mean that the average person is somehow deficient for not laughing at our inside jokes—or that I can go on denying that it’s an inside joke.
Here, the analogous situation would be an “average person” denying the joke was funny because they weren’t in on it, despite the fact that they saw a bunch of people laughing hysterically at it.
(...a bunch of people who were willing to welcome them into their group if they caught up on the group’s history, so they would be able to get the jokes!)
But people don’t claim that their inside jokes are the highest form of culture and that others are somehow deficient for not wanting to join in on it.
I understand that if you invest some effort E into appreciating something, you’ll appreciate it. The fact that I appreciate it for some (potentially huge) E does not somehow justify the effort—you can say that about anything.
The appropriate comparison would be “what ways of amusing myself for that level of personal investment are the best”? And given these opportunity cost considerations, it’s quite understandable why the utter indifference of the public is a strike against the field.
Is the Joshua Bell experiment the kind of thing you had in mind? If so, it pretty conclusively confirms your suspicions.
No, not really. In the concert hall, you would have no problems distinguishing Bell from a random violinist: he’s actually much better. The Joshua Bell experiment was an experiment in seeing how someone who was unambiguously a top-class artist held up with inferential distance deliberately hugely increased—not a test of “is status in music a lie?” but “how arrogant is a top-class artist taken out of their depth?” And, y’know, Bell did pretty well and came across as a perfectly reasonable fellow.
In the concert hall, you would have no problems distinguishing Bell from a random violinist: he’s actually much better.
That doesn’t matter if there are so many more appealing cultural venues than concert hall.
And, y’know, Bell did pretty well
No, he made less than the typical busker and really only attracted those who were trained to identify the signals.
I don’t dispute that the music is good, for some people. I just think it’s ridiculous how much more money it commands for the wrong reasons. His skill isn’t so much better than the mere 95% percentile to justify that—that’s why they have to rely on so much more than musical skill to market him to royalty.
and came across as a perfectly reasonable fellow.
I don’t see what difference that makes. But yes, he surprisingly did recognize how much his self-worth collapses when he’s not pre-validated (i.e. performing for people who haven’t paid lots of money for it).
I meant “did pretty well” in terms of not reacting with arrogance, that being what was actually being tested. The trope in play (what made it a story that you remember) was Fish Out Of Water.
(The way to make money as a busker is to, whatever your instrument, play the Beatles. Over and over. And over and over. And over and over. And over and over.)
The trope in play (what made it a story that you remember) was Fish Out Of Water.
I’m actually quite willing to believe that Silas remembered it because (he thought) it proved his theory.
For my part, I viewed it as a test of how well the average person can detect subtly presented costly signals when under distraction. (Answer: not very well.)
The detail I remembered most was how children would stop with interest, only to be dragged away by their hurried parents.
I’m actually quite willing to believe that Silas remembered it because (he thought) it proved his theory.
Not really. I remember it because it’s fun watching people try to explain it away—I get a new answer every time for why the highest cultural achievements get utterly ignored, at that must be a problem on the beholder’s side.
The detail I remembered most was how children would stop with interest, only to be dragged away by their hurried parents.
Is that the standard you really want to go by? What children like?
Er, I’m not. The water is the world where people know the sort of music he plays and can form communicable opinions on how well he does it.
Okay, and the water for theologians is the community of theologians. Does that mean they’re accomplishing something truly great, or that they’re a clique?
Though to be fair, arguing over aesthetics on this level is like arguing over which variety of heroin is best to be addicted to. Battles to the death for insanely low stakes. Having us all taken out and shot is not an unreasonable passing fancy.
Your analogy would only be valid if theology was the study of an aesthetic matter. (I might think it was better approached as one, but I doubt we’ll find many theologians to agree.)
Well, not really. You’re asserting music that you have a greater than negligible inferential distance to is a fraudulent field, and you’re comparing it to a field you already consider fraudulent.
As such: the difference is that music is about aesthetics, not about the qualities of claimed supernatural beings. And in art, there is such a thing as inferential distance. Long post on the subject here. A given piece of art is created in a time, place and culture, to press the buttons in people’s heads, preferably starting with those of the artist. You will appreciate it more if you learn more about the time, place and culture, right down to the inside of the artist’s head as far as that can be ascertained, thus getting closer to the place in inference space of its birth.
Theology doesn’t, as far as I know, make the existence of God more believable if you know more of it; however, it is possible to learn about the cultural reference point for a piece of art and appreciate more what the artist was doing.
Is it your contention that modern musicians write Clasical minuets and Baroque fugues which are in some cases better than the best of the older works that are still listened to, but that no-one cares because much of the value of those works is in their role in a canon?
Depending on who you’re considering to be doing the caring and not-caring, this may very well be an apt description of the situation. But the main point I would make is that these are student exercises. Writing works in older styles is a skill that one learns in school; it’s very much like how math students are asked to re-prove theorems of Euler or Cauchy. You may be seen as a genius if you rediscover the proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra, but nobody’s going to give you the same kind of credit they give Gauss. Likewise writing a really great fugue in your counterpoint class isn’t going to make you Bach. Part of the reason is that Bach already did this stuff (so you’re not in the “canon”), but also when Bach was doing it it was at the frontier of musical thought, which it isn’t today, as evidenced by the fact that it is taught to undergraduates. Whereas Bach’s challenge was to be as inventive as possible, today’s students have to be as inventive as possible while still sounding like eighteenth-century music, which is a challenge of a different kind, and will tend to produce different musical results.
I could easily believe that in those cases, but I simply don’t believe it in the case of Opera. The Opera cannon is just not very large. Some people have heard the whole thing and only like a few dozen operas.
First of all, the total number of operas written since the form was invented (something like 40,000, if I recall correctly) is much larger than any single human could plausibly have heard. You must be talking about the active repertory of famous opera houses, which is indeed probably something like a few dozen. However, there are good reasons apart from artistic merit to expect that the number of operas in regular production would be small: namely, staging an opera is typically a very costly and laborious undertaking. (So is composing one, by the way, which is why doing so is not a typical student exercise the same way writing a fugue is.) This will push toward conservatism in repertory selection, with companies sticking to the pieces they already know “work”. There are all kinds of obscure operas by great composers (such as Handel) that have only recently begun to see the light of day for this reason, and being by such composers, their artistic quality is quite high. If folks want more old operas, there’s plenty of digging to be done (and it’s being done).
It should really be pretty easy to do a controlled experiment with a naive population to see how common it is for modern artists to be able to impress an audience as much as their 18th and 19th century precursors did.
It would be very hard to find a truly naive audience with enough musical ability to make the results of interest. Best you could do would probably be musically gifted children who had been deliberately kept uneducated in music history. (Then you’d have to ask what the appropriate age is, etc.)
That said, if it could be done, I’d be all in favor of doing it. My prediction would be that there wouldn’t be much of a difference between the perceived “impressiveness” of actual Baroque fugues and the best imitations of Baroque fugues from today.
I guess that my major reason for holding the contrary position was largely because modern musicians and composers, more than painters and authors, are the results of university education and I fairly strongly suspect university education of destorying artistic ability and distracting artists with intellectual games that simply lack the merits of the fields that the academic subjects are derived from
Let me be clear: this absolutely does go on, no question. But it probably goes on in all fields that have university departments—including (as you note), math, and yes, the empirical sciences. And my suspicion is that while it may give mediocre practitioners of a field the illusion that they’re doing better and more important work than they are, it doesn’t actually stop the best folks from doing genuinely high quality work. (At least not all of them.)
However, if that’s your theory, what then do you think of European “modernist” composers, who are similarly “inaccessible” but have less association with universities?
But what the Beatles were doing was more like being as inventive as possible while still being fun to listen to for untrained people, a constraint that Bach shared.
I just don’t know enough about modernist composers to say, but I would give them more benefit of the doubt. It’s also noteworthy though that I know non-professionals who claim to enjoy them, which seems like very good Bayesian evidence that they are doing something significant.
I don’t think that your response on the opera question is really a satisfying rebuttal to my point.
But what the Beatles were doing was more like being as inventive as possible while still being fun to listen to for untrained people, a constraint that Bach shared.
Only as a result of the historically contingent fact that Bach’s wildest musical ideas happened to still be comprehensible to untrained people, because the inferential gulf wasn’t yet very large.
(Seriously, it’s not as if Bach secretly invented and wished he could write Schoenberg-style music, but reluctantly restrained himself because of his social obligations. What Bach produced—at least some of his output—was literally the most inventive music he could think of; and sometimes he was indeed criticized for going beyond the “norms” of the day.)
It’s also noteworthy though that I know non-professionals who claim to enjoy them, which seems like very good Bayesian evidence that they are doing something significant.
Yes. Though this is a point which unfortunately tends to get lost, there are indeed non-professionals who enjoy contemporary art music, and there are in fact “ways into” the music for them; things they can learn to enhance their enjoyment, even if they don’t quite reach the full level of appreciation that a professional might. And there are actually some folks who are musically gifted enough that they just “get it” right away, even though they don’t happen to be musicians.
I don’t think that your response on the opera question is really a satisfying rebuttal to my point.
I don’t know whether this will help either, but I did want to make the point that the most gifted composers tend not to want to spend their time writing in old styles, for the same reason that the most gifted mathematicians tend not to want to spend their time rediscovering old theorems. This is a better explanation for why we don’t see large quantities of Bach-quality Baroque-style music being churned out today than “lost knowledge” or historical genetic anomaly. (And why didn’t we see more of composers literally imitating Baroque music during the Classical and Romantic eras?)
A slightly different point, but when I brought up the possibility of current composers writing in the old styles and thus creating attractive music, several people told me that it’s simply too hard to write music in an old style.
There seemed to be a strong consensus there, but perhaps the problem is that they were applying too high a standard of authenticity. I’d be content with music which supplied many of the pleasures of baroque or classical—it doesn’t have to pass for period music to a well-informed listener.
I have a notion that you can tell which sf artists have been to art school. The composition, anatomy, and perspective are all excellent, but there’s no sense of motion.
When I say it’s a notion, I mean that I haven’t checked it in any way, it just seems like a plausible way of explaining paintings with those characteristics.
So far as mathematics is concerned, aren’t there two streams—empirical and for the pleasure of the mathematicians? Neither of these are the same as working on whatever math is publishable, though.
They don’t “dominate the field”. They’ve achieved high cultural status while doing something that looks sort-of similar to “the field”.
As an example, I’m more familiar with the work of Jeremy Soule than I am with the work of Stravinsky. That’s not at all a statement about their relative quality as composers, just a statement that one of them makes soundtracks for video games. And while they’re very nice, I can’t help but imagine that a lot of my affection for his pieces comes from the emotional attachment to the games they were in.
But I’ve also got to point out that in aesthetic fields, when you get to the point where inferential distance makes laymen unable to appreciate what you’re doing, you’ve gone from creation to masturbation.
I go to art museums from time to time and am struck by the difference in captions as you move from medieval art to contemporary art: the captions for the medieval art tell you who everyone in the picture is (because you’re unlikely to recognize St. Augustine by looking at him or his symbols), but the art speaks for itself. The captions for the contemporary art have to tell you not just the symbolism but also the subject. Many of them were essentially performance art, which disgusted me pretty deeply. That may actually be a better way to put it- if your work is best understood as performance art, you should change fields.
I went to a few lectures on mathematical music theory once. I’ve forgotten most of it, but I recall learning that most of the music I can enjoy (pre-1900 Western classical, 20th century pop and rock) is, structurally, confined to a very special case among all the possible scales that a music system could be built on. Someone like Schoenberg is to all the other music I listen to, as Mars is to all the different continents of the earth.
(Aside: remember the scene in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” where the aliens communicate in music? I saw it again recently, and it cracked me up, because it was obviously trying to sound “alien” but it really wasn’t. It sounded like the tricky part of a Leonard Bernstein piece. There’s much more “alien” music right here on this planet!)
So I think Beethoven really might have been more accessible to the listeners of his day than contemporary classical music is to us. Beethoven, at least, wrote his symphonies in the same key as an ordinary folk ditty. (Sometimes he even kept the ditty!)
I’m not sure how possible it is to adapt one’s ear so that a totally new scale sounds pleasant. I can’t listen to much classical music past Stravinsky and get any pleasure out of it. But then again, I first listened to Indian classical music in adolescence, and that has a completely different structure than Western music, and it sounded good to me instantly, no inferential distance at all.
In the early 1990s I spent rather a lot of time listening avidly to the sort of thing advertised in the small ads in the back of The Wire: where the far end of post-hardcore-punk rock music, the far end of jazz and the far end of twentieth-century classical (Schoenberg is the barest start of the good stuff) converged. Most people would call this hideous racket, and I must admit that, despite all the thought that went into it, this was an aspect I would have called a feature. Disappointment was going to a concert of modern stuff and hearing something that sounded like a film soundtrack or a soundscape rather than an assault on the senses.
This is something of what I mean when I distinguish “good” or “worthwhile” from “of no cultural impact”—the latter speaks of listenership and influence on other artists. This is difficult to quantify, but (to use the example of friends doing music degrees) an academic composer who puts their stuff on the net and blogs and tweets about it and hangs out on 4chan /mu/ will have more impact than an academic composer who has nothing available. That’s the point at which the bug of art impacts the windscreen of arts industry.
I am also deeply sceptical of the notion that art progresses in the manner of technology or science. It’s made of memes and lines of influence can certainly be traced (you can even usefully do cladistics on them) and some stuff comes after other stuff. There’s simple stuff, there’s complex stuff, there’s the simplicity on the far side of complexity (you could pick up a guitar and write a punk rock song, but you are unlikely to sling those three chords as effectively as the Sex Pistols did). But we don’t study Shakespeare or Chaucer because they’re just the precursor to the amazingly advanced stuff we do now (in the manner of Newton being first-year stuff) - we study it because it’s good in itself. No-one listens to Beethoven or Bach as a precursor to current brilliance, they listen to it because it’s good in itself. Canons are, in practice, constructed retrospectively from tastes at the time; the historiography (the history of the history) of art is itself a fruitful field of study in attempting to work out what’s going on. Everyone from Shakespeare down is just trying to write a good one this time out.
(komponisto will, I suspect, consider me a barbarian at the gates at this point.)
Edit to add: Art doesn’t progress as such because the point of art is to have an effect—on the artist and/or the listener. The aim is to press the audience’s buttons. (There is a commonplace of art pontification that states that only if the artist is the test subject can the art be of true quality.) Beethoven listed what pressed his personal buttons, komponisto finds that a good and useful description of what presses his buttons. But I would be very surprised if komponisto did not test his own compositions by listening and seeing if they pressed his buttons, rather than just checklisting an algorithm. Obviously it is possible for science to actually advance this process—there is science fiction concerning scanning brains to make superstimuli so powerful as to be fatally addictive—but the human brain seems to do remarkably well at this already, massively iteratively testing possible artistic elements to see what seems to stick.
tl;dr: the constant is pushing the buttons of yourself and/or the audience in a given time, place and culture. All else is ways to get to that.
Bonus: The most horrible music I know of is my precious collection of Whitehouse. Early industrial band, amazingly still extant. Hideous screaming music that in itself seems to offend as much as the lyrics. It’s what you play back at the neighbours when they’ve played that Robbie Williams song for the fiftieth time in a row. CDs available here.
In the early 1990s I spent rather a lot of time listening avidly to the sort of thing advertised in the small ads in the back of The Wire: where the far end of post-hardcore-punk rock music, the far end of jazz and the far end of twentieth-century classical (Schoenberg is the barest start of the good stuff) converged. Most people would call this hideous racket, and I must admit that, despite all the thought that went into it, this was an aspect I would have called a feature. Disappointment was going to a concert of modern stuff and hearing something that sounded like a film soundtrack or a soundscape rather than an assault on the senses.
For some reason, I thought of this, which I shouldn’t have liked but did anyway.
Yoko Ono gets such a bad rap. As Lester Bangs notes in the linked piece, she had quite the excellent line in really good horrible noise.
Once you get the idea that horrible noise music is supposed to sound like that, you can start sorting out what works for you and what doesn’t and when and why.
(Current kick: There’s a lot of ’80s and ’90s industrial-towards-neofolk bands who did limited-edition albums in runs of a few hundred. These became legendary due to rarity. Now we have the Internet and approximately all recorded music is readily available free, and it becomes clear why the runs were only a few hundred. I play them and they brighten my day and the teenagers, taking a break from their bad heavy metal with inept sub-Metallica solos and floppy fringes, look at me like I shat in their ears personally. Fair warms the heart. Of course, horses for courses. I am not actually recommending anyone else actually bother doing this.)
I went to a few lectures on mathematical music theory once. I’ve forgotten most of it, but I recall learning that most of the music I can enjoy (pre-1900 Western classical, 20th century pop and rock) is, structurally, confined to a very special case among all the possible scales that a music system could be built on. Someone like Schoenberg is to all the other music I listen to, as Mars is to all the different continents of the earth.
This view is mistaken. It’s not, mind you, your mistake, but that of the music theory community, which has egregiously, utterly, and persistently failed to carve musical reality at its joints. In point of fact, Schoenberg uses the same set of pitches that the composers you like do—the ones you find on a piano keyboard. And contrary to implicit music-theoretical tradition, you don’t have to pretend that those 12 pitches in the octave aren’t the same notes you’re used to, either.
In simple terms, the difference between Schoenberg and the music you like, and the reason people have trouble with the former, isn’t that Schoenberg isn’t in any key, but rather that Schoenberg changes keys so quickly and constantly that your ear has trouble keeping up and feels “confused”. A note may literally be “in a different key” from the previous note. There is much less redundancy to reinforce the “meaning” (i.e. position within a diatonic scale) of a note; you have to “catch” it immediately.
You can see how this state of affairs would have been the product of gradual evolution, something analogous to an inferential chain—with more information content being packed into music with each generation of composers.
The point is, it’s a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.
What music I have heard in carnatic scales I have enjoyed, which I imagine is what you’re talking about.
But comments about “these are a few special cases in all of design space!” suggest to me that that’s where the quality is, not that there are vast realms of good stuff just over the horizon, and we just haven’t looked there yet. If you buy into the idea that music is a superstimulus of vocal tone, it makes perfect sense that there would only be a few ways to make music appealing to humans though there are many possible ways to make music.
My impression is that music in general has become less oriented towards melody.
Some of what I enjoy is weirder than anything I would have expected to like. I heard Sun Ra Arkestra, and enjoyed most of it. I think the trick is to get emotionally involved with changes of timbre.
But I’ve also got to point out that in aesthetic fields, when you get to the point where inferential distance makes laymen unable to appreciate what you’re doing, you’ve gone from creation to masturbation.
That’s a little much—there’s plenty of art which appeals to specialist audiences (hard science fiction, for example—most people aren’t going to have much fun with Diaspora), but which is still a meaningful effort by the artist.
Some video games, too, seem to be aimed at very narrow audiences, and yet are quite impressive if you happen to be part of that audience. For example, the infamously difficult I Wanna Be The Guy is quite clever, but it definitely takes a certain kind of background and mindset to actually enjoy playing it. And there are many people who don’t appreciate even extremely popular video games; for example, my mom will never experience what makes people enjoy Halo.
But I’ve also got to point out that in aesthetic fields, when you get to the point where inferential distance makes laymen unable to appreciate what you’re doing, you’ve gone from creation to masturbation.
What you’ve done is go from creating art for a lay audience to creating art for a specialized audience.
I agree that the extreme form of this is creating art for the enjoyment of nobody but you (aka masturbation), but there are interim stages along the way that are meaningfully distinct.
On the other hand, I saw Artist’s shit at the Tate Modern and literally spent five minutes laughing. IT IS PERFECT AND BRILLIANT. If you want the simplicity on the far side of complexity, that’s it. (… in a can.)
But I’ve also got to point out that in aesthetic fields, when you get to the point where inferential distance makes laymen unable to appreciate what you’re doing, you’ve gone from creation to masturbation.
That’s an unnecessarily loaded, rhetorical way to state your point of view. So if you don’t meet a certain “laymen appreciation” quota, then you’re literally not creating anymore? That’s silly, of course.
And of course I hardly need mention the negative connotations of “masturbation”.
But the point is substantively wrong, also—or, at any rate, you’re assuming the conclusion you need to prove: that the value of art depends only on the ability of laymen (large numbers of them, presumably, since I doubt it would suffice for me to exhibit particular examples) to directly appreciate it.
My fifth-grade classmates used to make a similar argument with respect to Beethoven: since I was the only one in the class who liked his work, he was clearly a failure as a composer.
Likewise, I suspect you (and others who say things like this) are probably just insufficiently aware of the community of people who appreciate contemporary art music. It’s unfortunate that there’s currently so little intersection between that community and this one; but that community exists nonetheless.
I do listen to contemporary music. Or is that not what you had in mind? :P
And of course I hardly need mention the negative connotations of “masturbation”.
I apologize if that was too crude for you, but it seems to me an apt description (both of the situation and why outsiders feel the way they feel about it). For it to be sex it needs to include other people.
the value of art depends only on the ability of laymen (large numbers of them, presumably, since I doubt it would suffice for me to exhibit particular examples) to directly appreciate it.
Of course I would never make a statement so sweeping. Masturbation is hardly valueless; it just serves a rather different function than sex, which seems to me to be a cruder restatement of your earlier point. But the implication of such a view is that the cultural descendant of Beethoven is The Beatles, and the cultural ancestor of little-known academic composers are the writers of 16th century theological texts- very sophisticated, but they’re no Shakespeare. (I should clarify that by theological texts I mean commentaries, not foundational works like the King James Bible.) And so when we discuss “the-thing-that-Beethoven-was-doing” there are two things we could be talking about- making music for a particular set of instruments, or significantly contributing to the history of music.
If there is any gulf of misunderstanding between us, I think it hinges on that last bit.
Crudeness wasn’t the problem; the connotation of disapproval was.
Masturbation is hardly valueless; it just serves a rather different function than sex, which seems to me to be a cruder restatement of your earlier point. But the implication of such a view is that the cultural descendant of Beethoven is The Beatles,
That absolutely does not follow. That is not an implication of “such a view” (i.e. my view) at all.
A meta-observation about your comment: it doesn’t seem to reflect your having received new information from my previous comments at all. You’ve simply restated the position that I’m arguing against, without explaining why the things I’ve said fail to undermine that position.
For example, it should be clear by now that I don’t agree that “the cultural descendant of Beethoven is The Beatles”, and it should be equally clear why: in addition to the fact that the actual memetic lineage from Beethoven to the Beatles is much less direct than from Beethoven to contemporary art-composers (a point I didn’t actually mention explicitly), Beethoven’s intention—his profession, his métier—was to write the most interesting/advanced/sophisticated music he could. (Beyond the blatant evidence of the music itself, as compared with his (more “popular”!) contemporaries, this is a matter of historical record, as revealed in his letters.) In this crucial respect, he resembles contemporary academic composers much more than the Beatles (who, as popular musicians, have few rivals, of course).
Now, I made it clear in my exchange with MichaelVassar and multifoliaterose that this was what I was talking about. Yet, in the parent comment, you continue to frame the discussion as though that had never occurred:
And so when we discuss “the-thing-that-Beethoven-was-doing” there are two things we could be talking about- making music for a particular set of instruments, or significantly contributing to the history of music.
...as if my idea of “the-thing-that-Beethoven-was-doing” had mainly to do with instrumentation, and as if we all agreed that popularity among laymen was the criterion by which “contribution to the history of music” is to be judged—in blatant disregard of my previous remarks in this thread.
I think that as a lay-person there is serious room for doubt regarding whether what modern academic composers are doing is as competent, judged as an attempt to create the most interesting/advanced/sophisiticated music possible, as what the Beatles were doing. It would be nice to know what Beethoven would have thought.
Do you understand why the theological texts were brought up? The central contention in question is whether the claims of a field such as this can be trusted by outsiders. One critical question, in that case, in my opinion, is whether there are any ways in which it could be. It’s like asking if topologists or computer scientists are more genuinely ‘heirs to Euler’. At least in math we can see that Wiles was doing roughly the same thing Fermat was doing and in literature the publishing industry and public sized upon Toole, who was doing a more authentic version of what Dickens was doing. I guess that one indicative question regarding math would be “How well recognized was Wiles by his professional peers before his famous proof?”.
I think that as a lay-person there is serious room for doubt regarding whether what modern academic composers are doing is as competent, judged as an attempt to create the most interesting/advanced/sophisiticated music possible, as what the Beatles were doing. It would be nice to know what Beethoven would have thought.
Consider the following, from a scholarly book on Beethoven’s compositional methods:
Music deserved such devotion in [Beethoven’s] view because it was a noble art—one that could ‘raise men to the level of the gods’. And as it had such elevating powers it had to be treated with due respect in his compositions, and used for the benefit of noble listeners rather than merely for entertaining the masses. ‘My supreme aim,’ he wrote, ‘is that my art should be welcomed by the noblest and most cultured people.’ Music for noble minds had to be rich, learned, elevated, and complex, and Beethoven’s was conspicuously more so than that of any of his contemporaries—especially during the period 1800-20, when few composers aspired to such aims...he disdained composers such as Rossini who were only able to write frivolous music and pretty tunes....
...Similarly, he regarded it as his duty to read learned musical treatises to increase his understanding of his art, and apparently he read a great number: ‘There is hardly any treatise which could be too learned for me.’...
-- Barry Cooper, Beethoven and the Creative Process, p.20
Where do you honestly think someone with these kinds of sensibilities and priorities would tend to end up nowadays?
I’m not saying he wouldn’t appreciate the Beatles for what they are—a fabulous popular group. But the idea that he would consider their songs a more worthy successor to the Eroica symphony than the work of Boulez and Babbitt is pretty ridiculous.
Do you understand why the theological texts were brought up? The central contention in question is whether the claims of a field such as this can be trusted by outsiders
Standard heuristics apply. Check whether the most highly regarded people in a field seem to have impressive general intellects. Check whether they can send other costly signals that are intelligible to outsiders. (I’m pretty sure Milton Babbitt can write damn good fugues; Peter Westergaard has written the best book on “tonal” (17th-19th century) theory I know of.) Check whether any people you already regard as impressive are willing to associate with these folks. Etc.
Whatever you think the ultimate value of advanced music is, tests like these should at least be able to convince you that it isn’t a hoax.
I honestly think that someone with these sensibilities might think that music since WWII is a wasteland with respect to what they cared about.
I’m pretty sure that the authors of the best theological texts had impressive general intellects and associated with impressive people. They were probably frequently good public speakers too, a costly signal.
I don’t think advanced music might be an intentional hoax. (which could be OK. It always seemed to me that in Andy Warhol’s case hoax was the art). I think it, and advanced math, may not be the heirs to the unquestionably valuable traditions that they claim to be heirs to, but may instead by the emergent properties of certain institutional designs in the absence of outside constraints.
There are other possibilities too. It seems to me that modern art, in the sense of the 1860s-1950s, is basically not the intellectual heir of the old masters. Picasso etc were doing something much cooler than the old masters were, but what they were doing is better thought of as being an heir to certain tribal art-forms, especially from the pacific islands, empowered by industrial civilization, specialization, etc.
I honestly think that someone with these sensibilities might think that music since WWII is a wasteland with respect to what they cared about.
It is conceivable, I’ll admit, that such a person could have ended up like Schenker, who was as much a musical genius as the greatest composers of his day, but thought that music after 1900 was a wasteland. But note this: Schenker essentially wrote no music of his own! For all that he hoped his theories would form the basis of a “rebirth” of the tradition that (in his view) died with Brahms, he never bothered to put them into practice himself and demonstrate whatever he thought it was that the composers of his day should have been doing.
I don’t think this is a coincidence. The literal closest successor to Brahms was Max Reger, whom Schenker despised, and Schoenberg is the next step after Reger. I really don’t think it’s psychologically possible to be a composer of genius and a musical conservative at the same time. Yet, in order for a modern Beethoven to oppose contemporary music, that’s what would have to have happened: at some point in musical history, they would have had to have sided with the conservatives against the radicals. I don’t think someone capable of doing that would have been able to produce the Eroica in 1805; they would have more likely been the guy at the premiere who shouted “I’ll give another kreutzer if this thing will only stop!”.
I’m pretty sure that the authors of the best theological texts had impressive general intellects and associated with impressive people. They were probably frequently good public speakers too, a costly signal.
The main problem with theological ideas isn’t that they aren’t interesting, but that they aren’t true. But art doesn’t have truth-values; interestingness is all there is.
Someone posted a list of questions for Brian Ferneyhough (and other contemporary composers) on the talk page of his Wikipedia article, and Ferneyhough actually responded. For some reason I think you might find it interesting; I suppose it may have to do with the fact that the writing style in some of his answers reminded me of your own.
Andy Warhol’s art was an example of the simplicity on the far side of complexity. Picasso was extremely skilled in representational art before he started doing his cool stuff. Schoenberg did more conventionally listenable music before he went all twelve-tone.
As I note, if it presses people’s buttons in a given cultural context then it works. That’s the bottom line.
I’m not saying he wouldn’t appreciate the Beatles for what they are—a fabulous popular group. But the idea that he would consider their songs a more worthy successor to the Eroica symphony than the work of Boulez and Babbitt is pretty ridiculous.
I took Vassar’s comment to indicate skepticism as to the value of contemporary academic composers rather than adulation of the Beatles.
To contextualize where he might be coming from:
I personally have a strong appreciation of music and have gotten very little out of most of the contemporary classical pieces that I’ve heard, e.g. at symphony performances. I know several people who have a strong love of music and who have had the same experience. As such, in absence of further data, it seems to me quite reasonable to have a prior against the notion that a given contemporary composer’s work is of aesthetic value to the typical person interested in music. Of course the issue may be a musical analog of inferential distance, but a priori that could be an issue in principle be for any unfamiliar music of sufficiently high Kolmogorov complexity independently of its aesthetic value to humans.
It’s unfair to make a confident judgment against such music without making a solid effort to attempt to bridge the hypothetical inferential distance, but I think that Michael Vassar’s statement that there’s serious room for a lay-person (who has not had the time to go through such a process) to doubt the value of such music.
The situation would be different if there was a very uniform consensus among classical music lovers that the contemporary material is best. As things stand; a whole number of explanations for divergent views as to the value of contemporary music could apply: it could be that the people who don’t appreciate it are unsophisticated and/or haven’t gone through the work that they would need to in order to appreciate it; it could be that the contemporary academic music world is engaged in a runaway signaling game which is unrelated to aesthetic value; it could be that the phenomenon is explained by neurodiversity; it could be some combination of all three.
Standard heuristics apply. Check whether the most highly regarded people in a field seem to have impressive general intellects. Check whether they can send other costly signals that are intelligible to outsiders. (I’m pretty sure Milton Babbitt can write damn good fugues; Peter Westergaard has written the best book on “tonal” (17th-19th century) theory I know of.) Check whether any people you already regard as impressive are willing to associate with these folks. Etc.
Whatever you think the ultimate value of advanced music is, tests like these should at least be able to convince you that it isn’t a hoax.
I think that as a lay-person there is serious room for doubt regarding whether what modern academic composers are doing is as competent, judged as an attempt to create the most interesting/advanced/sophisiticated music possible, as what the Beatles were doing. It would be nice to know what Beethoven would have thought.
I agree. Of course interesting/advanced/sophisticated is ill-defined and perhaps irreducibly subjective.
At least in math we can see that Wiles was doing roughly the same thing Fermat was doing
For a sufficiently broad notion of “roughly” :-).
I think that it’s fair to say that Fermat’s work represents more originality (picking up on a thousand year old theme and pushing it considerably further than it previously had been in contrast with Wiles who was in some sense working within a well-defined context) whereas Wiles’ work represents a higher standard of technical virtuosity (Fermat never wrote hundred-page-long dense technical manuscripts relying on thousands of pages of background material). To what extent they would be able to interchange roles had they lived in different time periods is difficult to judge.
I guess that one indicative question regarding math would be “How well recognized was Wiles by his professional peers before his famous proof?”.
Wiles was very highly regarded before his proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. His earlier papers were few but of very high quality. He was best known for his proof of the first infinite family of cases of the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture (with his advisor John Coates) and his proof of the main conjecture of Iwasawa theory with Barry Mazur.
It’s possible to easily indicate how the former achievement ties in with classical mathematics (c.f. the first chapter and page 92 of Neal Koblitz’s Introduction to Elliptic Curves and Modular Forms.
The latter achievement is less immediately intelligible but the methods are supposed to be close to those that Ribet used to prove his portion of the Herbrand-Ribet theorem which is a natural sharpening of the criterion which Kummer used in the mid-1800′s to prove many cases of Fermat’s Last Theorem.
(Note: Wiles’ eventual proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem was along completely different conceptual lines from Kummer’s work although some of the machinery that Kummer developed is relevant.)
Of course interesting/advanced/sophisticated is ill-defined and perhaps irreducibly subjective.
It’s so convenient to be able to say that, isn’t it? A great way to save oneself the trouble of having to enter a detailed technical discussion. I think it’s a good idea to beware of such get-out-of-jail-free cards.
Yes, given anything you choose, there exists a possible mind in mind-design space that regards that thing as “interesting”. However, unless you think it’s a genuinely open question whether “Mary Had A Little Lamb” is as interesting as the Eroica, I feel that such assertions are ultimately disingenuous.
It’s so convenient to be able to say that, isn’t it? A great way to save oneself the trouble of having to enter a detailed technical discussion.
I’d like to have a more detailed discussion; my disinclination to do so up until now is a matter of short-term time constraints more than anything else.
However, unless you think it’s a genuinely open question whether “Mary Had A Little Lamb” is as interesting as the Eroica, I feel that such assertions are ultimately disingenuous.
I’m not a total aesthetic subjectivist when it comes to human music appreciation.
I do think that there are some genuinely differing aesthetic preferences between humans on account of differing genetic and environmental factors. For a simple example; I’m highly noise sensitive and this bars me from appreciating very loud music independently of how aesthetically valuable somebody who is not noise-sensitive might find it.
The question in my mind is not so much whether “Mary Had A Little Lamb” is as interesting as the Eroica as much as whether (for example) Philip Glass is as interesting as a famous academic contemporary composer. I find it quite possible that different people might have different views on this last point on account of having differing neurotypes.
I’d like to have a more detailed discussion; my disinclination to do so up until now is a matter of short-term time constraints more than anything else.
Right, but that’s the kind of thing that would enable one to evade a technical discussion (i.e. a semantic stopsign), and hence is an intellectual warning sign. (I don’t necessarily think evasion is your actual intent, of course).
I’m highly noise sensitive and this bars me from appreciating very loud music independently of how aesthetically valuable somebody who is not noise-sensitive might find it.
For the most part, at least in my opinion, the relevant musical variable is not absolute loudness measured in decibels, but relative loudness in the context of a piece. (Of course, the more degrees of loudness are used, the wider the range has to be in absolute terms.)
For example, it should be clear by now that I don’t agree that “the cultural descendant of Beethoven is The Beatles”, and it should be equally clear why: in addition to the fact that the actual memetic lineage from Beethoven to the Beatles is much less direct than from Beethoven to contemporary art-composers (a point I didn’t actually mention explicitly), Beethoven’s intention—his profession, his métier—was to write the most interesting/advanced/sophisticated music he could. (Beyond the blatant evidence of the music itself, as compared with his (more “popular”!) contemporaries, this is a matter of historical record, as revealed in his letters.) In this crucial respect, he resembles contemporary academic composers much more than the Beatles (who, as popular musicians, have few rivals, of course).
I wonder if pre-WWII jazz musicians are closer in spirit to this, in terms of both “writing the most interesting/advanced/sophisticated music [they] could” and “advancing the field of music”?
I wonder if pre-WWII jazz musicians are closer in spirit to this, in terms of both “writing the most interesting/advanced/sophisticated music [they] could” and “advancing the field of music”?
Quite possibly. I don’t even see any need to restrict to pre-WWII. My impression is that, among the various styles of popular music, jazz has tended to come closest to manifesting this ideal in general.
Huh? You go on telling us how skilled you are at appreciating music with lines about inferential distance etc and then you put Brahms at Beethoven’s and Bach’s level?
I’m totally convinced that visual artists became less accessible with time as their ‘inferential distance’ increased, and ditto authors, but in both cases its commonplace for the good moderns to demonstrate their ability to do work of the sort that older artists did.
In contemporary symphonic music, John Williams and Phillip Glass dominate the field and far more people still listen to the older composers. If you and your academic friends are much better, why don’t any of you prove it by out-competing them? It would obviously be lucrative to do so if you could be as popular as they once were. I’d really like to listen to some modern operas with the musical quality of older operas but better plotting and characterization. I can’t be alone in that respect.
It’s remarkable that classical music is the only field where people have to be tempted to listen to new work by having old music in the program.
It’s as though publishers couldn’t get an audience for Rowling unless a few chapters of Dickens were thrown in.
I’m not sure it’s possible to improve operas with better plotting and characterization. If I understand the purpose of opera, it’s to have rapidly changing highly intense emotions, and this may be inconsistent with more realism than is already typical.
No; the whole point was that I was “modding out” by levels of “greatness” that I didn’t perceive as relevant to the fundamental intent of your question. In other words, I was ignoring the difference between Bach and Brahms. Just as most people who take your point of view do—they express skepticism that there is anybody at the level of Brahms around today.
Musicians do this too! It’s a standard part of one’s training as a composer to learn to write imitations of older styles, such as Baroque fugues, Classical minuets, etc, etc.
And, given the situation in other arts, which you acknowledge, why would you expect otherwise in music? What would account for the difference?
I don’t say that “we” are better than they are at what they do, and I don’t claim that what they do is necessarily easy. But what they do isn’t the same thing as what we do. They’re optimizing for different criteria.
They don’t “dominate the field”. They’ve achieved high cultural status while doing something that looks sort-of similar to “the field”.
In the old days (i.e. the 19th century), there wasn’t as much difference; you could get lots more status by doing what we do, because at that time you could effectively do both things simultaneously. That just isn’t possible nowadays; while e.g. Brahms could write the most advanced music of the day (and yes, it was; see Schoenberg’s essay “Brahms the Progressive”), and also achieve high status in contemporary culture, if you try to do the former today, you won’t do the latter, and vice-versa.
This is exactly what you would expect if you understand the notion of inferential distance. Frankly, I have hardly ever come across serious arguments for the contrary position, i.e. a detailed theory explaining why no modern composers are “as good” as Brahms. (*) Most people claiming this simply take it for granted that popular reknown is the optimization target.
(*) A huge exception would be e.g. the work of Heinrich Schenker—an extreme anti-populist whose disdain for Williams and Glass would have easily rivaled his contempt for Schoenberg and Stravinsky.
Is it your contention that modern musicians write Clasical minuets and Baroque fugues which are in some cases better than the best of the older works that are still listened to, but that no-one cares because much of the value of those works is in their role in a canon?
I could easily believe that in those cases, but I simply don’t believe it in the case of Opera. The Opera cannon is just not very large. Some people have heard the whole thing and only like a few dozen operas. It doesn’t seem likely that there isn’t demand among such people for higher quality new material in old styles, so if no new material is becoming popular then the un-met demand makes me think that contemporary music students are failing to produce work that this audience actually values due to now knowing how to replicate the merits of older compositions.
It should really be pretty easy to do a controlled experiment with a naive population to see how common it is for modern artists to be able to impress an audience as much as their 18th and 19th century precursors did.
I’m seriously interested in someone performing some experiments on this subject. It seems to me that it would provide an extremely practically important measurement of the quality of university education in fields inaccessible to outsiders, but I don’t expect to be able to attract funding for such research because it sounds impractical at the face of it.
I guess that my major reason for holding the contrary position was largely because modern musicians and composers, more than painters and authors, are the results of university education and I fairly strongly suspect university education of destorying artistic ability and distracting artists with intellectual games that simply lack the merits of the fields that the academic subjects are derived from. I suspect this in math as much as in music, and I think Von Neumann agreed with me, as this quote suggests.
“As a mathematical discipline travels far from its empirical source, or still more, if it is a second or third generation only indirectly inspired by ideas coming from ‘reality’, it is beset with very grave dangers. It becomes more and more purely aestheticizing, more and more purely l’art pour l’art. This need not be bad, if the field is surrounded by correlated subjects, which still have closer empirical connections, or if the discipline is under the influence of men with an exceptionally well-developed taste. But there is a grave danger that the subject will develop along the line of least resistance, that the stream, so far from its source, will separate into a multitude of insignificant branches, and that the discipline will become a disorganized mass of details and complexities. In other words, at a great distance from its empirical source, or after much ‘abstract’ inbreeding, a mathematical subject is in danger of degeneration.”
I myself would guess that none of the works produced over the past hundred years would be judged by the majority of an impartial audience to be significantly more compelling than (for example) Bach’s Chaconne.
Same here.
I’m impressed that you’re familiar with the Von Neumann quote (which is sadly little known in the mathematical community but which my friend Laurens is fond of); but on the face of things it doesn’t seem to directly support your paragraph above. Explain further if you’d like?
Several points here:
My impression is that there are issues of bad social/cultural institutions destroying artistic ability outside of academia. I have some friends artistically genuine who have spent some time as painters and become disillusioned with the signaling games and hypocrisy present within the communities of painters that they’ve come across. Note that fledging painters and authors face greater financial pressures than academics and that this can lead to perverse incentives (to appeal to the lowest common denominator or to current fashions for greater marketability). See Minhyong Kim’s comment here.
The absence of new empirical sources for mathematics seems to me more a consequence of the stagnation of theoretical physics than the social structure of the mathematical community.
In my own view insufficient emphasis on exposition has played a significant role in whatever stagnation has occurred within the mathematical community since, e.g. the 1800′s. The barrier to entry has gotten progressively higher as mathematics has developed and in such a setting, in absence of strong efforts to to cast background material in an accessible and readily digestible form, the pressures toward specialization and fragmentation get progressively stronger. There aren’t career-based incentives for expository work so mathematicians who are interested in exposition either conform to the research-based publish or perish norms or leave.
I’d be happy to compile an annotated list of relatively accessible survey papers if you’d be interested and find it useful for getting a sense for the state of some of contemporary mathematical research.
From my perspective in applied math things are exactly opposite. We’re practically drowning in empirical sources begging for better numerics. There is hardly a scientific or engineering field today that couldn’t be revolutionized by a breakthrough in a relevant area currently under study in the applied math community. The problem isn’t lack of necessity, inspiration, or motivation, the problem is the problems are damn hard, and I’m far from convinced that we attract the best minds.
Even with very clear, objective goals, progress can still be painfully slow!
I very much agree. Incentives are out of line for most areas of science, but I think the fallout from this is especially poignant for math. I view part of our discipline’s responsibility as curating the common mathematical knowledge used by all other disciplines.
Like mathematicians, musicians who only write for experts are unmoored from empirical feedback and are thus dependent on unusually good taste if they are to do something valuable. It’s not fair to expect people who can’t evaluate their work to conclude that they have such good taste even if they are acknowledge to be very smart.
Fledging painters can paint for both the lowest common denominator AND for themselves if they want to. Academics can’t do popular work without that counting against them with other academics.
There’s lots of need for math in complexity theory and other domains. Quantum computing for instance. Really all over the place. Crypto is very popular. Probably lots of engineering examples.
I’d be happy if someone else we both know who shares this concern would review that list.
I agree. I guess the reason why I took pause is because Von Neumann’s quote does not immediately suggest that he concurs with
his quotation more just obliquely raises the possibility that you suggest.
It’s not clear to me that this is true. Doesn’t it depend on what the lowest common denominator is? Van Gogh painted for himself and is reported to have been unable to support himself by selling his paintings. Are you suggesting that things have changed since his time? If so, how and under what evidence?
My observation has been that this is mostly true.
(1) It should be noted that Von Neumann was in large measure an applied mathematician and so it’s natural to expect him of being biased in favor of applied topics.
(2) There is widespread agreement among most sophisticated contemporary mathematicians as to the high aesthetic value of some of the pure mathematical achievements over the past few decades. I agree that it’s difficult for an outsider to quickly ascertain that there’s something substantive going on here but I give you my word for whatever it’s worth :-).
(3) I’ve had a less pronounced positive aesthetic response to most applied math topics than to some of my favorite pure mathematical topics. I’ve found that applied topics are more ad hoc and lacking in internal coherence and a large part of what I find compelling about pure math is the high degree of internal coherence.
As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, the danger of generalizing from one example here is very serious and I do not question to sincerity of those who are passionate about applied topics (or pure topics like graph theory and elementary analytic number theory which I personally find disappointingly ad hoc and lacking in internal coherence but which some people eagerly devote their lives to).
(4) My own interest in applied math topics comes more from the applications than from the math involved.
(5) I would differentiate between “early” applied math (e.g. of the type that Newton and Maxwell did) which was closer to pure math (on account of the fact that so little of either was developed and the fact that it was necessary to develop pure math further in order to get to the point of being able to do something useful) and modern applied math; the former is not necessarily representative of the latter.
(6) Some theoretical and mathematical physicists draw a sharp distinction between physics and applied math. I don’t have subject matter knowledge here; but have the rough impression that theoretical physics has more internal coherence than most applied mathematical topics. This is why I referenced theoretical physics in particular as a source of inspiration that seems to have dried up on account of lack of empirical feedback.
(7) The utilitarian value of the pure mathematical achievements alluded to above is questionable in light of the fact that (a) very few people are able to appreciate them and (b) they don’t have foreseeable technological applications in the near future. The second point has heightened significance in light of the fact that it seems very possible that an intelligence explosion is not far off.
I’m interested in popularizing some of the pure mathematical achievements that are regarded among elite pure mathematicians as being of great aesthetic value. Aside from the immediate enjoyment attached to enriching people’s lives; my interest in doing this is with a view toward giving people opportunities to develop heightened aesthetic sense and spreading humanistic values, in particular making a case that there are things in the world beautiful enough so that it’s worth working toward the long-term survival of the human race. I feel like I’ve seen a “promised land” of the sorts of intellectual experiences that lie beyond the boundaries of current human mind space.
Sure, I would too. I’ll probably get around to it sometime over the next few weeks.
Thanks for the very thoughtful and clear post.
My one caveat with your claims here is that Van Gogh was severely insane, which probably impaired his ability to support himself quite a bit.
Also, how likely does it seem to you that applied math lacks pure math’s aesthetic value because its done by less aesthetically sensitive people (positive feedback loop) rather than because it couldn’t be like classical applied/pure math?
This is a fair point. I would guess / vaguely remember that there are plenty of examples of psychologically sound great painters who had trouble making a living but don’t have a list off hand. Laurens suggested Cezanne as an example but I have not independently verified that he qualifies. I don’t know very much about visual arts.
Note that in general there’s a selection effect where artists/scientists who have dim prospects for making a living doing what they do are disproportionately likely to leave relative to other artists/scientists of their quality. It’s hard to know how significant this selection effect is in a given domain.
There’s almost certainly some effect of this type; I’m uncertain as to how large the effect. Two relevant points:
To the extent that applied math involves features specific to how humans interact with the world (i.e. taking into account contingent constraints specific to human needs) arbitrariness creeps in on account of the fact that humans were generated by a random process.
There seem to be arbitrage opportunities for mathematical expertise to bring clarity to areas that were previously somewhat obscure. For example, SarahC has suggested that principle component analysis might be utilized to better understand what’s referred to as autism (a fact that I haven’t previously seen discussed explicitly). The existence of such apparent arbitrage opportunities suggests that there may be quite fertile unexplored ground within applied math.
I have always been intrigued by Kenneth Rexroth’s take.
Thanks for the link. That was a delightful essay.
Sweet! Do you know of any existing works that attempt this (perhaps at a higher level of sophistication)? Also, what are the mathematical achievements you would focus on?
One good compilation of “pure mathematical achievements that are regarded among elite pure mathematicians as being of great aesthetic value” is Proofs from THE BOOK.
Is the Joshua Bell experiment the kind of thing you had in mind? If so, it pretty conclusively confirms your suspicions.
Fame feeds on fame, status on status. Which is why it’s all the more important to constantly check that a field hasn’t lost its moorings.
Not really, because Joshua Bell was playing mostly (maybe even exclusively) old music in that experiment, if I recall correctly.
Vassar’s suspicion was that people nowadays don’t know how to write in old styles well enough to be indistinguishable from old composers.
Edit: but just to go along with it for a minute, do you really think Bell’s status is the result of a random process? Maybe with respect to other “great” violinists, yes, but certainly not with respect to the average person, or even the average professional violinist.
Right, it proves the (arguably) stronger result that even the old music, with its canon status, can’t appeal to the uninitiated. Impressing the indoctrinated is not impressive. The hard part is to impress the unindoctrinated.
Of course not, just as I can’t make my friends laugh by generating random utterances. But that doesn’t mean that the average person is somehow deficient for not laughing at our inside jokes—or that I can go on denying that it’s an inside joke.
Here, the analogous situation would be an “average person” denying the joke was funny because they weren’t in on it, despite the fact that they saw a bunch of people laughing hysterically at it.
(...a bunch of people who were willing to welcome them into their group if they caught up on the group’s history, so they would be able to get the jokes!)
But people don’t claim that their inside jokes are the highest form of culture and that others are somehow deficient for not wanting to join in on it.
I understand that if you invest some effort E into appreciating something, you’ll appreciate it. The fact that I appreciate it for some (potentially huge) E does not somehow justify the effort—you can say that about anything.
The appropriate comparison would be “what ways of amusing myself for that level of personal investment are the best”? And given these opportunity cost considerations, it’s quite understandable why the utter indifference of the public is a strike against the field.
No, not really. In the concert hall, you would have no problems distinguishing Bell from a random violinist: he’s actually much better. The Joshua Bell experiment was an experiment in seeing how someone who was unambiguously a top-class artist held up with inferential distance deliberately hugely increased—not a test of “is status in music a lie?” but “how arrogant is a top-class artist taken out of their depth?” And, y’know, Bell did pretty well and came across as a perfectly reasonable fellow.
That doesn’t matter if there are so many more appealing cultural venues than concert hall.
No, he made less than the typical busker and really only attracted those who were trained to identify the signals.
I don’t dispute that the music is good, for some people. I just think it’s ridiculous how much more money it commands for the wrong reasons. His skill isn’t so much better than the mere 95% percentile to justify that—that’s why they have to rely on so much more than musical skill to market him to royalty.
I don’t see what difference that makes. But yes, he surprisingly did recognize how much his self-worth collapses when he’s not pre-validated (i.e. performing for people who haven’t paid lots of money for it).
I meant “did pretty well” in terms of not reacting with arrogance, that being what was actually being tested. The trope in play (what made it a story that you remember) was Fish Out Of Water.
(The way to make money as a busker is to, whatever your instrument, play the Beatles. Over and over. And over and over. And over and over. And over and over.)
I’m actually quite willing to believe that Silas remembered it because (he thought) it proved his theory.
For my part, I viewed it as a test of how well the average person can detect subtly presented costly signals when under distraction. (Answer: not very well.)
The detail I remembered most was how children would stop with interest, only to be dragged away by their hurried parents.
Point. I suppose I mean “why they bothered to run the story.” They weren’t running it to expose Bell as a charlatan, they ran it as Fish Out Of Water.
Yeah :-D
Unfortunately, the distractibility of the people with the money is why busking for money involves Beatles. Lots of Beatles. More Beatles.
Not really. I remember it because it’s fun watching people try to explain it away—I get a new answer every time for why the highest cultural achievements get utterly ignored, at that must be a problem on the beholder’s side.
Is that the standard you really want to go by? What children like?
But what’s the water then? And why is the fish’s greatness so brittle that you have to define the water so narrowly?
Er, I’m not. The water is the world where people know the sort of music he plays and can form communicable opinions on how well he does it.
Are you really claiming they wrote that story to demonstrate Bell was a fraud, rather than as a fish out of water story?
Okay, and the water for theologians is the community of theologians. Does that mean they’re accomplishing something truly great, or that they’re a clique?
I have just corrected the systematic downvoting of Silas. His general point seems important.
As it happens, I was also the victim of systematic drive-by downvoting in the last few minutes.
I don’t know what the relationship between these two facts is.
(Edit: I didn’t participate in the downvoting of Silas, I don’t think.)
I have a long-standing policy of not voting in discussions in which I am strongly opinionated and participating in, which applies here.
As was I. Go rationality!
Though to be fair, arguing over aesthetics on this level is like arguing over which variety of heroin is best to be addicted to. Battles to the death for insanely low stakes. Having us all taken out and shot is not an unreasonable passing fancy.
That’s an impressively sane analogy to keep in mind. Thanks.
Your analogy would only be valid if theology was the study of an aesthetic matter. (I might think it was better approached as one, but I doubt we’ll find many theologians to agree.)
*redefines theology as the study of aesthetic matter*
You don’t get away that easily. If your entire argument rests on, “I’ve chosen to apply this symbol, this way” then I think we’re done here.
Well, not really. You’re asserting music that you have a greater than negligible inferential distance to is a fraudulent field, and you’re comparing it to a field you already consider fraudulent.
As such: the difference is that music is about aesthetics, not about the qualities of claimed supernatural beings. And in art, there is such a thing as inferential distance. Long post on the subject here. A given piece of art is created in a time, place and culture, to press the buttons in people’s heads, preferably starting with those of the artist. You will appreciate it more if you learn more about the time, place and culture, right down to the inside of the artist’s head as far as that can be ascertained, thus getting closer to the place in inference space of its birth.
Theology doesn’t, as far as I know, make the existence of God more believable if you know more of it; however, it is possible to learn about the cultural reference point for a piece of art and appreciate more what the artist was doing.
Depending on who you’re considering to be doing the caring and not-caring, this may very well be an apt description of the situation. But the main point I would make is that these are student exercises. Writing works in older styles is a skill that one learns in school; it’s very much like how math students are asked to re-prove theorems of Euler or Cauchy. You may be seen as a genius if you rediscover the proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra, but nobody’s going to give you the same kind of credit they give Gauss. Likewise writing a really great fugue in your counterpoint class isn’t going to make you Bach. Part of the reason is that Bach already did this stuff (so you’re not in the “canon”), but also when Bach was doing it it was at the frontier of musical thought, which it isn’t today, as evidenced by the fact that it is taught to undergraduates. Whereas Bach’s challenge was to be as inventive as possible, today’s students have to be as inventive as possible while still sounding like eighteenth-century music, which is a challenge of a different kind, and will tend to produce different musical results.
First of all, the total number of operas written since the form was invented (something like 40,000, if I recall correctly) is much larger than any single human could plausibly have heard. You must be talking about the active repertory of famous opera houses, which is indeed probably something like a few dozen. However, there are good reasons apart from artistic merit to expect that the number of operas in regular production would be small: namely, staging an opera is typically a very costly and laborious undertaking. (So is composing one, by the way, which is why doing so is not a typical student exercise the same way writing a fugue is.) This will push toward conservatism in repertory selection, with companies sticking to the pieces they already know “work”. There are all kinds of obscure operas by great composers (such as Handel) that have only recently begun to see the light of day for this reason, and being by such composers, their artistic quality is quite high. If folks want more old operas, there’s plenty of digging to be done (and it’s being done).
It would be very hard to find a truly naive audience with enough musical ability to make the results of interest. Best you could do would probably be musically gifted children who had been deliberately kept uneducated in music history. (Then you’d have to ask what the appropriate age is, etc.)
That said, if it could be done, I’d be all in favor of doing it. My prediction would be that there wouldn’t be much of a difference between the perceived “impressiveness” of actual Baroque fugues and the best imitations of Baroque fugues from today.
Let me be clear: this absolutely does go on, no question. But it probably goes on in all fields that have university departments—including (as you note), math, and yes, the empirical sciences. And my suspicion is that while it may give mediocre practitioners of a field the illusion that they’re doing better and more important work than they are, it doesn’t actually stop the best folks from doing genuinely high quality work. (At least not all of them.)
However, if that’s your theory, what then do you think of European “modernist” composers, who are similarly “inaccessible” but have less association with universities?
But what the Beatles were doing was more like being as inventive as possible while still being fun to listen to for untrained people, a constraint that Bach shared.
I just don’t know enough about modernist composers to say, but I would give them more benefit of the doubt. It’s also noteworthy though that I know non-professionals who claim to enjoy them, which seems like very good Bayesian evidence that they are doing something significant.
I don’t think that your response on the opera question is really a satisfying rebuttal to my point.
Only as a result of the historically contingent fact that Bach’s wildest musical ideas happened to still be comprehensible to untrained people, because the inferential gulf wasn’t yet very large.
(Seriously, it’s not as if Bach secretly invented and wished he could write Schoenberg-style music, but reluctantly restrained himself because of his social obligations. What Bach produced—at least some of his output—was literally the most inventive music he could think of; and sometimes he was indeed criticized for going beyond the “norms” of the day.)
Yes. Though this is a point which unfortunately tends to get lost, there are indeed non-professionals who enjoy contemporary art music, and there are in fact “ways into” the music for them; things they can learn to enhance their enjoyment, even if they don’t quite reach the full level of appreciation that a professional might. And there are actually some folks who are musically gifted enough that they just “get it” right away, even though they don’t happen to be musicians.
I don’t know whether this will help either, but I did want to make the point that the most gifted composers tend not to want to spend their time writing in old styles, for the same reason that the most gifted mathematicians tend not to want to spend their time rediscovering old theorems. This is a better explanation for why we don’t see large quantities of Bach-quality Baroque-style music being churned out today than “lost knowledge” or historical genetic anomaly. (And why didn’t we see more of composers literally imitating Baroque music during the Classical and Romantic eras?)
A slightly different point, but when I brought up the possibility of current composers writing in the old styles and thus creating attractive music, several people told me that it’s simply too hard to write music in an old style.
There seemed to be a strong consensus there, but perhaps the problem is that they were applying too high a standard of authenticity. I’d be content with music which supplied many of the pleasures of baroque or classical—it doesn’t have to pass for period music to a well-informed listener.
I have a notion that you can tell which sf artists have been to art school. The composition, anatomy, and perspective are all excellent, but there’s no sense of motion.
When I say it’s a notion, I mean that I haven’t checked it in any way, it just seems like a plausible way of explaining paintings with those characteristics.
So far as mathematics is concerned, aren’t there two streams—empirical and for the pleasure of the mathematicians? Neither of these are the same as working on whatever math is publishable, though.
As an example, I’m more familiar with the work of Jeremy Soule than I am with the work of Stravinsky. That’s not at all a statement about their relative quality as composers, just a statement that one of them makes soundtracks for video games. And while they’re very nice, I can’t help but imagine that a lot of my affection for his pieces comes from the emotional attachment to the games they were in.
But I’ve also got to point out that in aesthetic fields, when you get to the point where inferential distance makes laymen unable to appreciate what you’re doing, you’ve gone from creation to masturbation.
I go to art museums from time to time and am struck by the difference in captions as you move from medieval art to contemporary art: the captions for the medieval art tell you who everyone in the picture is (because you’re unlikely to recognize St. Augustine by looking at him or his symbols), but the art speaks for itself. The captions for the contemporary art have to tell you not just the symbolism but also the subject. Many of them were essentially performance art, which disgusted me pretty deeply. That may actually be a better way to put it- if your work is best understood as performance art, you should change fields.
I went to a few lectures on mathematical music theory once. I’ve forgotten most of it, but I recall learning that most of the music I can enjoy (pre-1900 Western classical, 20th century pop and rock) is, structurally, confined to a very special case among all the possible scales that a music system could be built on. Someone like Schoenberg is to all the other music I listen to, as Mars is to all the different continents of the earth.
(Aside: remember the scene in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” where the aliens communicate in music? I saw it again recently, and it cracked me up, because it was obviously trying to sound “alien” but it really wasn’t. It sounded like the tricky part of a Leonard Bernstein piece. There’s much more “alien” music right here on this planet!)
So I think Beethoven really might have been more accessible to the listeners of his day than contemporary classical music is to us. Beethoven, at least, wrote his symphonies in the same key as an ordinary folk ditty. (Sometimes he even kept the ditty!)
I’m not sure how possible it is to adapt one’s ear so that a totally new scale sounds pleasant. I can’t listen to much classical music past Stravinsky and get any pleasure out of it. But then again, I first listened to Indian classical music in adolescence, and that has a completely different structure than Western music, and it sounded good to me instantly, no inferential distance at all.
In the early 1990s I spent rather a lot of time listening avidly to the sort of thing advertised in the small ads in the back of The Wire: where the far end of post-hardcore-punk rock music, the far end of jazz and the far end of twentieth-century classical (Schoenberg is the barest start of the good stuff) converged. Most people would call this hideous racket, and I must admit that, despite all the thought that went into it, this was an aspect I would have called a feature. Disappointment was going to a concert of modern stuff and hearing something that sounded like a film soundtrack or a soundscape rather than an assault on the senses.
This is something of what I mean when I distinguish “good” or “worthwhile” from “of no cultural impact”—the latter speaks of listenership and influence on other artists. This is difficult to quantify, but (to use the example of friends doing music degrees) an academic composer who puts their stuff on the net and blogs and tweets about it and hangs out on 4chan /mu/ will have more impact than an academic composer who has nothing available. That’s the point at which the bug of art impacts the windscreen of arts industry.
I am also deeply sceptical of the notion that art progresses in the manner of technology or science. It’s made of memes and lines of influence can certainly be traced (you can even usefully do cladistics on them) and some stuff comes after other stuff. There’s simple stuff, there’s complex stuff, there’s the simplicity on the far side of complexity (you could pick up a guitar and write a punk rock song, but you are unlikely to sling those three chords as effectively as the Sex Pistols did). But we don’t study Shakespeare or Chaucer because they’re just the precursor to the amazingly advanced stuff we do now (in the manner of Newton being first-year stuff) - we study it because it’s good in itself. No-one listens to Beethoven or Bach as a precursor to current brilliance, they listen to it because it’s good in itself. Canons are, in practice, constructed retrospectively from tastes at the time; the historiography (the history of the history) of art is itself a fruitful field of study in attempting to work out what’s going on. Everyone from Shakespeare down is just trying to write a good one this time out.
(komponisto will, I suspect, consider me a barbarian at the gates at this point.)
Edit to add: Art doesn’t progress as such because the point of art is to have an effect—on the artist and/or the listener. The aim is to press the audience’s buttons. (There is a commonplace of art pontification that states that only if the artist is the test subject can the art be of true quality.) Beethoven listed what pressed his personal buttons, komponisto finds that a good and useful description of what presses his buttons. But I would be very surprised if komponisto did not test his own compositions by listening and seeing if they pressed his buttons, rather than just checklisting an algorithm. Obviously it is possible for science to actually advance this process—there is science fiction concerning scanning brains to make superstimuli so powerful as to be fatally addictive—but the human brain seems to do remarkably well at this already, massively iteratively testing possible artistic elements to see what seems to stick.
tl;dr: the constant is pushing the buttons of yourself and/or the audience in a given time, place and culture. All else is ways to get to that.
Bonus: The most horrible music I know of is my precious collection of Whitehouse. Early industrial band, amazingly still extant. Hideous screaming music that in itself seems to offend as much as the lyrics. It’s what you play back at the neighbours when they’ve played that Robbie Williams song for the fiftieth time in a row. CDs available here.
For some reason, I thought of this, which I shouldn’t have liked but did anyway.
Yoko Ono gets such a bad rap. As Lester Bangs notes in the linked piece, she had quite the excellent line in really good horrible noise.
Once you get the idea that horrible noise music is supposed to sound like that, you can start sorting out what works for you and what doesn’t and when and why.
(Current kick: There’s a lot of ’80s and ’90s industrial-towards-neofolk bands who did limited-edition albums in runs of a few hundred. These became legendary due to rarity. Now we have the Internet and approximately all recorded music is readily available free, and it becomes clear why the runs were only a few hundred. I play them and they brighten my day and the teenagers, taking a break from their bad heavy metal with inept sub-Metallica solos and floppy fringes, look at me like I shat in their ears personally. Fair warms the heart. Of course, horses for courses. I am not actually recommending anyone else actually bother doing this.)
This view is mistaken. It’s not, mind you, your mistake, but that of the music theory community, which has egregiously, utterly, and persistently failed to carve musical reality at its joints. In point of fact, Schoenberg uses the same set of pitches that the composers you like do—the ones you find on a piano keyboard. And contrary to implicit music-theoretical tradition, you don’t have to pretend that those 12 pitches in the octave aren’t the same notes you’re used to, either.
In simple terms, the difference between Schoenberg and the music you like, and the reason people have trouble with the former, isn’t that Schoenberg isn’t in any key, but rather that Schoenberg changes keys so quickly and constantly that your ear has trouble keeping up and feels “confused”. A note may literally be “in a different key” from the previous note. There is much less redundancy to reinforce the “meaning” (i.e. position within a diatonic scale) of a note; you have to “catch” it immediately.
You can see how this state of affairs would have been the product of gradual evolution, something analogous to an inferential chain—with more information content being packed into music with each generation of composers.
The point is, it’s a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.
What music I have heard in carnatic scales I have enjoyed, which I imagine is what you’re talking about.
But comments about “these are a few special cases in all of design space!” suggest to me that that’s where the quality is, not that there are vast realms of good stuff just over the horizon, and we just haven’t looked there yet. If you buy into the idea that music is a superstimulus of vocal tone, it makes perfect sense that there would only be a few ways to make music appealing to humans though there are many possible ways to make music.
My impression is that music in general has become less oriented towards melody.
Some of what I enjoy is weirder than anything I would have expected to like. I heard Sun Ra Arkestra, and enjoyed most of it. I think the trick is to get emotionally involved with changes of timbre.
That’s a little much—there’s plenty of art which appeals to specialist audiences (hard science fiction, for example—most people aren’t going to have much fun with Diaspora), but which is still a meaningful effort by the artist.
Some video games, too, seem to be aimed at very narrow audiences, and yet are quite impressive if you happen to be part of that audience. For example, the infamously difficult I Wanna Be The Guy is quite clever, but it definitely takes a certain kind of background and mindset to actually enjoy playing it. And there are many people who don’t appreciate even extremely popular video games; for example, my mom will never experience what makes people enjoy Halo.
What you’ve done is go from creating art for a lay audience to creating art for a specialized audience.
I agree that the extreme form of this is creating art for the enjoyment of nobody but you (aka masturbation), but there are interim stages along the way that are meaningfully distinct.
On the other hand, I saw Artist’s shit at the Tate Modern and literally spent five minutes laughing. IT IS PERFECT AND BRILLIANT. If you want the simplicity on the far side of complexity, that’s it. (… in a can.)
That’s an unnecessarily loaded, rhetorical way to state your point of view. So if you don’t meet a certain “laymen appreciation” quota, then you’re literally not creating anymore? That’s silly, of course.
And of course I hardly need mention the negative connotations of “masturbation”.
But the point is substantively wrong, also—or, at any rate, you’re assuming the conclusion you need to prove: that the value of art depends only on the ability of laymen (large numbers of them, presumably, since I doubt it would suffice for me to exhibit particular examples) to directly appreciate it.
My fifth-grade classmates used to make a similar argument with respect to Beethoven: since I was the only one in the class who liked his work, he was clearly a failure as a composer.
Likewise, I suspect you (and others who say things like this) are probably just insufficiently aware of the community of people who appreciate contemporary art music. It’s unfortunate that there’s currently so little intersection between that community and this one; but that community exists nonetheless.
I do listen to contemporary music. Or is that not what you had in mind? :P
I apologize if that was too crude for you, but it seems to me an apt description (both of the situation and why outsiders feel the way they feel about it). For it to be sex it needs to include other people.
Of course I would never make a statement so sweeping. Masturbation is hardly valueless; it just serves a rather different function than sex, which seems to me to be a cruder restatement of your earlier point. But the implication of such a view is that the cultural descendant of Beethoven is The Beatles, and the cultural ancestor of little-known academic composers are the writers of 16th century theological texts- very sophisticated, but they’re no Shakespeare. (I should clarify that by theological texts I mean commentaries, not foundational works like the King James Bible.) And so when we discuss “the-thing-that-Beethoven-was-doing” there are two things we could be talking about- making music for a particular set of instruments, or significantly contributing to the history of music.
If there is any gulf of misunderstanding between us, I think it hinges on that last bit.
Crudeness wasn’t the problem; the connotation of disapproval was.
That absolutely does not follow. That is not an implication of “such a view” (i.e. my view) at all.
A meta-observation about your comment: it doesn’t seem to reflect your having received new information from my previous comments at all. You’ve simply restated the position that I’m arguing against, without explaining why the things I’ve said fail to undermine that position.
For example, it should be clear by now that I don’t agree that “the cultural descendant of Beethoven is The Beatles”, and it should be equally clear why: in addition to the fact that the actual memetic lineage from Beethoven to the Beatles is much less direct than from Beethoven to contemporary art-composers (a point I didn’t actually mention explicitly), Beethoven’s intention—his profession, his métier—was to write the most interesting/advanced/sophisticated music he could. (Beyond the blatant evidence of the music itself, as compared with his (more “popular”!) contemporaries, this is a matter of historical record, as revealed in his letters.) In this crucial respect, he resembles contemporary academic composers much more than the Beatles (who, as popular musicians, have few rivals, of course).
Now, I made it clear in my exchange with MichaelVassar and multifoliaterose that this was what I was talking about. Yet, in the parent comment, you continue to frame the discussion as though that had never occurred:
...as if my idea of “the-thing-that-Beethoven-was-doing” had mainly to do with instrumentation, and as if we all agreed that popularity among laymen was the criterion by which “contribution to the history of music” is to be judged—in blatant disregard of my previous remarks in this thread.
I think that as a lay-person there is serious room for doubt regarding whether what modern academic composers are doing is as competent, judged as an attempt to create the most interesting/advanced/sophisiticated music possible, as what the Beatles were doing. It would be nice to know what Beethoven would have thought.
Do you understand why the theological texts were brought up? The central contention in question is whether the claims of a field such as this can be trusted by outsiders. One critical question, in that case, in my opinion, is whether there are any ways in which it could be. It’s like asking if topologists or computer scientists are more genuinely ‘heirs to Euler’. At least in math we can see that Wiles was doing roughly the same thing Fermat was doing and in literature the publishing industry and public sized upon Toole, who was doing a more authentic version of what Dickens was doing. I guess that one indicative question regarding math would be “How well recognized was Wiles by his professional peers before his famous proof?”.
Consider the following, from a scholarly book on Beethoven’s compositional methods:
-- Barry Cooper, Beethoven and the Creative Process, p.20
Where do you honestly think someone with these kinds of sensibilities and priorities would tend to end up nowadays?
I’m not saying he wouldn’t appreciate the Beatles for what they are—a fabulous popular group. But the idea that he would consider their songs a more worthy successor to the Eroica symphony than the work of Boulez and Babbitt is pretty ridiculous.
Standard heuristics apply. Check whether the most highly regarded people in a field seem to have impressive general intellects. Check whether they can send other costly signals that are intelligible to outsiders. (I’m pretty sure Milton Babbitt can write damn good fugues; Peter Westergaard has written the best book on “tonal” (17th-19th century) theory I know of.) Check whether any people you already regard as impressive are willing to associate with these folks. Etc.
Whatever you think the ultimate value of advanced music is, tests like these should at least be able to convince you that it isn’t a hoax.
I honestly think that someone with these sensibilities might think that music since WWII is a wasteland with respect to what they cared about.
I’m pretty sure that the authors of the best theological texts had impressive general intellects and associated with impressive people. They were probably frequently good public speakers too, a costly signal.
I don’t think advanced music might be an intentional hoax. (which could be OK. It always seemed to me that in Andy Warhol’s case hoax was the art). I think it, and advanced math, may not be the heirs to the unquestionably valuable traditions that they claim to be heirs to, but may instead by the emergent properties of certain institutional designs in the absence of outside constraints.
There are other possibilities too. It seems to me that modern art, in the sense of the 1860s-1950s, is basically not the intellectual heir of the old masters. Picasso etc were doing something much cooler than the old masters were, but what they were doing is better thought of as being an heir to certain tribal art-forms, especially from the pacific islands, empowered by industrial civilization, specialization, etc.
It is conceivable, I’ll admit, that such a person could have ended up like Schenker, who was as much a musical genius as the greatest composers of his day, but thought that music after 1900 was a wasteland. But note this: Schenker essentially wrote no music of his own! For all that he hoped his theories would form the basis of a “rebirth” of the tradition that (in his view) died with Brahms, he never bothered to put them into practice himself and demonstrate whatever he thought it was that the composers of his day should have been doing.
I don’t think this is a coincidence. The literal closest successor to Brahms was Max Reger, whom Schenker despised, and Schoenberg is the next step after Reger. I really don’t think it’s psychologically possible to be a composer of genius and a musical conservative at the same time. Yet, in order for a modern Beethoven to oppose contemporary music, that’s what would have to have happened: at some point in musical history, they would have had to have sided with the conservatives against the radicals. I don’t think someone capable of doing that would have been able to produce the Eroica in 1805; they would have more likely been the guy at the premiere who shouted “I’ll give another kreutzer if this thing will only stop!”.
The main problem with theological ideas isn’t that they aren’t interesting, but that they aren’t true. But art doesn’t have truth-values; interestingness is all there is.
Someone posted a list of questions for Brian Ferneyhough (and other contemporary composers) on the talk page of his Wikipedia article, and Ferneyhough actually responded. For some reason I think you might find it interesting; I suppose it may have to do with the fact that the writing style in some of his answers reminded me of your own.
Andy Warhol’s art was an example of the simplicity on the far side of complexity. Picasso was extremely skilled in representational art before he started doing his cool stuff. Schoenberg did more conventionally listenable music before he went all twelve-tone.
As I note, if it presses people’s buttons in a given cultural context then it works. That’s the bottom line.
(Yes, just about everything is art.)
I took Vassar’s comment to indicate skepticism as to the value of contemporary academic composers rather than adulation of the Beatles.
To contextualize where he might be coming from:
I personally have a strong appreciation of music and have gotten very little out of most of the contemporary classical pieces that I’ve heard, e.g. at symphony performances. I know several people who have a strong love of music and who have had the same experience. As such, in absence of further data, it seems to me quite reasonable to have a prior against the notion that a given contemporary composer’s work is of aesthetic value to the typical person interested in music. Of course the issue may be a musical analog of inferential distance, but a priori that could be an issue in principle be for any unfamiliar music of sufficiently high Kolmogorov complexity independently of its aesthetic value to humans.
It’s unfair to make a confident judgment against such music without making a solid effort to attempt to bridge the hypothetical inferential distance, but I think that Michael Vassar’s statement that there’s serious room for a lay-person (who has not had the time to go through such a process) to doubt the value of such music.
The situation would be different if there was a very uniform consensus among classical music lovers that the contemporary material is best. As things stand; a whole number of explanations for divergent views as to the value of contemporary music could apply: it could be that the people who don’t appreciate it are unsophisticated and/or haven’t gone through the work that they would need to in order to appreciate it; it could be that the contemporary academic music world is engaged in a runaway signaling game which is unrelated to aesthetic value; it could be that the phenomenon is explained by neurodiversity; it could be some combination of all three.
This sounds quite reasonable.
I agree. Of course interesting/advanced/sophisticated is ill-defined and perhaps irreducibly subjective.
For a sufficiently broad notion of “roughly” :-).
I think that it’s fair to say that Fermat’s work represents more originality (picking up on a thousand year old theme and pushing it considerably further than it previously had been in contrast with Wiles who was in some sense working within a well-defined context) whereas Wiles’ work represents a higher standard of technical virtuosity (Fermat never wrote hundred-page-long dense technical manuscripts relying on thousands of pages of background material). To what extent they would be able to interchange roles had they lived in different time periods is difficult to judge.
Wiles was very highly regarded before his proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. His earlier papers were few but of very high quality. He was best known for his proof of the first infinite family of cases of the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture (with his advisor John Coates) and his proof of the main conjecture of Iwasawa theory with Barry Mazur.
It’s possible to easily indicate how the former achievement ties in with classical mathematics (c.f. the first chapter and page 92 of Neal Koblitz’s Introduction to Elliptic Curves and Modular Forms.
The latter achievement is less immediately intelligible but the methods are supposed to be close to those that Ribet used to prove his portion of the Herbrand-Ribet theorem which is a natural sharpening of the criterion which Kummer used in the mid-1800′s to prove many cases of Fermat’s Last Theorem.
(Note: Wiles’ eventual proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem was along completely different conceptual lines from Kummer’s work although some of the machinery that Kummer developed is relevant.)
It’s so convenient to be able to say that, isn’t it? A great way to save oneself the trouble of having to enter a detailed technical discussion. I think it’s a good idea to beware of such get-out-of-jail-free cards.
Yes, given anything you choose, there exists a possible mind in mind-design space that regards that thing as “interesting”. However, unless you think it’s a genuinely open question whether “Mary Had A Little Lamb” is as interesting as the Eroica, I feel that such assertions are ultimately disingenuous.
I’d like to have a more detailed discussion; my disinclination to do so up until now is a matter of short-term time constraints more than anything else.
I’m not a total aesthetic subjectivist when it comes to human music appreciation.
I do think that there are some genuinely differing aesthetic preferences between humans on account of differing genetic and environmental factors. For a simple example; I’m highly noise sensitive and this bars me from appreciating very loud music independently of how aesthetically valuable somebody who is not noise-sensitive might find it.
The question in my mind is not so much whether “Mary Had A Little Lamb” is as interesting as the Eroica as much as whether (for example) Philip Glass is as interesting as a famous academic contemporary composer. I find it quite possible that different people might have different views on this last point on account of having differing neurotypes.
Right, but that’s the kind of thing that would enable one to evade a technical discussion (i.e. a semantic stopsign), and hence is an intellectual warning sign. (I don’t necessarily think evasion is your actual intent, of course).
For the most part, at least in my opinion, the relevant musical variable is not absolute loudness measured in decibels, but relative loudness in the context of a piece. (Of course, the more degrees of loudness are used, the wider the range has to be in absolute terms.)
I’ll reply futher later.
I wonder if pre-WWII jazz musicians are closer in spirit to this, in terms of both “writing the most interesting/advanced/sophisticated music [they] could” and “advancing the field of music”?
Quite possibly. I don’t even see any need to restrict to pre-WWII. My impression is that, among the various styles of popular music, jazz has tended to come closest to manifesting this ideal in general.