The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Rone Rivendale wrote: But seriously,

1. I could see traditional instruments being obselete within another 25 years. Everything will become computerized.

2. And with the growing numbers of ppl on the net producing music there won't be the same big musicians/bands that we have now. It'll be vastly oversaturated which isn't a bad thing.

3. We won't buy an album cuz we like the person and think he/she/them are 'cool' we'll actually buy albums based on the content of the music.

1. Uh, I beg to differ. Not everything will become computerized. I'm even struggling with the fact that you could possibly believe that tripe. Sure, there will be more evolution in that department and they will probably be a lot more 'computerized' music but I seriously doubt anything will replace rocking out on a guitar to make it obsolete in 25 years. Wow.

2. This statement is riddled with truth. However, I think it will be a bad thing. Its hard enough searching google for what it is you are looking for, imagine having to weed through every bit of garbage made by someone who thinks they are a musician just to find the gem hiding amongst all the junk.

3. WE might not, but image isn't going away anytime soon. Wishful thinking. Its like pretending people should like each other because of whats on the inside when its plain to see that it simply isn't true. Image has a foothold in music these days. Granted, it isn't the end all be all, but its mostly a package deal these days.

PlainSongs wrote:

roymond wrote:

PlainSongs wrote:BTW Frankie, interesting theory. Recording technology didn't affect the evolution of popular music in a similar fashion at all.

I assume this is sarcasm

Nope, just a juxtaposition. Not sure Frankie's theory is correct, but it could be. Then the question is why didn't the same thing happen in popular music. A couple of reasons suggested themselves but my post had gotten long already and it'd get a bit off-topic.

...and the sarcasm comes into question because it pretty obvious that recording technology has in fact affected the evolution of popular music. Are you really standing on that point?

frankie big face wrote:
It kinda did.

I am going to assume for the sake of this discussion that when you say "pop music," you mean the pop music of the 1950s and later.

Electric instruments like the guitar and pop organs seem tailor-made for the recording studio so it makes sense that electric pop music would benefit from the technology and not suffer from it as acoustic-based music, like Classical and traditional jazz, folk and blues did.

I even typed up the words "drum machine" in my original post. While drum machines might not be linked DIRECTLY to the recording industry, it certainly has gone a long way in its evolution.

Yeah well I said "recording technology didn't affect the evolution of popular music in a similar fashion at all", not that it didn't affect it generally!

frankie big face wrote:I am going to assume for the sake of this discussion that when you say "pop music," you mean the pop music of the 1950s and later. [...] it makes sense that electric pop music would benefit from the technology and not suffer from it as acoustic-based music, like Classical and traditional jazz, folk and blues did.

Yes. When for instance punk rock appeared and was in some ways more challenging than rock&roll, people didn't all go "we've got the '50s records at home so if you want us to come to your gig you'd better drop the sneering and play some Buddy Holly". No doubt many did. But one difference with classical music is that for pop and rock new generations of kids have been ready to embrace new styles, riding on rapid societal change; whereas the classical music world works quite differently.

As for folk music or blues, the kind you can play in the parlour... I suppose it was largely pushed aside by if not assimilated into the new electrified popular stuff. While classical music continued to thrive relatively insulated in its aloof social realm, even though perhaps subject to the Frankie Big Face law.

If the parlour music activity has dropped, at least relatively, due to electronics and commercialization, perhaps it's picking up again with the new electronic gadgets becoming more democratically accessible, plus some retro charm effects. Maybe even 'classical' music will get sucked in as multitracking and software allow kitchen table symphony production (kind of).

... I suppose we need to understand the past to talk about the future, right?

PlainSongs wrote: If the parlour music activity has dropped, at least relatively, due to electronics and commercialization, perhaps it's picking up again with the new electronic gadgets becoming more democratically accessible, plus some retro charm effects. Maybe even 'classical' music will get sucked in as multitracking and software allow kitchen table symphony production (kind of).

... I suppose we need to understand the past to talk about the future, right?

Heh. Yeah, leave it to me to answer your post about the future of music with a diatribe about the past. In many ways, I think the classicists screwed themselves with increased chromaticism and atonality. I think people (of the Western world, anyway) cling to diatonicism. I believe it's wired into our physiology--our ear drums responding physically according to the same principle of vibration that governs strings, air columns, and drum heads. I often think of the harmonic overtone series like a timeline of Western art music: the fundamental and first three modes corresponding to the drones of medieval music, the major triad and (out of tune) seventh that follows representing the functional harmony of the Baroque and Classical periods and the infinite ascension of half-steps marking the late-Romantic and atonality of the 20th century. Where do you go from there? Microtonal music? The sweet spot (and audible range) seems to be in the first nine or ten overtones so it makes sense (if you buy any of this) that humans would gravitate toward music that resonates with us physically.

Your punk example has classical parallels that would seem to support my point. Punk is a rebellious reaction to what came before it. This kind of thing happens all the time in pop music and its frequency (usually within ten years) seems to indicate that style changes in pop music evolve rather quickly. This is independent of the media with which it is delivered as far as I can tell, so I don't think it has much to do with my "recording technology theory." In classical music, these changes occurred over longer periods of time (75-100 years) but with no less rebellion. The musical simplicity of Mozart, Haydn and other Enlightenment-era composers is in stark contrast to the Baroque, and the excess of the Romantics a reaction to the Classicists. All kinds of folks revolted against Romanticism, from Satie's simplicity to Prokofiev's neo-Classicism. But whereas the Classical era seemed to replace the Baroque era, Impressionism, Expressionism, neo-Classicism, Primitivism, etc. of the late 19th and early 20th century seemed to co-exist in the same way that the 1970s gave us rock, punk, disco, new wave, folk-rock, et al.

I think the idea of classical multi-tracking is useful and educational, but unlikely to develop as a serious genre. If a serious composer goes the route of electronic music, he is usually labeled as "experimental" or granted a new label or maybe even assigned a new genre. For instance, would the tape pioneers of the 1950s (Babbitt, Varèse, Davidovsky) even be considered "classical" today?

frankie big face wrote:

PlainSongs wrote:I think the idea of classical multi-tracking is useful and educational, but unlikely to develop as a serious genre. If a serious composer goes the route of electronic music, he is usually labeled as "experimental" or granted a new label or maybe even assigned a new genre. For instance, would the tape pioneers of the 1950s (Babbitt, Varèse, Davidovsky) even be considered "classical" today?

One name is Zappa. But yeah, not mainstream even when he was mainstream. You just can't have his kind of "humor" in serious music.

I thought about him when I was writing that last post. I don't think he has been taken seriously as a classical composer because of his prominence as a rock musician, but he certainly was a serious composer. I think it's hard for guys who dabble in both to be taken seriously by the classical scene but if you're good and you want to make a living at it, you're much better off taking the pop route or writing soundtracks. (Which also seems to label you as "non-serious," even though Prokofiev, Virgil Thomson and others did it.)

It seems to me "classical" is a misnomer. I think what you're really talking about is Orchestral music. Please someone mention Boulez! I admit I know Boulez from Zappa. I admit that I learned of Berg when going to see the Bartok String quartets performed by the Kronos Quartet. I LOVE Berg! I think Zappa is taken seriously in the classical world.

I've been thinking about the "Audio Recordings Killed the Orchestral Star" theory of Mr Frankie. Good way to stir up a conversation but I don't buy it. The only thing that killed the Orchestral star IMHO is his options. Back in the day he needed an orchestra to be huge. Now you can be huge with an 808 or a Marshall stack. It will never die. Orchestral music will always live, it's just not the only game in town any more.

Musically speaking I think Bartok invented metal, long before the Beatles did Helter Skelter there was Bartok String Quartet #6.
(Correction: I meant #4 part 5 allegro molto)

I think the future of music is Math Rap. Odd time sigs with street poetry.

I think now that radio is dying the return of the longer songs will emerge.

All I know is there will always be guitar solos

In college Dr. Heslink instructed us to call it "Art Music" rather than "Classical Music" on the grounds that "Classical" is a time period or a style. But come on, technically incorrect or not, "classical music" is the common term for music that aspires to fine art, whether it's the Boston Phil or a woman singing art songs with piano accompaniment. It's the aspiration that truly defines the genre of a piece of art.

Laymen will understand what you mean if you say "classical" even though they'll have some preconcieved idea of what that sound is, and Experts will let you slide on the terminology as it allows them to silently judge you as they exercise their urge to pedantry for your benefit. Like so:

"Orchestral" is actually a more misleading term for this kind of music than "classical", because "orchestral" implies a specific kind of instrumentation. Indeed, there has been far more art music written for non-orchestral instrumentation than there is for orchestras of whatever size. Unless you want to call the Kronos Quartet an orchestra, at which point I must scoff and walk away muttering to myself.

JB

Mr. Zappa would always correct someone calling his orchestra pieces or chamber pieces "classical", and usually preferred the term "chamber music", or "orchestral" music.

I guess I want to know what FBF means by the death of classical music? There's plenty of music pushing the bounds of instrumentation, counterpoint, time signatures, modes, dissonance, etc. It just seemed to be he was exclusively talking about orchestras. Perhaps I am wrong.

History will remember Danny Elfman, and Frank Zappa from our era.

JB, it takes so little to get you to walk away mumbling

glennny wrote: I think the future of music is Math Rap. Odd time sigs with street poetry.

Is there actually anyone doing that? It's a great idea. After Cryptic Comment, I'll have to attempt that.

glennny wrote:Mr. Zappa would always correct someone calling his orchestra pieces or chamber pieces "classical", and usually preferred the term "chamber music", or "orchestral" music.

I guess I want to know what FBF means by the death of classical music? There's plenty of music pushing the bounds of instrumentation, counterpoint, time signatures, modes, dissonance, etc. It just seemed to be he was exclusively talking about orchestras. Perhaps I am wrong.

History will remember Danny Elfman, and Frank Zappa from our era.

Ahem. WIth all due respect to Frank Zappa (and I mean that sincerely), he's probably not the guy from whom you should be getting your terminology. He is a very minor figure in classical music, whether you like it or not. Danny Elfman isn't even on the map in terms of classical music. No classical music snob would acknowledge him as significant. Even John Williams can't get no respect.

"classical" with a lower-case "c" means all western art music, inclusive of chamber music, orchestral music, piano music, etc. and includes all time periods, such as Baroque, Classical (the music from roughly 1750-1825), Romantic and Contemporary.

In my opinion, there are VERY few people in the classical music world pushing ANY of the boundaries you mention. You name zero contemporary composers. Please tell me who you are talking about. The Kronos Quartet is a good place to start if you can't come up with any off the top of your head because they regularly play music by modern composers, but none of these composers is gaining popularity the way Stravinsky, Copland, Shostakovich or even your beloved Bartok have. (By the way, Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" is the real first heavy metal by at least 25 years over the quartet you cited.) George Crumb, Gyorgi Ligeti, Krystof Pendercki, Arvo Part...these are the composers of our generation. But they are not well-known by the general public and will likely not be for some time (if ever).

And JB, you really have to stop citing "Dr. Heslink" as your classical music source or at least refer to him as "that asshole Dan Heslink" or "my jag-off music history prof." You give him way too much credit.

P.S. I like Berg too--he's my favorite 12-tone composer. Boulez put Zappa on the map, but Boulez is going to be remembered as a conductor and champion of modern music, not as a composer. I think Zappa's a better composer.

I guess as the prog rocker composer dude that I am, I always think that just because you have an electric guitar and sound awesome all the time doesn't mean your compositions aren't clever.

Sleepy Time Gorilla Museum do some amazing compositions, even though they're home made instruments rock guitars and ridiculous costumes. Nils and Dan (I know these guys) are UC Berkeley grads and deeply studied in most genres.

Don Caballero, Rumah Sakit, Faraquet. These are all written off as rock bands because of the power trio format. But imagine the sheet music to them and you'll be as tickled as if you were reading Berg or Bartok.

OK OK Rite of Spring is the 1st metal, Bartok 1st speed metal?

Also the high brows took a left turn to jazz around the turn of the 20th century. Miles freaking Davis will be remembered!

maybe your Real Book is where the 20th century will be most remembered.

I think Ka Chuk will have a revival. Japanese Pop/ Ka Chuk.

Thank god for the Internet Archive so we can refer back to these pages in 50 or 100 years to see how right we all were!

glennny wrote:History will remember Danny Elfman, and Frank Zappa from our era.

As much as I love Elfman, he's simply not in the same category. And I agree with Frankie that Zappa will never get the respect, but he was a hard working, serious composer and that almost guarantees long-term obscurity. Maybe if he was an insurance broker like Ives he'd get more respect?

glennny wrote:JB, it takes so little to get you to walk away mumbling

I was going to say the same thing. I think it means he's broken a sweat in passionate discourse. And that's always a good thing.

A friend and I always wanted to make tee shirts that said "Brutally Bartok!" to counter the "Mostly Mozart" movement.

I want to form a band called "Bay-LA Bar Talk" it will be angular surf music. (The Bay is the SF Bay)

glennny, don't get me wrong. I respect rock musicians (even prog rock ) as much as classical musicians and I think there are geniuses among us (hello, Steven Sondheim!). They're just occupying the space known as "classical music" in my estimation. I heard some recent compositions by the new classical elite (like Jennifer Higdon) and there is absolutely nothing special going on there. Even in jazz, who's doing anything really significant like Miles Davis or John Coltrane were in the 50s? Pat Metheny? Ornette Coleman? Even these guys are becoming "old-timers." This is why I like (and make) pop music. Sonically, you are pretty much free to do what you want in the pop realm without someone saying you sold out or don't belong. Everyone and everything belongs in the pop world, it seems. Take Herbie Hancock. When he steps out and does something like Rockit, you sort of question whether or not he's really playing jazz anymore. But when Andre 3000 does "The Love Below/Love Hater," he's still pop despite the traditional vocal jazz influence. (maybe not the best example, but one that comes to mind)

In my relative ignorance I'd call what is commonly known as classical music, "elite music" (which sounds unintentionally value-laden, and also it refers to an economical and political elite, not the swimming or thievery elite, say); but Wikipedia gives a classification that seems okayish too:

History of European art music
Early
Medieval (500 – 1400)
Renaissance (1400 – 1600)
Common practice
Baroque (1600 – 1760)
Classical (1730 – 1820)
Romantic (1815 – 1910)
Modern and contemporary
20th century classical (1900 – 2000)
Contemporary classical (1975 – present)

Guys you know more about this than I do. Of 20th cc I know some Xenakis and Cage... I need to do me some more exploring - quickly checked out (Youtube) Zappa's Yellow Shark, Varese's Ionization (amazing!), and Bartók #6 (metal? hm... how so? if you'd play it on a distorted guitar and add drums?). Also Mussorgsky (earlier). Liked them, though I tend to miss something to tap my feet to. But then it's acquired taste too. Hence information as one of the 'plugins' (next to drugs and technological implants) that may make future people appreciate a wider range of sounds.

Frankie, cheers for the modes & tones talk; I was just getting into understanding scales for real. And I hadn't quite noticed that similarity, on different time scales, between, uh, elite and popular music evolution. Seems to make sense. I wonder if popular ('folk') music had similar long-scale revolutions in the past as well. Maybe it's largely gone undocumented. Maybe the lack of documentation led to no such development.

(As for the 'recording tech' issue, still: I suppose in popular music too some movements, say grindcore, are pretty extreme so that some FBF effect may play; but then isn't this independent of recording tech? As in how folks would say: dudes you make a lot of weird noise, I may not own any recordings but I'll just ask uncle Bill to play something easy on his banjo. ... Hm. Maybe it tends to be easier to ask uncle Bill to play an alternative for 'difficult' popular music than for a 'difficult' symphonic suite. Then again, prog rock with 36 instruments does blur the line.)


Math rap - "Odd time sigs with street poetry"... it makes me think of flamenco and Bulgarian folk music, which have complex time signatures and kind of 'street' talk. They don't rap, of course. But yeah, maybe an understandable witty lyric goes a long way to make 'odd' rhythms or melodies palatable.

frankie big face wrote:And JB, you really have to stop citing "Dr. Heslink" as your classical music source or at least refer to him as "that asshole Dan Heslink" or "my jag-off music history prof." You give him way too much credit.

I liked Dr. Heslink, mostly, despite his inconsistency (most of our profs seemed schizo now that I think of it). But! To be fair to myself I did say "but come on" 'cause I think the whole terminology thing, in almost all cases and areas of interest, is a rhetorical herring of the most scarlet hue. :P

JB

qotd: Man, everybody seems to care about this one. I guess I'll put some guesses out there.

I think there will be some pretty incredible sampling. I don't think that traditional instruments will have as important of a job in music as digitized sounds. Not to say there won't be the sound of guitars ... it's just that I think the guitars will have been computerized/sampled and played digitally.

The everyman will have more recording power in his hands. There will be an overflow of soulless music with great recording quality, but also some standout stuff. I suppose there might be a lot more experimental music, and I can see some weird experimental stuff getting relatively popular.

I also think that classical music will be just as popular as it is now. There will also be old rockers who tell kids that the new music sucks and that the days of rock and roll will be back soon. Little do they know that rock'n roll has just evolved pretty drastically. I think the rock drum beat will be similar (but average tempo will be slower), but rockers will sing really funny. Either really low or really high. Guitars will sound different - as with the vocals, I can see them being an octave up or down from where they are now. Bass will probably be exactly the same as it is now.

Does this sound realistic, or is it just another far-fetched daydream of mine?

OK wrong Bartok String Quartet, although they're all pretty metal check out:

Quartet #4 Part 5 Allegro Molto

PS Thank you for making me go back and listen to get my story straight.

as with the vocals, I can see them being an octave up or down from where they are now. Bass will probably be exactly the same as it is now.

Like in 1991 when Mark Slaughters were replaced with Eddie Vedders.

glennny wrote:OK wrong Bartok String Quartet, although they're all pretty metal check out:

Quartet #4 Part 5 Allegro Molto

PS Thank you for making me go back and listen to get my story straight.

You're talking about the orchestral music that sounds like the score to movies like psycho or twilight zone, right? If so, yes, some killer music. Although I'm not well versed in early classical music, I do have a couple mixed CDs that I enjoy when I'm in the mood. But it has many different composers, so I'm not 100% sure who is who, but I do know that Bartok is one of them. I really should learn this stuff, like a "real" musician.

ps, I CAN pick Mozart out of a crowd, so that's a start.

Reïst wrote:I think the rock drum beat will be similar (but average tempo will be slower), but rockers will sing really funny. [etc.]

Hehe... that's a specific and weird prediction. Slooow high(low)-pitched rock. With the same old base. Sounds interesting, but why? :p

I figure one future thing that may happen: dedicated programs for online jamming... I wonder if lag could be reduced enough for that, in principle. And you could have huge ongoing soundscapes with repeating parts, various branches (e.g. more/less dissonant), automated bits...

"Let's log in to see how Composition IX is doing... woah it's gone soft, let me add some shred guitar..."

Not that that would replace live jams.

glennny wrote:OK wrong Bartok String Quartet, although they're all pretty metal check out:
Quartet #4 Part 5 Allegro Molto

Yeah that makes more sense! To the point that I'm missing the drum kit and guitars. It's a bit like wildly attacking an elephant with a pencil. Has this ever been covered with modern instruments?