Music for the Intellectual Elite

[Moses]

It is in no way surprising for any people, to have witnessed the ever increasing decadence and compartmentalisation of all artistic mediums.  More and more these mediums tend to move towards entertaining the masses, rather than expressing eternal truths accessable now only to a group very small in number.  These people could be called an intellectual elite, however their elite status is no longer recognised, because of the inversion of a hierachy which by its very nature should not be inverted.  

It is undeniable that music has suffered as much as any other art, to the point where the artistic side is now entirely separate from the entertainment, and whilst the latter enjoys enourmous success, the former dwindles and barely even exists at the current time.  These two groups of music can be traced back to two elements within the music itself, these are the intellectual, and the sentimental.  The intellectual element generally corresponds to the overall structure of a piece of music, although a particlar element can be intellectual in itself this rarely occurs in any western music since the renaissance.  The sentimental aspect is more concerned with the character of particular melodic and harmonic features, these can vary in complexity, but without intellectual guidance they have no actual purpose of meaning.  Now some music can be purely intellectual, Bach's 'Die Kunst der Fugue' springs to mind, and this is usually only appreciated by the aforementioned intellectual elite, however it is still valuable as a work of art.  Most recent western music is a blending of the intellectual and the sentimental elements, resulting in music that, whilst still accessable to the masses, retains an esoteric, inward nature that is hidden from all but a few.  The works of many well-known composers, most notably Beethoven, have a strong sense of sentimentality but ultimately still recognise its subordination to the intellectual.  It was only towards the end of the romantic period that the hieracy was inverted, causing works that lost their esoteric meaning in favour of creating pointless humanistic art, guided only by sentiment.  

We have now reached a point where only the sentimental is recgonised, the intellectual being thought of as too complex for the modern listener, it is hard to imagine how anyone could fail to recgonise decadence is this, but yet it goes largely unoticed by our contemporaries.  Looking back it is possible to see, within the realm of what came to be known as art music, some attempts to restore a genuine hierachy in the musical medium.  Against the tide of late-romanticism, the serialists attempted to restore a purely intellectual formal structure to music, unfortunately most who followed this school still wanted to create sentimental works and this showed in their compositions.  Only Webern really succeeded in creating true serialist art, that transcended the decadence of the times, because from this particular school, only he understood what it meant to create purely intellectual music.  One will notice the complete absence of anything accessble to the masses in his music, in other words, a complete detatchment of the intellectual from the sentimental, it seems that in modern times, this is the only way to avoid infestation and eventual destruction of universal hierachy by the chaotic tendancies of the Kali Yuga.

Minimalist music then tried to pull art music back towards popular culture, and eventually succeeded in destroying art music almost entirely, however it brought with it some tendancies, in no way expressed by its best-known composers, that eventually led to intellectual tendancies in some popular music.  Brian Eno and Tangerine Dream, both with a strong influence from minimalism, managed to create works that overcame its inherent obsession with novelty (an entirely modern phenomenon).  It was not until heavy metal music, which had simply been an outlet for youthful anger, latched onto the intellectuality of the aforementioned artists that the first truly promising artistic movement in the world of popular music was born.  Death and black metal both managed to channel a spirit that many had probably thought was lost, however, the decadence of modern times ensured that their possibilities were limited, and within a few years both genres were destroyed before they really had time to develop.  Their intellectual capacity lingered as remnants, which occasionally pop up seemingly spontaneously in certain metal bands on occasion.  This demonstrates the danger of music with intellectual validity existing in the popular music world.  It is impossible to resist the overwhelming tide of decadence which has been attempting for some time to destroy art completely.  If intellectual music, particularly metal, wishes to survive, it must find some way of placing itself above the modern world completely, otherwise it will be washed away by the tide.  To do this is must eradicate every sentimental aspect, and focus purely on intellectual structures, metal needs to do what Bach did with his best works, or what Webern attempted to do in more difficult circumstances.  It needs to leave the modern world behind, to transcend its ephermeral existence, otherwise it will simply be dragged back into oblivion by the dirty and jealous hands of the mob.

[Galvanized]

Agreed to the fullest. My largest qualm with death and black metal has always been that both genres were prematurely stunted in their development.

[ASBO]

I think there's another deadly trend: mastering form, and not content, and using it to entertain people in a 'positive' way that entails avoiding any real conflict.

I see it most clearly in literature. There are obvious softie genres, like romance and certain types of murder mysteries, but now all mainstream literature follows this pattern:

1. Dysfunctional character is thrust into new role by life change event.
2. Dysfunctional character unravels a mystery of a trivial nature: who raped me? where did i come from? why am i loveless?
3. Dysfunctional character meets a motley jolly collection of others, and together, they form a new kind of funky dysfunction.
4. Dysfunctional character embraces dysfunction, but is glad for ability to love other people as this liberates him/her from reality

This pattern goes back to Joyce and probably farther ;)

[Moses]

Form/structure is the most evident expression of content in most music.  The content is only available through more or less inadequate modes of expression.

[neoclassical]

intellect
   c.1386, from L. intellectus "discernment, understanding," from pp. stem of intelligere "to understand, discern" (see intelligence). The noun use of intellectual for persons is from 1652.

My question: what is it that the serialists understood? Did they understand reality, or did they perchance understand a complex mathematical system which they created themselves? (This is not a rhetorical quesiton)

intelligence
   1390, "faculty of understanding," from O.Fr. intelligence (12c.), from L. intelligentia "understanding," from intelligentem (nom. intelligens) "discerning," prp. of intelligere "to understand, comprehend," from inter- "between" + legere "choose, pick out, read"

My question: what is the 'object' of understanding?

Why I ask: a person could claim that, because they have understood why volcanoes erupt, and because they have written music that communicates this knowledge, that this music is very intellectual.

PS: Watch out for HESYCHASM.

[More Celt Then Sassenach]

It can be argued that the knowledge presented within much classical music, as in Mose's example of the art of fugue does not correspond to physical phenomenon. Neoclassical gave the example of the music conveying the knowledge of volcanoes erupting, but what if we made the object of understanding something far more human? Like the Nietzscheian concept of will and the will to power.

Music that conveys a meaning for existing should surely be more palpable then music that can express a much more physical notion.

[Moses]

intellect
    c.1386, from L. intellectus "discernment, understanding," from pp. stem of intelligere "to understand, discern" (see intelligence). The noun use of intellectual for persons is from 1652.

My question: what is it that the serialists understood? Did they understand reality, or did they perchance understand a complex mathematical system which they created themselves? (This is not a rhetorical quesiton)

intelligence
    1390, "faculty of understanding," from O.Fr. intelligence (12c.), from L. intelligentia "understanding," from intelligentem (nom. intelligens) "discerning," prp. of intelligere "to understand, comprehend," from inter- "between" + legere "choose, pick out, read"

My question: what is the 'object' of understanding?

Why I ask: a person could claim that, because they have understood why volcanoes erupt, and because they have written music that communicates this knowledge, that this music is very intellectual.

PS: Watch out for HESYCHASM.

The relationship between music and reality is complex, and requires complex methods to be achieved.  Serialism has the potential to provide a valid formal structure, which is necessary in any art form, otherwise we end up with all kinds of experimental humanistic nonsense.

I should probably add that whilst serialism never got far artistically, it was most valuable for its attempt at overcoming late-romantic sentimental humanism.  The object of understanding is simply structural patterns which relate analogically to those found in reality.  It was only the first step in actually restoring music, which ultimately proved impossible to achieve other than for a few rare gems hidden away from modern civilisation by its own shadowy presence.

[ASBO]

It can be argued that the knowledge presented within much classical music, as in Mose's example of the art of fugue does not correspond to physical phenomenon.

No, it corresponds to nerve phenomena, as Schopenhauer noted. However, nerve phenomena mirror physical phenomena, so it's one step away and parallel.

[Moses]

Does music really need to have a direct correspondence with physical phenomena?  Or is it unified with reality at a higher level?  Do we really want to be analysing Beethoven according to its mathematical relationship with the material world?  If anything could be called pseudo-intellectual it would be this.

Having said that could you elaborate on how the fugal format mirrors nerve phenomena?  It sounds interesting, I have always through the strength of the fugal format was in the way it retained a central idea that grows and becomes more complex without losing its original stability, a principle also applicable to reality, and serialism.

[More Celt Then Sassenach]

The way we perceive and effectively feel about music comes from the physical and mathematical. There is a reason why the dominant note in a scale is what the music urges towards before needing resolution. There is a reason why 3rds and 5ths sound pleasant when played in a triad chord. Pythagoras studied music in a mathematical and scientific manner, and if we look at his studies it shows several very interesting things about music.

While I do wholeheartedly agree that it is a composer who is the genius I think music does have a direct correspondence with the physical world. But I agree with Moses in where he said "is it unified with reality at a higher level?" but I would say it correlates directly with both the physical world and a higher level of realty.

[ASBO]

The monkey brain contains a special class of cells, called mirror neurons, that fire when the animal sees or hears an action and when the animal carries out the same action on its own.

Humans, it turns out, have mirror neurons that are far smarter, more flexible and more highly evolved than any of those found in monkeys, a fact that scientists say reflects the evolution of humans' sophisticated social abilities.

The human brain has multiple mirror neuron systems that specialize in carrying out and understanding not just the actions of others but their intentions, the social meaning of their behavior and their emotions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10mirr.html

From my reading, mirror neurons apply to more than emulating empathy -- it's how the brain grows. External stimulus produces internal receptor. Such is how we perceive sound, and from that translate it into music (or mucus, if you're Cannibal Corpse fans).

[Moses]

The way we perceive and effectively feel about music comes from the physical and mathematical. There is a reason why the dominant note in a scale is what the music urges towards before needing resolution. There is a reason why 3rds and 5ths sound pleasant when played in a triad chord. Pythagoras studied music in a mathematical and scientific manner, and if we look at his studies it shows several very interesting things about music.

While I do wholeheartedly agree that it is a composer who is the genius I think music does have a direct correspondence with the physical world. But I agree with Moses in where he said "is it unified with reality at a higher level?" but I would say it correlates directly with both the physical world and a higher level of realty.

I think it makes more sense to say because good art stems from the same principle as physical reality, there are bound to be structural similarities, these are not what makes art good though.

[More Celt Then Sassenach]

these are not what makes art good though

I agree, hence why I said "I would say it correlates directly with both the physical world and a higher level of realty".  Thus meaning that being directly related to the physical world is not enough, it takes more to reach that so called higher reality.

[ASBO]

I think it makes more sense to say because good art stems from the same principle as physical reality, there are bound to be structural similarities, these are not what makes art good though.

No, but it's a pre-requisite for being good... like living itself. It's a pre-requisite to understand life in order to be able to do anything impressive. Ignorance and disingenuity leave the hall!

[Moses]

No, but it's a pre-requisite for being good... like living itself. It's a pre-requisite to understand life in order to be able to do anything impressive. Ignorance and disingenuity leave the hall!

Perhaps we define pre-requisite differently, but it seems to me that any structural similarity music bears to manifestation is merely an effect, the cause of which is far more significant.  Whether or not it is possible to create music which shares the same Principle as manifestation but does not express any of its possibilities that aren't inherent in the sound itself is irrelevant.