What is the purpose of music (today)?

I can barely make it back before I find myself going on one of my usual rants :-)

let's remember that bad music is bad for us, that bad music is not ethically dangerous and is legislatively lawful. If we want to talk about "what music is for," we must also be able to talk about the music that we do not like or that does not serve us, but serves others. Therefore, statements such as:

"so much useless music can be seen" (Zazza)

"I cannot contemplate within my personal pleasure the extremes that do not conform to artistic perfection" (Oracolo)

"(a certain) pop music inculcates trashy ideals and manipulates the masses" (Pianothor)

are at the very least complicated to include in a comprehensive discussion.

Everyone has their own tastes and prejudices; those who study music often end up creating divisions between good and bad, but let us always remember that the ugliest music we can imagine is always and anyway something "beautiful." Singing badly in the shower is better than not singing at all; publishing a CD of terrible pop music still means subsidizing an artistic, young, "positive" scene that is ethically more appreciable than, I don't know, the arms market. The greatest value of music in an anthropological sense PRECEDES and IS INDEPENDENT OF artistic value, precisely because musical pleasure is an anthropological constant: all peoples make music, all men and women make and listen to music, and they derive pleasure from it even when they do not understand it. If we limit our discussions to "cultured" music, to beautiful music, to the music that we like, we can do so, but we should specify it and be aware that our discussion is limited to analyzing a "zero point something" percentage relative to music in its totality

Fascinated Thallo and obviously I am referring "to music in its totality" and to the artistic choices that may result from it. If we start from this consideration:

music serves, tautologically, to appease the desire for music

we move on to this other one:

music for everyone is the TRUE musical revolution of the twentieth century

and if we keep in mind that

making music, whether it be composing or playing or singing, serves to make money

1+1=2

Attention, I never wrote that pop and all its derivatives are bad music, nor that only pop music instills trashy ideals.. one should read the words written, not those we would like to see written:) Precisely because this argument should apply to any music, I also brought pop music into it with my opinion.. This does not exclude that, as I have already said, pop music can also be fun, entertaining..

Avevo fatto una distinzione tra i "punti di vista" proprio per questo

Frank wrote:

Fascinated Thallo and obviously I am referring “to music in its totality” and to the artistic choices that may result from it. If we start from this consideration:

music serves, tautologically, to appease the desire for music

we move on to this other one:

music for all is the TRUE musical revolution of the twentieth century

and if we keep in mind that

making music, whether it be composing or playing or singing, serves to make money

1+1=2

I am not sure I understood your intervention...

thallo wrote:

I am not sure I understood your intervention...

Let's just say that the intent was not deliberately declared; I think everyone has the right to choose their own "2", a result of their reflections.

In reality, as an appendix to everything, I am including an excerpt from a post by Red, which I cannot quote because the topic in which it was posted has been closed.

It was a piece regarding the listeners described by Adorno in *Introduction to the Sociology of Music*, in a synthesis by Raul Catalano that describes somewhat the "market", the customers of a 21st-century composer's music:

http://dspace.unive.it/bitstream/handle/10579/1650/835717-1165937.pdf?sequence=2

According to Adorno, six models of listeners can be distinguished:

the first is that of the expert who, generally, is one with the professional musician. It is .

The second type consists of the good listener: what distinguishes them is a decent ability to follow the logic of complex compositions even if they do not possess a significant background of technical and theoretical knowledge. According to Adorno it .

The third, however, is the consumer of culture who represents, in Adorno's eyes, the first symptom of the decay into which music has fallen victim in contemporary society, as he feels the need to collect records and author memorabilia, to frequently inform himself through specialized magazines to increase his own musical culture, and is a subscriber, "blindly" and with great enthusiasm, to any concert season he becomes aware of.

The fourth type consists of the emotional listener, that is, the one who uses music as a tranquilizer, as a diversion to discharge daily accumulated tensions and who, for this reason, is uninterested in any listening that requires even minimal tension or conceptual effort. In light of such premises, this listener prefers light or popular music and, for this reason, it is to him that the cares of the cultural industry are directed.

The fifth, namely the resentful or hostile listener, can be further distinguished into two subspecies: the lover of pre-romantic music and the jazz fan. The former identifies in the work of Bach and Vivaldi the pinnacle of musical composition of all time; therefore, they confine themselves to their exclusive cult. The second is instead convinced of the superiority of jazz over any other type of music and, for this reason, reacts disdainfully to any objection to their musical creed. The basis of their position is usually motivated by a traditional superiority of jazz over "commercial" music and its greater immediacy compared to classical music. However, Adorno notes, they do not realize the fact that also and that .

The sixth type consists, finally, of the exclusive listener of light music who, for them, represents nothing more than a pastime. This is, according to Adorno, the perfect model of listener that the cultural industry has an increasing need for, as they passively listen to any song packaged for them properly. Although the facade of their listening model can be summarized with the righteous request to "be left in peace," theirs is instead a "morbid" listening and, above all, perfectly structured by the advertising bombardments of the mass media. For this reason, the pastime listener is the one present to the greatest extent in Western society. For Adorno, furthermore, either to a .

In fact, as pianothor says, I don't think that within the context of this topic one makes distinctions between classical or pop music, but rather between the quality of written music and "played" music. Taste is irrelevant; a pop song can be high-level... and less so, it depends... and it depends on too many factors that I am not even interested in discussing.

But a 21st-century composer, given the REAL musical revolution of the last century, finds themselves (or does not find themselves?) having to make artistic choices and must do their math carefully if they want to survive.

In my opinion, reflection cannot be extinguished by evaluating only the economics; a composer's result cannot be separated from what they are. One can pretend for a short while, but eventually, one's own nature will emerge. Can the craft, the business, prevail over this? This may also depend on character, but this brings us back to "what the composer is."

That said, having a clear understanding of the function of music can better channel efforts. Besides, in an intricate world like today's, a composer will probably, in the long run, do what is most congenial to them or what they are best at. If this does not coincide with the user base (the market?), they have only one possibility: self-production.

Herein lies the unsettling reflection: being a composer in freedom (I mean without any technical, aesthetic, market constraints, etc... perhaps expanding upon the Aristotelian consideration) is something for the wealthy (economically). And how many composers are truly wealthy?

Therefore, if all this is correct, how free is an ordinary (broke), albeit talented, composer?

...as always, free thoughts

Yesterday, 22:43

When I listened to the first musical pieces as a child, I was captivated by them and that music was somehow inside me. Growing up, I felt that this music, composed in who knows what time by who knows what composer, knew me better than I knew myself, speaking of me at the same time. For me, playing is reclaiming an essence that is within what is heard. Playing that piece means, in some way, reclaiming something that has always been ours, finally communicating it with our own spirit.

Music says something and serves to express and declaim. It is an uninterrupted flow that communicates and moves, shakes and unsettles.

At the moment, music is still greater than me, and often overwhelmed by it, I am unable to contain all this beauty.

But the real question was: what is the purpose of making music (today)? In general, it seems to me that people are wandering off elsewhere

Frank wrote:

What is the purpose of music (today)?

Like yesterday, like tomorrow and like for every other human activity simply...

to ward off boredom.

Frank wrote:

.

But a 21st-century composer, given the TRUE musical revolution of the last century, finds themselves (or does not find themselves?) making artistic choices and must do their math carefully if they want to survive.

That being said, having a clear understanding of the function of music can better channel efforts. Besides, in an intricate world like today's, the composer will probably, in the long run, do what is most congenial to them or what they do best. If this does not coincide with the user base (the market?), they have only one possibility: self-production.

micamahler wrote:

But the real question was: what is the purpose of making music (today)? In general, it seems to me that people are wandering off elsewhere

... and thus the real question you perhaps wanted to ask, Frank, is: is it still useful to make "art" music today?

And if this were truly the question - always within the scope of free-flowing thoughts and questions - wouldn't it be appropriate, first of all, to ask whether the perseverance on the part of the majority of contemporary composers in exclusively atonal fields should be called into question in order to try to recover the relationship with that audience which recognizes itself in the classical - art tradition?

And if it were decided that this is the only possible path: what type of "art" tonality could be proposed in the 21st century?

Bianca wrote:

Like yesterday, like tomorrow and like for every other human activity simply...

to ward off boredom.

...depends on "yesterday", how far back it goes. For example, I doubt that in a religious service music serves only to ward off boredom. It is certainly an area concerning music that has the function of "entertainment", in a noble sense.

micamahler wrote:

But the real question was: what is the purpose of making music (today)?

Paraphrasing

"Like yesterday, like tomorrow and like for every other human activity simply..." means to respond to a need. A need that will be personal and as such cannot be inscribed within a perimeter.

But precisely to answer Daniele:

is it still necessary to make "art" music today?

... I brush off the concept of freedom; the composer has their conscience and has the right to take it into account. Once there were patrons, and in reality, like in the USA, these figures still exist. There are people there who, if they believe in your project, without much preamble, will finance you.

As you notice, we always return to the usual discussion and as my grandfather used to say: "without money, one cannot sing masses"... therefore, if a composer wants to be 100% free, in today's world they must be rich or have a rich person at their disposal who gives them all the money they need. Otherwise, the result will inevitably be "tainted"."}

micamahler wrote:

But the real question was: what is the purpose of making music (today)? In general, it seems to me that people are wandering off elsewhere

What idea do you have?

Frank wrote:

"spoiled"

...let's say servile, for example servile towards my god money.

Frank wrote:

...it depends on "yesterday", how far back it goes. For example, I doubt that in a religious service music serves only to ward off boredom. It is certainly an area concerning music that has the function of "entertainment," in a noble sense.

Paraphrasing

"Like yesterday, like tomorrow and like for every other human activity simply..." to respond to a requirement. A requirement that will be personal and as such cannot be inscribed within a perimeter.

yes, but religion also serves the same purpose...

as I was saying, everything serves that, even if it is a typically existentialist approach. Of course, it is the most general answer one can give, but the question itself is quite general too.

Then you can decline it as many times as you want, precisely because the purpose is to "ward off boredom," and if one were to stop at this simple answer, it would be a contradiction in itself.

But as you see, even if you speak of "entertainment in a noble sense," you are still heading in that direction: you entertain yourself so as not to get bored.

Then other basic emotions can also be brought into play, such as fear, or self-affirmation, etc. But it always revolves around that.

In short, somehow, to have a detailed answer, one must also detail the question, as Daniele does, for example. But then we fall back into the same old worn-out arguments.

Music is a form of communication and therefore serves to communicate. One can communicate in many ways and there are many languages with which to do so. The difference between them lies in the fact that each one captures parts of the communication that others do not capture. And in this sense, the different ways of expressing and communicating are not interpenetrable. Therefore, in this sense, music serves to communicate what cannot be communicated through other methods.

This too, however, is a rather general answer, which does not depend on today or tomorrow, even if it is more detailed. What seems like a clue to me, in your question, is precisely the reference to "today," which brings me back to Daniele's supposition.

Bianca wrote:

yes, but religion also serves the same purpose...

as I was saying, everything serves that purpose, even if it is a typically existentialist approach. Of course, it is the most general answer one can give, but the question itself is also quite general.

Then you can decline it as many times as you want, precisely because the purpose is to "ward off boredom," and if one were to stop at this simple answer, it would be a contradiction in itself.

But as you see, even if you speak of "entertainment in the noble sense," you are always heading in that direction: you entertain yourself so as not to get bored.

Then other basic emotions can also be brought into play, such as fear, or self-affirmation, etc. But it's always revolving around that.

In short, in some way, to have a declined answer, one must also decline the question, as Daniele does, for example. But then we fall back into the same old worn-out arguments.

Music is a form of communication and therefore serves to communicate. One can communicate in many ways and there are many languages with which to do so. The difference between them lies in the fact that each one captures parts of the communication that others do not capture. And in this sense, the different ways of expressing and communicating are not interpenetrable. Therefore, in this sense, music serves to communicate what cannot be communicated through other methods.

This too, however, is a rather general answer, which does not depend on today or tomorrow, even if it is more detailed. What seems like a clue to me, in your question, is precisely the reference to "today," which brings me back to Daniele's supposition.

I was certainly interested in the variations, which change as times change. Daniele's question could fit and would be the result of the reflections that followed the question. Even the "culture" variation can change as times change. I leave the discussion open. Anyway, I don't find boredom to be at the root of everything; I go back on the offensive with needs... it can be discussed

Esigenza I find it to be the most appropriate term for someone, but certainly not for everyone.

Mine is not a criticism, but a hypothesis regarding the motivation or motivations that drive (in this case the composer) to write.

To create an indissoluble bond with another being.

Bianca wrote:

As yesterday, as tomorrow and as for every other human activity simply...

to ward off boredom.

Music is not a pastime, an
'escape'. Music that

"entertains" is bad music.

??? 

let's hope Thallo is in Sicily without internet...