What is Postmodernism?

Post Reply New Topic

Twilight, you’ve raised a very deep, philosophical, aesthetic point. I’ll share my views if you care to read them. Get some coffee, this will take a while...

I have nothing against rap or country. The problem with rap and country is that they are culturally isolated. I don’t get $#!+faced on lean, don’t smoke pot, don’t sell drugs, don’t pimp prostitutes, nor is rap music relevant to anyone I associate with. I don’t go muddin’, ride horses, drink a lot of whisky, smoke a lot of weed. I don’t cheat on my wife, she doesn’t cheat on me, nor are any of those things relevant, nor is any of that relevant to people I associate with. Country is at least more positive and uplifting, though, whereas much of rap and trap emphasize the hopelessness of poor, urban existence—and glorifies it. Add misogyny and any number of abusive themes in both.

Pop music covers a number of themes including irrelevant ones but including many more that are relevant. There is a greater concern for objective beauty with popular music that makes it more listenable for more people.

Objective beauty is any measure of beauty according to a non-arbitrary standard. Standards run the risk of being arbitrary and subjective, so relativistic measures of beauty lack a meaningful point of reference. The only such point of reference that exists is objective reality. Nature is delicately composed of golden-ratio proportions, Fibonacci series, harmonic series, etc. Fourier transform in particular demonstrates the importance of harmonic ratios in natural sounds. Harmonic ratios are evident in all vocal and instrumental sounds, the proportions of string harmonics have long been known since ancient times. Harmonics figure heavily into harmonies that are perceived as the most pleasing to the ear. I once taught my band a particular tune when I noticed my players were consistently out of tune in one particular section. I’d check my saxes several times to make sure it wasn’t a change in the instrument temperature or something. Turns out it was an upper harmonic in the tuba part that was interfering with the saxes. I had him switch to an alternate fingering and all was well.

Objective beauty in music leverages natural elements of sounds to produce a maximally pleasing effect. The pinnacle of music so ordered was reached in the 19th century. Objective beauty in all musical arts, whether in the arena or in the concert hall, derives directly from 19th century common practice.

“Good” and “bad” are moral judgments. Objective morality, like objective beauty, is founded in natural laws and engaged by the rational mind. Music can be beautiful but irrational, thus it is “bad” music. Music can be rational but not beautiful and still be “good,” although it is easier to rationally pursue beauty than it is it’s antithesis. One can easily compose “good” music. However, one who attempts to perform good music but lacks ability or refuses to adequately prepare commits a great evil—they are “bad” performers. You would never volunteer to conduct Beethoven’s 5th at ANY level of ability without at least listening to a highly reputed recording first. Hopefully you’d take a pencil, markup the score, practice in front of a mirror and sing through all the parts a few times beginning a few months before the concert date. You have a moral obligation to yourself to succeed, to your orchestra who don’t deserve to have their time wasted, and to the audience who are paying good money to hear it. I teach beginner band, so we never quite make it to pro symphony level. But even if all we play in the concert is “Mary Had A Little Lamb” and “Hot Cross Buns,” we’re going to do it with a good sound, correct notes, correct rhythms, or I cancel the concert. And students will show improvement from one semester to the next or they don’t get invited back. And if I don’t see the progress I expect from my students and the school system reflected in ratings, I indicate such in my yearly letter of intention and move on somewhere better. Right now I’d be happy just to take students to festival at all. Since it’s morally wrong to continue a stagnant status quo, I have some very serious decisions to make in the near future.

“Progressive” simply refers to how something evolves or adapts over time. Computers have capabilities that exceed human ability. To have the ability to get studio quality from a laptop and fail to get it while expecting to appeal to an audience would be morally wrong. It’s objectively “bad music.” But suppose you use GarageBand to record a band who does 50’s style music. The sound overall would be radically different due to differences in analog versus digital. Despite the nostalgia factor, it’s progressive in the sense that you’re able to do what authentic 50’s musicians wanted to do but couldn’t. Cinematic music combines digital recording, electronic and virtual instruments, “found” instruments, and live orchestras using 19th-20th century CP composing and orchestration practice. Tonally, harmonically, and rhythmically it’s nothing all that new. But it is progressive in the sense that improved instrument designs are used, plus technological extensions.

When someone complains about “good,” “bad,” “better,” it is often an expression of envy. The opposite is a celebration of those who are superior as an expression of admiration. You cannot reasonably expect to fit in these circles when they have a well-oiled, functional relationship. That’s why it’s a bad idea to try to get “signed” or published as an objective measure of success. You do YOUR best work and, if you like, try to put other artists and labels out of business. Competition encourages raising standards and musical exploration. If you can’t keep up and don’t like working with others, then buy the other guy’s albums and step out of the way. But I feel that most people today can’t accept that people are better than they are, and it’s largely this sense of envy, fear of success, and low self-esteem that drives the current American music scene. The 80’s were GREAT, but really between 89 and 03 or 04 good music was precious hard to come by. Things are MUCH better now, but for a long time things were just abysmal.

During that “dark period” I listened to a lot of 50’s and 60’s music together with ambient and spacemusic. I became a big fan of David Lanz, Suzanne Cianni, Tangerine Dream, and really all things krautrock. It was a neat time to be a kid because what passed as mainstream back then really sucked. Non-mainstream is deeply saturated now, unfortunately. But it’s still easy to find wonderful music there. I’m most excited about the development of EDM since the 2000’s. I think I was born (78) either 10-20 years too early or too late.

My own music is a refinement of algorithmic music. I’m not happy with where it is at the moment. But I’m not in a place where achievement of my goals is possible right now. My goal is clear and defined. My knowledge for reaching it is insufficient. I know sound design using commercial products. I do NOT know programming languages to build digital synths from the ground up. In order to succeed, I have to at least prototype a synth using a high-level scripting language that can be deployed on a single-board, ARM computer. I’m a musician, not a computer scientist. Hence, this is a looooong-term project. The goal is to create a fully automated, algorithmic, generative music system that creates beautiful, environmental music suitable for mindful listening or to help with sleep.

I’ve mostly succeeded. It’s just the sound generation component that I’m missing. In order to keep moving, I’ve shifted focus to other projects that will help me piece together what I need to make it work. Right now I’m working on a sysex script to generate FM pads on a TX802 for the purpose of making recordings. For the sake of convenience, I’m prototyping with the open-source DEXED and the commercial FM8 from NI (DEXED source code includes a crap ton of information on the Yamaha TX802 sysex data format straight from Yamaha’s own documentation. It’s the holy freakin’ grail, man).

As soon as I can crack some basic concepts, it’s going to be easy. I’m just not there yet. The point I’m trying to make is that in order to be exceptional and good, one must actually BE exceptionally good himself, learn as much as he can independently, and be willing and stubborn enough to work new discoveries into a workable product. I’m already looking towards machine learning...and I might add most of my math grades were failing grades. So now I’m trying wrap my brain around vectors and multidimensional arrays without any useful background in math or data science. Yet this is the next logical, musical step for me.

Does that make me superior? I believe it does. I am superior and worth the reward. But if nobody else ever buys it, it’s worth it to me that someone I love very much can sleep all night without nightmares. It’s an attitude more people need to adopt, the security of knowing without any doubt they are better than everyone else at SOMETHING valuable and worthwhile. If you possess the skill but lack belief in yourself, it’s more difficult to give a satisfying, convincing performance. The working definition of humility is really what kills more people musically. Real humility is being honest about your ability and deciding whether you should work to improve or if a goal is even worth working towards. It’s false humility that has great people apologizing for their ability while acting like jerks while “nice guys” cry about not getting the break they think they deserve (but really don’t). But people who are honest with themselves can release whatever music they want and boldly walk out on stage night after night. Mediocre people refer to this as arrogance. I don’t care what they think.

ADDENDUM: Thank-you for adding perspectives on Postmdernism to this discussion thread.

A LINK on the book 'Infinite Jest' (referring to previous LINK on story discussing how 'Infinite Jest' offers an example of how the Autism Spectrum views literary styles, and expression) LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Jest

These are negative stereotypes and don’t reflect how big the genres of rap and country music are. You should listen to more of it before making such an ill-informed, judgmental statement.



We all like different things. There’s not one, standardized “objective beauty.” Thank goodness! Imagine how deadly dull the art world would be...

You can’t make art science because it’s not. Sure, some artists still use the Golden Ratio to come up with the proportions in their artwork or imitate the “Masters” in various other ways, but not all or even most successful artists have done so.

Appreciating specific works of art will always be subjective, as it should be.



People who dislike the terms “good,” “bad,” or “better” in terms of art are just knowledgeable about the subjectivity of art.

The important thing is whether or not it inspires an emotional response. If I’m solely looking for an intellectual experience, I’ll read a science or math textbook.

I was not as keen on 80’s music as I was on the music from earlier and later years. I, personally, tend to prefer a more naturalistic and acoustic sound. I also play the piano and enjoy the experience of playing on an acoustic instrument.

This is just my personal taste and I make no judgements against specific genres as a whole.



What makes you think you know what “superior” is when others apparently don’t (if they never buy your work as you suggest)? I suppose “worthwhile” is another term that you believe that you have ownership of? What about those who have an opposite view? You don’t like specific genres that many people enjoy, and you enjoy many things that other people don’t.

Why do you want to believe that you are “superior“ to other people? No one is “superior” to anyone else. It also depends on how you measure success (which I suspect would be different from how others do so).

That’s bizarrely rigid black and white thinking.

Like most, I appreciate artists who have a unique voice, bring something new to the table, and give me an emotional experience. Technical brilliance is great, but if these other things are lacking, there’s really no point.

If I could own a technically brilliant but emotionally barren painting by Data or a painting by Pollock which moves me, I’d choose Pollock every time.

Art continues to move forward and with the times. We’re never going to be stuck with just 19th century styles, techniques, or mediums. People and the world have changed and art continues to change right along with them.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 04 Jan 2020, 8:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

AngelRho - you don't think it's possible that Bill Gates just decided he'd achieved all he could in the world of computers, couldn't possibly spend all his money on himself, and decided that setting up a charity aimed at alleviating global poverty was the best use of his time and money? Or that he thinks that higher taxation would genuinely be better for the world at large?

I also feel to point out the silliness of calling music that appeals to your culture "objectively good" while all other cultures are "culturally isolated". And writing off the period from 89-03 is silly - it's a much stronger period than, say, 76-88. Fair enough if you're not a fan of grunge (although there is a lot of virtuosity there) but that's when indie music really took off, Madchester, Britpop, riot girl, big strides forwards in hip-hop (Paul's Boutique, Fear of a Black Planet, 3 Feet High and Rising, Low End Theory, The Score, The Miseducation, Illmatic, Ready To Die, Reasonable Doubt, the Blueprint, College Dropout, The Cold Vein, Fantastic Damage, artists like The Roots, OutKast, Doom...), shoegaze, Radiohead, Daft Punk, garage, QOTSA, RHCP, Muse's good stuff...

1975-1988 is a period which doesn't personally appeal to me beyond a few very reliable artists and the odd album here and there, but I know for people like my dad who grew up with that music and properly understand it, they can find lots that appeals to them. I know that I can reel off a load of really great stuff from the past decade because it's the decade I know the most about - if you think this decade's rap is all misogyny and drugs then you don't know this decade's rap, and if you think this decade's guitar music is dominated by country then you don't know this decade's guitar music.

I think that grunge, indie music, and music that was showcased on MTV’s Unplugged was a refreshing and invigorating change in music after hearing over a decade’s worth of music that relied heavily on synthesizers, electronic instruments, and often (but not always) catchy lyrics

There’s nothing wrong with those things, but I greatly enjoyed the return to a more natural sound that emphasized raw, gritty emotion.

I enjoy lots of different genres and don’t believe that an objective ideal lies in any of them.

Not everyone enjoys the rock genre. I enjoy it, but it’s not an especial favorite.

Then it is you who are ill-informed. Listening to music is a large part of my profession. Those are not negative stereotypes. Rap and country are largely negative genres from their inception. That's not to say rap music can't be affirmative, or to ignore the patriotism of country music. Nor am I ignoring negativity in pop music, i.e. Taylor Swift ("Blank Space"). Kanye's Christian streak is noble, even if it is misguided (yes, I'm happy for him, but that's another discussion). Great artists stay within a process of ongoing growth. But if you spend a large amount of time with minorities as I do and survey what these young people actually listen to and the messages they honestly believe, you'll know just how deep down the self-hating rabbit hole it goes.

It's not that I hate rap or country. Country music for the first few years of my life was the only music I was ever exposed to and I loved it. It's just that both genres are culturally isolated. Neither really "speak" to me in ways I find relevant or exciting. That's not a bad thing. It's just that people like what people like. I'm no different. If you REALLY want to get me started on "bad music," change the topic to classical music (please, don't. I don't plan to be here all night).


If subjective, then there's no such thing as legitimate beauty. In a way, the elimination of objective beauty as a standard results in a universal "tone-deafness" for lack of a better term. When you watch a horror movie, you cannot allow yourself to be moved by sound design or atonal/non-tonal/aleatoric scoring. It is precisely these departures from objective beauty in music that makes these soundtracks so powerful and effective. Without an objective basis for comparison, horror doesn't exist. In visual art, horror doesn't exist without an objective point of departure.

The issue I have with science is it doesn't MAKE anything. Pure science is about experimentation and discovery. The steam engine has been around since, if I'm not mistaken, before Jesus. So what took railroads and nuclear power so long to show up? A strong theoretical understanding of what makes music what it is saves a ton of time and while allowing a creator to devote his energy to creation. I'm not merely concerned with the process of creation, which is a feature of generative music (the process IS the piece). I want to actually MAKE MUSIC. Computer programmers don't care about spreadsheets and searching the web. They care about code. Data gleaned from web crawling and numbers crunched in spreadsheets are merely "side effects" of the program, those side effects being the concern of the user. I'm concerned that the side effects from the usual methods of composition are unsatisfactory and that few if any tools exist to get what I want. It's up to me to both create the tools AND to implement them in very specific ways.

Experienced performers don't merely sing or play an instrument. They are intensely aware of the intonation of individual instruments and the sonic interaction of instrument/vocal groups. They put the science of sound to work even if they aren't directly aware that they're doing it. It's easier for less prodigious performers to get the same results if they do become conscious of what's going on, which makes scientific knowledge just that important to any artist. The goal is objective beauty. Science helps define exactly what objective beauty is and provide clues as to how to achieve it.


No, people who dislike those terms are mediocre whiny babies who are desperate to legitimize lazy trash as art.


Why limit yourself to acoustic instruments or digital recreations of them? If you enjoy one keyboard instrument, why not experiment with synthesizers? There is so much wider an expressive range with synths that you'll never get with a piano, yet if you play piano well you already have the technique for synth playing. There are entire universes of sound yet to be discovered. The 80's were really the golden age of digital synthesis and everything since has been reinvention of various digital wheels. Neural networks and physical modeling completely completely changed the sonic landscape. And now with open-source tools like Python, TensorFlow, and Keras (not to ignore PyTorch, I just don't use it) along with N-Synth and Magenta, ANYONE with a computer can build a synth defined entirely along their personal style, preference, and use case. ANYONE, and add to that a wide range of SBC's the size of a credit card that costs $35, all this advanced tech is available to virtually anyone who wants it. I devoted most of my life, I guess really since I was 10 or so, to studying music and playing acoustic instruments. I have my regrets, sure. Not experimenting or enjoying synthetic or computer instruments will never be one of them. Never take the electronic music world for granted.


You're assuming I care what others think. I don't. Nor should you.


I don't want to believe I'm superior. I KNOW I'm superior.


Says someone who thinks in black and white!

Let's try a quick test, shall we? Answer this: Is your idea of musical and artistic subjectivity superior to my views?


Music is a very special art in that it brings the abstract into tangible being. It is the direct conveyance of the composer's vision, not something that is easily visually represented nor articulated in words. WHY do you have an emotional response to the music? How do you know those are even emotions you are feeling? Subjectivity requires that a desired emotional response be the result of an artist's manipulation of a potentially unwilling audience member. He assaults your heart by raping your ears. I don't like the idea of being raped.

But if objective, the audience member UNDERSTANDS what he is feeling is a result of the composer attempting to communicate EXACTLY THAT. Subjectivity says that Tchaikovsky's love theme from "Romeo and Juliet" is an accident. Objectivity says that Tchaikovsky knew EXACTLY what he was going for. Those compositional techniques have been repeated over and over and over throughout all recorded historical periods and have been used to reproduce EXACTLY the same emotion or thought every single time. Composers know this, which is why they make use of those techniques.

As much as I love the Beatles' work, it is exactly this fact that makes much of their later music so difficult to understand. They purposefully explored subjectivity in music, especially with lyrics, and to this day nobody can quite agree on what it means. That's the whole point: It means nothing. Looking for meaning is a waste of time and, sadly, was a destructive exercise in the history of what had otherwise been a shining example of musical genius. Objectively, however, SPLHCB is a delightful journey, whereas much of Revolver was, IMO, a failure.

Noticed what happened after that period: Rubber Soul. Abbey Road. Let It Be. Forward looking music like SPLHCB and WA, positive (unlike Revolver and certain tracks from SP/WA), yet abandoning the generic (although excellently-produced) bubble-gum trash that made them so initially popular. This marked a return to objectivity that they may not have intended, yet perhaps was the most powerful music of the decade.

And you'll notice in the classical world modernist atonality and postmodern kitsch have largely been replaced by romantic realism. There are many excellent film composers. But there is only one John Williams, who seems possessed by the demons of Wagner and Bruckner. Scores for "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Jurassic Park," "Harry Potter" (where applicable) and "Star Wars" (Skywalker saga) are monumental works that we're unworthy of but fortunate to have. And I'm not ignoring James Horner, Hans Zimmer, Lalo Schifrin, Giorgio Moroder, Danny Elfman, etc. All great cinematic composers. And then on the concert stage you have George Crumb, Joseph Schwantner, Eric Ewazen, and any number of low-brow composers like Eric Whitacre, all whose work is variously avant-garde yet accessible. And countless wind band composers. Most others are more "academic" and have enough music department support to not have to worry about whether their music has any tangible value beyond the university.


Not familiar with Data. .

TBH what moves me the most emotionally is impressionist art and music. In music Debussy is tops. I'm plenty happy with his chord-planing technique, but he's most expressive with his use of octatonic scales. In visual art, it's Renoir I love the most. The impressionist painters painted festivals of light and landscapes. Renoir dared to celebrate the human form. It's in the celebration of human beings in natural states, capturing an unmistakeable joie de vivre that I just don't see with academic art, with perhaps my favorite exception being Bouguereau. It's not that the academics failed at capturing objective beauty. It's just that it doesn't really speak to ME.

Pollack had potential. With Pollack, there is no such assessment of humanity. There is no real sense of value in his work. That's not to say his work isn't beautiful in some sense. It's just that there's no "There" there. It's valuable in the same sense a couch is valuable, or why you'd choose one window curtain versus another window curtain. My own generative work serves the same function--to induce a calm mental state or to sonically enhance any given environment. It's not so much humanity that I have in focus as it is my love for one particular person: Myself. It makes me feel good if I can help my Best Friend sleep well.

I guess the musical equivalent of Pollack is Brian Ferneyhough. I mean, good grief, if you put Pollack, Ferneyhough, and Adorno in the same room, would anybody make it out alive with their sanity still intact? I think the biggest problem I have with Pollack and similar artists and related musicians/philosophers is that often their work is the result of an irrational, self-destructive mind. Which is unfortunate, because I don't entirely object to Pollack's work. I just don't place great value in it. While I'm jealous of anyone with the technical ability to navigate a Ferneyhough composition, I don't value his work enough to put in probably half a decade to successfully perform it. I can freely improvise more difficult music. Why painstakingly reproduce the notated equivalent? Pollack is easily reproducible, OTOH, as much as one can imitate Ferneyhough. My own music is deliberately made to serve a utilitarian function, just as splashing paint on canvas can most certainly dress up a bare wall. I'm just not going to pay millions to do it.


You can't change nature. The 19th century represents the culmination of harmonic practice. You can't listen to country music and escape the direct affects of realism. You can't listen to rap which, btw, uses a collage technique that blends melodic and harmonic material in such a way that conforms to 19th century common practice. Often rap outright samples orchestral works or uses sample libraries that imitate them. Trap in particular is deeply romantic. Popular music doesn't even make a pretense of denying its realist foundations. Jazz is nothing but extended romantic period harmonies mixed with African-American exoticism.

Don't confuse objective reality with a lack of emotion. Emotions are why you have logic, after all. Objectivity in music accepts that emotional responses to musical elements happen for a reason. It is that reason that guides objective composers in communicating the way they do. How do I feel right now/how should my audience feel right now? What melodic/harmonic devices can be used to elicit that response? There are other concerns besides. Where is the audience IN my work/do they see themselves in my work? Is my message encouraging, hopeful, optimistic? Or am I ignoring them? Are they larger than life, or are they a tiny, insignificant, meaningless occupants of a tiny speck of dust in the universe? What about my own values? Are they present in my work, or am I merely pandering to those I don't love, trust, or have any faith in? Am I glorifying myself at their expense, or do I write for them according to the shared values we happen to have in common? The end result of romantic realism will always be an emotional response because music is inherently emotional.

Take the idea of the resolution of dissonance. By resolving dissonance irregularly or avoiding resolution, you create suspense. You can endlessly tug on audience's heartstrings by teasing them with half-cadences. You can bring on the gathering storm with a deceptive cadence resolving to a relative minor key. Wanna signal that death is imminent with everyone wondering if the hero is going to make it in time? Augmented triads. Wanna scare the hell out of someone? Petrushka chord. You can bring peace and happiness, defying fate and gods with a Picardy 3rd. Perhaps the most emotional interval is the Lydian 4th, which I THINK was a defining feature of the "Toy Story 3" climax--not like it hasn't been used by countless composers long before that film. I mean...this is stuff that goes all the way back to the 16th century. Composers KNOW this stuff works. It never gets old. Yet when you consider this stuff is written into material existence, it's not surprising at all.

How does one know that he or she is superior?

What sort of objective and verifiable research studies and data would prove that?

Hmm... I suspect none.

People do tend to like some of the same works of art, but we don’t always agree so there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved.

I also don’t think that things are innately beautiful in and of themselves. We tend to develop specific tastes based on our culture and experiences.

If people looked like different creatures altogether and someone gave birth to an incredibly good looking person as many of us would perceive him or her, we might view that person as ugly or horribly deformed.

I don’t believe that beauty exists without some context or means of comparison (which varies depending on culture and context).

Obviously, many people enjoy Postmodern art. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean that it isn’t “good.”

I play an acoustic instrument because that’s what my personal preference is. I don’t find it limiting. Once again, obviously, we all like different things...

I appreciate differences in personal tastes. It’s a problem when one thinks that his judgements of “good” or “bad” are superior to others. I don’t usually call art that I dislike “bad.” It’s just not for me.

I think that good and bad music is in the ears of the beholder. I like German patriotic music. Another member would be a huge fan of classic rock and another member might enjoy hip hop. I think it's great that we're all different here on WP.

No, I don't think it's possible at all. Bill Gates is a self-hating, irrational, weakling who feels guilty for achieving greatness. He doesn't give to charity because he's a "good person." He gives to charity BECAUSE he believes himself evil. He's a waste of talent and a lifetime. I'd call him a tragic figure if I didn't think it was giving him too much credit.


I think you're missing my point. It has nothing to do with my culture. There is objectively good rap and objectively good country. Being culturally isolated has nothing to do with it. That was merely an observation. I feel alienated by it. It doesn't speak to me. That's not to say that it isn't good. It just doesn't grab me and make me care about it. There are those who identify with those artists and I think that's a great thing. I'm just not one of them. But there is also objectively bad rap and country, same as any genre. To make a qualitative statement is to make a moral judgment. I don't think rap is immoral because it's rap. I think it's immoral if it's immoral, which fact should first be objectively established. You can't say all rap is immoral or all country is immoral or that all pop/metal is NOT immoral. Goth music is also SUB-culturally isolated, for instance. It has nothing to do with whether goth is good or not, but everything to do with the fact it holds little meaning for people who don't identify as goth. Ambient as a serious art form is niche-driven which--guess what?--means that it is isolated. I happen to like it and identify with other ambient artists. Saying something is isolated is not a big deal, but rather a statement of whether something will be relevant to any given audience. Pop music BY DEFINITION is oriented towards a mass audience. Progressive Goa Psy-Trance Core (ok, I made that last part up) less so.



Oh, give me a freakin' BREAK! That was when popular taste was largely driven by poor little rich white girls. If I'd upped my Ritalin dosage like the doctors told me to do, I might be singing a different tune. But good freakin' grief all Nirvana did was throw open the floodgates to all sorts of trash indie--and really the big record labels were scraping the bottom of the barrel after the Seattle bands put all the decent LA bands out of business. Corporate greed at it's finest. This is why we can't have nice things, y'all.


The Roots got on my nerves after a while. LOVED OutKast, though. In particular you did have some most excellent specimens, like Creed. Oh wait..."Weathered" was released in 2001, nm. Linkin Park was great. Oh wait..."Hybrid Theory" was 2000. LOVE Radiohead. No Doubt was great. Muse? Vastly underrated. Daft Punk? Discovery wasn't released until 2001. I'm totally into shoegaze. Hello, Mazzy Star! Speaking of Mazzy, you mentioned RHCP. EXCELLENT band. Actually...RHCP was ahead of their time, and then all of a sudden it's like they figured out they were a 90's band and started cranking out crap 90's music 20 years too late. But they had BSSM and One Hot Minute, my personal fav album. Sure, I can name tons of bands from the 90's and early 2000's that were great, but I can name many, many more from the early 2000's to now that are really good. I felt like things shifted ironically for the better after 9/11. I mentioned 2003 as a kind of upper limit on the crap music era because I felt that crap music vanished into the mist about that time. You had SOME 90's acts that were fantastic, but by 2000-2001 there was an unmistakeable change in the sound that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. This really is a GREAT time to listen to mainstream music. With the democratization of recording technology, it's hard to find even an indie band that ISN'T good. However, I still feel that the ultimate expression of technological advances in recorded music is solidly in EDM. And when you look at the plethora of instruments out there available to one-man-band type performers, what's not to love about it? Deadmau5. Calvin Harris. Avicii (R.I.P.). And those are just the most recognizable names when there are probably thousands of producers out there who are just as amazing.


I'm not complaining about 80's rap. But even then the seeds were planted with influential groups like NWA and 2 Live Crew. At least the Beastie Boys were too funny to take seriously. Beginning with the late 80's, negativity towards women was a thing in gangsta rap, which has been the highest-selling sub-genre. And then you have guys like Kanye who can't even make a POSITIVE statement without threatening to violate women ("New Slaves," 2013). I'm well aware that not all rap does that. But it is hardly simply a stereotype.

I think 70's classic rock is ok. There's a lot of good stuff in there. I don't have a problem with the music of the 70's. My problem is I'm sick and tired of cover bands that don't play anything after 1978, but somehow I keep getting stuck in bands that do. I haven't had that kind of gig in a long time. I miss the money but none of the pressure or drama. I don't listen to a lot of classic rock for the same reason I don't listen to a lot of Classical period or Romantic period music: It's not going anywhere, and I dislike the idea of becoming a living museum. More like mausoleum. Same reason symphony orchestras are standing in the way of innovation and deserve to die. They don't support living composers. They don't commission new works. Some do, like New York and others. But it's largely a selection of the same 300 compositions by the same dead, white, European composers. Who wants to be a part of that? Not me. They're hanging onto the coattails of historical greatness and never once considering that the "Great Composers" are leading them straight to the grave. Is Mahler worth programming? Heck yeah. Would I attend a Wagner opera festival? Sign me up. But there are wonderful composers alive right now who are NOT Mahler or Wagner and are worth hearing. 70's groups were awesome back in the day. But sadly they have largely, with few exceptions, become their own tribute bands. They fare better than 80's bands at least who barely get recognition even for nostalgic value. That makes me sad. When I went to see Paul McCartney live, I was most impressed by how many songs he featured from his current album at the time. I wish more bands would be that assertive because their writing ability was what put them in the forefront to begin with. It's like their heart and soul just died, like they're nothing more than puppets trotting out the old sawhorses. It's disappointing. I think the Eagles might have been the biggest exception because while it seemed to me the concert was nothing but a greatest hits show, they often performed songs in unexpected ways. I thoroughly enjoyed Van Hagar the last time that happened. I didn't know that the weirdness onstage wasn't actually part of the show, but I was entertained. Sammy singing "Jump" was a real treat, but now it seems Eddie wants to erase the best VH had to offer from history. What happened with 70's and 80's groups really was tragic, I think. It's a shame because there were some great acts in there.

It's objective beauty that I keep coming back to in how I view classic rock and even contemporary acts. Bob Dylan...can't even really SING. Tom Petty, same. And why the heck are the Stones even so popular? Terrible music. The Who...I'm torn on The Who because if you strip the lyrics out the music is awesome. I find Pink Floyd to be hopeful, but not sure that was their intention in their writing. Aesthetically they're tops. I LOVE Led Zeppelin. But...again, torn on this one because the lead singer destroys himself to sing the way he does. I feel exactly the same way about Michael Bolton. POWERFUL voice, but unsustainable, great lyrics, beautiful melodies, strong supporting harmony. Adele? GREAT voice, but not a talent that can possibly last. It's the irrationality of continuing a practice that destroys your instrument that kills it for me. Compare with, say, Walk The Moon. Great voice, not overextended, relaxed, superb instrumentation. I can't really say anything bad about them.

I think that's why I'm so drawn to K-Pop lately because they more often deliver the total package without killing themselves. It's just a whole different standard, and I wonder if that's linked to culture somehow. Musicologically that's where I am at the moment. I feel a lot of mainstream western pop is less expressive and lyrically empty, whereas Asian artists kinda absorbed the best the West had to offer at its zenith and now just keep cranking out good music. Except when they try to write in English.

That's because you don't understand objective beauty. To be clear, I don't believe Western tonal systems are maximally beautiful next to an objective standard, at least not when they are dependent on equal temperament. Carnatic music offers vast tonal variety, freedom of performance and expression, and aligns with mathematical proportions that occur in nature. In fact, if I'm not mistaken every single western mode can be found among the melakartas. To understand objective beauty in music, it pays to go towards Pythagorus and beyond. The polyrhythms of the African continent. The heterophony of the Middle East. Indian ragas. What are the common threads? Why do we INSIST on still making music this way? Because it is beautiful, and measurably so. Western music, as insufficient as it is, still relies on strict rules to bring out its very best practice. And if western music rules are frustrating for you, dive into Southern India. I base my music on a variation of the melakartas but without applying Carnatic rules. It's not that Carnatic music is better than anything else, but just that it has a lot to offer. I was looking for a way to generate synthetic scales, the melas are the best I've seen as a systematic means of doing that.


Ok, but which is it? Is the person good looking or ugly? How does objective beauty apply to the human body? It would be based on traits that demonstrate optimal fitness. What are features of strong, healthy people? And how relevant are those physical features?

Every grossly overweight woman I've gotten to know was moody, unpleasant, and in one case abusive towards me. Objectively beautiful women are in general beautiful for a reason. While I can't claim to know every single large lady or every single thin, muscular woman, what I can say is often the outward appearance is a projection of the mind. How one defines himself or herself will show in how they carry themselves, their concern for their health and appearance, and in their personality. Granted, this is not always the case. But I think what is important in relation to how human perceive each other is not with physical beauty but rather how the mind manifests: Does this person share my values? And I think the question of whether objective values are shared among people are more important than physical appearance.


You asked a question earlier about research and dealing with superiority. You're missing my point. I know myself. I don't need to wait for researchers to give me permission to accept my own superiority. I don't derive my identity from what other people think. I'm concerned about the possibility that you do, but I feel I should get to know you better before making a solid judgment about you one way or the other. As to "bad" art, I referenced rap music in an earlier post as being culturally isolated. That's not a moral judgment about rap. That's a whole different discussion. It's really just an observation. To use your words, "It's just not for me." There might well be good rap music. I've heard good rap music. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to listen to it in any way. It has nothing to offer me, even if it's good. There's a lot of great country music. I don't listen to it. Why? Because I'm just not that into it. It has nothing to do with a moral judgment. But if something is genuinely bad, it would be immoral for me to listen to it. Doing so would be a self-destructive act.

You didn't answer my question: Is your idea of musical and artistic subjectivity superior to my views?

Gonna take a break for a while. Looking forward to Twilight answering my question.

In the meantime, I'm going to do something I rarely do and share my latest YouTube masterpiece. This is actually a long way from what I'm normally proud of, but this is an example of the music I'm doing at the moment. It's the sound design aspect that's suffering right now. I'm working on a script that will handle the synth programming side, but until I get that where it needs to be this is the best I have to offer. Just for fun, I did a screen recording of myself coding. I was doing an experiment with threading. The script has nothing to do with the music except that it took over 40 minutes to write and run it, so I recorded enough music to fill the time. I'm still deep in the experimental stages with this, so I'm not going to vouch for it being beautiful. The goal is to create music to help with sleep, though occasional notes that grab attention or annoy are inevitable. Work in progress.

No, no one’s artistic sense is superior to anyone else’s. I don’t buy into elitism with respect to art. We all like what we like.

I think your definition of “good” art and “bad” art is very limiting, though. I would consider that inferior because it’s so narrow minded.

It’s fine to like or dislike something but making an overarching conclusion about entire genres based on your own personal taste is odd and exclusionary, especially when it comes to other cultural traditions.

While I might not be drawn to specific genres based on my own diverse cultural experiences, I am still open to trying to understand and see the beauty in them. The fault isn’t the genres’. It’s my own.

Like I said earlier, I’m not especially drawn to Late Baroque French art, but I can still understand why others would be. I don’t think they’re wrong and I’m right.

The art, literature, and music worlds are large enough to give everyone plenty of stuff to appreciate and enjoy.

------------WHOAAA, let's deconstruct i.e., break-down the perspectives of Postmodernism to shorter written descriptions!------------

Any perspectives on Postmodern literature (LINK)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_literature

Now you’re equivocating. No one’s sense is superior, you don’t buy into elitism, AND YET you consider my definition which I don’t think you even understand is “inferior” and “narrow minded”? How is that even logical? Oh wait...postmodernism.


Strawman. You are completely misrepresenting my position. Do you even know what my conclusion even is? Why do you keep assuming this is about culture? Cultural norms generally affirm something that approximates western tonal systems which itself is built on the naturally-occurring harmonic series. The practice involves handling consonant-dissonant relationships in very specific ways that cross cultural lines. Why is that? Because beauty is objective. Even the Euclidean algorithm for finding the greatest common divisor reveals a natural tendency towards even division and quantization in nature. Nearly all rhythmic organization in classical music, folk music of Africa, and music from almost the entire world except India is based on the Euclidean algorithm or at least best described by it. It is objectively beautiful and preferred. Rhythms that lack cyclical, organic unity are less musical useful, at least not in a musically pleasing way.

Beautiful and ugly are objective statements. They are not in and of themselves moral judgments. I’m a huge fan of Debussy’s music. Objectively beautiful music tends to avoid many of Debussy’s techniques because his techniques compromise polyphonic independence. However, what makes Debussy’s music good (moral judgment) is that he exploits harmonic constructions in order to invent new timbres and achieve greater freedom of musical material. This shouldn’t even be possible with CP music, yet Debussy’s techniques are harmonically rich and deeply communicative. It’s sonic Adamantium, the likes of which have not been achieved on any scale since.

That’s not to say no other great composers exist that were innovative. What Debussy in particular achieved was a unique, challenging aesthetic that seems to defy all conventions yet retains objective beauty. It represents a turning point in musical practice, kinda like how Mahler effectively bookends Beethoven’s legacy, how Bach closes out the Baroque, or how Palestrina defined an entire epoch. Those are all achievements we work to claim for ourselves and kick ourselves for when someone else comes up with the idea first. Such music is morally good not merely for its adherence to objective standards, but also for its advancement of reason in the arts, it’s risk-taking efforts to raise the standard, and for its celebration of the individual.

Of course I’m picking on artists and composers I have an academic interest in and with home people are generally the most familiar. Bear in mind that this is WP, not a music library, and I can’t even begin to scratch the surface discussing moral judgments as it relates to the musical arts. Don’t assume my tastes are exclusively tied to classical music, pop, classic rock, New Wave, synthpop, or that I’m prejudiced against country or rap. I simply don’t find some genres relevant to my own experience. That’s not a moral judgment. It’s not bad music. It’s just not my thing. You can find examples of bad music everywhere regardless of genre, although I suspect some genres are more prone to bad music than others. I don’t consider NWA to be good rap. The rise of 20th century serialism led to a few landfills-worth of bad modern classical music. Stravinsky’s “Firebird” is a monument; his “Petrushka” is an embarrassment. The only good that can come from such things, much in the same way Orwell (a socialist) wrote 1984, is that humanity see works like Petrushka and Rite of Spring as commentary on the tendency of irrational human beings towards self-destruction. The objective value in Petrushka in particular lies not in objective beauty, which it rejects, but rather in the fable that it relates to the audience. The moral good is the same as any Grimm fairy tale: it sounds the alarm on our own self-destruction, both as individuals and as a society. Given the time frame of many of these compositions, the absurdity of human effort is understandable as an emotional response. But that provides no excuse for the abandonment of reason and the surrender of personal agency. Bad music and bad creators can’t see the good and worth of humanity, which is why objective beauty is so often absent.


That’s because you embrace subjectivity and reject reason. That makes you prone to mediocrity. You claim to not make moral judgments, yet you say you aren’t drawn to this or that. Now why is that? Do you find rap music that refers to women as b!+¢he’s, h03s, and chickenheads appealing? By your own standards you are compelled to enjoy music even if or even because of its inclusion of misogynist imagery. What about white supremacist literature? Do you enjoy that? Because the value judgment of inclusion compels you to read and enjoy white supremacist writings. Go check out the Daily Stormer. It’s quite entertaining!

However, if Daily Stormer and Stormfront messaging is offensive to you, is it possible that there is a logical reason that you are offended?

And in art and music, if something ever offended you, is there a logical reason for that? Moral judgments rooted in objective reality explain why this would be, why something just feels wrong about two notes played together, or depictions of horror, or hateful writing. Subjectivity and inclusivity strip the thinker of his right to discern. Hitler was a bad guy? Not really. Genocide is wrong? It depends. Rape is wrong? Idk, was she asking for it? I mean, you cannot articulate evil without passing moral judgments, and the same applies to the arts. If something is qualitatively bad, it REALLY IS BAD and there are objective reasons why that moral judgment applies. Care to explore what some of those reasons might be?


Of course. And much of it is morally good and objectively beautiful.

Ok, but it’s difficult to discuss aesthetics and philosophy as it relates to postmodernism without analysis, and I really am a trained expert in musical analysis. Hallmarks of postmodernity are inclusion, multiculturalism, pastiche, subjectivism, and irony. It is unashamedly logically incoherent, morally bankrupt, and lacking in material value. At this point in history it’s dead and useless. So I think all that’s left is to offer critique from a more relevant perspective, lick our wounds, and commit ourselves to avoid repeating the mistakes of PoMo.

You can’t get more opposed to PoMo than with Objectivism, so I prefer critiquing PoMo through the lens of open Objectivism.

Yes, the debates, analysis, etc. on postmodernism are endless. To focus on the analysis of postmodern literature, enclosed is a LINK to the New Yorker Magazine story (a lenghty (yet manageable) article) to read:

'John Williams and the Canon That Might Have Been-- A quarter century after his death, his austere, unflashy masterpiece was acclaimed a “perfect novel.” Does it belong to a larger lineage of neglected modern literature?'

LINK: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019 ... -have-been

RELATED: Author Kurt Vonnegut's 1970s works, 'Slaughterhouse Five', 'Breakfast of Champions', and 1998 work 'Timequake' are perhaps rare examples of postmodernism; as Vonnegut's works are not too difficult to understand.