Has it all been done?

[James]

Just curious, what do you people think .. have all of the major musical statements been made to posterity, or do you foresee more.

[some guy]

To answer the first question first, no.

As for the second question, how can we possibly know? But judging from the number of times this question has been raised over the past thousand years or more, and the number of "major" artistic statements that have followed, one could certainly be forgiven for forseeing that there will be more of 'em, even if one cannot forsee exactly what they will be.

[Karl Henning]

To answer the first question first, no.

As for the second question, how can we possibly know? But judging from the number of times this question has been raised over the past thousand years or more, and the number of "major" artistic statements that have followed, one could certainly be forgiven for forseeing that there will be more of 'em, even if one cannot forsee exactly what they will be.

Surgically done, sir.

[Mirror Image]

No, it hasn't all been done and for anyone who says it has they completely undermine not only what is happening in classical music right now but also all the hard work that the composers of today are doing.

[Leon]

"Has it all be done?" begs the question in my mind, "by whom"?  Each composer will bring his unique creativity to bear in any work he attempts.  If he is walking a well-trod path, and if his talent is such, by necessity, there will be something unique in the result.

One cannot cross the same river twice.

[North Star]

There are always new ways to construct music, new ways to play istruments, new instruments, and new ways to use the old ideas.

[North Star]

I don't think music is in any way different from other arts regarding this question. I don't think architects are worrying about people stopping making new buildings.

[Leon]

By the human race .. the western classical legacy that can be traced back to the medieval times up to the 21st century. The beginning to now; & how hard it truly is NOW. To create something that isn't just a mere mixture or recombination of everything we have heard or done before. Saying things like "each composer will bring .." doesn't hold much  .. because in reality that is not the case. The vast majority of what is done, isn't that unique in a musical sense .. it's quite derivative & trite; but it's been like that throughout history too if you think about it ...

.. just venting here, I'm still hopeful.

Reading your comment I get the impression that for you, unless a work of art is absolutely innovative (an unreachable goal) then its value is negligible.  It is my belief that each person is a unique individual and no matter what he does, his unique personality influences the outcome. 

When you write, "The vast majority of what is done, isn't that unique in a musical sense .. it's quite derivative & trite," you are quite missing the point.  But you catch yourself by the time you reach the end of your sentence,  with "... but it's been like that throughout history too if you think about it ..."

Yes, if you think about it, "there is nothing new under the sun" (a statement made over 2500 years ago) except for the unique twist each composer brings to the task of writing music, i.e., taking up the baton from previous composers and carrying the work on.

[Karl Henning]

That a unique individual's personality influences the outcome, is "an ideal"?

You need to get out more, Jim.

[Gurn Blanston]

I'm pretty sure we haven't even exhausted C Major yet...

[Karl Henning]

Let alone . . . d minor! ; )

[some guy]

The easiest way to disable a poll is for you to ignore it.

(That's an easy way to deal with idiocy, too.)

[ibanezmonster]

Define how specifically you mean "it," and the answer is simple.

[eyeresist]

I'm pretty sure we haven't even exhausted C Major yet...

I was going to say that, dammit! 

[petrarch]

No. And even if it was, I'd be waiting for the day I can finally stomach Stockhausen's Licht cycle, Mahler, Wagner, and others (that would be something new to me); there is still so much being done that it hasn't been worthwhile spending time on those.

[Mirror Image]

No. And even if it was, I'd be waiting for the day I can finally stomach Stockhausen's Licht cycle, Mahler, Wagner, and others (that would be something new to me); there is still so much being done that it hasn't been worthwhile spending time on those.

I noticed you tend to stay away from much music of the early to mid 20th Century. Why? If you don't mind me asking. You probably stay away from this period for the same reasons I stay away from most Baroque and Classical Eras.

[ibanezmonster]

Maybe you can provide an easy 10 HERE .. to make the case.

I don't really listen to enough contemporary music to make a top 10 list.

If you speak broadly enough, say for example, limiting the idea of musical progression to simply expanding possible harmonies from harmonious music to atonal music or rhythm from straightforward rhythm to arrhythmic-ish rhythm, that development is only going to happen during a certain time in history (for western classical music)- obviously it will never happen again. In that view, "it's all been done" (or it has fully progressed), but that's just a narrow, extremely undiscerning view.

It's actually not that hard to invent your own musical style (whether that style is something you as the composer like is a different matter). There are always new possibilities- you just have to be discerning enough to hear them.

[ibanezmonster]

Nuff said.

I thought your question was whether new things could be said musically, not whether contemporary composers are saying new things.

[eyeresist]

 
Seen one sunset, seen them all.

[Mirror Image]

This thread is doomed.