.

[Ugh]

 Stasis is a rare anomality in nature. The universe is characterized by change. It expands towards the point where all cosmic objects will eventually be so far apart that they cease to interact with eachother. Then we will have reached true stasis, death. Life is fundamentally creative, characterized by variation. Accept it.

[Josquin des Prez]

Truly one has to be obtuse beyond all obtuseness to deny and deny and deny such a well-documented fact as that novelty in any field and at any time meets harsh resistance.

The only obtuseness here is the inability to comprehend the fact that novelty has nothing to do whatsoever with the rejection of Schoenberg and his ilk, which was my argument all along.

[karlhenning]

Schoenberg and his irk is a most enjoyable typo, incidentally.

[Josquin des Prez]

Accept it.

Acceptance being usually the province of those lacking in true creative spirit. A truly assertive individual would stand up for what he believes to be the truth, not passively roll over along the whims of arbitrary historical currents.

[Josquin des Prez]

Schoenberg and his irk is a most enjoyable typo, incidentally.

As my intellectuals powers wane every day, it becomes harder to correct mistakes on the fly. I'm glad however my mishaps can at least offer some amusement.

[karlhenning]

It's all right to let mistakes slip on the Internet.  QC isn't that strict.

[Ugh]

Acceptance being usually the province of those lacking in true creative spirit. A truly assertive individual would stand up for what he believes to be the truth, not passively roll over along the whims of arbitrary historical currents.

If you'd like to refer to the universe as an "arbitrary historical current" that is fine by me My point, in case it needs spilling out, was that there is no escaping innovation on this planet.

[Josquin des Prez]

If you'd like to refer to the universe as an "arbitrary historical current" that is fine by me My point, in case it needs spilling out, was that there is no escaping innovation on this planet.

My point is that innovation is irrelevant to everything and anything, and can be ignored at anyone's discretion. That seems to be the case with great artists as well, for whom innovation often takes the backseat to simply creating great art, as they see fit.

[Florestan]

Just saying: someone under whose avatar one reads "Lyric Suite" and who has repeteadly praised Alban Berg can't be easily dismissed as just reactionary.

[Ugh]

My point is that innovation is irrelevant to everything and anything, and can be ignored at anyone's discretion. That seems to be the case with great artists as well, for whom innovation often takes the backseat to simply creating great art, as they see fit.

No, you don't get what I'm getting at. I am not talking about deliberate innovation, but I am stating that it is impossible not to be innovative to a certain degree, even if you set out to avoid it. Even a minute copy of a painting cannot replicate the original. Even two photocopies are not 100 % alike. True duplication is impossible.

This was the point of the first post in this thread too: even within a historical period many regard as static, there was so much artistical innovation going on that it bothered some people...