Once function is exhausted, form becomes primary, and this seems to always signify the death of that movement. — Noble Dust

An example ... please.

Soundgarden in the heat of the grunge movement:



It's gnarly, dirty, and full of energy.

Versus Breaking Benjamin's post-grunge pop music:



Over-produced, calculated, polished, and posturing.

EDIT: i.e., the chord structures and rhythmic structures are not too different, but the production style, the drumming style, the vocal style are all an evolution, but the underlying musical concepts are not that different. So the form, the style, is the only thing that's evolved; the technical information underneath the style hasn't evolved all that much (a little bit, sure).

Danke!

Well, 'tis true, some functions have a duration, a time limit as it were and beyond that all that remains is to study the forms employed. As far as I can tell forms analysis is more challenging of the two given what is likely mountains of data which we have to sift through.

As far as I can tell forms analysis is more challenging of the two given what is likely mountains of data which we have to sift through. — Agent Smith

If I understand you correctly, I would counter that it's easier to analyze the evolution of form, not function. An analysis of function (i.e. in music: harmonic structure, key signatures, rhythmic structure) requires a more formal training, whereas comparing the sound of the snare drum in that Breaking Benjamin song vs. the sound of the snare drum in Come Together by the Beatles is surely much easier and doesn't require any real skill; just a pair of ears and one's attention. The latter being an example of form, to be clear.

I want to disagree, but I have to agree. Sic vita est.

So, once the functional aspect of an artistic expression is evolved to it's logical conclusion, the focus of that expression shifts from what it is to how it's done. — Noble Dust

I had nascent thoughts similar to this some years ago, but never as developed. Does this seemingly inevitable switch to or preoccupation with form indicate something like the emergence of decadence? Perhaps this is pushing it but outside of art, would 'post-modernism' qualify as a preoccupation with form vis-a-vis the metanarrative as function?

once the functional aspect of an artistic expression is evolved to it's logical conclusion, the focus of that expression shifts from what it is to how it's done — Noble Dust

Is this another way of saying that ground-breaking art introduces a new thematic, and as the innovation dries up we get more and more derivative variations on the old theme? And why would this be the case? Perhaps a consolidation period is part of the creative cycle?

In some ways it does seem that artistic abilities often deteriorates, and it may be that when a style is achieved so much comes down to imitation and repetition. I know a musician who thinks that so much been done that there is not much scope left, which does seem like the end of music, and possibly art as a whole. I am not sure that this is true though.

However, it does seem that with music one factor which may have affected quality is that a lot of it is made on computers. This may be why some does not sound as good as that which was made in recording studios. I don't know if that may be a contrast between Soundgarden and Breaking Benjamin, although it may surprise you that I actually like Breaking Benjamin, but possibly not as much as Soundgarden. (I really like grunge, especially The Screaming Trees, as well as Mark Lanegan's work and I was upset that he died of Covid_19)..

However, getting back to the original topic it does seem that we are entering the era of post post post post post post post possibilities, so what next...?

I'm not sure what you mean by "thematic", but otherwise I think I would say yes. I wouldn't use the metaphor that innovation dries up, but rather innovation sparks the imagination of others who then imitate the innovation (new derivations of innovation are still possible, but the returns appear to diminish), and eventually the artistic movement dies a natural death once the imitations and derivations reach critical mass (at which point the audience stops paying attention). Why this is the case is self-evident to me, but I'll try to clarify. At its core, creativity is bound up with the possible and the new. Once the possible becomes real and the new becomes not new, those ideas are left behind. Creativity is a kind of viciously unquenchable appetite; it's never at rest. I know this is poetic language, but it makes the most sense to me to say it that way.

Does this seemingly inevitable switch to or preoccupation with form indicate something like the emergence of decadence? — Tom Storm

I wasn't even consciously trying to lead the discussion that way, but I think this is possible. One issue with a preoccupation with form is it can lead to what Adorno described as fetishism. An obsession with form does feel like a type of decadence. In the audio production world, for instance, there is an obsession, a sort of fetish with audio software that emulates old tape machine technology; it's an obsession with making music with your computer that sounds old. I'm guilty of it as well. It almost feels like a harmless sort of addiction when you're in the middle of it. The fame and notoriety of music recorded to tape appears to influence this obsessive impulse to re-create those sounds (forms). It becomes a sort of private fantasy of sounding like the greats yourself. From a psychological perspective, it doesn't seem healthy.

However, it does seem that with music one factor which may have affected quality is that a lot of it is made on computers. — Jack Cummins

I would gently counter that; current digital audio technology is pretty astounding. I mentioned it above, but the best software emulations of analog hardware are so good that professionals can't always tell the difference. Of course it wasn't like that in the 80's when digital recording was introduced. It's evolved leaps and bounds even in the past 5-10 years.

Haha, I used to listen to Breaking Benjamin. That was just a random example I came up with on the fly.

However, getting back to the original topic it does seem that we are entering the era of post post post post post post post possibilities, so what next...? — Jack Cummins

I hate to say this, as I do have some luddite instincts, but AI art might be what's next. Technology in general, beginning especially in the modern age, has been such a driving catalyst for how art evolves, that I don't see that changing.

a preoccupation with form is it can lead to what Adorno described as fetishism. — Noble Dust

Totally where I was heading with this. I find myself thinking about movies too.

Oh sure; brawny heros walking away from expositions in slow motion.

Oh sure; brawny heros walking away from expositions in slow motion. — Noble Dust

Especially extravagant curlicues of CGI, orgiastically dancing in onanistic production design.

I could not make sense of Soundgarden vs. Breaking Benjamin.

This may be equally incomprehensible: Below is a large serving of Vivaldi musical matter--almost 4 hours worth, and that just concerti for cello. Just bounce around and sample bits here and there... It's all very similar. Stravinsky said that Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 400 times. I'll take the worst of Vivaldi over the best of Soundgarden.



There are contemporary composers whose works are fresh and young which have not deteriorated into mere form : Gorecki, Pärt, Adams, etc. The first cut on this YouTube album is Spiegel in Spiegel -- Mirror in Mirror by Arvo Pärt.



New ideas eventually run out of steam, whether we are talking about painting, music, restaurants, car design, hog breeding, reading instruction methods, and everything else.

I do find some of the digital music good as well, especially some of the experimental ranging from psych rock to some crossovers, including electronica. I do still seek out new music being released whereas many people don't..

I hadn't thought of AI music and I do keep an open mind although I would probably prefer to hear human voices. But I do like music by bands like Kraftwerk, The Art of Noise, Daft Punk as well as Brian Eno and David Byrne, so I am into a fair amount of alternative improvisations.

I could not make sense of Soundgarden vs. Breaking Benjamin. — Bitter Crank

:sweat: that's quite ok BC.

Stravinsky said that Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 400 times. I'll take the worst of Vivaldi over the best of Soundgarden. — Bitter Crank

I grew up listening to Vivaldi. Even as a kid I thought it was nice but never felt much of a draw to it.

Gorecki, Pärt, Adams, etc. The first cut on this YouTube album is Spiegel in Spiegel -- Mirror in Mirror by Arvo Pärt. — Bitter Crank

Gorecki I'm aware of but don't know well, Part is very nice but a bit bland, and Adams I'm a very big fan of. Some other contempo favs are Nico Muhly, Marcos Balter and Andrew Norman (below:)

https://ymusicensemble.bandcamp.com/track/music-in-circles-part-2-andrew-norman

As to your counter point here that young composers are indeed carrying on without resorting to form fetishism...I don't know if I agree. Don't get me wrong, I clearly enjoy a lot of the music. But Part is arguably new age-y, and some others who I don't remember the names of (because I don't like their music) are essentially regurgitating atonality and serialism.

An exception to the rule for me is the emergence of minimalism. Glass, Reich and Riley essentially stripped music of the serialistic banality it had fallen into and started quite literally from square one. As much as I consider it a bland piece of music, Riley's "In C" personifies this ideal. So, to your point, I think the "post-minimalists", of which Adams is the forerunner, are still breaking new ground within that tradition.

As to your counter point here that young composers are indeed carrying on without resorting to form fetishism — Noble Dust

No, no -- I meant their compositions are fresh and young -- as opposed to old and stale.

Yeah that's what I meant..

I do still seek out new music being released whereas many people don't.. — Jack Cummins

Props to you on that; that's something I'm very slow to keep up on. I find myself exploring older music from weird niche corners that I only know a little about.

.

Am I missing something? Is there a sense in which artistic function is bottomless/eternal, or am I right in demarcating it's beginning and end points? — Noble Dust

I think I understand approximately what you're saying, but there are two things I find difficult:

(1) What is artistic function? It's mostly semantics, but I find the distinction very unintuitive in that context. Any item, in art, has both form and function, and often items compose bigger items. For example, a iamb is a form which has a function within iambic pentameter. A line of iambic pentameter has a function within a stanza. And if a stanza has a particular form, it can have a function within a sonnett. That's true to some extent or another, whether the form "sonnett" is still evolving or pinned down. And forms that are no longer evolving can still serve a function within a bigger unit.

(2) I'm not entirely sure about the boundaries of interest here. You sketch out the usual development of artistic movement, and I tend to follow you there. I think it's pretty much true that movments run themselves out and leave behind "rules" of composition without reflection to give them further meaning. It's a movement from "can" to "should". It's the fledgling artist admiring the master and thinking "that's the way it should it be done, if I want to be successful." It's the book-keepers selecting the familiar over the risky. And it's the creative getting tired of having their well-intentioned rhetoric hijacked for slogans and dispersing, moving on (or stagnating themselves). After a little while and a little distance some things might repeat, with new rhetoric and new energy. For example, in science fiction/fantasy the 90ies New Weird movement felt a lot like a retread of the 60ies New Wave (with some of the same players involved). It didn't last because marketing departments took up the rhetoric, and the movment wasn't necessary to what any of them were doing. And it didn't really leave behind a form, either. Just a familiar set of rhetoric about creativity.

Basically, when the marketing departments perk up their ears, the vanguard loses interest, and the anxious rear guard wants to get it right. Economic pressures exist. Some of the vanguard directs their interest elsewhere, some do what they're used to in order to make a living. And some of the rear guard grow out of success anxiety and try new things. All the while the enfants terrible march to their own beat, and do what strikes their fancy. Their visibility is low, limited to fans, mostly. They won't catch attention of the marketing departments, but the vanguard might spot them and pick up what they abandon.

I'd say what matters is what motivates the artists:

The tinkerer likes the process of creating. The communicator wants to have created. And the book-keeper wants success (praise and money both apply). I'd say all artists are a mix of the three. The tinkerer likes experiments and results. The communicator sees means and ends. And the book-keeper looks back at what worked in the past. If you get some sort of visibility, you probably have all three to some extent.

I think the key point for this thread might be "regularity" and various intuitive attitudes to it? For example, in current pop music, production softwar makes it easy to snap voice and instruments to pitch and beat. Unprecedent regularity. The question too few people ask is what you should do with it. And because too few people ask what to do with it, the discourse tends to assume regularity is a goal. It's my impression that people familiar with music theory criticise that snapping music to pitch and beat gets rid of the musicians expression, while the more general public tends to say things like "these singers don't even need to sing," (which I read as: it's good that they're on pitch, but they should do it themselves). In the end, it's about the emotional reaction you get from listening to the track.

But there's a catch, too. We train our ears for music early in life, and if you train your ear on pitch-snapped music, will you hear expression, or will you hear mistakes? Personally, I don't like opera singers. I can appreciate their skill, but listening for that is a conscious effort I need to make. It's something I deliberately taught myself. I used to hate the sound of opera. No longer. But there's a limit. I can appreciate operatic singing, but I never managed to make myself like it. And I think part of it is that I trained my ear on microphone-recorded music.

There may be subtleties to pitch'n'beat regularised music that I simply can't hear and respond to. My intuitive response is, though, that it's sad that I have to hear a singer live before I can judge if they can sing or not. But what that means is that my intuitive ideal is microphone recorded music. Pitch'n'beat regularised music, digitally processed music, is here to stay, and I'm fairly sure people will do interesting things with it (if they're not already doing it with me unaware), and that I won't get it, unless I put in a lot of effort. And I'm not motivated.

The ultimate problem is this: when book-keeper mentality dominates, you tend to repeat what worked in the past - but based on theories why they worked (which are often dubious), and without allowing for diminishing returns. Diminishing returns, though, are a very real economic factor, too. So at some point there's bound to be a "suprise hit" where the book-keeper isn't looking. It's systematic.

My point, if I have any, is probably that we shouldn't look at the shed skin of a snake and mourn its death, while it's alive... elsewhere.

(1) What is artistic function? — Dawnstorm

I think you explained what I mean to yourself in your further paragraphs. But I didn't spell it out in the OP, so I'll try to here.

Function is technique. Music is the most familiar art to me, so I'll use that; apologies. Function is key signatures, time signatures, transpositions, modes, composition forms, approaches to improvisation, proper physical technique (ways to play the piano, hold drum sticks, strum a guitar, etc). Form is more the sound of it; do you like a silky blues guitar tone or a jarring metal tone? Do you prefer Baroque music or Romantic era? Do you like the chill vibe of rock steady or the paranoia of industrial metal?

The tinkerer likes the process of creating. The communicator wants to have created. And the book-keeper wants success (praise and money both apply). I'd say all artists are a mix of the three. — Dawnstorm

I agree. I guess your "tinkerer" is the main player in this discussion, though, as they're the one playing with function vs. form.

And because too few people ask what to do with it, the discourse tends to assume regularity is a goal. — Dawnstorm

I worry this is a classic case of "these kids don't know what art is", which is a perennial perspective passed down from generation to generation, all while art manages to evolve despite the old codgers complaining about the kids.

We train our ears for music early in life, and if you train your ear on pitch-snapped music, will you hear expression, or will you hear mistakes? — Dawnstorm

An interesting take I haven't thought of. I grew up on mostly classical music, so this thought never occurred to me.

First of all, I think @Dawnstorm has articulated it very well. I couldn't add to what he posted -- well written.

Function is key signatures, time signatures, transpositions, modes, composition forms, approaches to improvisation, proper physical technique (ways to play the piano, hold drum sticks, strum a guitar, etc). Form is more the sound of it; do you like a silky blues guitar tone or a jarring metal tone? Do you prefer Baroque music or Romantic era? Do you like the chill vibe of rock steady or the paranoia of industrial metal? — Noble Dust

They come together -- function and form. But function is felt, not heard. This is how I listen to music. Of course, when all you could hear is the shredding of the guitar, drowning out all the other sounds onstage, that distorts the harmonic quality of the whole act and then you start thinking art has deteriorated. Well yes, in that regard and at that moment.

They come together -- function and form. — L'éléphant

How so? What's an example?

I do still seek out new music being released whereas many people don't.. — Jack Cummins

Me too, but only if it was written between the 17th and early 20th century. :razz:

Function is technique. Music is the most familiar art to me, so I'll use that; apologies. Function is key signatures, time signatures, transpositions, modes, composition forms, approaches to improvisation, proper physical technique (ways to play the piano, hold drum sticks, strum a guitar, etc). Form is more the sound of it; do you like a silky blues guitar tone or a jarring metal tone? Do you prefer Baroque music or Romantic era? Do you like the chill vibe of rock steady or the paranoia of industrial metal? — Noble Dust

Just a little note on what my intuition tells me when I hear the terms form and function in relation to key signature: A key signature is neither function nor form; it has both. Consider a signle note: F#/Gb: Same form, different function.

Different example: The following notes in this sequence make up a chord: C/A/E/G. C6 or Am7/C. Same form, different function.

Maybe, function is the way a lower-level form contributes to a higher-level form: a note to a key; a chord to a progression. The same form can contribute to different higher-level forms; and a different function can lead to a different name.

Given this intuition it's a little hard to switch over to your usage (to the extent that I understand it), because the intution insists on getting in the way. It's no big thing. I can adapt; I'm not likely to use the terms going forward, though. Too insecure about getting them right. I do think I can read them without too many misunderstandings, though.

Am I missing something? Is there a sense in which artistic function is bottomless/eternal, or am I right in demarcating it's beginning and end points? What do your opinions say about your philosophical predisposition on what art does and is? Just my semi-annual art rant. — Noble Dust

As you probably know, I am very interested in art - how it works, what it does, why it matters. You and I have discussed in the past that music is the art form I have least to say about, not from lack of interest but from lack of knowledge. That being said, I'm really enjoying this thread. I've read all the posts and I'm just allowing it to percolate rather than trying to figure everything out. I don't have much to contribute, but the passion and knowledge of you and the other participants is inspiring.

I wouldn't use the metaphor that innovation dries up, but rather innovation sparks the imagination of others who then imitate the innovation (new derivations of innovation are still possible, but the returns appear to diminish), and eventually the artistic movement dies a natural death once the imitations and derivations reach critical mass (at which point the audience stops paying attention). — Noble Dust

Have you seen Mark Fisher’s ( his alias as a music writer was k-punk, before he became an academic) video on the ‘slow cancellation of the future’ as evidenced by recent trends in pop music? I’m wondering if you agree with his diagnosis of the current situation of pop music ( apart from his explanation of their causes).

I do still seek out new music being released whereas many people don't..
— Jack Cummins

Me too, but only if it was written between the 17th and early 20th century. :razz: — Tom Storm

I confine myself to discovering ‘new’ pop music written between 1964 and 1973. Pop music has been trying to recapture that breathtaking speed of innovative change ever since, with increasingly less success. But then, we shouldn’t expect creative revolution from our music if it is nowhere to be found in the larger culture. Good luck finding an original , underground counterculture these days.

Have you seen Mark Fisher’s — Joshs

Thanks. Really interesting. His 'slow cancellation of the future' seems to fit. Can't say much more as I have never deliberately listened to music from the present moment and novelty has not generally been a criterion of value.