Hacker News Reader

Comment by nautilus12 | Hacker News Reader

I disagree whole heartedly. This will end up putting an overemphasis on contemporary work, and not enough on classic works. Think about how often cirriculum never gets to the end of, when such seminal and formative composers such as Bach are fit into the last weeks you will inevietably gloss over them. We already make Gods out of our contemporary world view at the expense of downplaying the brilliance of past thinkers. I dont think we need to fan this flame. We will end up with an aesthetic that is so devoid of the basics that it barely comprehends itself, and if ever hits a dry spell will never be able to recreate its former greatness. The net effect will be to gradually turn our backs on the collective insights of the greats of the past

View on HN

What is "too much" and "not enough" when it comes to what a student is passionate about?

I think there's currently a tremendous, almost unbelievably large, over-emphasis on music that has a written score in most music programs, which leaves out literally everything that is popular and contemporary. One has to specifically pursue those subjects in elective classes (there are jazz programs that make it up through the 70s as part of the primary coursework, but popular modern music is practically absent from most college music programs). Even when modern music is covered, it tends to be those pieces written by composers using traditional methods, which includes a written score...which is not what is popular.

This is a new phenomenon (though, I guess, studying music in college is also a new phenomenon, when speaking on the time scale of music history). Bach was popular in his time, and he paid attention to other popular composers of his time. What we think of as the "repertoire" that is sort of widely regarded as what someone ought to study as a music major is also pretty new-fangled. There was much less awareness of music from even different parts of the same continent during Bach or Beethoven's time than we have today (I mean, we likely know more about contemporaries of Beethoven from across Europe than he did in his day, and we certainly have better access to history on both sides of his life than he did), and yet we pretend this is how it's always been and that it's the way it should be.

There's a good argument to be made about a common language among musicians...and that historically has been the western repertoire that is generally taught in universities, but there are other common music languages that have similar depth and rigorous analysis (jazz being one of them, perhaps surprisingly, given its origins as popular dance and party music). A music education is supposed to prepare someone to make and/or play music (hopefully music that they like) often with others, and always for others. The musical language they use to speak to those other people doesn't have to be deeply informed by Bach to be valuable.

Of course, if that is the music someone loves and the music someone wants to make, it's great that it's available to them. But, I think it's Eurocentric and extremely limiting when imposed as a requirement.

You enable the student to follow their passions with more capability if you inform them of the collective intelligence of hundreds of years of progress, which happened to take place in Europe. That is not eurocentrism this is just recognition of the reality of history.

If you dont like that build a time machine and change history.

yea but how come you arent complaining that basically nothing of indian classical music, gypsy music, hungarian folk music, balkan, etc is taught. its just the white guys in europe who were good? of course not. in general, music education is insanely myopically focused on the (of course wonderful) tradition of western diatonic harmony- i guess i think your comment makes no sense if you contextualize it within a bigger musical world.

There already is an emphasis on the experience of one's lifetime during one's life time! It's a way better way to get context on Bach by starting with something familiar - instead of forcing them to "imagine a time long long ago..." Besides, it teaches one to be superstitious - like big bang theorists :)

I think the reality will be that the contemporary will be the focus and the old will be glossed over.

I get that someone who loves Tarantino can't sit thru a Peckinpah movie. But imagine if Tarantino had been one of those people.

Why is it _always_ Bach? Every single time I hear the entirety of recorded music's history being dissected, Bach is the first - often the only - example brought to attention. Have this many people subjectively decided for themselves that Bach deserves this credit? Or do schools of music have a habit of teaching that Bach is objectively the best, as if it's a fact grounded in science?

Bach is to music as Shakespeare is to literature - if you don't nod your head in agreement like a brainwashed zombie when either of these men are stated to be the best in their respective fields, you're automatically dismissed by the crowd of "elitist snobs", for lack of a better redundant phrasing.

I don't side with contemporary works either. The current era (90s+) is so disgustingly cookie-cutter, superficially manufactured by record labels to shovel down our throats in bulk. The 50s through the 80s fared somewhat better; the studios still heavily controlled every aspect of the artists they signed, again following an (as-of-yet unperfected) recipe. At least back then, _some_ of the music managed to weave a story capable of evoking emotion and meaningful thought. I would agree that something has largely been lost over the past century: music no longer being composed, instead being "arranged"(?) to fit specific molds.

tldr; I suppose: a) Fuck record labels; and b) Stop with the "Bach is best" culture.

> "Or do schools of music have a habit of teaching that Bach is objectively the best, as if it's a fact grounded in science?"

I don't think you're entirely accurate on why Bach is such a big name when it comes to classical music. It's not because he is viewed as some objective "best" as you seem to be so convinced of.

Western classical music as we know it today didn't really begin until Bach came around (the only exception that comes to mind immediately is Corelli who came a few decades prior). Music historians today recognize that Bach laid out the technical foundations on what Western music is itself. His development of the counterpoint is a major distinction between medieval music and the classical period that followed. As well, his Partitas for Solo Violin and Well Tempered Clavier for Piano have became and remain to this day, foundational parts of learning and improving violin/piano because they train and benchmark almost every technical ability of their instruments (at least in Western music) to such precision. To analogize to programming, it would be like a set of problems that ranged from basic recursion to debugging memory leaks and everything in between and beyond. There are of course other resources such as Kreutzer's etudes for violin but Bach is one of the first and one of the only to do so to such detail. There are numerous of other music elements such as figured bass and dance forms that Bach contributed heavily to, but I think you get my point.

So to summarize, no, I don't think most music historians "nod their head in agreement like a brainwashed zombie". It's not that they hail Bach as some "objective best", it's because they can recognize and respect the formative effects his work had Western Classical music. He is a father of his field much like Turing of Knuth are and that deserves his praise.

> The current era (90s+) is so disgustingly cookie-cutter, superficially manufactured by record labels to shovel down our throats in bulk.

Have you actually spent more than 5 seconds looking for music? Contemporary music is the most diverse it's ever been, you just have to look for it.

Even just sorting rateyourmusic by rating will give you an acceptable overview of what's out there.

Have you ever sat down and listened to bach??

One meter of Chaconne in D minor has more aesthetic value and beauty than the entirity of Kanyes work. The author is essentially suggesting we just cut out raw organic food and eat processed food all the time

Eating McDonalds teaches me exactly 0 about fine french cuisine

Reply on news.ycombinator.com