Perfectibility in Music?

[hardcorps]

Will musical expression ever reach an evolutionary endpoint? I mean could we arrive at the perfect few musical pieces that enhance and deepen the ten or so major emotional states of a White person? Stephen Hawking once said that mathematics only had 20 or so years to go before it was completely mastered. (I feel this is an underestimate but, nevertheless, mathematics is theoretically perfectible.)

For example, after an Aryan homeland had been firmly and forever esblished, I postulate it would only take a hundred or so years to perfect music. What would its nature be? I don't think it would be Rock, as much as I enjoy some Rock. Rock is for people who are angry. So, at this time, it is very useful for channeling our anger. In an Aryan state, no honest person should be so angry. I believe it would be classical music.

Whites would pick up where we left off when the mob/mud culture started taking over. Perfection has already been attained in 50% of the future musical canon. Among perfected musical forms are, IMHO, Beethoven's 9th Symphony and Bach's Brandenburg Concertos.

I confess I mostly listen, selectively, to popular modern music. I feel guilty for doing so, Hitler would not approve! I believe, however, that such music gives me a window into the minds and souls of today's people. Classical music belongs to a more refined age. Listening to it I feel myself becoming too idealistic and sensitive to prosper in this trashy city I live. Listening to pop music also gives me another ready subject for discussion with those colleagues that I know I must avoid broaching certain topics with.

I never really got into WP music. I was not aware of it as a teen. I think some of the positive race-uplifting aspects of that type of music would play a role as a minor type of folk music in a future Aryan homeland.

Perhaps also, in a culture that had perfected the major musical forms appropriate to its inherent nature, a form of public instrumental improvisation would serve to reinvigour any sense of musical stagnancy.

Any thoughts?


- HC

[Jack]

Classical? (Go ahead, curse me Jotunheim) I'm listening to Spider and the Fly by London After Midnight. Best band I've heard. Classical doesn't get the blood pumping, sorry, sometimes metal is too coarse, pop music isn't refined, and I just happen to like Goth music. Some of it is pretty good actually.

[Moody]

Music has always been considered important by philosophers - one thinks immediately of Schopenhauer's aesthetics of music which was taken up by both Wagner and Hitler.

To Schopenhauer it is only in music that we get an immediate apprehension of the Will to Life, - his version of 'the thing in itself'.
Music then is the king of the arts, whilst architecture is 'frozen music'.

Classical music has the kind of construction that befits a race of master builders. One can make a comparison between Bach's Brandenburg Concertos and the architecture of Gothic cathedrals.

In terms of 'architectural' composition, pop music is poor - being more like a simple dwelling, like a hut, or even a cave decked out with sparse motifs.

Yes, Classical Music tends to express refinement; but it also expresses immense power - the sort of refined power that true Aryan Government should express.
Indeed, politics should just be a means to express that higher power in all Art Forms.

As to perfectibilty, I agree that this is a Noble and Platonic goal.
However, I think that it is ultimately unattainable [although that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a goal].
This elusiveness of the Perfect is due to Nature providing us with no two things which are EXACTLY alike.
Therefore there will be no Perfect Harmony, just as there will be no Perfectly straight line.

The Aryan knows this as a Tragic Truth, and yet unlike the lower races, he is not content with the botched and the ugly.
He rather sacrifices himself for the attaiment of the Perfectable on Earth.

[Grimr]

Perfection lies in the mind of the listener. If you could control sombodies mental state with some music then you will have perfected it, Skrewdriver for example their music was musical perfection.

[Moody]

I strongly disagree with you here.

Your first point suggests that 'perfection' is merely subjective; this is a contradiction in terms.
What is perfect only on the basis of an individual's prejudice is by that very token imperfect.
The perfect must be recognisable as such in an OBJECTIVE sense.

This is the whole point of mathematics to which hardcorps refered.
If it is possible, as Hawking thinks, to find the original equation that describes the Big Bang, then this will be true for all things at all times in the Universe, and NOT a mere case of personal and subjective preference.

I think you are using the word 'perfection' in an unusual way - perhaps you could expand on it, as I am genuinely interested.

The appeal of rock music [such as Skrewdriver] lay in its imperfection. The tones and rhythms are all deliberately without the will to perfection found in Classical. Think of the use of guitar distortion.
What is most marked in rock music is the attempt to convey Emotion through the very imperfect means of an untrained voice or brutalised musical instrument.
Indeed, sometime the more imperfect the music, the more profound the Emotion.

That's why I love Ian Stuart - for his imperfections.
I also admire Bach for his will to perfection.
Both are polarities of our Aryan culture.

[Grimr]

Think of this, an artist draws a mans face and because he desires ultimate perfection he draws a perfect circle for a face, draws the cheek bones as simple lines and he continues to draw a hexagon for a nose and nostrils he is then accused of drawing a stabbed beach ball. Perfection is imperfection and imperfection is perfection. The main thing is the viewer of the Art.

The only sceince, which may talk of ultimate perfection, is Eugenics.

[Borivoj]

I have to disagree with the statement that someone said about classical music not being as exciting etc. as rock. Because Rock/pop tends to be so loud with heavy beats and sound effects, naturally makes people more aware because of the senses it stimulates. Although classical music doesn't have the sound volume, it tends to have more subtle qualities in the instrumentation and harmony, which can make it just as interesting to the accustomed listener. If one listens to the Siberius violin concertos of Tchaikovsky or Hungarian Dances for violin & piano by Brahms, all though they are not perfect like Bach or Mozart, they still express huge amounts of emotion and passion. Anyway, I don't think that music can be "perfected" since there is a human element in all great compositions, turning them from different notes written on paper to pieces of music that have a very special quality to them. An example of such a piece would be "meditation" from the ballet Thais by Massinet. It is simple in melody, but extreamly beautiful. I enjoy listening to more rock as well, but I find classical suits my tastes more... Also I am studying Violin in university so I end up hearing classical a lot.

[Moody]

Considering that this is a Philosophy forum, I think we could argue that Classical music is more Philosophical than pop/rock as it stimulates the rational and refined elements of the mind.
Of course, Classical can be tremendously stirring and reach that part of us which is nationalistic - Beethovan, Sibelius, Elgar etc., all do that.

There is also a cross-over where the predominantly electronic instrumentaion of rock can be brought into Classical.

I myself like to see a Europeanising of Rock, where all the negroid and yiddish elements are excised. This in itself is something philosophical.
It also relates to what is our original question of 'perfectability'.

Again, I reject the notion of a purely subjective 'perfection' as a contradiction in terms.
To be 'perfect' something must be complete and ineffable in its inalterability - this is not a subjective but an objective notion.
Perfection to have VALUE must be objective - otherwise it is but a meaningless prejudice [this may be why Duchamp put a urinal in an art gallery as an exhibit].

You mention Eugenics - I think the pure Aryan type is recognised as human perfection OBJECTIVELY.
Of course, like all Perfection, this type is a goal, an aim, rather than an absolute reality.

This is why I say that the Platonic notion of Perfection is not achievable at present as Nature creates variation in all its replicators. So a close look at a perfect type will reveal ... imperfections.

Again, these imperfections are not subjective, but objective.

Ask yourself, is what is known as "perfect pitch" in music REALLY perfect?

[hardcorps]

@ Moody Lawless

Your statements have made me aware of some of my own assumptions.

. . . the Platonic notion of Perfection is not achievable at present as Nature creates variation in all its replicators. So a close look at a perfect type will reveal ... imperfections.

The perfectibility of classical music is in its 'repeatability.' Part of this lies in the fact that it is basically instrumental, with little or no use of verbal communication. Mozart wrote his scores down. As long as the musicians and the requisite instruments exist, his pieces may be played live a million years from now. Pop music loses its value once the language changes, which it always does.

Classical music (including Renaissance, Baroque, Classical proper and Romantic) transcends the individual. With Rock music, the individual performer is everything. Ever seen a cover band play the Rolling Stones! Complete rubbish! The quality of Rock music is dependent on the look and chemistry of those bandmembers.

Classical is eternal. It's like a true mathematical formula. The score is written on paper, just like 'a squared + b squared = c squared' (the Pythagorean theorem). It has permanency. Similarly, anyone who has practiced a lot can produce classical. Rock, Pop etc can never be produced in the same way twice.

Ask yourself, is what is known as "perfect pitch" in music REALLY perfect?

No, but in the technically skilled classical performance of a troop of Aryan artists it will come very close. In deep reverie one may then realise the fundamental 'formula' of the music as it was recorded on paper, as the deaf Beethoven dreamed of it. One may glimpse, for a fleeting moment, a pure noble, platonic form.

Every piece of instrumental classical music attempts to approach the core that is the formula, the written score. Rock/Pop cannot be repeated twice by anyone, and certainly not by another performer. A main characteristic of perfection is unchangeability.

While the pitch of a performance is never the same twice, classical comes the closest to unchangeability. The technically proficient group of classical musicians and their conductor may approach the plans of Beethoven. No one will ever come close, however, to Mick Jagger's voice and the whole degenerate, but captivating, chemistry of The Stones.


Conclusion: Classical can be perfect on paper. It can approach perfection in performance. Other forms of music can do neither, IMHO.

[Moody]

hardcorps; "The perfectibility of classical music is in its 'repeatability.'"

Moody; I think I understand what you're getting at there, especially if we make the contrast with an improvised form like Jazz, where changability is the characteristic.
However, I would say that Pop/Rock, with its reliance on recording backing tapes etc., is truly 'repeatist'.
A Classical musician may adhere strictly to the notes given, but he will play them with a unique feeling on the day - this is interpretation.
The average Rock/Pop fan wants to hear it all 'just like the record'. Not only that, some 'artists' of this genre will play concerts using backing tapes!
I personally think that a recording is 'dead meat'; music should played and listened to 'live'.

hardcorps; "Part of this lies in the fact that it is basically instrumental, with little or no use of verbal communication. Mozart wrote his scores down. As long as the musicians and the requisite instruments exist, his pieces may be played live a million years from now. Pop music loses its value once the language changes, which it always does".

Moody; Of course, Mozart wrote Opera though; Opera takes the human voice to regions untouched by Pop/Rock. Hopefully most racialists are also fans of Wagner - verbal communication doesn't get much heavier than that.

hardcorps; "Classical music (including Renaissance, Baroque, Classical proper and Romantic) transcends the individual. With Rock music, the individual performer is everything. Ever seen a cover band play the Rolling Stones! Complete rubbish! The quality of Rock music is dependent on the look and chemistry of those bandmembers".

Moody; Some truth there, but it was the Romantics who broke with the 'faceless' aspect of Classical. Beginning with Beethoven we see the rise of the Composer as solitary individual genius.
Also, with Paganninni, for example, we see the classical musician as star virtuoso.
It could be argued though with regards to Pop/Rock, that once the bands have broken up or retired [will the Stones ever retire?], what it all comes down to is SONGS.
Will the Stones' songs be remembered by future generations long after they have all died?

hardcorps; "Classical is eternal. It's like a true mathematical formula. The score is written on paper, just like 'a squared + b squared = c squared' (the Pythagorean theorem). It has permanency. Similarly, anyone who has practiced a lot can produce classical. Rock, Pop etc can never be produced in the same way twice".

Moody; I disagree here. To INTERPRET Classical music properply takes more than just practice - that takes talent. Remember, when you sit down to play something written by say, Chopin, you are having to live up to the genius of that composer - not easy for most ... indeed, it is impossible for most.
So interpretation and soul are VITAL for classical.
Pop/Rock IS reproduced as I said, because it has grown up with recording techniques; any lack of precision in the performers is covered by the use of tapes, electronics etc.,
And that brings us on to another aspect; Classical [apart from Avant Garde] is essentially acoustic; the sounds are made naturally and they resonate with the force of Nature.
Pop/Rock is mainly electronic, and as Roger Scruton said, 'if a machine could sing, it would sound like an electric guitar'.

hardcorps; "[In Classical]One may glimpse, for a fleeting moment, a pure noble, platonic form".

Moody; True, but do not forget the non-Platonic and Dionysian aspects of romanticism and modernism. Wagner can be just as exciting as any Rock band!

hardcorps; "Every piece of instrumental classical music attempts to approach the core that is the formula, the written score. Rock/Pop cannot be repeated twice by anyone, and certainly not by another performer. A main characteristic of perfection is unchangeability".

Moody; Again I would disagree because it is not the score, but the INTERPRETATION of the score that is important. Otherwise we would make do with piano-rolls. Classical musicians work on the ability to interpret just as much as they work on technique.
Also, many classical composers were great improvisers - JS Bach especially.
As I said, you emphasise the Apollonian aspects of classical, but forget the Dionysian.

hardcorps; "While the pitch of a performance is never the same twice, classical comes the closest to unchangeability. The technically proficient group of classical musicians and their conductor may approach the plans of Beethoven. No one will ever come close, however, to Mick Jagger's voice and the whole degenerate, but captivating, chemistry of The Stones".

Moody; The latter impression comes from repeated listening to the Stones' RECORDINGS. Once something is heard repeatedly, then any deviation is readily apparent; however I have heard many Stones imitators who are indistinguishable from the originals.
Of course, different orchestras will play the same score very differently; an American orchestra will sound very different to a Russian one even though they both play the same piece. And individual conductors will try to put their own stamp on the music of a past composer.
Listen to how Bach was performed 50 years ago compared to now - there is far more room for interpretation in Classical than you give credit for.
And yet see how even the most unique Rock musicians have been emulated; how many have copped Clapton's guitar sound, style and choice of notes?
So I don't find this criteria hugely convincing; Classical is capable of improvisation and interpretation.
Basically, classical is superior artisically to all Pop/Rock.

hardcorps;"Conclusion: Classical can be perfect on paper.
It can approach perfection in performance.
Other forms of music can do neither".

Moody; I slightly disagree; would you say a poem is only perfect 'on paper'?
No, the writing is a way of setting down the ideas in the composer's mind so that others may breathe life into them by reading them.
But will anyone else be as 'perfect' at doing that as the composer/poet himself?