The Importance Of Modern Music

Today’s Western classical music systems lack shared beliefs and values because musicians seem to be more concerned with forcing their own individualistic, non-conformist styles for the sake of originality. Musicologist Robert P. Morgan stated that in “World War II and the following decades”, we witnessed “a hiatus in the mighty line of powerful, individual composers.”

Why is traditional diatonic and formally coherent music aesthetically superior? In Structural Funtions of Harmony, the eminent composer Arnold Shoenberg states that modern music is “different in the contemporary period” because “the harmony is illogical and functionless” when compared to that of the common practice era. Why does Mozart or Bach sound better than contemporary

In the common practice era, Western civilisation united with one objective artistic mission to produce great music. So much so that in Harmony In Practice, Anna Butterworth stated that in spite of small deviations, common practice period’s “roots are the same”. Our civilisation forged goal-oriented standards derived from natural laws.

However, due to the rise of a capitalist, market-driven popular music at one extreme, and modern classical music inspired by Cultural Marxism at the other extreme, both of which originate from the poles of the left-right political spectrum, the potential of development of modern musical idioms is nonexistent. In addition, the more modern classical musicians fallaciously attempt to be radical, the more they fail spectacularly to provide music having logical and functional content. John Cage’s 4’’33 is a clear example of

Rightist ideology drains potentially good music’s money, talent and energy, thus rendering all radical modern music impotent or aesthetically regressive. Popular music increased the usage of the word “genre” in the 20th century – a vile word which is poisonous and divisive to music. In addition, this word implements a divide and conquer scheme in society. It alienates our very concentration to focus on what I term “unified aesthetic progression.” Without “unified aesthetic progression”, there can be no aesthetically pleasing progressive musical functions. Capitalism alienates the masses’ concentration. Moreover, in modern times, the development and refinement of a system akin to the way our forefathers formulated diatonic tonality in the common practice period is a cultural impossibility. The elite is ascribing an induced erectile dysfunction to potent musical procedures such as dodecaphony, which zaps the cultural opportunity to develop this form communally.

Musical evolution does not occur by one person; no man is an island. This principle goes against what is endorsed by the left. Diatonic tonality was not formed by an individual, rather a community of musicians throughout history. Furthermore, as a consequence of forced individuality by driving composers not to consider functionality in their venture to be “modern”, contemporary classical musicians are writing experimental