Which is more important for the evolution of music electricity videos for 4th grade


I’d just as soon let composers do what they want; it isn’t like there’s anything else to do. I mean, we’ve got living composers who compose in just about every imaginable style, for example Arvo Part (holy minimalism/neo-Renaissance), Einojuhani Rautavaara (neo-Romantic, essentially), Pierre Boulez (hard-core modernist), Erkki-Sven Tuur and Kalevi Aho, the latter two of which are especially difficult to classify. I think it’s the last two who will find the most lasting influence on music of the future.

Oh, and I think recording as a medium is dying/dead, just to say, so I tend b games zombie to think music is going to go back to the older ways of just going to live concerts. Not saying people won’t record anything anymore; I just think the recording medium has been over-filled with so many superfluous entries as to bewilder and drive away people who would otherwise be interested (myself included; I’ve got a shelf of recordings that I find useful to me, which I believe has dwindled to no more than 15 recordings at all; buying recordings is beginning to be the equivalent of leaving one’s door open while the air conditioning is on midday during the electricity 4th grade worksheet depths of summer).

I dont really agree with either of the options offered. Evolution is all about some naturally arising adaptations (arising through chance genetic combination or mutation) being found grade 9 electricity to be advantageous in a changing environment. To emulate this in musical terms means effectively generating as much novelty as possible and seeing what survives. On that basis there really are no rules about whether we should be doing this or that. Quite simply we should be trying everything. Some things will turn out to have a clear fit with our changing musical needs. Others will be dead ends. Survival of the fittest.

It is worth noting however that evolution is all about fitting to a given environment. There are many environments in nature, that is why there are so many successful species. In music too there are many environments. The music that is the right evolutionary fit for hormone raging adolescents to dance 7 cases movie to is not the same as for the mature intellectual to be inspired by, the shopper to shop to or the driver to drive to. This is why I despair of discussions on the worth of music and arguments about which music is best. Comparing Mahler to Madonna is like comparing a Lion to an Octopus – they are both equally successful within their own evolutionary niche but cannot be compared against each other.

I think music is very organic, and very much a reflection of the society that produces it. I think the evolution of music is inevitable – it is going to happen. There is always a striving for the new. We can still look back on the past and enjoy what it has to offer, but nobody really wants to then move forward by simply replicating the past, no matter how revered it may be.

I think the evolution is shaped by natural forces. Even when music was ideal gas kinetic energy produced by people under contract, evolution still occurred. Works were commissioned, because patrons wanted something new that everybody else didn’t have, although still within certain boundaries. But composers could introduce new ideas, and if they appealed to people, they were then incorporated by others. Sometimes that evolution took large steps, sometimes small ones.

The problem gas after eating now, though, is that, particularly in the early part of the 20th century, there was a great movement where people thought they knew the rules, and could bend them to move evolution along at a faster pace. This was spurred on by much new thought – eugenics, social Darwinism, progressivism, socialism – the idea that society could be improved by enlightened individuals who knew the rules of the game, and could direct the flow of that evolution. Boundaries were pushed. And in many instances disastrous results occurred. Why? Because you simply can’t predict what direction humanity will evolve. Nor can you predict how their tastes will evolve. For the most part, it tends to be reactionary to the prevailing circumstances. How that plays out, though, is difficult to predict. Only in the lens electricity 80s song of hindsight do we seem to be able to easily identify those who correctly predicted the trends. Usually a bottleneck occurs, but rather than something completely new emerging, we get some aspect, probably fairly minor at first, emerging to then become the new.

In the 20th century, though, probably more than in any previous century, the world in general gas after eating bread was more affluent, and with that came more disposable money that could be used to subsidize non-essential things – in this case, one could argue music. More people were able to write without thought of marketability than in previous centuries. The concept of art for art’s sake. Now, while it could be argued that this removed restraints on creativity (i.e. not gas exchange in the lungs occurs due to being limited to what people would buy) and allowed for greater creativity, it probably also removed much of the selection pressure that would weed out the good from bad. Regardless of this, ultimately those selection pressures win out, because you really can’t swim against the tide forever and expect to come out the winner. Think of it like educating children in a vacuum – allow them to learn in whatever way they choose, whatever they choose, allow them to push whatever rules they wish. Maybe they choose to not believe that 2 and 2 make k gas station jobs 4. As long as they exist in this vacuum, they will be fine. But send them out into the real world, and some may succeed, but the vast majority will probably fail miserably. Ultimately, there are certain rules out there that you simply can’t ignore. I think music is a component of a society, and ultimately, the musical works that stand the test of time will be those that reflect the society that produced them. Beethoven’s genius was due, no doubt, as much to his musical abilities as the changing society in which he lived.

When you say that fashion has an impact on music, to me, that reinforces the concept that music reflects the society. In fashion, there is the fashion that is shown to those who engross themselves in such things, but doesn’t actually have z gas tijuana telefono applicability to real life. Then there is the everyday fashion that is constantly changing, but within (although sometimes pushing the boundaries of) the culture at that time.

But I absolutely think that music evolves with a society, and that evolution is usually reactionary to the previous era. The greater structure and adherence to rules of the classical era was a reaction to the ornateness and the embellishments of the baroque era. The Romantic era was electricity diagram flow then a reaction to what was viewed by some as the sterility of the classical, introducing emotion as one of the important components in music. In the 20th century, we can see this rejection of over the top romanticism and emotion by looking at music from the rules that governs it, rather than the emotions behind it, and striving to stretch and re-shape those rule, without being tied to evoking an emotional response, rather an intellectual response.