Rationalism, a phenomenon that occurred from the first post-war stage in a process of social reconstruction, and which addresses the musical world beyond a cultural and natural practice, raises new avant-garde such as serialism and stochastics, knowledge that draws music as a purely scientific practice to the function of man, as social development and the separation between cultured and public music.
Adopting the argued position of six centuries of musical evolution in the West, leaving them to their macra nudity as too much science and lack of sensitivity, the search for originality at all costs, a rejection of history and historical perspective and the latter being the main reason for this writing, the lack of respect for the natural order of things.
Objecting to the concept of rationalism becomes diffuse, with a lack of clarity and with a tireless air of confusing nature and the common man in a certain sense, positions music on a high pedestal and not available to mortals with limited ears, leaving the reason of the compositional criterion as immortality and sonorous knowledge for exquisite tastes, distancing music from the interaction to the receiver and from the tonal or modal solids.
A phenomenon that in one way or another was present since dodecaphonism and that is now interested in presenting musicians as the Intellectual Elite of the twentieth century, becoming a scientific practice rather than cultural, taking it to the extreme of seeing it as purely mathematical knowledge, taking into account the study of the sonorous mace, the concept of statistical probability and the handling of the mace capriciously and at the whim of the composer.
The foregoing has already been explained and with the intention of approaching the concept of taste from reason, taking as a starting point that human knowledge in some fields is objective and some subjective, reason is seen as a natural practice of each individual, independently of the knowledge they possess, without segregating their intellectual condition and without isolating their propositional capacity for any scientific field.
Not being the exception of the art, not conditioning the practice to the theory and separating it of the emotional reason that possesses each subject, quoting Rousseau in which each man has a particular taste, and has criterion to decide which of the things he calls them beautiful and good in an order that does not belong more than to him, one loves the mountain.
Other the sea, other the fish, other the meat Question of tastes!, and it is not true that this word, by the impression of what it designates, sets a thousand traps to the good will of reason. Apart from the natural concept of art which only tries to generate a sensation to the observer or listener, independently of being good or bad within the criterion of each subject, it is taken as sensation.
Human sensation varies, it is the natural order through which each individual in a community passes; in this same way it happens with sensation in art; one cannot generalize a concept in art and less so in music, although I tend to take my position that rhetorically certain works can cause a bad sensation (be it sound, noise or emotional sensation).
And I come to this point because I really begin to think that the reason of 20th century composers conditions the natural order of music, encases the sounds and limits the capacity of the performer.
Hinders the possibility of proposing within the work keeping the respect for the intention of the composer and positions the former as a narcissistic character, curious and self-absorbed with seeing the musical field in a purely practical way, inherent to any reason of a normal person and nature itself.
It is as simple as telling a child to follow or recreate a melody from a sound that I reproduce; the natural condition of the child’s mind will be to lead it to stable degrees and joint degrees within the melody, and not; I am not proposing music as the most utopian sensation of art, but as a natural sensation that the body itself generates, that does not force, and that above all; it is directed as the naturalness of the subject.
In this order of ideas I consider that music makes us slaves of it, and that no matter how poetic it may sound we generate a tendency to follow our mind at the moment of composing.
Now, if the sounds are generated from human sensation, the ability to imitate and recreate and the emotional condition.
I cannot deny or forget that reason also conditions sound as an acoustic phenomenon, as energy and as a result of scientific processes with which one can experiment, not only starting from a series of twelve chromatic notes, or from a series thought from the tempo, dynamics and various factors of what to make musical.
It conditions me to deliberate whether the true evolution of music passes through reason as sensation or reason as knowledge; it generates more questions to this writing in the same way that rationalism complicates cultured music. What freedom does the performer have?
What sensation does the composer seek? And perhaps the most important. What is the result given to the spectator? So much chaos, so much dissonance, produce a complete tension that only musicians understand, that only musicians can analyze and that only musicians can debate about what is good or bad.
Since when the musician moves away from the real world, or spreads into his own bubble isolating himself from human naturalness, I fall into the same discussion of music for musicians and music for the people; and although I agree with the idea of musician as a professional and not as a member of the bourgeoisie.
I feel that so much avant-garde subjects the musician as a bourgeois character and separates him from the rest of the population, I feel that the saturation of sound turns art into a cliché, and that so much absence of melodic form does not contribute to the development of music as a scientific field, nor to music as a cultural practice.
In order to finalize this writing it is necessary to clarify, that as position I am not against avant-garde like the dodecaphonism, integral serialism or the stochastic one; on the contrary they seem to me a scientific tool and why not; a way of playing with the music, perhaps I applaud the minority that dedicated itself to this compositional style and way of evolving forcedly the music.
I admire characters like Elliot Carter or Ianis Xenakis in my field, the second being the one that produces more astonishing capacity, separating music from meaning and proposing the concept of composing by practice and without the poetic sense that is attributed to music; but I differ from the general concept of rationalism and from seeing reason as scientific practice.
When the concept of reason by nature should be attributed to the body, to the sensitivity and to the criteria that the public can process; that is, I do not agree with closing the music to the musicians, with closing the interaction that occurs between what is written and interpreted by the instrumentalist and the perception of the listener, with limiting the heavy and unfinished experience as a sensation and as art, no matter how annoying it may be.
I do not agree with the musician as a character, I consider it a truly narcissistic and selfish attitude to close the investigation of music and for a minority to develop and absorb its own content; for all the above mentioned in this writing between arguments and small opinions I consider that the condition that generates rationalism in music is the opposite of evolution.
Truly, if we are blocking the sensation of the receiver, the music is not advancing, on the contrary, it regresses. As involution.