Principle of Substantiality ( in Music)

One very basic mistake among many musical pieces after 1950 is the lack of substantiality. That means, many works don’t even come to be a recognizable IDENTITY ( substance). They don’t become A DISTINGUISHED THING. Paradoxically , it seems that the more “avantgard” the composer is, the more it happens. No matter what you do, character and identity are fundamental artistical requeriments. I call that the principle of “substantiality”.  

If you do “just volk art” it is sometimes even wanted that things are similar to each other. If you hear jazz at the cofee bar while talking to someone it is already great so. However if you pay 20 Euros for a piano recital, it is annoying if the pieces sound like “what ever” , without any discourse. I don’t judge musical techniques here, but the lack of discourse, drama, process, meaningful happenings : those elements of the artistical substance that should lead to catharsis. 

I does not mean that a piece is a problem when it sounds similar to something. It is a problem when whey are simular by a lack o intrinsic substance, that means, as it were not a problem to exchange their title, composers name, or even sections.

You can avoid tonal substantiality, you can compose the most evanescent pieces of music , but should not avoid formal or discursive substantiality, that what a gives a simbolical and poetical value to your piece of art.