I heard Stravinsky on two occasions. Once, when I was at music camp; somebody played some of his stuff on a record player. There was a great deal of nastiness that day; people (or someone behind me was/were stepping on the bottoms of my flipflops. There was a lot of nasty talk. Then there was a fight. I am thinking that maybe one cause of the fight was people's getting nervous and in a nasty mood on account of those horrible sounds.
The other time was years later; some of it was played on my radio, and after a while I simply pulled the plug.

Now I don't know if it was the same composition in both cases or not. I don't know if it was Rite of Spring or not. But I hope I never hear it again.

But, Stravinsky could produce great melody and dynamic rythme, (perhaps only in odd moments?)
Listen to the Rite of Spring, a ballet. It was used by Walt Disney in his Fantasia.
As for Schoenberg, when I have something to recommend I will post up immediately ..

Maybe you heard but suppressed the memory to avoid permanent psychological damage.

I did not pay much attention in the '50's; I was little then. But after I discovered Gilbert&Sullivan (in 1963), modern stuff just didn't excite me. I'm not saying I violently disliked it, but it didn't arouse me.--And no, I did not mean to say they were like Stravinsky, which is about as bad as it can get. (Somebody told me Schoenberg [sp?] was worse; I don't remember ever hearing Schoenberg, but I don't see how that could be possible).

You can like or dislike what you want in accordance with your own tastes in the different aspects of music, but the simple 4/4 and 3/4 dance rhythms of the 1940s are not anything like Stravinsky at all, and are rhythmically very straightforward. The rhythms that were not so straightforward are those like the tango, which are harder to retain or dance, but still easy to at least follow listening.

The Mexican Hat Dance was more interesting in about the 1st grade, and bands that took such traditional folk music and 'swung' them had different degrees of success in making them at least briefly worth passively listening to in passing (i.e., not going out of your way to turn it off). Do you have an example from youtube? (You're unlikely to find that original 45 and LP but maybe you can easily find something to illustrate what you mean.)

The rock music of the 50s and 60s was mostly not "deadening noise", which came later in great decibels. Do you find the simple 1950s Rock Around the Clock, The Twist, and Elvis Presley -- to the later Beach boys and the Mamas and Papas to be deadening noise?

Yes, the post modern left is stuck on the idea that there is no good or bad.
In the art world they went as far to create anti art and would go farther if it were possible.
They are attempting the same with music, I've heard some stuff lately that would make you puke. Bad vocals, Really bad like listening to the tone deaf singing, bad musical format, and the worst mixing I have ever heard and I know,...I did all the mixing at my studio.

I must confess that I hold a particular fascination for Pink Floyd, Steely Dan and in a totally different category, Jethro Tull.

I got into choreographing new dances to different tunes, but nobody was ready for that.
My first thought when my friend tricked me into going to a country dance club was that everyone looked good on the dance floor, few if any awkward dancers.

Once I got really good at teaching and dancing I thought...wouldn't it be really nice if Everyone looked Good on the dance floor, dancing to any kind of music.

My friend brought me to some 50's clubs and I was embarrassed to see a lot of people that really shouldn't be dancing in public!...laughing...including me at the time...
That is where I got the idea.

I used to go to a country dance club until I lost my job, in fact, I continued to go until the unemployment ran out. (I thought it might be excusable to still spend money on it, in case I could make a contact with one of the people that would result in a job, but this didn't happen). Man, I really did enjoy that music. Once, even "Port Lairge" (an Irish jig tune) was played.

It is not straightforward.--Excuse me, it irritates me. Of course, it's not as bad as Stravinsky (I can't imagine what would be), and it's not a lot of deadening noise like rock.--But I just never cared for it. My father was once playing "Mexican Hat Dance" on an LP record, and it was swung, and he asked if I liked it. I said no, and went on about a little record (it was probably a 45), that had it as it was supposed to be, and he finally dug up that one and played it. He saw what I meant.

Olduglycarl The question you raised in this thread is very good.
Anyway- I have just found this article, it hits the nail on the head-
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/r...

Some excerpts:
" Reggae is to be added to the Unesco world heritage list. (!)
the usual crowd of churlish curmudgeons, including me, who will argue that pop music shouldn’t be included on lists of the world’s cultural treasures.
‘…the Left, which …is unrelenting and unsparing in its analysis of our other cultural phenomena, has in general given rock music a free ride’ quoting Allan Bloom "

Syncopation does not remove the basic 4/4, 2/4 or 3/4 rhythms and does not remove the melody. Dancers have no problem following the simple, straightforward rhythm.

I know exactly what your talking about, I once taught country dance, line dancing and couples along with swing.

Oh, swing. As when a tune formerly went "One,two
three, four," it was changed to "One--two-three, four--- one--t-three--da,da--d,da----" etc. It is true that rock at least has a beat, and that's about all it's got, but, in a way, swing is even worse.
I'm sorry, I can't give much detail about my father's music, but it didn't generally have much of a tune to excite me much.
As to Sound of Music, yes, I saw it in the movie theater, and it was all right.

You said "There was some melody in the 40's. Not all that much." On the contrary the popular, widespread big band music did emphasize melody, in contrast to the "classical" and "modern jazz" evolving at the time. And it did have straightforward rhythm -- it was dance music. (Remember Glenn Miller, Tommy Dorsey, and the others?) The same was true for rock and roll of the 1950s and 60s. The popular music in movies and 'broadway' musicals also had melody. (Remember the popular Sound of Music?).

What was the music your father liked?

I'm not saying there wasn't some music in the '30's and '40's. It wasn't my cup of tea (it was my father's music; I didn't hear it until my childhood), but at least it qualified. But as I said, I am a sort of anachronism; I wanted music, even when it was simple, to have a sort of passion-- to have a straightforward rhythm of one, two, three, four, one, two, three, four, or one,two-three,one,two-three, one, two-three, etc., and not meander around. My father said, "You don't like music--you like tunes!" And to me, if it hasn't got a tune, it's nothing.
But I think that worse than anything we have been discussing is: Stravinsky! --To me, that is musical obscenity, absolutely poisonous garbage.

All the popular songs of the big band era of the 1930s and 40s had melodies. The 'modern jazz' did not, but was also not very popular, it has been said that the purpose of modern jazz in that era was to see how many choruses of Autumn Leaves they could play without anyone recognizing what it was.

Of late, i have been watching YouTube videos lately. Somehow YouTube selects videos for you. I have watched history of theater and church organs, how to deal with DUI checkpoints, music from a variety of musicians, and many documentaries and historical pieces. Very interestingy. Made me more knowledgeable about what’s really gone on in the world. Never got this information in the government indoctrination centers (public schools). Mormon tabernacle performances are pretty good (subtract out the dogma stuff)

I can look at songs and musical performances from a musical point of view (or should I say, can listen to them from a musical point of audition). I have even performed certain musical pieces as musical pieces. But "Battle Hymn of the Republic" is just really rousing, musical, and moving--even if one cannot (as I cannot) subscribe to the Christian message. And, even Julia Ward Howe's lyrics are good poetry. (I was never in a public performance of the "Battle Hymn", unfortunately).

There was some melody in the 40's. Not all that much. And swing came along, which ruins good, decent tunes. And it just went really bad in the 60's; although I admit that what came in in about the 70's made the 60's look almost lyrical. That's not saying much, though.

Of course they are melodies. Watch the excellent documentary on her life that came out a few years ago.

The great jazz solos pioneered by musicians such as Louis Armstrong and Sideny Bechet didn't begin until well after the early 20s. Look them up on utube. "Loud cacophony, almost no harmony, and [no] melody" does not characterize that music or the popular band music that followed through the 1940s, and much of the rock and roll through the 60's, and protest folk music of the late 60s and 70s.

I am can accept them and their “ god “ thing, so long as they accept. Me with my “no god” thing.

I like that...

I assured my grandchildren they weren't listening to music! They were listening to sounds. In order to make them understand, I dialed them in to ballads being the basis for so much of our good music. A good song shouldn't upset you. That's not the object.

They do a great rendition of "Battle Hymn of the Republic", except that even they have caved in to one thing--they sing, "As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free," when it is supposed to be "die to make men free,". (It's a battle hymn, for gosh sakes)! But still, that objection is irrelevant, musically.