The Crisis of Tonality

[quintett op.57]

The quality of his music didn't change one yota through out the years, it just became more radical.

I guess your effort to understand his music was short.
I'm sorry for you

[Scarpia]

Well, I can see why Karl Henning will not gauge himself: as the realization he is a failed composer is not one his fragile ego will be able to withstand

Nor does the critical accumen need be taken seriously, of one who smears the great man, Gustav Mahler, but praises the second fiddle, Sibelius (Amazon review of a Sibelius boxset)

But then, if Henning's view were defensible on their merits, he would not be degrading the level of discourse on this site, with his pettily self serving categorizations of other contributors

Mr. Henning continues to compose music, it continues to be performed, audiences continue to enjoy it, and Mr. Henning continues to enjoy the process.  I fail to see the failure there.   And yet you interpret your inability to appreciate Sibelius as a victory.  Strange.

[Franco]

But then, if Henning's view were defensible on their merits, he would not be degrading the level of discourse on this site, with his pettily self serving categorizations of other contributors

As far as degrading the discourse on this site, the contributor responsible for the above quote is handling that quite well all by himself.

[Scarpia]

There is a reason why upholders of tonality in the XXth century invariably degenerate into personal attacks and outright lynchings.
It is because their favored composers cannot be upheld on their limited merits... 

Fans of Shostakovich for the most part acknowledge the deep influence of other composers on their hero, Satie/Prokofiev/Stravinsky on his early work, Mahler on his middle Symphonies, Mahler still as well as Bartok and even Webern, on his post-stalinist output. The issue with them is not lack of integrity, it is lack of judgment - & failure to understand originality is a condition of talent.

But when a critic, so-called, denies the influence of others on Shostakovich, that critic displays outrageous lack of critical integrity, as well as acumen.

And there is a reason why critics who dabble in composition would defend imitation in established composers: it is because they have a vested interest in doing so, what with their own music being derivative of the music of others, and therefore, closer to plagiarism than to legitimate composition

Conversation with mediocre composers invariably turns out to be impossible, because the composers in question invariably turn out to be motivated by self-interest (pushing themselves), not disinterested love of music and of opinion; and because they invariably resort to insult and slander.

The primary XXth century symbol of this is some frenchman called Marcel Landowski, a composer so mediocre even the most fanatical upholders of tonality will not defend him, whose whole life has been determined by a long hate campaign against the better composer - and nicer guy - Pierre Boulez

Maybe you should put a cork in this stream of unmitigated bile.

[karlhenning]

More bilge than bile, but point taken ; )

[jochanaan]

...Fans of Shostakovich for the most part acknowledge the deep influence of other composers on their hero, Satie/Prokofiev/Stravinsky on his early work, Mahler on his middle Symphonies, Mahler still as well as Bartok and even Webern, on his post-stalinist output. The issue with them is not lack of integrity, it is lack of judgment - & failure to understand originality is a condition of talent.

But when a critic, so-called, denies the influence of others on Shostakovich, that critic displays outrageous lack of critical integrity, as well as acumen.

Would it be a waste of time to point out that, while Shostakovich was indeed influenced by these earlier masters, he reprocessed these influences into something very new and deeply personal?

[jochanaan]

Oh my God, seriously!  Does every single thread on this site now have to be about Schoenberg, or Schoenberg bashing or defending Schoenberg.

It's getting a little ridiculous.

Or perhaps exactly this passionate bashing and counter-bashing is the true measure of Schoenberg's greatness.

[karlhenning]

Would it be a waste of time to point out that, while Shostakovich was indeed influenced by these earlier masters, he reprocessed these influences into something very new and deeply personal?

Exactly; it is only the most superficial, sophomoric view of the matter, to make influences vs. originality an either/or matter.

[jochanaan]

I suppose it is too much to expect of Karl Henning that he does as grown-ups do and learn to live with the fact that not everyone will share his taste, such as it is...

Hmmm...Pot and kettle here! But I suppose I'm prejudiced, since I've actually PLAYED some of Karl's music.  And greatly enjoyed doing so.

[karlhenning]

toucan's comic routine gets richer and richer! As if (a) he is in any position to judge whether my music is a success, and (b) I have not long since learnt "to live with the fact that not everyone will share [my] taste."

The real problem funny-bone tickler is toucan talking about what he either partly or completely fails to understand.

[Gurn Blanston]

Alright, we've certainly been having a great time on this thread. We've had it (or some version of it) continually for the 8 years I've been here, so our routines are all set for this particular iteration.

Well, that 's good, let's do it. However, I am pointing out that ad hominem attacks are against forum rules. The next time I tune in here and am treated to one, that/those person(s) will receive a disciplinary measure.

Let's stick to the point, such as it is, and make some effort to show the supremacy of our opinions rather than the baser side of our natures.

GB

[Brian]

Would it be a waste of time to point out that, while Shostakovich was indeed influenced by these earlier masters, he reprocessed these influences into something very new and deeply personal?

And just try to find a great composer who wasn't influenced by earlier masters and who didn't find ways to do exactly what you describe. The criticism of Shostakovich is groundless and could be equally leveled against Beethoven, say, or Brahms. But you knew that.

[greg]

See, this is why people shouldn't put crack cocaine into the bird feed...

[karlhenning]

That's the second time I fell for that this month (← Agent 86 allusion)

[Scarpia]

What the great composers do is disingage themselves from the influences of their youth, in order to become themselves. As when Beethoven releases himself from the influence of Haydn, to compose the 3rd symphony; or as when Debussy disingage himself from Massenet, to become Debussy, Bartok from Liszt, to become Bartok, Scriabin from Chopin, to become Scriabin, Messiaen from Dukas, to become Messiaen, Schoenberg from Brahms/Wagner/Mahler, to become Schoenberg, Boulez from Jolivet, to become Boulez, etc.

I find nothing in Shostakovich's early influences which contain the sound world of the 10th symphony, or the 8th string quartet, among other works.

[karlhenning]

For the Eighth Quartet, only a hint twice removed.  There's a degree of (creditable to the young composer . . . creditable to any composer, and here he happened to be young) assimilation of the lessons and tenor of Petrushka in the First Symphony.  There is in the quartet a subtle, because (in part) slowed down to a mesto affect, citation of the four-note muted trumpet initiation of the symphony.

This for me is one of Shostakovich's signature talents: finding a different environment for material he has used elsewhere, which at once creates a unity across his career, and makes it sound like a new object.

[karlhenning]

I find nothing in Shostakovich's early influences which contain the sound world of the 10th symphony, or the 8th string quartet, among other works.

Mine is more of a parenthesis . . . confirming your idea that the early influences do not contain the sound world of those works.

[not edward]

In addition, I think one of the most appealing things about Shostakovich was his willingness to learn from the younger generation. I am sure there is something from Ustvolskaya in his stripped-down late writing; similarly with the Denisov of Sun of the Incas in the 14th symphony and other late vocal pieces.

But Shostakovich's influences are genuinely assimilated, and not just stolen (except when he wanted the theft to be clear).

[Elgarian]

Listen to the emotional arc of Sibelius' Sixth Symphony, from springlike freshness to false confidence to a nearly bottomless sense of loss, and try to find a predecessor who was able to speak these words. No, don't answer Tchaikovsky's Sixth; that is a symphony preoccupied from beginning to end with its own doom and utterly convinced of its tragedy. Sibelius' Sixth is the tragedy of a fresh-faced innocent climbing up out of the dregs and then, through forces beyond his power, falling back down again, despairing, friendless, and completely lost. It is the eager stranger in a new land which does not extend a welcome. It is Billy Budd; it is Ophelia; it is Emily Dickinson; it is Frederic Henry.

Listen to the fear within Sibelius' Fifth. What symphony expresses fear, and absence of self-confidence, like this one does? Each of the Sibelius symphonies are like human beings, fully formed, with majestically independent personalities. The Beethoven symphonies are like nine granite columns of the temple of humanity, essential parts of ourselves; the Brahms Fourth is a Shakespearean tragedy; the Schubert symphonies are Shakespearean comedies. The mature Sibelius symphonies are people. The Fifth person is deeply troubled - can we say he is deeply troubled by Schoenberg? I would argue yes. He is deeply troubled that the world is leaving him behind, that it has devolved into chaos in the form of World War I and in the form of atonalism. He flirts with submission and defeat: the bassoon solo in the first movement, a solo which for an agonizing moment surrenders to a music without direction, without fixed forms in the traditional ways.

The story of the Fifth Symphony is the story of a man trying to reassure himself. The initial climax is a reassurance; the transition between the two parts of the first movement is an attempt to cheer himself up and march toward a happy ending. The happy ending he does arrive at is too much, too forced. It's not honest. The slow movement betrays this. Even the finale betrays it: listen to the dissonant, disagreeable trombones right before the exultant final pre-silence chord. Was it painful reaching this conclusion? Yes; you can hear the pain in the silence.

Thanks, Brian, for the most worthwhile post I've read today - you make me want to listen to those Sibelius symphonies again, and I've no finer praise, really.

[Sergeant Rock]

And just try to find a great composer who wasn't influenced by earlier masters...

I was going to say Gustav Mahler, whose Klagende Lied and First Symphony already sound exactly like Gustav Mahler. But then I remembered: he was influenced by that earlier master, Hans Rott 

Sarge