Greatness in Music

[Scriptavolant]

Again, this is all just me, but believe me when I say that I am not alone with my responses to a ton of "modern classical" music. Why is that the case? I know people can react with almost painful loathing to music labeled "atonal". But even if they exhibit pure derision or hatred I've never, ever heard of anyone reacting the same way to a piece from before 1850, for example. Why is that?

Well, I've often asked myself this question too. If I think that there are people ready to cringe before a genius as Webern - only because their expectations of a fine pleasing melody are violated -, but at the same time they seem to have no problem in enjoying Alkan or Medtner or buying 10 different versions of Bax's symphonies, I'm often bewildered I admit it.
What's to say? One of the reasons is that music from the period you mentioned is usually much closer to the "natural" expectations of the average listener, which usually listens to music in search of melody, atmospheres, sentimentality and little more. Music from the past have had a lot more time to be understood.

Personally I'm with Aaron Copland when he writes that our time is characterized by a temporally narrowed interest in music. Say, music from 1810 to 1880 and that's all (almost all). he doesn't seem to accept the "atonality is unnatural" theory, instead he wrote that it is just a matter of habit. Our listeners just never listen to contemporary music, and that's why they don't like it. Pure and simple.

[Ten thumbs]

Personally I'm with Aaron Copland when he writes that our time is characterized by a temporally narrowed interest in music. Say, music from 1810 to 1880 and that's all (almost all). he doesn't seem to accept the "atonality is unnatural" theory, instead he wrote that it is just a matter of habit. Our listeners just never listen to contemporary music, and that's why they don't like it. Pure and simple.

On the other hand, our interest in music has broadened because of the vast amount to be heard. I like Webern because he gets to the point. I like The Rite of Spring because its power is directed along a well defined course. Contemporary music does not have to be atonal although neither need it be tied to traditional harmonies. However, this absolute freedom leads to a contradiction. How can one create structure out of chaos? Some modern pieces seem to spend too much time lost at sea. Learn from Webern - get to the point.

[Don]

Just as well.  Thinking's a dangerous activity these days--especially if you're good at it.

There is a point where thinking damages getting things done - just ask Eusebius.

[DanielFullard]

Greatness for me is in each one of our heads. Music, for me anyway, is a personal thing and the connection between the listener and the music is what counts. If one person says such and such is great then who are we to argue?

I know Im coming at it from a different angle but just thought Id add that

[zamyrabyrd]

Also, I suspect that composers may write some pieces which are "good" for certain purposes, or are "good" when viewed through certain lenses, but which may not measure up artistically in every respect or when viewed from  different lenses (e.g., Ravel's Bolero; Beethoven's Choral Fantasy or LvB's Consecration of the House; Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture; Saint-Saens' Carnival of the Animals) ......

I like the Carnival of the Animals, especially the "Pianists".

ZB

[jochanaan]

I like the Carnival of the Animals, especially the "Pianists".

ZB

"Some claim that pianists are human,
And quote the case of Mr. Truman.
Saint Saëns, upon the other hand,
Considered them a scurvy band.
Ape-like they are, he said, and simian,
Instead of normal men and wimian." --Ogden Nash

[zamyrabyrd]

"Some claim that pianists are human,
And quote the case of Mr. Truman.
Saint Saëns, upon the other hand,
Considered them a scurvy band.
Ape-like they are, he said, and simian,
Instead of normal men and wimian." --Ogden Nash

[max]

Greatness in Music...is relative to the observer/listener without whom there is NO GREATNESS period. If it doesn't 'echo' in someone's brain it becomes's a NONENTITY or not far removed!

There is no speed of light when it comes to greatness of whatever kind and when it comes down to music, these forums prove precisely that!

The value of human art in whatever manifestation is determined by humans and MOST humans don't give a crap about your 9th symphony or your b minor Mass. End of story!

[Scriptavolant]

On the other hand, our interest in music has broadened because of the vast amount to be heard. I like Webern because he gets to the point. I like The Rite of Spring because its power is directed along a well defined course. Contemporary music does not have to be atonal although neither need it be tied to traditional harmonies. However, this absolute freedom leads to a contradiction. How can one create structure out of chaos? Some modern pieces seem to spend too much time lost at sea. Learn from Webern - get to the point.

I agree on the point that contemporary music doesn't need to be necessarily atonal or cacophonic to be good music. But I don't see the point in opposing prejudicially music that is atonal, on the vague assumption that music must be melodic and agreeable in order to be music.
My impression is that many people simply cannot get the fact that greatness changes, aesthetics changes, the aim of the artist/composer changes; they simply take one fixed genre as if it were the ideal standard, sit on the chair and judge everything else from that viewpoint, not considering the fact that history of Art is - among other things - an history of renewal and innovation. That point prevent them to know a lot of great music in my opinion.

[Ten thumbs]

I agree on the point that contemporary music doesn't need to be necessarily atonal or cacophonic to be good music. But I don't see the point in opposing prejudicially music that is atonal, on the vague assumption that music must be melodic and agreeable in order to be music.
My impression is that many people simply cannot get the fact that greatness changes, aesthetics changes, the aim of the artist/composer changes; they simply take one fixed genre as if it were the ideal standard, sit on the chair and judge everything else from that viewpoint, not considering the fact that history of Art is - among other things - an history of renewal and innovation. That point prevent them to know a lot of great music in my opinion.

I have nothing at all against atonality. My point is that without structure, the listener is left in a pea soup fog that only clears when the last note is played. There must be something to hang on to and I don't care whether that is agreeable or not.

[jochanaan]

I have nothing at all against atonality. My point is that without structure, the listener is left in a pea soup fog that only clears when the last note is played. There must be something to hang on to and I don't care whether that is agreeable or not.

Arnold Schoenberg felt the same way.  That's why he developed twelve-tone serialism.

Many of the atonal and (especially) 12-tone pieces I know are very highly structured.  The structure doesn't always match our expectations, but it's there.  That's especially apparent in the music of the Second Viennese School (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern and their immediate pupils), Milton Babbitt, and Elliott Carter.  And in Edgard Varèse's music, although the structure is less evident, it's very strong.

[Ten thumbs]

I used to play some Berg from the library before they put most of the music into a stack. I tried Messiaen as well but my own music cabinet is full and I don't often buy now. I do have some quite difficult pieces such as Busoni's Sonatina Seconda and Szymanowski's Masques but nothing one could call truly modern.

[karlhenning]

And the very use of the term structure carries some baggage.  Music and architecture (or other forms of civil engineering) are entirely different matters, working with entirely different materials.  Structure can be a useful simile, but let's understand at the outset that structure is a much more flexible concept in music than in the plastic arts from which we borrow the term.

Any piece whose logic a given listener doesn't twig, is apt to stand accusations of 'flaws in structure'.  But as jochanaan's remark hints, the music's "structure" reveals itself only to a receptive ear.  It is not all that long ago I read someone who felt that the Rakhmaninov piano concerti were 'structurally weak';  this does not tally at all with my own study of the Second and Third Concerti.

[jochanaan]

...It is not all that long ago I read someone who felt that the Rakhmaninov piano concerti were 'structurally weak';  this does not tally at all with my own study of the Second and Third Concerti.

Nor with my, shall we say, less studious acquaintance with them or any other of Rachmaninoff's works.

I'd say a good musical structure is one that works.

[karlhenning]

Well, and the Studies were quite a game of exploring 'structure' . . . I still have this feeling, that I kind of hope it works 

[jochanaan]

It would have worked better if I could have wrapped my fingers around the notes a little more securely...

[karlhenning]

Well, I did write some notes which pose certain finger-wrapping challenges, no less for the clarinet than for the corno inglese . . . . 

[BachQ]

And the very use of the term structure carries some baggage.  Music and architecture (or other forms of civil engineering) are entirely different matters, working with entirely different materials.  Structure can be a useful simile, but let's understand at the outset that structure is a much more flexible concept in music than in the plastic arts from which we borrow the term.

Any piece whose logic a given listener doesn't twig, is apt to stand accusations of 'flaws in structure'.  But as jochanaan's remark hints, the music's "structure" reveals itself only to a receptive ear.  It is not all that long ago I read someone who felt that the Rakhmaninov piano concerti were 'structurally weak';  this does not tally at all with my own study of the Second and Third Concerti.

That's a well-structured post, Karl ........

[greg]

I have nothing at all against atonality. My point is that without structure, the listener is left in a pea soup fog that only clears when the last note is played. There must be something to hang on to and I don't care whether that is agreeable or not.

i wonder if one of the things that seperates people who don't like atonal music from people who do is the ability to hear more structures- meaning it takes more of a solid form in their mind.

[Ten thumbs]

i wonder if one of the things that seperates people who don't like atonal music from people who do is the ability to hear more structures- meaning it takes more of a solid form in their mind.

There could be something in this. For instance, if one were to play eleven notes of a tone row, how many can correctly anticipate the final note? Without that ability, surprise becomes impossible.