Greatness in Music

[karlhenning]

I guess I'm "unnatural"; especially if works like the mighty Pierrot Lunaire, Shostakovich's 7th String Quartet, and Schnittke's Viola Concerto are considered "atonal"

A slight erratum to offer . . . the Seventh Quartet isn't atonal, though.

[Haffner]

A slight erratum to offer . . . the Seventh Quartet isn't atonal, though.

This might sound totally dumb, Karl, so please forgive in advance, but is there any twelve-tone fiddling in that one?

[karlhenning]

Not dumb in the least, Andy.  He strays pretty freely from the key in ways that definitely depart from Common Practice.  That opening theme in the first violin, for instance, starts on an F# (the tonic), but even that first three-note gesture, F#-E-flat-D, does not "belong" to F# Minor, and after the theme's sinuous descent, the home key is only "established" by a closing descending triad.

[Haffner]

Not dumb in the least, Andy.  He strays pretty freely from the key in ways that definitely depart from Common Practice.  That opening theme in the first violin, for instance, starts on an F# (the tonic), but even that first three-note gesture, F#-E-flat-D, does not "belong" to F# Minor, and after the theme's sinuous descent, the home key is only "established" by a closing descending triad.

It's just so hypnotic, eerie...I'm listening more intently now, Karl, and I am grateful for your having pointed these things out.

[karlhenning]

At your service, Andy.

[Don]

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?

I think it's just a matter of the type of musical sounds we are accustomed to hearing.  Some of the same things Josh is saying were said by folks of previous generations who couldn't tolerate music that modern-age folks now have no trouble with.

As I see it, we have available to us music from ancient up to modern times.  That certainly covers a huge range of musical styles that should satisfy each of us.  So I'm not going to get hung up on what I don't like about certain styles; I'd rather simply enjoy the styles I prefer and dabble into new styles from time to time.

[karlhenning]

I think it's just a matter of the type of musical sounds we are accustomed to hearing.

I don't think that can tell the whole story;  I often find that I am immediately touched by music which is, in fact, very unlike what I am already sonically accustomed to.

[jochanaan]

...Your highlight suggests that #1 only uneducated people would have great problems with your "greatness" assignments.

Many highly educated people do not know much about classical music, or have strange ideas about it.

#2 you MUST know how much training jazz musicians undergo, how much practicing, how much skill honing, etc happens. Jazz musicians study serious music. They study theory, practice slonimsky patterns, etc. How they differ, perhaps, is that much of their composing happens during a performance (with previous learned lines worked in, etc), though some jazz artists prewrite quite a lot of material. Wayne Shorter wrote some ingenious melodies for example.

Uh, didn't you notice that I included jazz with "great" music?  You even included my comment about jazz in the quote from my earlier post.

[Don]

I don't think that can tell the whole story;  I often find that I am immediately touched by music which is, in fact, very unlike what I am already sonically accustomed to.

Yes, but I think folks like you are the exception.  Most people don't like change.

[jochanaan]

I've often wondered whether a lot of 20th (and now 21st) century music is less popular than older music because the composers have overstepped the line of what the human ear finds "naturally" pleasing. Naturally is probably not the right word, since I'm sure it's to a large extent culture-based, but I don't know any other word to use. I've heard symphonies from the 20th century that some people consider great, and I find that I can't even stand to hear them, they grate on me so badly. From before a certain chronological point, there may be music that I dislike, or even hate, but it never has that same impact on me, where I really can't even stand to have it playing in my presence. I know people will just say it's my "fault", but I seem to be very far from alone in this. For example, I don't like anything I've ever heard by Bruckner, but it's not so that I can't even stomach it if a CD of his music is playing near me. Some of his stuff, I really border on hate for it, but I'll live if someone is listening to a recording near me. But I heard some passages of a symphony by someone named Krenek, and I really couldn't stand the sound, it was physically unbearable to me. Obviously it is liked by some, but is it only me? How come many people have similar reactions? You pick the "worst" piece you can think of from the 18th century and play it for someone completely unfamiliar with "classical" music, and their response probably won't be physical revulsion, even though they think it's worthless, but playing many works of "modern classical" for them you can get some really drastic responses.

What is that all about? Are there "natural" sounds to the Human ear after all? How would certain far eastern music fit into this? I've heard older music from, say, China, and even if I don't like a piece, it never has that same painful effect on me as that Krenek symphony did. When I have negative (borderline physically) reactions to what people call "metal music", that is often because of the electrical instruments and screaming voices and repeated banging drums, not because of the notes themselves, if that makes any sense. In other words, if those same exact notes were performed by, I don't know, a string ensemble, I might hate it, but it wouldn't impact me the same way.

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?

This is a difficult question, to be sure.  Certainly Krenek and Schoenberg and Varèse and Boulez and Carter (Elliott, not Jimmy or June ) wrote music that challenges its hearers.  But there are many folks like me who truly enjoy exactly this kind of music.  I can't speak for the others, but to me the enjoyment of such music can be likened to a taste for hot-spicy foods; what is repulsive to many people is exactly what we love.  And no, I'm not into BDSM!   So I can't say that modern music has "departed from what is naturally pleasing," since I myself have found it naturally pleasing.

[BachQ]

Yes, but I think folks like you are the exception. 

We've always known that Karl was a "special case" .........

[karlhenning]

Well, I sure was walked right into that one . . . .

[jochanaan]

Well, I sure was walked right into that one . . . .

Welcome to Bedlam!  We're all residents; we love "our" music madly!

[DavidW]

Jo is a Schoenberg fan, it shows.

[jochanaan]

Guilty as charged!  And proud of it!

[sonic1]

Why is modern music always labelled as tonally challenging. There were a lot of other important developments in 20th century music. Not all modern music is "atonal" or tonally challenging.

Some modern music is so tonal one can barely stand it. 

[jochanaan]

Why is modern music always labelled as tonally challenging. There were a lot of other important developments in 20th century music. Not all modern music is "atonal" or tonally challenging.

Some modern music is so tonal one can barely stand it. 

Indeed.  But those were not the composers I labeled challenging.

[Larry Rinkel]

I've often wondered whether a lot of 20th (and now 21st) century music is less popular than older music because the composers have overstepped the line of what the human ear finds "naturally" pleasing. Naturally is probably not the right word, since I'm sure it's to a large extent culture-based, but I don't know any other word to use. I've heard symphonies from the 20th century that some people consider great, and I find that I can't even stand to hear them, they grate on me so badly. From before a certain chronological point, there may be music that I dislike, or even hate, but it never has that same impact on me, where I really can't even stand to have it playing in my presence. I know people will just say it's my "fault", but I seem to be very far from alone in this. For example, I don't like anything I've ever heard by Bruckner, but it's not so that I can't even stomach it if a CD of his music is playing near me. Some of his stuff, I really border on hate for it, but I'll live if someone is listening to a recording near me. But I heard some passages of a symphony by someone named Krenek, and I really couldn't stand the sound, it was physically unbearable to me. Obviously it is liked by some, but is it only me? How come many people have similar reactions? You pick the "worst" piece you can think of from the 18th century and play it for someone completely unfamiliar with "classical" music, and their response probably won't be physical revulsion, even though they think it's worthless, but playing many works of "modern classical" for them you can get some really drastic responses.

What is that all about? Are there "natural" sounds to the Human ear after all? How would certain far eastern music fit into this? I've heard older music from, say, China, and even if I don't like a piece, it never has that same painful effect on me as that Krenek symphony did. When I have negative (borderline physically) reactions to what people call "metal music", that is often because of the electrical instruments and screaming voices and repeated banging drums, not because of the notes themselves, if that makes any sense. In other words, if those same exact notes were performed by, I don't know, a string ensemble, I might hate it, but it wouldn't impact me the same way.

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?

I'm not unsympathetic to this position, or at least to parts of it. The other night, at a new dance program in NY, the music included an electric guitar making rasping noises I found painful; and I recall a passage from one of Ligeti's bagatelles for wind quintet that featured very close intervals played on several of the instruments - quite painful. In Western society we do seem conditioned to respond more to tonally based music, but even so large percentages of audiences seem indifferent to very early music such as Dufay or Josquin des Prez. Yet I find nothing physically painful in anything by Krenek, Schoenberg, Boulez, Carter, etc. I think it's a matter of accepting that different musics have to be heard in different ways, and the expectations I bring to the composers I just mentioned are different from those I bring to Mozart, which in turn differ (to varying degrees) from those I bring to Dufay, to Coltrane, to the Beatles, to an Indian raga, to Chinese opera, to Bruckner, etc.

[Haffner]

Guilty as charged!  And proud of it!

Me too! Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire and the 2nd String Quartet are fascinating pieces. I always found the 3rd String Quartet to be the music equivalent of abject terror.

[karlhenning]

Why is modern music always labelled as tonally challenging. There were a lot of other important developments in 20th century music. Not all modern music is "atonal" or tonally challenging.

Hear, hear!