Admit It, You're As Bored As I Am

[karlhenning]

I had never before expected to say this, but apparently this means that I am fortunate to have never heard the Brahms 4th live!

There are so many good recordings out there, the odds are stacked against a live performance that we may witness 'living up' to them.

Still, no substitute for experiencing a piece live, in the space.

[Josquin des Prez]

You're falling into Pink's error, of imagining that there is some flatline against which the matter of [artistic reflection upon the vicissitudes of life] is to be measured.  Culture is cumulative;  and each era is a distinct, non-duplicable environment.

Who's to say the that the peculiar environment which produced this cultist, almost fervid following and quasi-glorification of all that is horrific and distasteful is not a product of an alien interference in a culture who's chief exponents have never entertained such an attitude before? Just where does modernism comes from? I cannot help but doubt the notion that modernism is a reflection of the horrors of the 20th century when no other stage in our culture was ever born as a reflection of the horrors of their respective eras, at least not spontaneously. 

The idea that a genius after Beethoven has to "reproduce" Beethoven is a fallacy.

Is being a genius in relation to another genius an act of "reproduction" now?

You've forgotten that no one appointed you the determiner of what is genius.

I have appointed myself . Truth is after all the result of the inward reflection and observation characteristic of the philosopher, thus it follows that all truth is a matter of individual perception imposing itself upon that of others. For this reason it can be said that the genius, the ultimate repository of truth, contains the entire universe within himself, the universe as defined by the totality of human experience, which the genius is able to draw from at will. Whether i am correct in my current theories of genius is not up to me to prove, but up to you to decide.

At present, my definition of genius runs along the belief human beings exist in a state of duality between the physical and the conceptual. In "The Denial of Death", Ernest Becker argues the same, that man exists between the physical world of objects and the symbolic world of human meaning. From this he extrapolates that man tries to overcome his fear of death by devoting himself to a symbolic construct (which Becker refers to as the heroic or simply immortality project), something that he considers to be everlasting and so himself achieving a state of immortality by projecting his symbolic self into the symbolic construct, essentially, by becoming heroic. He then argues that human conflict is the result of each heroic project coming into contact with the other, the existence of which threatening the validity of the first so that one has to destroy the other in order to assure this sense of immortality is maintained.

Now, there are several things which i tend to disagree with Becker. For one, it is not through the symbolic project per-se that the symbolic self of man achieves this sense of immortality. The symbolic project is the mean by which man intends to arrive at universal truth, and it is with truth that man becomes immortal. How is truth achieved? By allowing the symbolic project to run it's course. Who provides us with truth? That is non other then the genius, which in our civilization has manifested itself in two forms: the artist, who's purpose has been to school us to what it is to be human, and the philosopher, who is the repository of what the human is.

What is truth then? Truth is the conceptual in it's purest form. By latching on to truth, the conceptual self drives away from the physical self, thus, it is no so much that man becomes immortal by participating in a particular project which he considers to be everlasting, thus deluding himself into a false sense of immortality, but rather, man becomes immortal when his dualistic nature tips towards the conceptual self while dwarfing and trivializing the physical self. The conceptual self then takes precedence over everything, and if the conceptual self has been feeding on truth, which is eternal, then this self will too be eternal. The thought of losing the physical self is no longer a cause of grief because the physical self is no longer relevant.

[Superhorn]

   In discussing and evaluating contemporary music we must avoid specious and simplistic sweeping generalizations and maintain historical perspective.
  Those who claim that all or most atonal,12-tone, or serial music etc is boring and worthless fail to realize that there is an enormous amount of boring and worthless tonal music also, from every period. We will need time to separate the wheat from the chaff. The vast majority of ALL classical works have been deservedly forgotten, although there is much wonderful music which is also undeservedly neglected.
  Immediate popularity or the lack of is not a valid criterion by which to judge a work's merit, or to predict whether it will"stand the test of time".  There are many composers who were widely performed in their lifetimes but are now only names familiar to those well versed in music history.
   Composers such as Spohr,Salieri, Fiala, Pokorny, Meyerbeer, Draeseke, and many others were famous long ago, but it's not without reason that Beethoven,Mozart, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Brahms and other major composers are permanently established in the repertoire, while the others are not.
This is not to say that their music is worthless, though.
  Assuming that the world is not destroyed by some horrible cataclysm in the future, there is no way to predict which composers of the present day will be popular at concerts and opera houses 100 years from now or later.
  If we could come back in the futire, we might be surprised. After all, many critics predicted that Mahler's music would be instantly forgotten wat the time of his death. How wrong they were !

[Mark G. Simon]

Fair enough, Edward... But showing more enthusiasm for the live Berio is not a good sign. Presumably most of them are already familiar with it through recordings, yes ? I take it to mean that they consider the Berio as good a piece as the Brahms Fourth and that is what makes me sad.

I think most people these days will go to a concert to validate preferences already formed through listening to recordings. Few people will attend a performance either of Brahms' 4th or Berio's Sinfonia without having heard it previously on recordings. It becomes a "value added" experience. You enjoyed it on record, just think how much greater the experience when the musicians are actually in the room playing it. You have the whole world of music to listen to at home, but you choose to attend which ever live performance will enhance the musical experience the most.

Listening to live music really is a different experience. You can catch the energy and magnetism of the performers in a way that doesn't get transmitted through discs. Just watching the Swingle Singers do what they do would be reason enough to catch Berio's Sinfonia live. Sometimes the novel sounds of modern music are so remarkable, you're astounded that a group of musicians can just sit down in front of you and produce them. As I recently found at the Carter centennial concert I attended, the drama inherent in Carter's music comes alive more vividly when the performers are right there in front of you.

So attending a performance of one or the other work should not be taken as a statement of their relative worth. Brahms' 4th symphony will always be at the pinnacle of Western music. I don't know if I can say the same about Berio's Sinfonia, but I do know that if I had to choose between two concerts to attend, I choose the one with the Berio on it.

[Renfield]

Culture is cumulative;  and each era is a distinct, non-duplicable environment.

The idea that a genius after Beethoven has to "reproduce" Beethoven is a fallacy.

I'd say this is the best post so far, in this discussion.

It is important to note that most of these discussions of "quality over time" generally suggest some sort of implicit absolute unit of measurement for quality, the existence of which is not self-evident. Personally, if I were to seriously discuss the topic, I think I'd start with trying to determine to what extent such an absolute index is or can be real. But that is, of course, likely a reflection of my analytical bias.

[DavidW]

I think I agree with Mark.  There is plenty of stuff that I don't get or enjoy on cd, but I'm always impressed anytime I hear modern music live.  Of course I think that there is also a natural warmth to the sound of instruments, and a deep sense of space in a concert hall that I don't hear in a living room in front of the stereo.

[marvinbrown]

  marvinbrown's two cents (not that my opinion matters) but I have read the article posted at the beginning of this thread a few times and I disagree with the overall sentiment that 20th Century music is mediocre and lacking in substance.  The symphonies of Shostakovitch have true artistic merit.  They astutely reflect the wars and hardships of 20th Century Europe and Russia.

 

David Zalman put it best:

"They know perfectly well that they are no match for Wagner or any of the great masters.  They are to be esteemed for keeping classical music composition, which without the likes of them would become entirely derivative and antiquarian, alive rather than deprecated for not being up to the literally impossible task of rising to the level of their titanic forebears..."

  Finally at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite I will admit that Wagner is a very difficult act to follow  0:)!

  PS: like I said my 2 cents ( not that my opinion matters)
  marvin

[Homo Aestheticus]

And as pointed out earlier by others, concert audiences (incl. critics) have pretty much always have had difficulty with contemporary music throughout history, whether it be late-Beethoven, Wagner, Bruckner, Debussy, Mahler, Stravinsky etc.

Why do people always roll this out ? This is not true.

Just one example:

Are you aware that it took only about 10 performances of  Pelleas et Melisande  in April 1902 for it to become a real hit with the general opera going public ?

It brought Debussy a ton of money in a relatively short period...

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Berio did so much more than the Sinfonia too....one thing for certain based on exploring and knowing a good chunk of his output for quite some time now is that few really match him (at least his contemporaries) when it comes to his treatment and usage of the human voice. He did some truly amazing things there. Great orchestrator too. And Stockhausen? A true genius, who has already has had a major impact on the history of music and will probably be explored, assessed and influencial for many many years to come....but again all these big names have risen and have been around for over half a century already for sound musical reasons. And we're still talking about them. Will their best pieces survive? Only time will tell, but there is no doubt that some of it will endure, and many of their ideas will live on forever too. All we can do is simply enjoy the music we like, and let future generations and time sort it all out. And as pointed out earlier by others, concert audiences (incl. critics) have pretty much always have had difficulty with contemporary music throughout history, whether it be late-Beethoven, Wagner, Bruckner, Debussy, Mahler, Stravinsky etc. And as history has shown us too, sometimes it takes many many years for a composer to be become popular, long after that composer has died...

Yes, very true. Too bad the Taste Nazi's® can't leave well enough alone. If it's their wish to hunker in a dark corner and drool all over their Brahms and Beethoven, let them. Who am I to say such a thing is unhealthy?

But for those of us for whom the "canonical greats" extends beyond one or two romantic composers, well, let's just say the future looks bright.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Is being a genius in relation to another genius an act of "reproduction" now?

I love it when you stick your foot in your mouth, Jos. You do realize (you don't) you just made our point?

Emphatically, NO, genius isn't "reproduction". THAT'S OUR POINT!!!

No true genius wants to be stuck in a rut. Exploration is the name of the game.

Deal with it.

[Josquin des Prez]

Exploration is the name of the game.

And that puts composers like Bach or Brahms in which position? Sorry, but genius has nothing to do with "exploration". It's about truth, and truth is eternal and immutable. I know that my rhetorical skills are rather poor, but is there any possible way that i can get clearer then this? 

[karlhenning]

Have you ever taken part in the creative process Josquin? Exploration (& discovery) is a big part of it. Otherwise you would stagnate and things would never change, grow, evolve, refresh...

There's certainly plenty of exploration in Bach and Brahms;  as there is also, BTW, in Sibelius and Shostakovich.  Genius is about ingenuity, talent and achievement.  Slinging lofty bromides like Genius is about truth, and truth is eternal & immutable is diverting, impractically vague — and speaking of truth, here, eternal & immutable, the truth is that there is "room" for more than 3 or 4 geniuses in the world of music, and (as "Jos" will recall from earlier discussion) nowhere is it mandated that all geniuses are male.  The truth is bigger than the fortune-cookie slip that "Jos" is trying to reduce it to.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

And that puts composers like Bach or Brahms in which position?

Again, that's exactly my point. Is Bach like his predecessors? Is Brahms? Is Wagner? Is Debussy? Is Prokofiev?

Do you see the pattern? The progression?

Bach and Brahms are but two points on a continuum.

Sorry, but genius has nothing to do with "exploration". It's about truth, and truth is eternal and immutable. I know that my rhetorical skills are rather poor, but is there any possible way that i can get clearer then this? 

It has EVERYTHING to do with exploration!!!!!

And "truths" can come in any shape or size - and style. Genius sees to that.

Wagner worshiped Berlioz. You hate Berlioz. Who's right? I'll tell you who's right: Wagner. Why? Because Wagner took many of his stylistic cues from Berlioz. Not least the leitmotif. Without Berlioz Wagner as we know him might not exist. This is a perfect example of "exploration" paying dividends. One composer breaking new grounds (Berlioz) and another composer feeding off it. One building on the other's innovation.

It's all a continuum, don't you see? Art doesn't exist in a vacuum. Innovation (exploration) IS THE NAME OF THE GAME!!

Now, how much more clearer can I make MY side of the argument??

[karlhenning]

Again, that's exactly my point. Is Bach like his predecessors? Is Brahms? Is Wagner? Is Debussy? Is Prokofiev?

Do you see the pattern? The progression?

Bach and Brahms are but two points on a continuum.

It has EVERYTHING to do with exploration!!!!!

Encore une fois:

Culture is cumulative.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Culture is cumulative

Simple.

[Homo Aestheticus]

You don't know anything, it's so transparent that all of what you think you know is based on what you read. It's not based on any sort of real listening experience & time of your own, that's for sure. Hence the lack of any intelligence or insight found in your posts, which are merely copy & pasted from what you read elsewhere (usually derived from bad journalism) onto this forum, in order to troll for responses. You're out of your depth, and are really in no position to make statements that carry any weight on the subject.

You really are one of the most unpleasant contributors in this forum.

Just because I despise the lame compositional efforts of Stockhausen and Boulez does not mean I don't understand music... I ADORE music and listening has been my PRIMARY hobby since my early teens. But it consists of great composers, men like Machaut, Josquin, Palestrina, Bach, Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, Schubert, Haydn, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Debussy, Wagner and a few others. 

Got that, son ?

[karlhenning]

Just because I despise the lame compositional efforts of Stockhausen and Boulez does not mean I don't understand music...

Your adoration . . . I mean, ADORATION of music is beside the point.  Your mistake in claiming that your dislike & incomprehension of the music of Stockhausen and Boulez somehow reflect some "Truth" that theirs are "lame compositional efforts" means that you don't understand their music in particular, and that your understanding of music is narrow (and, indeed reactionary).

Your despising this or that music means nothing in the world of music.  It's just your trip.  Son.  Big deal.

[some guy]

David Zalman put it best:

"They know perfectly well that they are no match for Wagner or any of the great masters.  They are to be esteemed for keeping classical music composition, which without the likes of them would become entirely derivative and antiquarian, alive rather than deprecated for not being up to the literally impossible task of rising to the level of their titanic forebears..."

Who is David Zalman (aside from a Texas banker of that name)? Where did this quote come from? What are his qualifications for pronouncing tasks as being impossible or not?

[PSmith08]

Just because I despise the lame compositional efforts of Stockhausen and Boulez does not mean I don't understand music... I ADORE music and listening has been my PRIMARY hobby since my early teens. But it consists of great composers, men like Machaut, Josquin, Palestrina, Bach, Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, Schubert, Haydn, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Debussy, Wagner and a few others. 

Got that, son ?

I'll leave aside, for the moment, the broader question of whether you understand music generally to note that, in your attempt to present yourself as some sort of arbiter elegantiarum, you've made it fairly clear that you might not be terribly well-qualified to discuss the music of Boulez and Stockhausen. That doesn't mean that you aren't entitled to dislike them: you are. What it does mean, if true, is that your specific critique doesn't carry much water. Were I less charitable, I might characterize such a critique as "faintly ridiculous."

Of course, one can hardly be uncharitable in the context of a discussion you seem to love to have (even at the risk of self-repetition), and in the arena of a pot you assuredly love to stir.

[gomro]

Just because I despise the lame compositional efforts of Stockhausen and Boulez does not mean I don't understand music... I ADORE music and listening has been my PRIMARY hobby since my early teens. But it consists of great composers, men like Machaut, Josquin, Palestrina, Bach, Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, Schubert, Haydn, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Debussy, Wagner and a few others.

How much Stockhausen and Boulez have you heard?  I recall Al Moritz making similar statements about Stockhausen's worthlessness, before he listened to some and discovered he liked it. I suggest Welt-Parlament for Stockhausen and Repons for Boulez.  Repons convinced me that Boulez had more to offer than atonal-new-age cream puffs; I've since heard a few other pieces (Pli selon Pli, Rituel) that have reinforced that opinion.