Admit It, You're As Bored As I Am

[Homo Aestheticus]

I sympathize with much of what he says and his questioning the worth of much contemporary music though admittedly he does paint with a slightly broad brush.

"It is not the composers' fault that they wrote uncompromising music that was a direct response to the violence and stupidity of the 20th century; but it is not my fault that I would rather listen to Bach. That's my way of responding to the violence and stupidity of the 20th century, and the 21st century as well..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/jul/09/classicalmusicandopera.culture

[some guy]

Not this futile Queenan thing again!! (Just be sure to read the Service rebuttal, conveniently linked right at the top there and, gasp, right here, too! http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2008/jul/09/nowerenotasboredasyouar

I won't retail Service's rebuttal. You can read it (or ignore it) for yourself. But I will say this about the Guardian's subtitle for Queenan's article: "After 40 years and 1,500 concerts, Joe Queenan is finally ready to say the unsayable: new classical music is absolute torture - and its fans have no reason to be so smug," and that is that 1) people have been saying bad things about new classical music at least since Beethoven and 2) in all my own conversations with people about new classical music since I first started listening to it in 1972, the anti-moderns have had that smug thing pretty thoroughly wrapped up. I've met a couple of smug pro-moderns, true, but they are by a long ways the exception, their presence amply accounted for by the fact that you can find a few smuggies in any group.

At first glance, the antis might seem to have some justification. They have after all Bach's St. Matthew Passion, Mozart's Requiem, Beethoven's ninth symphony and so forth as their exclusive property. (Or DO they?) What has the twentieth century offered to compete with those masterpieces? And, if you answer with Rite of Spring or Hymnen, say, your picks will be dismissed with a wave of the hand and an uptilt of the nose. Never mind that advocates of Christian Marclay and Zbigniew Karkowski, for instance, can easily and sweetly enjoy Bach and Mozart as well; that inarguable fact diminishes the antis' superciliousness not one whit.

[karlhenning]

* yawwn *

[Homo Aestheticus]

Yea...the Queenan thing is a bunch of bunk. Service's view was even further strengthed seeing as concerts of Stockhausen, Boulez, Messiaen & Carter pretty much played to full houses this year...with many newer & younger generations attending (a very good thing - a wake up call to even more directors, conductors & performers i hope). And it seems that 2009 has more concerts scheduled from these and others, which is much more refreshing from the usual play-it-safe mode programming...

Fine, but where is the enthusiasm/love among that younger generation for the music of Mendelssohn, Brahms, Debussy and Wagner ? When I hear and read reports that they would prefer to listen to Stockhausen, Boulez, Messiaen and Carter over them I truly despair....

[karlhenning]

[ WHINGE ALERT ]

[gomro]

Fine, but where is the enthusiasm/love among that younger generation for the music of Mendelssohn, Brahms, Debussy and Wagner ? When I hear and read reports that they would prefer to listen to Stockhausen, Boulez, Messiaen and Carter over them I truly despair....

Why?  They want only to hear music that reflects their culture and their time, and they find that in the latter list.    

[not edward]

Fine, but where is the enthusiasm/love among that younger generation for the music of Mendelssohn, Brahms, Debussy and Wagner ? When I hear and read reports that they would prefer to listen to Stockhausen, Boulez, Messiaen and Carter over them I truly despair...

The vast majority of the new music lovers I've known also love much of the mainstream repertoire. But they're much more likely to get excited about a live performance of Berio's Sinfonia than Brahms' 4th, say, simply because the Berio shows up so much less often in concert programs.

I'd probably get more excited by, say, a performance of the Carter violin concerto than the Brahms, even though the Brahms is my very favourite work in that genre... simply because I've probably heard the Brahms live a dozen times and the Carter live zero times.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Why?  They want only to hear music that reflects their culture and their time, and they find that in the latter list.    

How can something abstract, a sequence of tones, meaningfully reflect a culture or time ?

[greg]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2008/jul/09/nowerenotasboredasyouar

This isn't because people want to eat their greens and roughage before they go back to Mahler and Brahms, but because of the unique, elemental, and often joyful power of their music: these composers have opened up areas of imagination that no other music, and no other art, has ever done in the past - and in ways that people want to hear.

0:)

[Kuhlau]

How can something abstract, a sequence of tones, meaningfully reflect a culture or time ?

You've clearly not heard this, then?

FK

[karlhenning]

This isn't because people want to eat their greens and roughage before they go back to Mahler and Brahms, but because of the unique, elemental, and often joyful power of their music: these composers have opened up areas of imagination that no other music, and no other art, has ever done in the past - and in ways that people want to hear.

(* pounds the table *)

[Homo Aestheticus]

The vast majority of the new music lovers I've known also love much of the mainstream repertoire. But they're much more likely to get excited about a live performance of Berio's Sinfonia than Brahms' 4th, say, simply because the Berio shows up so much less often in concert programs.

I'd probably get more excited by, say, a performance of the Carter violin concerto than the Brahms, even though the Brahms is my very favourite work in that genre... simply because I've probably heard the Brahms live a dozen times and the Carter live zero times.

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.

[Homo Aestheticus]

FK,

You've clearly not heard this, then?

FK

Mine was a rhetorical question.... You should read up on aesthetic philosopher Suzanne Langer who put it most eloquently I think:

"Music has survived the decay of a public metaphysics -- a shared belief in the coherent relations among God and nature and human culture -- because, more than any other art, music produces its effect without demanding a philosophical frame. To appeal to and create an emotion, a piece of music needs to make no particular gesture toward its purpose... In music we have  an unconsummated symbol, a significant form without conventional significance.  It exists probably below the threshold of consciousness, certainly outside the pale of discursive thinking, and thus no assignment of meaning is permanent beyond the sound that passes. Indeed, no matter how serious and elaborate, a musical composition cannot create its own metaphysical frame entirely from within the music. Even those who appreciate music in all its forms must recognize that music is not a rational art and cannot express an actual idea..."

******

[karlhenning]

But showing more enthusiasm for the live Berio is not a good sign.

Piffle!

[helios]

I sympathize with much of what he says and his questioning the worth of much contemporary music though admittedly he does paint with a slightly broad brush.

"It is not the composers' fault that they wrote uncompromising music that was a direct response to the violence and stupidity of the 20th century; but it is not my fault that I would rather listen to Bach. That's my way of responding to the violence and stupidity of the 20th century, and the 21st century as well..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/jul/09/classicalmusicandopera.culture

That's an excellent article - thanks for sharing it.

[Homo Aestheticus]

That's an excellent article - thanks for sharing it.

You're welcome.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Piffle!

Look, the Sinfonia is over 40 years old now and has yet to become an established classic. There is no reason for them to display that enthusiasm given the high contriveness factor in this work.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

[karlhenning]

[ Don, I know, I know . . . the latest attempt to "teach a pig to sing." ]

Look, the Sinfonia is over 40 years old now and has yet to become an established classic.

It is an established classic;  there are at last three recordings currently available, which is no small achievement for a piece only 50 years old.

There is no reason for them to display that enthusiasm given the high contriveness factor in this work.

Eric, you're playing at Taste Nazi now.  Anyone is entitled to his enthusiasm for the piece, for his own reasons;  and possession of the enthusiasm is sufficient reason to display it.

For the thousandth time, just because you don't like a piece, doesn't mean it is not great music.

[Cato]

How can something abstract, a sequence of tones, meaningfully reflect a culture or time ?

Tell me that -even if you did not know the title - you would NOT place Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima in the post-WWII era! 

As I recall the title in fact was an afterthought. 

Or that Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra somehow does NOT presage the coming violence of WWI!!! 

And again the titles were afterthoughts (Premonitions, (!!!) etc.)

Such is the mystery of music!