Admit It, You're As Bored As I Am

[karlhenning]

I contest the adverb faintly, Patrick! 

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 . . . .

Again (not that the OP will pay any better attention to it this time around):

The problem is that Queenan seems to equate a composer making a "breakthrough" not with whether audiences actually go to hear this stuff - they do - but whether he likes it or not. If he doesn't get on with it, that's fine, but it makes the argument a soupçon self-aggrandising.

Pretty much answers the OP, what?

How much Stockhausen and Boulez have you heard?

Oh, from time to time he goes through the empty exercise of actually listening to a little bit, quickly deciding, There: I don't like it. Knew I shouldn't, and he goes back into his loop.  You can lead a horse to water, &c.

[Homo Aestheticus]

I'll leave aside, for the moment, the broader question of whether you understand music generally

Don't be ridiculous... I have a great appreciation and love of Western music.

Son, Boulez and Stockhusen are not worthy composers. They deserve a sharp rebuke for turning the serial idea into something deeply problematic and helped to damage through interests of their own the reputations of both Schoenberg and Webern.

(Even  Acdouglas  agrees with me)

[Homo Aestheticus]

Gomro,

How much Stockhausen and Boulez have you heard?  

More Boulez than Stockhausen.

Stockhausen: Stimmung and Helicopter Quartet

Boulez:

Eclat and Multiples and Rituel on a single CD.

Fold by Fold with Halina Lukomska

Repons

Sonatine

The Master without a Hammer

Third Piano Sonata with Idil Biret

Sur Incises

(Gomro, I've always considered Repons to be more on the "cream puffy" side... )

[ChamberNut]

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?

I'm sure he's at least as qualified as you are, with your pro-modern rants.  That's the only time you ever post anything on any classical site.

[Josquin des Prez]

Genius is about ingenuity, talent and achievement.

No, no and no. Science is about ingenuity, talent and achievement, but there is no genius in science, unless the scientist also happens to be a philosopher. By trying to bring genius to a physical level you are actually stepping away from it. Can't you see? I'm using all the powers at my disposal to make you glance at the light and you keep moving deeper and deeper into the cave. There is nothing there, nothing at all.  

— 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.

And as always, i maintain that to be sheer nonsense. It is precisely by bringing genius down to a physical level that you can include those who do not match the definition, but, as it were, truth stands no chance against ideology, particularly when the emotional pay off for following said ideology is so rewarding, ain't it? When genius becomes relative, everybody is a genius, or no one. Isn't that the situation ailing contemporary art?

[Homo Aestheticus]

with your pro-modern rants. 

Pro-modern rants ?

??

[Josquin des Prez]

Do you see the pattern? The progression?

No, i don't. Bach is a genius. Beethoven is a genius. A progression would imply that Beethoven would be more of a genius then Bach, but that isn't really the case, is it? Further more, is Beethoven a genius because of the stylistic methods and techniques he employed, or is he a genius irrespectively of the changes incurred through out the various phases music underwent in the several decades that separate Beethoven from Bach? It seems to me that, whatever the difference in their methods and the various paths chosen, the final goal of their journey is the same.

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

Truth doesn't come in any shape or size, truth is what it is. Individuals come in different shapes and sizes, so truth may look different from genius to genius but the end result is always the same. That special feeling of immortality one receives from genius is the same whether we are talking about Bach, Brahms or Wagner.    

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.

Wagner didn't worship Berlioz. He was floored by the French composer early on, but he was less then impressed by Berlioz during his years of maturity. In fact, in his own biography, he plainly states he was quite disappointed at Berlioz for considering Les Troyens to be the summit of his creative powers, a work which Wagner considered deeply flawed. It was not from Berlioz that Wagner attained genius, it was from Beethoven that he received that impetus. BTW, i never said that i hated Berlioz. I said he is no genius, but he was definitely a great composer and i quite like his music.

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

Ho sure, if we were talking about art. But we are talking about genius here, remember?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Josquin,

BTW, I never said that I hated Berlioz. I said he is no genius, but he was definitely a great composer and i quite like his music.

Your opinion on Berlioz... Hmm.   

I'm curious.... Is Igor Stravinsky a genius or merely a great composer in your book ?

[drogulus]

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.

     You don't need a reason. Becoming an established classic will happen in time if enough people continue to appreciate it. And they won't need a reason either, just as the people who liked Beethoven all these years don't provide you a reason, except to point towards something you might want to hear. So taste has a social and personal component, and how you connect with past, present, and possible future tastes is up to you, though how it's up to you doesn't seem to be entirely up to you.

[Josquin des Prez]

I'm curious.... Is Igor Stravinsky a genius or merely a great composer in your book ?

Not sure, never heard enough of his music to be able to cast that judgment. This type of assessments don't come easy you know, and doubt is always ready to creep up on you every time you make a decision. If he isn't, he is definitely closer then Berlioz. Of that i'm pretty sure.

[ezodisy]

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

yeah but pelleast, you do have a way of attracting them -- on this page alone you have a couple of the most obnoxious posters on this board. How the little fish nibble the big fish, or The Food Chain in Retrograde, could be a topic for your next thread based on some of this. Great entertainment though

[max]

Not sure, never heard enough of his music to be able to cast that judgment. This type of assessments don't come easy you know, and doubt is always ready to creep up on you every time you make a decision. If he isn't, he is definitely closer then Berlioz. Of that i'm pretty sure.

To equal Berlioz, Stravinsky would have to live a thousand years with his talent compounded at 10% per year. All of Stravinsky's works put together wouldn't equal the grandeur of the Berlioz requiem one of the most phenomenal and profound works of the 19th century. In the 20th though a racket is sometimes more appreciated than actual music...more like extemporizing haphazardly by throwing various colored paints on a canvass hoping its going to trigger some deep psychic event. If you can't get in it, it means you're not with it!

No! if my metaphorical soul is desiccated, that's where Stravinsky would leave it thoroughly dry with no value added. Of course, the merits of music are expounded by its effect and there are some who are more elevated by Stravinsky than Beethoven or Bach.

To me, this is as incomprehensible as quantum theory where seemingly NOTHING IS SURE which means MY opinion is also only that.

[drogulus]

To equal Berlioz, Stravinsky would have to live a thousand years with his talent compounded at 10% per year. All of Stravinsky's works put together wouldn't equal the grandeur of the Berlioz requiem one of the most phenomenal and profound works of the 19th century. In the 20th though a racket is sometimes more appreciated than actual music...more like extemporizing haphazardly by throwing various colored paints on a canvass hoping its going to trigger some deep psychic event. If you can't get in it, it means you're not with it!

No! if my metaphorical soul is desiccated, that's where Stravinsky would leave it thoroughly dry with no value added. Of course, the merits of music are expounded by its effect and there are some who are more elevated by Stravinsky than Beethoven or Bach.

To me, this is as incomprehensible as quantum theory where seemingly NOTHING IS SURE which means MY opinion is also only that.

     Stravinsky did not specialize in the kind of grandeur that Berlioz did. However he was a very meticulous composer and didn't just splash effects haphazardly. He had a precise control of his material that in some ways epitomized the modernist reaction to the romantic. Not everyone resonates with Stravinsky. I do, and I hear him as a kind of classicist. One common thread through what I've heard of his various styles is that sense of control. I guess the Nietzschian idea of the Dionysian and Apollonian would apply.

[Mark G. Simon]

I would say that all of the works of Berlioz combined might be worth about 10% of The Rite of Spring, but that's just me.

[karlhenning]

I would say that all of the works of Berlioz combined might be worth about 10% of The Rite of Spring, but that's just me.

Truly, if Le sacre is not a work of supreme genius, the word ceases to mean anything.

[drogulus]

   Berlioz was a wild and crazy guy. He thought the path from Beethoven would be the one he took. I like that he was like that, inspired by Beethoven but not sounding anything like him. In the process he changed music profoundly.

   I do rate Le sacre above any work by Berlioz. That's a very high standard by which to judge any composer.

[karlhenning]

   Berlioz was a wild and crazy guy. He thought the path from Beethoven would be the one he took.

I think you do Berlioz a subtle disservice, tinged by awareness of the uses to which A Certain German made of Beethoven.  Berlioz found a path congenial to himself, inspired by Beethoven;  I don't get any notion that he was holding aloft the gourd, saying, "All ye that call yourselves Gourdenes!" 

[karlhenning]

   I do rate Le sacre above any work by Berlioz. That's a very high standard by which to judge any composer.

Conceding the point for purposes of discussion . . . of course, Le sacre made a huge splash, and had a Protean impact on a broad variety of composers.  Discounting the odd cartoon caricature, Berlioz's work was never in a position to have any such impact . . . there was never a radiating "Berlioz buzz" comparable to the scandal which sprang from the premiere of Le sacre.

[PSmith08]

Don't be ridiculous... I have a great appreciation and love of Western music.

You're missing the point, but, at this point, I don't know if I have the necessary fortitude to explain to you precisely how you're missing the point. Since I've nothing better to do for a few minutes, seeing as how I've got just that long before plunging back into the Mad Men DVDs, I'll do my best.

Son, Boulez and Stockhusen are not worthy composers. They deserve a sharp rebuke for turning the serial idea into something deeply problematic and helped to damage through interests of their own the reputations of both Schoenberg and Webern.

(Even  Acdouglas  agrees with me)

Regardless of who agrees or disagrees with you, I am sure (indeed, in some cases, I know) that their reasons are better than barely and poorly disguised arguments from taste. You confuse appreciation with critical faculties, which is a fairly common problem, but a problem it most definitely is. Indeed, that is the fundamental problem with your "critique": it is not a critique. It is the attempt to make value judgments on a composer based solely on a visceral reaction. Such reactions can inform reasoned judgments, but any attempt to pass off "No, sir, I don't like it" as some great artistic comment is doomed, ab initio, to failure as criticism. The gap, I am sorry to say, cannot be stopped by saying "I have a great appreciation and love of Western music." You clearly do not appreciate or even like one important (though, at this point, less important than in the past) strand of Western music. So, either you're defining Western music as completely analogous with what you like, the fallacy in such a definition hardly needing the identification, or you're not entirely sure what Western music is. In either case, you cannot rectify the problem with your "critical program" by citing to some love of Western music, even assuming that you're entirely sure what those words mean.

You can, however, rectify the problem by admitting that your critique is, in essence, the expression of taste. Nothing more, nothing less, and certainly nothing dishonorable. And with that, I am done with this round of pot-stirring (unless something novel or interesting comes along), since I'm pretty sure that you've started this argument several times at this point.

[karlhenning]

You're missing the point, but, at this point, I don't know if I have the necessary fortitude to explain to you precisely how you're missing the point.

Because, you know, he stands ready to miss it dead again.