Comparing Composers

[greg]

Its nothing compared to, say, the Schoenberg Piano Suite because I'm not him. If I was Schoenberg you would have called it a great work. But because its me Saul Dzorelashvili, a relatively unknown young composer you dismiss it as 'ok' even though I have written it in a combination of Baroque and Romantic styles with passion and the music sounds beautiful, I know you will admit to that, but you would never say it because it would be un intellectual on your part.

Then this again brings us back to attribute greatness to fame, the thing goes like this, if he was famous therefore he was great.

This is a flawed argument because Schoenberg and the Rest of his camp never composed anything of greatness not because they couldn't or didn't have great minds, but because they decided to create music based on completely new modern ideas, and them disturbed their great potential in my opinion.

Well, maybe it is wrong to compare those different styles (then again, you were the one who started it).

However, I know I enjoy Schoenberg's music much more than yours. It's not because I want to sound more "intellectual." I don't really care about that, whatever it means.

I don't "dismiss" it as "ok" for the reasons you say. Doesn't matter who writes it- just saying what I think about the music itself.

There have been some excellent music written on this board- for example, Karl's Out in the Sun, Luke's piano pieces/song cycles, Ralph ("rappy")'s Piano Sonata, and this one Violin Sonata that I thought was comparable to any Violin Sonata of a Romantic-era composer from a member who never really posted much at all (it was Romantic-style).

The 2nd Vienneses' "new modern ideas" are something you don't like. Fine. It doesn't mean that they aren't great. Sadly, you'll never understand this if you haven't by now.

[Saul]

Well, maybe it is wrong to compare those different styles (then again, you were the one who started it).

However, I know I enjoy Schoenberg's music much more than yours. It's not because I want to sound more "intellectual." I don't really care about that, whatever it means.

I don't "dismiss" it as "ok" for the reasons you say. Doesn't matter who writes it- just saying what I think about the music itself.

There have been some excellent music written on this board- for example, Karl's Out in the Sun, Luke's piano pieces/song cycles, Ralph ("rappy")'s Piano Sonata, and this one Violin Sonata that I thought was comparable to any Violin Sonata of a Romantic-era composer from a member who never really posted much at all (it was Romantic-style).

The 2nd Vienneses' "new modern ideas" are something you don't like. Fine. It doesn't mean that they aren't great. Sadly, you'll never understand this if you haven't by now.

I have provided the links to their music and its sounds very poor and almost childish in a sense.
I believe you like it because its popular opinion. Objective listening to this pieces without knowing who composed them would make you think that its very poor music.

Perhaps one day you will realize this.

Even Mahler listened almost exclusively to Bach's music towards the end of his life.

I wonder why.. Perhaps he too realized that he finally had  to come home to real classical music.

[PaulR]

Its nothing compared to, say, the Schoenberg Piano Suite because I'm not him. If I was Schoenberg you would have called it a great work. But because its me Saul Dzorelashvili, a relatively unknown young composer you dismiss it as 'ok' even though I have written it in a combination of Baroque and Romantic styles with passion and the music sounds beautiful, I know you will admit to that, but you would never say it because it would be un intellectual on your part.

Then this again brings us back to attribute greatness to fame, the thing goes like this, if he was famous therefore he was great.

This is a flawed argument because Schoenberg and the Rest of his camp never composed anything of greatness not because they couldn't or didn't have great minds, but because they decided to create music based on completely new modern ideas, and that disturbed their great potential in my opinion.

So are modern ideas only bad when it's something you don't like, or enough time has passed?  Why are you giving Mendelssohn a pass because he had "modern ideas" (for the time) of creating "songs without words" at the beginning of the Romantic period?  Why are you giving Beethoven a pass because of the evolution of the symphony, to the point of adding new instruments to the orchestra, using the Scherzo instead of the Minuet and Trio?  Obviously these innovations occurred long before Shoenberg, or Webern, but they were once modern.  So it leads me to believe that it's only "worthless" to you because it has only been around for about 100 years, and you haven't studied it enough (or at all for that matter) in order to see it's value.  So please, go read a modern music theory book, learn about the 12-tone system (And other modern composition techniques), and if you still don't like it, come back with musical reasons why you don't like it, rather than just showing youtube clips and calling every you don't like "banal", "worthless".   

[Bulldog]

Even my own Fantasi In F sharp minor is way more superior then the nonsense of Webern, and Schoenberg.

http://www.youtube.com/v/EmC_VyNHZFM

I'll give you one thing - your music is not worthless nonsense; it's one step above.

[Mirror Image]

Its nothing compared to, say, the Schoenberg Piano Suite because I'm not him. If I was Schoenberg you would have called it a great work. But because its me Saul Dzorelashvili, a relatively unknown young composer you dismiss it as 'ok' even though I have written it in a combination of Baroque and Romantic styles with passion and the music sounds beautiful, I know you will admit to that, but you would never say it because it would be un intellectual on your part.

In addition to being narrow-minded, you enjoy "tooting your own horn" as well. You may have composed your piece with emotion, but it is the listener that ultimately decides whether it has emotion or not. If it means something to the listener, then you did your job as composer, but to state that you composed your piece "passionately" and it sounds "beautiful" is not giving the listener the right to voice his/her opinion. Again, you expect everybody to share your opinion and when somebody goes against that opinion they're somehow "wrong" for feeling the way they do.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Even my own Fantasi In F sharp minor is way more superior then the nonsense of Webern, and Schoenberg.

http://www.youtube.com/v/EmC_VyNHZFM

I'm very impressed by the independence of the voices in measures 5-6, and by how the masterpiece in F# minor manages to conclude in C minor.

[Luke]

Explain to me why I was not right that My Fantasi is way better then thse composers?

You're a composer please explain why not.

I'm not Karl, but I am a composer. And I'm shocked by the hubris of your statement about the superiority of this scarcely literate little piece of yours with a mature and major work by one of the greatest and most skilful of composers. I could go the ironic route, as Sforzando just did, but this ridiculousness goes beyond that, and besides, I'm not sure you'd understand the irony. Normally, I would assume this irony had been understood, but in your case I'm not so sure any more, so just in case - I do hope you realise that when Sfz talks admiringly about how your F sharp minor piece ends in C major he is being cuttingly sarcastic. F sharp minor - C major is a tonal scheme that goes against all your beloved laws, if we are taking Baroque/Classical practise as the laws you mean. Nielsen might have done some such thing, perhaps, if he'd been in a really iconoclastic mood and if he'd been working on a sufficiently large scale to justify it (not in a tiny piano piece); Mahler might have done it too, maybe, but then they are those degenerates you despise so much. So why are you doing it? Did you think about it? Did you have a reason? It's breaking all the 'rules' that Mozart and Bach would have followed, you know...

But let's not talk about tonal stucture, Saul, let's start more simply. In a measurable way, this piece is not as good as Schoenberg's (what a ridiculous thing to even have to write) because it doesn't abide by the basic laws its tonal language suggests it should. IOW, Saul, it fails because even by your very own standards it falls woefully short. You talk about rules, about how music which doesn't follow them is worthless - in fact there are very few 'rules' in composition, but it's true that during each period of music history there have been strong guidelines which one ought to think twice and then twice again about before transgressing. And the most famous of all, one Bach, Mozart and the gang followed carefully and only stepped over very gingerly, is the rule against using parallel fifths and octaves. Parallels are in evidence right all over the place in your piece, baldly and embarrassingly paraded. Personally, I don't give a fig, but you ought to, given all that you've been saying.

Schoenberg, OTOH, is writing in a different tonal language completely. It ought to be OK for him to use parallel 5ths, one would have thought, because they would be working in a totally different context, tonally. But you know what - he doesn't (I'm sure there might be one or two, but they will be there for a reason, they don't permeate the texture obtrusively and nonsensically as they do in your piece). Because, you see, Schoenberg was totally immersed in these rules, the ones you talk about so much but fail to understand or observe. Schoenberg knew them, felt them, lived them, understood them, all their implications, and to write a parallel 5th went against all his principles of good voice-leading and smooth harmony, even in an atonal context.


So you see, even twisting things violently, judging your music by your standards and Schoenberg's by your standards too, his piece is vastly superior. We're talking here about parallels because they are an unarguable.  But the same sort of thing could be said about all aspects of your piece compared to his.

For instance there is the notation....Mozart and Bach would use E sharps and B sharps in F sharp and C sharp minor contexts, you know, not F and C. Enharmonic notation. It oughtn't to be important, I guess....though it reads horribly, I have to say, and makes the music look even less logical.....but it is important if you are going to talk about respect for traditions and music theory and then ride roughshod over it all....

No, I won[t do it any more. I feel bad, I don't want to be harsh, it goes against the grain for me entirely. But the things you have been saying on this thread go beyond ridiculous, they are the silliest stuff I've ever read on this board. And that is saying something.

[Saul]

I had my nephew here this afternoon, he is 13 years old. He is musical but has no real solid sophistication when it comes to classical music. I asked him plainly what does he think of the Webern and the Schoenberg, he was rolling in laughter, he said , what's this nonsense.

Here is an independent opinion based on pure listening.

He then listened to my Fantasi, and without me telling him anything, he said that he likes it. It spoke to him and he was able to make something out of it.

But does anyone here care for an unbiased opinion?

Not really.

[Lethevich]

So your taste hasn't evolved beyond that of a 13 year old? I don't see the point being made.

[Saul]

So your taste hasn't evolved beyond that of a 13 year old? I don't see the point being made.

Look Luke,

If you didn't understand the point, you have some issues.

[Luke]

Look Saul,

If you didn't read who wrote that last post, it's not me that has the issues.

I do agree with Sara, however. My kids prefer jelly and ice cream to most other food. Doesn't make it haute cuisine.

[Scarpia]

Look Luke,

If you didn't understand the point, you have some issues.

This may come as a shock to you, but Luke and Lethe are not the same.

I had my nephew here this afternoon, he is 13 years old. He is musical but has no real solid sophistication when it comes to classical music. I asked him plainly what does he think of the Webern and the Schoenberg, he was rolling in laughter, he said , what's this nonsense.

Here is an independent opinion based on pure listening.

He then listened to my Fantasi, and without me telling him anything, he said that he likes it. It spoke to him and he was able to make something out of it.

But does anyone here care for an unbiased opinion?

Not really.

I think I know why he liked it, it sounds like the music that plays in the background of a pac-man game.   

[Saul]

Look Saul,

If you didn't read who wrote that last post, it's not me that has the issues.

I do agree with Sara, however. My kids prefer jelly and ice cream to most other food. Doesn't make it haute cuisine.

Do the words unbiased opinion MEANS ANYTHING TO YOU??

[Luke]

Saul, I'm very pleased that your 13 year old nephew liked the tonal chords more than the atonal ones. I doesn't surprise me, I'd expect that in most 13 year olds.And that's a taste thing again. You keep coming back to taste, even though you claim to be talking about quality. And his liking for the tonal chords proves nothing about quality or skill you claim to have been talking about.

[Saul]

Luke I never demanded a complete and total adherence to the rules, but a general dedication to them.
Bach also broke a few rules. Why did he finish a number of his fugues in a major chord when he began with a minor?
Sometimes the music demands it and takes you logically to end a piece a certain way, but that's a far call from saying that 'hey you, you broke the rules of music'...

[Franco]

Luke I never demanded a complete and total adherence to the rules, but a general dedication to them.
Bach also broke a few rules. Why did he finish a number of his fugues in a major chord when he began with a minor?
Sometimes the music demands it and takes you logically to end a piece a certain way, but that's a far call from saying that 'hey you, you broke the rules of music'...

Have you actually studied music?  I ask because you exhibit an overall ignorance of the subject.

[Scarpia]

Do the words unbiased opinion MEANS ANYTHING TO YOU??

Imagine your horror when you discover your nephew likes the Barney song better than your "Fantasi."

http://www.youtube.com/v/dsKO_r76kfQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1

[Saul]

Imagine your horror when you discover your nephew likes the Barney song better than your "Fantasi."

http://www.youtube.com/v/dsKO_r76kfQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1

Its entirely possible, one can never be certain, but even this music is way better then Webern and Schoenberg.
It has at least an understandable melody.

[Luke]

Luke I never demanded a complete and total adherence to the rules, but a general dedication to them.

But you don't do that, Saul, not even close. You're not aware of it, but you don't. Sfz and I pointed out some of the more obvious ways; the fact is, though, that Schoenberg adheres to 'the rules' much more strictly than you do, which is bizarre given that he's the arch-modern evil one and you are the upholder of tradition.

Bach also broke a few rules. Why did he finish a number of his fugues in a major chord when he began with a minor?

That is breaking a rule. It's a change of mode, not a change of tonal centre. In fact, it could eassily be regarded as resolving a structural dissonance - minor to major - and thus very much in the spirit of the rules as well as their letter. Double win.

Sometimes the music demands it and takes you logically to end a piece a certain way, but that's a far call from saying that 'hey you, you broke the rules of music'...

I don't see how you piece demanded those parallels, the illiterate notation or the uncalled for tonal scheme. It could easily be rewritten without all of those things, it would adhere much more closely to the rules and be a more satisfying (and legible) piece. It wasn't necessary for you to break the rules that way, Saul, the musical material didn't 'demand' it. I just think you didn't know what you are doing - the same sort of thing happens in all the pieces of yours I've looked at.

I have to go out. Enjoy the thread, everyone! 

[Scarpia]

All this talk of rules reminds me of a funny experience.  I used to play in a folk group and after studying some music theory I had the idea that I finally knew how to properly arrange vocal harmony in my little folk songs.  So I wrote it out and gave it to my partners to sing.   So we come to rehearsal and when the part with the vocal harmony comes up, right there in the middle of my folk song, there is this Bach chorale.  Sometimes you can take the "rules" too seriously.