Hot topics

[some guy]

OK, here's what alarms me.

That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).

Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.

2010, remember?

Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.

Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard. I first started to listen to 20th century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is from 1943. Going both forwards and backwards from that date, it still only took me till 1982 to be listening to music written in 1982. And not neo-romantic stuff, either, but Ligeti and Lutoslawski and Diamanda Galas and John Cage, among others. And though I played trumpet for a number of years in high school and college, my musical training is very small and insignificant. I'm just some guy who listens to and enjoys music.

I don't care whose axe-grinding leads them to conclude that "not much of value has been written since 19XX." Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written. Leave off all the various neo- musics. New music, new sounds, new ideas. Plenty of worthwhile stuff. Come on!! Join the freakin' party, why not? The only thing you have to lose is your damned prejudices. And who wouldn't be better for doing that, eh?

*No, it was TalkClassical, so I'm safe.

**Especially not whomever. No excuse, whomy!!

[Gurn Blanston]

Thank you.



----------------
Now playing:
Salomon Quartet - Hob 03 48 Quartet in F for Strings 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

[Mirror Image]

As I may or may not have stated in another thread, I don't have anything against Schoenberg, but he's not my favorite 12-tone composer. That honor goes to Berg whose music I adore. I like the way Berg used the 12-tone method. As I have said many times, there's a deep Romantic lyricism that runs through his music. I'm also starting to get into Dallapiccola, Messiaen, and I've been really enjoying Dutilleux lately.

Those who have known me on forums (esp. TalkClassical) knew that I had a strong opinion against serialism. Now, I look back and just laugh, because I was so narrow-minded and ignorant. I can only hope that more people try and at least give this music a chance.

Anyway, you've made some excellent points Some Guy. It's 2010 and people are still recycling the same old arguments. I can only speak for myself when I say that it took a lot of listening, a lot of research, and clearer mind to understand a lot of this music, but once I've accepted it for what it is, then there was no holding me back.

[Chaszz]

OK, here's what alarms me.

That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).

Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.

2010, remember?

Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.

Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard. I first started to listen to 20th century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is from 1943. Going both forwards and backwards from that date, it still only took me till 1982 to be listening to music written in 1982. And not neo-romantic stuff, either, but Ligeti and Lutoslawski and Diamanda Galas and John Cage, among others. And though I played trumpet for a number of years in high school and college, my musical training is very small and insignificant. I'm just some guy who listens to and enjoys music.

I don't care whose axe-grinding leads them to conclude that "not much of value has been written since 19XX." Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written. Leave off all the various neo- musics. New music, new sounds, new ideas. Plenty of worthwhile stuff. Come on!! Join the freakin' party, why not? The only thing you have to lose is your damned prejudices. And who wouldn't be better for doing that, eh?

*No, it was TalkClassical, so I'm safe.

**Especially not whomever. No excuse, whomy!!

Not all of us can be as perceptive, up-to-the-minute, gifted-at-listening, correct, right, and hugely qualified as you. We have feet of clay, alas. We are lucky that friendly energetic exhortations from higher mortals like you will most likely inspire us to...

[karlhenning]

. . . Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.

Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd.

And if absurd is the adjective (oh, and it is a good one) for someone who "has trouble with Schoenberg," what's the adjective for a musical illiterate who smugly decrees himself a composer "superior to" Schoenberg?

[Mirror Image]

Not all of us can be as perceptive, up-to-the-minute, gifted-at-listening, correct, right, and hugely qualified as you. We have feet of clay, alas. We are lucky that friendly energetic exhortations from higher mortals like you will most likely inspire us to...

There is no need to be mean-spirited. Some Guy was simply making a point, which from where I sit is valid. There is plenty of music written from 1910 to now that is beautiful and has a ton of merit. It's up to you to do the research and listening that is necessary in understanding modern music. If you don't want to understand it, then that is your prerogative, but I would be very interested in hearing what you have actually heard, so perhaps one of us can guide you into modern music that is more along the lines of your personal tastes.

I know this is totally random, but the name Frank Martin (whom I've researched a good bit) keeps bouncing around my head, anybody got any solid recommendations or suggestions on what I should hear?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Those who have known me on forums (esp. TalkClassical) knew that I had a strong opinion against serialism. . . . I can only hope that more people try and at least give this music a chance.

Just substitute "Mozart" for "serialism."

[Mirror Image]

Just substitute "Mozart" for "serialism."

Mozart was a great composer and I have acknowledged this many times. I just don't care much about his music, which I have also mentioned many times. This was all mentioned on the "Comparing Composers" thread, which should bring back some memories to those who participated and had to read Teresa's uneducated opinion being hurled about at a 150 mph rate of speed.

[Brian]

* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.

2010, remember?

Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.

False analogy and bad idea. Plenty of people today still have "trouble" with Beethoven's late quartets, or Sibelius, or late Scriabin. It's a matter of where they are as listeners, and where they are as performers, and what they've learned about the composers' styles. I can't prove this, but I'd bet that the number of performers who could claim to "fully understand," or "not have trouble with," Grosse Fuge is less than 5%.

Now, we're freely allowed to like and dislike whatever we want. I dislike Berg myself. Teresa dislikes Mozart. You probably dislike somebody. If we call them dislikes, there's no law against that. If we pronounce them the only rational point of view, or if we argue that our dislikes are truths, then we get in hot water. I agree with you there. Personal taste shouldn't be confused with a real judgment of artistic merit. But I'd argue back at you that everybody has the right to "have trouble with" art. If nobody ever had any trouble with it, it wouldn't be great art.

Ironically, this is usually an argument made in front of contemporary music against calls for "populism" and appealing to the masses.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Mozart was a great composer and I have acknowledged this many times. I just don't care much about his music, which I have also mentioned many times. This was all mentioned on the "Comparing Composers" thread, which should bring back some memories to those who participated and had to read Teresa's uneducated opinion being hurled about at a 150 mph rate of speed.

Oh c'mon, take a joke.

[Mirror Image]

Oh c'mon, take a joke.

Oh you were joking?  In that case....

[Teresa]

OK, here's what alarms me.

That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).

Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.

2010, remember?

Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.

Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard. I first started to listen to 20th century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is from 1943. Going both forwards and backwards from that date, it still only took me till 1982 to be listening to music written in 1982. And not neo-romantic stuff, either, but Ligeti and Lutoslawski and Diamanda Galas and John Cage, among others. And though I played trumpet for a number of years in high school and college, my musical training is very small and insignificant. I'm just some guy who listens to and enjoys music.

I don't care whose axe-grinding leads them to conclude that "not much of value has been written since 19XX." Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written. Leave off all the various neo- musics. New music, new sounds, new ideas. Plenty of worthwhile stuff. Come on!! Join the freakin' party, why not? The only thing you have to lose is your damned prejudices. And who wouldn't be better for doing that, eh?

*No, it was TalkClassical, so I'm safe.

**Especially not whomever. No excuse, whomy!!

It is really quite simple the problem with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen is their music is UNLISTENABLE, crude, ugly, degenerate and altogether offensive!  And I don't care what year it is, heck in the year 3010 Schoenberg's noise making will still be a scam, atonal and anti-music.  Rejecting ugly NON-MUSIC is normal, accepting such trash as music is not normal.  That is why the Second Viennese School and their followers were scam artists.  As B. T. Barnum said "a sucker is born every minute."  And Schoenberg proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt. 

OK let's catch up!  I agree as you say "Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written"  But not the degenerate atonal music you are referring to but real honest-to-god modern beautiful and exciting tonal classical compositions! 

The world is moving past the destructive ideas of the Second Viennese School.  Here is a small sampling of the very modern tonal compositions, some written only a few years ago:

MICHAEL DAUGHERTY: Niagara Falls for Organ, Winds and Percussion (1997)

http://www.youtube.com/v/cBkkhaUVD3U

JOHAN DE MEIJ: Symphony No. 1 "The Lord Of The Rings" (1987)

http://www.youtube.com/v/IorOng9qUOo

GIAN CARLO MENOTTI: Violin Concerto (1952)

http://www.youtube.com/v/XniiEZ6lNHY

VACLAV NELHYBEL: Trittico (1965)

http://www.youtube.com/v/LG_7_WkW4kg

CHRISTOPHER THEOFANIDIS: Rainbow Body (2000)

http://www.youtube.com/v/cRZe0jyUrDw&feature=related

[The new erato]

OK, here's what alarms me.

That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).

Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg.

People are allowed to have  problems with whomever they choose. What's real troubling is that they don't understand that the problem is theirs, not the composers, and that they misrepresent the composer as some kind of evil genius deliberately out to ruin western music.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

As I may or may not have stated in another thread, I don't have anything against Schoenberg, but he's not my favorite 12-tone composer. That honor goes to Berg whose music I adore. I like the way Berg used the 12-tone method.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that, and IMHO Webern also exceeded his teacher in that field. The only "trouble" I have with Schoenberg is that his serial works seem kind of dry and constricted next to the extraordinarily imaginative pieces of his free atonal period.

[some guy]

You probably dislike somebody.

Indeed. And probably know one knows who those composers are. Because I don't think it's useful to tell people who I don't like. Because every composer I dislike is liked by someone. What would be the point of saying, for instance, I don't like Grieg? Would people who like Grieg be better off not liking him? Probably not. Does it help anyone, likers, dislikers, ignorant (in the neutral sense) to hear that I dislike Grieg? Naw. It might help someone to hear that I do like Grieg (I do, actually) and even better to hear why. (I'm going to cop out at this point. It's late, and I haven't listened to any Grieg for a long time. There are only so many hours in a day. Plus part of my job is writing CD reviews. Whew. Enough already!)

But that's as may be. Our situation is unprecedented. People unable still to know, understand, appreciate music from over one hundred years ago. Yes, I know there are a few people who still report as being perplexed by Beethoven's Grosse Fuge. But that's absurd, too, I say. More absurd, maybe. But to point out other absurdities does not diminish (or contradict) the absurdity that I mentioned.

The difficulties do not lie with the music. They lie with the attitudes and experience of the listeners. Absolutely. And both attitudes and experience can change. And while the latter is the easier, even attitudes can change, as witness Mirror Image.

It is really quite simple the problem with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen is their music is UNLISTENABLE, crude, ugly, degenerate and altogether offensive!

Yes, you do keep saying this, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Good luck with that, Teresa. Plenty of people right here who have reported as listening to all five of these composers with a great deal of unforced and easy pleasure.

It offends you? Fine. Who needs to hear that, though? The music of these five is still sophisticated, beautiful, inspiring, and altogether enjoyable--if you've the ears for it. If not, well "oh, well."

[Sid]

I think the key thing here is that atonal (or pantonal as Schoenberg liked to call it) music is written in a different "language" from much of the music that had gone before. The listener has to develop his/her perception and understanding of this music, just as if they were learning a new language. It may take much repeated listening, but in the end, it is not difficult to understand and enjoy music of this kind. People who say that "this music is rubbish" or things to that effect, are themselves talking rubbish.

It took me a while to grasp Schoenberg's Violin Concerto, but now it is one of my favourite works in the genre. & it's hard to generalise (eg. Berg is more approachable than Schoenberg). I find some of Berg's serial works like the Lyric Suite and Chamber Concerto to be equally as complex and involving as anything by Schoenberg. Often, it has taken me many months or years to understand some of these works, others I absorb very quickly.

But I think some guy is on the right track. If a listener is not open to the 2nd Viennese School, then they probably have little chance of understanding later composers like Lutoslawski, Frank Martin, Carter, etc. who were influenced by them. If you want to be outdated, conservative, restricted, inflexible about what music is (or should be?), then go ahead, say it's all rubbish. You're the only loser if you have this lose-lose attitude.

As for Frank Martin, he developed his own way of approaching atonality. He combined it with neo-classicism in some works (eg. Petite Symphonie Concertante), a type of hazy impressionism (the ballades), a mix of late romanticism and Hindemithian expressionism (6 monologues from Jederman) and ancient Christian church music (Mass for Double Choir). A composer of many different approaches, he didn't seem to stick to one style, but kept experimenting.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

But that's as may be. The problem, as I see it, is that the situation is unprecedented. People unable still to know, understand, appreciate music from over one hundred years ago.

I don't think time (chronology) is the issue. A lot of people have trouble with early music. In fact, some people find it harder to appreciate Dufay, Machaut, or Josquin (the composer, not the guy who posts under that name) than to appreciate Schoenberg, Bartok or other canonical moderns. According to your logic, early composers should be really easy to enjoy, since they composed hundreds of years ago!

The difficulties do not lie with the music. They lie with the attitudes and experience of the listeners.

I think it goes both ways. You shouldn't always assume the listeners are at fault.

[Scarpia]

I know this is totally random, but the name Frank Martin (whom I've researched a good bit) keeps bouncing around my head, anybody got any solid recommendations or suggestions on what I should hear?

This is a very good place to start



Ansermet had a flair for that sort of stuff.   There is also a recording by Chailly of some of the same music, and some recordings by Bamert on Chandos which are also ok, but not quite up to the level of the ones I've listed (in my opinion).

[Scarpia]

OK, here's what alarms me.

That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).

Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.

2010, remember?

Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.

Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard. I first started to listen to 20th century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is from 1943. Going both forwards and backwards from that date, it still only took me till 1982 to be listening to music written in 1982. And not neo-romantic stuff, either, but Ligeti and Lutoslawski and Diamanda Galas and John Cage, among others. And though I played trumpet for a number of years in high school and college, my musical training is very small and insignificant. I'm just some guy who listens to and enjoys music.

I don't care whose axe-grinding leads them to conclude that "not much of value has been written since 19XX." Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written. Leave off all the various neo- musics. New music, new sounds, new ideas. Plenty of worthwhile stuff. Come on!! Join the freakin' party, why not? The only thing you have to lose is your damned prejudices. And who wouldn't be better for doing that, eh?

*No, it was TalkClassical, so I'm safe.

**Especially not whomever. No excuse, whomy!!

I find your attitude that we are required to appreciate certain types of modern music just as absurd as the Luddites who claim it is a horror.  It certainly is worthwhile, judging by the number of people interested in it, I am interested in some of it, but some intelligent and knowledgeable people may conclude that it does not provide them with what they look for in music.  No shame in that.

[Sid]

My problem is that when people say "I have trouble with x music" (be it from the middle ages right up till now) they are really saying that they have not invested any time or effort into hearing this music to get a grasp of it. It's like if you were learning a new language. At first, you would start to learn things by rote, and hardly understand it, but then gradually you learn to speak, read, write the said language. It's the same thing with listening to music. If you are not open to variety in the first place and say things like "I can't get into a capella choral" or whatever, of course you are never going to get into it. It's attitude and flexibility that counts, not knowledge or how many recordings you own. I have a very small collection compared to many people here, but it covers many areas from the middle ages until now, and I also regularly go to live concerts and recitals, listen to the radio, and friend's recordings as well as borrowing from the library. I want to develop my perception as fully as possible. I can't imagine just listening to Baroque or whatever, I need variety. I want to see the "big picture" not just the insignificant details, however engrossing they may be. I think that some guy can apply his criticism of such inflexible people not only vis a vis Schoenberg and the others, but (virtually) to the whole history of classical music. Get out of your niches, and start to explore the richness and variety that classical has to offer. Don't only listen to recordings, go to see the music live. Support your local ensembles. Get down and dirty!!!