Hot topics

[Saul]

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!!

Music is like wine, the older the better.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

Actually I would agree with that. I could easily live without the Wind Quintet, but never without Erwartung.

[karlhenning]

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.

Twelve letters: Moses und Aron

[Mirror Image]

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).

Alright. Thanks Scarpia. I have seen this recording and have been looking at it for quite some time. I love Riccardo Chailly too, so I'll definitely check his recording out.

[Mirror Image]

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.

Well said and I agree.

[karlhenning]

Well said and I agree.

Likewise.  I've found that for myself, at different times in my life, my ears have had variable need for the different epochs in music.  At this point, my ears are very large, and I don't foresee them shrinking ; )

[Saul]

Likewise.  I've found that for myself, at different times in my life, my ears have had variable need for the different epochs in music.  At this point, my ears are very large, and I don't foresee them shrinking ; )

Otherwise known as the 'Elephant Effect' 

[Mirror Image]

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!!!

I too think people should get out of their comfort zones, but for some people this requires a lot of time. It took me awhile to break out of mine, but there is a lot of music I don't like. I'm not going to spend my time as Some Guy pointed out bashing a composer's music. That's just not productive and it doesn't do anything but create bad vibes. Case in point: Saul. How many times is he going to come onto a thread and say he hates all atonal music? I mean this doesn't really promote discussion. It gets people further away from it. He's also already closed his mind off to so many composers that have made meaningful music. Do I like all atonal composers? No, absolutely not. Do I like all tonal composers? Absolutely not. The most important aspects of listening to music is finding what composer's music speaks directly to you and makes you feel emotionally/intellectually satisfied. If a composer doesn't do these things for you, then move on to another composer. Once you've explored some composer's music that you enjoy then come back to the composers you don't enjoy and give them another chance. Sometimes all it takes is some time apart.

[Franco]

I don't have any expectations about what people should listen to.   I figure they will find what they like without any input from me.  Unless they ask, of course, and then I'll tell them what I like and they can ignore or accept that advice as they wish.

[karlhenning]

. . . I'm not going to spend my time as Some Guy pointed out bashing a composer's music. That's just not productive and it doesn't do anything but create bad vibes. Case in point: Saul. How many times is he going to come onto a thread and say he hates all atonal music? I mean this doesn't really promote discussion.

He's not interested in promoting discussion, Lor' bless you!

[Brian]

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.

Maybe we should distinguish two meanings of "don't understand."

1. "I find this music incomprehensible/unlistenable."
2. "I can't figure out why the composer wrote exactly what he did."

1 is a sign of the unfamiliarity, or inattention, or whatever you want to call it, that you and Sid describe, and that we are troubled to find in some members of the forum. 2, however, is one of the great joys and challenges of art. I'd rather listen to a piece of music I do not understand than one I do, because it gives me something to think about, a problem to try and solve, a series of questions to ponder. Eventually, I might be able to pretend to answer them all, and then I can pompously march onto discussion forums and say that "everybody should be able to understand everything So-and-So wrote." But maybe I'd be wrong. So saying I don't know is more honest, and more interesting, and more rewarding when listening time comes around.

[Scarpia]

I too think people should get out of their comfort zones, but for some people this requires a lot of time. It took me awhile to break out of mine, but there is a lot of music I don't like. I'm not going to spend my time as Some Guy pointed out bashing a composer's music. That's just not productive and it doesn't do anything but create bad vibes. Case in point: Saul. How many times is he going to come onto a thread and say he hates all atonal music? I mean this doesn't really promote discussion. It gets people further away from it. He's also already closed his mind off to so many composers that have made meaningful music. Do I like all atonal composers? No, absolutely not. Do I like all tonal composers? Absolutely not. The most important aspects of listening to music is finding what composer's music speaks directly to you and makes you feel emotionally/intellectually satisfied. If a composer doesn't do these things for you, then move on to another composer. Once you've explored some composer's music that you enjoy then come back to the composers you don't enjoy and give them another chance. Sometimes all it takes is some time apart.

I see some value in criticizing music you don't like on a board like this, as long as it done non-judgmentally and with an open mind.  When the enthusiasts pipe up to explain what they love about the music you have criticized it can help you figure out what you are missing.  But the pronouncements that such-and-such music is rubbish have nothing to do with discussion.

[karlhenning]

I see some value in criticizing music you don't like on a board like this, as long as it done non-judgmentally and with an open mind.  When the enthusiasts pipe up to explain what they love about the music you have criticized it can help you figure out what you are missing.  But the pronouncements that such-and-such music is rubbish have nothing to do with discussion.

QFT

[Elgarian]

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.

Although I cheer your initial post in general, "I'm not so sure" (  ) about the bit I've highlighted. I'm really only going to echo comments already ably made by Brian, Scarpia and Erato, but perhaps with a different flavour.

First: in my personal experience, the problem isn't chronological as such. I don't think it has much to do with it being 2010, and struggling with our need to hark back to a Golden Age when Music was Great. The recent exchanges about Mozart tell us that this isn't about chronology. There's a whole heap of music, painting, and literature that I have a problem with, spread over centuries. It's regrettable, but it's true - and life is short and art is long, so there's no alternative except to be selective.

We both agree that one of the reasons we value music (indeed all art) is its ability to expand our perceptions; to enable us to experience mental soundscapes that we wouldn't be able to experience unaided - each new work being like a new window onto an exciting world. But that doesn't mean that we're all going to find all those windows equally valuable. Offer me a window onto the Alps, and I'll say yes please. Offer me a window onto a dead lamb, and I might say no thanks. I'm not suggesting the latter is a bad window - Ted Hughes wrote some superb poetry about dead lambs; but it may be a window I decide to leave alone, for reasons that simply don't concern anyone else.

Which brings me to my second point, also raised by others already - I don't see any 'ought' in this. I've no more obligation to listen to Schoenberg than I have to listen to Handel. If I choose to ignore Schoenberg the loss is mine; I've cut myself off from that particular kind of experience (and incidentally rendered myself incapable of making any worthwhile comments about it).

Thirdly, this issue will always be with us. For every person who declares atonal music to be a scam, there's another who will say the same about abstract painting, even though abstract art, too, has been with us for a century. I've given guided tours of exhibitions which have placed viewers in front of the most exquisitely balanced, lyrical compositions - with colours, tones and textures offering really exciting visual harmonies - only to hear, so often, presented as if it were new and wise insight, the comment that 'anyone could do that'. I've never found a way round this, except just to encourage repeated looking at anything that seems 'interesting', for whatever reason. I might declare the work to be a masterpiece, ever so passionately; might say that this thing they see as a meaningless blob has enriched my life for years (just as you speak, Michael, so eloquently about the music you love); but in practice, I find that no exhortation of that sort works. The only thing that works (if anything works) is the encouragement to persist: to suggest anything at all that will extend the period of looking, or just to try again another day.

[karlhenning]

Although I cheer your initial post in general, "I'm not so sure" (  ) about the bit I've highlighted. I'm really only going to echo comments already ably made by Brian, Scarpia and Erato, but perhaps with a different flavour.

First: in my personal experience, the problem isn't chronological as such. I don't think it has much to do with it being 2010, and struggling with our need to hark back to a Golden Age when Music was Great. The recent exchanges about Mozart tell us that this isn't about chronology. There's a whole heap of music, painting, and literature that I have a problem with, spread over centuries. It's regrettable, but it's true - and life is short and art is long, so there's no alternative except to be selective.

We both agree that one of the reasons we value music (indeed all art) is its ability to expand our perceptions; to enable us to experience mental soundscapes that we wouldn't be able to experience unaided - each new work being like a new window onto an exciting world. But that doesn't mean that we're all going to find all those windows equally valuable. Offer me a window onto the Alps, and I'll say yes please. Offer me a window onto a dead lamb, and I might say no thanks. I'm not suggesting the latter is a bad window - Ted Hughes wrote some superb poetry about dead lambs; but it may be a window I decide to leave alone, for reasons that simply don't concern anyone else.

Which brings me to my second point, also raised by others already - I don't see any 'ought' in this. I've no more obligation to listen to Schoenberg than I have to listen to Handel. If I choose to ignore Schoenberg the loss is mine; I've cut myself off from that particular kind of experience (and incidentally rendered myself incapable of making any worthwhile comments about it).

Thirdly, this issue will always be with us. For every person who declares atonal music to be a scam, there's another who will say the same about abstract painting, even though abstract art, too, has been with us for a century. I've given guided tours of exhibitions which have placed viewers in front of the most exquisitely balanced, lyrical compositions - with colours, tones and textures offering really exciting visual harmonies - only to hear, so often, presented as if it were new and wise insight, the comment that 'anyone could do that'. I've never found a way round this, except just to encourage repeated looking at anything that seems 'interesting', for whatever reason. I might declare the work to be a masterpiece, ever so passionately; might say that this thing they see as a meaningless blob has enriched my life for years (just as you speak, Michael, so eloquently about the music you love); but in practice, I find that no exhortation of that sort works. The only thing that works (if anything works) is the encouragement to persist: to suggest anything at all that will extend the period of looking, or just to try again another day.

Well said. Aye, mighty well said.

[Mirror Image]

I see some value in criticizing music you don't like on a board like this, as long as it done non-judgmentally and with an open mind.  When the enthusiasts pipe up to explain what they love about the music you have criticized it can help you figure out what you are missing.  But the pronouncements that such-and-such music is rubbish have nothing to do with discussion.

Absolutely, there's nothing wrong with disliking a composer's music. I dislike a lot of music, but I realize that my dislike for say Milhaud's music is just my own opinion and I don't expect others to share this opinion.

[some guy]

Just a quick clarification of one point here. This

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.

is not my attitude. And since no one else has noted this, I guess I'm the one who gets to do so. No one anywhere is required to do anything of the sort. And who could enforce such a rule, even if there was one? No, this is a straw man, and a peculiarly insidious one.

My attitude, if it really needs to be reiterated, is that it's absurd for people in 2010 to continue to have the kind of problems they have with Schoenberg. And to continue to talk as if tonality/atonality were still the hot topic of music. (Well, yes. On online music boards, tonality/atonality is indeed still the hot topic. Poor horse, I say.)

And speaking of 2010, no, I do not think the problem is strictly chronological. It's not a simple matter of "older=more comprehensible," although within limits this is often true. The only reason my OP has dates in it is to point out that the kinds of difficulties that people report having with Schoenberg and atonality in 2010 do not have any parallels in previous times. There were certainly people in 1810 who didn't particularly like Bach, but they didn't have the problems with his music that people in 2010 report having with the Second Viennese School. None of this is about liking or disliking. It's more--I hesitate to simplify like this--about demonizing.

And speaking of what things are about, here's what I'd like to see instead of the persistent obsession with tonality: an abiding interest in sound and a constant curiousity about what composers and musicians are doing now. There's an attitude for ya, and it's mine, and what it is, too.

[Mirror Image]

And speaking of what things are about, here's what I'd like to see instead of the persistent obsession with tonality: an abiding interest in sound and a constant curiousity about what composers and musicians are doing now. There's an attitude for ya, and it's mine, and what it is, too.

Unfortunately, not many listeners care what composers are doing now. There have been a few contemporary composers that I have found enjoyment in Part, Rautavaara, Dutilleux and most recently a composer named Ian Krouse whose "Rhapsody for Violin and Orchestra" I feel should in the violin repertoire.

I do feel that you're beating a dead horse. There's a lot of terrible modern music out there (i. e. Jennifer Higdon) that I would never listen to not because I have something against it, but because it doesn't move me. If all one does is listen to music like its some kind of scientific experiment then I think they have a poor understanding of music. Music of any merit is an emotional experience. The intellectual side of music comes later. One has to be moved first.

[Mirror Image]

People who hear it just find the characteristic of that music too unsettling, unstable and unpredictable even today... their puny brains, poor pattern recog. skills & limited curiousity won't have it ... what is wanted is something more chill, relax, predictable ... less offensive and safe that's all. 

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? 

[Scarpia]

My attitude, if it really needs to be reiterated, is that it's absurd for people in 2010 to continue to have the kind of problems they have with Schoenberg. And to continue to talk as if tonality/atonality were still the hot topic of music. (Well, yes. On online music boards, tonality/atonality is indeed still the hot topic. Poor horse, I say.)

I find your supposed clarification equally absurd.  It is quite possible for a capable, intellectually curious person to find Schoenberg's innovation utterly unappealing.  I'm not saying it is reasonable to log on to discussion boards and make blanket claims that such music is intrinsically ugly, a sham, etc, but a person who has taken the time to become thoroughly familiar with it can reasonably decide it was a stupid idea and have no interest in it.   Personally, I like a lot of Schoenberg, but there are other musical innovations that strike me as ridiculous, even though I have no doubt that other people legitimately find merit in them.  (For instance, the entire Avro Part, neo-medieval thing has no appeal to me, and I find it hard to understand why anyone would willingly listen to Kodaly's sonata for solo cello.)