Hot topics

[karlhenning]

Oh no...I would never knit.  I much prefer shuffleboard. 

X-treme shuffleboard: 'at's our mods!

[The new erato]

And you find it gracious to claim that people who don't like the music you like have "puny brains"?

Fights other places usually get into a "bigger balls" stage, here we go into a "bigger brains" stage. I'm proud of you guys!

[Elgarian]

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.

I really don't understand this 'absurdity' angle. It may be regrettable for Jack to fail to understand art of any kind (including atonal music) - but why is it absurd? Of course, it would be absurd for Jack to claim that it's bad because he doesn't understand it and can't make any headway with it, but the not-understanding and the lack of headway aren't absurd.

The time issue confuses things, I think. In another 500 years (if we're still around), some people will still be having 'problems' with Schoenberg ... and Rothko, and Duchamp etc. and it won't be any more or less absurd than it is now. Dammit, my father-in-law used to insist that Monet couldn't paint properly (just like they said in 1874, though he didn't know that). It's just the way things are, in art. The issue keeps raising its head not because it's a 'hot topic', but because it's a perennial problem for people who are interested in the arts but have blind spots (basically, all of us here).

[karlhenning]

Wisdom there.  The trick is learning humility w/r/t one's blindspots, rather than parading them as virtues.

[Saul]

Two moderators (husband and wife) are sitting in front of their computers.
The wife says "I could use a bowl of vanilla ice cream with chocolate and nuts on it."
The husband says, "Well we don't have any."
The wife says, "I want some vanilla ice cream with chocolate and nuts on it."
The husband says, "I said we don't have any."
The wife says "Well go get some, and write it down, vanilla ice cream with chocolate and nuts."
The husband says, "I don't need to write it down, vanilla ice cream with chocolate and nuts." and stomps out.
A half hour later he comes back and hands her a turkey sandwich.
She opens the sandwich and says, "I told you to write it down!! I wanted mustard on mine."

[some guy]

It may be regrettable for Jack to fail to understand art of any kind (including atonal music) - but why is it absurd?

But I'm not saying that Jack's failure to understand art of any kind, including atonal music, is absurd.* I'm saying it's absurd that people interested in music, in what we call "classical music," are having the kinds of problems they're having with music of a hundred years ago. That one of the signs of its absurdity is that no one in 1910 or 1810 or 1710 would have had these kinds of problems. (In 1710, people weren't still wrangling about polyphony/monophony.)

*I don't mind what I've said being criticized, as you know. I don't mind changing my mind when I find that I was mistaken, either. (I'd rather be right than stubborn!!) But I do mind that Scarpia and even you are criticizing me for something I haven't said. I'd rather expend energy defending my position, not restating it!

Plus, I want to know where James found that picture of my female relatives!! It's spot on, dude. Uncanny!!

[mc ukrneal]

But I'm not saying that Jack's failure to understand art of any kind, including atonal music, is absurd.* I'm saying it's absurd that people interested in music, in what we call "classical music," are having the kinds of problems they're having with music of a hundred years ago. That one of the signs of its absurdity is that no one in 1910 or 1810 or 1710 would have had these kinds of problems. (In 1710, people weren't still wrangling about polyphony/monophony.)

This is actually not true. Beethoven's last piano sonatas were not well understood for many decades after his death. People WERE having problems with them even 100 years later.  Since this is a fact, that means the whole basis of your argument is bunk.

[some guy]

ukrneal, would you say that having difficulties with beethoven's late piano sonatas in 1910, or thereabouts, was typical or exceptional?

Were people in 1910, or thereabouts, having trouble with the whole shift from "classical" to "romantic"? Were the ideas and practices of the nineteenth century that came from Beethoven being argued as if nothing else important had happened during that time or as if the last big thing to have happened was that shift? Was it commonplace to criticize Beethoven for having turned music away from its earlier purity; was it said that what he was doing was UNLISTENABLE? Were there heated debates as to whether Beethoven was a charlatan or a talented composer?

Or did concert-goers pretty much accept Beethoven's greatness and Beethoven's worth, even if a few individual pieces still perplexed a few listeners?

I suppose that whatever the answers are to these questions, there will always be those who look for any excuse to cover their inadequacies.

Let me be blunt. I do not like Chopin. And the meaning of that is that there's something lacking in me. Nothing wrong with Chopin. (I do, however, very much enjoy that Kodaly sonata for solo cello. Wow!! That is one sweet piece.) I also do not like Orff. There, I suspect that it's Orff that's at fault. But I would never argue that. I would probably lose. And win or lose, I can't see that expressing my dislike would improve anyone's life, except maybe for how I just did it!

[Scarpia]

ukrneal, would you say that having difficulties with beethoven's late piano sonatas in 1910, or thereabouts, was typical or exceptional?

I would say about 1 in 100 residents of the US would be willing to listen to a late Beethoven piano sonata today.  For a Schoenberg pan-tonal work, it may be 1 in 10,000.   I find nothing absurd in the notion that most of those 1 in 100 people who like Beethoven don't also like Schoenberg.  There is no reason that they shouldn't, but there is no reason they should, either.  Schoenberg created a radically different system for organizing tones and creating music, and there is no reason that people who love the Hammerklavier should find that new system of music interesting or enjoyable.  Those 99 out of 10,000 people who love Beethoven but don't like Schoenberg don't spend their time renouncing Schoenberg (except a few on this board, apparently) they simply fail take any notice of Schoenberg.    And to be frank, the implication that not liking Schoenberg is proof be being a closed-minded ignoramus puts me off his works.  You are doing Schoenberg no service, and to be honest any interest I have felt recently to explore his works is gone.

[Teresa]

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...

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.

There is a WAR between atonal noise and tonal music.     It all started with the anti-Schoenberg backlash back in the dark days during the early part of the last century.  Many felt Classical music was DOOMED because of the Second Viennese School, however brave composers rose up and began the slow movement away from the degeneracy of the serialism, 12 tone rows, violent atonal clusters and dark morbid non-musical sounds.  The degeneracy of the avant-garde can also be heard in the lyrics to their vocal pieces and operas and seen on the covers of many of their albums.  Schoenberg and his crowd are NOT classical composers but offensive invaders bent on destroying classical music completely.  And the scary thing is they ALMOST succeeded.   

Also one Page 1 I gave five music clips of MODERN tonal music works, one written in 2000.  Yes it is important what REAL what composers and musicians are doing now as atonal music finally is on it's death bed and modern tonal composers are winning the war with real music. 

Unfortunately, not many listeners care what composers are doing now. 

... 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.

I care a great deal about what is being composed now, and seek out excellent tonal compositions, the internet helps a lot with this endeavor.    I just wanted to say Jennifer Higdon is on of my favorite modern tonal composers.    Have you heard her Blue Cathedral, City Scape or Concerto for Orchestra?  I do a agree the emotional experience of music is prime!

We have a few people on this board, Saul, Teresa, James, who are incapable of grasping the idea that something they don't like has value.   

This may help to clarify:

• There are composers one loves, likes and do not like
• There are composers one believes are great, good, poor and bad composers
• There are composers who noise is so corrupting that their presence must be opposed to the dying breath of all who love music.

Some people think Nos, 1 and 2 are the same they are not and I will give an example.  I do not like the music of Schubert or Schumann however I believe they are excellent composers and as you say have value, just not my style.   There are composers that I think are bad composers, I even like a few bad composers myself, so even bad composers have value.

However music such as the Second Viennese School is so awful, vile and corrupting that it has no value and I would argue NO ONE listens to this music for enjoyment but for some intellectual exercise. 

I'm saying it's absurd that people interested in music, in what we call "classical music," are having the kinds of problems they're having with music of a hundred years ago. 

It really is quite simple atonal noise is not considered classical music by many but a failed deviant experiment pushed as being itellectual by the Second Viennese School and their followers.   I will point out these same people have no problem with tonal classical music written in the last 100 years, or tonal music being written today!

[Brahmsian]

There is a WAR between atonal noise and tonal music.    

Let the honking begin!

[greg]

However music such as the Second Viennese School is so awful, vile and corrupting that it has no value and I would argue NO ONE listens to this music for enjoyment but for some intellectual exercise. 

My god, you are stupid.

[Brahmsian]

However music such as the Second Viennese School is so awful, vile and corrupting that it has no value and I would argue NO ONE listens to this music for enjoyment but for some intellectual exercise. 

Makes about as much sense as saying people who listen to and love Wagner's music are all anti-semitic.

[Elgarian]

But I do mind that Scarpia and even you are criticizing me for something I haven't said. I'd rather expend energy defending my position, not restating it!

Don't be upset. I'm not criticising you at all, but struggling to understand. The problem is that we're having a difficult conversation in an area where you know a great deal and I (although interested in the general business of art reception) know little. And although I'd be just as frustrated as you if I had to keep saying the same thing over and over again, I need to report that I still don't understand what you mean about 'these kinds of problems'. What's the difference between my failure to enjoy almost all atonal music, and my failure to enjoy, let's say, very early sacred music, which (I'm horrified to have to expose my philistinism like this) 'all sounds the same', to me? Those two incomprehensions don't feel much different when I experience them. They just wear me out after a short time, and make me long for something more approachable.

I don't know enough about the history of music reception to come up with a helpful analogy for the comparisons you're making, but I do know that there are people today who have 'problems' with, for instance, the art of the Pre-Raphaelites. I knew one very competent figurative painter who insisted that they were dreadfully bad painters; that they didn't understand the first thing about painting; that they didn't understand the essential character of paint. Now you'd think, after 150 years, that kind of controversy couldn't possibly still be current, but it was, and is. It sounds absurd - but actually, once I'd finished talking with him, and understood what he meant about the character of paint and its importance, it wasn't absurd at all. Seen from within that framework, it was a sensible and even interesting criticism to make, even if one didn't agree with it.

I think you're likely to say 'but that's not what I mean at all' - and if so, I sincerely apologise; but I'm struggling here to understand the difference.

[CD]

My god, you are stupid.

QFT

[greg]

Don't be upset. I'm not criticising you at all, but struggling to understand. The problem is that we're having a difficult conversation in an area where you know a great deal and I (although interested in the general business of art reception) know little. And although I'd be just as frustrated as you if I had to keep saying the same thing over and over again, I need to report that I still don't understand what you mean about 'these kinds of problems'. What's the difference between my failure to enjoy almost all atonal music, and my failure to enjoy, let's say, very early sacred music, which (I'm horrified to have to expose my philistinism like this) 'all sounds the same', to me? Those two incomprehensions don't feel much different when I experience them. They just wear me out after a short time, and make me long for something more approachable.

I don't know enough about the history of music reception to come up with a helpful analogy for the comparisons you're making, but I do know that there are people today who have 'problems' with, for instance, the art of the Pre-Raphaelites. I knew one very competent figurative painter who insisted that they were dreadfully bad painters; that they didn't understand the first thing about painting; that they didn't understand the essential character of paint. Now you'd think, after 150 years, that kind of controversy couldn't possibly still be current, but it was, and is. It sounds absurd - but actually, once I'd finished talking with him, and understood what he meant about the character of paint and its importance, it wasn't absurd at all. Seen from within that framework, it was a sensible and even interesting criticism to make, even if one didn't agree with it.

I think you're likely to say 'but that's not what I mean at all' - and if so, I sincerely apologise; but I'm struggling here to understand the difference.

My guess- some guy means to say that "liking" something and "having problems" with something are too different things.

You don't have to like atonal music, obviously. Maybe he means that "having problems" with it is like being shocked by it or something? And in that sense, it really is kind of strange. Atonal music is a century old. No one should be shocked by it (though if they are, it's not their fault- people just aren't exposed enough to it).

[Scarpia]

You don't have to like atonal music, obviously. Maybe he means that "having problems" with it is like being shocked by it or something? And in that sense, it really is kind of strange. Atonal music is a century old. No one should be shocked by it (though if they are, it's not their fault- people just aren't exposed enough to it).

How many people are actually "shocked" by it?  On this board which lists more than 800 members, I see two people expressing shock or overt rejection.  Is that really a problem?

[CD]

Yeah, going so far to call anything that doesn't fall into the category of common-practice tonality "degenerate" (or indeed, calling any music, be it punk rock, hip-hop, etc. "degenerate") causes me to question the state of the speaker's mental well-being.

[Teresa]

My god, you are stupid.

QFT

Name calling and bad behavior will not help your cause.  Nor will it magically turn atonal non-music into real classical music.  IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY, it didn't last century, it does not this century and it will not next century.

The atonal avant-garde Second Viennese School pulled a scam and have been revealed for all to HEAR.  Modern tonal classical composers totally reject their nonsense.   

[Elgarian]

There is a WAR between atonal noise and tonal music.

May I make a suggestion? You're responding in your post to a chap (some guy) who adores the music that you're dismissing as degenerate trash. He listens to it not to impress anyone, not to make a point, but because he loves it. You have a great opportunity here,  to listen to what he says and understand what it is that attracts him to the music you hate. He's one of the most fascinating posters I know on this forum, even though my musical tastes are widely different from his. He knows something about that music that you can never know as long as you're overwhelmed by your hate campaign. You don't even have to learn to enjoy the music yourself. All that's needed is to try, just a little, to understand someone else's point of view instead of allowing your own prejudice to run rampant.