The Second Viennese School in the 21st Century: Still New?

[jochanaan]

All of them the equal of a Schoenberg, or a Berg? Riiiiiiiight...

This is a clear example of how modern relativists work. By dropping down all standards, you can just make outlandish claims such as the one implied in the above list and be none the worst for it. Who's going to question the real worth of those composers without begging the question: what is worth? My inquiry was meant to provide a challenge to those who still recognize standards of worth and greatness. People like you, sir, do not apply.

I can't even think of a time when such a list would exceed the number of one's own fingers. But today, apparently, we have geniuses popping out from every corner and every street. I rest my case.

A challenge to you, sir: How do YOU know who are geniuses and who are not?  How can you even begin to decide what is worthy, or which standards apply?  Have you youself composed a body of work like Karl Henning's?  Have you, like me and others here, spent decades playing in orchestras and other ensembles?  Then don't give me the tired saying "I know it when I hear it."  Some of us are indeed as adept at recognizing genius as you say you are, and might have even more experience at doing so.

It's been said before, but you need to see it again:  All of the currently-accepted "great" composers have gone through periods of relative popularity and relative obscurity (except possibly Beethoven, and even some of his music took about a century to be accepted as "great").  Any of the comments about "standards" that you make might just as easily have been applied to the taste of previous generations, who were just as happy to elevate Giacomo Meyerbeer, Otto Nicolai, or Sir Arthur Sullivan to the same level of "greatness" as Beethoven or Wagner--never mind Bach, who they seldom even heard in concert!  And who's to say they were wrong, for themselves anyway?

If there are standards in music, they are supplied by humans.  Not necessarily the current audience--they're happy if they get a good concert experience no matter who's playing--nor the academics, and certainly not the market researchers who only know what sells; but a concatenation of humans who have heard, and understand, and come to love certain composers' works.  This is as much true of the contemporary classical composers you deride, and of non-"classical" music, as it is for the three B's and their cohorts.

If you disagree, will you accept my challenge and say what gives you the right to deride nearly all contemporary composers as "non-geniuses"?

[Josquin des Prez]

I never changed my tune, and i thought it was obvious what i was hinting at. Obviously there are young composers working today, why the hell would i ask such a thing?

[Josquin des Prez]

And who's to say they were wrong, for themselves anyway?

I do, since neither Meyerbeer, Nicolai, nor Sullivan were geniuses. The fact i can't explain how i have arrived to such a conclusion does not mean it isn't true. Obviously, the human brain is much more sophisticated that we are consciously aware of, so there are things we cannot directly explain or "prove" but which nonetheless are as real to us as anything. Plato revealed the true nature of knowledge when he stated that knowledge is nothing more then remembering things witch we already know from the outset. Thus, i already had the knowledge of genius within me since the day i was born. Thus, i cannot accept the idea of "knowledge" as being nothing more then subjective interpretation of perception, unique to all beings and thus "relative". I think we are all born with a fixed set of "knowledge" and the process of discovering what it is is what we call wisdom.

[some guy]

And, just as obviously, you can sneer at the people on my list without having heard even one note of any of their music.

And you can draw conclusions about my tastes, and about "modern relativity," too, again, without any knowledge.

Life is so easy for those who go into any situation with their conclusions already formed!!

Why people who prefer to experience the world prior to forming their conclusions should be the ones who are criticized for having no standards is beyond me. I would think that standards based on experience would be considered better than ones based on... on what? Nothing?

Really. People with no standards should go very quietly when talking about other people's standards.

[Josquin des Prez]

And, just as obviously, you can sneer at the people on my list without having heard even one note of any of their music.

I sneer because your attitude revealed all i needed to know about them. It should be your duty to prove me wrong by demonstrating those composer's talent, but you cannot do that because that would force you to adopt an absolutist stand. Of course, if you had done that in the first place (I.E., by stating that any of those composers are the equal or near equal to Berg) i would have been forced to verify that statement before passing judgment. As it is, i see no reason to even bother checking their music out.

[Philoctetes]

And, just as obviously, you can sneer at the people on my list without having heard even one note of any of their music.

And you can draw conclusions about my tastes, and about "modern relativity," too, again, without any knowledge.

Life is so easy for those who go into any situation with their conclusions already formed!!

Why people who prefer to experience the world prior to forming their conclusions should be the ones who are criticized for having no standards is beyond me. I would think that standards based on experience would be considered better than ones based on... on what? Nothing?

Really. People with no standards should go very quietly when talking about other people's standards.

Don't fall into the trap.

[Bulldog]

I sneer because your attitude revealed all i needed to know about them. It should be your duty to prove me wrong by demonstrating those composer's talent,

It is equally your duty to prove some guy wrong.  However, you haven't a clue how to do that, because you don't know what you're talking about. 

[Josquin des Prez]

It is equally your duty to prove some guy wrong. 

And what exactly i should prove him wrong about, if he has made no statement? It seems it is you who has failed to understand what's going on here.

[some guy]

I dunno, JdP. I guess it's that I've always known from birth which music is good and which isn't. Yes, that must be it.

And now, since I'm feeling guilty about friend Sid's poor thread, I'll answer his question.

No.

Sure, there are people for whom it is new, but that's true for Beethoven and Bach as well. Are the things those three started still going on? To a certain extent. It's not what drives composers any more, not so much. Which is fine. Every trend runs down. Some trends morph into other things. Some things even get brought back from the dead, hence the zombie musics of the neo-romantics, improperly so-called.

[Brian]

The real question is: are modern, young composers relevant in the grand scope of things? I challenge anyone to even name five contemporary composers that aren't already approaching senior citizenship.

Bruce Wolosoff
Avner Dorman
Timothy Kramer
Richard Danielpour
Osvaldo Golijov
Evan Premo

Bonus, people I know:
Karl Henning
Keith Allegretti
Andrew Schneider

[Brian]

All of them the equal of a Schoenberg, or a Berg? Riiiiiiiight...

Just now saw this silly reply. You didn't specify it in your original challenge "name five living composers who are not old." For what it is worth, though, I would rather listen to Avner Dorman than Schoenberg, but that's a matter of personal taste. And the song settings I have heard by Evan Premo (for double bass and soprano) and Keith Allegretti (for double bass, harp and soprano) are among my favorites all-time, or at least they were when I heard them live, since they have never been recorded.

[Bulldog]

And what exactly i should prove him wrong about, if he has made no statement? It seems it is you who has failed to understand what's going on here.

No, you just do your usual flip-flop and dance around the subjects.  You're the John Kerry of the classical board.

[Josquin des Prez]

You didn't specify it in your original challenge "name five living composers who are not old."

It was implied, and the alternative being so absurd (that i was questioning whether there were any young composers. Why would i want to ask that?), i assumed my meaning was plain enough. To wit, DavidW didn't have any trouble understanding what i meant.

[Josquin des Prez]

Just now saw this silly reply. You didn't specify it in your original challenge "name five living composers who are not old." For what it is worth, though, I would rather listen to Avner Dorman than Schoenberg, but that's a matter of personal taste. And the song settings I have heard by Evan Premo (for double bass and soprano) and Keith Allegretti (for double bass, harp and soprano) are among my favorites all-time, or at least they were when I heard them live, since they have never been recorded.

All dubious statements of course. It is more likely that your trying to make a personal statement rather then relaying a genuine impression . But i can appreciate the fact you were kind enough to provide some real value judgment of those artists rather then act as if your own perception was not worth sharing because, hey, its all subjective!

[Gurn Blanston]

No, you just do your usual flip-flop and dance around the subjects.  You're the John Kerry of the classical board.

And you're the Swift Boat Veteran.   Opie will never be pinned down on anything because he is slick enough to be a politician and never say anything concrete at all. He hasn't made a single statement of purported fact so far. Why would he start now?



----------------
Now playing:
Franco Mezzena (Violin) - Viotti G 025 Concerto #3 in A for Violin 1st mvmt - Maestoso

[DavidW]

I think this illustrates the problem nicely.



I think y'all will get where I'm going with this.

[Sid]

@ DavidW:

At the end of the lecture, someone did raise the point that England was behind the times in 1975. Hopefully, things have changed in the musical education system a bit?...

@ JdP:

You make a vaild point about classical music post WW2. I read a quote by an American composer saying something to the effect that the greatest challenge of contemporary classical music is to find an audience (and thus to stay 'alive' and 'relevant.'). But you don't need to flog your point like a dead horse. This kind of behaviour reminds me a bit of the dear departed Saul and Teresa...

@ some guy:

Isn't judging neo-romantic music as "zombie music" just repeating the same dogma that Ford talks about - that classical music today has to be ground-breaking to be valid? I know what you mean that things come in and out of fashion in cycles. I'm not a huge fan of the neos of any persuasion, but some of them (like Penderecki) have produced some good stuff, although it can get quite repetitive (but so can anything else, really)...

[some guy]

Isn't judging neo-romantic music as "zombie music" just repeating the same dogma that Ford talks about - that classical music today has to be ground-breaking to be valid?

Well, I think that any music in any time should be cognizant of what's preceded it, and should not reach too far back into the past for its energy. No one else has ever reached so far back as to be not only in a different era but several eras back. (Some people tried in in the 19th century, but they tried it at a time when audiences weren't having anything recent, even if it sounded old. Now, if it sounds old, it will get Pulitzer Prizes!)

If you're a mediocre talent, and can only write pastiche, then at least write pastiche of stuff that's not too far off in time, I say!!

[Josquin des Prez]

If you're a mediocre talent, and can only write pastiche, then at least write pastiche of stuff that's not too far off in time, I say!!

The point of writing a pastiche is to pander to the audience in hope of achieving a modicum of success. For that, you need a language that actually speaks to the general public.

[Sid]

Well, I think that any music in any time should be cognizant of what's preceded it, and should not reach too far back into the past for its energy. No one else has ever reached so far back as to be not only in a different era but several eras back. (Some people tried in in the 19th century, but they tried it at a time when audiences weren't having anything recent, even if it sounded old. Now, if it sounds old, it will get Pulitzer Prizes!)

If you're a mediocre talent, and can only write pastiche, then at least write pastiche of stuff that's not too far off in time, I say!!

I'm not really sure that I fully agree with your argument, many composers have reached far back into the past to shed new light on things that had gone before. Didn't Stravinsky reach right back to the age of Mozart with his opera The Rake's Progress? Also, Arvo Part with his Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten and other works like the Berliner Messe, going back & learning from ancient Christian church music? (his 'holy minimalist' style seen by some as a virtual declaration of war on atonality). & how about Frank Martin, with his Mass for Double Choir, combining vague tonality with the influence of church music. I could go on. I don't think it matters if you reach back for inspiration (or to use as a starting point?) musical styles from very far back (look at the ancient Greek modes used by Ravel in Daphnis et Chloe). It's what you do with these influences that really counts. If it's just copying, then I agree with you that that is pointless, but if it's creating something interesting out of what went before, then that can qualify as good (or even great) art, imo...