The most esoteric period?

[Henk]

I miss the banana option.

[Mandryka]

Interesting; not to me.  But then, I was in a choir whose annual routine for some years on Good Friday was to sing the plainchant setting of the St John Passion.

I'm sure it's a reflection on me and the performances I've heard rather than the music, you know. I need to give it more time.

[Ken B]

While you have a point, your post here underscores one of the many problems in this discussion.  In a way, music is like a chocolate cake.  No one cares if you understood the chocolate cake;  what matters is if you enjoyed it.

I cannot be the only listener for whom [ music which I enjoy ] is a larger set than [ music which I understand ].  (And, incidentally, speaking as a composer, I find some individuals whose eagerness to express how well they understand music, looms rather larger than their actual understanding.)

I've made the point (or nearly the point) elsewhere and more than once, but it bears repeating:  the fellow who invented "the composition of music with twelve tones," Schoenberg, didn't care if the listener perceived the source row:  what he cared about (always) was the music.  He didn't care if you "understood" the music, he wrote so that his music would touch the listener.

Schoenberg, yes. Darmstadters, no. One of the pathologies of the 20th century was the belief that a theory was either necessary or sufficient for art or music.

[EigenUser]

Schoenberg, yes. Darmstadters, no. One of the pathologies of the 20th century was the belief that a theory was either necessary or sufficient for art or music.

I enjoy Boulez without understanding it, though. It can be fun to "single out" the tone row (though with Boulez it is nearly impossible, compared to, for instance, Webern). Recall the discussion on the Boulez thread about the Sacher hexachord in Derive I. Today I just bought a Boulez CD at a used CD/record store and listened to Repons on the way home. I didn't "get" it, but I did enjoy it. Last night I listened to Stockhausen's Mantra -- same thing.

[Mandryka]

Schoenberg, yes. Darmstadters, no. One of the pathologies of the 20th century was the belief that a theory was either necessary or sufficient for art or music.

You may be right about the bit in bold. It's certainly something that Grisey suggested was true. Have you got an example? Some evidence?

[EigenUser]

You may be right about the bit in bold. It's certainly something that Grisey suggested was true. Have you got an example? Some evidence?

Well, pretty much any quote from Boulez will back this up .

Boulez, who is everything I don't want art to be... Boulez, who once said in an essay that he is not interested in how a piece sounds, only how it is made.

It is a Feldman quote, but Feldman is quoting Boulez in the quote.

[Karl Henning]

Schoenberg, yes. Darmstadters, no. One of the pathologies of the 20th century was the belief that a theory was either necessary or sufficient for art or music.

Well, and you've a point;  and the OP notwithstanding, it's compounding the goofiness to applaud the inartistic for being "esoteric."

Boulez could be an actual artist, when he was not consumed with his gabby urges.  Doubly a pity that he gabbed when he might have composed instead.

[Cato]

Well, and you've a point;  and the OP notwithstanding, it's compounding the goofiness to applaud the inartistic for being "esoteric."

Boulez could be an actual artist, when he was not consumed with his gabby urges.  Doubly a pity that he gabbed when he might have composed instead.

Gabbing is easy!  Composing is much more difficult!

It is "devilishly hard" to compose in the modern era, explained The Devil to composer Adrian Levekühn, the Doctor Faust of Thomas Mann.

[Mandryka]

There was an interview with Boulez posted a couple of weeks ago on this forum on the Stockhausen thread, made for Italian TV I think. A youtube video. Anyway he discusses theory  in it. He says that when a musician is driven by theoretical considerations predominently, he says nothing sincerely. He says that this was a problem at Damstardt and Cage did a great service to the people at Damstart by showing how they'd fallen into that trap. He goes on to say that when music has no theoretical basis, it's shallow, and he levels that criticism at Cage himself. So I think that Eigenuser was being very unfair to Boulez in fact, Boulez thinks that theory is necessary but not sufficient. I'm going from memory there, I haven't checked back on the video, so what I say may be inaccurate.

Another thing to remember is that a very large part of Boulez's music is pedagogical in spirit- like Hindemith's Ludus Tonalis and Christian Wolff's Preludes and Bach's Well Temperd Clavier. There's a major tradition of this type of music, nothing specific to Damstart or post war avant garde there, and pedagogical music can be fun to hear. I'm not talking about major masterpieces, major artistic statements,  like Plli selon pli or Marteau sans maître or Repons. But things like Structures.

[amw]

I see Structures as sort of like Mode de valeurs et d'intensités or Music of Changes—a proof of concept disguised as a composition, experimental music in the literal sense. But it's also surprisingly fun to listen to (version I much more than version II, for me, but for me each subsequent revision of Boulez's music has made it less appealing) once the initial shock wears off, whereas I've always found Music of Changes a bit of a slog in spite of my general admiration for Cage.

(I plan to revisit it shortly, once I reach vol. 3 of my traversal of the Schleiermacher MDG set)

[EigenUser]

I see Structures as sort of like Mode de valeurs et d'intensités or Music of Changes—a proof of concept disguised as a composition, experimental music in the literal sense. But it's also surprisingly fun to listen to (version I much more than version II, for me, but for me each subsequent revision of Boulez's music has made it less appealing) once the initial shock wears off, whereas I've always found Music of Changes a bit of a slog in spite of my general admiration for Cage.

(I plan to revisit it shortly, once I reach vol. 3 of my traversal of the Schleiermacher MDG set)

True. Then Ligeti comes along and points out errors (or, errors according to the rules Boulez was using) .

The reason I hated Boulez (as composer) so much when I joined GMG is because I was familiar with his Structures and the first two piano sonatas. I found them to contain everything I don't like in modern music. Maybe I'll warm up, but I feel the same way about these pieces. On the other hand, a work like Derive I contains everything I like about modern music (I exaggerate, but you get the point). It's like atonal impressionism.

[Karl Henning]

[...] He [Boulez] goes on to say that when music has no theoretical basis, it's shallow [....]

Too demogogic, and a little too Goldilocks-ish (of course, the way he endorses is just right!)

[amw]

True. Then Ligeti comes along and points out errors (or, errors according to the rules Boulez was using) .

Music composition is always an intuitive act, regardless of any theoretical system that may have inspired it. Essentially the root of a "theoretical" composition is not going to be the theory itself, but rather how working out the theory made the composer feel. That's why it is so easy for composers to abandon theoretical systems or adopt new ones, as the dictates of their tastes or musical fashions evolve.

The reason I hated Boulez (as composer) so much when I joined GMG is because I was familiar with his Structures and the first two piano sonatas. I found them to contain everything I don't like in modern music.

Hmm, we'll have to disagree there, but I suppose that's a taste thing. I thought Webern represented everything bad about contemporary music when I first got to know him. I still have the same reaction to John Adams, but other people love his work. Maybe I will too, someday. Who knows.

[Karl Henning]

Music composition is always an intuitive act, regardless of any theoretical system that may have inspired it. Essentially the root of a "theoretical" composition is not going to be the theory itself, but rather how working out the theory made the composer feel. That's why it is so easy for composers to abandon theoretical systems or adopt new ones, as the dictates of their tastes or musical fashions evolve.

Thank you for broaching this aspect of the topic, so that I needn't 

For this reason, I think that any insistence that "composition without a theoretical basis is shallow" is, itself, shallow.  It is like saying that bicycling without training wheels is not proper bicycling:  theory is the training wheels.

Or, to abandon that simile (and set those training wheels aside), theory has consistently followed the music, i.e., the great artists create the work, and then theory is constructed to "explain" why the art coheres.  Haydn and Mozart created the music, and then "theorists" later codified sonata-allegro design.

There is something true underneath the gabbing;  but -- well, there is no need for me to point out that Boulez is trying to wear his gloves on his feet, here.  His (probably entirely genuine) insistence that there has to be intellectualized theory driving the music, bears its most obvious fruit in how little music Boulez actually gets around to composing, and to how he is years finishing what he does start to compose.

[EigenUser]

There was an interview with Boulez posted a couple of weeks ago on this forum on the Stockhausen thread, made for Italian TV I think. A youtube video. Anyway he discusses theory  in it. He says that when a musician is driven by theoretical considerations predominently, he says nothing sincerely. He says that this was a problem at Damstardt and Cage did a great service to the people at Damstart by showing how they'd fallen into that trap. He goes on to say that when music has no theoretical basis, it's shallow, and he levels that criticism at Cage himself. So I think that Eigenuser was being very unfair to Boulez in fact, Boulez thinks that theory is necessary but not sufficient. I'm going from memory there, I haven't checked back on the video, so what I say may be inaccurate.

No, I like Boulez (which surprises me, but that's a different story). Besides, I was half-joking. We all know that Boulez has made his fair share of hostile (or at least odd) remarks, but he's mellowed out significantly. There is a website that has a bunch of his more radical quotes (as well as quotes by others about him). Whenever a Boulez debate comes up I just like adding kerosene to the fire by casually dropping a few quotes and watching what happens .

Music composition is always an intuitive act, regardless of any theoretical system that may have inspired it. Essentially the root of a "theoretical" composition is not going to be the theory itself, but rather how working out the theory made the composer feel. That's why it is so easy for composers to abandon theoretical systems or adopt new ones, as the dictates of their tastes or musical fashions evolve.

Yes. Also, as far as pure aesthetics go (this may be what you are getting at), different theoretical systems can yield different "feels" or textures. For me, I have trouble appreciating the "spikier" textures on an aesthetic level which is why I want to figure out pieces like Gruppen. I think that Shostakovich made a remark along these lines concerning the 12-tone music he dabbled in within his later string quartets. And that tone row in Bartok's 2nd VC must have been a thorn in Arnie's side .

I haven't read Ligeti's analysis of the Boulez work, but I don't get the impression that he was saying that the piece was "bad" -- just that it didn't follow the rules that Boulez claimed.

Hmm, we'll have to disagree there, but I suppose that's a taste thing. I thought Webern represented everything bad about contemporary music when I first got to know him. I still have the same reaction to John Adams, but other people love his work. Maybe I will too, someday. Who knows.

Enigmatically (considering that I have difficulty warming to 12-tone), Webern is my favorite 12-tone composer (though not a favorite all-time composer) -- probably because I like Feldman so much and I see a lot of superficial (again, aesthetic) similarities between the two.

And I kind of like Adams.

Or, to abandon that simile (and set those training wheels aside), theory has consistently followed the music, i.e., the great artists create the work, and then theory is constructed to "explain" why the art coheres.  Haydn and Mozart created the music, and then "theorists" later codified sonata-allegro design.

+1. I like this.

[Ken B]

Too demogogic, and a little too Goldilocks-ish (of course, the way he endorses is just right!)

Vigorous plus one. To Karl's other comments on this thread too.

As the one who threw in the charge against the Darmstadters, I stand by my charge. The quotes given here are pretty conclusive.

[Mandryka]

Thank you for broaching this aspect of the topic, so that I needn't 

For this reason, I think that any insistence that "composition without a theoretical basis is shallow" is, itself, shallow.  It is like saying that bicycling without training wheels is not proper bicycling:  theory is the training wheels.

Or, to abandon that simile (and set those training wheels aside), theory has consistently followed the music, i.e., the great artists create the work, and then theory is constructed to "explain" why the art coheres.  Haydn and Mozart created the music, and then "theorists" later codified sonata-allegro design.

There is something true underneath the gabbing;  but -- well, there is no need for me to point out that Boulez is trying to wear his gloves on his feet, here.  His (probably entirely genuine) insistence that there has to be intellectualized theory driving the music, bears its most obvious fruit in how little music Boulez actually gets around to composing, and to how he is years finishing what he does start to compose.

I've often wondered about this sort of thing, not in the case of Haydn and Mozart admittedly, but in the case of Bach and Beethoven. Whether those composers engaged in theoretical work, or whether they composed intuitively,casually going wherever the intuition led them. I wonder if someone who knows about Bach and Beethoven could confirm whether what Karl's saying is true,

For what it's worth you sometimes read that Bach was very much working with a rhetorical theory.

Other composers who were really interested in theory, published the theoretical ideas which underpinned their music, just off the top of my head: Monteverdi, Frescobaldi, F. Couperin, C P E Bach, Schumann, Xenakis, Ferneyhough, Grisey, Dufourt

[Mandryka]

True. Then Ligeti comes along and points out errors (or, errors according to the rules Boulez was using) .

The reason I hated Boulez (as composer) so much when I joined GMG is because I was familiar with his Structures and the first two piano sonatas. I found them to contain everything I don't like in modern music. Maybe I'll warm up, but I feel the same way about these pieces. On the other hand, a work like Derive I contains everything I like about modern music (I exaggerate, but you get the point). It's like atonal impressionism.

One thing I would say, to your point about Structures and to amw's point about Music for Changes, is that in all these "pedagogic" pieces, "proof of concept" pieces, you need a pretty imaginative and committed performer to make them worth listenening to. For that reason I wouldn't give up on Structures without at least trying the Kontarsky Brothers. Or Music of Changes without trying Henck.
T
Amw, I wasn't aware of the revisions of structures until you made that comment, and I don't know what I'm listenening to any more!

[Mandryka]

Too demogogic, and a little too Goldilocks-ish (of course, the way he endorses is just right!)

Yes maybe, maybe not, but with all due respect I was making a point about what Boulez believes, which is that theory is necessary and insufficient.

[Karl Henning]

Yes maybe, maybe not, but with all due respect I was making a point about what Boulez believes, which is that theory is necessary and insufficient.

I appreciate that;  but that is not all that Boulez believes, and his bludgeoning just isn't cute any more.