Like Boulez?

[Florestan]

I for one cannot dissociate art (whatever art) from the time and place of its creation...

That's a bit contradictory to your previous statement that

I cannot think of any composer who deserves the epithet of "major" who has not made the art of music move forward...

, methinks.

[ritter]

 Well, Florestan, then possibly I haven't expressed myself correctly, or you haven't understood me, because I see nothing remotely contracditory in those two statements...

[escher]

This list is a bit of a mixed bag, IMHO. Bach and Mozart on one side, a bunch of "derivatives" on the other    I for one cannot dissociate art (whatever art) from the time and place of its creation...

We now could marvel about the intricacies of his counterpoint butBach was considered a musicians composing in a outdated style back then.
You know, Boulez talking of the outdated tonality reminds me of those old critics who said that figurative painting was outdated in the twentieth century, even in spite of the complete originality of many great figurative painters. They never explain why it's outdated, it's more like an axiom that have to be accepted as it is.

[Florestan]

Well, Florestan, then possibly I haven't expressed myself correctly, or you haven't understood me, because I see nothing remotely contracditory in those two statements...

Beethoven moved music forward --- that implies that his music was ahead of its time.

Yet you can't dissociate Beethoven's music from the time it was created.

What am I getting wrong?

[ritter]

Beethoven moved music forward --- that implies that his music was ahead of its time.

Yet you can't dissociate Beethoven's music from the time it was created.

What am I getting wrong?

Well...you must associate Beethoven's music to the time it was composed to apprerciate the fact that he moved the art form forward...

Schoenberg composed in the first half of the 20th century, and gave a huge impulse to the art of music. Hans Pfitzner lived in roughly the same time and place, and didn't move the art form forward an inch  0:)

[Florestan]

Schoenberg composed in the first half of the 20th century, and gave a huge impulse to the art of music. Hans Pfitzner lived in roughly the same time and place, and didn't move the art form forward an inch  0:)

A fact which doesn't prevent me from enjoying Pfitzner more than Schoenberg. 

[Cato]

and what if you don't know for some reason when a piece of music has been created? Let's say that you don't know about All Night Vigil (an incredible masterpiece in my opinion), and someone would say to you that it was a revolutionary work created in the 15th century, will  it change your consideration of it?

Yes!  Or would pianists and conductors sniff at e.g. Rachmaninov's Third Piano Concerto and refuse to perform it, if they were approached by a young 21st-century Rachmaninov today?

In fact, there have been parallel experiments about this in literature, where literary agents and publishers are sent type-written copies of things like Great Expectations or Crime and Punishment or The Sound and the Fury or even Jane Austen's novels, and they are not only roundly rejected, the trick is rarely recognized!

[Mandryka]

Just a point about Boulez. He thinks it a good thing that composers are inspired by aspects of the best music from the past. He was himself inspired by early aniphonal msuic in Repons, and by baroque counterpoint in the second sonata. He has said this in interviews and documentaries.

[Karl Henning]

Just a point about Boulez. He thinks it a good thing that composers are inspired by aspects of the best music from the past.

Sure, but he thinks he's appointed referee to decide who is using the past artistically.  And again, that's all great, if you wear much the same blinders that Boulez does.

[Mandryka]

I find the work of both Rakhmaninov & Shostakovich vital and uniquely expressive, and not in any way "dilapidated."

I expect that Boulez finds them uniquely expressive too. I don't think that's his point.

[Mandryka]

A fact which doesn't prevent me from enjoying Pfitzner more than Schoenberg. 

Now we're getting closer to something. The genre, classical music, isn't about producing stuff for people to enjoy, though of course people may enjoy it. Being enjoyable isn't of the essence. It never was -- not for Bach or Beethoven or any of them.

I guess Boulez is saying that, given what music aims to do, you can't do it and write common practice style. The way to get clear about his ideas is to focus on what he thinks the aim of music is.

[Karl Henning]

The genre, classical music, isn't about producing stuff for people to enjoy [...]

Sorry, I missed this memo (as, persumably, did Mozart, Haydn & Chopin, to name but three).  Please point me to the authoritative document here.  TIA.

[Mandryka]

Sure, but he thinks he's appointed referee to decide who is using the past artistically.  And again, that's all great, if you wear much the same blinders that Boulez does.

I agree that this is a bit disturbing, prima facie. But my point is that his idea of "artistically" is the point to focus attention in the discussion -- though I've not read enough of his writing to make much of a contribution.

He could just be a little Hitler, a wanker, but I doubt it, you know. He may be wrong, but he's thought it through and argued it out with some of the greatest minds of the 20th century.

[Mandryka]

Sorry, I missed this memo (as, persumably, did Mozart, Haydn & Chopin, to name but three).  Please point me to the authoritative document here.  TIA.

Haydn maybe was writing entertainment, I don't know much about him. But Mozart was writing politically revolutionary music. And Chopin too, political and spiritual and psychological.

[Karl Henning]

Haydn maybe was writing entertainment, I don't know much about him. But Mozart was writing politically revolutionary music. And Chopin too, political and spiritual and psychological.

Yes, that's fine.  Why do you feel this means they were not writing entertainment?  Think outside the pigeonholes, dear chap!  Don't let Boulez sucker you into thinking it's all B&W!

[Karl Henning]

. . . He may be wrong, but he's thought it through and argued it out with some of the greatest minds of the 20th century.

Yes, he's thought it through, and argued with great minds, and he's just figured that, luckily, he has been right all along.  Doesn't mean that his viewpoint is not inartistically narrow.  Just means he's, erm, satisfied himself.  So, perhaps a wanker, after all.

[San Antone]

He may be wrong,

This is a question without a wrong answer.  That doesn't mean Boulez's answer is right for everyone.

[Jubal Slate]

He's okez.

[Mandryka]

This is a question without a wrong answer.  That doesn't mean Boulez's answer is right for everyone.

What I want to know is why he feels so negative about |common Practice harmony. Why he picks on that, and yet is OK with aniphonal structure.

[escher]

Well...you must associate Beethoven's music to the time it was composed to apprerciate the fact that he moved the art form forward...

Schoenberg composed in the first half of the 20th century, and gave a huge impulse to the art of music. Hans Pfitzner lived in roughly the same time and place, and didn't move the art form forward an inch  0:)

what about the nineteen century?
Anthon Reicha did a lot of stuff that was incredibly ahead of his time. Nobody knows about him.
Brahms, a conservative, is one of the most famous (and for many one of the greatest) composers ever.