Like Boulez?

[ritter]

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.

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

I believe Mandryka has raised an excellent point here, Karl. And he himself has given you the answer in advance: "Being enjoyable isn't of the essence" (I would add the word "necessarily" just before the word "of"  ). Surely we all agree that music that we call "classical" will, most of the time, trascend pure enjoyment and have a deeper (if very elusive)  meaning. If not, it is a purely decorative art, and degenartes into something banal. And this applies to Haydn and Mozart, as much as to Schoenberg and Stravinsky (none of which can be seen as purely decorative or banal, don't you think?). Is the right word "disturb", as Boulez says? Or "provoke"? I don't know, but certainly there is, there must be something to music beyond sheer contemplation and passive listening. But that does not mean it cannot be enjoyed, it may not be beautiful, etc., etc.

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.

Fame really has nothing to do with it, I'm afraid. And Brahms may be regarded as one of the greatest by many, but not by me FWIW  . I must check out Reicha, though. Thanks for the tip! 

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

Good for you! 

[Niko240]

So he was heavy on the rhetoric and not very modest in his writings and interviews when he was younger.  It's a bit weird but not that offensive to me.  He mellowed out as he got older.  Although he often discusses his influences, one doesn't have to be given that info to hear the influence of Debussy, Webern, etc., it's pretty apparent.  Again, blowing up opera houses and destroying the Mona Lisa are weird things to say.  Maybe he had a little mania when he was younger, but later he seemed to develop a calmer, classier persona in interviews and most people who interacted with him have high praise and respect for the man.  May he live one more decade.

To my ears and limited knowledge, despite the influences clearly heard in his work, his music is very unique and "pushed music forward," or what have you.  Obviously great composers have influences and push music forward.  No work is an island.  I'm not sure there's a way to give a good estimation on how far music is pushed, but he did make a strong call to push music forward.  He obviously knew music is a synthesis of the past, present, and future, he wouldn't have been Boulez without having "absorbed" the music of the past. 

[Karl Henning]

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.

Artists are sometimes perfectly irrational in their dislikes.

[Karl Henning]

I believe Mandryka has raised an excellent point here, Karl. And he himself has given you the answer in advance: "Being enjoyable isn't of the essence" (I would add the word "necessarily" just before the word "of"  ).

And my counter-argument is that this is only an assertion;  that in fact there is a body of art of which it is perfectly fair to say "being enjoyable is of the essence, is the point" (one remark which comes to mind is Debussy's "Pleasure is the law.")  Perhaps we agree, since you are amenable to adding the adverb necessarily.  Music whose principal aim is the enjoyment of the listener is not therefore banal.  And lo! we have discerned another weaselly word, because we are not going to get twelve composers to agree just where to draw the line where the art "lapses into the banal."  All that is certain, is that banal is used as a dismissal, and is therefore not an artistic standard, but an indicator of the listener's personal taste.

[Karl Henning]

So he was heavy on the rhetoric and not very modest in his writings and interviews when he was younger.  It's a bit weird but not that offensive to me.

Nor offensive to me.  I believe in knowing the dodgy thought and judgments for what they are, though 

[Ken B]

Artists are sometimes perfectly irrational in their disikes.

FTFY oh Mennin 8 fan.

[EigenUser]

I believe Mandryka has raised an excellent point here, Karl. And he himself has given you the answer in advance: "Being enjoyable isn't of the essence" (I would add the word "necessarily" just before the word "of"  ). Surely we all agree that music that we call "classical" will, most of the time, trascend pure enjoyment and have a deeper (if very elusive)  meaning. If not, it is a purely decorative art, and degenartes into something banal. And this applies to Haydn and Mozart, as much as to Schoenberg and Stravinsky (none of which can be seen as purely decorative or banal, don't you think?). Is the right word "disturb", as Boulez says? Or "provoke"? I don't know, but certainly there is, there must be something to music beyond sheer contemplation and passive listening. But that does not mean it cannot be enjoyed, it may not be beautiful, etc., etc.

Yesterday afternoon I was listening to Steve Reich's Music for 18 Musicians (not Reicha, just to avoid confusion since I saw that name mentioned) and this thread came to mind. I thought "you know, what Reich is doing is really clever and interesting, though far from what was happening in Europe at the time (1970s)." He introduces a series of 11 chords at the introduction. Then he thoroughly explores each individual chord by slowly building unique melodies in the 11 sections that follow (one section per chord), constructing them note-by note and then deconstructing them in a symmetric fashion (so that the full melody is heard several times at the center of each section). The whole work comes across as this beautifully symmetric arch.

Yet, serialists and minimalists tend to not get along so well. Why do people have this attitude that we must choose one or the other, as if it is some kind of musical sin? I think that it is the most fun (not to mention the most rewarding) to try and find redeeming qualities in all works and to appreciate them for what they are -- not what we want them to be. Maybe this doesn't make any sense...

And ritter, you know I love Boulez! In fact, the other day I got the sheet music for Anthemes I from the library so I can take a crack at it. Haven't had the chance, but I will report back when I do.

[Florestan]

The genre, classical music, isn't about producing stuff for people to enjoy, though of course people may enjoy it.

What is it about?

Being enjoyable isn't of the essence. It never was 

What is of the essence?

given what music aims to do,

What does it aim to do?

Mozart was writing politically revolutionary music.

Please name 3 of his works that were politically revolutionary.

And Chopin too, political and spiritual and psychological.

Please name 1 political, 1 spiritual and 1 psychological work of his.

TIA for all answers.

[Florestan]

Music whose principal aim is the enjoyment of the listener is not therefore banal.

Music is an agreeable harmony for the honor of God and the permissible delights of the soul. - JS Bach

Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music. - WA Mozart

They must have missed the "Essence of Music 101".

All that is certain, is that banal is used as a dismissal, and is therefore not an artistic standard, but an indicator of the listener's personal taste.

Amen, brother!

[Florestan]

Brahms, a conservative,

According to Schoenberg, he was a progressive. 

[escher]

According to Schoenberg, he was a progressive. 

and I'm ok with that, because as Morton Feldman said about Delius, "The people who you think are radicals might really be conservatives. The people who you think are conservative might really be radical." It depends if one looks at the work of a composer superficially (as karlhenning says, black and white like tonal:old, atonality:new) or with more attention to the original aspects of the music.

[EigenUser]

and I'm ok with that, because as Morton Feldman said about Delius, "The people who you think are radicals might really be conservatives. The people who you think are conservative might really be radical." It depends if one looks at the work of a composer superficially (as karlhenning says, black and white like tonal:old, atonality:new) or with more attention to the original aspects of the music.

Wrong elius. Sibelius, not Delius.

[San Antone]

and I'm ok with that, because as Morton Feldman said about Delius, "The people who you think are radicals might really be conservatives. The people who you think are conservative might really be radical." It depends if one looks at the work of a composer superficially (as karlhenning says, black and white like tonal:old, atonality:new) or with more attention to the original aspects of the music.

I thought Feldman said that about Sibelius.  Not that it matters.   

[ritter]

And ritter, you know I love Boulez! In fact, the other day I got the sheet music for Anthemes I from the library so I can take a crack at it. Haven't had the chance, but I will report back when I do.

You know I'm expecting a YouTube of this 

[Cato]

This topic has brought back a memory.

I recall a debate many moons ago with a high-school friend (he was much against anything composed after Schumann)who was adamant that contemporary composers were frauds, and Boulez was high on his list as the most fraudulent.

My friend disputed that Boulez ("and others of his ilk") could mentally imagine any of his music, i.e. that few if any of the sounds in his works arose spontaneously from psycho-spiritual inspiration.  And because of this defect, the music of Boulez was ipso facto invalid and not worth a penny. 

I recall countering that  A. One cannot possibly prove what is inside the head of any composer B. That composers have been known to sit at a piano and idly tap things out, until they come across something that catches their inner ear  C. That only the final result is important anyway: how the music was composed - whether with a system or a computer or by throwing dice or by divine inspiration - does not much matter because the composer is composing it, i.e. putting it together. 

My friend countered that such an opinion explained the "dissonant messes" created by contemporary composers like Boulez.  Such composers were parallel with the "squirt-gun artists" who filled huge canvases with squiggles: "true inspiration and talent" were completely lacking in the artist and in the artwork.  People who claimed that they heard anything comprehensible or interesting or entertaining in Boulez were snobs parallel with the museum goers who would stand in front of a Pollock and claim to see anything other than the work of a fraud imitating the scribbles of a 3-year old.

[Florestan]

I recall a debate many moons ago with a high-school friend [...]

Your friend is a perfect illustration of the French dictum penser contre, c'est penser comme, yet if I met him I wouldn't hesitate to buy him a beer or two. 

[escher]

Wrong elius. Sibelius, not Delius.

I know, little lapsus.

[ritter]

This topic has brought back a memory.

I recall a debate many moons ago with a high-school friend (he was much against anything composed after Schumann)who was adamant that contemporary composers were frauds, and Boulez was high on his list as the most fraudulent.

My friend disputed that Boulez ("and others of his ilk") could mentally imagine any of his music, i.e. that few if any of the sounds in his works arose spontaneously from psycho-spiritual inspiration.  And because of this defect, the music of Boulez was ipso facto invalid and not worth a penny. 

I recall countering that  A. One cannot possibly prove what is inside the head of any composer B. That composers have been known to sit at a piano and idly tap things out, until they come across something that catches their inner ear  C. That only the final result is important anyway: how the music was composed - whether with a system or a computer or by throwing dice or by divine inspiration - does not much matter because the composer is composing it, i.e. putting it together. 

My friend countered that such an opinion explained the "dissonant messes" created by contemporary composers like Boulez.  Such composers were parallel with the "squirt-gun artists" who filled huge canvases with squiggles: "true inspiration and talent" were completely lacking in the artist and in the artwork.  People who claimed that they heard anything comprehensible or interesting or entertaining in Boulez were snobs parallel with the museum goers who would stand in front of a Pollock and claim to see anything other than the work of a fraud imitating the scribbles of a 3-year old.

Yep, and my 5-year old son can compose Kontra-Punkte 

[escher]

This topic has brought back a memory.

I recall a debate many moons ago with a high-school friend (he was much against anything composed after Schumann)who was adamant that contemporary composers were frauds, and Boulez was high on his list as the most fraudulent.

My friend disputed that Boulez ("and others of his ilk") could mentally imagine any of his music, i.e. that few if any of the sounds in his works arose spontaneously from psycho-spiritual inspiration.  And because of this defect, the music of Boulez was ipso facto invalid and not worth a penny. 

I recall countering that  A. One cannot possibly prove what is inside the head of any composer B. That composers have been known to sit at a piano and idly tap things out, until they come across something that catches their inner ear  C. That only the final result is important anyway: how the music was composed - whether with a system or a computer or by throwing dice or by divine inspiration - does not much matter because the composer is composing it, i.e. putting it together. 

My friend countered that such an opinion explained the "dissonant messes" created by contemporary composers like Boulez.  Such composers were parallel with the "squirt-gun artists" who filled huge canvases with squiggles: "true inspiration and talent" were completely lacking in the artist and in the artwork.  People who claimed that they heard anything comprehensible or interesting or entertaining in Boulez were snobs parallel with the museum goers who would stand in front of a Pollock and claim to see anything other than the work of a fraud imitating the scribbles of a 3-year old.

I don't think it's a good parallel, because I don't think nobody here is saying that modern music is a fraud (personally I really like many modern composers, from Webern to Ligeti). It's more against the superficial rhetoric used by Boulez to say that all modern music should conform to certain standards (like atonality or that stupid idea that music and art have necessarily to disturb) or it's useless or without value. I mean he probably don't care even for composers like Scelsi or Ohana just because they have chosen a different musical path.
Like I have said, it's the same old mentality of those art critics that said that figurative art had no place in modern art. Does anybody here think that Edward Hopper was not an original artist?
Is he less important or deep than Rohtko or Pollock? I don't think so.

[Mandryka]

What is it about?

What is of the essence?

What does it aim to do?

Please name 3 of his works that were politically revolutionary.

Please name 1 political, 1 spiritual and 1 psychological work of his.

TIA for all answers.

For chopin a good place to start is the (political) op 48/1 ans the (psychological) op 27/1. Mozart's easier because of the operas. I think that what is essential to a major strand of classical music is expressing and exploring ideas. But clearly a lot of classical music is really entertainment, maybe Boulez wants to separate off what he mainly does from that strand.

You get a similar state of affairs in novels. Jane Austen (=entertainment music); Herman Broch (=serious music)