György Ligeti (1923-2006)

[DavidW]

So does anyone else like the slow movements from the piano and cello concertos?

[not edward]

So does anyone else like the slow movements from the piano and cello concertos?

Most definitely to both. The first movement of the 'cello concerto--with its gradual movement from the middle register to the single note suspended high above the double bass--was one of the first things by him that really grabbed me.

[lescamil]

I have been listening to a lot of Ligeti's music since joining this forum.

My favourite pieces are the Wind Bagatelles, Passacaglia ungherese for harpsichord (1978), Hungarian Rock for cembalo (1978), Concert Romanesc, Sonata for solo cello. I am exploring further than I was before. Some of his music is just sound experimentation which I dont like. I am planning to do more of this later. He is a good composer but my favourite Modern Hungarian is still Zoltan Kodaly.

You can't really say that Ligeti was doing "just sound experimentation" (that really devalues the compositional processes he used). I am quite sure he knew exactly what he was doing, and that he really wanted to do it, and it's not like others weren't doing it. Penderecki, Baird, Bacewicz, and even Lutoslawski were composing similarly at the time, with different results. I'm hoping you move part Ligeti's juvenalia soon, for that really is not his best.

Also, Kodály is not modern (he died in 1967 and composed many of his significant works far before then). Ligeti is modern (he died in 2006). You wouldn't call the moon landing or the invention of television a recent modern event, would you?

[lescamil]

You are myopic as you called me.

I'm not going to play this game. I'm done trying to help you out. If you think I'm not helpful, that's your prerogative. I had a point with what I said, but if you choose to ignore it, well, that's on you.

[eyeresist]

jhns, people are going to disagree with you. That's the way the world is. It doesn't mean they are trying to hurt your feelings.


This thread is making me think I should give the Ligeti Project box another listen. I only went through it once a couple of years ago, and it didn't grab me. I had the impression that L was a little too distracted by the problem of always trying to come up with something new, rather than refining what he had already. Let's see what I think this time....

[Mirror Image]

jhns, people are going to disagree with you. That's the way the world is. It doesn't mean they are trying to hurt your feelings.


This thread is making me think I should give the Ligeti Project box another listen. I only went through it once a couple of years ago, and it didn't grab me. I had the impression that L was a little too distracted by the problem of always trying to come up with something new, rather than refining what he had already. Let's see what I think this time....

Ligeti has said in an interview that he wanted to make music accessible to people. I think compared to composers like Boulez, Stockhausen, or Xenakis, he has achieved this goal. This is avant-garde music that I can stand strongly behind and say that I've thoroughly enjoyed the music. Do I like every Ligeti work? Of course not, I do think he was constantly trying new things and I admire that, because I think composers should constantly push themselves in as many directions as they can. This is how they grow and learn.

[petrarch]

This thread is making me think I should give the Ligeti Project box another listen. I only went through it once a couple of years ago, and it didn't grab me. I had the impression that L was a little too distracted by the problem of always trying to come up with something new, rather than refining what he had already. Let's see what I think this time....

Yes, there's a quote from him dating from the early years after escaping from Hungary where he said that he needed to innovate, no matter how. Although his works from that period are still my favorites (he managed to really pull it off), I don't agree with that principle at all.

[Mirror Image]

Both Kodaly and Ligeti were Modern

This could be argued. Kodaly's outlook may or may not have been Modern, but his music doesn't sound Modern unlike his contemporary Bartok. Ligeti is from a completely different generation whose ideals were far different than that of Kodaly or Bartok. The only thing they share is they are each Hungarian. As I have said, Ligeti's early music reflects the Bartok influence, but this was in no way what Ligeti really wanted to do with music as evidenced by the direction he went in. Kodaly and Bartok were friends and collected folk music together, but Kodaly's musical language was light years behind Bartok's.

[Mirror Image]

I dont agree. The solo cello sonata by Kodaly is very modern for the time. It is not less modern than Bartok's solo violin sonata. I think you are making a general statement but they were both very Modern but different.

Kodaly was Modern only in the sense that Glazunov was Modern. Kodaly sounds like watered down, leftover chicken soup. It still tastes pretty good, but it lost most of it's flavor overnight.

[lescamil]

I dont agree. The solo cello sonata by Kodaly is very modern for the time. It is not less modern than Bartok's solo violin sonata. I think you are making a general statement but they were both very Modern but different.

Define what you mean by modern. Do you mean "doesn't follow common practice rules" when you say modern? Then technically modernism started when Liszt wrote his Bagatelle sans tonalité and continued when Debussy wrote his famous orchestral works at the end of the 19th century. That's over 100 years of modernism! There needs to be a cutoff at some point. I still think you shouldn't call anything modern if it was written before 1950 (and that is being generous).

[Josquin des Prez]

Ligeti innovated because once he said something, it was pointless to say it again. Every one of his compositions was a perfect statement of the idea or technique he wanted to explore. Since he couldn't improve on a particular idea why not just move to something else?

[eyeresist]

Kodaly was Modern only in the sense that Glazunov was Modern. Kodaly sounds like watered down, leftover chicken soup. It still tastes pretty good, but it lost most of it's flavor overnight.

I'd say Kodaly's musical qualities, or lack thereof, derive from his personality and not from how musically "advanced" he was.

Define what you mean by modern. Do you mean "doesn't follow common practice rules" when you say modern? Then technically modernism started when Liszt wrote his Bagatelle sans tonalité and continued when Debussy wrote his famous orchestral works at the end of the 19th century. That's over 100 years of modernism! There needs to be a cutoff at some point. I still think you shouldn't call anything modern if it was written before 1950 (and that is being generous).

There is inevitably some confusion caused by the term Modernism (capital M), which should not be taken as synonymous with "contemporary". Modernism is a catch-all label for a particular cultural period, which was notable for a trend of creative people consciously trying to overturn or at least radically revise the inherited methods, not just in their own practice but more generally in whatever medium they worked in. I think Wagner is generally held to be the first major musical Modernist in this sense. It is debatable (and debated) whether we are currently in the Modern period, in the Postmodern period, or maybe at the beginning of another kind of "-ism".

[lescamil]

There is inevitably some confusion caused by the term Modernism (capital M), which should not be taken as synonymous with "contemporary". Modernism is a catch-all label for a particular cultural period, which was notable for a trend of creative people consciously trying to overturn or at least radically revise the inherited methods, not just in their own practice but more generally in whatever medium they worked in. I think Wagner is generally held to be the first major musical Modernist in this sense. It is debatable (and debated) whether we are currently in the Modern period, in the Postmodern period, or maybe at the beginning of another kind of "-ism".

While you do have a valid point, here is how I think of it: what are we going to call the period between 1890~1910 until now about 100 or 200 years from now? It would be impossible to call it modern, obviously. It is even ridiculous to call anything between Debussy and Bartók modern right now, in my opinion.

[eyeresist]

Nonetheless, Modern is the generally used term, so you'll have to get used to it.

[Mirror Image]

This is why I like his music, each piece is different. Some more emotional others are experimental. I like his music with folklore and many emotions the most.

How can you say this when all you've done is call Ligeti's later music noisy? The problem with most of your posts in regards to Ligeti that I've read so far is you don't display a willingness to learn about his mature style, so instead you would rather hang onto some notion that Ligeti wrote music in the vein of Bartok or Kodaly than to actually sit down and listen to the music. Open up your ears man!!! Talk less, listen more!

[Mirror Image]

Glazunov was both Romantic and Modern. He was Romantic earlier but later Modern in his Saxophone Concerto. Kodaly was much younger and only Modern not Romantic.

No, you're wrong. Glazunov was a Romantic from the time he started composing up until his death. The Saxophone Concerto is NOT a Modern work by any stretch of the word. You can call this all you want to, but just because he used a saxophone doesn't make something Modern. If anything Glazunov was a slave to Romanticism (not that there's anything wrong with that) and his music reflects this. He remained a man trapped in the wrong time. A reactionary instead of a revolutionary.

[eyeresist]

If anything Glazunov was a slave to Romanticism (not that there's anything wrong with that) and his music reflects this. He remained a man trapped in the wrong time. A reactionary instead of a revolutionary.

I'm not happy with the use of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", as though musical styles had some sort of inherent political agenda. Maybe that's not exactly what you meant, but it's evocative of an unreal attitude too often used in the defense of 20th century Modernism, that the old styles were oppressive and totalitarian while the new music was liberating and "democratic".

[Mirror Image]

I'm not happy with the use of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", as though musical styles had some sort of inherent political agenda. Maybe that's not exactly what you meant, but it's evocative of an unreal attitude too often used in the defense of 20th century Modernism, that the old styles were oppressive and totalitarian while the new music was liberating and "democratic".

There are only two kinds of composers: reactionary and revolutionary. I'm not talking any kind of political agenda. Where the hell did that come from? I'm talking about two different kinds of composers: the traditionalist and the revolutionist. Of course there are composers that were both.

[Mirror Image]

Yours is not the way to get new people to like Ligeti's music. You should be encouraging not telling me what to do.

I'm not telling you what to do. I'm telling you that your idea of Ligeti is based upon a few early works that don't reflect the composer's true musical voice.

[lescamil]

I think that if somebody doesn't like Kodaly or Glazunov they should just say it. They should be simply honest.

I happen to agree with Mirror Image about his views on Glazunov and Kodály. That said, I still like some works by them and by other conservatives at the time, the biggest one certainly being Rachmaninoff, who hated the modernism of his time. Thinking that someone is not revolutionary and enjoying their music are not mutually exclusive.

Then why dont you think R-korsakov, Balakirev, Mussorgski or Tchaikovski didn't compose Saxophone Concertos? In my opinion, the Glazunov concerto is the finest for the instrument.

You obviously haven't heard many saxophone concertos. I haven't met one saxophone player (and I know many) that prefers it over many modern ones (and by modern I mean ones written after 1950). Most of them consider it far inferior. The saxophone was invented in 1846, but, in my opinion, no one really knew how to compose for it until after jazz took it over. I'll just leave it at that.


I'll also add a few more two cents of mine by saying that I don't think that Ligeti would appreciate very much the sort of branding of "noise for the sake of noise" and "experimentation versus emotion" talk being thrown at his works from the late 1950s to his works in the late 1970s or so (to avoid using any sound mass technique synonyms).  I also don't think he would appreciate that someone only bases their opinion on immature works, some of which were written under the iron curtain. Again, I'll just leave it at that.