Two Questions.

[vandermolen]

B) Can't agree. Places too much power on the listener, and what one listener cannot appreciate may be appreciated by another. The modern music problem once again: Boulez is unfeeling! Stockhausen is meaningless! Messiaen is incoherent! (Well, actually he is.)

A perfectly valid point. What I wrote was just my own subjective reaction in the knowledge that others may well have different views.

[Monsieur Croche]

A. Is there any type of classical music that you dislike to the point of avoidance.

Romantic post Schumann until Mahler. I actually avoid, for example, composers like Wagner, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Sibelius, etc. (I'm not actually in love with Brahms, but he is just so damned good my admiration borders on compelling me into loving it, so, there ya go.) Chopin is in there, Liszt not, while there are a good smattering of chamber works and lied from the era I don't avoid at all. This area is about my only 'gap' in what I like and routinely listen to.

Since it has been mentioned, I'm another one who will just about run from the room if there is music with a spoken narration going at the same time.

In the non-classical realm, (pop genres) I find myself often enough actually repulsed by a great deal of show music and some film scores, as in I run to turn off the radio if it is announced, and have been known to feel compelled to leave a room, like at a party or social gathering where it is being played. Same goes for a LOT of pop music, whether golden oldies or newer. For me, the music so often lacks even fundamental interest and, like cabaret, is really a non-adventurous bland and forgettable vehicle to float a text.

This brings me to lyrics: whatever the genre, I never listen to texts on first or second account. If the notes aren't 'telling me something' it matters not how good the text is.

B. When does music cease to be music.

By giving you the definition to this question you've predicted as coming up

I realise this will be a subjective topic and may even raise the question of “What is music?”

, I hope to cover it.
The elements which must be present:
~ Pitch (not at all qualified as specific pitch.)
~ Duration (not at all qualified as being metrically pulsed, in measures, even divisions of time, etc.)
~ Intensity (volume, i.e. dynamics, etc.)
N.B. the absence of any mention of either 'melody' or 'harmony.' (Ditch that kindergarten definition / indoctrination if you want to take yourself and classical music discussion seriously :-)

The other qualification
~ Man made = "organized"
It is also important to emphasize that those less traditional pieces with an 'open score' or 'indeterminate' pieces have still been set up by a composer with intent, no matter how non-traditionally specific that intent is. Ergo, this also well-qualifies as "organization."

If those elements are present, then, like it or not, "It IS Music."

... and this for our colleague and my pal SomeGuy:
Yeah, if the listener is not making any effort to actively listen to a piece as a piece, well, why should they expect a piece to be spoon fed to them and meet parameters of "Music I Already Like" and with which they are already familiar? I say 'no,' lol, and only add that Stravinsky quip which differentiated 'listening' vs. 'hearing,' i.e. "Even a duck can hear."


Best regards.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

M. Croche: your post and your philosophy about music as a whole is still deeply rooted in your own cultural upbringing.

[Monsieur Croche]

M. Croche: your post and your philosophy about music as a whole is still deeply rooted in your own cultural upbringing.

Hey, J:

I can take it... and it would be nice if you chose to elaborate with somethings more specific, because as a generality what you've said, imo, applies to just about every human being on this planet ;-)

[Karl Henning]

Here we go!
[asin]B00000298Z[/asin]

But, didn't you know?—

[Karl Henning]

That is, the Concertos & Orchestral Works box has both the Prokofiev Op.67 and the Saint-Saëns with and without narration.

[Brian]

But, didn't you know?—

!!!!!!!!!

That would be so much better!!!! I revisited the Gorkovenko recording and the string players are, uh, not the A-team.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Hey, J:

I can take it... and it would be nice if you chose to elaborate with somethings more specific, because as a generality what you've said, imo, applies to just about every human being on this planet ;-)

Sorry for the brief reply earlier. Basically what I mean is that our understanding about music is deeply rooted in the development of western thought and western composition. I mentioned Islamic azan in an earlier post. This is an example of something which has pitch, duration and intensity, and even to [my] western ears it has repetition, variation, a set range, contour etc. which are further variables we can apply to the aforementioned fundamental elements. In Islam, is it music though? No it is not, for cultural reasons. Other things are music. It depends on context when one looks at music from different cultures around the world. All music has pitch, duration and intensity—I can't disagree with those as the most fundamental elements—but not everything that has pitch, duration and intensity is necessarily music.

One can fall into the trap of applying western thought to musics of every culture and I believe this is akin to inaccurately proclaiming that 'music is a universal language' because one may believe that music can be analysed and understood all in the same way. What is actually more correct is to understand that music is something that exists in every culture and its purpose/s is/are different in every culture, just as they are understood to be different in every culture. I don't think when asking what music is or isn't that we should take such a Eurocentric view on things.

[Monsieur Croche]

What's the difference between listening and composing?  If there is one.

The good  news is you don't need a passport and a visa to go from one to the other, but I'd say it is a distance of, give or take a hair, a parsec.

Put another way... plan on at least more than one full day's drive.

More earnestly, there really is a huge difference between being attentive while taking in information, or making it up out of thin air.  Writing, for example, unlike music in that so many know 'the notation' and do write, one way or another, on a daily basis, still has reading a novel worlds apart from writing one.

[(poco) Sforzando]

What's the difference between listening and composing? If there is one.

Composing is doing something. Listening is sitting in a chair.

[James]

Composing & listening go hand in hand .. if a musician doesn't have ears, and doesn't learn how to listen to the playing/composing than it won't result in much 'music.' The best music should tell a story, where a central idea is developed and elaborated. So having a robust musical vocabulary, via learning/practice, helps. Otherwise .. you're dropping a bunch of unrelated ideas that don't add up to much and don't say much.

[Florestan]

Listening is sitting in a chair.

Ummm, not quite. It might be laying in bed, or criss-crossing the room air-conducting... 

[Cato]

Question A: I have always found aleatoric music unattractive beginning with the whole idea of aleatoric music.  As a (former) composer I found the whole idea of a piece which is never the same repellent.  Perhaps it is a "control" thing, or my preference for permanence, but the whole idea that the composer puts together a set of ideas, which the conductor or performer can play in an infinity of ways, does not grab me, and never has.  That the "odds" of the music sounding awful are fairly good may also explain my dislike of the entire concept.

Now, is it possible that I would like such a work in a blind listening?  Sure!  But that such a specific performance might never be repeated, given the premise of an aleatoric work, makes me again shake my head in dismay.

Question B:

In the 1960's there was a fledgling composer at my college - a graduate student - who put together 8 stereo tape recorders all playing noises of various kinds (traffic sounds, rocks rolling in a garbage can, dogs barking in a kennel, etc.) for a concert.    After too many minutes of this, as a grand finale the 8 recorders were lifted up above the composer's head and dumped into a very large box (which I am assuming had a large cushion at the bottom, otherwise the concert would have been very expensive for the composer).   The anarchism of such a stunt was typical of the era.  0:)

Was that a "musical composition" ?   

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

^^^^^That could be defined as a musical composition, yes, but was it a musical composition of much merit?

[Monsieur Croche]

First Q:
You've answered the first question for yourself, and I agree with your answer completely.  Positing for your consideration though, the same possibility of a second hearing of a 'fixed' score as delivered by other fine performers and interpretation vs. the first hearing with equally fine performers and interpretation: from the exact same score, the same dilemma can present itself with the same force :-)

Second Q:
A-yep again.  As Jessop rightly pointed out, a particular procedure, harmonic vocabulary, style, even with a 'fixed' score, is not any kind of guarantee of either 'quality' or 'merit' as any listener might deem either of those qualities to be.  Further, that piece with the tape recorders and its dramatic / theatrical finale might engage the listener more fully, have more musical quality and merit to it than, say, any of the works of Gabriel Pierné (or instead of Pierné, insert the name of any of your favored "second or third tier" composers to get both the affront and the point ;-)

I would admonish you that composers are in the exact same position as playwrights, in that no matter how fixed and determined the manuscript is, regardless of the most meticulous indications for the directives which are not the notes or the text, at some point you are relying upon musicians and conductors (actors and directors) whom you do not know, cannot talk with, can not give any further directives or advice to, etc.  I.e. as thorough as all the markings in the score or play, control is completely relinquished and handed over in good faith and with an assumed trust in the fact that musicians are musicians with a very canny musical sense and they will apply their all to your piece.

There is really no nailing down (your admitted tendency / proclivity) any part of what you've addressed in your questions other than considering each and every work on a case by case basis.


Best regards.

[Daverz]

A. Is there any type of classical music that you dislike to the point of avoidance.

Renaissance polyphony.  I find it very cloying.

[Cato]

^^^^^That could be defined as a musical composition, yes, but was it a musical composition of much merit?

Aye!  Again, the "work" was much more of a nihilistic stunt than anything else!

Second Q:
A-yep again.  As Jessop rightly pointed out, a particular procedure, harmonic vocabulary, style, even with a 'fixed' score, is not any kind of guarantee of either 'quality' or 'merit' as any listener might deem either of those qualities to be.  Further, that piece with the tape recorders and its dramatic / theatrical finale might engage the listener more fully, have more musical quality and merit to it than, say, any of the works of Gabriel Pierné (or instead of Pierné, insert the name of any of your favored "second or third tier" composers to get both the affront and the point ;-)

I would admonish you that composers are in the exact same position as playwrights, in that no matter how fixed and determined the manuscript is, regardless of the most meticulous indications for the directives which are not the notes or the text, at some point you are relying upon musicians and conductors (actors and directors) whom you do not know, cannot talk with, can not give any further directives or advice to, etc.  I.e. as thorough as all the markings in the score or play, control is completely relinquished and handed over in good faith and with an assumed trust in the fact that musicians are musicians with a very canny musical sense and they will apply their all to your piece.

There is really no nailing down (your admitted tendency / proclivity) any part of what you've addressed in your questions other than considering each and every work on a case by case basis.


Best regards.

Many thanks for the comments! 

Yes, "might engage the listener," but the odds are against it!  Whether it would - or could - have more "musical quality" than a work by anybody else, great or mediocre, since it lacks even one known note...?  Again, I would think the odds are against it.  To be sure, a few of the radicals in the audience were "engaged" and enthusiastic, not because of the auditory, or "musical" result, however: they were engaged because of the anarchic antics on stage.

To be sure, the composer is at the mercy of performers (Stravinsky famously said: "I hate interpretations.") who may think they have a better idea about something (e.g. the re-orchestration of Schumann's symphonies, the cuts made to Bruckner's works).  But in the end, the work has a certain permanence, and is not something where chance is inherent, part of the essence of the piece.  Any criticism of an interpretation, therefore, has a solid foundation from which to start. 

And yes, I know, an aleatoric work also has a score, and specific notes and instructions, and yet...I find the impermanence residing in such a score unattractive, as mentioned before.

Concerning disliking the sound of French, mentioned earlier by a writer here: I once knew a young lady who said she chose to learn German, because French seemed to lack "bones" and was a language of "mush."  English spelling is a mess mainly because of its Norman French background.  (See: Battle of Hastings 1066 A.D.) 

[some guy]

Yes, "might engage the listener," but the odds are against it!

The odds are against it only for a particular listener. Other listeners might find it quite engaging. You might not have found it engaging, but so what? You are only one listener, and your experience does not stand for all listeners (cunningly presented as "the" listener) everywhere (and everywhen, for that matter).

To be sure, a few of the radicals in the audience were "engaged" and enthusiastic, not because of the auditory, or "musical" result, however: they were engaged because of the anarchic antics on stage.

And you must be aware of how grossly unfair this assessment is. You are not only not inside the heads of the engaged and enthusiastic listeners, but to call them "radicals" (as if that were a bad thing) is just name-calling.

This could have been a moment of revelation for you. A thing you personally do not care for, for whatever reasons, being reacted to positively by other people in the room. Perhaps it was a worthy thing, even though you found it distasteful.

I have an embarrassing anecdote of my own to share. I don't want to share it, but since I actually learned something from it...:

I was at a concert of miscellaneous electroacoustic music that included a piece by Herbert Howe. I find his music horrid beyond belief, and I quipped that the question is not so much "Howe?" as "Why?" Clever, but one person piped up with "I like his music." Ah.

I was wrong. So wrong. No more nasty quips from me.

[Cato]

The odds are against it only for a particular listener. Other listeners might find it quite engaging. You might not have found it engaging, but so what? You are only one listener, and your experience does not stand for all listeners (cunningly presented as "the" listener) everywhere (and everywhen, for that matter).
And you must be aware of how grossly unfair this assessment is. You are not only not inside the heads of the engaged and enthusiastic listeners, but to call them "radicals" (as if that were a bad thing) is just name-calling...

No cunning was implied: obviously the odds are against it for a particular i.e. "the" listener.  I said that some were enthusiastic, but believe that their enthusiasm was part of the general anti-establishment, anti-tradition atmosphere of the era.

No, they were part of the political radicals in the audience: my earlier reference to the 1960's must not have been clear enough.