Are there particular genres certain composers should have just avoided?

[BasilValentine]

...Yet another abuse of the term "ad hominem" to indicate something other an actual ad hominem.  You may not like me saying it, and you may find it insulting, but neither of those means that characterizing your argument as an argument from ignorance is an ad hominem.  Any argument which depends on the lack of knowledge of any example to the contrary is by definition an argument from ignorance.  An ad hominem is an attempt to distract from the logic of the argument at hand by means of personal criticism.  Criticizing your argument is the exact opposite of an ad hominem attack.

As for not giving specifics, it would have been pointless, as you have shown no interest in my argument or any evidence I could present.  You haven't even shown an awareness that your position regarding Shostakovich is now that his formative musical development cannot be said to have influenced his later work...which is quite an extraordinary claim!

If you are going to claim I am making an argument from ignorance please state what argument you are addressing. The only indication of what you might mean is the part in bold above. However, I said nothing of the kind. This is a fabrication of yours. If you are going to attribute this ridiculous position to me, please actually show that I said it by quoting my words. You won't be able to.

What is especially funny about your claim that I am making an argument from ignorance is that I have not been advancing any argument at all! I have just quoted your statements and asked you to support them with either documentary or musical evidence. You have failed to do so. One can speculate, as several have, that the music of Schoenberg had a pervasive influence through the ether everyone breathed. This might be true. But that is not remotely sufficient to support your overblown claim.

[Mirror Image]

I think Stanford should have stayed away from orchestral music. So much of it that I've heard has been, for me, rather uninspired and lacking in interesting musical ideas. His choral music, however, is where he shines the brightest.

[BasilValentine]

SQ's no. 12 op. 133 & no. 13 op. 138, Symphony no. 14 op. 135, and Sonata for violin and piano, op. 134 all made use of twelve-tone techniques.

http://www.quartets.de/compositions/ssq12.html

This is true, although to a limited extent and in an extended tonal context. On this subject Shostakovich wrote:

"As far as the strictly technical devices from such musical 'systems' as dodecaphony or aleatory is concerned ... everything in good measure. If, let's say, a composer sets himself the obligatory task of writing dodecaphonic music, then he artificially limits his possibilities, his ideas. The use of elements from these complex systems is fully justified if it is dictated by the concept of the composition."

In the same interview, when pressed "to name the composers he considered 20thc classics, he cited Mahler, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg and Britten." (Fay, 258) I think Berg is the likely touchstone for Shostakovich's rare and conservative dabbling with 12-tone materials in his last few years, especially given this list. I don't read anything into his failure to mention Schoenberg here. This could merely have been an oversight given that it was said on the spot in a public interview and not a considered and premeditated position. 

[Mirror Image]

This is true, although to a limited extent and in an extended tonal context. On this subject Shostakovich wrote:

"As far as the strictly technical devices from such musical 'systems' as dodecaphony or aleatory is concerned ... everything in good measure. If, let's say, a composer sets himself the obligatory task of writing dodecaphonic music, then he artificially limits his possibilities, his ideas. The use of elements from these complex systems is fully justified if it is dictated by the concept of the composition."

In the same interview, when pressed "to name the composers he considered 20thc classics, he cited Mahler, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg and Britten." (Fay, 258) I think Berg is the likely touchstone for Shostakovich's rare and conservative dabbling with 12-tone materials in his last few years, especially given this list. I don't read anything into his failure to mention Schoenberg here. This could merely have been an oversight given that it said on the spot in a public interview and not a considered and premeditated position.

So what if Shostakovich doesn't mention Schoenberg? He thought highly of Berg and Berg was obviously a disciple of Schoenberg and was hugely influenced by his music. Whether one admits to it or not, Schoenberg was an influential composer and, as Mahlerian pointed out, this influence wasn't always fully manifested and noticeable in a composer's music. There were people who took to his methods and then there were reactionaries. I think you're arguing yourself into a hole that you can't get out of and have trouble admitting that you're wrong about this as many people have already given you evidence that Scheonberg was one of the most important composers of the 20th Century.

[BasilValentine]

So what that Shostakovich doesn't mention Schoenberg? He thought highly of Berg and Berg was obviously a disciple of Schoenberg and was hugely influenced by his music. Whether one admits to it or not, Schoenberg was an influential composer and, as Mahlerian pointed out, this influence wasn't always fully manifested and noticeable in a composer's music. There were people who took to his methods and then there were reactionaries. I think you're arguing yourself into a hole that you can't get out of and have trouble admitting that you're wrong about this as many people have already given you evidence that Scheonberg was one of the most important composers of the 20th Century.

In case you have failed to notice, I explicitly stated above thread that Schoenberg was, obviously, a hugely influential composer. I stand by it and I never argued anything to the contrary. You seem to be accepting Mahlerian's misquotations and misinterpretations of my words for things I actually argued. What I have been arguing is only that Mahlerian's statement that Prokofiev's and Shostakovich's best works would not have existed without Schoenberg is a ridiculous overreach. I have no idea how you got a denial of Schoenberg's historical importance and influence out of that. But I'm curious: How did you? 

[Mirror Image]

In case you have failed to notice, I explicitly stated above thread that Schoenberg was, obviously, a hugely influential composer. I never argued anything to the contrary. You are accepting Mahlerian's misquotations and misinterpretations of my words for things I actually argued. What I have been arguing is only that Mahlerian's statement that Prokofiev's and Shostakovich's best works would not have existed without Schoenberg is a ridiculous overreach.

Fair enough. I personally couldn't make a claim that Shostakovich's and Prokofiev's best music would have existed with or without Schoenberg's influence. That would be foreseeing a future that never happened.

[BasilValentine]

Fair enough. I personally couldn't make a claim that Shostakovich's and Prokofiev's best music would have existed with or without Schoenberg's influence. That would be foreseeing a future that never happened.

Given that both were child prodigies generating original compositions from the age of 10, and that both had quite distinct musical personalities from a young age, why would you even wonder if such forces of nature would have existed or created in the way they did? As I pointed out above, Prokofiev had completed at least three of his piano sonatas and two of his piano concertos before being exposed to The Rite of Spring. His style was in place and in line with its later development even before significant (or any?) exposure to Schoenberg.   

To the bold part above: Well yes, granted. But would you not agree that if one is going to make such a far-reaching claims like Mahlerian's, one ought to be able to support it with something more than a blanket statement that Schoenberg influenced everyone? Especially given that writing like Schoenberg was more or less illegal in the USSR when Shostakovich was composing his best work?  I don't hear anything specific in most of his mature music that can't be traced to the influence (if one even thinks elevating influence to this extent over original thought is valid) of Mahler, Mussorgsky, Stravinsky, Rimsky-Korsakoff, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, Bartok, and Britten, among others.
 

[Mahlerian]

If you are going to claim I am making an argument from ignorance please state what argument you are addressing. The only indication of what you might mean is the part in bold above. However, I said nothing of the kind. This is a fabrication of yours. If you are going to attribute this ridiculous position to me, please actually show that I said it by quoting my words. You won't be able to.

What is especially funny about your claim that I am making an argument from ignorance is that I have not been advancing any argument at all! I have just quoted your statements and asked you to support them with either documentary or musical evidence. You have failed to do so. One can speculate, as several have, that the music of Schoenberg had a pervasive influence through the ether everyone breathed. This might be true. But that is not remotely sufficient to support your overblown claim.

It's simple, really.  Your own statements have been that:

- Schoenberg's influence on Shostakovich's later music is non-existent. (Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing with me)
However,
- Shostakovich was undeniably influenced by Schoenberg during his formative years. (He said so himself.)
- So the influences of his formative years must not have had any effect whatsoever on his later music.

That's the only way to square your statements in this thread.  At any rate, you seem not to have understood that my claim was in fact quite similar to the bolded portion, not anything "overblown."

[Mirror Image]

Given that both were child prodigies generating original compositions from the age of 10, and that both had quite distinct musical personalities from a young age, why would you even wonder if such forces of nature would have existed or created in the way they did? As I pointed out above, Prokofiev had completed at least three of his piano sonatas and two of his piano concertos before being exposed to The Rite of Spring. His style was in place and in line with its later development even before significant (or any?) exposure to Schoenberg.   

To the bold part above: Well yes, granted. But would you not agree that if one is going to make such a far-reaching claims like Mahlerian's, one ought to be able to support it with something more than a blanket statement that Schoenberg influenced everyone? Especially given that writing like Schoenberg was more or less illegal in the USSR when Shostakovich was composing his best work?  I don't hear anything specific in most of his mature music that can't be traced to the influence (if one even thinks elevating influence to this extent over original thought is valid) in Mahler, Mussorgsky, Stravinsky, Rimsky-Korsakoff, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, Bartok, and Britten, among others.

There's no question that music would have taken off in a multitude of different directions had Schoenberg not been alive or made the impact he did, but this is all rather beside the point and doesn't matter as I'd rather talk about what actually happened rather than what didn't.

[Mirror Image]

I'd actually love to see this thread actually get back on-topic. Too much derailment for my liking.

[San Antone]

Not me.  I have zero interest in hypothosizing what works a composer should NOT have written.  Navel gazing.  I much prefer an in-depth discussion of why Schoenberg is an important composer.

But YMMV.

[Mirror Image]

Not me.  I have zero interest in hypothosizing what works a composer should NOT have written.  Navel gazing.  I much prefer an in-depth discussion of why Schoenberg is an important composer.

But YMMV.

But that's a discussion for another thread. Not this one.

[BasilValentine]

It's simple, really.  Your own statements have been that:

- Schoenberg's influence on Shostakovich's later music is non-existent. (Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing with me)
However,
- Shostakovich was undeniably influenced by Schoenberg during his formative years. (He said so himself.)
- So the influences of his formative years must not have had any effect whatsoever on his later music.

That's the only way to square your statements in this thread.  At any rate, you seem not to have understood that my claim was in fact quite similar to the bolded portion, not anything "overblown."

You are good at refuting your own contorted misinterpretations of what I have written, but of course you have failed to actually quote me — once again. Guess I will have to: I said that Stravinsky was the central influence in the list of influences you cited and that Schoenberg was part of a long secondary list. I stated that influence in his immediate post student days does not equate to influence on his later music. This sentence in no way denies influence on Shostakovich's music or even on his late music. It merely says that one cannot assume this to be the case — that there is not a one to one correspondence (equation) of early influence with mature style. Which is why I followed up with: this [alleged] influence would have to be demonstrated with musical evidence.

You stated that Shostakovich's (and Prokofiev's) best music would not have existed without the influence of Schoenberg. What I have been arguing all along is that this is an extraordinary claim that you have not adequately supported. This is the only thing that needs to be squared.

Now, however, since you persist in trying to misrepresent my statements and to deny responsibility for your overreaching claims, I will give my analysis of what is really going on here. Essentially the dynamic here is just the typical internet pissing contest in which someone claims: "My guy is the greatest. A vastly superior human being to whom all must bow from here to eternity. Why, the composers you like owe everything to my guy. They would'a been nuffin' without him, Nuffin' I tell ya." When confronted with the predictable response: "Prove it," or, in this case, "What exactly do they owe to your guy that their very existence depends on him?," we get . . . . . . . . . . squat. 

[Mahlerian]

You stated that Shostakovich's (and Prokofiev's) best music would not have existed without the influence of Schoenberg.

No I didn't.

I argued that those works would not have existed as they exist now if it weren't for the existence of this particular influence.

Your complaints to the contrary, I made that statement and you took offense to it.  Your disregard for the evidence I did present (and for logic generally) indicated the utter pointlessness of going any further to come up with specific examples.

[Dedalus]

I just wanted to say that I don't mind if this thread goes back to my OP or not. I made the thread to see if some interesting responses resulted.

Some think the OP is stupid. Somebody said it was navel gazing? I just have to laugh because it's not as though the question I positted, which can only have answers in the form of opinion, is very serious at all. It's just a random question to serve as a jumping off point for a hopefully entertaining discussion.

I'm any case, my opinion is that as long as the discussion is entertaining I don't care what direction it goes.

[Ken B]

Bernstein
Masses

[Androcles]

Segerstam - Symphonies

I think he quite possibly needs rehab.

[Wanderer]

I thought some might want to try that hat on and look at themselves in the mirror -- just to see if it fits and goes well with the suit they are already wearing. :-) 
I'm certain their are indiscriminate sensationalists who soak in the hot tub of Nothing But modernist / contemporary as well... while I don't think there are any of that ilk chatting it up in this thread, lol.

So, the modernist/contemporary "hot tub" is not cholera-scented, then?


For future reference, if you really don't have an axe to grind against tonal/romantic music, you should refrain from using ridiculous dismissive asides and remarks that demonstrate (your) apparent contempt for music other than contemporary, if your pretensions of objectivity are to be taken seriously. Try as one might to subsequently explain them by dressing them up with "hats", "mirrors" or vacuous verbiage, nasty comments of the sort are all too transparent as to their intent. (lol.)

[Monsieur Croche]

So, the modernist/contemporary "hot tub" is not cholera-scented, then?

Louis Andriesson said the American variety of minimalism was 'hot tub and scented candle music,' then added that he was a European, ergo his innate vibe was to produce music with more angst in it :-)

It is not important enough to call 'contemptuous,' but I do think those who pretty much 'dwell' in music of any one period are genuinely following their preferences (fine with that.) 

It is when mention of another style or era seems to bug them or seems to be taken as a downright threat to the music they love where I take issue.  The majority of that type of post and attitude seem to most regularly show up in threads on modern and contemporary music -- as if it is the last arena not protected by social political correctness, i.e. jokes and bashing of just about any race or culture are now pretty much no-no, while jokes about rednecks are still 'o.k.'  It is similar with those who don't care for modern / contemporary.

To repeat, about every era has its fans and detractors, but you do not see folks so routinely bashing music from those eras other than the modern and contemporary.  Find me a thread on Brahms; find me other than a polite comment that a poster has made saying they don't particularly care for it vs. the near free-for-all bashing that too often shows up in a very normal thread on modern / contemporary.

BTW, while I admittedly am least fond of a fair amount of the romantic rep, I have yet to say that any of those composers 'wrote crap / horrible music / not music / destroyed music / upset my stomach / couldn't write a tune'... etc. etc.  Too, my musical loves cover a broad spectrum of time and styles, so I am not a 'sensationalist' with a penchant for only the modern / contemporary and most recent music being made.

My snarkier comments on this or that composer or piece are usually in the context of such a modern / contemporary thread where exactly this kind of heated bashing is going on.  I will leave it to others to decide if those snarkier comments are wholly sincere or if they just might be a 'try it on for size and see how it feels' when someone bashes the music you are interested in. 

The most salient questions addressing the bash the modern contemporary phenomenon are what and where the hell is the resentment / 'hate' coming from; what is the apparent "threat" that leads some to react so against, and why?  It seems no other post about music from any other era comes with the free license to come in and just bash the subject.  And that is just, ya know, weird :-/


Best regards.

[Turbot nouveaux]

I have spent many happy hours enjoying the music of "lesser" composers such as Hummel.  I would hate to see a Hummeloscopy performed on music history.

We had a thread on that. The plurality was for a Shostakovichoscopy, with a Glassoscopy neck and neck, but of course the smart money was on Schoenbergoscopy.

Pedants' Corner:

I shouldn't fear a Hummeloscopy, sanantonio. The suffix 'oscopy' means to look at, with a scope - the clue is in the word! A Schoenbergoscopy would be a Schoenberg retrospective (using a retrospectoscope, presumably). What a nice thought that the smart money went there!

-ectomy, is what I believe you were looking for.