why do some composers dismiss other composers?

[Mark G. Simon]

Ned Rorem has been quite shitty towards numerous composers, Elliott Carter included, which has unfortunately demoted Rorem in my "to listen" list for a while. Not sure why he did it, but it makes him look silly.

That's because Elliott Carter would be quick to be shitty towards Ned Rorem. I don't know if Carter has publically said anything nasty about Rorem, although I bet he's said plenty in private.

Carter, by the way, is not immune to ridiculous statements about other composers. "Minimalism equals death". I mean, really. That's about as asinine a statement as one can make. Of course he has a right to his opinion, as do we all. But for gosh sakes, that's just stupid.

[Ephemerid]

Don't you need / use 'modes' while writing a 'chromatic' work though?  You make everything sound so unrelated.  Or are they related?

Well, it was "the short version"-- the chromaticism of Wagner was taken to such an extreme that tonality was stretched just short of losing a key centre.  From where many composers stood by the late 19th century, traditional tonality had run its course.

Debussy's harmonic language devloped by using whole tone scales, using so-called "church modes", using parallel fifths, breaking all the rules of traditional tonality with non-functional harmony, etc.  In the end, Debussy's music is still "tonal" but the "rules" he was playing by couldn't be found in the music theory playbook at the time.  The kind of chromaticism which was the result of rapid modulations in Wagner isn't really found in Debussy, because Debussy wanted to break away from all that.  Stravinsky took all this further than Debussy and in his own distinctive way.  Debussy's response to Wagner was to keep tonality, but the manner in which that tonality is maintained was in a way that ditched the traditional methods of keeping a key centre-- Debussy felt Wagner had taken traditional functional harmony as far as it could go, hence his quip about Wagner being "a sunset mistaken for a dawn."

Schoenberg took Wagner's rapid modulations past the breaking point of tonality.  Perhaps Schoenberg would have told Debussy he mistook Wagner for a sunset & he really was a new dawn.     Early on, Schoenberg could hear how Wagner's extreme chromaticism, if pushed a bit further, would have no key centre at all, and so eventually he did push it further.  Later, with the 12-tone method, he found a way of maintaining some sort of musical coherence without needing tonality at all.  So Schoenberg's response to Wagner was to keep the intense chromaticism (which originally was the result of all these wild modulations) but to ditch they key centre.  Schoenberg was more radical than Debussy and had to find some new way of having some musical coherence, and serialism was a way he felt comfortable with.

I hope that makes a bit more sense-- Wagner was so big everyone had to respond to him somehow-- he was one of those pivot points where many composers felt stifled by his tremendous influence.  Basically, everyone was like "Well, damn, what can I do after something like that?"  So composers that did break from Wagner's harmonic extremes didn't break away completely, but what they kept and what they ditched were different.  Sort of like natural selection LOL

This is still of course a simplification of the situation, but that's why there are books & books & books on all this stuff!  I hope that makes a bit more sense though...

[paulb]

That's because Elliott Carter would be quick to be shitty towards Ned Rorem. I don't know if Carter has publically said anything nasty about Rorem, although I bet he's said plenty in private.

Carter, by the way, is not immune to ridiculous statements about other composers. "Minimalism equals death". I mean, really. That's about as asinine a statement as one can make. Of course he has a right to his opinion, as do we all. But for gosh sakes, that's just stupid.

If you read my comments posted over at amazon in complete, 100% agreement with Carter's percise sumation of minimalism and many other forms of late 20 th music , if you wish to classify it as music. There i emphatically state that much 20th C music, masquerading as  classical, is death.
I came to the conclusion that Elliott Carter does represent the end of the long distinguished epoch of that specific genre called Classical Music.
I may reconsider Boulez as part of this finale, after i get his 4 cd set in.

What Elliott Carter said was pure ingenious psychological insight.
Minimalism for whatever reasn gets draged into CM discussion boards. And I wish this nonsense would stop. Like now.
Go over to the diner if you want to discuss sub classical, second rate music. And don;'t make me name composers. Don't push me.

Elliott Carter is the world's greatest living CLASSICAL MUSIC composer and far away america's greatest composer, with no other even closely approaching his unique genius.

btw Mark, i refrain from requesting backup support in my theorems on the  topic, The Demise Of  Concerts, due to the nature of your comment here. I thought you had better insight.
But I should have known before.

[paulb]

  JEOLOUSY paulb, JEOLOUSY!

  marvin 

Well its perfectly understandable that what you consider to be the thrust behind Brahms disillusionments with how german music was taking a  turn. The old jealousy would raise her nasty head.
Seriously which composer could sit in attendance at one of Wagner's 6 greatest operas, witha   cast supporting the immense challenges presented by Wagner, and walk away with no pangs of a  touch from the old hag called Jealousy?
Yes, no composer could hold up with courage. Brahms is forgiven for any ill regards towards Wagner, as Brahms like any other man, is born in weakness, IOW he's human.

[Mark G. Simon]

Minimalism for whatever reasn gets draged into CM discussion boards. And I wish this nonsense would stop. Like now.
Go over to the diner if you want to discuss sub classical, second rate music. And don;'t make me name composers. Don't push me.

Paul, I wish comments like this would stop. Like now.

[paulb]

Havne't read the other responses, but I remember reading that Diaghilev told Prokofiev that if he didn't learn to hate and discriminate in his artistic taste that he would never be a great or original composer.  I suppose that makes sense as far as finding your own creative voice; as well, if one cannot critique the good/bad of a composition and determine what he or she like or, perhaps, think should be changed or tweaked in it to make it better than that composer might not be able to do the same in a piece written by his or herself.

Thank you Danny for this engaging comment of   Diaghliev to  Prokofiev, one master to another.
Yes I suppose many composers take what they feel is best offered from composers in sync with their nature, but consequently have to draw boundary lines for others who go against their inner creativity.
The one exception to this rule, is Alfred Schnittke, unlike no other composer. He had the capacity to hear any music and not be detered from his objective. Genius which I only note next to Mozart.

[Ten thumbs]

Anyone know what Wagner and Liszt had to say about each other? seeing as they were both stretching tonality to its limits.

[karlhenning]

unlike no other composer

A wonderful malapropism, Paul! 

[bhodges]

What Elliott Carter said was pure ingenious psychological insight.
Minimalism for whatever reasn gets draged into CM discussion boards. And I wish this nonsense would stop. Like now.
Go over to the diner if you want to discuss sub classical, second rate music.

Sorry, Paul, but I think Carter got it wrong here, too.  Minimalism is as much a part of classical music as any other style or school, and you're going to get heavy disagreement from many here if you proclaim that it's "not really music."  If it's something that you don't care for, or don't understand, that's perfectly fine, but it's here to stay, and shows up in composers' work all over the world--on recordings and on concert programs.  And there are definitely masterpieces of minimalism, by composers as diverse as Morton Feldman, Steve Reich, Louis Andriessen and Terry Riley, just to cite some of the more well-known names.

As an ardent fan of Carter, Boulez and some others who (apparently) despise minimalism, in my opinion there's room for everyone. 

--Bruce

[karlhenning]

I mean, you allow a great artist his artistic dislikes, but to luxuriate in an expression of contempt, one is apt to make oneself sound ridiculous.

[bhodges]

I mean, you allow a great artist his artistic dislikes, but to luxuriate in an expression of contempt, one is apt to make oneself sound ridiculous.

True.  I suspect, based on Carter's comment (and I didn't see it in context, which may be important) that minimalism barely engages him, given that his brain enjoys multiple events, running headlong in different torrents.  But not everyone's mind processes music the same way he does (to state the obvious).  And...that's fine.

--Bruce

[lukeottevanger]

Anyone know what Wagner and Liszt had to say about each other? seeing as they were both stretching tonality to its limits.

Liszt on Wagner - to be brief, as favourable as you can imagine

Wagner on Liszt - ditto, and though I suspect he could be a little more discerning as regards Liszt's music, he described the latter's Orpheus, for example, as 'a quite unique masterpiece of the highest perfection'. But what is more important for the purposes of this thread: he thought Liszt was one of the few other musicians who understood him; Liszt became very much a symbolic father figure to him as well as an -in-law. When writing Siegfried he went so far as to write to Liszt 'while I am composing and scoring I think only of you, how this and the other will please you; I am always dealing with you'. Most significantly given some of the turns of this thread, he thought that Liszt was a figure who loved him sufficiently 'to make it possible for me to be myself.'

[lukeottevanger]

True.  I suspect, based on Carter's comment (and I didn't see it in context, which may be important) that minimalism barely engages him, given that his brain enjoys multiple events, running headlong in different torrents.  But not everyone's mind processes music the same way he does (to state the obvious).  And...that's fine.

And I suppose, too, that the phrase could be interpreted in a wholly different way (though I doubt that Carter meant it to be!). Given the sort of interpretations that those such as Sean put upon minimalism - the stuff about Dionysus, sex, ecstasy, perpetual climax etc. etc., that is, essentially minimalism as a state of perfect and fully-achieved stasis - seeing it as in some ways equivalent to death is not necessarily pejorative but merely descriptive.    Though, as I say, I doubt Carter meant that at all! I suspect Bruce is pretty much on the money....

[paulb]

A wonderful malapropism, Paul! 

The professor got me in poor grammar yet once again

"incomparable is Scnittke to any other composer"

[paulb]

Sorry, Paul, but I think Carter got it wrong here, too.  Minimalism is as much a part of classical music as any other style or school, and you're going to get heavy disagreement from many here if you proclaim that it's "not really music."  If it's something that you don't care for, or don't understand, that's perfectly fine, but it's here to stay, and shows up in composers' work all over the world--on recordings and on concert programs.  And there are definitely masterpieces of minimalism, by composers as diverse as Morton Feldman, Steve Reich, Louis Andriessen and Terry Riley, just to cite some of the more well-known names.

As an ardent fan of Carter, Boulez and some others who (apparently) despise minimalism, in my opinion there's room for everyone. 

--Bruce

Bruce
i've already made all my arguments on why minimalism is not even sub-classical, a  splintered off sect of this grand genre of man's highest expression of creativity in music over at amazon. For lack of time I'll sum up a  few things I said there.
Mini = small, tiny, mal= latin means bad, foul tasting ISM = a  cult, a aberration of sorts.
Look if every composer in the 1750-1800  was qualified to be placed along side of Bach  we would know his name today and have recordings of those composers music. There are thousands of composers from 1800-present day that many of us have never heard of. there music is certainly not pop music, but can we safely say its classical?
Why? Classical to means something representing the very highest of man's creativity.
Minimalism to my ears has little in common with the genre began with Bach, other than the fact these composers use many of the same instruments.
If you and others wish to open wide the doors to any Tom , Dick and Harry that comes along and say "I've got hot classical music right here", go for it, enjoy your meal.
I have better things to do with my time and money.

Elliott Carter was spot on, most late 20th C music has nothing at all to do with classical genre,  that form is  death to the great art expression we come to know as Classical, IF allowed to have a place along with the best of man's genius.


"masterpieces in minimalism"

[Danny]

Thank you Danny for this engaging comment of   Diaghliev to  Prokofiev, one master to another.
Yes I suppose many composers take what they feel is best offered from composers in sync with their nature, but consequently have to draw boundary lines for others who go against their inner creativity.
The one exception to this rule, is Alfred Schnittke, unlike no other composer. He had the capacity to hear any music and not be detered from his objective. Genius which I only note next to Mozart.

A German born and raised in Soviet Russia would just have to be tough like that, ya know?

[bhodges]

Paul, no problem.  On this one I think we're destined to "agree to disagree."   

--Bruce

[Mark G. Simon]

Why? Classical to means something representing the very highest of man's creativity.
Minimalism to my ears has little in common with the genre began with Bach, other than the fact these composers use many of the same instruments.

Your ears only listen to 30 second clips.

[paulb]

True.  I suspect, based on Carter's comment (and I didn't see it in context, which may be important) that minimalism barely engages him, given that his brain enjoys multiple events, running headlong in different torrents.  But not everyone's mind processes music the same way he does (to state the obvious).  And...that's fine.

--Bruce

exactly, Carter continues in  that same measure of high creative expression which inspired Bach to achieve his masterpieces.
Elliott Carter has tapped into that very well which Bach drank from. To bring in most avant garde composers as partaking of this level of genius is contemptible and appauling. Unthinkable.
Elliott Carter must be recognized and completely acknowledged for his achievements in all areas of classical art. There are very few composers living to today who even closely approach his creative mind. Minimalism next to Carter does show the degree of separation between the 2 styles. The one offers the very deepest of man;s creative genius, the other is a  concoction of sorts, one of those wild cocktails made on a   mexican beach resort.
Need i take it further?  How much clearer can I be on this vital matter of sustaining and safeguarding the high art of classical expression.

[paulb]

Paul, no problem.  On this one I think we're destined to "agree to disagree."   

--Bruce

Thanks for seeing my POV.
had i read this post of yours making consessions and a  truce, I would had not posted the one above.
We were posting at the same moment.
So please overlook any of the strong opinionated elements of my arguments. We are all ina  learning mode,  may yet relax on some minor points. But seriously the more i come to know Carter's profound language the most resilent I am to accept compromises. And yet we have at least 10 other masterpieces from Carter's 97th - 99th year of life to a  recording of.
Carter ranks along side Bach is what i am trying to get at. Since this is true,
just where does that place minimalism in the grand scheme of things