The Second Viennese School in the 21st Century: Still New?

[karlhenning]

That's something that's thrown around here a lot, but, is a composer's judgment really unenlightening merely because it often turned at the expense of others?

Composer A's negative opinion about Composer B yields some insight perhaps on what Composer A thinks, but it is of no reliability as any gauge of the work of Composer B's.

[karlhenning]

I think that basically, the implications of what Ford was saying in the lecture (especially for the listener) can be boiled down to:

1. Music is not ideology, it is simply music.
2. It doesn't really matter if music is about "progress" or not.
3. It was a mistake to mix ideology and dogma with the music of the Second Viennese School. In the end, it probably didn't do their music much help.

All largely good sense.

"Mistake" or not, that sort of nonsense has historically proved something of a pastime . . . .

[karlhenning]

But what creative artist worth her salt wants to simply repeat what's already been done?

     That's a false dichotomy.

Good!  I sign on to both sentiments; Ford's-via-Sid that music is not "about progress"; and Michael's, that it is a weak sort of artistry which is merely repetitive, whether of oneself or or others.

[not edward]

Composer A's negative opinion about Composer B yields some insight perhaps on what Composer A thinks, but it is of no reliability as any gauge of the work of Composer B's.

This is very true. Boulez's utterances on other composers--in particular--say little about them, but seem to me to give a big pointer as to why he's completed comparatively little music: he seems to me to almost have a crippling fear of what he thinks of as flawed (or wrong) music and I'm sure this has to have seriously compromised his own creativity.

(In the last 50 years, has Boulez completed any major piece other than Rituel that he hasn't subjected to constant revisions? I don't think it's a surprise that Rituel is the outlier either--it's clear that Maderna was an immensely important person in Boulez's development and perhaps memorializing him was so important that it pushed him past his self-critical angst?)

[some guy]

But what creative artist worth her salt wants to simply repeat what's already been done? Only the kind who has her eye on the main chance, I'd say. Fame and money.

     That's a false dichotomy. What I think all of us taking a sceptical view of musical progressivism are saying is that unplanned change is in no way inferior to the mapped out kind. Music will change and there's no reason to think an ideology of guided change produces better results and some evidence that it doesn't. Music changes in an unplanned manner, bottom up rather than top down. Musical creationism is a bad idea, and even worse as a necessary idea. The best that can be said for it is that the music doesn't suffer much.

It's actually no sort of dichotomy at all, false or otherwise. I'm not taking any sort of view of musical progressivism (eugh!) in my post. And the key words are, unfortunately (sorry!), the cliche I used, "worth her salt." It's my view that a creative artist, by definition, is interested in creating, not in mimicking. (I think the tag, variously attributed, that a lesser talent borrows but a genius steals derives from this same sense of things.)

As for the rest, I've tried to make sense of the "guided change/unplanned change" bit, and this is what I've come up with: there are certain composers who think that their work is somehow important for music historically, that what they are doing personally is also what music should be doing globally. Otherwise, there is a thing called "zeitgeist," which seems to be a cop-out, but is probably just a handy way of referring to whatever's going. If that's what you mean by guided change and unplanned change, then aren't both of those things going to be going on all the time, regardless?

I think so.

(I'm keen to hear more about "musical creationism." That one I couldn't sort out at all. That is, I couldn't make it make any sense that seemed satisfactory to me. And perhaps your senses won't be satisfactory to me, either! But at least then I will know.)

[snyprrr]

I'm not going to let this Thread fall to page 2. Once more into the breach!

[Josquin des Prez]

Boulez's utterances on other composers--in particular--say little about them

We are talking about great composers. Boulez does not apply.

[Josquin des Prez]

Composer A's negative opinion about Composer B yields some insight perhaps on what Composer A thinks, but it is of no reliability as any gauge of the work of Composer B's.

Not necessarily. When Chopin criticized Beethoven's use of counterpoint, particular when compared to his idol, Mozart, it gave us an interesting insight into how each composer made use of this technique. We may not necessarily agree that Beethoven's polyphonic work was somehow deficient, but it is interesting to know that his technique was different from that of Chopin, and Mozart as well, since Chopin modeled himself after the latter in the first place. I think it is extremely arrogant, and very presumptuous, to simply dismiss Chopin's criticism as useless. He was a great artist and he had a deeper insight into the matter then any of us could possibly hope to claim. If he found objection with Beethoven, it is our duty to understand why, and perhaps learn something in the process.

[some guy]

We are talking about great composers. Boulez does not apply.

Hey look, kids! And example of "extremely arrogant, and very presumptuous."

Whatever you think of Boulez as a person (and most of the things I've seen attributed to him on online forums have been misquotes), he is an important figure in twentieth century music, and it would be extremely arrogant, and very presumptuous to dismiss him or his music or his criticism as useless.

[Josquin des Prez]

he is an important figure in twentieth century music

And i'm supposed to be impressed by that because? John Cage is an important figure too. Think about it.

[jochanaan]

And i'm supposed to be impressed by that because? John Cage is an important figure too. Think about it.

Well, if someone I respect says so-and-so is great, that is, worth listening to, I tend to want to check it out.  Of course, "someone I respect" doesn't need necessarily to be an academic, a critic or a market researcher; s/he might be a fellow performer, or a professional in some other field, or just someone I know and like...

And I've actually listened to some of John Cage's music, and found it "to my taste."

[some guy]

And i'm supposed to be impressed by that because?

Wow, if you think for even a microsecond that I would ever try to impress you...!

John Cage is an important figure too.

Indeed he is. True word!

Think about it.

Oh, I have. And I've come to different conclusions from any of yours. Perhaps my being born with an innate sense of genius and your being born with an innate sense of genius and us coming to different conclusions could be thought about, too.

[snyprrr]

I can't even remember which Thread I was ranting on, haha. I must be suffering from Invective Depletion Syndrome. Bring the Hate!

[some guy]

No worries. Ranting is just good fun, whichever thread you're on.

[DavidW]

You know who is missing from this thread?  James!   Boy he and jdp would have gone at it for pages.

[karlhenning]

And I've actually listened to some of John Cage's music, and found it "to my taste."

Ditto. (Not surprising, I shouldn't think.)

[millionrainbows]

I think the OP makes good points. The Second Viennese, and their methods, are relevant as long as you are working with 12 notes, and sustained pitches, and desire to use that as your canvas. Of course, this could be expanded by dividing the octave into more than 12 notes.

The structure of this kind of music comes from sets of pitches, and interval relations. There can be no harmonic hierarchy which creates an overall sense of tonality, and whatever tone-centricities are created are fleeting. "Harmony" will be intervals derived from the ordered set (adjacent notes) or areas of harmonic color can be created with unordered sets, if they are smaller sub-sets. You can have "harmonic entities" which create focus, like Varese or Messiaen.

Maybe you could create a different kind of hierarchy, not related to a fundamental note. Peter Schat seems to have done this with his "Tone Clock."