Is the composer obsolete?

[Josquin des Prez]

Ack, another antimodernist thread.

For all this talk about concerts and programming, nobody is mentioning the obvious: tastes aren't being formed in the concert hall. They're being formed on the internet, at Amazon.com, and anywhere else one can buy or download recorded music. People go to concerts to affirm the listening choices they've already made through their record purchases. I would suggest using record sales as a measuring stick rather than concert attendance.

That's not a bad idea. We don't have to compare contemporary composers with the classics since we know the results before hand, but it would be interesting to compare among contemporary composers themselves.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Point taken, but then, i think the second Viennese school was at a cross-road between genuine "inspiration" and theoretical dogma as a compositional rule. I can follow Webern's compositional logic in a purely intuitive way. A lot of post-war composers just sound like arbitrary nonsense in comparison.

Really? What about respected figures like Stockhausen then? Aren't many of his works clearly nothing more then the same type of excesses found in the visual arts (unmade beds ect.). What about John Cage? Those are established names, how can an audience be convinced modern methods aren't completely arbitrary when the obviously and utterly arbitrary are accepted among the greats?

And it doesn't stop there. Just today i was reading about Thomas Ades, a composer whom certain members here have expressed admiration for in more then one occasion, and then i came across this description of his opera from his wikipedia entry and i quote:

"Powder Her Face, Adès' 1995 chamber opera with a libretto by Philip Hensher, won both good reviews and notoriety for its musical depiction of fellatio."

Really? No, i mean, REALLY? You know, i've always been one of those who believes art should always follow simple precepts of morality and general decency. I happen to be a bit old fashioned about that. I'm sure many other concert goers would agree. Somehow, i don't think musical depictions of blow jobs are going to have any lasting power, not unless the culture in question happens to be not only completely depraved but out of its freaking skull as well.

The ball is in your court.

It will have to remain there until tomorrow; it's getting late here. But you're shifting the terms of the argument away from comprehensibility to morality. James Joyce's Ulysses was also considered pornographic for its depiction of masturbation, and the case was eventually resolved in court in favor of the book. Where does this fit in with your "art following simple precepts," etc., or is Ulysses another masterpiece you're going to throw on the dust pile?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Nothing of the sort. I'm sating that the human mind is capable of understanding much more of what can be directly gleamed using standard logic or direct knowledge. The human mind cannot possibly have any limitation in understanding the works of other human beings for the obvious reason those creations are the result of the exercise of human intellect in the first place.

You are STILL making our (my) argument!

Yet, i can understand Beethoven. Where's the difference?

The "difference" is in the first part of your quote, here. You're making the argument that the human mind IS capable of latching onto things created by other humans. So why is it so hard to understand that some of us latch onto human creations - music - YOU don't care for (or understand)?

It all comes down to maturity, I suppose. Some folks will have an 'understanding' far in advance of others, some far below others, some on equal footing with others. The maturer ones will 'understand' things others will not. It's not like we were all just born with a certain 'understanding' level! There obviously is a range that increases (hopefully) as we mature.

I'd say you (and the OP) are still in the 'learning' stages. That's really all there is to it.

[zamyrabyrd]

I mean, historically, theory has always followed the music, never the other way around.

No. not in the case of the Florentine Camerata whose theories about Greek drama, accompanied monody,
touched off the revolution of Opera just before the end of the 16th century.

ZB

[Symphonien]

...i can go as far as Webern or Ligeti (and in Jazz, John Coltrane) with ease, but anything beyond that it's currently on a strict probation phase.

Ligeti died 2 years ago. So all contemporary music is not obsolete then?

Even if he may not be as "great" as Bach or Beethoven, he is still worthwhile to listen to - and if you enjoy Ligeti, in my opinion there are plenty of other good contemporary composers whose music is no harder to understand. So explore some more! You may realise that there is nothing wrong with "new music" today after all.

[rappy]

It all comes down to maturity, I suppose. Some folks will have an 'understanding' far in advance of others, some far below others, some on equal footing with others. The maturer ones will 'understand' things others will not. It's not like we were all just born with a certain 'understanding' level! There obviously is a range that increases (hopefully) as we mature.

Music is not only about understanding. I can fully understand a Classical symphony and it's still crap. There are certain things which make music worth listening to. With some effort I could list them all (or almost all), considering a certain masterpiece. If you want to know why I like the Don Juan, I will mention the powerful main theme with its forward-pressing rhythm, the lyrical Oboe theme being an excellent contrast, in general: the motivic and thematic ideas, the orchestration (I can go further in detail: for example while the Oboe plays its theme, the basses are devided into 4 voices while the celli play a counterpart etc.), the harmonic progressions, the chronology of the different sections etc.
While I love every second of the masterwork, I think the greatest awards are those passages who send shivers down your spine and/or give you thrills of joy. Without them, I wouldn't listen to music that much, for sure.
Now let's take a work from Xenakis and you, as you think you "understand" it, tell me reasons for why you like it (which I can follow) in the same way.

[(poco) Sforzando]

No. not in the case of the Florentine Camerata whose theories about Greek drama, accompanied monody,
touched off the revolution of Opera just before the end of the 16th century.

ZB

Indeed. Not to mention Wagner's theories about the Gesamtkunstwerk, which he formulated before having written a note of the Ring Cycle.

[karlhenning]

Anti-modernist threads are no fun without Sean......

Western civilization is crashing and burning all around us.  At times like this, what does it matter what the fare to Tooting is, Ma'am?

[karlhenning]

Yes, but you seem to want to ignore the power of the human mind to think in abstractions and reach conclusions which are beyond what can be readily understood or explained.

Your mistake at the outset. I don't ignore this, don't want to ignore this, cannot answer to why you imagine I "seem to want to ignore" it.

[karlhenning]

To be frank, part of the reason why people seem to have such a conflicting perception of art is that there is a difference between experiencing something and truly understanding it, in the sense implied above.

There is an interesting and generally useful point behind this, though, to be frank, it doesn't have much to do with any supposed quarrel to what I've been saying.

Not only is there a difference between experience and understanding (not that I see that problem in evidence in this discussion), but distinct from either of those is observation/reflection.  A lot of the kneejerk reaction to the mere name of Schoenberg (in recent evidence yet again when Levine did his Beethoven-&-Schoenberg programming here in Boston) betrayed a gulf between observation, and experience.

Another valuable distinction to observe (especially in this thread) is the difference between deciding one dislikes something, and understanding (or even experiencing) it.  Many people decide they don't like some kinds of music in advance of any actual experience of the music, and putter with ideas as to why they are sure they will dislike the as-yet-unheard music, and, lo and behold, practice follows theory!

One sees this in various guises.  Most obviously (considering the topic under advisement) there are those who, without having heard any (say) Schoenberg, already spook at the rumor of Schoenberg, and then spook at the abstract discussion of his music;  haven't heard a note of the music yet, but already there is the expectation, or even in many cases the 'certainty', that they Aren't Going To Like THIS.  But what the heck, hardly anyone wants to seem prejudicial and bigoted, so they'll try some Schoenberg;  in a surprisingly high percentage, when they do actually hear the music, they were right all along, they don't like it!

Or, wait; were they were right all along, or did the already-formed prejudice drive the belated experience?

In other cases, one sees this with classical music in general.  I.e., there is some portion of the general public (in the USA) who have not yet actually experienced classical music, but they "know" that they "don't like" it.  Same error, different application.

[Florestan]

I think this is THE kind of discussion which will never reach any conclusion, but here are my two cents.

1. Two of the "classics" mentioned so far, Monteverdi and Beethoven, were just as revolutionary for their times as were Wagner or Schoenberg later. They are "classics" for us, but for their contemporaries their music was something unheard of yet, radically different from what came before them and as such was either regarded with suspicion or fully rejected by not a few of the musical establishment members.

2. The "contemporary music" is a vague term under which can be brought together composers which have absolutely nothing in common besides the fact that they "compose". I've heard contemporary pieces which made me "run like hell" and others which made me cry. There is room for everyone to satisfy his / her tastes, from the most radical "conservative" to the most radical "progressive". Why some people seem not to be able to fully enjoy what they like without dismissing as inferior and invaluable what they don't like has been, is and will forever remain a mistery to me.

There, two!

[karlhenning]

Of course, lots of folks cry while they're running like hell . . . .

Jests aside, well said, Andrei.

[Florestan]

Of course, lots of folks cry while they're running like hell . . . .

[(poco) Sforzando]

Give me one good reason why i should waste my time with inferior crap when i can gorge myself in the genius of Bach.

Phrased that aggressively, your question appears rhetorical. But what's really going on here - and which you don't admit - is an implied either/or condition where there is only "genius" (Bach, Beethoven, I don't know if anyone else is admitted to the pantheon) and "inferior crap" (apparently most everybody else). You don't allow any shades of grey in between. It's fine to have high standards, but to affect a myopic blindness to the merits of any work that falls short of the very highest is to shortchange yourself.

[karlhenning]

Gosh, if anyone likes Bach that much, sure, no reason why he cannot spend all his listening time with Bach, and ignore every composer else.  No question of inferiority, or superiority, or genius is necessarily involved.

[ChamberNut]

The best is for people to listen to whatever they enjoy. IMO, music should not be a burden.

Post of the day!  Frankly, this is the sanest post (including my own  ) on this thread.

0:)

[Florestan]

After hearing Beethoven's op. 131, Schubert is reported to have said: "What  is left for us to compose after that?"  

And yet he didn't stop composing and I'd say that his late string quartets, his string quintet, his last three piano sonatas and his last two symphonies are on a par with Beethoven.

Brahms was also scared by Beethoven's symphonic output yet he left us his own legacy, again on a par with his predecessor.

[karlhenning]

After hearing Beethoven's op. 131, Schubert is reported to have said: "What  is left for us to compose after that?"  

And yet he didn't stop composing and I'd say that his late string quartets, his string quintet, his last three piano sonatas and his last two symphonies are on a par with Beethoven.

Brahms was also scared by Beethoven's symphonic output yet he left us his own legacy, again on a par with his predecessor.

Admiration of the great music for the past is right and proper.

It does not at all follow that we have to consider any one composer (or two composers) "the greatest," and all music else is inferior.  (Which is not to say, either, that all music is 'equally great'.)

[Florestan]

A question for Josquin: assuming you've listened to their music, just what make Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok or Enescu inferior to Beethoven, other than your own taste?

[rappy]

A question for Josquin: assuming you've listened to their music, just what make Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok or Enescu inferior to Beethoven, other than your own taste?

Those are not contemporary composers