Is the composer obsolete?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Tchah?

[Gurn Blanston]

Tchah?

Humbug. Bullcrap. I spit on your mother's feet... You know, Tchah! 

[Szykneij]

Tchah?

kovsky?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Humbug. Bullcrap. I spit on your mother's feet... You know, Tchah! 

Oh! my mother's feet. I got it. 

[Mark G. Simon]

I think Wuorinen's proclamation on entertainment is idiotic,

I wouldn't say it's idiotic. Wrong-headed, yes, an overreaction against the worst examples of the music which presents itself as "entertainment" these days, but not idiotic. It's wrong-headed because divides music into black and white categories, easy music and difficult music. The idea that music might have some elements which may be received without effort and others which require a good deal of effort never seems to have occurred to him*, and the idea that artistry involves finding a proper balance between "easy" ideas against "difficult" ones would be beyond his grasp (assuming one accepts his definition of art and entertainment in the first place).

I've said this a million times, art is not opposed to entertainment. Art is a subset of entertainment. Art does indeed give you something more, and therefore may require more effort, but it only impoverishes itself when it tries to exclude entertainment.


* (my beef with Wuorinen here is more philosophical than musical. Wuorinen's own compositions show much more flexibility than his statement would suggest)

[karlhenning]

A hey nonny no and a hot-cha-cha

[karlhenning]

I wouldn't say it's idiotic. Wrong-headed, yes, an overreaction against the worst examples of the music which presents itself as "entertainment" these days, but not idiotic. It's wrong-headed because divides music into black and white categories, easy music and difficult music. The idea that music might have some elements which may be received without effort and others which require a good deal of effort never seems to have occurred to him*, and the idea that artistry involves finding a proper balance between "easy" ideas against "difficult" ones would be beyond his grasp (assuming one accepts his definition of art and entertainment in the first place).

I've said this a million times, art is not opposed to entertainment. Art is a subset of entertainment. Art does indeed give you something more, and therefore may require more effort, but it only impoverishes itself when it tries to exclude entertainment.


* (my beef with Wuorinen here is more philosophical than musical. Wuorinen's own compositions show much more flexibility than his statement would suggest)

All very sensible, Mark.

[71 dB]

Let's turn this around a bit. You call yourself Josquin des Prez. Presumably there's a reason for that. People grounded in the pre-tonal era consider Josquin des Prez one of the truly great composers - along with Dufay, Lasso, and few others. Yet the modern audiences who lap up Romantic music as if it's the only ice cream in town show not the slightest interest in the music of Josquin des Prez. Or Lasso, or Dufay, or Machaut, or Monteverdi. Why? because Josquin is not as "great" as Wagner or Mahler? or is it perhaps instead that Josquin's idiom is less familiar, and takes greater exposure before one can get past the strangeness of the idiom to the music within?

I have to admit I haven't explored Josquin des Prez. I don't know if I have ever heard his music. I don't have that many CDs of renaissance music. I like Palestrina but generally I feel renaissance music has not much to offer. Baroque music interests me significantly more. However, I give credit to renaissance composers for developping counterpoint. Music just got so much richer in the hands of baroque composers.

[orbital]

Ultimately it's a problem of exposure. The 19th century saw a huge amount of music thrown into a Darwinian scuffle for immortality - audiences (and musicians) knew their stuff, and the desire for new music was matched by a willingness to praise or excoriate without favour. Now, new music occasionally surfaces and must be treasured like oil, because it seems so rare and ephemeral to us. This, combined with the academicisation of music has led to an audience (small but enthusiastic) afraid to call shenanigans on pretentious junk, for fear of dooming the whole enterprise.

I don't know much about contemporary music, but this paragraph rings somewhat true to me. At least when applied to other arts outside music.
The reasons are very valid, I must say. With regards to art in general, getting the level of attention it is getting in our day, an implied internal reaction to protect whatever small output there is out there makes perfect sense. it may even be the only way to preserve its continuity. And more importantly, its progression

[karlhenning]

"Afraid to call shenanigans on pretentious junk" does not ring true in the least, IMO.

One of the lessons of Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective, is what priceless asses subsequent history shows people to be, who are ready, simply on the basis of their not immediately twigging a piece of music which is subsequently regarded as a classic, to cry "shenanigans."

Nobody "knows" any music for junk just from a personal experience of non-comprehension;  "calling shenanigans" is intellectually dishonest. That is the fact of the matter.  All one can say is, I don't care for it.  Let time sort it out later.

[orbital]

"Afraid to call shenanigans on pretentious junk" does not ring true in the least, IMO.

One of the lessons of Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective, is what priceless asses subsequent history shows people to be, who are ready, simply on the basis of their not immediately twigging a piece of music which is subsequently regarded as a classic, to cry "shenanigans."

Nobody "knows" any music for junk just from a personal experience of non-comprehension;  "calling shenanigans" is intellectually dishonest. That is the fact of the matter.  All one can say is, I don't care for it.  Let time sort it out later.

Of course name calling is out of bounds, I did not want to imply that. My mistake.
But isn't there some lack of serious (or harsh) criticism in modern art in general? Not necessarily only from critics, but from the audience, viewer, etc? I am thinking that the reason for this may be the diminished amount of output, or maybe that the ones that would justify true negative criticism, perhaps, do not even get the chance to put themselves out there.

[(poco) Sforzando]

But isn't there some lack of serious (or harsh) criticism in modern art in general?

If you can bear it, read Henry Pleasants's The Agony of Modern Music for a starter. I can't think of any artistic period that has been subjected to more harsh criticism than the 20th century.

[karlhenning]

Of course name calling is out of bounds, I did not want to imply that. My mistake.
But isn't there some lack of serious (or harsh) criticism in modern art in general? Not necessarily only from critics, but from the audience, viewer, etc? I am thinking that the reason for this may be the diminished amount of output, or maybe that the ones that would justify true negative criticism, perhaps, do not even get the chance to put themselves out there.

You've refocused the question very well, and I salute you.

To condemn a piece of art (justly, and not merely to express dislike for it) what is needed?

[rickardg]

[A]rt is not opposed to entertainment. Art is a subset of entertainment. Art does indeed give you something more, and therefore may require more effort, but it only impoverishes itself when it tries to exclude entertainment.

QFT

Sorry for posting a "me too"-post but this sums it up far more eloquently than the half-baked message I just didn't post.

[orbital]

If you can bear it, read Henry Pleasants's The Agony of Modern Music for a starter. I can't think of any artistic period that has been subjected to more harsh criticism than the 20th century.

Thank you, I will keep that in mind.
But as I said, my experience in (and exposure to) modern music is ridiculously low. That's why I thought of expanding the subject to arts in general which music is, by default,  a part of. Modern dance, architecture, painting, installations, and even literature. I was thinking of someone along the lines of Basquiat (whose talent is apparent, but the exuberant praise he has been showered with makes one want to say "come on"  )

You've refocused the question very well, and I salute you.

To condemn a piece of art (justly, and not merely to express dislike for it) what is needed?

Good question, Karl. To condemn a piece of art, the only thing that can be needed and put forth might be complete lack of aesthetics, perhaps. That's the only thing I can think of.
But of course, aesthetics is not a constant point in time and space. We have grown to like glass buildings, male M.Butterflies, profiles of women with both eyes showing, and pissoires 

[Philoctetes]

Degenerate art has always been around. People have always decried it. People have always loved it. I find it near silly to hear such absurd proclaimations of an overriding aesthetic thought. If history has taught us anything it is simply that there isn't a universal present here.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Thank you, I will keep that in mind.
But as I said, my experience in (and exposure to) modern music is ridiculously low. That's why I thought of expanding the subject to arts in general which music is, by default,  a part of. Modern dance, architecture, painting, installations, and even literature. I was thinking of someone along the lines of Basquiat (whose talent is apparent, but the exuberant praise he has been showered with makes one want to say "come on"  )
Good question, Karl. To condemn a piece of art, the only thing that can be needed and put forth might be complete lack of aesthetics, perhaps. That's the only thing I can think of.
But of course, aesthetics is not a constant point in time and space. We have grown to like glass buildings, male M.Butterflies, profiles of women with both eyes showing, and pissoires 

I like glass buildings. Or rather some of them:

[some guy]

...the diminished amount of output....

What is this diminished output to which you refer? From where I'm standing, I see quite the opposite going on.

[orbital]

What is this diminished output to which you refer? From where I'm standing, I see quite the opposite going on.

I thought that was established earlier in the thread. That's what I built upon. Are there many composers today with ouvres as vast as those from say a century (or two) ago?

[Gurn Blanston]

"Afraid to call shenanigans on pretentious junk" does not ring true in the least, IMO.

One of the lessons of Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective, is what priceless asses subsequent history shows people to be, who are ready, simply on the basis of their not immediately twigging a piece of music which is subsequently regarded as a classic, to cry "shenanigans."

Was it not Slonimsky himself who critiqued Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto with the priceless line "it stinks in the ear"?  Post WW II music hasn't come into any more or more severe criticism that any other current modern music did in its own time. There are just more of us now, and communication is so much more immediate, that we see public opinion influenced today by what was written last night.

I thought for a while that I was being put in the unenviable position of agreeing with Josquin for the first time ever. But among other things in the last couple of days, I re-read Copland's "What to listen for..." and I also did listen again to some "modern" music (Schnittke, to be precise). And I decided that I would stick with my original POV, which is that, while this is not for me, it isn't tripe, poppycock or bullsh!t". It isn't Mozart either, but that's OK, neither is anything else.