Is the composer obsolete?

[some guy]

24.

It's da highest numbah. (Fuggidaboudit.)

[Symphonien]

24.

It's da highest numbah. (Fuggidaboudit.)

25 is higher.

[Kullervo]

24.

It's da highest numbah. (Fuggidaboudit.)

Look... all's I'm sayin' is 24 is da highest numba!

[Wanderer]

42. Never forget 42.

That's the answer. We still haven't figured out the question! 

[Ten thumbs]

Define coherent and define style, please. Is serialism not coherent? Is spectralism not coherent?

The operative word is 'single'. You have already mentioned two.
My thoughts were to experiment electronically with scales based differing numbers of notes to the octave, ie not the traditional 12, but say 14, 15, 16 etc. however, I never found any software that was capable of allowing this.

[quintett op.57]

I agree with what Wuorinen said.

I don't, I don't think art necessarily requires effort.
But it's true that almost every classical piece I know brings more pleasure when listened carefully (even Vivaldi, Paganini & Liszt, whatever they say ; same with the Rolling Stones and Lee Scratch Perry, by the way)

[petrarch]

The operative word is 'single'. You have already mentioned two.
My thoughts were to experiment electronically with scales based differing numbers of notes to the octave, ie not the traditional 12, but say 14, 15, 16 etc. however, I never found any software that was capable of allowing this.

Oh, the way you worded it implied that no style was coherent. BTW, Csound does alternate tunings quite easily. A scale that has potential is 53 TET, which I actually derived mathematically before I found out it has a rich history.

[karlhenning]

I agree with what Wuorinen said.

I don't, I don't think art necessarily requires effort.

That's all right.

I just want to note that some of the intelligent and apt objections to Wuorinen's remarks imply certain rigidities which may or may not be there.  His remarks may strike one as more reasonable if, for instance, his distinction between art and entertainment is taken as opposing tendencies, rather than non-miscible elements;  and if his characterization of art as 'that which requires effort' (something generally reasonable, I think;  who here can say that all — or even most — of the art he loves, came to him effortlessly?) is not taken as a sort of acid-test.

[jochanaan]

In view of the recording and computer revolution in music, wouldn't "performer as obsolete" be the more relevant question?

(ducking for cover)

A very valid question, Ms. Byrd.  If you accept at face value what a lot of people say, there aren't any great performers left either.

But all my experiences as listener and performer lead me to feel that there is a spiritual connection established at every live musical event that isn't there, at least to the same degree, when we listen to recordings.  The stronger the performers and music, the stronger the connection; yet it exists even for events such as the street rappers I've heard on the bus.  (Very good rappers, by the way, and I didn't hear a single "motherf*#!er" in their verses. )  I wonder if a backlash against listening-aided-by-technology may develop in the next few years...

[jochanaan]

Look... all's I'm sayin' is 24 is da highest numba!

But "One is the loneliest..." (Apologies to Three Dog Night.)

I don't, I don't think art necessarily requires effort.

Speaking as a performer, and thus ostensibly an artist: Yes it does!  And the more effortless it looks, the more effort it takes--if not immediate effort, then certainly effort spread over years to produce the effect of effortlessness.

[drogulus]

But it's the Dead Guys that keep the art alive!

     It's a trick of perspective to see this as completely true, since 99% of composers are dead. And remember, it isn't the same dead guys, though the overlap is considerable. So even if it takes time to turn over from one era to the next, it still happens. The radicals don't get what they want, instant acknowledgment that they're right and everyone else is wrong, and the conservatives can pretend that they always liked the now acceptable modernists.

     

      Cybernetic Composer Replacement.

[Mark G. Simon]

I just want to note that some of the intelligent and apt objections to Wuorinen's remarks imply certain rigidities which may or may not be there.  His remarks may strike one as more reasonable if, for instance, his distinction between art and entertainment is taken as opposing tendencies, rather than non-miscible elements;  and if his characterization of art as 'that which requires effort' (something generally reasonable, I think;  who here can say that all — or even most — of the art he loves, came to him effortlessly?) is not taken as a sort of acid-test.

Actually, going back to the article again, it is clear that Wuorinen is talking only about cultural relativism, the kind that our frequent opponent, "dq" on the CMF is always advocating. This is the attitude that says rock, rap, blues, whatever else, are to be considered equal, and it is snobbery and elitism to assert the superiority of classical music. He (Wuorinen) even implies that art encompasses entertainment.

But to say, as so many cultural observers do, that really, these things are all the same, they are all of equivalent value - the person who sticks a microphone in his mouth and sings a rock song is the equivalent of a highly trained opera singer, for example - it's just nonsense. One is accused of being too sober or too severe. That's just silly. People are missing the fun of high art if they think such things.

Harbison then tries to bring up the sense of art vs. entertainment that has so often come up in our discussions, but Wuorinen rejects that angle:

HARBISON: I like that, but I would want to say this about it, too: that it's possible for people who intend to always entertain to produce something that is very perceptible as art, and by contrast it's also possible for people who are intending to make very high art to produce nothing more than entertainment. In other words, there's an accidental blurring that takes place quite often.
   
WUORINEN: I'm not speaking about what happens in the real world. I'm speaking about a kind of cultural ideology which is promoted ...,


So, based on the context of the article, it is clear that Wuorinen is not saying something that I can stand opposed to. And what he's saying is something different than either of us has been trying to make it.

[Ten thumbs]

Oh, the way you worded it implied that no style was coherent. BTW, Csound does alternate tunings quite easily. A scale that has potential is 53 TET, which I actually derived mathematically before I found out it has a rich history.

Thanks. I'm glad something exists now. I was trying to work on it twenty odd years ago.

[petrarch]

Thanks. I'm glad something exists now. I was trying to work on it twenty odd years ago.

Csound/Music N (its precursors) have existed since the late 60s.

[eyeresist]

...his characterization of art as 'that which requires effort' (something generally reasonable, I think;  who here can say that all — or even most — of the art he loves, came to him effortlessly?)

Have you never encountered a work of art and immediately known that it was wonderful? How very sad....

Your original conclusion was that your opinions could not be called nonsense. Your revised conclusion was that all statements about aesthetic matters could be called nonsense. Hmmm.

What I said was "... as aesthetic matters are finally subjective, my opinion is not "nonsense". Or at least no more than any other opinion."

Strange to have to defend such a flippant remark!

[karlhenning]

Have you never encountered a work of art and immediately known that it was wonderful? How very sad....

Of course I have, many times; so you'll have to reconsider my remark.

Not all the works of art which I knew immediately to be wonderful, did I understand completely, or even very well, right away.

[Ten thumbs]

Csound/Music N (its precursors) have existed since the late 60s.

Ah, but I only had a Dragon 32 at the time!

[LVB_opus.125]

A very valid question, Ms. Byrd.  If you accept at face value what a lot of people say, there aren't any great performers left either.

But all my experiences as listener and performer lead me to feel that there is a spiritual connection established at every live musical event that isn't there, at least to the same degree, when we listen to recordings.  The stronger the performers and music, the stronger the connection; yet it exists even for events such as the street rappers I've heard on the bus.  (Very good rappers, by the way, and I didn't hear a single "motherf*#!er" in their verses. )  I wonder if a backlash against listening-aided-by-technology may develop in the next few years...

You raise good points about live performance. I often pine for the return of (regular) live performers. There's a man that plays an electronic piano outside of a locksmith shop, and he always commands my attention. Whenever I hear *live* instruments, I become curious and seek out the source with much fascination. On the other side of the coin we have the piped in music problem in public and professional spaces. This music is almost always unwelcome to any lover of art, and is pretty much homogeneous everywhere, mirroring smooth jazz and soft rock radio stations designed for 40 something housewives with questionable tastes. A street performer, however, is pretty much different from what you'd immediately find on any radio station or muzak filth, good or bad, at least it's not the same ol'.

[Ten thumbs]

You raise good points about live performance. I often pine for the return of (regular) live performers. There's a man that plays an electronic piano outside of a locksmith shop, and he always commands my attention. Whenever I hear *live* instruments, I become curious and seek out the source with much fascination. On the other side of the coin we have the piped in music problem in public and professional spaces. This music is almost always unwelcome to any lover of art, and is pretty much homogeneous everywhere, mirroring smooth jazz and soft rock radio stations designed for 40 something housewives with questionable tastes. A street performer, however, is pretty much different from what you'd immediately find on any radio station or muzak filth, good or bad, at least it's not the same ol'.

I agree that live music is great to listen to. However, we all have favorite pieces that we listen to time and time again on CDs because no performer can be persuaded to play it time and time again for us. That is one of the advantages of being a performer oneself, even if not at a professional level.

[eyeresist]

On the other side of the coin we have the piped in music problem in public and professional spaces. This music is almost always unwelcome to any lover of art, and is pretty much homogeneous everywhere, mirroring smooth jazz and soft rock radio stations designed for 40 something housewives with questionable tastes.

Music in public places is my nemesis, especially in pubs and cafes. I can't help but listen, and if I dislike the music I have a terrible time. I seem to be the only person who can't just block it out.

Not all the works of art which I knew immediately to be wonderful, did I understand completely, or even very well, right away.

Which raises the question "Does art have to be deeply understood?" There are undoubtedly rewards for study, but such study has always been the province of an expert minority. Until the self-consciousness of Modernity, I don't know know that many artists thought their audiences had a duty to be reverently attentive (except for church music, obviously).