Schonberg on Sibelius

Started by Sef, October 06, 2008, 01:52:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mn dave

Quote from: Dundonnell on December 05, 2008, 04:11:01 AM
As I have said(boasted) before, I bet I am the only member here whose father nearly met Sibelius once. He had an invitation from the future Finnish President, Marshal Mannerheim, in 1937 to visit Sibelius at his country retreat but for some reason(?) the meeting fell through ??? :(

How did he get that invite? I mean, who is your father?

Brian

Quote from: Dundonnell on December 05, 2008, 03:41:06 AM
Who?? ;D ;D

You are, of course, absolutely correct :) Indeed one could argue that there is hardly a single Scandinavian composer who has not been to some extent influenced by the music of Sibelius :)
Berwald  ;)

karlhenning


greg

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 04, 2008, 05:56:49 PM
I must say I've never heard of this Tanguy. I wonder, if he's so insignificant, why he represents such a threat to Two-Tone. Surely Tanguy could be counted on to disappear on his own if his music is so trivial. But since Two-Tone seems terribly threatened by it, I think I'm going to have to look up this Tanguy and give him a listen. Thanks for the tip.
Just go to the beach and you'll find him composing...

drogulus

#204
      For opinions on music you go to music lovers. I only care about what professionals think if they too are engaged with listeners. I'm don't read novels for novelists, or care for any art produced only for the delectation of specialists. And, more to the point, there's no reason to believe that the art produced by a small group of initiates for "members only" has any lasting value, while the evidence for the value of art meant to be appreciated outside the realm of experts is overwhelming. It includes Shakespeare, Dickens, Tolstoy, Beethoven, Mozart, Stravinsky, and Sibelius. Dickens, remember, was serialized in the newspapers.

      I see no reason to believe that deliberately restricting the appeal of a work to the smallest possible circle of appreciators has played any role in the history of great art. Art does not become great that way. The ultras have, in my opinion, made a simple but very serious error in thinking they can bypass the only jury that matters by appealing to some abstract idea of art too perfect to be appreciated by mere mortals.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

karlhenning

Quote from: drogulus on December 05, 2008, 12:18:24 PM
      I see no reason to believe that deliberately restricting the appeal of a work to the smallest possible circle of appreciators has played any role in the history of great art.

What a blow to the makers of Death Metal . . . .

Kuhlau

Quote from: drogulus on December 05, 2008, 12:18:24 PM

      For opinions on music you go to music lovers. I only care about what professionals think if they too are engaged with listeners. I'm don't read novels for novelists, or care for any art produced only for the delectation of specialists. And, more to the point, there's no reason to believe that the art produced by a small group of initiates for "members only" has any lasting value, while the evidence for the value of art meant to be appreciated outside the realm of experts is overwhelming. It includes Shakespeare, Dickens, Tolstoy, Beethoven, Mozart, Stravinsky, and Sibelius. Dickens, remember, was serialized in the newspapers.

      I see no reason to believe that deliberately restricting the appeal of a work to the smallest possible circle of appreciators has played any role in the history of great art. Art does not become great that way. The ultras have, in my opinion, made a simple but very serious error in thinking they can bypass the only jury that matters by appealing to some abstract idea of art too perfect to be appreciated by mere mortals.

I've said this many times in the past: We need a damned applause smiley in this place. >:( ;D

Very well put, sir. You speak for me, also.

Quote from: karlhenning on December 05, 2008, 12:25:13 PM
What a blow to the makers of Death Metal . . . .

This, too, is great art - the great art of the one-liner, that is. ;)

FK

drogulus

Quote from: karlhenning on December 05, 2008, 12:25:13 PM
What a blow to the makers of Death Metal . . . .

     Karl, you've hit on something. It doesn't matter whether it's adolescent frustrations or Romantic rebellion or some other process of alienation. Any reason for turning you back on the unworthy audience can have the same result, though I think actively propagating the idea that the audience doesn't matter is a particularly good strategy. That's the "high road". :D Or you can just make loud noises to piss people off and let others make up the reasons.  :)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

some guy

Quote from: drogulus on December 05, 2008, 12:18:24 PM
      For opinions on music you go to music lovers. I only care about what professionals think unless they too are engaged with listeners.
You do not, just for balance's sake, speak for me, however. Professionals in music are music lovers as well. They are listeners themselves, not just "engaged with" them. They are listeners who are engaged with music beyond what one would expect from most concert goers. (Would you go only to patients for opinions on drugs, or would you perhaps also consider the expertise of physicians and pharmacists?)

Quote from: drogulus on December 05, 2008, 12:18:24 PMI'm don't read novels for novelists, or care for any art produced only for the delectation of specialists. And, more to the point, there's no reason to believe that the art produced by a small group of initiates for "members only" has any lasting value, while the evidence for the value of art meant to be appreciated outside the realm of experts is overwhelming. It includes Shakespeare, Dickens, Tolstoy, Beethoven, Mozart, Stravinsky, and Sibelius. Dickens, remember, was serialized in the newspapers.

I see no reason to believe that deliberately restricting the appeal of a work to the smallest possible circle of appreciators has played any role in the history of great art. Art does not become great that way. The ultras have, in my opinion, made a simple but very serious error in thinking they can bypass the only jury that matters by appealing to some abstract idea of art too perfect to be appreciated by mere mortals.

As for the rest of this screed, it relies on a common distortion of the picture, so common that the picture itself, when presented straight, seems itself to be a distortion. Who, one must ask, deliberately restricts the appeal of their work to the smallest possible circle of appreciators? It is true that "it's not appreciated by the masses [whoever the hell they are] therefore it's good" is fallacious. But it's equally true that "works that 'mere mortals' cannot understand are therefore lousy" is equally false. How can you tell if a work that appeals (at first) to only a small circle of appreciators was only made deliberately for them? And why, even if that were true, do you think it's okay to marginalize the experience of that circle, simply because it's small?

Composers are interested in being heard. All of them, I would venture to guess (even though I only know a handful of them personally). But their job is not to guess whether this or that will please everyone, right away. They are interested, first and foremost, with their craft. Which notes go where and played by whom. Which noises to come out of the front speakers and which out of the side and rear ones and when to have them swirl around the circle. Whether to write out every last detail or whether to leave things open to chance. Things like that. That's not to say that they're ignoring "the audience." It's just to say that pleasing an audience, of whatever size, is a side-effect of doing the work itself.

Loud noises, just by the way, do not piss everyone off!

Mark G. Simon

Quote from: drogulus on December 05, 2008, 12:18:24 PM
      For opinions on music you go to music lovers. I only care about what professionals think unless they too are engaged with listeners. I'm don't read novels for novelists, or care for any art produced only for the delectation of specialists. And, more to the point, there's no reason to believe that the art produced by a small group of initiates for "members only" has any lasting value, while the evidence for the value of art meant to be appreciated outside the realm of experts is overwhelming. It includes Shakespeare, Dickens, Tolstoy, Beethoven, Mozart, Stravinsky, and Sibelius. Dickens, remember, was serialized in the newspapers.

      I see no reason to believe that deliberately restricting the appeal of a work to the smallest possible circle of appreciators has played any role in the history of great art. Art does not become great that way. The ultras have, in my opinion, made a simple but very serious error in thinking they can bypass the only jury that matters by appealing to some abstract idea of art too perfect to be appreciated by mere mortals.

Very well put, drogs. I agree.

Dundonnell

Quote from: Brian on December 05, 2008, 08:41:48 AM
Berwald  ;)

I did say "hardly a single". That was meant to exclude those who were born before Sibelius (and died when Sibelius was aged 3!) ;D ;D

Dundonnell

Quote from: mn dave on December 05, 2008, 05:34:31 AM
How did he get that invite? I mean, who is your father?

My father decided to go on holiday to Finland in May 1937. He travelled by sea and also travelling on the same ship was the Finnish general Field Marshal Mannerheim who had been attending the coronation of King George VI in London as the representative of the Finnish Government.

Mannerheim and my father got talking about their common love of classical music(I seem to remember that Mannerheim really admired Mozart). Mannerheim knew Sibelius well and offered to arrange for my father to be taken from Helsinki to Sibelius's country retreat to meet the composer. Why the visit fell through I cannot remember! My father is now long dead...so I can't ask him and I shall never know the answer, I am afraid.

drogulus

Quote from: some guy on December 05, 2008, 01:30:47 PM

Professionals in music are music lovers as well. They are listeners themselves, not just "engaged with" them. They are listeners who are engaged with music beyond what one would expect from most concert goers.

    They have a vote. I don't know why people can't be argued into liking music the way you try to do here. Maybe the music sends the only message that matters, so the ideologues are missing the point. Their reasons don't matter.

   
Quote from: some guy on December 05, 2008, 01:30:47 PM

(Would you go only to patients for opinions on drugs, or would you perhaps also consider the expertise of physicians and pharmacists?)


    Loving music requires no expertise, and the doctors you want me to consult don't want to cure their patients, they want to replace them. Real patients aren't good enough for them.

     
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

drogulus

Quote from: some guy on December 05, 2008, 01:30:47 PM


Composers are interested in being heard. All of them, I would venture to guess (even though I only know a handful of them personally). But their job is not to guess whether this or that will please everyone, right away. They are interested, first and foremost, with their craft. Which notes go where and played by whom. Which noises to come out of the front speakers and which out of the side and rear ones and when to have them swirl around the circle. Whether to write out every last detail or whether to leave things open to chance. Things like that. That's not to say that they're ignoring "the audience." It's just to say that pleasing an audience, of whatever size, is a side-effect of doing the work itself.

     Composers may have beliefs that conflict with their desire to be heard. One of these is that there's something called the "work" which requires that the audience be considered as secondary, if not a positive nuisance. After all, there's important work to be done!

     What is this work, when it's divorced from music lovers? How does this compartmentalization produce works of art that last for centuries? Has it done so? So far it hasn't. Our artistic experience is with artists going the direct route of making works to be appreciated by those who care. The audience may be large or small, but it is never a side effect. Reaching them is the work.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

mn dave

Quote from: Dundonnell on December 05, 2008, 02:42:52 PM
My father decided to go on holiday to Finland in May 1937. He travelled by sea and also travelling on the same ship was the Finnish general Field Marshal Mannerheim who had been attending the coronation of King George VI in London as the representative of the Finnish Government.

Mannerheim and my father got talking about their common love of classical music(I seem to remember that Mannerheim really admired Mozart). Mannerheim knew Sibelius well and offered to arrange for my father to be taken from Helsinki to Sibelius's country retreat to meet the composer. Why the visit fell through I cannot remember! My father is now long dead...so I can't ask him and I shall never know the answer, I am afraid.

Thank you for sharing that story.

Dundonnell

Quote from: mn dave on December 05, 2008, 03:29:44 PM
Thank you for sharing that story.

It would have been a better story if he HAD actually met Sibelius though ;D

some guy

Quote from: drogulus on December 05, 2008, 02:43:49 PMI don't know why people can't be argued into liking music the way you try to do here. Maybe the music sends the only message that matters, so the ideologues are missing the point. Their reasons don't matter.
I don't see where in my post you got the idea that I was trying to argue people into liking music. That would indeed be bootless (though I have made a few attempts now and again ;D). As for music sending the only message that matters, we are in almost total agreement. But we are hampered here, as discussants, by the fact that no names have been named of those you disapprove of. Who are the composers who write only for the delectation of specialists? Who belongs to the small group of initiates? And who are the ideologues who are missing the point?

In the meantime, I'll offer, as a music lover (and therefore someone you'd go to for an opinion) a few composers whose music has been thoroughly enjoyable and thoroughly enjoyed over the years, by music lovers who are professionals and by those who are not, alike. (I chose people who have been accused of deliberately restricting the appeal of their works to the smallest circle of appreciators, by the way, of writing music that not only could not be understood but that would never be understood.)

Beethoven
Berlioz
Schumann
Brahms
Tchaikovsky
Wagner
Debussy
Sibelius
Schoenberg
Varèse
Cage
Boulez
Stockhausen
Lachenmann