Last Friday week, I attended a public lecture at Sydney Conservatorium of Music given by composer, musicologist and broadcaster Andrew Ford. It preceded a performance of the music of Schoenberg and Berg, and discussed their work as well as that of Webern (the three making up the 'Second Viennese School'). The following is a condensed version of his lecture, some of it in my own words, some of it using quotes from him. I have tried not to comment here on what he said, simply relate it.
The main issue was whether what these guys did is of any importance to the composers of today. In other words, do the young composers of today think their work is relevant to what they are doing, and do they look for "inspiration, example or guidance" in the works of these composers?
Ford started by discussing how these three composers have had an aesthetic and intellectual "aura" around their work, which has (mainly) not been a helpful one. It was a "destructive attitude" which lead to much "terrible music" being composed by others who had a "rudimentary grasp of the concepts" established by the big three. It was damaging to the relationship between composers and their audience.
Ford discussed the time around 1975 when he first became aware of the works of the Second Viennese School as a music student in London. In the 1970's there were many LP recordings made of these composers works, particularly Schoenberg (1974 being the anniversary of his birth) and Berg (with the premiere of his opera Lulu in it's completed form in 1979). So these were "auspicious days" for these three composer's music.
In the music schools of England, there was an ideology of "regression versus stagnation" which had been exemplified by Pierre Boulez's comments to the effect that unless composers worked to "advance the language of music" then their works would be "useless." For Ford at 18, being at the vanguard of music was an "attractive, Romantic notion," and the Second Viennese School "clearly lead the way."
What attracted Ford and others to this music was it's completely different harmonies and the unique sounds that atonality could render. Schoenberg's (apparent) comment to friend Joseph Wolfe that his discovery of serialism would ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years was also read by Ford to mean (in his teens) that "this was the future of music."
The first serial pieces were composed in the mid-1920's. Since 1945, Webern's music in particular appealed to some composers (but not audiences). Webern's music was analysed and studied, and used as an example as to how to compose serial music. Ford said that with Webern's music "every note mattered" and in adopting this technique, composers were "slowed down a bit" and "made accountable" for everything they did.
There was a "purity" in Webern's music, and it was easy for young composers to "jump from that idea of purity to believe that we were coming up with something new." This attitude made them "dismiss and question music that didn't fit the bill" like Britten, Copland, Vaughan Williams, Sibelius. Ford said that he even got rid of his pop music collection at that time, only to buy it back again later. They also dismissed minimalism which was seen as "so simple, so missing the point of what music could be." Now, of course, it is seen as an important style.
As a young man, the "dogma" of serialism took hold of Ford's mind as a composer. The problem was not the music of the big three but the "dogma" of the establishment. Today, however, he says he has tried to rid himself of the dogma. Composers like Harrison Birtwistle show that Schoenberg's music doesn't have to be understood by the composers of today for them to be good composers. "Schoenberg never actually was the future of music, neither was Berg or Webern." We have come to "think of composers as composers and simply listen to their music, not necessarily think that it's the future (or not), just hear it as music."
Ford then discussed the music of each of the big three in more detail.
Webern was "poorly served by his admirers and proselatisers." Ford said that it was easy to analyse Webern's music as a student - "there are not many notes." "After an hour you could account for every note in the piece - see how it was all put together - yet you understood nothing of the music." The same with "row hunting" which "at the end said nothing about the rhythm or dynamics of a piece." & you "cant hear a 12 tone row, it's not meant to be heard like a theme." So analysis tended to "concentrate on something you couldn't hear" and wasn't "getting close to the music." But what strikes Ford now about Webern's music is it's beauty, the "radiant surfaces" and the "holes or gaps between the notes are just as important as the notes themselves." & the listener hears (say) the "three octave jumps" between the notes, not what the notes themselves are.
With Webern, "there isn't much there" in terms of content and it is "highly transparent" - "what you hear is what you get." The predicters of the future post-war "simply missed the point of what the composer was doing." Webern was "a very human composer" and his hobbies of mountain climbing and collecting crystals is perhaps connected to the angularity and feeling of refracted light in his music. The man "loved nature" and you can clearly hear this in his music.
Berg was seen as the "acceptable" face of the Second Viennese School. To the post-war theorists he was seen as somewhat of a "Romantic backslider and not as serious as the other two or a softie." Today, we can more clearly see the "complexity and multi-layered nature" of his music. Ford said that of the three, he most enjoys listening to the music of Berg, as it seems to offer something new with repeated listening.
& Schoenberg has been the most controversial one. "Claims have been made for and against him." In terms of the post war theorists like Boulez and Adorno, he was seen as being past his use by date because "he hadn't gone the whole hog - discovered serialism and retreated to a neo-classical world." But again, Ford says that today we are more able to "simply listen to the music" without making these judgements. In fact, a work that the two critics above targeted as being soft, the Serenade, is full of humour and references to the past - in an old as well as in a (perhaps) a post-modern kind of way. Keeping an ear out for these things, "the composer seems suddenly human."
Composers and listeners today are "coming to reject all of the dogma that surrounded these composers and just like or admire the music much more greatly." "The fierce ideological battles that went on in the Twentieth Century to do with how modern you were and what that meant have now more or less gone." Composers today just "listen to the sounds in their heads" and listeners are "unencumbered by feelings that they should or should not have." People don't care about what's too simplistic or more complex, they just listen to the music that they like.
To conclude, Ford commented that the Second Viennese School "didn't ensure the future of German or other music" but they were "great individualists and great original innovators and that was enough."
So what are people's thoughts and responses to what Andrew Ford said?. Feel free to discuss, I will join in later...
(P.S. I've posted this on another classical forum, but got no replies, so I thought I'd post it here as well. Perhaps people will take some time to read Ford's thoughts, which I thought were quite interesting and thought-provoking(?)).
Quote. . . they were "great individualists and great original innovators and that was enough."
I like that; this will serve.
As I have stated many times already, Berg is my favorite composer of the Second Viennese School. I think his music as Ford points out is highly complex and there's always something to discover in the music that you hadn't heard before. Obviously, Schoenberg has to be given credit for inventing the 12-tone system, but I think Berg did greater things with it than Schoenberg or Webern for that matter. The underlying lyricism of Berg is what keeps drawing me back to his music. It is highly emotive, dramatic music. He found a way to smooth the rough edges of the 12-tone technique and make it more accessible. Of course, we know that all three composeres were considered by many to be death of classical music. It's still amazing that even today these three composers are still viewed as musical degenerates by the more conservative concert goers. I had a person ask me the other day how could I listen to such nonsense. I told them "It's easy, I use both ears." :D
1. The idea that anyone can "ensure the future of such-and-such music" can be easily debunked by a little historical study and the simple realization that we are each individually responsible for our musical choices.
2. Any composer whose music I am just discovering is "new" to me. The Second Viennese School is hardly "new" to me now, but to others who are just discovering their work it is most definitely new.
3. When ideas become institutions, they are in danger of destroying themselves by their own institutional rigidity. Schoenberg himself, I believe, was aware of this danger. He said, famously, "A Chinese poet speaks Chinese--but what does he say?"
By the time this Ford fellow was discovering these three, composers had moved past them. Listeners were apathetic before 1975 and remained apathetic after the date at which that speaker discovered their music. What has changed between 1975 and 2010? Nothing. I think that Ford himself matured as a listener and then projected that on to the whole music scene.
If anything it makes it sound like yet again, England is behind the times. They play baroque music while the rest of Europe was into classical, play romantic while the rest listen to modern, and then hit atonal when postmodernism has taken root. ::)
;D
@ Mirror Image:
Berg was also my gateway into this type of music. When I was 19, I was reading a book on classical music which dealt in depth with Wozzeck. A few weeks later, I saw a recording on special at a cd shop, and bought it out of curiosity (how would this music that I had been reading about sound?). Upon the first few listenings, I immediately connected to the music and what Berg was doing in that work. I'm in my mid 30's now but I'm still discovering composers that are new to me (jochanaan, you are also right), but I think that that initial discovery and engagement with Wozzeck was a eureka moment in my classical music journey.
@ jochanaan:
I think that Ford, using other words and phrases, was getting at the kind of points you make. It is erroneous to make sacred cows or heroes about any kind of artistic figures, because the moment they are out of fashion, so are you. I think that Ford was thankful that the rigid dogmatic views of the immediate post wasr decades is gone, and have been replaced by a kind of plurality. I asked him if other composers now use the serial method, bringing up the name of Elliot Carter (whom Ford interviewed on his radio show a few years ago). Ford said that Carter is not a serialist, he does sometimes use tone rows, but they might not be 12 tone ones, or if they are, he is more flexible. So I guess I learned something new by going to the lecture.
@ DavidW:
I'm out of time, but will reply tomorrow...
The real question is: are modern, young composers relevant in the grand scope of things? I challenge anyone to even name five contemporary composers that aren't already approaching senior citizenship.
I think that is a virtue of classical music that composers take a life time becoming masters. If you look at any age the people at the time are not likely to recognize who would be the greatest when they are young. Think of young Bach hitchhiking across Europe, Haydn living nearly impoverished in his 20s.
In popular music the young ones are the ones that have the fame, but that's because what they look like matters more than the music they create.
Yes, but, for one, we are all connoisseurs here, none of us classify as "general listeners", and furthermore, we are no longer living in the 1700s, where information was a lot harder to come by. We have the internet now. It seems unlikely to me that a young composer of the caliber we are discussing here would fail to make that much of an imprint, unless of course such a person does not exist in the first place.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 06:45:55 AM
Yes, but, for one, we are all connoisseurs here, none of us classify as "general listeners", and furthermore, we are no longer living in the 1700s, where information was a lot harder to come by. We have the internet now. It seems unlikely to me that a young composer of the caliber we are discussing here would fail to make that much of an imprint, unless of course such a person does not exist in the first place.
I think you make an error in assuming that the Internet and the speed of communications necessarily means that compositional talent will therefore become Front Page Headline material. (Strikes me as a naive error, too.)
Well JdP it is alot harder to get our attention these days, it seems that everything written in the past 400 years is at our fingertips and you could give away new, unheard music but nobody will listen. >:(
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 01, 2010, 06:50:21 AM
I think you make an error in assuming that the Internet and the speed of communications necessarily means that compositional talent will therefore become Front Page Headline material. (Strikes me as a naive error, too.)
You know it strikes me that I don't even know where to find new, undiscovered talent in classical! It's tough. That would be an interesting topic though. :)
Quote from: DavidW on November 01, 2010, 06:54:32 AM
Well JdP it is alot harder to get our attention these days, it seems that everything written in the past 400 years is at our fingertips and you could give away new, unheard music but nobody will listen. >:(
One of the truths "in back of" JdP's remarks, though, is certainly that a lot of the oxygen in the room is already owned by established names. And if you don't already have a name, making your name is one tough business.
Quote from: DavidW on November 01, 2010, 06:56:26 AM
You know it strikes me that I don't even know where to find new, undiscovered talent in classical! It's tough. That would be an interesting topic though. :)
I've heard from some that youtube is awash with such talent.
As to "still new?" . . . I see no reason why the work of Schoenberg, Berg & Webern would not make new friends among listeners in each generation. And whether their work continues to be compositionally "relevant" is likewise going to be a matter of individual composers finding inspiration in the music.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 06:31:57 AM
The real question is: are modern, young composers relevant in the grand scope of things?
Unless by "grand scope (sic) of things" you mean the "grand scope of art music things" then this is not only not the real question, it's not even a real question, but simply a provocation.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 06:31:57 AMI challenge anyone to even name five contemporary composers that aren't already approaching senior citizenship.
The wording of this certainly suggests that my "provocation" theory is spot on. It's not much of a challenge, either.
Simon Steen-Andersen
Diane Simpson
Natasha Barrett
eRikm
Martin Tetreault
Horváth Balázs
Francisco López
Francisco Meirino
Anna Clyne
Bérangère Maximin
Ludger Brümmer
The challenge for me was when to stop.
Quote from: some guy on November 01, 2010, 08:48:23 AM
The challenge for me was when to stop.
Ditto. In no particular order:
Lisa Bielawa
James Matheson
Olga Neuwirth
Missy Mazzoli
Philippe Bodin
Huang Ruo
Hannah Lash
Judd Greenstein
--Bruce
Yes, as mentioned above by Karl Henning, their music will be as new as any composer's music to anyone unacquainted with it.
I once read an essay c. 30 years ago, which stated that Serialism was actually quite mainstream, since a good number of film composers saw its potential and were using it for film scores. Parts of Psycho by Bernard Herrmann use Schoenberg's method.
The amount of Webernesque garbage composed by professors, in the 50's and 60's especially, ("Augenmusik" as they say in German) must have been immense.
Quote from: some guy on November 01, 2010, 08:48:23 AM
Simon Steen-Andersen
Diane Simpson
Natasha Barrett
eRikm
Martin Tetreault
Horváth Balázs
Francisco López
Francisco Meirino
Anna Clyne
Bérangère Maximin
Ludger Brümmer
All of them the equal of a Schoenberg, or a Berg? Riiiiiiiight...
This is a clear example of how modern relativists work. By dropping down all standards, you can just make outlandish claims such as the one implied in the above list and be none the worst for it. Who's going to question the real worth of those composers without begging the question: what is worth? My inquiry was meant to provide a challenge to those who still recognize standards of worth and greatness. People like you, sir, do not apply.
Quote from: some guy on November 01, 2010, 08:48:23 AM
The challenge for me was when to stop.
I can't even think of a time when such a list would exceed the number of one's own fingers. But today, apparently, we have geniuses popping out from every corner and every street. I rest my case.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 11:33:18 AM
All of them the equal of a Schoenberg, or a Berg? Riiiiiiiight...
This is a clear example of how modern relativists work. By dropping down all standards, you can just make outlandish claims such as the one implied in the above list and be none the worst for it. Who's going to question the real worth of those composers without begging the question: what is worth? My inquiry was meant to provide a challenge to those who still recognize standards of worth and greatness. People like you, sir, do not apply.
I can't even think of a time when such a list would exceed the number of one's own fingers. But today, apparently, we have geniuses popping out from every corner and every street. I rest my case.
Now, even allowing for the fact that not everyone shares your Iron Thimbleful concept of genius, you've changed your tune. What you asked for was:Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 06:31:57 AM
. . . I challenge anyone to even name five contemporary composers that aren't already approaching senior citizenship.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 11:33:18 AM
All of them the equal of a Schoenberg, or a Berg? Riiiiiiiight...
This is a clear example of how modern relativists work. By dropping down all standards, you can just make outlandish claims such as the one implied in the above list and be none the worst for it. Who's going to question the real worth of those composers without begging the question: what is worth? My inquiry was meant to provide a challenge to those who still recognize standards of worth and greatness. People like you, sir, do not apply.
I can't even think of a time when such a list would exceed the number of one's own fingers. But today, apparently, we have geniuses popping out from every corner and every street. I rest my case.
A challenge to you, sir: How do YOU know who are geniuses and who are not? How can you even begin to decide what is worthy, or which standards apply? Have you youself composed a body of work like Karl Henning's? Have you, like me and others here, spent decades playing in orchestras and other ensembles? Then don't give me the tired saying "I know it when I hear it." Some of us are indeed as adept at recognizing genius as you say you are, and might have even more experience at doing so.
It's been said before, but you need to see it again: All of the currently-accepted "great" composers have gone through periods of relative popularity and relative obscurity (except possibly Beethoven, and even some of his music took about a century to be accepted as "great"). Any of the comments about "standards" that you make might just as easily have been applied to the taste of previous generations, who were just as happy to elevate Giacomo Meyerbeer, Otto Nicolai, or Sir Arthur Sullivan to the same level of "greatness" as Beethoven or Wagner--never mind Bach, who they seldom even heard in concert! And who's to say they were wrong, for themselves anyway?
If there are standards in music, they are supplied by humans. Not necessarily the current audience--they're happy if they get a good concert experience no matter who's playing--nor the academics, and certainly not the market researchers who only know what sells; but a concatenation of humans who have heard, and understand, and come to love certain composers' works. This is as much true of the contemporary classical composers you deride, and of non-"classical" music, as it is for the three B's and their cohorts.
If you disagree, will you accept my challenge and say what gives you the right to deride nearly all contemporary composers as "non-geniuses"?
I never changed my tune, and i thought it was obvious what i was hinting at. Obviously there are young composers working today, why the hell would i ask such a thing?
Quote from: jochanaan on November 01, 2010, 12:02:32 PM
And who's to say they were wrong, for themselves anyway?
I do, since neither Meyerbeer, Nicolai, nor Sullivan were geniuses. The fact i can't explain how i have arrived to such a conclusion does not mean it isn't true. Obviously, the human brain is much more sophisticated that we are consciously aware of, so there are things we cannot directly explain or "prove" but which nonetheless are as real to us as anything. Plato revealed the true nature of knowledge when he stated that knowledge is nothing more then remembering things witch we already know from the outset. Thus, i already had the knowledge of genius within me since the day i was born. Thus, i cannot accept the idea of "knowledge" as being nothing more then subjective interpretation of perception, unique to all beings and thus "relative". I think we are all born with a fixed set of "knowledge" and the process of discovering what it is is what we call wisdom.
And, just as obviously, you can sneer at the people on my list without having heard even one note of any of their music.
And you can draw conclusions about my tastes, and about "modern relativity," too, again, without any knowledge.
Life is so easy for those who go into any situation with their conclusions already formed!!
Why people who prefer to experience the world prior to forming their conclusions should be the ones who are criticized for having no standards is beyond me. I would think that standards based on experience would be considered better than ones based on... on what? Nothing?
Really. People with no standards should go very quietly when talking about other people's standards. >:D
Quote from: some guy on November 01, 2010, 12:33:18 PM
And, just as obviously, you can sneer at the people on my list without having heard even one note of any of their music.
I sneer because your attitude revealed all i needed to know about them. It should be your duty to prove me wrong by demonstrating those composer's talent, but you cannot do that because that would force you to adopt an absolutist stand. Of course, if you had done that in the first place (I.E., by stating that any of those composers are the equal or near equal to Berg)
i would have been forced to verify that statement before passing judgment. As it is, i see no reason to even bother checking their music out.
Quote from: some guy on November 01, 2010, 12:33:18 PM
And, just as obviously, you can sneer at the people on my list without having heard even one note of any of their music.
And you can draw conclusions about my tastes, and about "modern relativity," too, again, without any knowledge.
Life is so easy for those who go into any situation with their conclusions already formed!!
Why people who prefer to experience the world prior to forming their conclusions should be the ones who are criticized for having no standards is beyond me. I would think that standards based on experience would be considered better than ones based on... on what? Nothing?
Really. People with no standards should go very quietly when talking about other people's standards. >:D
Don't fall into the trap.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 12:38:41 PM
I sneer because your attitude revealed all i needed to know about them. It should be your duty to prove me wrong by demonstrating those composer's talent,
It is equally your duty to prove some guy wrong. However, you haven't a clue how to do that, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Bulldog on November 01, 2010, 01:56:53 PM
It is equally your duty to prove some guy wrong.
And what exactly i should prove him wrong about, if he has made no statement? It seems it is you who has failed to understand what's going on here.
I dunno, JdP. I guess it's that I've always known from birth which music is good and which isn't. Yes, that must be it.
And now, since I'm feeling guilty about friend Sid's poor thread, I'll answer his question.
No.
Sure, there are people for whom it is new, but that's true for Beethoven and Bach as well. Are the things those three started still going on? To a certain extent. It's not what drives composers any more, not so much. Which is fine. Every trend runs down. Some trends morph into other things. Some things even get brought back from the dead, hence the zombie musics of the neo-romantics, improperly so-called.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 06:31:57 AM
The real question is: are modern, young composers relevant in the grand scope of things? I challenge anyone to even name five contemporary composers that aren't already approaching senior citizenship.
Bruce Wolosoff
Avner Dorman
Timothy Kramer
Richard Danielpour
Osvaldo Golijov
Evan Premo
Bonus, people I know:
Karl Henning
Keith Allegretti
Andrew Schneider
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 11:33:18 AM
All of them the equal of a Schoenberg, or a Berg? Riiiiiiiight...
Just now saw this silly reply. You didn't specify it in your original challenge "name five living composers who are not old." For what it is worth, though, I would rather listen to Avner Dorman than Schoenberg, but that's a matter of personal taste. And the song settings I have heard by Evan Premo (for double bass and soprano) and Keith Allegretti (for double bass, harp and soprano) are among my favorites all-time, or at least they were when I heard them live, since they have never been recorded.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 02:19:23 PM
And what exactly i should prove him wrong about, if he has made no statement? It seems it is you who has failed to understand what's going on here.
No, you just do your usual flip-flop and dance around the subjects. You're the John Kerry of the classical board.
Quote from: Brian on November 01, 2010, 03:13:54 PM
You didn't specify it in your original challenge "name five living composers who are not old."
It was implied, and the alternative being so absurd (that i was questioning whether there were
any young composers. Why would i want to ask
that?), i assumed my meaning was plain enough. To wit, DavidW didn't have any trouble understanding what i meant.
Quote from: Brian on November 01, 2010, 03:13:54 PM
Just now saw this silly reply. You didn't specify it in your original challenge "name five living composers who are not old." For what it is worth, though, I would rather listen to Avner Dorman than Schoenberg, but that's a matter of personal taste. And the song settings I have heard by Evan Premo (for double bass and soprano) and Keith Allegretti (for double bass, harp and soprano) are among my favorites all-time, or at least they were when I heard them live, since they have never been recorded.
All dubious statements of course. It is more likely that your trying to make a personal statement rather then relaying a genuine impression . But i can appreciate the fact you were kind enough to provide some real value judgment of those artists rather then act as if your own perception was not worth sharing because, hey, its all subjective!
Quote from: Bulldog on November 01, 2010, 03:40:23 PM
No, you just do your usual flip-flop and dance around the subjects. You're the John Kerry of the classical board.
And you're the Swift Boat Veteran. :) Opie will never be pinned down on anything because he is slick enough to be a politician and never say anything concrete at all. He hasn't made a single statement of purported fact so far. Why would he start now? :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Franco Mezzena (Violin) - Viotti G 025 Concerto #3 in A for Violin 1st mvmt - Maestoso
I think this illustrates the problem nicely. :)
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/desert_island.png)
I think y'all will get where I'm going with this. :D
@ DavidW:
At the end of the lecture, someone did raise the point that England was behind the times in 1975. Hopefully, things have changed in the musical education system a bit?...
@ JdP:
You make a vaild point about classical music post WW2. I read a quote by an American composer saying something to the effect that the greatest challenge of contemporary classical music is to find an audience (and thus to stay 'alive' and 'relevant.'). But you don't need to flog your point like a dead horse. This kind of behaviour reminds me a bit of the dear departed Saul and Teresa...
@ some guy:
Isn't judging neo-romantic music as "zombie music" just repeating the same dogma that Ford talks about - that classical music today has to be ground-breaking to be valid? I know what you mean that things come in and out of fashion in cycles. I'm not a huge fan of the neos of any persuasion, but some of them (like Penderecki) have produced some good stuff, although it can get quite repetitive (but so can anything else, really)...
Quote from: Sid on November 01, 2010, 05:41:03 PMIsn't judging neo-romantic music as "zombie music" just repeating the same dogma that Ford talks about - that classical music today has to be ground-breaking to be valid?
Well, I think that any music in any time should be cognizant of what's preceded it, and should not reach too far back into the past for its energy. No one else has ever reached so far back as to be not only in a different era but several eras back. (Some people tried in in the 19th century, but they tried it at a time when audiences weren't having anything recent, even if it sounded old. Now, if it sounds old, it will get Pulitzer Prizes!)
If you're a mediocre talent, and can only write pastiche, then at least write pastiche of stuff that's not too far off in time, I say!!
Quote from: some guy on November 01, 2010, 06:32:00 PM
If you're a mediocre talent, and can only write pastiche, then at least write pastiche of stuff that's not too far off in time, I say!!
The point of writing a pastiche is to pander to the audience in hope of achieving a modicum of success. For that, you need a language that actually speaks to the general public.
Quote from: some guy on November 01, 2010, 06:32:00 PM
Well, I think that any music in any time should be cognizant of what's preceded it, and should not reach too far back into the past for its energy. No one else has ever reached so far back as to be not only in a different era but several eras back. (Some people tried in in the 19th century, but they tried it at a time when audiences weren't having anything recent, even if it sounded old. Now, if it sounds old, it will get Pulitzer Prizes!)
If you're a mediocre talent, and can only write pastiche, then at least write pastiche of stuff that's not too far off in time, I say!!
I'm not really sure that I fully agree with your argument, many composers have reached far back into the past to shed new light on things that had gone before. Didn't Stravinsky reach right back to the age of Mozart with his opera
The Rake's Progress? Also, Arvo Part with his
Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten and other works like the
Berliner Messe, going back & learning from ancient Christian church music? (his 'holy minimalist' style seen by some as a virtual declaration of war on atonality). & how about Frank Martin, with his
Mass for Double Choir, combining vague tonality with the influence of church music. I could go on. I don't think it matters if you reach back for inspiration (or to use as a starting point?) musical styles from very far back (look at the ancient Greek modes used by Ravel in
Daphnis et Chloe). It's what you do with these influences that really counts. If it's just copying, then I agree with you that that is pointless, but if it's creating something interesting out of what went before, then that can qualify as good (or even great) art, imo...
A) Who, EXACTLY, is responsible for Ford's "terrible music"? Donald Martino? Who?
B) Excuse me, but, how many Opus Numbers are between the three? Is it no big deal that the actual amount of "seed music" here is really quite small? How can't anyone like S, B, & W? You could listen to it all in how many hours and be done with it?
We're not really talking about SBW, are we? We're talking about Roger Sessions, Donald Martino,... basically the US University System,...I am asking,...why won't anyone ever name names (Abramoff did it!)??? I love to hear the names of Composers Who Suck. I love mocking all those CRI-various discs, or Composer Society discs, or any number of these types of discs hanging around (Susan Blaustein?),...
I'm sorry, I love hating,...I'm working on it.
Stuff like the Masters of High Modernism (of which Carter and Boulez are the last) blaze a trail so molten, so catastrophically GREAT that simply there is nothing
someguy IS GMG's guy on this, and I would love to have the YouTube videos of any pertinemt thing that someone might think someone else might enjoy.
C) What then ARE the Masterpieces that we may behold them, to praise or mock?
D) I'm not one of those to give people free will. People, by nature, choose CRAP!
E) JdP is right. WE, The Elite, are the ones having this discussion. Let them eat cake! or listen to Yanni, or whatever.
Honestly, I'd like to kick some kid who told me he'd want to be a Composer. :-*
Once again, HOW MANY CDS worth of solo flute music
I) Anything post-Brahmsian is still new, c'mon guys,... Mosolov still sounds as new as in the day, Varese,...lots of the '20s,...I hear "new", novel harmonies in Haydn (the prankster), obviously Late Beethoven still CAN sound new...Satie,...obviously even ancient music sounds new.
What? Are there 100,000 Living Composers? How many are there? Let's do this scientifically, and take all the fun out of it. Let's quantize this fucker! Booom! In a box! Done.
I think we are in the Age of the Performer. Think about it. At this point the Arditti String Quartet gets the billing on their cds, not the (newish) composers. The Ardittis are the Genii, not the composers. Right?
I hope some of those names mentioned are on YouTube. I loooove to Judge. And I Will Judge. And my Judgment Shall Be Just!
Give things the freedom to totally SUCK! I think you should righteously HATE sucky music, and the propagators of it it, and shun them, to show the pitiful world out there what IS True Greatness!!!!
of course, William Shatner's The Transformed Man IS True Greatness!!! ;D of course, that's not the kind of Greatness we're talking about here.
After all, WE'RE The Elite, guys.
At least as far as the gentiles are concerned.
wooooah, watch out, that's one monstrous post,....
Back,....BACK!!! >:D
I'm not sure either who was responsible for the "terrible" serial music that Ford talked about. I should have asked him when I was talking to him after the lecture, but I talked to him about completely different things (Liszt & Ives would you believe?). I was also thinking, maybe Sessions or Babbitt, but who knows which composers he was thinking about?
Quote from: Sid on November 01, 2010, 09:26:28 PM
I'm not sure either who was responsible for the "terrible" serial music that Ford talked about. I should have asked him when I was talking to him after the lecture, but I talked to him about completely different things (Liszt & Ives would you believe?). I was also thinking, maybe Sessions or Babbitt, but who knows which composers he was thinking about?
I wonder if even Ford knows. An anonymous target is much easier to hit. And since the profession of necessity for the vast majority of composers is teaching, one can hardly help actually painting a crappy composer or two with such a broad brush.
Do I mix metaphors? Very well. I mix metaphors.
Also, Sid, I wasn't referring to getting inspiration from the past. I was referring to mimicking a whole style, a whole sound, from an previous era. Partying like it was 1880, as it were. Of course composers get inspiration from the past, but that's a whole nother thing from writing your music as if the past were still present. As if the present and the recent past had never happened.
Quote from: snyprrr on November 01, 2010, 09:14:49 PM
wooooah, watch out, that's one monstrous post,....
Back,....BACK!!! >:D
Down, boy.....DOWN!
Quote from: some guy on November 01, 2010, 11:07:06 PM
I was referring to mimicking a whole style, a whole sound, from an previous era. Partying like it was 1880, as it were. Of course composers get inspiration from the past, but that's a whole nother thing from writing your music as if the past were still present. As if the present and the recent past had never happened.
I don't think I've ever heard such a thing, however. The neo-Romantic stuff I've heard, like Penderecki, Rochberg and Rouse, contains all kinds of influence from modern composers. No attentive listener could mistake it for something written in 1880, just as nobody would mistake Stravinsky's
Symphony in C for a Haydn or Mozart symphony. I don't think it's possible for any composer to get the sound of the present out of his ears, even if he wants to.
Quote from: Sid on November 01, 2010, 08:44:06 PM
I'm not really sure that I fully agree with your argument, many composers have reached far back into the past to shed new light on things that had gone before. Didn't Stravinsky reach right back to the age of Mozart with his opera The Rake's Progress? Also, Arvo Part with his Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten and other works like the Berliner Messe, going back & learning from ancient Christian church music? (his 'holy minimalist' style seen by some as a virtual declaration of war on atonality). & how about Frank Martin, with his Mass for Double Choir, combining vague tonality with the influence of church music. I could go on. I don't think it matters if you reach back for inspiration (or to use as a starting point?) musical styles from very far back (look at the ancient Greek modes used by Ravel in Daphnis et Chloe). It's what you do with these influences that really counts. If it's just copying, then I agree with you that that is pointless, but if it's creating something interesting out of what went before, then that can qualify as good (or even great) art, imo...
There are things artistically worse than just copying, too. Wuorinen once made a surgical comment about how the "neo-Romantics" conveniently forgot that the original Romantics were about passion, musical adventure, and shattering boundaries — not about keeping to your audience's Comfort Zone.
Quote from: Velimir on November 02, 2010, 01:57:10 AM
I don't think I've ever heard such a thing, however. The neo-Romantic stuff I've heard, like Penderecki, Rochberg and Rouse, contains all kinds of influence from modern composers. No attentive listener could mistake it for something written in 1880, just as nobody would mistake Stravinsky's Symphony in C for a Haydn or Mozart symphony. I don't think it's possible for any composer to get the sound of the present out of his ears, even if he wants to.
I think there are some retro-amnesiacs out there; but Penderecki, Rochberg and Rouse aren't among them.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 02:09:59 AM
There are things artistically worse than just copying, too. Wuorinen once made a surgical comment about how the "neo-Romantics" conveniently forgot that the original Romantics were about passion, musical adventure, and shattering boundaries — not about keeping to your audience's Comfort Zone.
Revolutionaries, that's the word I was forgetting so early in the day.
Revolutionaries, and not reactionaries.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 02:09:59 AM
that the original Romantics were about passion, musical adventure, and shattering boundaries
Everything modern composers are not.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 03:37:18 AM
Everything modern composers are not.
You are funny when you make blanket statements like this!
Quote from: Sid on October 31, 2010, 03:43:07 PM
. . . In the music schools of England, there was an ideology of "regression versus stagnation" which had been exemplified by Pierre Boulez's comments to the effect that unless composers worked to "advance the language of music" then their works would be "useless." For Ford at 18, being at the vanguard of music was an "attractive, Romantic notion," and the Second Viennese School "clearly lead the way."
What attracted Ford and others to this music was it's completely different harmonies and the unique sounds that atonality could render. Schoenberg's (apparent) comment to friend Joseph Wolfe that his discovery of serialism would ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years was also read by Ford to mean (in his teens) that "this was the future of music."
Not that it's the first time I've said this, but it is characteristically fatuous of Boulez to proclaim that music which doesn't play in the arena he wishes, and according to the rules which he wishes, is "useless."
Arguments over "the future of music," too, are IMO an irrelevant circus.Quote from: SidThe first serial pieces were composed in the mid-1920's. Since 1945, Webern's music in particular appealed to some composers (but not audiences). Webern's music was analysed and studied, and used as an example as to how to compose serial music. Ford said that with Webern's music "every note mattered" and in adopting this technique, composers were "slowed down a bit" and "made accountable" for everything they did.
Here's an example of taking an artistic lesson from one of the Second V. School.
But, these lessons are a matter of one's context, of application. It isn't the only lesson one might draw from Webern. Nor is it the case (I shouldn't think) that there is any particular lesson that every composer from here on out must take! Or be irrelevant!Quote from: SidThere was a "purity" in Webern's music, and it was easy for young composers to "jump from that idea of purity to believe that we were coming up with something new." This attitude made them "dismiss and question music that didn't fit the bill" like Britten, Copland, Vaughan Williams, Sibelius. Ford said that he even got rid of his pop music collection at that time, only to buy it back again later. They also dismissed minimalism which was seen as "so simple, so missing the point of what music could be." Now, of course, it is seen as an important style.
Boulez sets a tone here (or, let us say, there was a Zeitgeist to which Boulez wholeheartedly gave himself), but one of my points is that the artistic value of the lessons is in the quality of the work one does — not in blanket scorn for those who take other lessons.Quote from: SidComposers like Harrison Birtwistle show that Schoenberg's music doesn't have to be understood by the composers of today for them to be good composers. "Schoenberg never actually was the future of music, neither was Berg or Webern." We have come to "think of composers as composers and simply listen to their music, not necessarily think that it's the future (or not), just hear it as music."
Plain good sense, really.
Quote from: Sid on November 01, 2010, 08:44:06 PM
I'm not really sure that I fully agree with your argument, many composers have reached far back into the past to shed new light on things that had gone before. Didn't Stravinsky reach right back to the age of Mozart with his opera The Rake's Progress? Also, Arvo Part with his Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten and other works like the Berliner Messe, going back & learning from ancient Christian church music? (his 'holy minimalist' style seen by some as a virtual declaration of war on atonality). & how about Frank Martin, with his Mass for Double Choir, combining vague tonality with the influence of church music. I could go on. I don't think it matters if you reach back for inspiration (or to use as a starting point?) musical styles from very far back (look at the ancient Greek modes used by Ravel in Daphnis et Chloe). It's what you do with these influences that really counts. If it's just copying, then I agree with you that that is pointless, but if it's creating something interesting out of what went before, then that can qualify as good (or even great) art, imo...
Since Eric is not here, I'll add to your list with the medieval chant inspiration for the harmony of Debussy' Pelleas and Melisande. I think that one of the strengths of 20th and 21st century music is that composers felt free to find new uses for old ideas. :)
Quote from: DavidW on November 02, 2010, 03:54:02 AM
Since Eric is not here, I'll add to your list with the medieval chant inspiration for the harmony of Debussy' Pelleas and Melisande. I think that one of the strengths of 20th and 21st century music is that composers felt free to find new uses for old ideas. :)
Good!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 12:03:45 PM
I never changed my tune, and i thought it was obvious what i was hinting at. Obviously there are young composers working today, why the hell would i ask such a thing?
Well, and just as obviously, you wouldn't judge the ultimate greatness of Mozart or Beethoven by the music of their youth.
Your gambit of "name five young composers who are the genius composers of tomorrow" is disingenuous at best.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 01, 2010, 12:38:41 PM
I sneer because your attitude revealed all i needed to know about them.
Thanks for the chuckle!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 03:37:52 AM
You are funny when you make blanket statements like this!
What else do you expect from a guy who wears a blanket on his head?
Quote from: Eye-gorYou take the blonde, I'll take the one in the toiban.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 04:10:59 AM
Well, and just as obviously, you wouldn't judge the ultimate greatness of Mozart or Beethoven by the music of their youth.
Your gambit of "name five young composers who are the genius composers of tomorrow" is disingenuous at best.
Nonsense. By their mid 20s, both Mozart and Beethoven had already produced works of genius.
Another lesson which I think it is possible to draw from the Second V. School is related to . . . .Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 02:09:59 AM
There are things artistically worse than just copying, too. Wuorinen once made a surgical comment about how the "neo-Romantics" conveniently forgot that the original Romantics were about passion, musical adventure, and shattering boundaries — not about keeping to your audience's Comfort Zone.
There aren't always boundaries to shatter, and when you've settled on what your fences are, there is ample work to be done on your own ground. Schoenberg applied a novel method, but in many cases, to traditional genres and forms.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 03:37:52 AM
You are funny when you make blanket statements like this!
You can't shatter boundaries when there are none. This is why young composers "struggle" to make a name for themselves. They have nothing to say that is actually worth saying anymore.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 04:21:21 AM
Nonsense. By their mid 20s, both Mozart and Beethoven had already produced works of genius.
You're so funny, with your 2-D glasses!
Time for me to say Nonsense: Beethoven was already 30 at the time he wrote his first symphony. If he'd died then, we shouldn't think much of Beethoven's "genius" at all. You do make it easy when you flaunt your historical ignorance like this ; )
I think that the only way now that boundaries could be shattered now would be if composers rejected the concept of music being associated with sound and started associating notes with different colors! :D
Are there any boundaries left? And what does crossing them give us?
Quote from: DavidW on November 02, 2010, 04:28:07 AM
I think that the only way now that boundaries could be shattered now would be if composers rejected the concept of music being associated with sound and started associating notes with different colors! :D
Are there any boundaries left? And what does crossing them give us?
Perfectly germane questions. Probably not the first time I've mentioned another Wuorinen comment: How can there be a musical avant-garde when the revolution-before-last said "Anything goes"?
That is a great quote. :)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 04:25:14 AM
You can't shatter boundaries when there are none. This is why young composers "struggle" to make a name for themselves. They have nothing to say that is actually worth saying anymore.
Now (as must be apparent from the Wuorinen remark I cited) we agree that you can't shatter boundaries when there are none. That does not at all mean that composers whose work does not include boundary-shattering have nothing to say that is actually worth saying anymore.
And you will pardon me for doubting that you have anything at all worth saying to me on the question of the difficulties a composer in our day has in making a name for himself.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 04:26:47 AM
Time for me to say Nonsense: Beethoven was already 30 at the time he wrote his first symphony. If he'd died then, we shouldn't think much of Beethoven's "genius" at all.[/font]
The first symphony was a calculated effort. This is why it sounds so sterile. Revolutionary that he was, he didn't feel comfortable braking into the concert hall for the first time with something that would have alienated his audience right away. But by that time he already had a number of masterpieces under his belt. The three piano trios from 1792, the early piano sonatas, including the opus 13, which he completed in 1797, the cello sonatas opus 5, and the string quartets opus 18, composed between 1798 and 1800. It is true that perhaps he didn't mature as fast as Mozart but its not like there was no indication of his greatness even as far as his early 20s. Listen to the Cantata on the death of Joseph II (WoO 87) and see if it sounds like the work of an 'average' composer.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 02:09:59 AM
There are things artistically worse than just copying, too. Wuorinen once made a surgical comment about how the "neo-Romantics" conveniently forgot that the original Romantics were about passion, musical adventure, and shattering boundaries — not about keeping to your audience's Comfort Zone.
That's a great comment, and that's a reason why many composers who attempt to write "neo-Romantic" music (cough, Higdon, cough) irritate me to no end.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 03:51:40 AM
Not that it's the first time I've said this, but it is characteristically fatuous of Boulez to proclaim that music which doesn't play in the arena he wishes, and according to the rules which he wishes, is "useless."
Kyle Gann's sarcastically, resolutely triadic canon on such a statement (http://www.kylegann.com/UselessRound.pdf) ;D
Quote from: Luke on November 02, 2010, 05:42:57 AM
Kyle Gann's sarcastically, resolutely triadic canon on such a statement (http://www.kylegann.com/UselessRound.pdf) ;D
Oh, what good fun!
...forgot to say, not just triadic at every point but also using a twelve tone row - after all, that's what Boulez is insisting upon. Nifty. 8)
Quote from: Luke on November 02, 2010, 05:47:54 AM
...forgot to say, not just triadic at every point but also using a twelve tone row - after all, that's what Boulez is insisting upon. Nifty. 8)
Yes . . . I picked up on that as a consequence of thinking, Gee, I should have added a cautionary natural to that B . . . .
And just to drive my point even further, here's a little something Beethoven wrote when he was 15:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCA33B7bOTA
One wonders how far he could have gone even at this stage had he been blessed with the type of opportunities offered to Mozart or Mendelssohn.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 07:22:36 AM
And just to drive my point even further, here's a little something Beethoven wrote when he was 15:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCA33B7bOTA
One wonders how far he could have gone even at this stage had he been blessed with the type of opportunities offered to Mozart or Mendelssohn.
I don't think it could possibly argued that, had Beethoven been given Mendelssohn's privileges, he would have been a
better composer. Artistic genius is not something which works that way. His music is autobiographical in that it is a representation of his spirit and his psyche at certain points of his life. Over-training and pampered upbringing might have given him a whole different set of neuroses, like Mozart's. Or it might have made him complacent and over-successful. If the institutions had been too accepting of his youthful ideas, he might have never rebelled against them. If you want an example, just look at... uh... frankly, look at Mendelssohn.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 07:22:36 AM
And just to drive my point even further, here's a little something Beethoven wrote when he was 15:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCA33B7bOTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCA33B7bOTA)
Thank you for underscoring my point: that the 15-year-old Beethoven was musically competent, but hardly an earth-shattering genius. You make yourself ridiculous, cooing over workaday classicism as if it were an egg a Titan laid. Hint: Beethoven himself did not publish the piece.
Quote from: Brian on November 02, 2010, 07:27:05 AM
I don't think it could possibly argued that, had Beethoven been given Mendelssohn's privileges, he would have been a better composer. Artistic genius is not something which works that way. If you want an example, just look at... uh... frankly, look at Mendelssohn.
I'm just refuting the notion he would not have been an artist of great precocity, had historical circumstances worked differently for him. And his genius was evident despite the incompleteness of his musical education.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 07:29:42 AM
Thank you for underscoring my point: that the 15-year-old Beethoven was musically competent, but hardly an earth-shattering genius. You make yourself ridiculous, cooing over workaday classicism as if it were an egg a Titan laid. Hint: Beethoven himself did not publish the piece.
It is more then merely musically competent, since it foreshadows a talent and a form of musical expression which most other composers at the time did no posses even in their adult works. If this work had been written by anybody but Beethoven it would be considered one of the "better" pieces of lesser classical artists.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 07:32:46 AM
I'm just refuting the notion he would not have been an artist of great precocity, had historical circumstances worked differently for him. And his genius was evident despite the incompleteness of his musical education.
Had circumstances worked out differently is pointless speculation. And your "genius" 15-year-old piece is at the level of an adult Vanhal. So what? Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 07:34:42 AM
It is more then merely musically competent, since it foreshadows a talent and a form of musical expression which most other composers at the time did no posses even in their adult works. If this work had been written by anybody but Beethoven it would be considered one of the "better" pieces of lesser classical artists.
Thank you for conceding that if Beethoven had died at age 30, we wouldn't think all that much of him.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 07:35:56 AM
Thank you for conceding that if Beethoven had died at age 30, we wouldn't think all that much of him.
What about the works i listed, which were all written before the his 30th birthday? Surely the opus 13 at least would have been enough to place him on the "tragic" list of geniuses who didn't get the chance to see their talents flourish to their fullest.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 07:41:28 AM
What about the works i listed, which were all written before the his 30th birthday?
You're still pointlessly obsessed with the notion of a child prodigy.
Also, you've got the wrong end of the telescope to your eye. You're taking the achievements of the mature Beethoven as a driver for admiration even of his juvenilia.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 07:41:28 AM
What about the works i listed, which were all written before the his 30th birthday? Surely the opus 13 at least would have been enough to place him on the "tragic" list of geniuses who didn't get the chance to see their talents flourish to their fullest.
To be fair.
If Beethoven had lived to complete and publish Opp. 53-59 (Waldstein, Eroica, Concerto in G, Razumovsky) and then died suddenly at age 35, I think that the evidence of Symphony No 3, Concerto No 4, sonatas 21-23 and string quartets 7-9 WOULD have been sufficient to make him a "tragic genius who didn't get the chance."
On the other hand: what sort of unimaginable greatness was Op 136 going to contain?
Quote from: Brian on November 02, 2010, 07:53:54 AM
To be fair.
If Beethoven had lived to complete and publish Opp. 53-59 (Waldstein, Eroica, Concerto in G, Razumovsky) and then died suddenly at age 35, I think that the evidence of Symphony No 3, Concerto No 4, sonatas 21-23 and string quartets 7-9 WOULD have been sufficient to make him a "tragic genius who didn't get the chance."
Aye.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 07:43:30 AM
You're still pointlessly obsessed with the notion of a child prodigy.
Just when it comes to Beethoven. 0:)
But seriously, when have i ever obsessed with the notion of a child prodigy? Have you forgotten all the times i've chastised Saul for making that fallacy? The point is that the spark of genius sometimes is evident even in lesser works because genius is not something Beethoven picked up along way. It was always an innate quality he carried within himself which he only learned to express late in life. There's also the fact that much of his work during his late 20s was scaled down on purpose, to allow Beethoven to iron out his technique before daring to commit to any of his revolutionary ideas (didn't Beethoven himself admit to as such? I cannot recall the exact quote), which didn't just appear overnight after his 30th birthday. His opus 13 and 18 already foreshadow much of what was to come.
Quote from: Brian on November 02, 2010, 07:53:54 AM
To be fair.
If Beethoven had lived to complete and publish Opp. 53-59 (Waldstein, Eroica, Concerto in G, Razumovsky) and then died suddenly at age 35, I think that the evidence of Symphony No 3, Concerto No 4, sonatas 21-23 and string quartets 7-9 WOULD have been sufficient to make him a "tragic genius who didn't get the chance."
On the other hand: what sort of unimaginable greatness was Op 136 going to contain?
His opus 1 alone would have been enough to place him above your average composer of the time, though not exactly in the realm of genius.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 07:29:42 AM
Hint: Beethoven himself did not publish the piece.[/font]
Actually, i'm not sure that means what you think it means. Beethoven wasn't shy of publishing lesser works (or conversely, not publish actually good works, like the variations in c, WoO 80).
It's probably officially time to remark that just because no composer in our day occupies a Space comparable to that which Beethoven occupied in his, does not mean that there are no geniuses of composition now alive.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 05:25:22 AM
Now (as must be apparent from the Wuorinen remark I cited) we agree that you can't shatter boundaries when there are none. That does not at all mean that composers whose work does not include boundary-shattering have nothing to say that is actually worth saying anymore.
What am I saying if, in the middle of a 30min, Feldmanesque elegy, I put 60secs of New Orleans Funeral Music? Is it something WORTH saying?
What is WORTH saying in this day and age?
If I write a piece where klezmer music is "murdered" by the tune "doitchland uber alles", will people know what I'm saying? What if klezmer music is destroying the US national anthem?
This is the only kind of dangerous music left.
If I write a perfectly traditional piece, but stipulate that it HAS to be played by an orchestra of gay lovers?
hey, that's not a bad idea,... I'd be a media darling!
As an aside:
I want the flippin NAMES of the composers we are talking about.
WHO is Wuorinen talking about? Ford (again?)? I WANT THE NAMES!!!! Are we so afraid to say that someone TOTALLY SUCKS?
Does NO ONE totally suck??? Is everyone valid???
There is no glut?
Why then all the rancor?
The only things you can do to make 'revolutionary music' is invoke jews or gays,...it has nothing to do with the notes anymore. MUSIC HAS BEEN CO-OPTED, just like every other artistic endeavour these days. Everything you do will still be brought before the 'council'.
Karl, can you tell me what it is that these young composers are 'saying' that is so full of 'worth'? What is Kernis actually 'saying'?
If, what you're saying is, "I'm a Gay Composer", does THAT count????? Does that count as discourse?
I'm a Muslin (m,...haha) Composer.
I'm a Tatar Composer.
I'm a serial, gay, anti-semetic, filipino, post-op, vegan, gun totin', black, fat trust fund Composer!
What WILL I say?
What CAN I say?
What is all this about "having something to say"???
Maybe I'll know it when I hear it????
Why hasn't anyone linked to a piece by one of these "composers" so that WE can judge?
Are we NOT ALLOWED to "judge"?
I know that "judging" people is out of style in this feel good time we live in. Will I be dismissed if I judge? Do I have to accept everything as a precious jewel?
WHO is this hidden genius that NO ONE has named yet?
NAMES
NAMES
NAMES
WORKS
WORKS
WORKS
like,...
"I think Zev Shimansky's
Gay&Black Holocaust Requiem is a Modern Masterpiece. Here is the YouTube clip."
Where are the examples, so we can LEARN something????? This is a MUSIC forum, right? Some flippin examples for judgment please. >:D I'm waiting for Modern Genius.
I'm waiting....
Quote from: snyprrr on November 02, 2010, 08:37:22 AM
Karl, can you tell me what it is that these young composers are 'saying' that is so full of 'worth'?
Well, I cannot presume to speak for any composer else. For myself, I write what I believe is music which has that to say, which only my music can say.
You are not a young composer Karl, this doesn't concern you. :P
Quote from: snyprrr on November 02, 2010, 08:37:22 AM
What am I saying if, in the middle of a 30min, Feldmanesque elegy, I put 60secs of New Orleans Funeral Music? Is it something WORTH saying?
Proposing a caricature, is not proving an assertion, of course.Quote from: snypsssAs an aside:
I want the flippin NAMES of the composers we are talking about. WHO is Wuorinen talking about? Ford (again?)? I WANT THE NAMES!!!! Are we so afraid to say that someone TOTALLY SUCKS?
I cannot speak for Charles; I wonder whom he might mean, too . . . there is, after all, the odd chance that he is condemning a composer whose work I actually enjoy. ; )Your last question there is one of frightful interest, really. Do you know Nicolas Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective? One of the lessons of that marvelously entertaining compendium is, that in every era there are plenty of people who are NOT afraid to declare that the new music sucks! Hurray for plain speaking!
Unfortunately for posterity's opinion of these plain-speaking opinionators, however, the new music whose arrant suckiness they were NOT afraid to trumpet from the rooftops, has turned out to be classics of the literature.
(Now, another lesson of Slonimsky's marvelous book is: he did not trouble to record scoffing reviews of music history's also-rans. So we don't necessarily conclude that NONE of it sucks; only that the fact that someone is NOT AFRAID to say that new music sucks, is actually a next-to-completely unreliable indicator of artistic worth.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 08:54:20 AM
only that the fact that someone is NOT AFRAID to say that new music sucks, is actually a next-to-completely unreliable indicator of artistic worth.)[/font]
The problem is that people seem to be afraid of saying that modern music is actually great.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 09:00:43 AM
The problem is that people seem to be afraid of saying that modern music is actually great.
Like any period, there is a fair amount of music that is fantastic, and a fair amount that is simply not. There's plenty of music that is worth listening too.
Quote from: Philoctetes on November 02, 2010, 09:06:51 AM
Like any period, there is a fair amount of music that is fantastic, and a fair amount that is simply not. There's plenty of music that is worth listening too.
Name the fantastic music.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 09:12:17 AM
Name the fantastic music.
I think many have already created lists for you.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 09:14:39 AM
In what time-frame?
I'm assuming he means now.
Here's four:
Ingram Marshall
Joan Jeanrenaud
Daniel Roumain
Russell Pinkston
Quote from: Philoctetes on November 02, 2010, 09:24:49 AM
Daniel Roumain
You are not talking about Daniel
Bernard Roumain, are you? :o
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 09:30:53 AM
You are not talking about Daniel Bernard Roumain, are you? :o
That's him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bPZuUsr3UA&feature=related
And this is supposed to represent the genius of our times? Have you people lost your marbles?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 09:36:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bPZuUsr3UA&feature=related
And this is supposed to represent the genius of our times? Have you people lost your marbles?
That's quite a leap you made there.
Quote from: Philoctetes on November 02, 2010, 09:37:10 AM
That's quite a leap you made there.
Yeah, that wasn't... good.
This is alright. Better... maybe not great, but pretty cool anyways.
http://www.youtube.com/v/dltQoPRCbOs&feature=related
Quote from: Greg on November 02, 2010, 10:28:26 AM
This is alright. Better... maybe not great, but pretty cool anyways.
Likewise . . . not especially new, not genius perhaps, but good clean fun:http://www.youtube.com/v/XL5yiAi33dg
Quote from: Greg on November 02, 2010, 10:28:26 AM
Yeah, that wasn't... good.
This is alright. Better... maybe not great, but pretty cool anyways.
http://www.youtube.com/v/dltQoPRCbOs&feature=related
That wasn't was I was objecting too.
@ snyprrr:
I remember that towards the end of the lecture, Ford said that some composers (who were usually 'tonal') dabbled in atonality &/or serialism "but their heart wasn't in it." He said Stravinsky was successful at this, but Britten, Copland, Shostakovich less so.
I have read his book on C20th music called Illegal Harmonies, published in the late 1990's, but I don't remember him naming any names in that. In any case, you would have to go back into the 1960's and '70's & what was being played on the BBC classical station or in live concerts. I think that the "terrible" serial composers have been forgotten, and so have their works (so maybe Sessions and Babbitt don't qualify?)...
Quote from: Sid on November 02, 2010, 05:52:31 PM
@ snyprrr:
I remember that towards the end of the lecture, Ford said that some composers (who were usually 'tonal') dabbled in atonality &/or serialism "but their heart wasn't in it." He said Stravinsky was successful at this, but Britten, Copland, Shostakovich less so.
"But their heart wasn't in it" has interesting implications, yes?
Britten and Shostakovich made idiosyncratic use of the twelve tones, without actually adopting Schoenberg's idea of Composition with Twelve Tones, All of Them Equal. In all their music, though, I hear that that they composed with all their heart.
And, honestly, I like Copland's craggy earlier work just as well as the smooth 'populist' pieces. (The question of what his heart was in, I am not competent to address.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2010, 10:36:49 AM
Likewise . . . not especially new, not genius perhaps, but good clean fun:
http://www.youtube.com/v/XL5yiAi33dg
Karl?? :o?? ??? :-\,... RIVERDANCE???????
really? :'(
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2010, 09:36:06 AM
Yes, that truly sucked. And then I watch an interview with said, dreadlocked,...er,...composer. So,...so,....what,s the word? Not smug,....ah, so suburbian!!!! Hip Hop Etude,....puh-leeze! ::)
Here, let me whip out my Variations on a Theme by the Counting Crows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bPZuUsr3UA&feature=related
And this is supposed to represent the genius of our times? Have you people lost your marbles?
Quote from: Greg on November 02, 2010, 10:28:26 AM
Yeah, that wasn't... good.
This is alright. Better... maybe not great, but pretty cool anyways.
http://www.youtube.com/v/dltQoPRCbOs&feature=related
No,...ANYTHING that starts of with blusey slides,...nope, uhuh,...
IT'S ALL TV SOUNDTRACK MUSIC!
.....ahhhhhhhhhhhh.........
(yes, I'm screaming)
......aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.........
I also checked out the Jay Greenberg on YouTube. Oy,....that's just warmed over, bad Shosty at his most obvious.
All of this music is pathetically influenced by modern culture to the point that most rock bands show more originality and,...er,...genius.
Is this what our conservatories are filled with?,...spoil;ed brat, rich kids with nothing to say but what they picked up on the "street".
"Street cred",..hahahaha,...
I will drive to New York myself to smack Greenberg in his pampered, Long Island fasce. Ohhhh,...that could be construed as anti-semitism. ??? oh no,...it really isn't about talent,...it's about what you represent. Greemberg = jew,.... the guy with the hiphop etude,...afro american,....
trust me,...I can pretty well figure what kind of thing will win the prizes: anything to do with the holocost, or being black in america,...or, here we go,....I predict the next famous american composer will have a latino name,...
yea, yea,...he'll have braved the arizona desert,...with pencil and music paper in his knapsack,....braving those racist americans to write his
Undocumented Symphony.
Requiem for Those Who Died in the Desert
Are we sure that we're all not just bleeding heart liberals who have to some worth in EVERYTHING, bec ause we don't have the GUTS to stand up and call a spade a spade???
You can't call Beethoven a genius, and these people, too. This is simply affirmative action. Same for all the jewish composers of the 20th century. frankly, I think Ford is talking about all those new york jews when he talks about the suckers. american music has simply become music by american-jews. and no,...it's not hate,...just the truth. count off the names yourself (Babbitt, Perle, Shapey, Druckman, Wolpe, Feldman, Glass, Reich,...endless). god bless me that it could be so obvious, yet pointing it out will get me excoriated.
great,...so now I'm just a gay-black-jew basher.
Charles Ives,....what do you think?
And yes, for me it IS all political. Please don't go off on the "snyprrr is an "-ist"". The fact seems to be that the jews run the show. Am I wrong???
If we can't continue without a flare-up, I will gladly back down and not post like this, ... to keep the peace
show me my wrongness (but do it with better YouTube clips than THAT, guys,...please)
Quote from: snyprrr on November 03, 2010, 07:01:48 AM
Karl?? :o?? ??? :-\,... RIVERDANCE???????
I'd never made that connection. Fascinating!
Is there a way to condense snyprrr's insipidness?
It fucks up my page.
Quote from: Philoctetes on November 03, 2010, 09:16:56 AM
Is there a way to condense snyprrr's insipidness?
Just got to scroll. Quote from: snyprrr on November 03, 2010, 07:21:03 AM
And yes, for me it IS all political.
Well, that's a bit alien to me, but not to many others, I understand.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2010, 09:21:30 AM
Just got to scroll.
I don't have a scroll feature on my mouse. He might be the first poster I ignore.
People who need to have it proved to them that contemporary music is worthwhile will never be convinced by any arguments or by any you tube clips.
I don't think any of the clips proffered so far are representative of what young(er) composers are doing nowadays. Jay Greenberg certainly deserves whatever condign punishment snyprrr wants to mete out to him, but he's not at all representative of new music. To lament the demise of good music by pointing to a crappy composer or two is so obviously silly that I feel silly pointing that out!
There are plenty of fine composers out there. The ones on my list that gave JdP such fits are all very talented people who have written quite powerful and splendid music.
After a dozen years of listening to 17th, 18th and 19th century music, I spent another ten years devouring the music of the twentieth century. Since 1982, when I got "caught up," I have spent the bulk of my listening, both in concerts and in my living room, on contemporary music. I now listen largely to music of the past 15 years. In none of this have I ever stopped listening to (or even discovering new examples of) the music I started with when I was nine. If that suggests to you the possibility that the people on my list of younger composers might actually be worth listening to, why, that's the same possibility that occurred to me!!! ;D
At least I have experienced contemporary music first hand, with sympathy and love and understanding. And I reached my conclusions about it AFTER listening, not before!! I know, that's so backwards. Conclusions are what you're supposed to start with. :P I guess I'm just a rebel. :-*
Quote from: some guy on November 03, 2010, 09:25:04 AM
People who need to have it proved to them that contemporary music is worthwhile will never be convinced by any arguments or by any you tube clips.
I don't think any of the clips proffered so far are representative of what young(er) composers are doing nowadays.
Both statements true (though I did not really offer the Zappa arrangement in that spirit).
Quote from: some guy on November 03, 2010, 09:25:04 AM
People who need to have it proved to them that contemporary music is worthwhile will never be convinced by any arguments or by any you tube clips.
You can believe that if you wish but it doesn't make it true. Fact is, i never had a problem heaping praise for modern composers who's music i actually deemed to be to my taste (most recently, Kapustin). Furthermore, i never saw much in terms of arguments or examples coming from your camp. Advocates of modern music are really doing a piss poor job in supporting and promoting contemporary artists, which to me seems to denote a lack of confidence from their part.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 09:45:41 AM
You can believe that if you wish but it doesn't make it true. Fact is, i never had a problem heaping praise for modern composers who's music i actually deemed to be to my taste (most recently, Kapustin). Furthermore, i never saw much in terms of arguments or examples coming from your camp.
Kapustin is lovely.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 09:45:41 AM
Furthermore, i never saw much in terms of arguments or examples coming from your camp. Advocates of modern music are really doing a piss poor job in supporting and promoting contemporary artists, which to me seems to denote a lack of confidence from their part.
Of a piece with Michael's point is, that you do not convince anyone to like any music, by argument. The role and validity of "argument" in this process is dubious. I don't argue for my own music, which fact says nothing about my confidence in my work.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2010, 09:45:41 AM
...Fact is, i never had a problem heaping praise for modern composers who's music i actually deemed to be to my taste...
(emphasis added)
Ah, finally, a statement that seems to reveal your heart. Would you equate "to your taste" with "genius"?
Quote from: jochanaan on November 03, 2010, 10:58:53 AM
(emphasis added)
Ah, finally, a statement that seems to reveal your heart. Would you equate "to your taste" with "genius"?
Yes. 8)
Quote from: DavidW on November 02, 2010, 04:28:07 AM
I think that the only way now that boundaries could be shattered now would be if composers rejected the concept of music being associated with sound and started associating notes with different colors! :D
Didn't Scriabin and Messiaen already mine some of that territory?
Quote from: some guy on November 03, 2010, 09:25:04 AM
People who need to have it proved to them that contemporary music is worthwhile will never be convinced by any arguments or by any you tube clips.
I don't think any of the clips proffered so far are representative of what young(er) composers are doing nowadays. Jay Greenberg certainly deserves whatever condign punishment snyprrr wants to mete out to him, but he's not at all representative of new music. To lament the demise of good music by pointing to a crappy composer or two is so obviously silly that I feel silly pointing that out!
There are plenty of fine composers out there. The ones on my list that gave JdP such fits are all very talented people who have written quite powerful and splendid music.
After a dozen years of listening to 17th, 18th and 19th century music, I spent another ten years devouring the music of the twentieth century. Since 1982, when I got "caught up," I have spent the bulk of my listening, both in concerts and in my living room, on contemporary music. I now listen largely to music of the past 15 years. In none of this have I ever stopped listening to (or even discovering new examples of) the music I started with when I was nine. If that suggests to you the possibility that the people on my list of younger composers might actually be worth listening to, why, that's the same possibility that occurred to me!!! ;D
At least I have experienced contemporary music first hand, with sympathy and love and understanding. And I reached my conclusions about it AFTER listening, not before!! I know, that's so backwards. Conclusions are what you're supposed to start with. :P I guess I'm just a rebel. :-*
ok, here's my New Deal.
some guy, it is obvious to me that you and PetRarch (ugh,..PetRock,..PetrArch??) are the two closest to m,y own sensabilities, because you two are generally the only ones who folow me down some of these rabbit holes.
Plus, you just generally exude a sense of total immersion, so, after this, your last post, I am totally willing to follow you wheresoever you would take me.
I will, from NOW on, engorge myself with the "now" until either I succumb to it, or barf it up in disgust.
IF you would let me limit myself to String Quartets, I would be more than happy to switch most all of my listening to this new endeavor. I will take on all comers,... I'll even listen to a
Save the Whales Quartet, if there is one.
So, anyone who has written a String Quartet, I'm all ears.
btw- I AM glad that you concur on Greenberg. I seem to recall a certain, certain person on THIS thread bringing him to my attention. ::)
No one has mentioned Thomas Ades. Karl, here IS a good example,...I CAN hear what Ades is saying in his SQ. I don't hear him saying anything particularly NEW, but I do hear him saying, "Here,...I like this", and, "Here,...I like this other thing too", meaning, I can hear (in the, what? five mvmts) different snippets from the past, put together in a way I haven't heard yet. In other words,...kind of original.
ok, so I WILL lift up this SQ as something by someone born in 1971,...written in the '90s,...that SAYS< Hi, I'm in the '90s and I'm trying to find my own voice in a culture glutted on itself, and here, this is what I have come up with.
The SQ itself is pleasant. There are no Xenakian moments. Perhaps Henze on Elgar? Each mvmt takes a different stylistic tack on a basic, slightly elegiac tone. The second to the last mvmt is an Elgarian melos of typically great beauty.
Anyhow,...it's nice,... but it's not genius. And yes, it's 2010, I think we can all tell.
I am simply going to declare that we have reached a consensus on Masterpieces of Genius in the 21 Century. There are none.
Silence is the True Composer of our times!
We SHOULD be quiet!
Honestly, I'd love Beethoven to get on this Thread and tell us what he thinks about all this new music stuffery.
QUESTION:
What is the latest music that hit you like the opening of LvB's 5th? POW!!!
Bam!!!
Quote from: Philoctetes on November 03, 2010, 09:23:06 AM
I don't have a scroll feature on my mouse. He might be the first poster I ignore.
:o Was it the turtle comment?
I don't listen to music according to genre or nationality (which is a real handicap in online music board games, let me tell you!), but I do have a string quartet or two.
One I got recently, which I liked way more than I thought I would, is Beat Furrer's string quartet number 3. Starts out cool and never lets up. So there's one for you.
All of the Lachenmann quartets, of course, though these two composers are not exactly young. Generally the younger people in my collection are working with electronics somehow. Since I don't listen according to age, either, I'd have to shuffle through my six or seven string quartets to find the birth dates of the composers
And going through all twenty or thirty of those quartets is going to be a bit tedious. I mean, what if I get through 80 or so of the 100 string quartets I have and all the composers turn out to have been born in 1952 (Rihm) or earlier? Then what? (And going through 160 or so string quartets to find when these composers were born is going to take a long time!)
Quote from: snyprrr on November 03, 2010, 08:51:39 PM
:o Was it the turtle comment?
Yes. I'm sure that must be it.
Quote from: snyprrr on November 03, 2010, 08:08:47 PM
QUESTION:
What is the latest music that hit you like the opening of LvB's 5th? POW!!!
Bam!!!
During the last year, probably Wolfgang Mitterer's
Obsoderso. The unusual combination and interplay of saxophone, church organ and computer always pricks up my ears when I listen to it. But then some of the aspects of music I most enjoy and actively listen to is timbre, texture and colour, so YMMV.
Quote from: snyprrr on November 03, 2010, 08:08:47 PM
ok, so I WILL lift up this SQ as something by someone born in 1971,...written in the '90s,...that SAYS< Hi, I'm in the '90s and I'm trying to find my own voice in a culture glutted on itself, and here, this is what I have come up with.
I have a handful of SQs or works for violin written by composers born in the late 60s and beyond, a couple of them in 1977 and played by no other than the Ardittis: Iván Naranjo,
Uno (2002); Rogelio Sosa,
Espasmo fulgor for violin & electronics (2002); Juan Felipe Waller,
De jaque, sal, gala y luna for solo violin (1999); Luis Tinoco,
Quarteto (1995); Saed Haddad,
Joie voilée (2006). Olga Neuwirth also has a couple of interesting SQs.
Quote from: snyprrr on November 03, 2010, 08:08:47 PM
Honestly, I'd love Beethoven to get on this Thread and tell us what he thinks about all this new music stuffery.
Why should that be authoritative? History is replete with instances of composers, ripened into their own mastery, who are simply out of sympathy with what the next musical generation is after. Personally, I don't care what Beethoven thinks of any music past his own epoch. (Heck, I don't care if he liked Dittersdorf.)
Hmm . . . I think I may have recordings of some relatively recent string quartets by living Hungarians . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 01, 2010, 07:22:44 AM
As to "still new?" . . . I see no reason why the work of Schoenberg, Berg & Webern would not make new friends among listeners in each generation. And whether their work continues to be compositionally "relevant" is likewise going to be a matter of individual composers finding inspiration in the music.
I agree with this, however it's generally true of any music that attracts the interest of contemporary composers. The issue that is raised for me, the one that distinguishes the 2VS group from other less ideological composers, is the teleological vision of music. Would music be dragged kicking and screaming into the future where a plan would govern the tastes of composers and listeners alike? The issue is not"does music progress?", it's "is the way music changes progressive?" or even "is music
supposed to progress?".
No, the way music changes is not usefully described as progressive, it does not move towards a goal beyond itself, nor is there any sense in saying that music is supposed to be something beyond what it plainly is. All of the intellectual and emotional appeal art has comes from the art, though the doctrines appended to it might have some use for the artist. This use for the artist does not bind listeners or other artists, however. In the end art is as unprincipled as any human activity can be. An interesting consequence of this is that radical art can't be invalidated for being different.
Schoenberg's "plan", therefore, could not be used against Sibelius any more than Beethoven's "plan" could be used against Schoenberg. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: some guy on November 03, 2010, 10:44:56 PM
I don't listen to music according to genre or nationality (which is a real handicap in online music board games, let me tell you!), but I do have a string quartet or two.
One I got recently, which I liked way more than I thought I would, is Beat Furrer's string quartet number 3. Starts out cool and never lets up. So there's one for you.
All of the Lachenmann quartets, of course, though these two composers are not exactly young. Generally the younger people in my collection are working with electronics somehow. Since I don't listen according to age, either, I'd have to shuffle through my six or seven string quartets to find the birth dates of the composers
And going through all twenty or thirty of those quartets is going to be a bit tedious. I mean, what if I get through 80 or so of the 100 string quartets I have and all the composers turn out to have been born in 1952 (Rihm) or earlier? Then what? (And going through 160 or so string quartets to find when these composers were born is going to take a long time!)
I saw that Beat Furrer SQ,... and yes, I wanted to snap it right up.
I guess my problem with the Furrer or Lachenmann reference is that I kinda consider them in the 'previous' generation. Same with Rihm.
I know, I know, but any Composer that the Arditti championed early on, and is still living, I consider to be of the 'previous' generation.
This is "my" up-to-date list of String Quartet cds I'm looking at:
Alberto Posadas (Kairos)
Beat Furrer (Kairos)
Hendrik Ole Moe (some Arditti label)
Jesus Rueda (ditto)
Ulrich Gasser (ditto)
Frank Michael Beyer (Edel)
R. Febel (Wergo)
Jorg Herchet (Wergo; hated it, sold it, need it back!)
Ph. Boesmans (Ricercare)
The trouble is, even if any of these guys are youngerish (which I don't think), I still consider them "part" of the Machine of High Modernism (our usual suspects). My point is is that even if they write music 'today', I still consider them part of an earlier tradition, ergo, I can make myself enjoy just about anything by them (usually, cause I know what it's going to sound like).
I just got an SQ by C. Halffter from 2007, but I can't judge it the same way as an under-30 writing an SQ at the same time. Yes, I am pre-judging that the younger guy is gonna suck, but when there are still Really Big Guns ALIVE!!!, I can't allow myself to give any respect to the youngers. I'll see about working on that.
However, it seems you guys took me seriously, so, I'll just let you know that I was taking it seriously too. I'm rolling up my sleeves here for a 'project.'
Quote from: petrArch on November 04, 2010, 05:26:55 AM
I have a handful of SQs or works for violin written by composers born in the late 60s and beyond, a couple of them in 1977 and played by no other than the Ardittis: Iván Naranjo, Uno (2002); Rogelio Sosa, Espasmo fulgor for violin & electronics (2002); Juan Felipe Waller, De jaque, sal, gala y luna for solo violin (1999); Luis Tinoco, Quarteto (1995); Saed Haddad, Joie voilée (2006). Olga Neuwirth also has a couple of interesting SQs.
Yes, I have them, and yes, that 'Mexico' cd really IS the younger generation trying to sound like the Classics of High Modernism; and in this case, I like listening to all the works on this cd. I also have other 'geographical' cds I'll listen to for this.
Getting excited! :-* :D
Quote from: snyprrr on November 03, 2010, 08:08:47 PM
Honestly, I'd love Beethoven to get on this Thread and tell us what he thinks about all this new music stuffery.
Interesting? Perhaps. What if what he said was as unenlightening as any other composers judgment? I continue to be surprised that people think art is something practitioners must have views about rather than
might have views about, or that there was something for these opinions to be authoritative about.
I would listen to what a great dead composer says. Who wouldn't? But why imagine it would have special meaning? That would depend on what he said. What
did he say, btw, that would cause anyone to think that his utterances had anything like the distinction his music had? He wasn't a famous critic, was he?
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.
I think people are a bit too harsh on Greenberg. How was he when he recorded his last composition. 15?
Quote from: drogulus on November 04, 2010, 04:46:02 PM
What if what he said was as unenlightening as any other composers judgment?
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?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2010, 06:30:10 PM
I think people are a bit too harsh on Greenberg. How was he when he recorded his last composition. 15?
He's not a Genius, and you're doting!
Things that make you go "Hmmmm."
Quote from: Sid on November 04, 2010, 04:47:50 PM
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.
There's nothing simple about anything that humans do, particularly things, like the arts, that tap something deep and mysterious and inchoate. Everything that humans do has something ideological about it.
Quote2. It doesn't really matter if music is about "progress" or not.
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.
Quote3. 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.
Maybe. Didn't seem to do Wagner any harm, though. But he had much better press than Schoenberg ever did. Why, he had people sold on the idea of "The Music of the Future" before he'd ever even written a note of it. Not a single note. Amazing.
Quote from: some guy on November 04, 2010, 07:22:59 PM
Things that make you go "Hmmmm."There's nothing simple about anything that humans do, particularly things, like the arts, that tap something deep and mysterious and inchoate. Everything that humans do has something ideological about it.
True, there's even a type of ideology in Ford saying that ideology and music don't mix. But when the ideology becomes more important than the music, then that could be a problem, imo.
Quote
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.
Yes, Shostakovich also said something to the same effect - that the most important thing for him as an artist was approaching every new work with a different angle, so not repeating what he had done before (I think Henze and Feldman also said something to the effect that every work of theirs was part of their 'journey' as an artist - basically that all of their output was one huge continuous work).
But I disagree that those who were repeating older styles (of theirs or others) had their "eye on the main chance." I'd disagree that someone like Hovhaness, who probably didn't do anything radically different or new after his 2nd symphony 'Mysterious Mountain,' was interested in "fame and money" just because he tended to repeat himself after that. As a matter of fact, from what I've read about the man, he was quite contemptuous and dismissive of the "establishment," premiering many of his new works in university campuses, played by student performers in free concerts. The same could perhaps be said about other composers, like Bax, Korngold or Rachmaninov, whose styles (once they were established) basically stayed the same. I don't think they were opportunists for not creating works that radically departed from their main styles, they just felt comfortable doing what they did, what they felt came naturally to them.
Quote
Maybe. Didn't seem to do Wagner any harm, though. But he had much better press than Schoenberg ever did. Why, he had people sold on the idea of "The Music of the Future" before he'd ever even written a note of it. Not a single note. Amazing.
I'd agree that the Second Viennese School were not the only ones touted as 'future makers' in the history of music or the other arts. But there were many people who simply jumped on the bandwagon of a going trend, and this didn't do them any good. One I can think of was George Antheil, whose Ballet Mecanique was touted as the next Rhapsody in Blue in the 1920's. The first performance appropriately created a sensation but this didn't last and Antheil's music (for better or worse) was forgotten for the next half century. Now, without the baggage of such and such a work being the 'best thing since sliced bread' or some such nonsense, we can just enjoy pieces of music whether or not they aspire to be great masterpieces of high modernism (or post modernism, or whatever). We can just simply enjoy the music without creating these artificial and unrealistic false hopes and expectations...
Quote from: some guy on November 04, 2010, 07:22:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2010, 06:32:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Sid on November 04, 2010, 04:47:50 PM
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 . . . .
Quote from: drogulus on November 05, 2010, 04:04:44 AM
Quote from: some guyBut 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.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 05, 2010, 04:20:07 AM
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?)
Quote from: some guyBut 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.
Quote from: drogulus on November 05, 2010, 04:04:44 AM
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.)
I'm not going to let this Thread fall to page 2. Once more into the breach!
Quote from: edward on November 05, 2010, 07:09:14 AM
Boulez's utterances on other composers--in particular--say little about them
We are talking about great composers. Boulez does not apply.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 05, 2010, 04:20:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 06, 2010, 09:34:18 AM
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.
Quote from: some guy on November 06, 2010, 11:06:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 06, 2010, 12:26:34 PM
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." :D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 06, 2010, 12:26:34 PMAnd 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...!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 06, 2010, 12:26:34 PMJohn Cage is an important figure too.
Indeed he is. True word!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 06, 2010, 12:26:34 PMThink 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. ;)
I can't even remember which Thread I was ranting on, haha. I must be suffering from Invective Depletion Syndrome. :P Bring the Hate! :-*
No worries. Ranting is just good fun, whichever thread you're on.
You know who is missing from this thread? James! :) Boy he and jdp would have gone at it for pages. ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on November 06, 2010, 12:53:47 PM
And I've actually listened to some of John Cage's music, and found it "to my taste." :D
Ditto. (Not surprising, I shouldn't think.)
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."