This is the thread for all that thorny music, mainly coming from modernism.
Currently listening to Boulez's Éclat conducted by Rattle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hZxInEtbzU
Look up sonority. Dissonant sonorities literally makes no sense.
As for "thorny music," that's a perceptual thing. That is, "thorny" points to the listener, not to the thing being listened to.
Éclat, for instance. I would never in a million years call that piece "thorny." I might, if slightly drunk and not paying attention to what I was saying, call it sparkly. Or maybe glittery. Though neither of those "not really qualities of the music so much as responses I make when I listen to it" are much apparent in Rattle's performance.
Here's Boulez conducting it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyW-xMFvxAw
I much prefer that one, but that doesn't get us beyond perceptions.
It would be nice--I've dreamed about this for several decades--to talk about the music itself rather than about how this or that often unnamed or even mentioned listener's response to the music as if that response were descriptive of the music itself.
Talk about unpopular opinions. That one has pretty consistently been laughed out of court every time it tentatively raises its hand....
Music not played on commercial classical music stations then. ;)
I've got to agree about Boulez's Éclat not being "dissonant" or "thorny". Post-1960 Boulez is, at least to my ear, colourful, glittering, magical. It has always baffled me when people on the internet describe the later Boulez works as harsh.
Quote from: steve ridgway on December 03, 2020, 05:27:41 AM
Music not played on commercial classical music stations then. ;)
When was the last time you heard Nikolai Medtner, Sergei Bortkiewicz or Joseph Marx played on commercial music stations?
I thought so. Yet all three were implacable foes of "dissonant" music. :D
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2020, 09:31:10 AM
When was the last time you heard Nikolai Medtner, Sergei Bortkiewicz or Joseph Marx played on commercial music stations?
Presumably that's because their music isn't very good.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 03, 2020, 09:36:03 AM
Presumably that's because their music isn't very good.
Does this apply to Boulez, Xenakis and Scelsi as well? They too are never played by the commercial music stations.
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2020, 09:39:21 AM
Does this apply to Boulez, Xenakis and Scelsi as well? They too are never played by the commercial music stations.
No they're not on there because they're dissonant.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 03, 2020, 09:40:39 AM
No they're not on there because they're dissonant.
And presumably this equals not very good for the stations in question.
More seriously, Andrei, it's at least 30 years since I last listened to any Medtner, but isn't some of it quite chromatic, with scrunchy dissonant harmonies? I used to have a recording by Svetlanov on the piano.
(Listening now to Zhukov play a sonata in G minor!)
Quote from: Mandryka on December 03, 2020, 09:40:39 AM
No they're not on there because they're dissonant.
Do you need more than one note to be dissonant?
Quote from: some guy on December 02, 2020, 07:39:14 PM
It would be nice--I've dreamed about this for several decades--to talk about the music itself rather than about how this or that often unnamed or even mentioned listener's response to the music as if that response were descriptive of the music itself.
Talk about unpopular opinions. That one has pretty consistently been laughed out of court every time it tentatively raises its hand....
Well, it may be unpopular due to the way in which it tends to raise its hand.
Perhaps you should start a thread for the kind of music discussion you want to have. I don't know how far you'll get in a non-specialist community such as this, but why not give it a go instead of more or less telling other people they're stupid for wanting to talk about music in terms of their experience and how they perceive it.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 03, 2020, 09:48:31 AM
More seriously, Andrei, it's at least 30 years since I last listened to any Medtner, but isn't some of it quite chromatic, with scrunchy dissonant harmonies? I used to have a recording by Svetlanov on the piano.
(Listening now to Zhukov play a sonata in G minor!)
It has its moments of dissonance, of course, but it's essentialy a Late Romantic language. He wrote a whole book against "modernism".
Quote from: Mandryka on December 03, 2020, 09:48:31 AM
More seriously, Andrei, it's at least 30 years since I last listened to any Medtner, but isn't some of it quite chromatic, with scrunchy dissonant harmonies? I used to have a recording by Svetlanov on the piano.
(Listening now to Zhukov play a sonata in G minor!)
Medtner is an arch-conservative and anti-avant-garde composer, which at least partly explained his relative neglect over the years (that, and that Rachmaninov is so popular. Medtner was known, in some circles then, as "Rachmaninov Without the Tunes").
I love that Svetlanov recording!
Quote from: springrite on December 03, 2020, 04:42:17 PM
Medtner is an arch-conservative and anti-avant-garde composer, which at least partly explained his relative neglect over the years (that, and that Rachmaninov is so popular. Medtner was known, in some circles then, as "Rachmaninov Without the Tunes").
I love that Svetlanov recording!
Medtner's aesthetic and political ideologies were indeed deeply reactionary. But in the actual process of composition, he trusted his artistic instincts above his ideological ones, which results in his music having an overall level of harmonic, rhythmic and timbral experimentation (and, therefore, harmonic dissonance) comparable to middle period Scriabin. It's an interesting tension, and makes his use of triadic tonality at cadences sound oddly incongruous at times.
Of course, this is fully in keeping with Late Romanticism, a label that can be easily applied to any composer from Brahms to Schoenberg, and with a great deal of continuity in the musical language. Even in the work of popular "late Romantics" like Rachmaninov or Mahler there is a great deal more dissonance than there is in "early Modern" composers like Debussy and Satie. In my experience it is not really the dissonance that people object to in composers like Boulez or Scelsi, it is the lack of signposts telling them how to feel about each particular musical event. (i.e., there is no subsequent consonant resolution to a dissonant sonority that can signal to a listener a sense of tension and release, that kind of thing.)
Quote from: amw on December 03, 2020, 05:05:28 PM
In my experience it is not really the dissonance that people object to in composers like Boulez or Scelsi, it is the lack of signposts telling them how to feel about each particular musical event. (i.e., there is no subsequent consonant resolution to a dissonant sonority that can signal to a listener a sense of tension and release, that kind of thing.)
"Feel"? :-\
Quote from: amw on December 03, 2020, 05:05:28 PM
Medtner's aesthetic and political ideologies were indeed deeply reactionary.
Now I know why I like his music: ideological affinity. ;D
I don't understand the premise of this thread. I mean so much post-WWII could be brought up as being based on dissonant sonorities and this isn't to say anything of what Schoenberg, Berg and Webern achieved earlier. I guess a good example would be Xenakis. I mean right out of the gate you're greeted with dissonance from this composer, but Boulez, Carter, Scelsi, Stockhausen, etc. would fit the bill here as well.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 05, 2020, 09:45:24 AM
I don't understand the premise of this thread.
Doesn't matter, really. The thread was derailed by the very first reply. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on December 05, 2020, 09:48:51 AM
Doesn't matter, really. The thread was derailed by the very first reply. ;D
Yeah, I guess it was, but I seldom read some guy's posts. Not because I think he's a bad person, I just don't like this 'all-encompassing' vibe he puts across in his posts or, at least, to me he does. An intelligent conversation could never be had with someone who likes everything they hear. Our limitations as listeners define us even more than what we actually do like and enjoy. It's what makes us who we are.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 05, 2020, 09:54:52 AM
. An intelligent conversation could never be had with someone who likes everything they hear.
Why not? I mean, you could discuss the music.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 05, 2020, 10:03:38 AM
Why not? I mean, you could discuss the music.
Because you'll never get to the root of what that person is about musically. To like everything would imply that they are content listening to Andre Rieu as much as they are listening to Hilary Hahn. If this person doesn't know the difference between either, then I have very little time for them.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 05, 2020, 10:08:57 AM
Because you'll never get to the root of what that person is about musically. To like everything would imply that they are content listening to Andre Rieu as much as they are listening to Hilary Hahn. If this person doesn't know the difference between either, then I have very little time for them.
No that's not right, he may be content listening to both for different reasons. That's the basis for an intelligent discussion.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 05, 2020, 10:12:21 AM
No that's not right, he may be content listening to both for different reasons. That's the basis for an intelligent discussion.
I don't care. :-\ If I don't know what a person likes/dislikes, then I have no reason to talk to them. I'll further add that I like knowing what a person likes/dislikes as this helps me see how I can carry on a conversation with them and tap into what they're passionate about.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 05, 2020, 09:54:52 AM
Yeah, I guess it was, but I seldom read some guy's posts. Not because I think he's a bad person, I just don't like this 'all-encompassing' vibe he puts across in his posts or, at least, to me he does. An intelligent conversation could never be had with someone who likes everything they hear. Our limitations as listeners define us even more than what we actually do like and enjoy. It's what makes us who we are.
Oh, I certainly and wholeheartedly do agree. And now that you got me started, here's my two cents.
1. The complete, absolute and uncompromising objectivity that
some guy aspires to in listening to music can be achieved only by someone who doesn't care in the least about what they listen and treat all music as sonic wallpaper --- all is good as long as there are sounds being heard. The very moment someone says "I don't like it!", or "It does nothing for me!", or "I'd rather listen to something else!" objectivity is broken and subjectivity* pops up its ugly head. ;D
*read personality
2. The only way one could talk about "the music itself" is to state that it is printed by this or that publisher, it ccomprises that many bars, it's written in this or that key or in no key at all, it's intended for such or such combination of instruments and its technicalities are such and such.
The very moment one
listens, any notion of "the music itself" vanishes into thin air, because
performing a piece of music is already a subjective thing on the part of the performers: what we listen to is by no means "the music itself" but "the music as performer(s) X" deemed fit to play it. To this unescapable, all-too-human subjectivity we then add our own unescapable, all-too-human subjectivity which makes us prefer this or that music or this or that performance.
3. I see no problem whatsoever with either of the two points above. None of us is under no obligation whatsoever to like, or even to try liking, each and every piece of music we listen to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone finding their comfort zone and staying mostly, or even exclusively, within its boundaries. We all like what we like, period. Our (life)time is in such short supply that it would be foolish to waste it on things musical --- or indeed any other things --- that don't give us either immediate pleasure or the promise of a future pleasure.
In this respect your beloved
Debussy was absolutely right:
Music should humbly seek to please; within these limits great beauty may perhaps be found. Extreme complication is contrary to art. Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part. There is no theory. You have only to listen. Pleasure is the lawNotice:
immediate enjoyment and
pleasure. Amen to that!
4. The only problem arises when
some guy someone tries to make their own taste the universal yardstick by which all others should be judged (and usually found wanting).
Raum fuer alle hat die Erde.
Quote from: Florestan on December 05, 2020, 10:54:49 AM
Oh, I certainly and wholeheartedly do agree. And now that you got me started, here's my two cents.
1. The complete, absolute and uncompromising objectivity that some guy aspires to in listening to music can be achieved only by someone who doesn't care in the least about what they listen and treat all music as sonic wallpaper --- all is good as long as there are sounds being heard. The very moment someone says "I don't like it!", or "It does nothing for me!", or "I'd rather listen to something else!" objectivity is broken and subjectivity* pops up its ugly head. ;D
*read personality
2. The only way one could talk about "the music itself" is to state that it is printed by this or that publisher, it ccomprises that many bars, it's written in this or that key or in no key at all, it's intended for such or such combination of instruments and its technicalities are such and such.
The very moment one listens, any notion of "the music itself" vanishes into thin air, because performing a piece of music is already a subjective thing on the part of the performers: what we listen to is by no means "the music itself" but "the music as performer(s) X" deemed fit to play it. To this unescapable, all-too-human subjectivity we then add our own unescapable, all-too-human subjectivity which makes us prefer this or that music or this or that performance.
3. I see no problem whatsoever with either of the two points above. None of us is under no obligation whatsoever to like, or even to try liking, each and every piece of music we listen to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone finding their comfort zone and staying mostly, or even exclusively, within its boundaries. We all like what we like, period. Our (life)time is in such short supply that it would be foolish to waste it on things musical --- or indeed any other things --- that don't give us either immediate pleasure or the promise of a future pleasure.
In this respect your beloved Debussy was absolutely right:
Music should humbly seek to please; within these limits great beauty may perhaps be found. Extreme complication is contrary to art. Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part.
There is no theory. You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law
Notice: immediate enjoyment and pleasure. Amen to that!
4. The only problem arises when some guy someone tries to make their own taste the universal yardstick by which all others should be judged (and usually found wanting).
Raum fuer alle hat die Erde.
Some valid points, Andrei. And yes, my man Claude was right, indeed. 8) I understand that you and some guy aren't compadres, so I knew I could count on you for some personal insights into his thinking. ;)
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 05, 2020, 11:02:42 AM
Some valid points, Andrei. And yes, my man Claude was right, indeed. 8) I understand that you and some guy aren't compadres, so I knew I could count on you for some personal insights into his thinking. ;)
;D
And yet --- as far as I'm concerned there's no reason whatsoever why he and I wouldn't get along just fine should we meet in person, especially after a couple of beers. :D
Quote from: Florestan on December 05, 2020, 11:19:24 AM
;D
And yet --- as far as I'm concerned there's no reason whatsoever why he and I wouldn't get along just fine should we meet in person, especially after a couple of beers. :D
Yeah, as I pointed out, I don't think he's a bad person. It's just that his view of music seems alien to me, but this may make grounds for a good musical discussion.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 05, 2020, 09:54:52 AM
An intelligent conversation could never be had with someone who likes everything they hear.
I disagree.
And I don't like everything I hear, but I do very much try to hear everything as it is rather than how I wish it to be.
Quote from: Florestan on December 05, 2020, 10:54:49 AM
The only problem arises when some guy someone tries to make their own taste the universal yardstick by which all others should be judged (and usually found wanting).
And this I have never done.
I have objected from time to time when other people have done it. And that objection has often been interpreted as me trying to make my own taste the universal yardstick.
I'm trying, as you point out yourself elsewhere, to listen beyond my tastes. You can't have it both way. I can't be both trying to make my taste the universal yardstick AND trying to override my own tastes. Those are contradictory positions.
I do like beer, though, I will say that. Also wine and hard liquor. Food. Women. Architecture. Nature. Yep. Lots of taste there. (I've got a long ways to go, I can see that. :-) )
Quote from: some guy on December 05, 2020, 03:11:18 PM
I'm trying, as you point out yourself elsewhere, to listen beyond my tastes.
I do that regularly, only to be regularly reminded of
Delius' dictum:
Always stick to your likings - there are profound reasons for them. ;D
QuoteI do like beer, though, I will say that. Also wine and hard liquor.
A man after my own heart! :-*
Quote from: some guy on December 05, 2020, 03:02:56 PM
I disagree.
And I don't like everything I hear, but I do very much try to hear everything as it is rather than how I wish it to be.
Who are some composers that you don't like?
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 05, 2020, 05:10:06 PM
Who are some composers that you don't like?
This is the nub of it, I think. I avoid talking about what I don't like because I don't think it does anyone any good. Will my dislikes help anyone enjoy anything any better? Probably not. Will my dislike of any particular composer make anyone suddenly say "Oh. Maybe I should stop listening to that composer." Absurd. Even mentioning a composer or twelve that I don't care for in order to prove that I have both likes and dislikes seems absurd to me. No one has to prove that because it's true for everyone.
The composers I dislike are liked by quite a number of other people. Let them like what they like without any quibbling from me.
I'll mention only one person, someone no one here has ever heard of, so it should be OK: Hubert Howe. I had been hearing pieces of his for a number of years at various festivals, and they all seemed horrible to me. Almost purposely boring. Almost all identical, too, what's more. So once, after a concert, I remarked to a small group of people that for me the question was not "Howe" but why. One person piped up with "I like Howe's music."
That was embarrassing. I don't like Howe's music, but so what? I know at least one person who likes it. It's enough.
Quote from: some guy on December 05, 2020, 10:53:27 PM
This is the nub of it, I think. I avoid talking about what I don't like because I don't think it does anyone any good. Will my dislikes help anyone enjoy anything any better? Probably not. Will my dislike of any particular composer make anyone suddenly say "Oh. Maybe I should stop listening to that composer." Absurd. Even mentioning a composer or twelve that I don't care for in order to prove that I have both likes and dislikes seems absurd to me. No one has to prove that because it's true for everyone.
The composers I dislike are liked by quite a number of other people. Let them like what they like without any quibbling from me.
I'll mention only one person, someone no one here has ever heard of, so it should be OK: Hubert Howe. I had been hearing pieces of his for a number of years at various festivals, and they all seemed horrible to me. Almost purposely boring. Almost all identical, too, what's more. So once, after a concert, I remarked to a small group of people that for me the question was not "Howe" but why. One person piped up with "I like Howe's music."
That was embarrassing. I don't like Howe's music, but so what? I know at least one person who likes it. It's enough.
Thanks for only reinforcing what Andrei has said about you. This has been an education.
Quote from: Florestan on December 05, 2020, 03:19:51 PM
Always stick to your likings - there are profound reasons for them. ;D
It's just not true. Look, 20 years ago I liked Beethoven's music, Todd likes now, and now I can't stand the stuff . I liked Chopin last week, today I listened to a nocturne and really, I couldn't see the point of it at all, I didn't like it one bit. I liked wearing red socks in summer, now I like to wear blue socks. I used to like to paint my rooms white, now I like to have one wall a different colour. I used to enjoy Gorgonzola, now I find it too rich. How can there possibly be anything profound there?
I think this
like culture is utterly self obsessed at best. Saying in public that you like or dislike something is about as profound, to use Delius's word, as sharing your digestive gasses.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 06, 2020, 08:47:09 AM
I think this like culture is utterly self obsessed at best.
Yes, if one can identify
why one likes something it may increase self understanding.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 06, 2020, 08:47:09 AM
It's just not true. Look, 20 years ago I liked Beethoven's music, Todd likes now, and now I can't stand the stuff . I liked Chopin last week, today I listened to a nocturne and really, I couldn't see the point of it at all, I didn't like it one bit. I liked wearing red socks in summer, now I like to wear blue socks. I used to like to paint my rooms white, now I like to have one wall a different colour. I used to enjoy Gorgonzola, now I find it too rich. How can there possibly be anything profound there?
I think this like culture is utterly self obsessed at best. Saying in public that you like or dislike something is about as profound, to use Delius's word, as sharing your digestive gasses.
Because having an understanding of another human being is...well...
human. If you have a problem with discussing something as simple as why you dislike or like this or that composer, then how will cope with even more complicated topics? Do you nod your head at everything you're told and agree with everything someone says to you? Are you a robot? Is talking to you like the equivalent of talking to a brick wall? Are you passionate about anything? Where's the fire, scarecrow? Anyway...
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 06, 2020, 09:39:03 AM
Because having an understanding of another human being is...well...human.
Maybe not possible on an Internet forum! I need to think about that. But this is true I think: if you say you like something and someone else says they like it's like a virtual hug. Like I said, utterly shallow.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 06, 2020, 10:14:37 AMMaybe not possible on an Internet forum! I need to think about that. But this is true I think: if you say you like something and someone else says they like it's like a virtual hug. Like I said, utterly shallow.
Alright now you've lost me. So it's shallow to mention to someone else that you like something, too? Ummm....okay.... :-\ How else are you going to get a conversation started or find common ground?
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 06, 2020, 10:22:05 AM
Alright now you've lost me. So it's shallow to mention to someone else that you like something, too? Ummm....okay.... :-\ How else are you going to get a conversation started or find common ground?
You might say, "Don't you think that Feldman's Persian Rug music is similar to Bernhard Lang's Monadology?" Or "I wonder why Beethoven chose to end the Diabelli Variations like that." Or "I can find nothing in common between the style of Debussy's Preludes and his Etudes, what do you make of it?" Or "Sometimes I think that La fanciulla del West is as modern sounding as Wozzeck!" Or "Do you think that Pasifal is sexist? I do!"
Quote from: Mandryka on December 06, 2020, 08:47:09 AM
It's just not true. Look, 20 years ago I liked Beethoven's music, Todd likes now, and now I can't stand the stuff . I liked Chopin last week, today I listened to a nocturne and really, I couldn't see the point of it at all, I didn't like it one bit. I liked wearing red socks in summer, now I like to wear blue socks. I used to like to paint my rooms white, now I like to have one wall a different colour. I used to enjoy Gorgonzola, now I find it too rich. How can there possibly be anything profound there?
I think this like culture is utterly self obsessed at best. Saying in public that you like or dislike something is about as profound, to use Delius's word, as sharing your digestive gasses.
I agree with this
in principle. However, it seems convenient to have an idea of discussants' likes/dislikes. For instance, I often scan forum threads in search of new listening ideas, and am more likely to try music from a novel (to me) composer if recommended by a poster whose tastes I perceive as similar to mine. Just a matter of convenience; nothing against recommendations from other sources, but they require more thought/consideration.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 06, 2020, 10:25:48 AM
You might say, "Don't you think that Feldman's Persian Rug music is similar to Bernhard Lang's Monadology?" Or "I wonder why Beethoven chose to end the Diabelli Variations like that." Or "I can find nothing in common between the style of Debussy's Preludes and his Etudes, what do you make of it?" Or "Sometimes I think that La fanciulla del West is as modern sounding as Wozzeck!" Or "Do you think that Pasifal is sexist? I do!"
But I just don't buy into your idea that telling someone what you like is shallow. If you truly believe this, then the majority of people on GMG are shallow.
Quote from: T. D. on December 06, 2020, 10:31:34 AM
I agree with this in principle. However, it seems convenient to have an idea of discussants' likes/dislikes. For instance, I often scan forum threads in search of new listening ideas, and am more likely to try music from a novel (to me) composer if recommended by a poster whose tastes I perceive as similar to mine. Just a matter of convenience; nothing against recommendations from other sources, but they require more thought/consideration.
And just remember it's
shallow to let someone else know you like something as well. ::)
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 06, 2020, 10:32:27 AM
But I just don't buy into your idea that telling someone what you like is shallow. If you truly believe this, then the majority of people on GMG are shallow.
Yes, including me. Today I have made two posts one saying nothing more than that I don't like a certain singer and another saying not much more than I do like a certain song cycle.
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto, as I like to say.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 06, 2020, 09:39:03 AM
Because having an understanding of another human being is...well...human. If you have a problem with discussing something as simple as why you dislike or like this or that composer, then how will cope with even more complicated topics? Do you nod your head at everything you're told and agree with everything someone says to you? Are you a robot? Is talking to you like the equivalent of talking to a brick wall? Are you passionate about anything? Where's the fire, scarecrow? Anyway...
I don't share your conception of humanity. In my opinion, to respond only with whether you like or don't is not a human response. It's a pond life response. A human being is
both feeling
and thought.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 06, 2020, 11:07:23 AM
I don't share your conception of humanity. In my opinion, to respond only with whether you like or don't is not a human response. It's a pond life response. A human being is both feeling and thought.
Don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything about likes/dislikes being the sole basis of discussion. It just helps break the ice instead of jumping right into how many tone rows are into Webern's
String Trio.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 06, 2020, 11:13:23 AM
Don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything about likes/dislikes being the sole basis of discussion. It just helps break the ice instead of jumping right into how many tone rows are into Webern's String Trio.
How do you need an ice breaker with Florestan? You've known him for years. .
Quote from: Mandryka on December 06, 2020, 11:25:13 AM
How do you need an ice breaker with Florestan? You've known him for years. .
I don't, but this doesn't mean I 'know' him.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 06, 2020, 07:13:03 AM
Thanks for only reinforcing what Andrei has said about you. This has been an education.
This reminds me of my math teacher, who always insisted that we show our work for full credit. In fact, my English teacher was the same, only if we didn't support our conclusions, he wouldn't give us any credit.
You expressed a desire for intelligent conversation awhile back. But when the opportunity to actually do so arose, you muffed it. You give only a conclusion without showing any of your work. Indeed, it's not even your conclusion. Even more indeed, it's not even the conclusion itself but merely a reference to it.
So much for education....
Quote from: some guy on December 06, 2020, 03:55:00 PM
This reminds me of my math teacher, who always insisted that we show our work for full credit. In fact, my English teacher was the same, only if we didn't support our conclusions, he wouldn't give us any credit.
You expressed a desire for intelligent conversation awhile back. But when the opportunity to actually do so arose, you muffed it. You give only a conclusion without showing any of your work. Indeed, it's not even your conclusion. Even more indeed, it's not even the conclusion itself but merely a reference to it.
So much for education....
This isn't some school assignment. One can look at your long history of posts and come to their own conclusions. Take from that what you want. Either way, it doesn't matter to me.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 06, 2020, 10:25:48 AM
You might say, "Don't you think that Feldman's Persian Rug music is similar to Bernhard Lang's Monadology?" Or "I wonder why Beethoven chose to end the Diabelli Variations like that." Or "I can find nothing in common between the style of Debussy's Preludes and his Etudes, what do you make of it?" Or "Sometimes I think that La fanciulla del West is as modern sounding as Wozzeck!" Or "Do you think that Pasifal is sexist? I do!"
Those questions are certainly of interest to musicologists and philosophers, prone as they are to generate a huge amount of academic papers (and a fair amount of cacademic nonsense). As a layman, though,
my primary interest lies in
listening to music, not in
thinking about it. I couldn't care less whether, or why, Debussy's Preludes are very dissimilar to his Etudes; what I do care about is whether I enjoy all of them (I do). The intellectualist approach to music you seem to favor has always stroke me as a case of not seeing the forest because of the trees. Correct me if I'm wrong but to me it seems that for you music is first and foremost food for thought --- you always want to know the rationale behind whatever you hear, hence your absolute insistence on having the booklet. I'm the complete opposite: I don't care at all about the rationales, I care only about whether I enjoy it or not.
This, of course, doesn't mean we can't still be friends. :-*
Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2020, 09:11:50 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but to me it seems that for you music is first and foremost food for thought
Hard to say if it's first or foremost. Put it like this, I'm not at all interested in understanding better music which I dislike, and there's a lot of music which I dislike.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 07, 2020, 09:18:07 AM
I'm not at all interested in understanding better music which I dislike, and there's a lot of music which I dislike.
Nothing to disagree with here.
As for myself, I'm not at all interested in
understanding music, period. I'm interested in
enjoying music.
I think that when the only classical music I was aware of was mainstream -- you know what I mean, more or less tonal harmony and recognisable rhythms, sounds like what we've been told to expect from voices and instruments -- I was exactly like you. I just listened to Wagner and Verdi and Mozart and Monteverdi and Mahler for pleasure, and I had zero interest in being reflective about the music -- no more than saying "I don't like that conductor because he's too brash and fast" or "I don't like that singer because she always sounds like she's about to burst into tears."
Then something happened. I listened to two things -- Nono's Prometeo and Ferneyhough's 6th quartet. And I thought to myself, what the fuck is this? How can anyone think that this is music? How dare he.
But something deep inside me must have sensed that this is not nonsense, it wasn't mad or just designed to shock. I felt as though I was faced with someone trying to effect me, but what he was doing was strange. Rich and strange.
And that determined my attitude to music henceforth, at least in the cases where my internal radar told me that there was something interesting going on. When faced with music which is disorienting, I'm keen to get to the state where the sounds make as much sense to me as they did for the musician making them.
With early music it's not the same, because most of it is harmonically and rhythmically familiar ground. One thing that's fun there is that you really can listen to all the recordings ever made, and it's kind of nice for me to try and think about the style choices of the performers. But that's just a bit like an amateur interest in reception history, I'm sure you could do the same with Wagner and Verdi and Mozart and Monteverdi and Mahler.
Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2020, 09:26:44 AM
As for myself, I'm not at all interested in understanding music, period. I'm interested in enjoying music.
I'm not at all capable of understanding music; enjoying it is my only option. :-[
Quote from: steve ridgway on December 07, 2020, 10:13:31 AM
I'm not at all capable of understanding music; enjoying it is my only option. :-[
8)
Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2020, 09:11:50 AM
Those questions are certainly of interest to musicologists and philosophers, prone as they are to generate a huge amount of academic papers (and a fair amount of cacademic nonsense). As a layman, though, my primary interest lies in listening to music, not in thinking about it. I couldn't care less whether, or why, Debussy's Preludes are very dissimilar to his Etudes; what I do care about is whether I enjoy all of them (I do). The intellectualist approach to music you seem to favor has always stroke me as a case of not seeing the forest because of the trees. Correct me if I'm wrong but to me it seems that for you music is first and foremost food for thought --- you always want to know the rationale behind whatever you hear, hence your absolute insistence on having the booklet. I'm the complete opposite: I don't care at all about the rationales, I care only about whether I enjoy it or not.
This, of course, doesn't mean we can't still be friends. :-*
Enjoyment is, of course, of utmost importance to me more than anything else, but I still like having intellectual stimulation. For example, Berg's
Violin Concerto, 'To the memory of an angel' is one of my favorite pieces of music of all-time (the first-time I heard it, I played it back eleven times in a row). This is a piece that fascinated me as I had read there are some autobiographical portions of this work, so I did some research and I ended up reading just about every historical article I could find about the work. Did this research enhance my understanding of the work? Absolutely and it also deepened my love for it. I guess this is my long-handed way of saying that I do agree with Mandryka in that there are more ways to appreciate a piece of music besides the whole enjoyment aspect of it. Anything that can enhance my enjoyment of a piece of music is value added, IMHO.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 07, 2020, 09:56:26 AM
I think that when the only classical music I was aware of was mainstream -- you know what I mean, more or less tonal harmony and recognisable rhythms, sounds like what we've been told to expect from voices and instruments -- I was exactly like you. I just listened to Wagner and Verdi and Mozart and Monteverdi and Mahler for pleasure, and I had zero interest in being reflective about the music -- no more than saying "I don't like that conductor because he's too brash and fast" or "I don't like that singer because she always sounds like she's about to burst into tears."
Then something happened. I listened to two things -- Nono's Prometeo and Ferneyhough's 6th quartet. And I thought to myself, what the fuck is this? How can anyone think that this is music?
I had the same reaction to music which I won't nominate. Contrary to you, though, I felt no need to expand on it. I don't like it and that's it. And if other people like it, then that's it too. We all like what we like and that's it. Instead of wasting my time trying to like things which I will probably never like no matter how much I try, I prefer to listen to things which I know are going to give me pleasure. Call me a philistine, I don't mind.
Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2020, 10:29:27 AM
I had the same reaction to music which I won't nominate. Contrary to you, though, I felt no need to expand on it. I don't like it and that's it. And if other people like it, then that's it too. We all like what we like and that's it. Instead of wasting my time trying to like things which I will probably never like no matter how much I try, I prefer to listen to things which I know are going to give me pleasure. Call me a philistine, I don't mind.
Well, I know you don't have much taste for modern music in general, so it's not surprising to read your comments.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 07, 2020, 10:36:20 AM
Well, I know you don't have much taste for modern music in general, so it's not surprising to read your comments.
Depends on how you define modern, John... I like Milhaud, Villa-Lobos, Francaix, Poulenc, Satie, Petrushka, Pulcinella among many others... :D
Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2020, 10:47:14 AM
Depends on how you define modern, John... I like Milhaud, Villa-Lobos, Francaix, Poulenc, Satie, Petrushka, Pulcinella among many others... :D
Ah yes, but how do you feel about
late period Stravinsky for example?
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 07, 2020, 10:58:42 AM
Ah yes, but how do you feel about late period Stravinsky for example?
Let's say I prefer
early Schoenberg. :D
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 07, 2020, 11:01:07 AM
:D
Seriously now, I believe
Petrushka is a flawless masterpiece, one of my favorite pieces of music ever. 8)
Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2020, 11:10:12 AM
Seriously now, I believe Petrushka is a flawless masterpiece, one of my favorite pieces of music ever. 8)
It's certainly one of his earlier masterpieces for sure. No love for the Neoclassical period?
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 07, 2020, 11:21:49 AM
It's certainly one of his earlier masterpieces for sure. No love for the Neoclassical period?
If I love
Pulcinella, where should I go next?
Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2020, 11:24:10 AM
If I love Pulcinella, where should I go next?
Orpheus,
Apollo and
The Fairy's Kiss would be my next stops.
Apollo is unusual for Stravinsky as it's composed for a string orchestra only --- such a gorgeous work.
The Fairy's Kiss and
Orpheus don't get mentioned enough, but I find both of these works outstanding. The introduction to
Orpheus alone is enough to melt one's heart.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 07, 2020, 11:29:00 AM
Orpheus, Apollo and The Fairy's Kiss would be my next stops.
Thanks. Will explore and report back.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 06, 2020, 11:25:13 AM
How do you need an ice breaker with Florestan? You've known him for years. .
Seems like Stravinsky does the trick... ;)