Been thinking how I much prefer Pink Floyd, Brian Eno, Jon Hassel, ECM Jazz (like early Pat Metheny) etc. to Adams, Glass, Gorecki etc. My favorite "classical" minimalist, Terry Riley straddles the fence between genres. Any thoughts?
For whatever passel of reasons, I've actually generally preferred Eno's quirky pop-songs (like "I'll Come Running (To Tie Your Shoe)") to his minimalisms.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
FWIW, I feel the same way about "electronic" music in general. IMO, groups like Boards of Canada, Autechre, and BT are the "classical" composers of today, IMO. It's just packaged, marketed and performed differently.
Quote from: gmstudio on January 18, 2008, 06:38:45 AM
IMO, groups like Boards of Canada, Autechre, and BT are the "classical" composers of today, IMO.
Explain.
Quote from: gmstudio on January 18, 2008, 06:38:45 AM
IMO, groups like Boards of Canada, Autechre, and BT are the "classical" composers of today, IMO.
Does
IMO mean something different at the beginning and end of that sentence, or was that just a nod to the topic? 8)
So, what is
Elliott Carter? The Linda Ronstadt of today? $:)
Quote from: karlhenning on January 18, 2008, 06:45:28 AM
Does IMO mean something different at the beginning and end of that sentence, or was that just a nod to the topic? 8)
Does it? IMO, yes ........
bwv 1080, I'm still stuck at your list of classical minimalists: Adams, Glass, Gorecki, etc.
Those are three very different people, and three very different styles of minimalism.
(Who do you put in the etc category would interest me right off hand.)
Anyway, my thought is that you prefer what you prefer. That is, you like certain things you call "minimal" that are outside what you'd call "classical" to some other things that you call "minimal" that are inside what you'd call "classical." OK.
Maybe a little elaboration here, just for me?
Not so much for Part and Gorecki, as for Glass, I would consider his film scores, which is probably his most classical stuff.
I got hold of Eno's Music for airports only a couple of weeks back- ambience at its best.
I'd rather listen to Burzum than Phillip Glass 0:)
Edit: I forgot half the post :x
Quote from: Sean on January 25, 2008, 11:47:05 AM
I got hold of Eno's Music for airports only a couple of weeks back- ambience at its best.
Hey I actually agree with Sean on something!
On a bootleg recording I have of the premier installation at LaGuardia in 1977, you can just barely hear two officials discussing the beginnings of the 9/11 plot. The plotters realized the effort would bring about a whole genre of relaxing atmospheric music which could be used in the future to lower peoples guard and make them more susceptible to propaganda and misinformation.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on January 18, 2008, 05:30:22 AM
Been thinking how I much prefer Pink Floyd, Brian Eno, Jon Hassel, ECM Jazz (like early Pat Metheny) etc. to Adams, Glass, Gorecki etc. My favorite "classical" minimalist, Terry Riley straddles the fence between genres. Any thoughts?
Exactly. Minimal-ISM has nothing to do with that specific genre of music from past epochs that achieved the accolade
Classical, meaning High Creative Art Expression.
There's nothing in minimalism that comes even close to true high creative genius.
Its not even convenient to say that M is
sub-classical, its not even sub, as the word
classical is attached. And that cannot be.
Elliott Carter so poignantly and percisely put it :"minimalism is death"
Minimalist techniques as part of a larger musical gestalt has always seemed more interesting to me than echt-Minimalism as we usually know it. Sibelius, Janáček, Bruckner, et al did it first, and did it best. Some more recent composers have used the techniques of the minimalists in what seems to me a more holistic way, but of course they get labeled "polystylists". ::)
More minimalism bashing? It gets terribly old.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 07:27:16 AM
More minimalism bashing? It gets terribly old.
Do you have anything to say in defense of echt-Minimalism? I would be interested to hear a counterargument.
Quote from: Corey on January 26, 2008, 08:06:22 AM
Do you have anything to say in defense of echt-Minimalism? I would be interested to hear a counterargument.
Well this is a particularly broad question. I can say many things in defense of modern minimalism, but probably nothing of which that would yield a radical shift in the way of one's thinking. In order to avoid delving into the much exhausted debate of the music's comparative technical merits (which I no doubt can do if need be), the ultimate determining agency of whether or not one can value minimalism as a music is if one can value late modernist art in its own right, which would entail all the minimalism, pastiche, theory, and paradoxical tensions that embody the postmodern movement. Minimalism is the result of a paradigm movement in the late modernist arts which signified a radical change in the way high art and commercial art are understood. I find there is something very intellectual in the works of Glass and Reich, and this is how I am able to appreciate the music. Ergo, it is a cognitive approach initially, but the music says much about the modern era, and I find the technical experiments and the sustaining moods in the tradition of Bruckner or Sibelius no less satisfying. I do not find that classical music should entail a single meta-narrative in the way of development, expression, and progression. I would not expect as much of painting, theater, and literature, for which minimalism no doubt coincides.
I think you are just trying to legitimize crackpot theories from crackpot charlatans. My two cents.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 08:44:33 AM
I think you are just trying to legitimize crackpot theories from crackpot charlatans. My two cents.
No, no, that is far cry from two cents. There is
no value in any such ridiculous reductionism, which is an outright disrespect to my position for which I was in no way forcefully imposing. I was rather attempting to provide some possible insight and some personal sentiment hopefully worth discussing. Alas, this is this same kind of cultural solipsism that no doubt blinds individuals to the reality of the world that exists outside of their own. Yes, art is not some purely subjective fantasy world that exists merely to serve your personal feelings and allows you to say whatever asinine trash you want, nor does it give any credence or any value worth anyone's interest to your laughably weak blanket statements. Instead, you recede into the superficial masses just like the rest – another impetuous voice goes unheard for lacking any sort of rational perspective.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 08:31:14 AM
Well this is a particularly broad question. I can say many things in defense of modern minimalism, but probably nothing of which that would yield a radical shift in the way of one's thinking. In order to avoid delving into the much exhausted debate of the music's comparative technical merits (which I no doubt can do if need be), the ultimate determining agency of whether or not one can value minimalism as a music is if one can value late modernist art in its own right, which would entail all the minimalism, pastiche, theory, and paradoxical tensions that embody the postmodern movement. Minimalism is the result of a paradigm movement in the late modernist arts which signified a radical change in the way high art and commercial art are understood. I find there is something very intellectual in the works of Glass and Reich, and this is how I am able to appreciate the music. Ergo, it is a cognitive approach initially, but the music says much about the modern era, and I find the technical experiments and the sustaining moods in the tradition of Bruckner or Sibelius no less satisfying. I do not find that classical music should entail a single meta-narrative in the way of development, expression, and progression. I would not expect as much of painting, theater, and literature, for which minimalism no doubt coincides.
ahh now i clearly understand why i have slowly lost, and now totally become dis-interested in Sibelius syms. I prefer the single narrative approach. Sibeluis reminds me too much of Beethoven's piece-meal styling, sectional, things not leading from one to the other/disjointed-ness. Beautiful passages at times, but akward at the joining points.
Sure Schnittke can appear at tims like this, but from first note to very last, there is something intensely taking place, there's no waste, everything has meaning and a connection to the whole.. No meandering , "Ok I got it" repeats, as i find in Sibelius. Bruckner i hear as a direct continuation of what Beethoven would be writing had he lived another 30 yrs. Beethoven has this minimalist tendency, passages dived off, with little sense of meaning of what went before and comes after wards. His 9th is a perfect example of Beethoven at his typical. His 3,5 syms are less so with these issues. Someone said Beethoven was poor at orchestration. i tend to think so.
. Mozart does not suffer from any of these issues in his late works.
Quote from: paulb on January 26, 2008, 09:12:46 AM
ahh now i clearly understand why i have slowly lost, and now totally become dis-interested in Sibelius syms. I prefer the single narrative approach.
But Paul, Israfel's not talking about compositional technique. He's talking about how we talk about music. Pointing out that the ways of talking about it that exclude perfectly good (and perfectly "classical") things is perhaps not quite the thing. Diminishes our enjoyment of what we INclude, I'd add. (To be fair, the words "development, expression, and progression"
are also musical terms!)
Quote from: paulb on January 26, 2008, 09:12:46 AMBeethoven has this minimalist tendency, passages dived off, with little sense of meaning of what went before and comes after wards.
Well, I didn't have any luck getting bwv 1080 to elaborate HIS point, which is a great pity, as he's articulate and erudite. But oh well, you're not bwv 1080, so maybe it's worth asking you to elaborate
your point. Which minimal pieces do you know in which passages are "dived off, with little sense of meaning of what went before and comes after wards"? That sounds like no minimalism I've ever heard or even read about.
I have no answer.
i thought minimalism was like expression of a static nature, lacks flowing movemennt, just playing with forms, little real development or inner structure, lots of repeats.
any way i was not impressed with Part, Adams and a few others.
Quote from: paulb on January 26, 2008, 09:12:46 AM
ahh now i clearly understand why i have slowly lost, and now totally become dis-interested in Sibelius syms. I prefer the single narrative approach. Sibeluis reminds me too much of Beethoven's piece-meal styling, sectional, things not leading from one to the other/disjointed-ness. Beautiful passages at times, but akward at the joining points.
In a sense, yes, which is interesting you should point out. Often times Sibelius is written off as being little more than a warmed over Tchaikovsky (how many times have we seen this exact phrase written? It is so banal the way we mass-produce these catch-phrases as though reflecting the consensual academic criticism), but in reality, Sibelius' musical structure was very modernist. (Although, to be fair, I should say Tchaikovsky's 4th comes to mind when I think of Sibelius' aesthetic.) He is often confused as being a late Romantic due to his lush melodic themes, but the essence of the Finnish landscape he captures with his music, namely with the 3rd, 4th, and 6th, is only made possible by a modernist disposition in the music. Yet, I should take issue with this point that his approach was piece-meal styling or fragmented, as the entire conception of his music is based on this sequential synthesis of constant development on theme. The 7th embodies this idea, where he did away with the separated movement structure, and arguably even composed the piece back to front.
Quote from: paulb on January 26, 2008, 09:12:46 AMSure Schnittke can appear at tims like this, but from first note to very last, there is something intensely taking place, there's no waste, everything has meaning and a connection to the whole.. No meandering , "Ok I got it" repeats, as i find in Sibelius.
I see the meandering in Sibelius' music, he often stays with a theme that might perceivably be an unpopular one before moving on to a more famous melodic one, but I do not find that his music is particularly fragmented or illogical in this sense. The modernist touch, I do believe, comes in through the way his music depends so heavily on these more discordant and dissonant moments in the music to bridge these contrasting themes. It reflects something of dialectic or contradictory tension that is so true to modernism.
Quote from: paulb on January 26, 2008, 09:12:46 AMBruckner i hear as a direct continuation of what Beethoven would be writing had he lived another 30 yrs. Beethoven has this minimalist tendency, passages dived off, with little sense of meaning of what went before and comes after wards. His 9th is a perfect example of Beethoven at his typical. His 3,5 syms are less so with these issues. Someone said Beethoven was poor at orchestration. i tend to think so.
. Mozart does not suffer from any of these issues in his late works.
Bruckner does many things Beethoven would likely do, but I would not say he was a direct continuation. If that were so, Bruckner would be in much higher esteem than he is today. This is not to say public reception equates with talent, but let us face it, Beethoven is one of the most accessible composers of all time. Bruckner, not so much. Beethoven certainly got more avant-garde with his late chamber work, but if you look at his symphonies, which is mostly the bridge that connects Bruckner and Beethoven, I would argue his work was getting even
more accessible from the Symphony 5 and on, which culminated with the 9th.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 08:31:14 AM
Well this is a particularly broad question. I can say many things in defense of modern minimalism, but probably nothing of which that would yield a radical shift in the way of one's thinking. In order to avoid delving into the much exhausted debate of the music's comparative technical merits (which I no doubt can do if need be), the ultimate determining agency of whether or not one can value minimalism as a music is if one can value late modernist art in its own right, which would entail all the minimalism, pastiche, theory, and paradoxical tensions that embody the postmodern movement. Minimalism is the result of a paradigm movement in the late modernist arts which signified a radical change in the way high art and commercial art are understood. I find there is something very intellectual in the works of Glass and Reich, and this is how I am able to appreciate the music. Ergo, it is a cognitive approach initially, but the music says much about the modern era, and I find the technical experiments and the sustaining moods in the tradition of Bruckner or Sibelius no less satisfying. I do not find that classical music should entail a single meta-narrative in the way of development, expression, and progression. I would not expect as much of painting, theater, and literature, for which minimalism no doubt coincides.
Fair enough. I agree that a teleological view of music history and making value-judgments based on that view is wrong, and it accounts for nearly all arguments by people who will foam at the mouth and fight over whether or not a piece of new music has "legs" (disgusting term, really). My problem with Reich and Glass's music is that it seems to be
merely concerned with the working out of one process or experiment, rather than relating to ideas that are universal. I know I'm getting into mystical territory, and it's impossible to argue this, but it doesn't seem to come "from the heart". Of course, I don't expect anyone else to have the same value-judgment as myself, and my opinions stem from my romantic ideas of what art should be.
"Your mileage my vary"
Quote from: Corey on January 26, 2008, 09:55:41 AM
Fair enough. I agree that a teleological view of music history and making value-judgments based on that view is wrong, and it accounts for nearly all arguments by people who will foam at the mouth and fight over whether or not a piece of new music has "legs" (disgusting term, really).
No doubt.
Quote from: Corey on January 26, 2008, 09:55:41 AMMy problem with Reich and Glass's music is that it seems to be merely concerned with the working out of one process or experiment, rather than relating to ideas that are universal. I know I'm getting into mystical territory, and it's impossible to argue this, but it doesn't seem to come "from the heart". Of course, I don't expect anyone else to have the same value-judgment as myself, and my opinions stem from my romantic ideas of what art should be. "Your mileage my vary"
I can accept this, and I respect it. There are a few things I can add. The first is that by appreciating the contextual and broader paradigmatic approach to the minimalist aesthetic, in that, by attempting to understand the music better by way of such analysis or knowledge, can certainly change one's emotional affinities or relationship with the music. I, for one, know this has surely held true for me. Secondly, in regards to the more essential archetypal element of music for which we are all so seemingly compelled, I do believe these composers have captured such relevance in more subtle strokes. For example, Glass' early work such as
Glassworks and his film scores, namely
Koyannisqatsi, or even his most recent score for
The Illusionist, I think reaches this level of accessibility; but perhaps the most exemplary case for Glass' more emotional pieces would be his very intimate Violin Concerto, his solo piano works, and his Etudes, which, I think, come as close to the more universal greatness of music as any piece of the 20th century. It is probably quite clear I am partial to Glass here, but Reich I think has also championed these grounds in such a manner, perhaps most plainly with his concert hall music.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 09:07:52 AM
Yes, art is not some purely subjective fantasy world that exists merely to serve your personal feelings and allows you to say whatever asinine trash you want
Judging by the artistic trends of this past several decades, you could have fooled me.
Israfel
Excellent post, braod understanding of music. Beyond my limited understandings, but get the gist of your meaning.
Sibelius had been something of value in my listenings...until came along Shostakovich's 5,7,8. Then Sibelius neighboring country, Sweden broght forth a composer, Pettersson. Sibelius syms now seemed antiquated, old forms, after each listen it was more "been there/done that" sort of experience.
I know EXACTLY how the music will go , staying just ahead of the score. I can shut the player off and hum my way through the sym.
Pettersson is a living form, one that will takea life time to become acquainted with.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 10:24:11 AM
Judging by the artistic trends of this past several decades, you could have fooled me.
More evasive non-sequiturs and tautologies. Come back when you have something meaningful to add to the discussion. No, scratch that. Don't come back.
Quote from: paulb on January 26, 2008, 10:24:21 AM
Israfel
Excellent post, braod understanding of music. Beyond my limited understandings, but get the gist of your meaning.
Sibelius had been something of value in my listenings...until came along Shostakovich's 5,7,8. Then Sibelius neighboring country, Sweden broght forth a composer, Pettersson. Sibelius syms now seemed antiquated, old forms, after each listen it was more "been there/done that" sort of experience.
I know EXACTLY how the music will go , staying just ahead of the score. I can shut the player off and hum my way through the sym.
Pettersson is a living form, one that will takea life time to become acquainted with.
I see that. Shostakovich and Pettersson are certainly more involved it would seem, but I do not think they are anymore complex. I think there is still much to be gathered in Sibelius' silences and troubled developments. It seems often times people remember the pattern of Sibelius' music and melodies since there is less dense orchestration going on than say Shostakovich, but I think there is still something to sit with and contemplate for what he was trying to do musically.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 09:07:52 AM
No, no, that is far cry from two cents. There is no value in any such ridiculous reductionism, which is an outright disrespect to my position for which I was in no way forcefully imposing. I was rather attempting to provide some possible insight and some personal sentiment hopefully worth discussing. Alas, this is this same kind of cultural solipsism that no doubt blinds individuals to the reality of the world that exists outside of their own. Yes, art is not some purely subjective fantasy world that exists merely to serve your personal feelings and allows you to say whatever asinine trash you want, nor does it give any credence or any value worth anyone's interest to your laughably weak blanket statements. Instead, you recede into the superficial masses just like the rest – another impetuous voice goes unheard for lacking any sort of rational perspective.
YICKES
I failed to read your post here...I am sure with my above thoughts on Sibelius, you have even more , justily deserved, criticisms to level at me.
I'll take it like a man :)
To my understanding music is purely subjective, though obviously how the majority votes has the weight of power. The past considerations of valuations should never over-rule our personal sentiments about a composer or work. Growing up the 60's, certain names were held in the very highest esteem and always in the spot light center stage.
Now there is a sense of revolt in the modernist camps to go against this bias of beliefs.
This is the reason we harbor such attitudes towards the past opinionated enviornment we came out of.
The Inet now has allowed us to bring together new insights and experiences.
The CM
INDUSTRY has promoted what it felt was for the popular man, common man. Whats sells, only logical, =profits Beethoven and Tchaikovsky.
Thus we have 150 complete cycles of Beethoven and 100 cycles of Tchaikovsky. I own none and no interest even if free.
This is 2008, not 1968. There's options now, certain late 20th C composers have now, in the 1990's have received at least one recording of thir works. Thats only 10 yrs+ in exsistence.
Why of course I am going to praise to the high heavens what i feel is rightfully due the utmost praises.
And if i bash abit of the old standards, well its some sort of abberation and weakness in my character, like a repression blowing its volcanic top.
Quote from: paulb on January 26, 2008, 10:41:16 AM
YICKES
I failed to read your post here...I am sure with my above thoughts on Sibelius, you have even more , justily deserved, criticisms to level at me.
I'll take it like a man :)
The post was not in response to you. It was in response to the dunce above. On the contrary, you have offered great thoughts worth discussing in the thread. Nevertheless, I'll address your points below.
Quote from: paulb on January 26, 2008, 10:41:16 AMTo my understanding music is purely subjective, though obviously how the majority votes has the weight of power. The past considerations of valuations should never over-rule our personal sentiments about a composer or work. Growing up the 60's, certain names were held in the very highest esteem and always in the spot light center stage
Now there is a sense of revolt in the modernist camps to go against this bias of beliefs.
This is the reason we harbor such attitudes towards the past opinionated enviornment we came out of.
The Inet now has allowed us to bring together new insights and experiences.
The CM INDUSTRY has promoted what it felt was for the popular man, common man. Whats sells, only logical, =profits Beethoven and Tchaikovsky.
Thus we have 150 complete cycles of Beethoven and 100 cycles of Tchaikovsky. I own none and no interest even if free.
This is 2008, not 1968. There's options now, certain late 20th C composers have now, in the 1990's have received at least one recording of thir works. Thats only 10 yrs+ in exsistence.
Why of course I am going to praise to the high heavens what i feel is rightfully due the utmost praises.
And if i bash abit of the old standards, well its some sort of abberation and weakness in my character, like a repression blowing its volcanic top.
Music is intersubjective; nothing is "purely" subjective. It is something of an urban myth. Our entire conception of the world is interdependant on our relationship to others and society. Art does not exist in a mutually exclusive vacuum for each individual, but is rooted in the world of meanings that is history and society. As for the recordings issue, I have no real stake in that.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 10:34:51 AM
I see that. Shostakovich and Pettersson are certainly more involved it would seem, but I do not think they are anymore complex. I think there is still much to be gathered in Sibelius' silences and troubled developments. It seems often times people remember the pattern of Sibelius' music and melodies since there is less dense orchestration going on than say Shostakovich, but I think there is still something to sit with and contemplate for what he was trying to do musically.
Even the once beloved Lemminkainen Legends where of great interest to me, but alas of late that may not seem to hold as solid.
Now i do recall I loved greatly his Kullervo, i do think that continues to holds strong interest. I love the powerful gripping main theme, and the chorus.
But even some works of Shostakovich has taken a lowering on my scale of valuation, due to the powerful music of Schnittke, the heir to Shostakovich.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 10:29:37 AM
More evasive non-sequiturs and tautologies.
Says the man who bases his view on evasive solipsism followed by a barrage of verbose non-arguments.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 10:29:37 AM
"the ultimate determining agency of whether or not one can value minimalism as a music is if one can value late modernist art in its own right, which would entail all the minimalism, pastiche, theory, and paradoxical tensions that embody the postmodern movement."
In short, one cannot value minimalism unless one values crackpot modernist rhetoric, that is, the theory justifies the art form. Did i understand this correctly?
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 10:45:44 AM
Music is intersubjective; nothing is "purely" subjective. It is something of an urban myth. Our entire conception of the world is interdependant on our relationship to others and society. Art does not exist in a mutually exclusive vacuum for each individual, but is rooted in the world of meanings that is history and society. As for the recordings issue, I have no real stake in that.
Sure, until somebody interjects his own subjective artistic interpretation, gives it societal and cultural credence and then creates an art form stemming from the vacuum of his own personal little universe. Isn't this what "post-modernism" is all about?
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 10:45:44 AM
The post was not in response to you. It was in response to the dunce above. On the contrary, you have offered great thoughts worth discussing in the thread. Nevertheless, I'll address your points below.
Music is intersubjective; nothing is "purely" subjective. It is something of an urban myth. Our entire conception of the world is interdependant on our relationship to others and society. Art does not exist in a mutually exclusive vacuum for each individual, but is rooted in the world of meanings that is history and society. As for the recordings issue, I have no real stake in that.
well i do feel your admonishment could have applied to my some of my gripes.
Intersubjective, yes thats much better expressed, than the way i said it 'subjective" as though one werea island in the vast sea. Although at times we Petterssonians do feel isolated on our small populated island ;D
Schnittke, Pettersson, these 2 connect to me ina way that i feel the world\. What they know , see and understand about the world speaks directly to my depths.
So you have said it well, "rooted ina world of meanings that is CURRENT history and society".
Music has to be alive for me to have meaning.
History of CM has its importance along side the individual 's opinions living in 2008.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 10:51:30 AM
Says the man who bases his view on evasive solipsism followed by a barrage of verbose non-arguments.
Is this a postmodernist's way of saying, "I know you are but what am I"? Yes, I can see you took my charge straight out of my own posts dunce. Did you think you were being clever?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 10:51:30 AMIn short, one cannot value minimalism unless one values crackpot modernist rhetoric, that is, the theory justifies the art form. Did i understand this correctly?
What is crackpot Modernist rhetoric? Is it the same as crackpot overwrought Romantic rhetoric? What about crackpost Baroque rhetoric? Or crackpot Middle Ages rhetoric? Or crackpot Stone Age rhetoric?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 10:51:30 AMSure, until somebody interjects his own subjective artistic interpretation, gives it societal and cultural credence and then creates an art form stemming from the vacuum of his own personal little universe.
How could someone possibly give their own work societal and cultural credence? That doesn't make any sense. Society and culture gives an artist their credence. I bet philistines like you who would have all the museums holding any modernist art from surrealism on to abstract expressionism thrown out the window. Let us burn our novels by Woolfe, Joyce, and Hemingway too. We might as well throw out our history books documenting the events of the 20th Century while we are at it. Oh wait, are you one of those who think art is mutually exclusive with history? I wouldn't doubt it. It requires about the same logic as a Holocaust denier. Where do you even exist? Why are you using the internets?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 10:51:30 AMIsn't this what "post-modernism" is all about?
I don't know, you tell me. You are the only postmodernist in this thread. Wagner would hate you.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 10:45:44 AM
As for the recordings issue, I have no real stake in that.
yeah well i find in of some interest that Beethovenians need multipules of each sym in order to sustain interest. Reading a "whats your fav Beethoven sym recording?" (substitute any composer for that matter), one begins to doubt if the music is really as good as the composers fans claim it truly is.
Whereas there's only 1 or 2 recordings of Pettersson and Schnittke, with great success. Though there does remain a few Schnittke scores that have yet to given full expression. Pettersson's BIS and CPO are as close to definitive as to make me content. No need for 150 ??? recordings of Pettersson's 7th to pick and choose from. ::)
I guess in summary, older forms in order to maintain a sense of living breath, to validate itself as significant in the 21st C, needs multifarious venues of expression. "Ok so you don'd like this recording, how bout this one,,no? ...Ok and this one?..NO? humm, oK, here's one you are sure to like? ...YES?...ahh no you don't like recording # 78...don't fret we still have another X to go, I'm confident we'll hook you up".
Get real. The only recording of Beethoven's 4th that i could stand to listen to is Bruno Walter/Columbia. That goes for most of the Mozart syms recordings. there's only 2 recordings of the last 6 syms I like, with the Mackerras as runner up 3rd place. The others pail in comparison, including Klemeper's mono/Testament which are over-rated.
With Schnittke and Pettersson receiving the "minimalist" consideration of studio contracts, 2 at times just 1 offering, yet all have this convincing quality The music appeals and grips the senses, and thus not overly dependent on the success or failures of the artistic imput of the conductor and his forces.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 11:30:47 AM
How could someone possibly give their own work societal and cultural credence?
It's done all the time actually. You don't think cultural and societal values are created by sporadic individual interjection? Do you think there would have been a romantic era as we know it without Beethoven?
The difference of course is that originally, such cultural interjections were the result of genuine artistic manifestations which transcended the cultural and societal context under which those artists operated, that is, (real) art has
never been bound to cultural context in the first place. Beethoven was not great because he was a great classicist or a great romantic (or both), he was great,
period.
Your argument that minimalism can only be appreciated if we appreciate the cultural dogma of "paradoxical tensions" which define the context under which this style was conceived is a faulty one in that i don't have to appreciate or accept the context under which Bach operated (particularly the crackpot theory of universal harmony reflecting the divine) in order to appreciate Bach.
If the works of Philip Glass can't speak for themselves then they might as well be silent, as simple as that.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 11:30:47 AM
What is crackpot Modernist rhetoric?
It's the theory that the destruction of all artistic and aesthetic notions as we know it is an art form in and of itself.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 11:30:47 AM
Society and culture gives an artist their credence.
At best, they give an artist a peculiar frame under which to exercise their creative powers. Unless of course that frame involves the "rejection" of all cultural values and traditions for rejection's sake which calls for the wrong type of creativity being channeled into misguided paths. This is how charlatans like John Cage have made a name for themselves.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 11:30:47 AM
I bet philistines like you who would have all the museums holding any modernist art from surrealism on to abstract expressionism thrown out the window.
Actually, the only "philistines" here are the artists whose work is donned on the walls of those museums. Truth to my nature, i'm a mere reactionary.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 11:30:47 AM
Oh wait, are you one of those who think art is mutually exclusive with history?
I think acts of genuine creativity are mutually exclusive with history. As i said, they occur after individual interjection, which transcends cultural context. Context can still be relevant in order to understand the principles under which this interjection operated, but it gives no weight to the general assessment of creativity. The only reason why history is important is that creativity breeds more creativity, and great artists set an example for those to follow. If you don't know Bach, it's quite possible that you may not understand the limits of your own creativity and you may not achieve as much. Surely, this is most true in popular music, an art form which is completely myopic to anything older then a single generation, so that artists keep "reinventing the wheel" (so to speak) for the extend of human ingenuity, which is why the standard never goes anywhere.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 26, 2008, 11:30:47 AM
I don't know, you tell me. You are the only postmodernist in this thread. Wagner would hate you.
Well, according to postmodernist rhetoric, it is impossible to define postmodernism, which really shows the crackpot nature of this ideology.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PM
It's done all the time actually. You don't think cultural and societal values are created by sporadic individual interjection? Do you think there would have been a romantic era as we know it without Beethoven?
The difference of course is that originally, such cultural interjections were the result of genuine artistic manifestations which transcended the cultural and societal context under which those artists operated, that is, (real) art has never been bound to cultural context in the first place. Beethoven was not great because he was a great classicist or a great romantic (or both), he was great, period.
Your argument that minimalism can only be appreciated if we appreciate the cultural dogma of "paradoxical tensions" which define the context under which this style was conceived is a faulty one in that i don't have to appreciate or accept the context under which Bach operated (particularly the crackpot theory of universal harmony reflecting the divine) in order to appreciate Bach.
If the works of Philip Glass can't speak for themselves then they might as well be silent, as simple as that.
It's the theory that the destruction of all artistic and aesthetic notions as we know it is an art form in and of itself.
At best, they give an artist a peculiar frame under which to exercise their creative powers. Unless of course that frame involves the "rejection" of all cultural values and traditions for rejection's sake which calls for the wrong type of creativity being channeled into misguided paths. This is how charlatans like John Cage have made a name for themselves.
Actually, the only "philistines" here are the artists whose work is donned on the walls of those museums. Truth to my nature, i'm a mere reactionary.
I think acts of genuine creativity are mutually exclusive with history. As i said, they occur after individual interjection, which transcends cultural context. Context can still be relevant in order to understand the principles under which this interjection operated, but it gives no weight to the general assessment of creativity. The only reason why history is important is that creativity breeds more creativity, and great artists set an example for those to follow.
You've got alot going on in this post.
Will take some time for me to express all the points i wsih to make.
True genius is something of its time, and also somewhat above its epoch.
Beethoven was considered great late in his career, and has been so considered til today.
But that view has undergone recent changes.
One never came acroos the opinion back in the 1960's that Beethoven's muisc was only "OK", but I've run into the this opinion that some of his works are good, while others they feel they could do without. His status as 'great genius" is not bullet proof, Epochs condition the mind of the listener. I , like Debussy and ravel , we 3 acknowledge the genius of Beethoven, who can deny that. But the content of the music is not to our taste, to put it nicely as possible. This feeling in no way takes away from the historic fact of B's genius. thats a part of the history books.
But as to the unique individual listener's valuation system, thats another matter.
Agree about how we should consider past composers as offering elements of inspiring future composers.
Wagner owesa debt to Beethoven, ever moreso a debt to Mozart.
Shostakovich influence by Mahler, as was Schonberg. Boulez takes Schonberg back to influences from Brahms ::)
Boulez said of Webern, "where can you trace back the roots to, who influenced Webern?"
Anyway, why bring up John Cage, what does he or any of the minimalists have to do with that specific genre called CM? has nothing to do with "misguided ideations", either the creative quality is within the man or not.
Maybe had Cage waited some more yrs and listened and studied the masters of modern composition, he "might have" something of value to offer the CM community.
But he like 1000's of other "hope-to-be-CM-composers" jumped the gun and gave us some musical forms we are really not interested to hear.
At least concerning the serious minded of the CM community in the modernist camp.
This modern world is evolving, time moves on, so we should expect past opinions our grandfathers once held, not to be mainstay nor permanent.
I mean if you asked our grandfathers, "tell us how you liked Schonberg back at the turn of the century.?"
He wouldn;'t know what we were talking about. The big hit at the concert hall was Beethoven, who was not to be outdone by any avant garde stuff.
Sure Stravinsky madea big hit, the parisian opera houses was looking for something controversial and 'block-busting". Many other parisian critics considered his stuff c**p. I find one or 2 works of Stravinsky interesting, provided its at the paris ballet , those cute french femme fatals are irresistable ;D, and the score ain't bad.
The history books are just that, books, its the human mind that is of the greater sense of importance, as its the living psyche that gives life to the individual.
Everything is in a state of flux, stability and change, both have their sense of purpose.
.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PM
Unless of course that frame involves the "rejection" of all cultural values and traditions for rejection's sake which calls for the wrong type of creativity being channeled into misguided paths. This is how charlatans like John Cage have made a name for themselves.
You don't really know much about Cage, do you? Criticisms are much more effective if they're informed, ya know!
Anyway to get back to paulb's very quick answer to my question (thanks paul), the word minimalism covers many things, oddly enough. I suppose "piece-meal styling, sectional, things not leading from one to the other/disjointed-ness" could be construed as applying to certain minimalist pieces. Wouldn't have occurred to me first, anyway. To be fair, I don't see how those words apply to Beethoven or Sibelius, either.
Anyway, as for "a static nature, lacks flowing movement, just playing with forms, little real development or inner structure, lots of repeats," some of that does apply to some minimal music. Static? Some. A lot of it is quite flowing, though. Development is not pertinent to some, quite pertinent to other--some minimal music is only development, though the changes are small and subtle. Inner structure? I have no idea what you're referring to. Though that does remind me of an anecdote about Morton Feldman who, when a student asked him about structure, is supposed to have said--while laying out the student's score on the floor and walking on it--something like this: "Structure? Bridges have structure. This is supposed to be music!"
And lots of repeats? Yeah, some of it does.
"Any way i was not impressed with Part, Adams and a few others."
Hahahaha, who is? But seriously, these two are not all that representative, of any type of minimalism.
Just read your comment about Cage, Paul, which you just posted. Cage studied with Schoenberg, you know. Really guys, criticize Cage all you want, but make informed criticisms, at least!
Quote from: some guy on January 26, 2008, 04:08:06 PM
"Any way i was not impressed with Part, Adams and a few others."
Hahahaha, who is? But seriously, these two are not all that representative, of any type of minimalism.
Just read your comment about Cage, Paul, which you just posted. Cage studied with Schoenberg, you know. Really guys, criticize Cage all you want, but make informed criticisms, at least!
Was not aware cage studied with my beloved Schonberg. i owe it to Cage to reconsider more than the little I know from him. I apologize for that snap judgement. I meant that Part and Admas are part of the some avant garde/minimalist trend. Not that they were specifically called as minimalists.
John Adams and Steve Reich have written a goodly number of really excellent scores. They are two of the great composers of our time.
Glass has had some impact with his film music. I don't know if the minimalist category applies due to the fragmentary nature of film music in general. I'm thinking partcularly of The Truman Show, The Illusionist, and especially Kundun and my favorite Hamburger Hill.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PM
It's done all the time actually. You don't think cultural and societal values are created by sporadic individual interjection? Do you think there would have been a romantic era as we know it without Beethoven?
Of course not, and to infer that I suggested otherwise is absurd. Although one should expect such a ridiculous conflation when you filter all arguments through a quasi-ontological reductionist outlook on art.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PMThe difference of course is that originally, such cultural interjections were the result of genuine artistic manifestations which transcended the cultural and societal context under which those artists operated
The artist does not transcend society and culture – they contribute to it. Individual 'interjection', as you describe it, is nothing more than describing the components that make up society. All of culture and society is obviously intersubjective, where individuals contribute to the collective whole and we agree or disagree on what is or is not art.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PMthat is, (real) art has never been bound to cultural context in the first place. Beethoven was not great because he was a great classicist or a great romantic (or both), he was great, period.
This is absurd. Without cultural context, Beethoven would not have written anything. What is sonata form without prior context? What is a fugue without Bach? A symphony or string quartet without Hayden? A piano concerto without Mozart? I am not saying Beethoven's music is not great. I am saying his music is only made possible by the massive web of contexts, meanings, and relations human beings create as the apparatus for new things.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PMYour argument that minimalism can only be appreciated if we appreciate the cultural dogma of "paradoxical tensions" which define the context under which this style was conceived is a faulty one in that i don't have to appreciate or accept the context under which Bach operated (particularly the crackpot theory of universal harmony reflecting the divine) in order to appreciate Bach.
That is because your appreciation of Bach is indoctrinated and latent. You did not grow up listening to Philip Glass'
Eienstein on the Beach did you? Or anything remotely similar to it? I doubt it. I imagine you have been around music forms that have been directly inspired by classical form and arrangement, thus indicating Bach's according greatness. The problem is you do not realize that your ability to appreciate Bach is fundamental to your understanding of harmony and musical form, which all of us are culturally informed by experience. African tribesmen who grew up listening to African tribal music may not understand Bach's music, but that does not mean they could not. Yet, there are a great number of people who simply do not like Bach or classical music. You do realize that you are part of a cultural minority in terms of exclusivity, correct? Greatness is not determined just by the mob – that is populism, not art.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PMIf the works of Philip Glass can't speak for themselves then they might as well be silent, as simple as that.
His work speaks plainly for itself, but it is informed by a larger historical context. It is generational largely, and that is why his audience is younger or academic.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PMIt's the theory that the destruction of all artistic and aesthetic notions as we know it is an art form in and of itself.
Are you serious? Is that what you think modernism is about? Deconstruction is not destruction, and neither is progressivism.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PMAt best, they give an artist a peculiar frame under which to exercise their creative powers. Unless of course that frame involves the "rejection" of all cultural values and traditions for rejection's sake which calls for the wrong type of creativity being channeled into misguided paths. This is how charlatans like John Cage have made a name for themselves.
These artists do not "reject" cultural values, they embrace the modern values of the time. They may reject certain conventions they deem inadequate for representing those values of the time, to be sure, and this is why Mozart and Haydn were not warmed over Baroque emotionalist – society and cultural moved away from melodrama into a progressive, and some times very distant, classicism.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PMActually, the only "philistines" here are the artists whose work is donned on the walls of those museums. Truth to my nature, i'm a mere reactionary.
Indeed, a cultural reactionary just as modernists are reactionaries. I knew you were a postmodernist. You embody the paradox you preach against.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PMI think acts of genuine creativity are mutually exclusive with history. As i said, they occur after individual interjection, which transcends cultural context. Context can still be relevant in order to understand the principles under which this interjection operated, but it gives no weight to the general assessment of creativity. The only reason why history is important is that creativity breeds more creativity, and great artists set an example for those to follow. If you don't know Bach, it's quite possible that you may not understand the limits of your own creativity and you may not achieve as much. Surely, this is most true in popular music, an art form which is completely myopic to anything older then a single generation, so that artists keep "reinventing the wheel" (so to speak) for the extend of human ingenuity, which is why the standard never goes anywhere.
Again, more of the same banal logic. All of this is informed by culture, values, and history. Knowing Bach does not provide you with just a springboard for your own creativity, but a basis for what is aesthetically important to society and that individual. If a person grew up in a cave divorced from all society and created what he perceived as a magnificent work of music or art – we would call it ridiculous garbage unless we consider context. This has nothing to do with the "limits" of his creativity, but gives
direct weight to the assessment of creativity.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 26, 2008, 02:23:43 PMWell, according to postmodernist rhetoric, it is impossible to define postmodernism, which really shows the crackpot nature of this ideology.
Postmodernism does mostly reject meta-narratives, but is easily understandable. The theory is really more simplistic than it is complex from a historical point-of-view. The postmodernist's rejection to be self-defined only explains what it is to the outsider. As a whole philosophical theory, I am not terribly interested in it, but historians and sociologists find the meaning of the term in applied contexts. I am only interested in how postmodernity and how the postmodern theory itself arises and informs certain artists and values in society.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 27, 2008, 01:52:35 PM
The artist does not transcend society and culture – they contribute to it. Individual 'interjection', as you describe it, is nothing more than describing the components that make up society. All of culture and society is obviously intersubjective, where individuals contribute to the collective whole and we agree or disagree on what is or is not art.
I am not saying Beethoven's music is not great.
Some artists do in fact transcend the society's level of consciousness at the time they live.
Van Gogh, Nietzsche, Socrates, countless others . All unique, individuals which were far and away above the common man of their day. Common man is just that, common, of little true value other than as a consumer.
There are always a few compoers/artist that are given to deep intuitions and powerful understandings of the epoch which they live in. Thus their inner creative spirit gives voice to these profound works of art. They are always, and forever ahead of the time, as far as the majority are concerned. Shakespeare was given some due credit, but not to the degree of his quality of his works and volume of works. Was he fully rewarded for his masterful plays which are alive today , as when penned and will forever remain so.
Hollow-Wood playwrites are made wealthy, yet produce alot of worthless junk. Shakespeare was not made a wealthy man by his supreme masterpieces. Society is always behind the masterful creative artist. Which each epoch only produces a moderate number. There was only a few to match van Gogh's genius of creativity. There was one man called Socrates and one man called Plato, each had a few close deciples. Christ had how many apostles? 12, not 24. The composers who lived along side Vivaldi and Bach were small by comparison, and today those same contemporaries of Bach are still insignificant, meaningless.
Why anyone would want to
resurrect Salieri as a composer to be remembered is so much a joke. Yet someone on this board actually made a topic for that worthless composer, called Salieri. makes absoluetly no sense. Bach-ians want Bach to be as great the day he penned his music as in today's world. bach wrote muisc for his time, not mine. His music is interesting for sure, but great in onlya historic context, not the contemporary sense.
"I am no saying Beethoven's muisc is not great'.
Debussy and Ravel tended to think so, that Beethoven was in fact ws a genius with shoddy taste.. And as you know, so do I. It was great music in his time and up to Schonberg's time, beyond that and particuliarly in 2008, its all so old and stale. Dead.
There are pschological reasons why Beethoven appeals to this younger under 40 crowd. Reasons i won't go into.
Each epoch gives men a few high genius in art forms, not dozens. The classical epoch is soon to close the door to that glorious era.
Quote from: paulb on January 27, 2008, 02:49:10 PM
Some artists do in fact transcend the society's level of consciousness at the time they live.
Van Gogh, Nietzsche, Socrates, countless others . All unique, individuals which were far and away above the common man of their day. Common man is just that, common, of little true value other than as a consumer.
There are always a few compoers/artist that are given to deep intuitions and powerful understandings of the epoch which they live in. Thus their inner creative spirit gives voice to these profound works of art. They are always, and forever ahead of the time, as far as the majority are concerned. Shakespeare was given some due credit, but not to the degree of his quality of his works and volume of works. Was he fully rewarded for his masterful plays which are alive today , as when penned and will forever remain so.
Hollow-Wood playwrites are made wealthy, yet produce alot of worthless junk. Shakespeare was not made a wealthy man by his supreme masterpieces. Society is always behind the masterful creative artist. Which each epoch only produces a moderate number. There was only a few to match van Gogh's genius of creativity. There was one man called Socrates and one man called Plato, each had a few close deciples. Christ had how many apostles? 12, not 24. The composers who lived along side Vivaldi and Bach were small by comparison, and today those same contemporaries of Bach are still insignificant, meaningless.
Why anyone would want to resurrect Salieri as a composer to be remembered is so much a joke. Yet someone on this board actually made a topic for that worthless composer, called Salieri. makes absoluetly no sense. Bach-ians want Bach to be as great the day he penned his music as in today's world. bach wrote muisc for his time, not mine. His music is interesting for sure, but great in onlya historic context, not the contemporary sense.
"I am no saying Beethoven's muisc is not great'.
Debussy and Ravel tended to think so, that Beethoven was in fact ws a genius with shoddy taste.. And as you know, so do I. It was great music in his time and up to Schonberg's time, beyond that and particuliarly in 2008, its all so old and stale. Dead.
There are pschological reasons why Beethoven appeals to this younger under 40 crowd. Reasons i won't go into.
Each epoch gives men a few high genius in art forms, not dozens. The classical epoch is soon to close the door to that glorious era.
I have trouble reading your posts, but did you say Beethoven is stale, old, not great, and had shoddy taste?
Quote from: James on January 27, 2008, 02:52:35 PM
pffff "minimalism" that moniker says it all doesnt it? YAWN. never was a fan of folks associated with this "camp"...sure there are probably a few good scores but overall what ive heard is pretty insipid & repetitous; listening to it, i find it requires little 'active' involvement to obtain enough effective content, and it never seems to intrude into the foreground of my consciousness...they have the right to do what they feel is right of course, but considering the great things that came before, and other more meaty things happening concurrently, to evolve to such a place/solution is just horrible, lacks substance, mediocre... IMO...
It is not all great, and minimalism is a relatively small movement, as there is only a handful of them, but how do you feel about modernism though? I bet you do not reject modernism altogether.
Go read some comments of Ravel and Debussy on Beethoven as remembered by close friends. What i said was dainty and sweet in comparison.
What i REALLY TRUTHFULLY HONESTLY wish to say about Beethoven and his music, can't be made a public record.
I'll leave the opinions of Debussy and Ravel stand good enough for me 8)
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 27, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
It is not all great, and minimalism is a relatively small movement, as there is only a handful of them....
Wait a tick! Only a handful?
Young
Conrad
Johnson
Palestine
Niblock
Kutavicius
Oliveros
Dempster
Fox
Cox
Adams (John
Luther)
Smith
Fink
Radigue
Feldman
That's a small sampling (the ones I could think of offhand without breaking a sweat) of people other than the usual suspects who write/have written various kinds of minimal music (it's not just one thing). Plus all the people like Groult and Tudor who have written minimal pieces, and pre-coining of the term people like Satie and Cage, and even most (all) of the so-called noise bands whose music while maximal in volume is minimal in other ways.
some guy,
have you heard of David Borden?
He's another minimalist, from Ithaca, New York. He worked with Robert Moog in the early days of the Moog synthesizer, and formed the first all-synthesizer group "Mother Mallard's Portable Masterpiece Company".
Works include "The Continuing Story of Counterpoint", "The Perilous Night Companion" (after Cage), and "Variations on a Theme of Philip Glass".
I heard him perform the latter. It's kind of a minimalist Goldberg Variations, including canons at different intervals, all for synthesizers.
Quote from: some guy on January 28, 2008, 10:34:30 AM
Wait a tick! Only a handful?
Young
Conrad
Johnson
Palestine
Niblock
Kutavicius
Oliveros
Dempster
Fox
Cox
Adams (John Luther)
Smith
Fink
Radigue
Feldman
That's a small sampling (the ones I could think of offhand without breaking a sweat) of people other than the usual suspects who write/have written various kinds of minimal music (it's not just one thing). Plus all the people like Groult and Tudor who have written minimal pieces, and pre-coining of the term people like Satie and Cage, and even most (all) of the so-called noise bands whose music while maximal in volume is minimal in other ways.
Minimalism spawned new possibilities for composition, but only a handful have made a dent on
classical cannon. The minimalists are not as large as modernism, late Romantic, and so on. In fact, most modern composers still compose in the early 20th Century style rather than late.
Quote from: Israfel the Black on January 28, 2008, 11:02:28 AM
Minimalism spawned new possibilities for composition, but only a handful have made a dent on classical cannon. The minimalists are not as large as modernism, late Romantic, and so on. In fact, most modern composers still compose in the early 20th Century style rather than late.
Now thats acceptable.
Minimalism/avant garde (most =99%) doesn't fit with in with R&R, New Age space music, new age jazz, nor classical music. It falls within a class/genre of music all by itself.
How about we tag it as "modern instrumental". yeah i like that.
so like is John cage minimalISM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E
The audience actually applauds at the start ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E
and ck out the conductor with the joke of wiping his brow due to all the heavy duty conducting needed in the first "part"...I'd be laughing my arse off :D
Music it is, but what to tag it AS, thats a open question...in which you have 4 minutes and 33 sedonds to answer...and now start thinking.. clocks going.
/oh I hear the standing cheers.
Is this in britain...YES the Barbrican Hall.
Cage must be british. Oh how the brits support THEIR home town team.
someone said, 'oh man you should consider cage, he studied with your fav Schonberg"
I heard other Cage at Tulane's ML 2 yrs ago. So I am basing my post on more than just this "4:33".
Just FYI, Cage was American (1912-1992), and that I suspect he would have been delighted to hear laughter during a performance of 4'33". At one of the performances I've attended, for chamber orchestra, the conductor divided it into three "movements," e.g., "Largo," "Rondo," etc. It was hilarious.
--Bruce
Help me, Rondo, help, help me, Rondo . . . .
Quote from: bhodges on January 28, 2008, 11:49:04 AM
Just FYI, Cage was American (1912-1992), and that I suspect he would have been delighted to hear laughter during a performance of 4'33". At one of the performances I've attended, for chamber orchestra, the conductor divided it into three "movements," e.g., "Largo," "Rondo," etc. It was hilarious.
--Bruce
Bruce i take it you like the music of J Cage?
Quote from: paulb on January 28, 2008, 01:57:35 PM
Bruce i take it you like the music of J Cage?
I like some of it, not all. I almost admire him more as a philosopher than a composer; sometimes his ideas seem more interesting than his music. FWIW, I'd rather see Cage performed rather than listening to him on recordings. Many of his works have a spatial component (e.g., players spaced widely apart on stage) that is lost, listening at home.
--Bruce
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on January 28, 2008, 11:01:06 AM
some guy,
have you heard of David Borden?
Mark, I have indeed. And have many (most?) of his CDs. Which makes it a bit embarrassing that his name didn't come to mind when I was whipping off that "top-of-my-head" list. Pfffft. Careless.
Quote from: paulb on January 27, 2008, 03:08:04 PM
Go read some comments of Ravel and Debussy on Beethoven as remembered by close friends. What i said was dainty and sweet in comparison.
What i REALLY TRUTHFULLY HONESTLY wish to say about Beethoven and his music, can't be made a public record.
I'll leave the opinions of Debussy and Ravel stand good enough for me 8)
Ravel, DeBussy and you can have your opinions of Beethoven.
Most popular work (arguably) for Ravel: Bolero ::)
Most popular work (arguably) for Beethoven: Symphony No. 5, or 9 let us say.
Hmm, wonder what Beethoven would have thought of Ravel?
Quote from: bhodges on January 28, 2008, 02:06:17 PM
I almost admire him more as a philosopher than a composer; sometimes his ideas seem more interesting than his music.
--Bruce
I may want to read his essays. His music, i'll pass.
While on this topic of composer as offering ideas as interesting, perhaps moreso that than the music, read the book A Schnittke reader/Ivashkin's interviews of Schnittke. Some of the most profound mystical, yet very earthy ideas , than anyone spiritual writer i know. On the level of Eckhart, Nietzsche and Jung.
Yet this piercing evocative mind of Schnittke as shown in his words, is also revealed in his music. The deepest spiritual music i know of, only matched by one other composer, make that 2 others.
Quote from: ChamberNut on January 28, 2008, 03:30:00 PM
Ravel, DeBussy and you can have your opinions of Beethoven.
Most popular work (arguably) for Ravel: Bolero ::)
Most popular work (arguably) for Beethoven: Symphony No. 5, or 9 let us say.
Hmm, wonder what Beethoven would have thought of Ravel?
:D
very good Chamber, you learn fast i see. Counter attack, lazer guided misseles ;D
OOUCHHH