Such as Brahms strong objections to Wagner.
And then of course the well known vehement attacks on the music of Beethoven from Debussy and Ravel.
Anyone care to share their ideas? I do not wish this topic to be locked, so please show your virtues of restraint and tolerance. And kindness.
Another conflict of one composer upon another was that of Bartok upon his equally famous contemporary that of Shostakovich.
I love Debussy, but he could also be wrong. The again, he loved Bach very much, so I can't fault him there! ;D In Debussy's case, he was resisting the whole German/Austrian romantic tradition from Beethoven to Wagner ("music with sauerkraut" as he called it-- or was that Satie?).
In some cases, certain composers go through phases-- I don't recall the details now, but for a long time Stravinsky had a low opinion of Beethoven, but later in life came to appreciate him a lot. And also remember how Stravinsky dismissed Schoenberg & serialism-- until after Schoenberg died!
I'd say composers, even brilliant ones, are just as suceptible to prejudices as anyone else.
In average, composers are just as narrow-minded as other people. Artists have strong opinions. Combine these two facts and you have composers disliking other composers
Quote from: 71 dB on February 05, 2008, 09:06:06 AM
In average, composers are just as narrow-minded as other people. Artists have strong opinions. Combine these two facts and you have composers disliking other composers
Very true. Well said.
Tchaikovsky and Brahms, born on the same day (not year, but same day), despised each other's music.
I find it interesting that Tchaikovsky's pupil, Taneyev, composed his Piano Quintet and Piano Trio, which have an unmistakable 'Brahmsian' flavour to them. I wonder what Tchaikovsky's opinion of these works were?
ME:
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 09:05:41 AM
I'd say composers, even brilliant ones, are just as suceptible to prejudices as anyone else.
71dB:
Quote from: 71 dB on February 05, 2008, 09:06:06 AM
In average, composers are just as narrow-minded as other people. Artists have strong opinions. Combine these two facts and you have composers disliking other composers
I think your statement is actually closer to the truth than mine.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 09:05:41 AM
I love Debussy, but he could also be wrong. The again, he loved Bach very much, so I can't fault him there! ;D In Debussy's case, he was resisting the whole German/Austrian romantic tradition from Beethoven to Wagner ("music with sauerkraut" as he called it-- or was that Satie?).
In some cases, certain composers go through phases-- I don't recall the details now, but for a long time Stravinsky had a low opinion of Beethoven, but later in life came to appreciate him a lot. And also remember how Stravinsky dismissed Schoenberg & serialism-- until after Schoenberg died!
I'd say composers, even brilliant ones, are just as suceptible to prejudices as anyone else.
But actually Debussy and ravel were very impressed, overwhelmed with some of Wagner. I believe i read something that Debussy remarked to Ravel "have you ever heard music as lovely as whats in Tristan?" As of this month i made my journey into Tristan, and can understand why Debussy made that comment to Ravel, it definetly sweeps you away in luxurious textures.
I recall reading somewhere about when Bartok was composing CfO on the radio came Shostakovich's 5th, music that he felt was not all that pleasing "Where has gone the simple beauty?"
So Bartok at that point inserted a most simply and lovely passage as rebuttal to Shostakovich's "crassness". The short passage is very beautiful.
I have always found that story amusing and humorous as one great reacts upon the other. In my collection I have placed my Barok cds right next to Shostakovich. ;D
Debussy and ravel did acknowledge Beethoven's supreme genius in composition, just that his taste was somewhat off.
I was unaware that Stravinsky was not fond of Schonberg. I would suspect Sibelius did not care at all for scond viennese either.
Boulez says in a interview , can be seen on youtube, that Schonberg can be traced back to Brahms, Berg to ? , can't recall what Boulez said there, and that Webern in his opinion, has no obvious roots of influence, as though Webern was a genre all unique to his style.
But obviously Webern can be traced to his teacher, Schonberg.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 05, 2008, 09:06:06 AM
In average, composers are just as narrow-minded as other people. Artists have strong opinions. Combine these two facts and you have composers disliking other composers
True. but i always find it more interesting when one genius reacts, negatively at times, to another genius in the arts of equal calibre. Moreso of interest than any opinion of 'average man'. With high genius composers, its like
A clash of titans :)
Brahms expressed his opinion of a Liszt work without using words.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... :D
Quote from: 71 dB on February 05, 2008, 09:06:06 AM
In average, composers are just as narrow-minded as other people.
Oh, speak for yourself. Much on the contrary, composers and artists in general make a point, in their training, of making the engaged acquaintance of a great variety of artwork, which is simply not true of the great majority of the general public.
On behalf of self-taught composers, obviously, I cannot presume to speak.
Quote from: PojuArtists have strong opinions.
That is true enough.
Paul, I dismiss the superfluous hyphen in your subject header ;D
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 05, 2008, 09:12:01 AM
Tchaikovsky and Brahms, born on the same day (not year, but same day), despised each other's music.
I find it interesting that Tchaikovsky's pupil, Taneyev, composed his Piano Quintet and Piano Trio, which have an unmistakable 'Brahmsian' flavour to them. I wonder what Tchaikovsky's opinion of these works were?
Maybe Tchaikovsky said of Taneyev after hearing the Brahms influence "didn't I teach that boy to stay away from bad influences?" ;D.
I wonder what it was that Brahms and Tchaikovsky had qualms with on each others music, neither's music seems to be offensive in any way, but actually compliments each others styles, beautiful melodies in both composers.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 05, 2008, 09:43:58 AM
Oh, speak for yourself. Much on the contrary, composers and artists in general make a point, in their training, of making the engaged acquaintance of a great variety of artwork, which is simply not true of the great majority of the general public.
On behalf of self-taught composers, obviously, I cannot presume to speak.
That is true enough.
Paul, I dismiss the superfluous hyphen in your subject header ;D
I think what 71 was trying to get across was that composers can be just like real people, they are not gods , so beyond reproach.
The hypen does not belong there. Poor gramar, but good topic...ahh thats grammar, just looked it up ;D
First of all, Brahms did admire Wagner (although the feeling was not reciprocated, except in a grudging way: when Wagner heard Brahms's Haydn Variations, he offered the left-handed compliment that "there are still things to be done with the old forms in the hands of someone who knows how to use them"). But the point is not that "composers are just as narrow-minded as other people." Composers, especially strong composers, are not just "other people." They are impelled by an inner fire to pursue their own artistic visions, and if other composers get in their way, watch out! The ability of a strong composer to be a critic is sharply circumscribed by the composer's primary need to forge their own styles. Hence the antipathy of a Debussy to Beethoven. Debussy wasn't stupid, and he knew perfectly well that Beethoven was a mighty creative figure. But the firm Austro-Germanic logic of Beethoven's sonata forms, and their enormous influence on 19th-century composition from Schubert to Mendelssohn to Brahms to Wagner to Mahler and more, represented exactly the antithesis of the more fluid and sensuous style Debussy was forging for the first time in musical history. Hence Debussy not only wasn't fair to Beethoven, he couldn't be fair to Beethoven while being true to himself. We as mere listeners are not similarly obligated; we have the luxury of being as fair as we can to a wide variety of deserving composers.
This is the article i recently came upon that awakened me to this unusual sense of competition and actaul resentment of one composer upon another. With each side actually forming groups. Though I suspect Wagner had few composer friends. He stood alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Romantics
Quote from: Sforzando on February 05, 2008, 09:59:05 AM
First of all, Brahms did admire Wagner (although the feeling was not reciprocated, except in a grudging way: when Wagner heard Brahms's Haydn Variations, he offered the left-handed compliment that "there are still things to be done with the old forms in the hands of someone who knows how to use them"). But the point is not that "composers are just as narrow-minded as other people." Composers, especially strong composers, are not just "other people." They are impelled by an inner fire to pursue their own artistic visions, and if other composers get in their way, watch out! The ability of a strong composer to be a critic is sharply circumscribed by the composer's primary need to forge their own styles. Hence the antipathy of a Debussy to Beethoven. Debussy wasn't stupid, and he knew perfectly well that Beethoven was a mighty creative figure. But the firm Austro-Germanic logic of Beethoven's sonata forms, and their enormous influence on 19th-century composition from Schubert to Mendelssohn to Brahms to Wagner to Mahler and more, represented exactly the antithesis of the more fluid and sensuous style Debussy was forging for the first time in musical history. Hence Debussy not only wasn't fair to Beethoven, he couldn't be fair to Beethoven while being true to himself. We as mere listeners are not similarly obligated; we have the luxury of being as fair as we can to a wide variety of deserving composers.
Fine post.
Where you say that Debussy had of inner necessity to be true to his own inner creative self, thus the music of Beethoven would have stifled that creative process. Debussy did acknowledge the genius of Beethoven, neither could Ravel deny. I do believe both french genius were so impacted by Wagner, so much so, that new possibilities were opened to both composers imaginations. I hear Wagner as the first modernist, though Debussy's Prelude to a Afternoon of a Fawn is usually cited as the beginnings of modernism.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 05, 2008, 09:43:58 AM
Oh, speak for yourself. Much on the contrary, composers and artists in general make a point, in their training, of making the engaged acquaintance of a great variety of artwork, which is simply not true of the great majority of the general public.
But even being well acquainted with other composers' works (and with art in general) there is still some surprising dismissals or at least some strong disparagment of other composers.
But then, I didn't think about what
Sforzando is saying-- basically something like Harold Bloom's "anxiety of influence."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
p.s. to add: should be "But even being well acquainted with other composers' works (and with art in general) there
are still some surprising dismissals or at least some strong disparagment of other composers." :-\
Quote from: paulb on February 05, 2008, 09:53:23 AM
I think what 71 was trying to get across was that composers can be just like real people, they are not gods, so beyond reproach.
No one is calling them gods, or beyond reproach,
Paul. But the fact is, that a composer ought to have (a) more knowledge and (b) more curiosity of music, than The Listener in the Street.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 10:17:32 AM
But even being well acquainted with other composers' works (and with art in general) there is still some surprising dismissals or at least some strong disparagment of other composers.
Oh, to be sure. Many artists take part of their departure from, the art they do
not want to make.
Quote from: paulb on February 05, 2008, 10:09:50 AM
I do believe both french genius were so impacted by Wagner, so much so, that new possibilities were opened to both composers imaginations. I hear Wagner as the first modernist, though Debussy's Prelude to a Afternoon of a Fawn is usually cited as the beginnings of modernism.
What was it Debussy said about Wagner being a sunset being mistaken for a new dawn?
Debussy's relationship to Wagner's music is peculiar--
Pelleas et Melisande doesn't sound like Wagner, but it could not have existed without Wagner's influence. Debussy later came to dislike Wagner and claimed to not owe him anything.
Wagner took tonal chromaticism as far as it could go. Schoenberg took it to the next logical step. Debussy opted instead for modes, all sorts of parallel fifths, "exotic" scales, etc. Wagner was the crossroads in a way-- Debussy and Stravinsky (up to around 1950) taking the modified "tonal" route while Schoenberg, Berg & Webern started to push toward a lack of key centre. That's the short version & there's a lot more nuance to that of course...
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 10:27:58 AM
What was it Debussy said about Wagner being a sunset being mistaken for a new dawn?
Debussy's relationship to Wagner's music is peculiar-- Pelleas et Melisande doesn't sound like Wagner, but it could not have existed without Wagner's influence. Debussy later came to dislike Wagner and claimed to not owe him anything.
Wagner took tonal chromaticism as far as it could go. Schoenberg took it to the next logical step. Debussy opted instead for modes, all sorts of parallel fifths, "exotic" scales, etc. Wagner was the crossroads in a way-- Debussy and Stravinsky (up to around 1950) taking the modified "tonal" route while Schoenberg, Berg & Webern started to push toward a lack of key centre. That's the short version & there's a lot more nuance to that of course...
Excellent post, much to ponder But the last tech part is abit out my reach.
There were music professors during the time when Debussy's was first getting big who threatened to expel students with copies of the scores to Debussy's work! he was "breaking the law"! >:D
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 10:17:32 AM
But then, I didn't think about what Sforzando is saying-- basically something like Harold Bloom's "anxiety of influence."
Funny you should mention that.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 10:27:58 AM
Debussy's relationship to Wagner's music is peculiar-- Pelleas et Melisande doesn't sound like Wagner, but it could not have existed without Wagner's influence. Debussy later came to dislike Wagner and claimed to not owe him anything.
A claim revealed to be untrue throughout Pelleas et Melisande, the opening of which couldn't have existed without Siegfried's forest murmurs, and much more.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 05, 2008, 09:59:05 AM
First of all, Brahms did admire Wagner (although the feeling was not reciprocated, except in a grudging way: when Wagner heard Brahms's Haydn Variations, he offered the left-handed compliment that "there are still things to be done with the old forms in the hands of someone who knows how to use them"). But the point is not that "composers are just as narrow-minded as other people." Composers, especially strong composers, are not just "other people." They are impelled by an inner fire to pursue their own artistic visions, and if other composers get in their way, watch out! The ability of a strong composer to be a critic is sharply circumscribed by the composer's primary need to forge their own styles. Hence the antipathy of a Debussy to Beethoven. Debussy wasn't stupid, and he knew perfectly well that Beethoven was a mighty creative figure. But the firm Austro-Germanic logic of Beethoven's sonata forms, and their enormous influence on 19th-century composition from Schubert to Mendelssohn to Brahms to Wagner to Mahler and more, represented exactly the antithesis of the more fluid and sensuous style Debussy was forging for the first time in musical history. Hence Debussy not only wasn't fair to Beethoven, he couldn't be fair to Beethoven while being true to himself. We as mere listeners are not similarly obligated; we have the luxury of being as fair as we can to a wide variety of deserving composers.
That is bang on all the way through - and it should be read right to the end - and beautifully written too. The composer (or any composer worth talking about) is in a different position to the listener and is obliged, almost aginst his will, to take up strong positions in order to find his own way, and to carve out something worth the while. This isn't a political matter of positioning oneself in the 'market' or of 'camps' - a term Paul loves to bandy about as if music (sorry, CM) is only a matter of open warfare! - but a deep-seated necessity for the serious musician. Finding what works for you entails rejecting what doesn't, at least in some respects. So, Boulez hates Britten, and Britten hated Brahms (though he played him a lot as a young man, he came to think of it as 'indoors music'). But these are aesthetic matters, not technical ones.
Paul should be aware, too, that composers' views are more complex than mere like or dislike. The Debussy who praised Wagner to Ravel was not the Debussy who agonised over ridding Pelleas of all pernicious traces of 'Klingsor' (we have textual records and even IIRC scribblings on the manuscript proving this). But then again, as Sfz said, it is possible adore Wagner whilst rejecting everyone of his techniques for one's own music. (Just seen your latest post, Sfz - Debussy would have hated that you see the forest murmurs in P+M!)
BTW, the 'sauerkraut'
was Satie, not Debussy - part of one of his great pomposity pinpricks which Debussy adopted. Another - 'We should see to it that the orchestra does not grimace when the characters enter on the stage. Look here: do the trees and scenery grimace? We should make a musical scenery, create a musical climate where personages move and speak - not in couplets, not in leit-motifs: but by the use of a certain atmosphere of Puvis de Chavannes'
Bravi, sforzando & Luke!
Quote from: lukeottevanger on February 05, 2008, 10:52:45 AM
(Just seen your latest post, Sfz - Debussy would have hated that you see the forest murmurs in P+M!)
BTW, the 'sauerkraut' was Satie, not Debussy - part of one of his great pomposity pinpricks which Debussy adopted. Another - 'We should see to it that the orchestra does not grimace when the characters enter on the stage. Look here: do the trees and scenery grimace? We should make a musical scenery, create a musical climate where personages move and speak - not in couplets, not in leit-motifs: but by the use of a certain atmosphere of Puvis de Chavannes'
Of course in Pelleas, which is full of Wagnerian Leitmotivs, the trees and scenery grimace all evening long. Thank you for the nice words, Luke and Karl.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on February 05, 2008, 10:52:45 AM
This isn't a political matter of positioning oneself in the 'market' or of 'camps' - a term Paul loves to bandy about as if music (sorry, CM) is only a matter of open warfare! -
Paul should be aware, too, that composers' views are more complex than mere like or dislike. The Debussy who praised Wagner to Ravel was not the Debussy who agonised over ridding Pelleas of all pernicious traces of 'Klingsor' (we have textual records and even IIRC scribblings on the manuscript proving this).
RE: "war camps"
Ahh you caught me at my suberfuge. ;D Whadda you expect from a iconoclast . Someone on amazon has tagged me as bonifide.
Wagner's operas contain some powerful gripping motifs. i can undersatnd Debussy trying to pull out of any votex that might come across as "wagnerian ' in his works. He did not want to be considered
second fiddle, at least not to a german.
The opening to Pelleas may have some ties with Wagner, but its of no consequence. that opening is on par with any of Wagner's best passages. Pelleas is a masterpiece and so who cares what Wagner may have been to Debussy.
Well, needless to say, I don't think anyone can cite a composer's personal dislikes or likes to prove that some other composer is somehow inferior or superior. Composers have different agendas than listeners...
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 11:44:00 AM
Well, needless to say, I don't think anyone can cite a composer's personal dislikes or likes to prove that some other composer is somehow inferior or superior.
Exactly; although, actually, it is probably a good thing to point this out from time to time . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on February 05, 2008, 11:50:21 AM
Exactly; although, actually, it is probably a good thing to point this out from time to time . . . .
Thanks for pointing that out, Karl ........
Al vostro servizio!
Quote from: Sforzando on February 05, 2008, 11:01:21 AM
Of course in Pelleas, which is full of Wagnerian Leitmotivs, the trees and scenery grimace all evening long.
Yes, that's really the point - I was in a hurry and not at home before, so I couldn't write coherently, sorry! Debussy desperately wanted to keep P+M clear of Wagnerisms - I have a quotation in front of me now:
Quote from: DebussyI was premature in crying 'success' over Pelleas et Melisande. After a sleepless night (the bringer of truth) I had to admit that it wouldn't do at all.....worst of all the ghost of good old Klingsor, alias R. Wagner kept appearing in a corner of a bar, so I've torn the whole thing up. I've started again and am trying to find a recipe for producing more characteristic phrases
and yet as Sfz says, the score is hardly free of Wagnerian traits. I
do think that Debussy manages to avoid the 'trees and scenery grimacing' more than Sfz claims - at least most of the time - and I think the score's chief virtue lies in its restraint in these matters ('I love you's are unaccompanied, silences have more import that outbursts, etc). But nevertheless, there are pages of the score which remind one of nothing so much as Wagner - Arkel's motive, for instance, as when it appears for the first time before scene 2, reminds me of Parsifal every time I read/hear it. But it is not used in anything like the thorough-going Wagnerian way, and nor are any of the other motives in the opera - though there are certain surface similarities, there is a profound aesthetic difference, as well as an enormous difference of tone and technique etc. (Strange that we are having this discussion just after Pinky has started one of his odd Debussy-Wagner threads - 'what would Wagner have made of P+M?'!)
The quotation was taken from Jonathan Harvey's rather neat little book 'Music and Inspiration', which is really a compendium of such things from all manner of composers, smartly and revealingly categorised. The Debussy passage comes from a section on 'negative influence' (my phrase) and Harvey encapsulates this whole phenomenon well as he introduces the Debussy quotation:
Quote from: Jonathan HarveyIn certain cases, the determination of younger composer to avoid sounding like their predecessors can be so strong that it amounts to a shaping force in their music almost despite themselves. A letter from Debussy to Ernest Chausson reveals this process in operation, applied most of all in relation to Wagner, whose influence Debussy came to despise, after his earlier adulation
I like this careful phrasing - Debussy didn't despise Wagner, he despised his influence. This is both a passionate and a pragmatic thing, concerning both Debussy's deeply-held beliefs but also his desire to find his own way. We see that pragmatism in Debussy's revealing final line: 'I am trying to find a recipe for producing more characteristic phrases'.
BTW, looking through other Debussy literature reveals quite how violent was this split in Debussy between admiring Wagner and despising him, at least at first. We see him in late 1893 writing an article 'On the Uselessness of Wagnerism' but still in early 1894 reveling in playing through Tristan at the piano. It is only later that things become more clear-cut - 'Wagner was a great literary and dramatic genius but no musician'; 'If you have any affection, my boy, for me,
never play or even talk of Wagner or Beethoven to me, because it is like someone dancing on my grave' etc. etc.
It should be noted that Debussy was not moving into new musical territory on his own but, rather like the Impressionists, there was a group of like-minded composers. I don't think Debussy dismissed them, so why should we? On that point but rather at a distance has anyone heard any music by Nikolay Shcherbachyov?
Mendelssohn was very dismissive of Berlioz, saying that sadly he was without talent, and yet the two composers remained good friends. This seems to be merely a difference in views on how music should be constructed. From our point of view, this difference is enriching.
As I've been listening to Tristan and Isolde past few days, somehow I feel the music transcends the romantic era. I can sympathize with Brahms, Debussy and any other contemporary composer who may have felt some pangs of inferiority after hearing the best of Wagner. Not that Brahms was in any way less than Wagner, so do not misinterpret what i am saying. Brahms in his own right, was a giant in the symphonic and concerto genre.
I am so happy Debussy went forth to establish himself as a masterful composer, and came out from that heavy spell that Wagner cast.
Although only partly in tune with the way the topic has developed. I would like to draw folks attention to Patrick White's novel, 'The Vivisector'. I have never read anything that so vividly encapsulates the act of an artist in creation. In this instance it is a painter. But the sheer sweat and stress of it all will read across to many other creative artists. It also brings out the complete single mindedness and self centredness of some artists.
Quote:
"Probably the most conspicuously successfully feature of the novel is the descriptions of painting - the physical act of making pictures - rather than of the finished objects. White wrote on several occasions of the physical labour and even the pain involved in writing and the psychological and physical effort of painting is astonishingly convincing. The numerous themes of the novel culminate in Hurtle's moment of death and his final painterly vision of unity"
Mike
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 10:27:58 AM
Wagner took tonal chromaticism as far as it could go. Schoenberg took it to the next logical step. Debussy opted instead for modes, all sorts of parallel fifths, "exotic" scales, etc. Wagner was the crossroads in a way-- Debussy and Stravinsky (up to around 1950) taking the modified "tonal" route while Schoenberg, Berg & Webern started to push toward a lack of key centre. That's the short version & there's a lot more nuance to that of course...
Don't you need / use 'modes' while writing a 'chromatic' work though? You make everything sound so unrelated. Or are they related?
Quote from: paulb on February 05, 2008, 08:51:05 AM
Such as Brahms strong objections to Wagner.
And then of course the well known vehement attacks on the music of Beethoven from Debussy and Ravel.
Anyone care to share their ideas? I do not wish this topic to be locked, so please show your virtues of restraint and tolerance. And kindness.
Another conflict of one composer upon another was that of Bartok upon his equally famous contemporary that of Shostakovich.
Havne't read the other responses, but I remember reading that Diaghilev told Prokofiev that if he didn't learn to hate and discriminate in his artistic taste that he would never be a great or original composer. I suppose that makes sense as far as finding your own creative voice; as well, if one cannot critique the good/bad of a composition and determine what he or she like or, perhaps, think should be changed or tweaked in it to make it better than that composer might not be able to do the same in a piece written by his or herself.
Ned Rorem has been quite shitty towards numerous composers, Elliott Carter included, which has unfortunately demoted Rorem in my "to listen" list for a while. Not sure why he did it, but it makes him look silly.
Quote from: paulb on February 05, 2008, 08:51:05 AM
Such as Brahms strong objections to Wagner.
And then of course the well known vehement attacks on the music of Beethoven from Debussy and Ravel.
Anyone care to share their ideas? I do not wish this topic to be locked, so please show your virtues of restraint and tolerance. And kindness.
Another conflict of one composer upon another was that of Bartok upon his equally famous contemporary that of Shostakovich.
JEOLOUSY
paulb, JEOLOUSY!
marvin
Quote from: Lethe on February 05, 2008, 11:58:19 PM
Ned Rorem has been quite shitty towards numerous composers, Elliott Carter included, which has unfortunately demoted Rorem in my "to listen" list for a while. Not sure why he did it, but it makes him look silly.
That's because Elliott Carter would be quick to be shitty towards Ned Rorem. I don't know if Carter has publically said anything nasty about Rorem, although I bet he's said plenty in private.
Carter, by the way, is not immune to ridiculous statements about other composers. "Minimalism equals death". I mean, really. That's about as asinine a statement as one can make. Of course he has a right to his opinion, as do we all. But for gosh sakes, that's just stupid.
Quote from: 12tone. on February 05, 2008, 03:42:47 PM
Don't you need / use 'modes' while writing a 'chromatic' work though? You make everything sound so unrelated. Or are they related?
Well, it was "the short version"-- the chromaticism of Wagner was taken to such an extreme that tonality was stretched just short of losing a key centre. From where many composers stood by the late 19th century, traditional tonality had run its course.
Debussy's harmonic language devloped by using whole tone scales, using so-called "church modes", using parallel fifths, breaking all the rules of traditional tonality with non-functional harmony, etc. In the end, Debussy's music is still "tonal" but the "rules" he was playing by couldn't be found in the music theory playbook at the time. The kind of chromaticism which was the result of rapid modulations in Wagner isn't really found in Debussy, because Debussy wanted to break away from all that. Stravinsky took all this further than Debussy and in his own distinctive way. Debussy's response to Wagner was to keep tonality, but the
manner in which that tonality is maintained was in a way that ditched the traditional methods of keeping a key centre-- Debussy felt Wagner had taken traditional functional harmony as far as it could go, hence his quip about Wagner being "a sunset mistaken for a dawn."
Schoenberg took Wagner's rapid modulations past the breaking point of tonality. Perhaps Schoenberg would have told Debussy he mistook Wagner for a sunset & he really was a new dawn. ;) Early on, Schoenberg could hear how Wagner's extreme chromaticism, if pushed a bit further, would have no key centre at all, and so eventually he did push it further. Later, with the 12-tone method, he found a way of maintaining some sort of musical coherence without needing tonality at all. So Schoenberg's response to Wagner was to keep the intense chromaticism (which
originally was the result of all these wild modulations) but to ditch they key centre. Schoenberg was more radical than Debussy and had to find some new way of having some musical coherence, and serialism was a way he felt comfortable with.
I hope that makes a bit more sense-- Wagner was so big everyone had to respond to him somehow-- he was one of those pivot points where many composers felt stifled by his tremendous influence. Basically, everyone was like "Well, damn, what can
I do after something like
that?" So composers that did break from Wagner's harmonic extremes didn't break away completely, but what they kept and what they ditched were different. Sort of like natural selection LOL
This is still of course a simplification of the situation, but that's why there are books & books & books on all this stuff! I hope that makes a bit more sense though...
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 06, 2008, 03:55:21 AM
That's because Elliott Carter would be quick to be shitty towards Ned Rorem. I don't know if Carter has publically said anything nasty about Rorem, although I bet he's said plenty in private.
Carter, by the way, is not immune to ridiculous statements about other composers. "Minimalism equals death". I mean, really. That's about as asinine a statement as one can make. Of course he has a right to his opinion, as do we all. But for gosh sakes, that's just stupid.
If you read my comments posted over at amazon in complete, 100% agreement with Carter's percise sumation of minimalism and many other forms of late 20 th
music , if you wish to classify it as music. There i emphatically state that much 20th C music, masquerading as
classical, is death.
I came to the conclusion that Elliott Carter does represent the end of the long distinguished epoch of that specific genre called Classical Music.
I may reconsider Boulez as part of this finale, after i get his 4 cd set in.
What Elliott Carter said was pure ingenious psychological insight.
Minimalism for whatever reasn gets draged into CM discussion boards. And I wish this nonsense would stop. Like now.
Go over to the diner if you want to discuss sub classical, second rate music. And don;'t make me name composers. Don't push me. >:D
Elliott Carter is the world's greatest living CLASSICAL MUSIC composer and far away america's greatest composer, with no other even closely approaching his unique genius.
btw Mark, i refrain from requesting backup support in my theorems on the topic,
The Demise Of Concerts, due to the nature of your comment here. I thought you had better insight.
But I should have known before.
Quote from: marvinbrown on February 06, 2008, 12:36:59 AM
JEOLOUSY paulb, JEOLOUSY!
marvin
Well its perfectly understandable that what you consider to be the thrust behind Brahms
disillusionments with how german music was taking a turn. The old jealousy would raise her nasty head.
Seriously which composer could sit in attendance at one of Wagner's 6 greatest operas, witha cast supporting the immense challenges presented by Wagner, and walk away with no pangs of a touch from the old hag called Jealousy?
Yes, no composer could hold up with courage. Brahms is forgiven for any ill regards towards Wagner, as Brahms like any other man, is born in weakness, IOW he's human.
Quote from: paulb on February 06, 2008, 09:32:38 AM
Minimalism for whatever reasn gets draged into CM discussion boards. And I wish this nonsense would stop. Like now.
Go over to the diner if you want to discuss sub classical, second rate music. And don;'t make me name composers. Don't push me. >:D
Paul, I wish comments like this would stop. Like now.
Quote from: Danny on February 05, 2008, 10:13:30 PM
Havne't read the other responses, but I remember reading that Diaghilev told Prokofiev that if he didn't learn to hate and discriminate in his artistic taste that he would never be a great or original composer. I suppose that makes sense as far as finding your own creative voice; as well, if one cannot critique the good/bad of a composition and determine what he or she like or, perhaps, think should be changed or tweaked in it to make it better than that composer might not be able to do the same in a piece written by his or herself.
Thank you Danny for this engaging comment of Diaghliev to Prokofiev, one master to another.
Yes I suppose many composers take what they feel is best offered from composers in sync with their nature, but consequently have to draw boundary lines for others who go against their inner creativity.
The one exception to this rule, is Alfred Schnittke, unlike no other composer. He had the capacity to hear any music and not be detered from his objective. Genius which I only note next to Mozart.
Anyone know what Wagner and Liszt had to say about each other? seeing as they were both stretching tonality to its limits.
Quote from: paulb on February 06, 2008, 09:47:28 AM
unlike no other composer
A wonderful malapropism,
Paul! :D
Quote from: paulb on February 06, 2008, 09:32:38 AM
What Elliott Carter said was pure ingenious psychological insight.
Minimalism for whatever reasn gets draged into CM discussion boards. And I wish this nonsense would stop. Like now.
Go over to the diner if you want to discuss sub classical, second rate music.
Sorry, Paul, but I think Carter got it wrong here, too. Minimalism is as much a part of classical music as any other style or school, and you're going to get heavy disagreement from many here if you proclaim that it's "not really music." If it's something that you don't care for, or don't understand, that's perfectly fine, but it's here to stay, and shows up in composers' work all over the world--on recordings and on concert programs. And there are definitely masterpieces of minimalism, by composers as diverse as Morton Feldman, Steve Reich, Louis Andriessen and Terry Riley, just to cite some of the more well-known names.
As an ardent fan of Carter, Boulez and some others who (apparently) despise minimalism, in my opinion there's room for everyone. ;)
--Bruce
I mean, you allow a great artist his artistic dislikes, but to luxuriate in an expression of contempt, one is apt to make oneself sound ridiculous.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 06, 2008, 12:36:11 PM
I mean, you allow a great artist his artistic dislikes, but to luxuriate in an expression of contempt, one is apt to make oneself sound ridiculous.
True. I suspect, based on Carter's comment (and I didn't see it in context, which may be important) that minimalism barely engages him, given that his brain enjoys multiple events, running headlong in different torrents. But not everyone's mind processes music the same way he does (to state the obvious). And...that's
fine.--Bruce
Quote from: Ten thumbs on February 06, 2008, 12:16:41 PM
Anyone know what Wagner and Liszt had to say about each other? seeing as they were both stretching tonality to its limits.
Liszt on Wagner - to be brief, as favourable as you can imagine
Wagner on Liszt - ditto, and though I suspect he could be a little more discerning as regards Liszt's music, he described the latter's Orpheus, for example, as 'a quite unique masterpiece of the highest perfection'. But what is more important for the purposes of this thread: he thought Liszt was one of the few other musicians who understood him; Liszt became very much a symbolic father figure to him as well as an -in-law. When writing Siegfried he went so far as to write to Liszt 'while I am composing and scoring I think only of you, how this and the other will please you; I am always dealing with you'. Most significantly given some of the turns of this thread, he thought that Liszt was a figure who loved him sufficiently 'to make it possible for me to be
myself.'
Quote from: bhodges on February 06, 2008, 12:41:28 PM
True. I suspect, based on Carter's comment (and I didn't see it in context, which may be important) that minimalism barely engages him, given that his brain enjoys multiple events, running headlong in different torrents. But not everyone's mind processes music the same way he does (to state the obvious). And...that's fine.
And I suppose, too, that the phrase
could be interpreted in a wholly different way (though I doubt that Carter meant it to be!). Given the sort of interpretations that those such as Sean put upon minimalism - the stuff about Dionysus, sex, ecstasy, perpetual climax etc. etc., that is, essentially minimalism as a state of perfect and fully-achieved stasis - seeing it as in some ways equivalent to death is not necessarily pejorative but merely descriptive. ;D Though, as I say, I doubt Carter meant that at all! I suspect Bruce is pretty much on the money....
Quote from: karlhenning on February 06, 2008, 12:19:12 PM
A wonderful malapropism, Paul! :D
:-[
The professor got me in poor grammar yet once again :P
"incomparable is Scnittke to any other composer" ;)
Quote from: bhodges on February 06, 2008, 12:29:55 PM
Sorry, Paul, but I think Carter got it wrong here, too. Minimalism is as much a part of classical music as any other style or school, and you're going to get heavy disagreement from many here if you proclaim that it's "not really music." If it's something that you don't care for, or don't understand, that's perfectly fine, but it's here to stay, and shows up in composers' work all over the world--on recordings and on concert programs. And there are definitely masterpieces of minimalism, by composers as diverse as Morton Feldman, Steve Reich, Louis Andriessen and Terry Riley, just to cite some of the more well-known names.
As an ardent fan of Carter, Boulez and some others who (apparently) despise minimalism, in my opinion there's room for everyone. ;)
--Bruce
Bruce
i've already made all my arguments on why minimalism is not even sub-classical, a splintered off sect of this grand genre of man's highest expression of creativity in music over at amazon. For lack of time I'll sum up a few things I said there.
Mini = small, tiny, mal= latin means bad, foul tasting ISM = a cult, a aberration of sorts.
Look if every composer in the 1750-1800 was qualified to be placed along side of Bach we would know his name today and have recordings of those composers music. There are thousands of composers from 1800-present day that many of us have never heard of. there music is certainly not pop music, but can we safely say its classical?
Why? Classical to means something representing the very highest of man's creativity.
Minimalism to my ears has little in common with the genre began with Bach, other than the fact these composers use many of the same instruments.
If you and others wish to open wide the doors to any Tom , Dick and Harry that comes along and say "I've got hot classical music right here", go for it, enjoy your meal.
I have better things to do with my time and money.
Elliott Carter was spot on, most late 20th C music has nothing at all to do with classical genre, that form is death to the great art expression we come to know as Classical, IF allowed to have a place along with the best of man's genius.
"masterpieces in minimalism" ::)
Quote from: paulb on February 06, 2008, 09:47:28 AM
Thank you Danny for this engaging comment of Diaghliev to Prokofiev, one master to another.
Yes I suppose many composers take what they feel is best offered from composers in sync with their nature, but consequently have to draw boundary lines for others who go against their inner creativity.
The one exception to this rule, is Alfred Schnittke, unlike no other composer. He had the capacity to hear any music and not be detered from his objective. Genius which I only note next to Mozart.
A German born and raised in Soviet Russia would just have to be tough like that, ya know? ;D
Paul, no problem. On this one I think we're destined to "agree to disagree." ;)
--Bruce
Quote from: paulb on February 06, 2008, 01:56:54 PM
Why? Classical to means something representing the very highest of man's creativity.
Minimalism to my ears has little in common with the genre began with Bach, other than the fact these composers use many of the same instruments.
Your ears only listen to 30 second clips.
Quote from: bhodges on February 06, 2008, 12:41:28 PM
True. I suspect, based on Carter's comment (and I didn't see it in context, which may be important) that minimalism barely engages him, given that his brain enjoys multiple events, running headlong in different torrents. But not everyone's mind processes music the same way he does (to state the obvious). And...that's fine.
--Bruce
exactly, Carter continues in that same measure of high creative expression which inspired Bach to achieve his masterpieces.
Elliott Carter has tapped into that very well which Bach drank from. To bring in most avant garde composers as partaking of this level of genius is contemptible and appauling. Unthinkable.
Elliott Carter must be recognized and completely acknowledged for his achievements in all areas of classical art. There are very few composers living to today who even closely approach his creative mind. Minimalism next to Carter does show the degree of separation between the 2 styles. The one offers the very deepest of man;s creative genius, the other is a concoction of sorts, one of those wild cocktails made on a mexican beach resort.
Need i take it further? How much clearer can I be on this vital matter of sustaining and safeguarding the high art of classical expression.
Quote from: bhodges on February 06, 2008, 02:04:11 PM
Paul, no problem. On this one I think we're destined to "agree to disagree." ;)
--Bruce
Thanks for seeing my POV.
had i read this post of yours making consessions and a truce, I would had not posted the one above.
We were posting at the same moment.
So please overlook any of the strong opinionated elements of my arguments. We are all ina learning mode, may yet relax on some minor points. But seriously the more i come to know Carter's profound language the most resilent I am to accept compromises. And yet we have at least 10 other masterpieces from Carter's 97th - 99th year of life to a recording of.
Carter ranks along side Bach is what i am trying to get at. Since this is true,
just where does that place minimalism in the grand scheme of things ::) ???
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 06, 2008, 02:08:23 PM
Your ears only listen to 30 second clips.
Yeah that all it would take for me to determine where i place minimalism.
But as i said many times , I have
kicked the clip habit long ago. ...ahh Ok I like any addictive takes
the swig now and then. ;D
I use Youtube now, you get more bang-for-the-clip. :D
Look I want to be fair in all of this. Obviously what most late 20th C avant garde composers create has to do with musical expression. the issues which Carter hits on has to do with the fact that minimalists wish their style to be graded and included along inside the classical genre.
When this happens do expect a reaction from Elliott Carter with a denouncing cry of "Death" and from me "the plague".
How most avant garde late 20th C works itself into modern culture is open to speculation and discussion. But lets keep things in highest perspective when dealing with a art form such as classical music. I don't wish to appear rancorous or obstinate, although i guess some here may say I'm being pigheaded about the whole matter.
When in fact all i am doing is trying to delineate what is high art from other forms representing substratified expression in music.
Quote from: paulb on February 06, 2008, 02:29:26 PM
Look I want to be fair in all of this.
Well, this won't do it,
Paul:
Quote from: paulb on February 06, 2008, 02:18:46 PM
Yeah that all it would take for me to determine where i place minimalism.
;)
Quote from: paulb on February 06, 2008, 01:56:54 PM
Elliott Carter was spot on, most late 20th C music has nothing at all to do with classical genre...
To repeat myself: "Well, needless to say, I don't think anyone can cite a composer's personal dislikes or likes to prove that some other composer is somehow inferior or superior. Composers have different agendas than listeners..."
Quote from: paulb on February 06, 2008, 02:29:26 PMI don't wish to appear rancorous or obstinate, although i guess some here may say I'm being pigheaded about the whole matter.
You
are being pigheaded about the whole matter. LOL
Its one thing to say you don't like minimalism, its quite another to simply dismiss it as "sub-classical" or whatever. You can come up with whatever pseudo-profound statements all you want and try to justify it with some incoherent pretentious ideology to dress up your prejudices, but I don't think anyone here is fooled by it except yourself.
There's a lot of different classical music out there & I'm thankful it isn't all the same-- there's a lot to choose from. Some stuff you can warm up to, and some not so much, but your own subjective tastes don't make objective reality.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 06, 2008, 03:39:32 PM
To repeat myself: "Well, needless to say, I don't think anyone can cite a composer's personal dislikes or likes to prove that some other composer is somehow inferior or superior. Composers have different agendas than listeners..."
You are being pigheaded about the whole matter. LOL
Its one thing to say you don't like minimalism, its quite another to simply dismiss it as "sub-classical" or whatever. You can come up with whatever pseudo-profound statements all you want and try to justify it with some incoherent pretentious ideology to dress up your prejudices, but I don't think anyone here is fooled by it except yourself.
There's a lot of different classical music out there & I'm thankful it isn't all the same-- there's a lot to choose from. Some stuff you can warm up to, and some not so much, but your own subjective tastes don't make objective reality.
Ephemerid throws the knock down punch
Iconoclasts are never understood, always have to play the outcast.
But minimalism is not even sub classical, Its has zero to do with classical.
If you and others wish to believe minimalism and much other late 20th C avant garde has something to do with classical music, its your free will to take that position. As for me I hold staunch to my beliefs.
I apologize to any who favor this line of music in their personal belief that minimalism and much other late 20th C music falls into a category which has the widely known title as
Classical Musicthats your opinion and i can accept it. My opinion is different and we have to live with each others beliefs without the insults and snides please.
At least i show respect to members here, you seem to have gone off into a rant about how mistaken i appear to be in my personal opinion.
Just who are you GMG gestapo police $:)
Chill out man, its only a expressed opinion, disagree all you wish , but with decency please.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 06, 2008, 03:55:21 AM
That's because Elliott Carter would be quick to be shitty towards Ned Rorem. I don't know if Carter has publically said anything nasty about Rorem, although I bet he's said plenty in private.
Carter, by the way, is not immune to ridiculous statements about other composers. "Minimalism equals death". I mean, really. That's about as asinine a statement as one can make. Of course he has a right to his opinion, as do we all. But for gosh sakes, that's just stupid.
Fair point, well said :D
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 06, 2008, 03:39:32 PM
You are being pigheaded about the whole matter. LOL
Hey Josh, Got your PM
Yes I did miss the
LOL part.
Whadda expect from a
pighead, nose in the mud :D
Glad to know you let me get away with my ...rants..
Guy that tagged my as a iconoclast, now calls me the "crazy iconoclast". I'd prefer "zany" to crazy ;D
Well I do go overboard at times. I think I;'ve cleared my head, lets get back to the more important, the music, and less about our insignificant personal idioscyncracies ;)
When i read what one great composer comments on another equally great, ina positive or critical way, I find it more amusing and not so serious.
Anyone know what Shostakovich said about his various meetings with Prokofiev. As i recall that was something amusing. I guess i could look that up in one of my books on Shostakovich, but if have that handy please post.
Grant, those days in the USSR were not
good times, and no reason for any jovial greetings. But Shostakovich just couldn't get on any terms with Prokofiev, if i recall correctly.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 06, 2008, 03:39:32 PM
To repeat myself: "Well, needless to say, I don't think anyone can cite a composer's personal dislikes or likes to prove that some other composer is somehow inferior or superior. Composers have different agendas than listeners..."
You are being pigheaded about the whole matter. LOL
Its one thing to say you don't like minimalism, its quite another to simply dismiss it as "sub-classical" or whatever. You can come up with whatever pseudo-profound statements all you want and try to justify it with some incoherent pretentious ideology to dress up your prejudices, but I don't think anyone here is fooled by it except yourself.
There's a lot of different classical music out there & I'm thankful it isn't all the same-- there's a lot to choose from. Some stuff you can warm up to, and some not so much, but your own subjective tastes don't make objective reality.
Amen.
Quote from: paulb on February 07, 2008, 06:31:53 AM
Glad to know you let me get away with my ...rants..
Guy that tagged my as a iconoclast, now calls me the "crazy iconoclast". I'd prefer "zany" to crazy ;D
Well I do go overboard at times. . . .
Sure, we let you get away with them,
Paul. But your rants don't attain to the state of iconoclasm; you just really like certain composers, and for no artistic reason, you just use that enthusiasm as a cudgel against other composers.
I officially dismiss this thread. 0:)
Quote from: MN Dave on February 07, 2008, 06:45:35 AM
I officially dismiss this thread. 0:)
Not until we find out how Shostakovich felt about his comrade Prokofiev. As i recall there was something humorous in what Shostakovich said about the other great's personality quirks.
Karl, you rascal , uncovered my plotings ;)
IIRC, Prokofiev would be discussing the sonata form in one of his symphonies, and DSCH would say something about the weather.
Quote from: Corey on February 07, 2008, 07:31:42 AM
IIRC, Prokofiev would be discussing the sonata form in one of his symphonies, and DSCH would say something about the weather.
I think I remember that, too,
Corey.
Paul, I think this was a question of two artists being on something of a different wavelength. I don't think that "dismissal" enters the picture.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 07, 2008, 07:38:37 AM
I think I remember that, too, Corey.
Paul, I think this was a question of two artists being on something of a different wavelength. I don't think that "dismissal" enters the picture.
Yes there was no illwill of one toward the other. Just vaguely recall how Shostakovich did not find his encounters with Prokofiev as a
pleasant afternoon tea times. I think Shostakovich was more than willing to meet Prokofiev half way, but was not to be.
Quote from: paulb on February 07, 2008, 08:26:13 AM
Yes there was no illwill of one toward the other. Just vaguely recall how Shostakovich did not find his encounters with Prokofiev as a pleasant afternoon tea times. I think Shostakovich was more than willing to meet Prokofiev half way, but was not to be.
illwill?
look..
(http://www.russianlife.com/archive/sovietmusicians.GIF)
Guess who is the third! :)
Now who knows how the relation goes between Prokofiev and Rachmaninoff? ;)
Just looked its Khachaturian.
Prokofiev was well known to be such an odd fellow
But as i say composers are exempt from all faults, due to their nature of their creativity.
Of course provided they actually produce good fruits.