No one really cares about what composers have to offer today as evidenced by the fact that orchestras don't rely on them to bring in audiences.
The substance of classical radio and performance is dominated by music that was composed before the first world war, with some notable exceptions, of course.
While many modern composers comfort themselves with the idea that they are artists who are unjustifiably ignored, the reality might be that they are just irrelevant and obsolete because they are incapable of writing music that can please audiences.
Let me quote a pathetic "modern" composer rationalizing his insignificance:
QuoteWUORINEN: Well look. It's a very simple matter. As I've said a million times, there has been an attempt, largely successful, to confuse what you might call art and what you might call entertainment. I think there's a very simple distinction, and it doesn't diminish entertainment in any way because we all want it and we all enjoy it. Entertainment is that which you receive without effort. Art is something where you must make some kind of effort and you get more than you had before.
Drawing such a distinction between "art" and "entertainment" allows Wourinen to convince himself that his insignificance stems from the unwillingness of classical audiences to "grapple" with his work. Under this paradigm, his works can never be judged as "bad" by audiences, because then, they are just being lazy!
Of course the truly funny thing is that most of the standard repertoire arose at a time when audiences could freely express disgust at what they perceived to be bad music--and composers aimed to please them.
It's not that simple, Abe. There are lots of good composers writing great music that really isn't that hard for an audience to "get." Leonard Bernstein, Henryk Gorecki, Arvo Pärt, Michael Torke, and Esa-Pekka Salonen are only a few who write music that, while it may be challenging, is also highly entertaining; indeed, the minimalist movement is a reaction to the perceived "academicism" of the atonal/serial/electronic music movement. One of my favorite composers that nobody has ever heard of is Robert Suderburg, born in 1936; his music is sensual and dramatic and there's no reason an audience shouldn't be excited over it. I also have a BBC disc titled "Masterprize," consisting of the six finalists for the International Composing Competition; whatever you think about competitions and new music, there's some great and exciting music there. And while some of us may think Wuorinen's distinction between "art music" and "entertainment music" reflects an unfortunate alienation, even he probably realizes that the line isn't so clear-drawn.
I feel that the problem comes when repertoire is determined mostly by marketing agents looking only for "sure sellers." True, audiences like the old standards best--but without a commitment to new composers even at some expense to the old ones, "our" music will continue its decline in the public consciousness. I don't see how our art can continue to live when we emphasize The Dead Guys and not the live ones.
But it's the Dead Guys that keep the art alive! Their music constitutes the overwhelming majority of what's played on the radio and what's performed by orchestras! And this music nearly all originated when the composer aimed to please audiences (who sought out his music not out of some sense of duty and commitment but because they wanted to be entertained and pleased.) Is the situation today truly a result of marketing?
Quote from: -abe- on July 28, 2008, 08:18:29 PM
No one really cares about what composers have to offer today as evidenced by the fact that orchestras don't rely on them to bring in audiences.
Well, now there's a nice sweeping generalization, its tiny modicum of validity only possible by virtue of narrowing the music world down to orchestras (and later to radio, too).
I care what composers have to offer today, and so do all the people surrounding me at all the concerts we all go to. Some of those concerts include music by Wuorinen, who's quite a well-known, often played, successful composer. And if you knew anything about him, you'd know he's very unlikely to think of himself as insignificant!
Quote from: -abe- on July 28, 2008, 08:18:29 PMOf course the truly funny thing is that most of the standard repertoire arose at a time when audiences could freely express disgust at what they perceived to be bad music--and composers aimed to please them.
Yes, a mythical time of enchantment and bemusement, when audiences loved "outrageous" harmonies that were "impossible to understand" (Mozart) and insisted that their music be "incoherent, shrill, chaotic and ear-splitting" (Beethoven).
Yep, those were real crowd pleasers there, boy howdy!!
-abe-, composers
always aim to please their audiences. So you're not in Wuorinen's audience. OK. Your absence doesn't mean he's not got an audience. Come
on. Composers do something else, too. They aim to create something worthwhile, something interesting and new, even if there's not an audience for it quite yet. Sometimes, more often than you're apparently aware of, an audience emerges for those unfamiliar sounds. Not necessarily right away, though sometimes it happens as soon as the premiere.
That's because not everyone in every audience is like you! Gott sei dank.
Orchestra concerts and radio programs are all well and good (or ARE they?!), but those are not the only places where new music is being played, nor are those audiences the only audiences for classical music. The "situation today" is much more active and complex and various than you seem to know.
Quote from: -abe- on July 28, 2008, 08:18:29 PM
Of course the truly funny thing is that most of the standard repertoire arose at a time when audiences could freely express disgust at what they perceived to be bad music--and composers aimed to please them.
Yeah what a shame! :'( A wonder why many concert halls has still not forbidden the audience to come. ::)
Perhabs the composers imagination of the gab between popular and classical music was different a couple of hundred years ago, since popular music has absolutely overtaken the world today. Popular music is everywhere, in the radio, tv, in the bus, stores, bars, even in school, children are forced to sing it. 200 years ago the culture was formed (not informed) in the good way, that classical music was the only serious music. So you can´t really compare the relationship between popular and classical music from different periodes.
Quote from: -abe- on July 28, 2008, 08:18:29 PM
No one really cares about what composers have to offer today as evidenced by the fact that orchestras don't rely on them to bring in audiences.
No one really cares about what someone thinks, who fondly thinks he can judge the world of music by the light of only one medium (the orchestra).
Apart from that, your sentence above is a howling
non sequitur.
Quote from: jochanaan on July 28, 2008, 09:36:48 PM
It's not that simple, Abe. There are lots of good composers writing great music that really isn't that hard for an audience to "get." Leonard Bernstein, Henryk Gorecki, Arvo Pärt, Michael Torke, and Esa-Pekka Salonen are only a few who write music that, while it may be challenging, is also highly entertaining;
None of those composers are actually "good", hence their lack of popularity compared to the "classics". The idea that modern audiences prefer older composers because they can't handle "new" music (the assumption being that if you wrote in a conservative style you'd find immediate success) is just a huge misconception.
Quote from: jochanaan on July 28, 2008, 09:36:48 PM
I also have a BBC disc titled "Masterprize," consisting of the six finalists for the International Composing Competition; whatever you think about competitions and new music, there's some great and exciting music there.
Seconded! That's an outstanding disc with some incredible contemporary pieces on it. And I say this as someone who, in broad and general terms, draws the line on what constitutes 'good' art music at around the year 1955.
Who cares about the audience and monkeys? ??? As long as there is a composer that enjoys his own work.
I disagree with Wuorinen, finding his black and white approach of "entertainment" versus "art" reeking of the desire to justify, rather than explain.
But I also disagree with the appraisal of composers based on such an index as pleasing the audience of their time, under which quite a few of the composers we currently consider classical would have also been deemed useless, or to put it in your terms, "obsolete".
There. For once, I post in one of those threads. :)
Edit: And post #1500, to boot.
Once you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 08:03:57 AM
Once you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.
Name the means through which we might conduct that appraisal.
Quote from: Renfield on July 29, 2008, 08:04:51 AM
Name the means through which we might conduct that appraisal.
Self reference of course. How do you think the original canon was formed in the first place?
Either way, your answer implies that you can't do it. Next.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 08:15:54 AM
Self reference of course. How do you think the original canon was formed in the first place?
Either way, your answer implies that you can't do it. Next.
lol
Quote from: Renfield on July 29, 2008, 08:04:51 AM
Name the means through which we might conduct that appraisal.
Well done.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 08:03:57 AM
Once you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. What has the overwhelming greatness of Beethoven and Bach got to do with this odd notion that contemporary composers are obsolete? Unless, of course, you also mean that
all composers have been obsolete since 1827? After all, what's the point in continuing if you're never going to be as good as Beethoven?
Quote from: James on July 29, 2008, 08:18:43 AM
Impossible task. Not enough time has passed for us to fully assess this.
Nonsense. Beethoven's body wasn't even cold yet that they were engraving his name in concert halls, and there were already many who recognized his genius while he was still alive. Same goes for Bach, Mozart and all others. Next.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 08:15:54 AM
Self reference of course. How do you think the original canon was formed in the first place?
Various reasonings.
Your post us wonderfully funny,
Josquin! For the question is, How does one assert that either
Bach or
Beethoven is "the pinnacle" of music? And the answers are circular; those are the greatest composers, because greatness in music is 'determined' in reference to their work.
"Canon" is the wrong word to apply to the evaluation of culture, because art is organic; there is development, and the notion of great music expands over time.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on July 29, 2008, 08:21:37 AM
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. What has the overwhelming greatness of Beethoven and Bach got to do with this odd notion that contemporary composers are obsolete? Unless, of course, you also mean that all composers have been obsolete since 1827? After all, what's the point in continuing if you're never going to be as good as Beethoven?
Well said.
If we allow for self-referencing; I'd take the organ works of Messiaen over anything that Bach put down to paper. (restricted solely to organ works)
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 29, 2008, 08:27:14 AM
If we allow for self-referencing; I'd take the organ works of Messiaen over anything that Bach put down to paper.
Yes, but you'd be in the minority. I agree, for the most part, with Josquin.
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 29, 2008, 08:28:57 AM
Yes, but you'd be in the minority. I agree, for the most part, with Josquin.
Well being as I am referencing myself; I'm not in the minority at all, in fact I'm in the fullest most complete majority there is.
Quote from: James on July 29, 2008, 08:14:24 AM
Any artist would hope that everyone likes what they create but it's not going to happen, they shouldn't be overly concerned with pleasing anyone, it would only restrict and interfere with their creativity, and then start 2nd guessing and compromising their art & vision in order to merely please everybody. Artists are not slaves like that. They can't be hampered with those kind of restrictions. They must compose with intent and touch a level of urgency to get what they need. They want something to move people of course, to give the audience their truth, but to try to give anything other than that and their music will sound contrived. An audience gaining pleasure is not validation of art. It may be good entertainment though.
Fifteen years ago, I'd have sworn this was poppycock. Today, I'm in unreserved agreement. Perhaps maturity
can come with age, after all?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 08:03:57 AM
Once you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.
Andy Pape, Nørgård, Sibelius, Bent Sørensen, Petterson and many many others. I would say, they have written as great music as Beethoven and Bach ever did, but their productivity was lower of cause. If it comes to contemporary composers with the most natural musicality, I can say, that Andy Pape and Nørgård is extremely productive though. It´s no big deal to write perfect music, it just takes time for most people.
Quote from: James on July 29, 2008, 08:30:32 AM
And by contemporary you're asking stuff from the last 10 years or so? Names have risen and are known but it's impossible to tell now if their music will have the sort of longevity that Bach or Beethoven has. Simply impossible.
The idea is false, though "
Josquin" will take that as "proving" his point. Part of
Bach and
Beethoven's "stature" derives from the fact that their work has been absorbed into the literature and culture for hundreds of years now. In the first place, the environment of the composers of today is entirely different to that of the German masters; in the second, there is no such neat comparison as "
Josquin" fondly imagines.
Quote from: mikkeljs on July 29, 2008, 08:33:40 AM
Andy Pape, Nørgård, Sibelius, Bent Sørensen, Petterson and many many others. I would say, they have written as great music as Beethoven and Bach ever did, but their productivity was lower of cause. If it comes to contemporary composers with the most natural musicality, I can say, that Andy Pape and Nørgård is extremely productive though. It´s no big deal to write perfect music, it just takes time for most people.
That's the same as saying Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson's music is as great as anything Lennon & McCartney ever wrote, isn't it?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 08:03:57 AM
Once you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.
Your judgment might be perfectly accurate here, but your reasoning is faulty. Even if one cannot name a living composer as great as Bach or Beethoven, it does not follow that composing is obsolete. I cannot name a living playwright as great as Shakespeare, for example, or an artist as great as Michelangelo, or a novelist as great as Tolstoy, but that doesn't mean they should just give up, and I doubt any of them will just because they can't hope to scale the same heights as the giants of the past. They may still feel they have something to say. As Varese noted, the present day composer refuses to die.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on July 29, 2008, 08:21:37 AM
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. What has the overwhelming greatness of Beethoven and Bach got to do with this odd notion that contemporary composers are obsolete? Unless, of course, you also mean that all composers have been obsolete since 1827? After all, what's the point in continuing if you're never going to be as good as Beethoven?
The point is to dispel the notion modern audiences won't let go of the classics because they can't handle the new. I propose the latter claim is highly fallacious and a clear non-sequitur, as evidenced by the fact that: a) conservative composers are not particularly successful, and b) modern audiences have no problem accepting "new" music such as jazz or rock.
Thus, i propose that modern composers simply aren't as good as the "classics".
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 29, 2008, 08:40:32 AM
That's the same as saying Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson's music is as great as anything Lennon & McCartney ever wrote, isn't it?
No! Because their music is not good. :) I haven´t heard anything by Lennon and McCartney, so I can´t judge them.
Quote from: mikkeljs on July 29, 2008, 08:44:39 AM
I haven´t heard anything by Lennon and McCartney, so I can´t judge them.
I think you may be the only person in Europe or the Americas who has not!
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2008, 08:47:20 AM
I think you may be the only person in Europe or the Americas who has not!
Perhabs I have accidentially heard something somewhere, but I have never been aware, if it was Lennon or McCartney or the Beatles...
Quote from: -abe- on July 28, 2008, 08:18:29 PM
While many modern composers comfort themselves with the idea that they are artists who are unjustifiably ignored, the reality might be that they are just irrelevant and obsolete because they are incapable of writing music that can please audiences.
Audiences are lazy listeners. When people think "classical", the first thing that comes to mind is mainly soothing music by Mozart or Bach. Nobody is brought up listening to classical, they choose it on their own- maybe for a few exceptions somewhere.
I don't see how it would be such a big step to go from early jazz or heavy metal to a lot of the modern stuff out there. But people don't make that connection, and can't, because they just don't know that there's even any composers anymore, and if they expect something soothing by Beethoven, they'll just be turned off by Schoenberg. Nobody has even heard of Schoenberg, let alone his music, so what do you expect?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 08:44:26 AM
The point is to dispel the notion modern audiences won't let go of the classics because they can't handle the new. I propose the latter claim is highly fallacious and a clear non-sequitur, as evidenced by the fact that: a) conservative composers are not particularly successful, and b) modern audiences have no problem accepting "new" music such as jazz or rock.
Thus, i propose that modern composers simply aren't as good as the "classics".
No, you didn't, you proposed they aren't as good as Bach and Beethoven. If you meant 'the classics', then only using the names Bach and Beethoven was disingenuous, because we'd all agree that few composers have
ever risen that high. Perhaps that's why you phrased your challenge in the way you did - so that you could then 'claim victory' when no one disagreed with you, as you did a few minutes later.
But, no, if you only meant 'that modern composers simply aren't as good as "the classics"' - then I'd say some certainly are. There may not be a Beethoven or a Bach out there (or maybe there is), but there rarely has been. But there are certainly composers as gifted and with as much to say as many of the old masters.
Quote from: James on July 29, 2008, 08:30:32 AM
And Bach worked in complete obscurity, in a musical backwater known to virtually no one except to a small number of musicians and connessuirs, it wasn't until 100 years later he was widely appreciated....the same sort of things can be applied to composers active these days.
Not really. Bach situation was the exception, not the rule, and even in his case, it didn't take a "100" years for people to recognize his greatness. By 1799 already we see him being mentioned as
the greatest of German composers from which all others sprung:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/04/09/specials/wolff.html
Sorry, but i must find your argument inconclusive.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2008, 08:57:31 AM
By no means all.
Would you say anywhere from about 70-80% of the people who go to concerts have this attitude?:
1) they go just to say they went
2) they just want to get out and listen to some relaxing music, and don't want to make an "effort" to enjoy anything that might be challenging at all
3) they want to hear Mozart, Brahms, or Beethoven because that's just about all they know
4) they want to feel knowledgeable about the above composers
maybe it differs, and i could imagine it does in Boston, but I bet in most places this is pretty close to being how it is.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on July 29, 2008, 09:02:02 AM
Would you say anywhere from about 70-80% of the people who go to concerts have this attitude?:
1) they go just to say they went
2) they just want to get out and listen to some relaxing music, and don't want to make an "effort" to enjoy anything that might be challenging at all
3) they want to hear Mozart, Brahms, or Beethoven because that's just about all they know
4) they want to feel knowledgeable about the above composers
maybe it differs, and i could imagine it does in Boston, but I bet in most places this is pretty close to being how it is.
So Greg, you're equating people enjoying the music of Mozart, Brahms or Beethoven as being "lazy listeners"? ???
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 29, 2008, 09:04:49 AM
So Greg, you're equating people enjoying the music of Mozart, Brahms or Beethoven as being "lazy listeners"? ???
It's possible, if they focus on them
exclusively. Like a listener I read about in a book- an old lady who hated it when anything but Beethoven was on the program. You can still like them and be open, too, which is the best.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on July 29, 2008, 09:02:02 AM
Would you say anywhere from about 70-80% of the people who go to concerts have this attitude?:
Much too large a percentage, to speak of people of my own acquaintance.
Quote1) they go just to say they went
This has simply been outside of my experience, apart from when I was in school, and students had a quota of live performances to attend every semester/quarter.
Quote2) they just want to get out and listen to some relaxing music, and don't want to make an "effort" to enjoy anything that might be challenging at all
Some portion of folks I know seek out The Relaxing Music, though there is generally some degree of overlap with
some willingness to make
some effort.
Quote3) they want to hear Mozart, Brahms, or Beethoven because that's just about all they know
70-80% is far too high a proposed percentage, in my experience.
Quote4) they want to feel knowledgeable about the above composers
Can't speak to this at all.
Greg, you'd do well to quit digging while you can still see some sky, my friend.
For a start, it's not always listeners who are lazy. A charge of laziness might well be laid at the door of concert promoters - rarely programming anything that would challenge what they think audiences want. But go to concerts of works not by the composers you've selected, and you'll find the halls are quite often as full (sometimes fuller) as they are for the more popular repertoire.
Quote from: Mark on July 29, 2008, 09:13:59 AM
Greg, you'd do well to quit digging while you can still see some sky, my friend.
For a start, it's not always listeners who are lazy. A charge of laziness might well be laid at the door of concert promoters - rarely programming anything that would challenge what they think audiences want. But go to concerts of works not by the composers you've selected, and you'll find the halls are quite often as full (sometimes fuller) as they are for the more popular repertoire.
Makes sense..... i do hear of concerts of just well-known modern composers selling out.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on July 29, 2008, 09:20:41 AM
Makes sense..... i do hear of concerts of just well-known modern composers selling out.
The Tanglewood festival devoted to Carter was well and enthusiastically attended.
Quote from: Joe Barron on July 29, 2008, 09:24:31 AM
The Tanglewood festival devoted to Carter was well and enthusiastically attended.
Where's that? NY?
Imagine Carter in Florida...... he'd probably get a tenth of the popularity he does in NY. You know, i think that really has a lot to do with it....
Most concerts do have a "more modern" work accompanying "more standard repertoire" works.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on July 29, 2008, 09:28:50 AM
Where's that? NY?
Imagine Carter in Florida...... he'd probably get a tenth of the popularity he does in NY. You know, i think that really has a lot to do with it....
Tanglewood is in Massachusetts. It's the summer home of the Boston Symphony. I'm not about to get into a discussion of regional differences in audience tastes.
The problem with populist arguments, I have determined, is that they require that I let someone else make up my mind for me. If some undefined "audience" or "public," whether in New York or Florida, is said not to like a piece of music, somehow I'm supposed to let that dictate my own reaction. "Oh, the
audience doesn't like it. Silly me, I must be mistaken." To a populist critic, the public is the final arbiter of quality --- until, of course, the populist comes across a popular piece he thinks is bad. We find comfort and safety numbers until we conclude the numbers are wrong. Then the public becomes lazy and hidebound. I prefer to talk about what
I like.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2008, 08:47:20 AM
I think you may be the only person in Europe or the Americas who has not!
But he may be the only person who has heard Andy Pape.
Ack, another antimodernist thread.
For all this talk about concerts and programming, nobody is mentioning the obvious: tastes aren't being formed in the concert hall. They're being formed on the internet, at Amazon.com, and anywhere else one can buy or download recorded music. People go to concerts to affirm the listening choices they've already made through their record purchases. I would suggest using record sales as a measuring stick rather than concert attendance.
While it is a safe bet to say that Chopin sells more discs than Carter, the record companies keep putting out recordings of Carter's music, so someone must be buying them. Naxos, for instance, relies heavily on modern music in its catalogue. Naxos has figured out that with 1000s of Beethoven sympony sets already on the market they can't hope to release another set and expect it to make money. Instead, they release music for which there are no other recordings. If you want to hear Bolcom's Songs of Innocence and Experience or Stephen Hartke's The Greater Good you're just going to have to buy the Naxos recordings of them.
Through wide distribution of sound recordings allows modern music to get the repeated listenings it requires. It also allows for the creation of micro-audiences, related by interest rather than geography, who will support this music. For instance, the appreciative crowds who went to the Carter festival at Tanglewood (that's in Massachusetts, Greg) already knew what they were getting into. Those who chose to come have already gotten to know his music by way of recordings. They came from wherever they happened to live. The "only Mozart and Schubert please" crowd stayed away.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on July 29, 2008, 08:57:13 AM
No, you didn't, you proposed they aren't as good as Bach and Beethoven. If you meant 'the classics', then only using the names Bach and Beethoven was disingenuous, because we'd all agree that few composers have ever risen that high. Perhaps that's why you phrased your challenge in the way you did - so that you could then 'claim victory' when no one disagreed with you, as you did a few minutes later.
I'm not sure i follow your argument. When we talk about the classics, it's implied we are talking about the usual suspects, I.E., Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and so forth. Nobody is shunning modern composers only to line up in the concert hall to listen to Moscheles.
Of course, let's not forget the original argument. Are modern audiences shy of contemporary composers because they can't accept the new and only like the music of the past, which is simpler and more tuneful? Maybe, maybe not, but the only way for Wuorinen or anybody else to even make such a claim is that their work be every bit as great as that of the composers those audiences prefer. If they can't prove that the entire argument is bust.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on July 29, 2008, 08:57:13 AM
But there are certainly composers as gifted and with as much to say as many of the old masters.
Such as?
Quote from: Sforzando on July 29, 2008, 10:07:17 AM
But he may be the only person who has heard Andy Pape.
I thought it was a misspelling of
anti-Pope . . . .
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 29, 2008, 10:08:24 AM
Ack, another antimodernist thread.
For all this talk about concerts and programming, nobody is mentioning the obvious: tastes aren't being formed in the concert hall. They're being formed on the internet, at Amazon.com, and anywhere else one can buy or download recorded music. People go to concerts to affirm the listening choices they've already made through their record purchases. I would suggest using record sales as a measuring stick rather than concert attendance.
While it is a safe bet to say that Chopin sells more discs than Carter, the record companies keep putting out recordings of Carter's music, so someone must be buying them. Naxos, for instance, relies heavily on modern music in its catalogue. Naxos has figured out that with 1000s of Beethoven sympony sets already on the market they can't hope to release another set and expect it to make money. Instead, they release music for which there are no other recordings. If you want to hear Bolcom's Songs of Innocence and Experience or Stephen Hartke's The Greater Good you're just going to have to buy the Naxos recordings of them.
Through wide distribution of sound recordings allows modern music to get the repeated listenings it requires. It also allows for the creation of micro-audiences, related by interest rather than geography, who will support this music. For instance, the appreciative crowds who went to the Carter festival at Tanglewood (that's in Massachusetts, Greg) already knew what they were getting into. Those who chose to come have already gotten to know his music by way of recordings. They came from wherever they happened to live. The "only Mozart and Schubert please" crowd stayed away.
Dammit! Once again I'm irked by this forum's lack of an applause smiley. >:(
An excellent post, and very true.
Quote from: James on July 29, 2008, 08:48:13 AM
Obvious stuff, that you'd figure doesnt need to be pointed out. To think that Bach had that kind of stature at the very beginning, during his time, to what it is now is absurd.
The dissemination of music in Bach's time was minimal compared to ours. Nonetheless, the WTC circulated relatively widely in manuscript, to the point where it was the young Beethoven's primary study in 1780 when he was 10.
But to talk about a "canon" during Bach's time is anachronistic. The idea of a fixed canon of music to be preserved for all time did not take hold until the later 18th and early 19th centuries. Music during Bach's and Mozart's time was primarily
new music.
And only Mark Simon so far has made the most crucial point about audiences and canons: that music is primarily experienced today via recordings. Recordings have considerable drawbacks - the sound quality is artificial at best compared to a good concert hall, the reliance on recording is taking over the older tradition of amateur music-making for one's self, the rapport of the listener to a live performer is eliminated, and more. But thanks to recordings, an enormous range of music is now made available, often in multiple interpretations, at relatively inexpensive prices. As a result, each person can create in his/her own living room a personal canon of music. I don't entirely like the implications of this, but all the complaints about what music is programmed or not by what orchestra have to be counterbalanced by the enormous availability of music on CD.
Excellent, Mark & sforz.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 10:13:19 AM
I'm not sure i follow your argument. When we talk about the classics, it's implied we are talking about the usual suspects, I.E., Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and so forth.
Yes, but when you talk about 'Bach and Beethoven', as you did, it is only implied that you are talking about Bach and Beethoven. This is the post I mean:
Quote from: Josquini'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.
That's what is disingenuous, if by this you only mean 'as great as the "classics" '
Should we change the way music students are educated about composers of the past? Ie.By naming them and their works in the literature in only objective terms (ie.Bach was a late 17th Century to 18th Century Baroque composer).
So far as I can tell, ChN, no one here argues with the fact that Bach is among the graetest of composers, and that educational attention to his work is rightly overweighted.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 29, 2008, 10:19:56 AM
... But thanks to recordings, an enormous range of music is now made available, often in multiple interpretations, at relatively inexpensive prices. As a result, each person can create in his/her own living room a personal canon of music. I don't entirely like the implications of this, but all the complaints about what music is programmed or not by what orchestra have to be counterbalanced by the enormous availability of music on CD.
I like the implications completely and entirely. Recorded music is my lifeline and often the only way to get to know modern music.
ZB
I must say that I can't really understand the "We can't yet judge"-argument. Of course, in the past there were works which the audience dismissed. But we have to be fair: they listened to it only one time and the artists weren't too good either. I mean, the
Grosse Fuge is hard to get when listening to it for the first time and not being familiar with fugues (I don't think the audience at the time listened to fugues regularly as we do). However, as far as I know two movements of the quartet (the 4th and 5th?) were a great success immediately and had to be repeated at the premiere concert.
And the
Leipziger Allgemeine Musikzeitung wrote over the Schumann piano concerto after the premiere which quite enthusiastic:
Quoteweil sie die gewöhnliche Monotonie der Gattung glücklich vermeidet und der vollständig obligaten, mit großer Liebe und Sorgfalt gearbeiteten Orchesterpartie, ohne den Eindruck der Pianoleistung zu beeinträchtigen, ihr volles Recht widerfahren läßt und beiden Theilen ihre Selbstständigkeit in schöner Verbindung zu wahren weiss.
For those who don't understand German: The writer praises the daedal orchestral part as a good innovation.
If there were only a few musicians who listened to Bach's music in the 18th century, this does not surprise me at all. I would say that almost all of us here have a greater insight into music than those musicians in the past, due to the fact that we have an immense source of information, we do listen to music in recordings every day, know and understand the thoughts over music people have made over hundreds of years.
You can't compare the audience of Beethoven's Grosse Fugue premiere (and those pieces which seemed incomprehensible were exceptions! Most of Beethoven's music was a great success, e.g. the 7th symphony, the 1st symphony praised for its delicate instrumentation, other quartets, etc.) with the gigantic amount of experienced listeners who get access to a contemporary composition and should be aware of its greatness.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on July 29, 2008, 11:10:40 AM
I like the implications completely and entirely. Recorded music is my lifeline and often the only way to get to know modern music.
ZB
Since I phrased that particular statement vaguely on purpose, how do you know what implications I was referring to?
Quote from: Sforzando on July 29, 2008, 10:19:56 AM
The dissemination of music in Bach's time was minimal compared to ours. Nonetheless, the WTC circulated relatively widely in manuscript, to the point where it was the young Beethoven's primary study in 1780 when he was 10.
But to talk about a "canon" during Bach's time is anachronistic. The idea of a fixed canon of music to be preserved for all time did not take hold until the later 18th and early 19th centuries. Music during Bach's and Mozart's time was primarily new music.
Precisely.Which raises the question: regardless of what's available on cd or not, most of what is performed on classical stations and by the most eminent orchestras is dominated by music from the baroque, classical and romantic eras. Modern music seems incapable of competing against this music from the past for audiences.
The way people respond to this point is to split hairs and say that of course modern music has
some audiences and is performed in some corners while largely side stepping the central issue: so called "new music" seems no closer to drawing audiences like the music from previous eras can...even after a century of this nonsense. The classical music infrastructure relies on centuries old music and is essentially nothing but a museum.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on July 29, 2008, 09:08:01 AM
You can still like them and be open, too, which is the best.
Which is not an open-minded statement in itself ;D The best is for people to listen to whatever they enjoy. IMO, music should not be a burden.
Quote from: -abe- on July 29, 2008, 01:23:08 PM
The way people respond to this point is to split hairs and say that of course modern music has some audiences and is performed in some corners while largely side stepping the central issue: so called "new music" seems no closer to drawing audiences like the music from previous eras can...even after a century of this nonsense. The classical music infrastructure relies on centuries old music and is essentially nothing but a museum.
With all due respect, "new music" encompasses such a vast array of composers (few of whom are "obsolete," to address the original issue) that I don't think it's even
possible to come to a global conclusion about them. I'd be very careful about characterizing all composers and an entire century of work as "nonsense," even if you feel that way about individual composers (e.g.,
Wuorinen or others).
Wuorinen, John Adams, Xenakis, Carter, Jennifer Higdon, Martin Bresnick, Joan Tower, Frederic Rzewski...these people really have
very little in common with each other, other than that they are all writing music they feel is important. I'd hesitate to come to any further conclusions.
True, older music is still the backbone (just for argument's sake) of "most" orchestral concerts, and yes, the "museum" comment is fair. However, change
is happening, primarily due to the way music is distributed and consumed, and the vast amount of (yes, mostly recorded) music available to listen to, everywhere. To compare our era with that of Bach and Beethoven is almost ludicrous: it's really apples and oranges--or maybe more like "apples and skyscrapers."
But all right, for live performance, here are just a handful of examples off the top of my head, from any number of exhibits one could trot out:
* I happened to be browsing the Dayton Philharmonic's website the other day, and noticed how much unfamiliar music they have scheduled for 2008-2009. Yes, in Dayton, Ohio. Granted, not "every concert," but most of them have at least one piece that is off the beaten track, e.g.,
Moskowski's Piano Concerto, a complete evening of
William Grant Still,
Robert Ward's Concerto for Piano and Orchestra, etc.
* The recent production in New York of
Bernd Alois Zimmermann's Die Soldaten, a 3-hour, twelve-tone opera from 1965, sold out five performances, with 975 seats at each one, and at rather exorbitant ticket prices, too: $75, $150 and $250. Sure, some people probably came "to be seen," and the production was quite an event on its own, but still, it's a demanding score. Yet the comments I heard were overwhelmingly positive.
* This year's Salzburg Festival features
nine concerts of music by
Salvatore Sciarrino. I know at least one friend who is attending all of them. Granted, he's atypical, and yes, of course, attendance won't be known until the concerts happen, but I can't imagine the artists will be playing to empty rooms.
--Bruce
Quote from: James on July 29, 2008, 02:58:49 PM
and it's not unthinkable that work created today or over the last 10, 15, 20 years will have importance, merit or value for the future. it takes time, precisely. With Bach, who could have predicted that was going to happen with his works? how can you predict what will be of interest or what will happen 50, 100, 250, 400 years from now? it's impossible. we can assume things, but still...
I can safely say that 12 tone works will
never be as popular as established romantic/classic pieces. The stuff has been around for close to 90 years, after all.
As for Bach, he managed to make a living out of providing music that was pleasurable to people who wanted to hear it, and only fell out of style because people came to regard him as
old fashioned. Imagine that...popular audiences coming to regard a composer as "old fashioned" and pining for a new style where as today they generally look to the past...
Quote from: -abe- on July 29, 2008, 03:32:38 PM
I can safely say that 12 tone works will never be as popular as established romantic/classic pieces. The stuff has been around for close to 90 years, after all.
As for Bach, he managed to make a living out of providing music that was pleasurable to people who wanted to hear it, and only fell out of style because people came to regard him as old fashioned. Imagine that...popular audiences coming to regard a composer as "old fashioned" and pining for a new style where as today they generally look to the past...
Strict 12 tone pieces constitute a small slice of modern music, but atonal elements have found their way into the works of a lot of composers who combine it with tonal elements. There is lots of modern music that people express great enthusiasm for. If you want composers who write music that is "pleasurable to people" then I'd advise you to stand in an elevator or watch a lot of tampon commercials.
The main thing I get from this thread is that you like to whine and moan.
Quote from: -abe- on July 29, 2008, 03:32:38 PMI can safely say that 12 tone works will never be as popular as established romantic/classic pieces.
I have to confess that this is the most intriguing part of these kinds of discussions, the effort, the passion, the persistence with which people will insist that the inevitable will happen.
Kinda makes you suspect a wee bit fear, eh? Maybe it's not so inevitable. Maybe those awful twelve-tone pieces
will become popular some day, and maybe the -abe-s of this world will have to listen to them in every concert and on every radio station.
Really, guys. If 12 tone works will never be as popular as romantic/classic pieces, then why keep saying it? What's your motivation in this scene?
Quote from: some guy on July 29, 2008, 04:07:18 PM
Really, guys. If 12 tone works will never be as popular as romantic/classic pieces, then why keep saying it? What's your motivation in this scene?
Depends on how narrowly you define 12-tone. If you mean strict Schoenberg system, I'd say it's a pretty remote possibility. But that system led to a world where a lot of music is possible that wasn't possible. A lot of 12 tone-influenced music is pretty mainstream at this point.
Anti-modernist threads are no fun without Sean......
I love how you people always turn to condescension when cornered in an argument.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on July 29, 2008, 10:25:20 AM
Yes, but when you talk about 'Bach and Beethoven', as you did, it is only implied that you are talking about Bach and Beethoven. This is the post I mean:
That's what is disingenuous, if by this you only mean 'as great as the "classics" '
I still don't see what you are trying to say. I could have as easily mentioned Mozart or Chopin and the point would have been the same. Those are what we mean when we say "classics", which is after all one of the subjects of our discussion.
I'll say it again. If modern audiences are turning towards the classics while shunning modern composers it may be because the classics wrote better music. The implication that they are too bigoted to accept new ideas is based on a fallacy until you can prove modern composers are
as great as those of the past, which would dispel the notion audiences are following taste rather then bias.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 04:20:46 PM
I'll say it again. If modern audiences are turning towards the classics while shunning modern composers it may be because the classics wrote better music. The implication that they are too bigoted to accept new ideas is based on a fallacy until you can prove modern composers are as great as those of the past, which would dispel the notion audiences are following taste rather then bias.
If popularity is a direct indicator of the "greatness" of a composer you have just proven that Britney Spears is superior to Bach, Beethoven and Brahms combined. And how did you get the notion that it is even possible to "prove modern composers are as great as those of the past."
You are merely afflicted with the delusion, quite common on the internet, that if you don't get something it must be inferior.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 04:20:46 PM
I still don't see what you are trying to say. I could have as easily mentioned Mozart or Chopin and the point would have been the same. Those are what we mean when we say "classics", which is after all one of the subjects of our discussion.
I'll say it again. If modern audiences are turning towards the classics while shunning modern composers it may be because the classics wrote better music. The implication that they are too bigoted to accept new ideas is based on a fallacy until you can prove modern composers are as great as those of the past, which would dispel the notion audiences are following taste rather then bias.
Does the text in your avatar imply that you are "shunning" the modern, 12-tone composer of "Wozzeck" and the Lyric Suite? Inquiring minds wish to know.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2008, 08:23:53 AM
Your post us wonderfully funny, Josquin! For the question is, How does one assert that either Bach or Beethoven is "the pinnacle" of music? And the answers are circular; those are the greatest composers, because greatness in music is 'determined' in reference to their work.
Yes, but you seem to want to ignore the power of the human mind to think in abstractions and reach conclusions which are beyond what can be readily understood or explained. I cannot say, in simple terms, what makes Bach a genius, but i can
understand it, using ontological and intuitive means. I cannot say or prove that i'm right in my judgment, but that isn't the same as saying my understanding of the music of Bach isn't based on concrete realities which one day we may even come to discover. In the end, who was that said that "the reason we have so few geniuses is that people do not have faith in what they know to be true"? ;D
To be frank, part of the reason why people seem to have such a conflicting perception of art is that there is a difference between
experiencing something and truly
understanding it, in the sense implied above. Experiencing something gives you a taste of the object in question, but you may not develop a proper consciouses of it, so that the object may appear vague and shrouded in
feeling rather then understanding. I believe most people are prone to cast judgment over something while they are still in this pre-conscious phase, so that their understanding is still in the form of feeling. Ask anybody what they think of classical music and most we'll just say that it's
nice, or that it is
relaxing, that is, their understanding of it is still not properly formed so they can only rely on their emotional perception of it. Hence, why the adamant attitude displayed by people here on how individual perception rules everything is so infuriating in that it's based on the sheer emotional gratification of stating that we are all individuals with different tastes and such and such rather then reason or any real evidence.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 04:20:46 PM
I still don't see what you are trying to say. I could have as easily mentioned Mozart or Chopin and the point would have been the same. Those are what we mean when we say "classics", which is after all one of the subjects of our discussion.
I'll say it again. If modern audiences are turning towards the classics while shunning modern composers it may be because the classics wrote better music.
Or it may not be. It may be instead that the music of some contemporary composers follows its own conventions and rules that may not be as easily accessible to listeners grounded in classical tonality.
Let's turn this around a bit. You call yourself Josquin des Prez. Presumably there's a reason for that. People grounded in the pre-tonal era consider Josquin des Prez one of the truly great composers - along with Dufay, Lasso, and few others. Yet the modern audiences who lap up Romantic music as if it's the only ice cream in town show not the slightest interest in the music of Josquin des Prez. Or Lasso, or Dufay, or Machaut, or Monteverdi. Why? because Josquin is not as "great" as Wagner or Mahler? or is it perhaps instead that Josquin's idiom is less familiar, and takes greater exposure before one can get past the strangeness of the idiom to the music within?
Quote from: Sforzando on July 29, 2008, 05:14:53 PM
Does the text in your avatar imply that you are "shunning" the modern, 12-tone composer of "Wozzeck" and the Lyric Suite? Inquiring minds wish to know.
I personally never shunned anything, at least not until very recently, and i still haven't given up on modern composers, though i have begun to draw some lines. I.E., i can go as far as Webern or Ligeti (and in Jazz, John Coltrane) with ease, but anything beyond that it's currently on a strict probation phase.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 29, 2008, 05:25:16 PM
Let's turn this around a bit. You call yourself Josquin des Prez. Presumably there's a reason for that. People grounded in the pre-tonal era consider Josquin des Prez one of the truly great composers - along with Dufay, Lasso, and few others. Yet the modern audiences who lap up Romantic music as if it's the only ice cream in town show not the slightest interest in the music of Josquin des Prez. Or Lasso, or Dufay, or Machaut, or Monteverdi. Why? because Josquin is not as "great" as Wagner or Mahler? or is it perhaps instead that Josquin's idiom is less familiar, and takes greater exposure before one can get past the strangeness of the idiom to the music within?
I think that's a proper point, but let's clarify a few things: was Josquin's language
unfamiliar to the audiences of his day? It seems to me that all musical languages have always grown
spontaneously first, and only later developed into higher forms of art. Jazz for instance poses a perfect example. Could it be then that the problem lies on the fact modern composers are
imposing their own languages over audiences willy-nilly rather then develop already established means of expression to higher artistic and intellectual levels?
I mean, historically, theory has always followed the music, never the other way around. Is this then a case of composers getting ahead of themselves by establishing theories
before the actual musical phenomena has had the chance to appear spontaneously? And how can the audience thus be reassured those theories and means of expression aren't totally arbitrary and thus fraudulent, particularly in the mayhem that characterizes contemporary art? (urinals as "found" objects, pictures of unmade beds and feces sprayed on a canvas proudly hung in museum walls do not elicit trust in any way or form).
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 05:35:59 PM
I think that's a proper point, but let's clarify a few things: was Josquin's language unfamiliar to the audiences of his day? It seems to me that all musical languages have always grown spontaneously first, and only later developed into higher forms of art. Jazz for instance poses a perfect example. Could it be then that the problem lies on the fact modern composers are imposing their own languages over audiences willy-nilly rather then develop already established means of expression to higher artistic and intellectual levels?
I mean, historically, theory has always followed the music, never the other way around. Is this then a case of composers getting ahead of themselves by establishing theories before the actual musical phenomena has had the chance to appear spontaneously? And how can the audience thus be reassured those theories and means of expression aren't totally arbitrary and thus fraudulent?
If you're referring to Schoenberg and the row, the fact is that his development of the row merely codified certain procedures that were already present in his music and that of his students—although I will confess that I believe Schoenberg composed more freely and interestingly in his pre-12-tone atonal days than after. But without wanting to take the time to dissect the rest of your assertions, they strike me as unsubstantiated speculation.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 29, 2008, 05:49:01 PM
If you're referring to Schoenberg and the row, the fact is that his development of the row merely codified certain procedures that were already present in his music and that of his students—although I will confess that I believe Schoenberg composed more freely and interestingly in his pre-12-tone atonal days than after.
Point taken, but then, i think the second Viennese school was at a cross-road between genuine "inspiration" and theoretical dogma as a compositional rule. I can follow Webern's compositional logic in a purely intuitive way. A lot of post-war composers just sound like arbitrary nonsense in comparison.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 29, 2008, 05:49:01 PM
But without wanting to take the time to dissect the rest of your assertions, they strike me as unsubstantiated speculation.
Really? What about respected figures like Stockhausen then? Aren't many of his works
clearly nothing more then the same type of excesses found in the visual arts (unmade beds ect.). What about John Cage? Those are established names, how can an audience be convinced modern methods aren't completely arbitrary when the obviously and utterly arbitrary are accepted among the
greats?
And it doesn't stop there. Just today i was reading about Thomas Ades, a composer whom certain members here have expressed admiration for in more then one occasion, and then i came across this description of his opera from his wikipedia entry and i quote:
"Powder Her Face, Adès' 1995 chamber opera with a libretto by Philip Hensher,
won both good reviews and notoriety for its musical depiction of fellatio."
Really? No, i mean, REALLY? You know, i've always been one of those who believes art should always follow simple precepts of morality and general decency. I happen to be a bit old fashioned about that. I'm sure many other concert goers would agree. Somehow, i don't think musical depictions of
blow jobs are going to have any lasting power, not unless the culture in question happens to be not only completely depraved but out of its freaking skull as well.
The ball is in your court.
Quote from: scarpia on July 29, 2008, 04:46:57 PM
If popularity is a direct indicator of the "greatness" of a composer you have just proven that Britney Spears is superior to Bach, Beethoven and Brahms combined.
Yes, but in this case popularity is leaning towards Bach or Beethoven, I.E., genius. Besides those who still go to concerts because it makes them feel cultured (which i believe is a dwindling minority this days, but perhaps i'm wrong), if somebody capable of understanding the greatness of Beethoven isn't interested in Wuorinen (who btw is a better composer then what the OP gives him credit for) then i cannot just dismiss it by arguing that person has no taste or is incapable of understanding complex music and so forth. I mean, after all, this person listens to
Beethoven. Hello?
Quote from: scarpia on July 29, 2008, 04:46:57 PM
And how did you get the notion that it is even possible to "prove modern composers are as great as those of the past."
I think that's besides the point really. I never expected anybody here to provide proof or even claim that modern composers are as great as the "classics". However, such a claim would have been necessary to support the accusation modern audiences prefer the classics because they are too stupid (or whatever) to understand modern composers, which cannot be valid if the "classics" are actually superior to those new artists. Which brings me to my next point:
Quote from: scarpia on July 29, 2008, 04:46:57 PM
You are merely afflicted with the delusion, quite common on the internet, that if you don't get something it must be inferior.
Or perhaps i don't get it because there's nothing to get, or rather, it doesn't matter whether i get anything or not. Give me one good reason why i should waste my time with inferior crap when i can gorge myself in the genius of Bach.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 05:20:40 PM
Yes, but you seem to want to ignore the power of the human mind to think in abstractions and reach conclusions which are beyond what can be readily understood or explained.
You do realize in stating this you actually make OUR argument...
You admit the human mind has limitations. Yours is not exempt. You can neither understand nor explain the relevancy of "post-Beethoven" music. Your limitations inhibit you.
Am I trying to be condescending? No. Merely pointing out a perfect test case for your above hypothesis.
Quote from: donwyn on July 29, 2008, 07:01:24 PM
You admit the human mind has limitations.
Nothing of the sort. I'm stating that the human mind is capable of understanding much more of what can be directly gleamed using standard logic or direct knowledge. The human mind cannot possibly have any limitation in understanding the works of other human beings for the obvious reason those creations are the result of the exercise of human intellect in the first place.
Quote from: donwyn on July 29, 2008, 07:01:24 PM
You can neither understand nor explain the relevancy of "post-Beethoven" music.
Yet, i can understand and explain Beethoven. Where's the difference? Is Beethoven merely older? Then why am i capable of understanding and explaining artists like Miles Davis?
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 29, 2008, 10:08:24 AM
Ack, another antimodernist thread.
For all this talk about concerts and programming, nobody is mentioning the obvious: tastes aren't being formed in the concert hall. They're being formed on the internet, at Amazon.com, and anywhere else one can buy or download recorded music. People go to concerts to affirm the listening choices they've already made through their record purchases. I would suggest using record sales as a measuring stick rather than concert attendance.
That's not a bad idea. We don't have to compare contemporary composers with the classics since we know the results before hand, but it would be interesting to compare among contemporary composers themselves.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 06:03:23 PM
Point taken, but then, i think the second Viennese school was at a cross-road between genuine "inspiration" and theoretical dogma as a compositional rule. I can follow Webern's compositional logic in a purely intuitive way. A lot of post-war composers just sound like arbitrary nonsense in comparison.
Really? What about respected figures like Stockhausen then? Aren't many of his works clearly nothing more then the same type of excesses found in the visual arts (unmade beds ect.). What about John Cage? Those are established names, how can an audience be convinced modern methods aren't completely arbitrary when the obviously and utterly arbitrary are accepted among the greats?
And it doesn't stop there. Just today i was reading about Thomas Ades, a composer whom certain members here have expressed admiration for in more then one occasion, and then i came across this description of his opera from his wikipedia entry and i quote:
"Powder Her Face, Adès' 1995 chamber opera with a libretto by Philip Hensher, won both good reviews and notoriety for its musical depiction of fellatio."
Really? No, i mean, REALLY? You know, i've always been one of those who believes art should always follow simple precepts of morality and general decency. I happen to be a bit old fashioned about that. I'm sure many other concert goers would agree. Somehow, i don't think musical depictions of blow jobs are going to have any lasting power, not unless the culture in question happens to be not only completely depraved but out of its freaking skull as well.
The ball is in your court.
It will have to remain there until tomorrow; it's getting late here. But you're shifting the terms of the argument away from comprehensibility to morality. James Joyce's Ulysses was also considered pornographic for its depiction of masturbation, and the case was eventually resolved in court in favor of the book. Where does this fit in with your "art following simple precepts," etc., or is Ulysses another masterpiece you're going to throw on the dust pile?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 07:09:53 PM
Nothing of the sort. I'm sating that the human mind is capable of understanding much more of what can be directly gleamed using standard logic or direct knowledge. The human mind cannot possibly have any limitation in understanding the works of other human beings for the obvious reason those creations are the result of the exercise of human intellect in the first place.
You are STILL making our (my) argument!
QuoteYet, i can understand Beethoven. Where's the difference?
The "difference" is in the first part of your quote, here. You're making the argument that the human mind IS capable of latching onto things created by other humans. So why is it so hard to understand that some of us latch onto human creations - music - YOU don't care for (or understand)?
It all comes down to maturity, I suppose. Some folks will have an 'understanding' far in advance of others, some far below others, some on equal footing with others. The maturer ones will 'understand' things others will not. It's not like we were all just
born with a certain 'understanding' level! There obviously is a range that increases (hopefully) as we mature.
I'd say you (and the OP) are still in the 'learning' stages. That's really all there is to it.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 05:35:59 PM
I mean, historically, theory has always followed the music, never the other way around.
No. not in the case of the Florentine
Camerata whose theories about Greek drama, accompanied monody,
touched off the revolution of Opera just before the end of the 16th century.
ZB
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 05:26:15 PM
...i can go as far as Webern or Ligeti (and in Jazz, John Coltrane) with ease, but anything beyond that it's currently on a strict probation phase.
Ligeti died 2 years ago. So all contemporary music is not obsolete then?
Even if he may not be as "great" as Bach or Beethoven, he is still worthwhile to listen to - and if you enjoy Ligeti, in my opinion there are plenty of other good contemporary composers whose music is no harder to understand. So explore some more! You may realise that there is nothing wrong with "new music" today after all.
Quote from: donwyn
It all comes down to maturity, I suppose. Some folks will have an 'understanding' far in advance of others, some far below others, some on equal footing with others. The maturer ones will 'understand' things others will not. It's not like we were all just born with a certain 'understanding' level! There obviously is a range that increases (hopefully) as we mature.
Music is not only about
understanding. I can fully understand a Classical symphony and it's still crap. There are certain things which make music worth listening to. With some effort I could list them all (or almost all), considering a certain masterpiece. If you want to know why I like the
Don Juan, I will mention the powerful main theme with its forward-pressing rhythm, the lyrical Oboe theme being an excellent contrast, in general: the motivic and thematic ideas, the orchestration (I can go further in detail: for example while the Oboe plays its theme, the basses are devided into 4 voices while the celli play a counterpart etc.), the harmonic progressions, the chronology of the different sections etc.
While I love every second of the masterwork, I think the greatest awards are those passages who send shivers down your spine and/or give you thrills of joy. Without them, I wouldn't listen to music that much, for sure.
Now let's take a work from Xenakis and
you, as you think you "understand" it, tell me reasons for why you like it (which I can follow) in the same way.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on July 29, 2008, 08:30:30 PM
No. not in the case of the Florentine Camerata whose theories about Greek drama, accompanied monody,
touched off the revolution of Opera just before the end of the 16th century.
ZB
Indeed. Not to mention Wagner's theories about the Gesamtkunstwerk, which he formulated before having written a note of the Ring Cycle.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on July 29, 2008, 04:13:31 PM
Anti-modernist threads are no fun without Sean......
Western civilization is crashing and burning all around us. At times like this, what does it matter
what the fare to Tooting is, Ma'am?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 05:20:40 PM
Yes, but you seem to want to ignore the power of the human mind to think in abstractions and reach conclusions which are beyond what can be readily understood or explained.
Your mistake at the outset. I don't ignore this, don't want to ignore this, cannot answer to why you imagine I "seem to want to ignore" it.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 05:20:40 PM
To be frank, part of the reason why people seem to have such a conflicting perception of art is that there is a difference between experiencing something and truly understanding it, in the sense implied above.
There is an interesting and generally useful point behind this, though, to be frank, it doesn't have much to do with any supposed quarrel to what I've been saying.
Not only is there a difference between experience and understanding (not that I see that problem in evidence in this discussion), but distinct from either of those is observation/reflection. A lot of the kneejerk reaction to the mere name of
Schoenberg (in recent evidence yet again when
Levine did his
Beethoven-&-
Schoenberg programming here in Boston) betrayed a gulf between observation, and experience.
Another valuable distinction to observe (especially in this thread) is the difference between deciding one dislikes something, and understanding (or even experiencing) it. Many people decide they don't like some kinds of music in advance of any actual experience of the music, and putter with ideas as to
why they are sure they will dislike the as-yet-unheard music, and, lo and behold, practice follows theory!
One sees this in various guises. Most obviously (considering the topic under advisement) there are those who, without having heard any (say)
Schoenberg, already spook at the rumor of
Schoenberg, and then spook at the abstract discussion of his music; haven't heard a note of the music yet, but already there is the expectation, or even in many cases the 'certainty', that they Aren't Going To Like THIS. But what the heck, hardly anyone wants to seem prejudicial and bigoted, so they'll try some
Schoenberg; in a surprisingly high percentage, when they do actually hear the music, they
were right all along, they
don't like it!
Or, wait; were they
were right all along, or did the already-formed prejudice
drive the belated experience?
In other cases, one sees this with classical music in general. I.e., there is some portion of the general public (in the USA) who have not yet actually experienced classical music, but they "know" that they "don't like" it. Same error, different application.
I think this is THE kind of discussion which will never reach any conclusion, but here are my two cents.
1. Two of the "classics" mentioned so far, Monteverdi and Beethoven, were just as revolutionary for their times as were Wagner or Schoenberg later. They are "classics" for us, but for their contemporaries their music was something unheard of yet, radically different from what came before them and as such was either regarded with suspicion or fully rejected by not a few of the musical establishment members.
2. The "contemporary music" is a vague term under which can be brought together composers which have absolutely nothing in common besides the fact that they "compose". I've heard contemporary pieces which made me "run like hell" and others which made me cry. There is room for everyone to satisfy his / her tastes, from the most radical "conservative" to the most radical "progressive". Why some people seem not to be able to fully enjoy what they like without dismissing as inferior and invaluable what they don't like has been, is and will forever remain a mistery to me.
There, two!
Of course, lots of folks cry while they're running like hell . . . .
Jests aside, well said, Andrei.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2008, 03:57:13 AM
Of course, lots of folks cry while they're running like hell . . . .
;D :D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 06:46:03 PM
Give me one good reason why i should waste my time with inferior crap when i can gorge myself in the genius of Bach.
Phrased that aggressively, your question appears rhetorical. But what's really going on here - and which you don't admit - is an implied either/or condition where there is only "genius" (Bach, Beethoven, I don't know if anyone else is admitted to the pantheon) and "inferior crap" (apparently most everybody else). You don't allow any shades of grey in between. It's fine to have high standards, but to affect a myopic blindness to the merits of any work that falls short of the very highest is to shortchange yourself.
Gosh, if anyone likes Bach that much, sure, no reason why he cannot spend all his listening time with Bach, and ignore every composer else. No question of inferiority, or superiority, or genius is necessarily involved.
Quote from: orbital on July 29, 2008, 02:15:04 PM
The best is for people to listen to whatever they enjoy. IMO, music should not be a burden.
Post of the day! Frankly, this is the sanest post (including my own :-X) on this thread.
0:)
After hearing Beethoven's op. 131, Schubert is reported to have said: "What is left for us to compose after that?" :D
And yet he didn't stop composing and I'd say that his late string quartets, his string quintet, his last three piano sonatas and his last two symphonies are on a par with Beethoven.
Brahms was also scared by Beethoven's symphonic output yet he left us his own legacy, again on a par with his predecessor.
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2008, 04:26:18 AM
After hearing Beethoven's op. 131, Schubert is reported to have said: "What is left for us to compose after that?" :D
And yet he didn't stop composing and I'd say that his late string quartets, his string quintet, his last three piano sonatas and his last two symphonies are on a par with Beethoven.
Brahms was also scared by Beethoven's symphonic output yet he left us his own legacy, again on a par with his predecessor.
Admiration of the great music for the past is right and proper.
It does not at all follow that we have to consider any one composer (or two composers) "the greatest," and all music else is inferior. (Which is not to say, either, that all music is 'equally great'.)
A question for Josquin: assuming you've listened to their music, just what make Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok or Enescu inferior to Beethoven, other than your own taste?
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2008, 04:50:08 AM
A question for Josquin: assuming you've listened to their music, just what make Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok or Enescu inferior to Beethoven, other than your own taste?
Those are not contemporary composers ;)
Quote from: rappy on July 30, 2008, 05:03:56 AM
Those are not contemporary composers ;)
Andrei did not claim so; the question is how "
Josquin" explains his assignment of musical "superiority."
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2008, 04:26:18 AM
After hearing Beethoven's op. 131, Schubert is reported to have said: "What is left for us to compose after that?" :D
To counterbalance this, there is also the fact that the late Beethoven quartets took many decades after his death to establish themselves as the extraordinary works a great many musicians and listeners perceive them as today. I'll have to dig up the source, but it appears that performances were few and far between, with op. 135 (as the most Haydnesque of the lost) the most popular until well into the 1870s. The late quartets and sonatas were often regarded as the regrettable effluvia of a deaf near-madman, and it wasn't until the 20th century that they became as prestigious as they are today, to the point where every other piano or quartet recital you see includes at least one of them. (Conversely, I have yet to see the so-called "overplayed" Moonlight programmed outside of complete cycles.) But as far as 131 goes, Schubert, Berlioz, and Wagner were way ahead of their times in appreciating this difficult and complex work.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2008, 05:07:12 AM
Andrei did not claim so; the question is how "Josquin" explains his assignment of musical "superiority."
Precisely.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2008, 03:20:19 AM
There is an interesting and generally useful point behind this, though, to be frank, it doesn't have much to do with any supposed quarrel to what I've been saying.
Not only is there a difference between experience and understanding (not that I see that problem in evidence in this discussion), but distinct from either of those is observation/reflection. A lot of the kneejerk reaction to the mere name of Schoenberg (in recent evidence yet again when Levine did his Beethoven-&-Schoenberg programming here in Boston) betrayed a gulf between observation, and experience.
Another valuable distinction to observe (especially in this thread) is the difference between deciding one dislikes something, and understanding (or even experiencing) it. Many people decide they don't like some kinds of music in advance of any actual experience of the music, and putter with ideas as to why they are sure they will dislike the as-yet-unheard music, and, lo and behold, practice follows theory!
One sees this in various guises. Most obviously (considering the topic under advisement) there are those who, without having heard any (say) Schoenberg, already spook at the rumor of Schoenberg, and then spook at the abstract discussion of his music; haven't heard a note of the music yet, but already there is the expectation, or even in many cases the 'certainty', that they Aren't Going To Like THIS. But what the heck, hardly anyone wants to seem prejudicial and bigoted, so they'll try some Schoenberg; in a surprisingly high percentage, when they do actually hear the music, they were right all along, they don't like it!
Or, wait; were they were right all along, or did the already-formed prejudice drive the belated experience?
In other cases, one sees this with classical music in general. I.e., there is some portion of the general public (in the USA) who have not yet actually experienced classical music, but they "know" that they "don't like" it. Same error, different application.
I tend to start with the opposite prejudice. ;D
I remember reading from a page or two of the score that was reprinted in a book of the Penderecki Threnody and was awed at learning new techniques that I could never have dreamed of....... could NOT wait to listen, and when i did, I had to play it again 2 or 3 times because I was simply amazed! :o
BUT...... i've also had experience with reading a few scores that were hypercomplex and interesting- for example, Ferneyhough and the piano pieces of Stockhausen and Boulez, and just ending up hating it all- i'd almost say, with a passion (though, still, if i can learn to wrap my head around those rhythms I've learned quite a bit, and that'll be a goal of mine).
Not just me....... i've tried something like this with letting my parents listen to my music. For example- saying how much i liked Schoenberg's Book of Hanging Gardens and how it actually mixes very well with the lyrics in a strange, yet convincing way. She listened through and thought it was "a joke, and i tried flipping through the tracks but each song sounded the same". ::)
Yet, i mentioned how Berg was atonal, but when she listened she said he "wasn't bad" or something like that.
So I don't think this:
Quoteor did the already-formed prejudice drive the belated experience?
is true at all for most people, at least not when it comes to music.
Incidentally, I don't think that it is true at all for most people, either, of course.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2008, 06:13:36 AM
Incidentally, I don't think that it is true at all for most people, either, of course.
You know, I think something like that may make people think of their "ideals" about music, which may just be an approximation of their actual tastes......
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on July 30, 2008, 06:21:11 AM
You know, I think something like that may make people think of their "ideals" about music, which may just be an approximation of their actual tastes......
Axiom No. 1:
Words about music are more slippery than they appear.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 30, 2008, 05:10:16 AM
To counterbalance this, there is also the fact that the late Beethoven quartets took many decades after his death to establish themselves as the extraordinary works a great many musicians and listeners perceive them as today. I'll have to dig up the source, but it appears that performances were few and far between, with op. 135 (as the most Haydnesque of the lost) the most popular until well into the 1870s. The late quartets and sonatas were often regarded as the regrettable effluvia of a deaf near-madman, and it wasn't until the 20th century that they became as prestigious as they are today, to the point where every other piano or quartet recital you see includes at least one of them.
Indeedie, I read that Verdi having the scores to all of Beethoven's late quartets on his bookshelf was considered quite "esoteric" at the time - and this was Falstaff era...
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2008, 06:28:11 AM
Axiom No. 1: Words about music are more slippery than they appear.
I like how you stated that. There's always a negative or positive way of saying the same thing, too, after all.......
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2008, 05:07:12 AM
Andrei did not claim so; the question is how "Josquin" explains his assignment of musical "superiority."
But Josquin claimed that the contemporary composers were inferior to the classics. And I think he counts Prokofiev, Bartok and co. to the classics.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 05:20:40 PM
Yes, but you seem to want to ignore the power of the human mind to think in abstractions and reach conclusions which are beyond what can be readily understood or explained. I cannot say, in simple terms, what makes Bach a genius, but i can understand it, using ontological and intuitive means. I cannot say or prove that i'm right in my judgment, but that isn't the same as saying my understanding of the music of Bach isn't based on concrete realities which one day we may even come to discover. In the end, who was that said that "the reason we have so few geniuses is that people do not have faith in what they know to be true"? ;D
To be frank, part of the reason why people seem to have such a conflicting perception of art is that there is a difference between experiencing something and truly understanding it, in the sense implied above. Experiencing something gives you a taste of the object in question, but you may not develop a proper consciouses of it, so that the object may appear vague and shrouded in feeling rather then understanding. I believe most people are prone to cast judgment over something while they are still in this pre-conscious phase, so that their understanding is still in the form of feeling. Ask anybody what they think of classical music and most we'll just say that it's nice, or that it is relaxing, that is, their understanding of it is still not properly formed so they can only rely on their emotional perception of it. Hence, why the adamant attitude displayed by people here on how individual perception rules everything is so infuriating in that it's based on the sheer emotional gratification of stating that we are all individuals with different tastes and such and such rather then reason or any real evidence.
Aren't you forgetting that most people have to be
guided to this understanding? I don't know about you, but without the presence of classical LPs in my home and the persistence of a mother who really loved them, I may never have come to know and love them myself.
And it seems to me that what you call "understanding" is almost as feeling-based as any drug addict's response to The Grateful Dead. Both are based on "insight" which their adherents falsely claim is universal and unavoidable.
Soightly off-topic question: Is our response to Bach or Mahler or Carter any more valid because we've been guided to understand this music, or because it's obviously more complex than that sung by Ms. Spears or even Lennon and McCartney? One can say that "our" music is more "intellectual," and it is, but I've never yet found music that doesn't produce some bodily response--not even serial or atonal music. Seems to me the categories are never as clear-cut as a lot of people would like to make them. :)
Quote from: rappy on July 30, 2008, 08:21:27 AM
But Josquin claimed that the contemporary composers were inferior to the classics. And I think he counts Prokofiev, Bartok and co. to the classics.
Do you, Josquin? Because Schoenberg and company considered Bartok just as radical as themselves in their day. :)
Quote from: rappy on July 30, 2008, 08:21:27 AM
But Josquin claimed that the contemporary composers were inferior to the classics. And I think he counts Prokofiev, Bartok and co. to the classics.
Not sure why you think so; the impression I get is that "
Josquin" a priori considers
Prokofiev (e.g.) ineligible for the stature of The Hoary Classics.
(My impression could be mistaken, of course.)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2008, 06:28:11 AM
Axiom No. 1: Words about music are more slippery than they appear.
Isn't that a Meatloaf song?
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2008, 08:25:05 AM
Not sure why you think so; the impression I get is that "Josquin" a priori considers Prokofiev (e.g.) ineligible for the stature of The Hoary Classics.
(My impression could be mistaken, of course.)
This is my impression, too. It would be interesting then to know where does Josquin draw the line between good music and bad music, IOW, when and with whom did music start going downwards.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on July 30, 2008, 09:19:42 AM
Isn't that a Meatloaf song?
What a happy country, where even the meatloaf sings!
I think Wuorinen's proclamation on entertainment is idiotic, because by his logic Mozart (entertainment, for the most part) is inferior to Schonberg (art theory for art theory's sake and damn the audience). As Raymond Chandler said, there is no good art and bad art, there is only art, and precious little of it. It's not for the composer to claim superiority on grounds of obscurantism and unpopularity, nor for the listener to condemn when what he hears isn't immediately familiar and appealing. The thing has to stand for itself.
Ultimately it's a problem of exposure. The 19th century saw a huge amount of music thrown into a Darwinian scuffle for immortality - audiences (and musicians) knew their stuff, and the desire for new music was matched by a willingness to praise or excoriate without favour. Now, new music occasionally surfaces and must be treasured like oil, because it seems so rare and ephemeral to us. This, combined with the academicisation of music has led to an audience (small but enthusiastic) afraid to call shenanigans on pretentious junk, for fear of dooming the whole enterprise.
I'd like to see a New Music Proms, and I think such an endeavour could really work, because the Proms show that a large, broad-minded audience is actually there, ready and waiting (providing they can stand in the hall for free).
Forgive me but I am lazy and very tired, so I will skip over most of what is in this thread and go straight to what I think is the most interesting question and challenge so far.
QuoteOnce you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.
As Webern famously said to Gershwin, "Music is Music." Similarly, a masterpiece is a masterpiece and a genius is a genius. If you don't mind extending "contemporary" to include the last 50 years, I would say that Stravinsky was a musical genius on par with Bach and I would say that Barber's works for chorus are equal to the collected masterpieces that are the Brahms choral works. Debussy's orchestral music may well have found its match in the vast works of Messiaen.
Even if you don't except my broad definition of contemporary, I would also argue that the Berio Sequenzas are masterpieces to rival the Bach Cello Suites and that the Ligeti piano etudes are as great as Beethoven's sonatas or Chopins polonaises. Although both Berio and Ligeti are, sadly, no longer with us, they were both alive recently enough to be considered contemporary.
Living composers? Harbison and Adams are as great as any other composers in American history. Carter, as we have recently seen at Tanglewood, may also be destined for a place in the pantheon of Beethoven, Wagner, and Schoenberg.
Want more? I can keep going if you wish.
Quote from: MahlerSnob on July 30, 2008, 07:35:08 PM
As Webern famously said to Gershwin, "Music is Music."
A quick nit-pick. It was Berg, not Webern.
Gershwin was visiting Berg. Having just heard Berg play some of the
Lyric Suite, and being asked to play some of his music, Gershwin was embarrassed to follow that with his show tunes. Berg reassured him, saying "Music is music".
Quote from: rappy on July 30, 2008, 01:38:41 AM
Music is not only about understanding. I can fully understand a Classical symphony and it's still crap. There are certain things which make music worth listening to. With some effort I could list them all (or almost all), considering a certain masterpiece. If you want to know why I like the Don Juan, I will mention the powerful main theme with its forward-pressing rhythm, the lyrical Oboe theme being an excellent contrast, in general: the motivic and thematic ideas, the orchestration (I can go further in detail: for example while the Oboe plays its theme, the basses are devided into 4 voices while the celli play a counterpart etc.), the harmonic progressions, the chronology of the different sections etc.
While I love every second of the masterwork, I think the greatest awards are those passages who send shivers down your spine and/or give you thrills of joy. Without them, I wouldn't listen to music that much, for sure.
Now let's take a work from Xenakis and you, as you think you "understand" it, tell me reasons for why you like it (which I can follow) in the same way.
Within the framework of your post it's difficult to take your request seriously. I looks too much like a set-up. I sense you're trying to teach me a lesson rather than genuinely engage me.
Oh, well...
First off I will say it's wrong to align composers in opposing camps like you do. R. Strauss vs. Xenakis. Beethoven vs. Lutoslawski. Etc...
It really isn't necessary.
I have no problems accepting Josquin's proposition that the human mind intuitively finds solace in the artistic concoctions of other humans. Though I admit his intent in saying this isn't tied in with what I'm proposing. I simply stole his idea and ran with it... ;D
What this has to do with your question is this: I get just as many "shivers" (as you put it) from a Lutoslawski piece as a Beethoven piece. Or a Richard Strauss piece. I simply make a connection with certain music (I'm working on Xenakis).
My "understanding" of a piece is tied in with what it means TO ME. And that's all
you're saying, correct? I mean, with your
Don Juan analogy.
But what if I enjoy something that's completely foreign to you? Does it NECESSARILY then become bad music? If yes, why would that be so? You've just outlined what good music means
to you. Must my likes
to the letter conform to yours? Again, if so, why?
We can crisscross ideas
ad infinitum on what it means to 'understand' certain music but until something clicks inside someone nothing will ever be resolved. But the trick is not to hold the 'other guy' in contempt for seeing it differently. And that's really all I'm fighting for, here.
I believe in the possibility of growth when it comes to aesthetics. That's what I meant by 'maturing'. It was probably all pretty vague in that last post of mine but it was late and I was itching to get to bed.
But in a nutshell I've seen my musical tastes change over time to include music I once deemed contemptible. And I recognize the benefits of such a change. It's called growth.
I don't think anyone should deny themselves this.
(But make the distinction: this is
NOT the same thing as "relativism").
Quote from: eyeresist on July 30, 2008, 06:07:12 PM
I think Wuorinen's proclamation on entertainment is idiotic, because by his logic Mozart (entertainment, for the most part) . . . .
No,
Mozart's 'entertainment' was at a number of levels raised from far more prosperous 'entertainers' of his day.
I think that trying to dismiss what
Wuorinen has to say as "idiotic," is self-serving and ridiculous. Tchah! ;)
Tchah?
Quote from: Sforzando on July 31, 2008, 05:00:26 AM
Tchah?
Humbug. Bullcrap. I spit on your mother's feet... You know, Tchah! :D
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 05:06:31 AM
Humbug. Bullcrap. I spit on your mother's feet... You know, Tchah! :D
8)
Oh! my mother's feet. I got it. :D
Quote from: eyeresist on July 30, 2008, 06:07:12 PM
I think Wuorinen's proclamation on entertainment is idiotic,
I wouldn't say it's idiotic. Wrong-headed, yes, an overreaction against the worst examples of the music which presents itself as "entertainment" these days, but not idiotic. It's wrong-headed because divides music into black and white categories, easy music and difficult music. The idea that music might have some elements which may be received without effort and others which require a good deal of effort never seems to have occurred to him*, and the idea that artistry involves finding a proper balance between "easy" ideas against "difficult" ones would be beyond his grasp (assuming one accepts his definition of art and entertainment in the first place).
I've said this a million times, art is not opposed to entertainment. Art is a subset of entertainment. Art does indeed give you something more, and therefore may require more effort, but it only impoverishes itself when it tries to exclude entertainment.
* (my beef with Wuorinen here is more philosophical than musical. Wuorinen's own compositions show much more flexibility than his statement would suggest)
A hey nonny no and a hot-cha-cha
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 31, 2008, 05:20:27 AM
I wouldn't say it's idiotic. Wrong-headed, yes, an overreaction against the worst examples of the music which presents itself as "entertainment" these days, but not idiotic. It's wrong-headed because divides music into black and white categories, easy music and difficult music. The idea that music might have some elements which may be received without effort and others which require a good deal of effort never seems to have occurred to him*, and the idea that artistry involves finding a proper balance between "easy" ideas against "difficult" ones would be beyond his grasp (assuming one accepts his definition of art and entertainment in the first place).
I've said this a million times, art is not opposed to entertainment. Art is a subset of entertainment. Art does indeed give you something more, and therefore may require more effort, but it only impoverishes itself when it tries to exclude entertainment.
* (my beef with Wuorinen here is more philosophical than musical. Wuorinen's own compositions show much more flexibility than his statement would suggest)
All very sensible,
Mark.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 29, 2008, 05:25:16 PM
Let's turn this around a bit. You call yourself Josquin des Prez. Presumably there's a reason for that. People grounded in the pre-tonal era consider Josquin des Prez one of the truly great composers - along with Dufay, Lasso, and few others. Yet the modern audiences who lap up Romantic music as if it's the only ice cream in town show not the slightest interest in the music of Josquin des Prez. Or Lasso, or Dufay, or Machaut, or Monteverdi. Why? because Josquin is not as "great" as Wagner or Mahler? or is it perhaps instead that Josquin's idiom is less familiar, and takes greater exposure before one can get past the strangeness of the idiom to the music within?
I have to admit I haven't explored Josquin des Prez. I don't know if I have ever heard his music. I don't have that many CDs of renaissance music. I like Palestrina but generally I feel renaissance music has not much to offer. Baroque music interests me significantly more. However, I give credit to renaissance composers for developping counterpoint. Music just got so much richer in the hands of baroque composers.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 30, 2008, 06:07:12 PM
Ultimately it's a problem of exposure. The 19th century saw a huge amount of music thrown into a Darwinian scuffle for immortality - audiences (and musicians) knew their stuff, and the desire for new music was matched by a willingness to praise or excoriate without favour. Now, new music occasionally surfaces and must be treasured like oil, because it seems so rare and ephemeral to us. This, combined with the academicisation of music has led to an audience (small but enthusiastic) afraid to call shenanigans on pretentious junk, for fear of dooming the whole enterprise.
I don't know much about contemporary music, but this paragraph rings somewhat true to me. At least when applied to other arts outside music.
The reasons are very valid, I must say. With regards to art in general, getting the level of attention it is getting in our day, an implied internal reaction to protect whatever small output there is out there makes perfect sense. it may even be the only way to preserve its continuity. And more importantly, its progression :-\
"Afraid to call shenanigans on pretentious junk" does not ring true in the least, IMO.
One of the lessons of Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective, is what priceless asses subsequent history shows people to be, who are ready, simply on the basis of their not immediately twigging a piece of music which is subsequently regarded as a classic, to cry "shenanigans."
Nobody "knows" any music for junk just from a personal experience of non-comprehension; "calling shenanigans" is intellectually dishonest. That is the fact of the matter. All one can say is, I don't care for it. Let time sort it out later.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 31, 2008, 06:01:30 AM
"Afraid to call shenanigans on pretentious junk" does not ring true in the least, IMO.
One of the lessons of Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective, is what priceless asses subsequent history shows people to be, who are ready, simply on the basis of their not immediately twigging a piece of music which is subsequently regarded as a classic, to cry "shenanigans."
Nobody "knows" any music for junk just from a personal experience of non-comprehension; "calling shenanigans" is intellectually dishonest. That is the fact of the matter. All one can say is, I don't care for it. Let time sort it out later.
Of course name calling is out of bounds, I did not want to imply that. My mistake.
But isn't there some lack of serious (or harsh) criticism in modern art in general? Not necessarily only from critics, but from the audience, viewer, etc? I am thinking that the reason for this may be the diminished amount of output, or maybe that the ones that would justify true negative criticism, perhaps, do not even get the chance to put themselves out there.
Quote from: orbital on July 31, 2008, 06:14:16 AM
But isn't there some lack of serious (or harsh) criticism in modern art in general?
If you can bear it, read Henry Pleasants's The Agony of Modern Music for a starter. I can't think of any artistic period that has been subjected to
more harsh criticism than the 20th century.
Quote from: orbital on July 31, 2008, 06:14:16 AM
Of course name calling is out of bounds, I did not want to imply that. My mistake.
But isn't there some lack of serious (or harsh) criticism in modern art in general? Not necessarily only from critics, but from the audience, viewer, etc? I am thinking that the reason for this may be the diminished amount of output, or maybe that the ones that would justify true negative criticism, perhaps, do not even get the chance to put themselves out there.
You've refocused the question very well, and I salute you.
To condemn a piece of art (justly, and not merely to express dislike for it) what is needed?
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 31, 2008, 05:20:27 AM
[A]rt is not opposed to entertainment. Art is a subset of entertainment. Art does indeed give you something more, and therefore may require more effort, but it only impoverishes itself when it tries to exclude entertainment.
QFT (http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/forumsandlists/f/whatisQFT.htm)Sorry for posting a "me too"-post but this sums it up far more eloquently than the half-baked message I just didn't post.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 31, 2008, 06:24:39 AM
If you can bear it, read Henry Pleasants's The Agony of Modern Music for a starter. I can't think of any artistic period that has been subjected to more harsh criticism than the 20th century.
Thank you, I will keep that in mind.
But as I said, my experience in (and exposure to) modern music is ridiculously low. That's why I thought of expanding the subject to arts in general which music is, by default, a part of. Modern dance, architecture, painting, installations, and even literature. I was thinking of someone along the lines of Basquiat (whose talent is apparent, but the exuberant praise he has been showered with makes one want to say "come on" >:D )
Quote from: karlhenning on July 31, 2008, 06:29:05 AM
You've refocused the question very well, and I salute you.
To condemn a piece of art (justly, and not merely to express dislike for it) what is needed?
Good question, Karl. To condemn a piece of art, the only thing that can be needed and put forth might be complete lack of aesthetics, perhaps. That's the only thing I can think of.
But of course, aesthetics is not a constant point in time and space. We have grown to like glass buildings, male M.Butterflies, profiles of women with both eyes showing, and pissoires :P
Degenerate art has always been around. People have always decried it. People have always loved it. I find it near silly to hear such absurd proclaimations of an overriding aesthetic thought. If history has taught us anything it is simply that there isn't a universal present here.
Quote from: orbital on July 31, 2008, 07:09:30 AM
Thank you, I will keep that in mind.
But as I said, my experience in (and exposure to) modern music is ridiculously low. That's why I thought of expanding the subject to arts in general which music is, by default, a part of. Modern dance, architecture, painting, installations, and even literature. I was thinking of someone along the lines of Basquiat (whose talent is apparent, but the exuberant praise he has been showered with makes one want to say "come on" >:D )
Good question, Karl. To condemn a piece of art, the only thing that can be needed and put forth might be complete lack of aesthetics, perhaps. That's the only thing I can think of.
But of course, aesthetics is not a constant point in time and space. We have grown to like glass buildings, male M.Butterflies, profiles of women with both eyes showing, and pissoires :P
I
like glass buildings. Or rather some of them:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/The_London%27s_Gherkin_.JPG/450px-)
Quote from: orbital on July 31, 2008, 06:14:16 AM...the diminished amount of output....
What is this diminished output to which you refer? From where I'm standing, I see quite the opposite going on.
Quote from: some guy on July 31, 2008, 08:07:27 AM
What is this diminished output to which you refer? From where I'm standing, I see quite the opposite going on.
I thought that was established earlier in the thread. That's what I built upon. Are there many composers today with ouvres as vast as those from say a century (or two) ago?
Quote from: karlhenning on July 31, 2008, 06:01:30 AM
"Afraid to call shenanigans on pretentious junk" does not ring true in the least, IMO.
One of the lessons of Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective, is what priceless asses subsequent history shows people to be, who are ready, simply on the basis of their not immediately twigging a piece of music which is subsequently regarded as a classic, to cry "shenanigans."
Was it not Slonimsky himself who critiqued Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto with the priceless line "it stinks in the ear"? Post WW II music hasn't come into any more or more severe criticism that any other current modern music did in its own time. There are just more of us now, and communication is so much more immediate, that we see public opinion influenced today by what was written last night.
I thought for a while that I was being put in the unenviable position of agreeing with Josquin for the first time ever. But among other things in the last couple of days, I re-read Copland's "What to listen for..." and I also did listen again to some "modern" music (Schnittke, to be precise). And I decided that I would stick with my original POV, which is that, while this is not for me, it isn't tripe, poppycock or bullsh!t". It isn't Mozart either, but that's OK, neither is anything else. :)
8)
Quote from: James on July 31, 2008, 09:57:56 AM
Probably, but it shouldn't matter. Quality should come before quantity. Some composers revolutionized music with a single piece.
And a composer like Duparc comes to mind.
Quote from: orbital on July 31, 2008, 08:45:58 AM
I thought that was established earlier in the thread. That's what I built upon. Are there many composers today with ouvres as vast as those from say a century (or two) ago?
It was
stated.
I'm not sure about "many composers today with [ouevres] as vast as those from ... a century ago." Is that what you meant by "diminished output"? I took it to mean "diminished overall" not "less work from each individual composer."
In any event, there are composers today with vast outputs, yes. There are composers from a century or two ago who had very small outputs, too. Not sure what can be made of that. Two extraordinarily talented composers, Varese and Berlioz, had comparatively small outputs. Leif Segerstam has to date written over two hundred symphonies.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 09:54:39 AM
Was it not Slonimsky himself who critiqued Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto with the priceless line "it stinks in the ear"?
No, Hanslick. And yet, the
Tchaikovsky Opus 35 was an immediate public success.
Quote from: some guy on July 31, 2008, 10:02:32 AM
I'm not sure about "many composers today with [ouevres] as vast as those from ... a century ago." Is that what you meant by "diminished output"? I took it to mean "diminished overall" not "less work from each individual composer."
In any event, there are composers today with vast outputs, yes. There are composers from a century or two ago who had very small outputs, too. Not sure what can be made of that. Two extraordinarily talented composers, Varese and Berlioz, had comparatively small outputs. Leif Segerstam has to date written over two hundred symphonies.
The meaning of such a comparison is certainly elusive.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 31, 2008, 10:03:10 AM
No, Hanslick. And yet, the Tchaikovsky Opus 35 was an immediate public success.
Nicolas Slonimsky, according to Copland, but it doesn't matter, it's the point. Yes, it was a public success, but the public didn't have a forum. They couldn't even buy the CD. It is the critic's printed epithet that has lived on. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 10:08:11 AM
Nicolas Slonimsky, according to Copland, but it doesn't matter, it's the point. Yes, it was a public success, but the public didn't have a forum. They couldn't even buy the CD. It is the critic's printed epithet that has lived on. :)
8)
I think the larger question, the more pressing one, is what if Gurn was obsolete?
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 10:08:11 AM
Nicolas Slonimsky, according to Copland
What,
can't couldn't
Copland read? ;D
The Hanslick quote does appear on p. 207 of the paperback edition of the
Lexicon of Musical Invective, but that is a different matter to claiming that
Slonimsky said it 8)
Quote from: Eduard HanslickTchaikowskys Violine Concert bringt uns zum erstenmal auf die schauerliche Idee ob es nicht auch Musikstücke geben könne die man stinken hört.
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 31, 2008, 10:13:45 AM
I think the larger question, the more pressing one, is what if Gurn was obsolete?
Are you implying that I'm not? You flatterer! ;)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 09:54:39 AM
and I also did listen again to some "modern" music (Schnittke, to be precise).
Just as an aside, what Schnittke?
--Bruce
Quote from: karlhenning on July 31, 2008, 10:14:12 AM
What, can't couldn't Copland read? ;D
The Hanslick quote does appear on p. 207 of the paperback edition of the Lexicon of Musical Invective, but that is a different matter to claiming that Slonimsky said it 8)
Oh, it rolls so much more trippingly off the tongue in German, don't you think? :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 10:08:11 AM
It is the critic's printed epithet that has lived on. :)
Imagine if Hanslick had been . . . a
bloggueur! 8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 10:15:51 AM
Oh, it rolls so much more trippingly off the tongue in German, don't you think? :)
8)
(* chortle *)
Quote from: bhodges on July 31, 2008, 10:15:24 AM
Just as an aside, what Schnittke?
--Bruce
Violin Sonata (damned if I can remember. On Chandos), String Quartet #4 (Kronos)
8)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 31, 2008, 10:16:45 AM
Imagine if Hanslick had been . . . a bloggueur! 8)
(* chortle *)
Our lovely and talented Bruce could make or break the aspiring composer just on the basis of having an upsetting postprandial episode. :)
8)
Quote from: bhodges on July 31, 2008, 10:15:24 AM
Quote from: Gurnand I also did listen again to some "modern" music (Schnittke, to be precise).
Just as an aside, what Schnittke?
What,
Bruce! — seeking yet finer precision? ;D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 10:14:43 AM
Are you implying that I'm not? You flatterer! ;)
8)
Anyone who rides on a tractor can't be truly obsolete, can they?
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 10:18:21 AM
Our lovely and talented Bruce could make or break the aspiring composer just on the basis of having an upsetting postprandial episode. :)
8)
Ah, but then, not all blogues are created equal ;)
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 31, 2008, 10:18:54 AM
Anyone who rides on a tractor can't be truly obsolete, can they?
The essential question being,
Is one composed
on the tractor?
Quote from: karlhenning on July 31, 2008, 10:22:38 AM
The essential question being, Is one composed on the tractor?
Only if unclothed.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 10:18:21 AM
Our lovely and talented Bruce could make or break the aspiring composer just on the basis of having an upsetting postprandial episode. :)
8)
;D We're on it.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 31, 2008, 10:18:48 AM
What, Bruce! — seeking yet finer precision? ;D
Just curious what the actual decision-maker was...
;D
--Bruce
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 31, 2008, 05:20:27 AM
I've said this a million times, art is not opposed to entertainment. Art is a subset of entertainment. Art does indeed give you something more, and therefore may require more effort, but it only impoverishes itself when it tries to exclude entertainment.
What do you think of my definition:
Art is something which can impress even those who are a master of its trade.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 09:54:39 AM
I thought for a while that I was being put in the unenviable position of agreeing with Josquin for the first time ever.
Resist! resist!
And where has our truculent young friend gone to? he came out swinging with both fists just a few days ago and has retreated to his lair, whether to lick his wounds or prepare his next crushing salvo I can't tell.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 31, 2008, 11:14:03 AM
Resist! resist!
And where has our truculent young friend gone to? he came out swinging with both fists just a few days ago and has retreated to his lair, whether to lick his wounds or prepare his next crushing salvo I can't tell.
I think he was done trolling this thread, he is now laying in wait to afflict us with his pomposity in some other venue... ::)
8)
Quote from: rappy on July 31, 2008, 11:12:40 AM
What do you think of my definition:
Art is something which can impress even those who are a master of its trade.
Well, one would have to then find a way to decide who qualifies as a master.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 31, 2008, 11:50:26 AM
Well, one would have to then find a way to decide who qualifies as a master.
Easy enough.
Quote from: some guy on July 31, 2008, 10:02:32 AM
It was stated.
I'm not sure about "many composers today with [ouevres] as vast as those from ... a century ago." Is that what you meant by "diminished output"? I took it to mean "diminished overall" not "less work from each individual composer."
In any event, there are composers today with vast outputs, yes. There are composers from a century or two ago who had very small outputs, too. Not sure what can be made of that. Two extraordinarily talented composers, Varese and Berlioz, had comparatively small outputs. Leif Segerstam has to date written over two hundred symphonies.
I meant less opp per composer in average, but this was a genuine inquiry. I was under the impression that it was less, but if not, that's a good thing of course.
Hovhaness would be in the extremely large output category.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 31, 2008, 05:20:27 AM
I wouldn't say it's idiotic. Wrong-headed, yes, an overreaction against the worst examples of the music which presents itself as "entertainment" these days, but not idiotic. It's wrong-headed because divides music into black and white categories, easy music and difficult music. The idea that music might have some elements which may be received without effort and others which require a good deal of effort never seems to have occurred to him*, and the idea that artistry involves finding a proper balance between "easy" ideas against "difficult" ones would be beyond his grasp (assuming one accepts his definition of art and entertainment in the first place).
Thanks for this correction.
Apparently Szell called Tchaikovsky's 1st piano concerto a "piece of sh1t". I agree with him!
Quote from: eyeresist on July 31, 2008, 05:47:53 PM
Apparently Szell called Tchaikovsky's 1st piano concerto a "piece of sh1t". I agree with him!
Just to keep the ball rolling, why?
Quote from: Sforzando on July 31, 2008, 06:01:24 PM
Just to keep the ball rolling, why?
Why indeed? To me, it is the archetype of Late Romantic piano concertos. It may be overplayed, and Szell may just not have liked it, but it most certainly is not a piece of sh!t. I doubt that even Josquin would come out from under his bridge and agree with that... oh well, maybe he would. :D
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Vivaldi Op 8 "Il cimento dell'armonia e dell'inventione" (from original manuscripts) - Europa Galante / Biondi - RV 236 Concerto in d for Violin Op 8 #09 1st mvmt - Allegro
Quote from: Sforzando on July 31, 2008, 11:14:03 AM
And where has our truculent young friend gone to?
Simple enough: I just flung something at him he couldn't answer. Cha-ching! ;D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2008, 06:44:31 PM
Why indeed? To me, it is the archetype of Late Romantic piano concertos. It may be overplayed, and Szell may just not have liked it, but it most certainly is not a piece of sh!t.
Agree, one of the glories of the repertoire, and only a philistine imagining himself hip for dissing something universally recognized as great would say otherwise. Argerich/Abbado is wonderful. Think I'll put it on later tonight!
Quote from: Sforzando on July 31, 2008, 06:01:24 PM
Just to keep the ball rolling, why?
It's Tchaikovsky at his most appallingly ingratiating, everything done to curry favour with the listener. It reminds me of one of those creepy Victorian dolls in its fine detail and rich materials, an elaborate presentation completely without soul.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 31, 2008, 07:21:48 PM
It reminds me of one of those creepy Victorian dolls in its fine detail and rich materials, an elaborate presentation completely without soul.
Sounds like you're describing a hooker.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 31, 2008, 07:21:48 PM
It's Tchaikovsky at his most appallingly ingratiating, everything done to curry favour with the listener.
And this is an appalling variant of the intentional fallacy.
Even if you were right about Tchaikovsky's intentions, there's still also what people thought of it at when it was new:
Difficult. A vast formless void. (From the Boston
Evening Transcript of 1875)
Extremely difficult, strange, wild, ultra-modern. (
Dwight's Journal of Music, Boston 1875)
(Hmmm. Maybe it was just Boston....
...or not.) A flop. (
Novoye Vremya, St. Petersburg 1875)
Broken, incoherent. (
Saturday Review, London 1899)
If he was trying to be ingratiating, these might suggest that he was not entirely successful.
It seems to you, eyeresist, as if everything is done here to curry favor, but that's entirely because you're alive in 2008, with over a hundred years of listening to this concerto, with over a hundred years of Schoenberg and Stravinsky and Stockhausen and Karkowski in between you and it. Things looked much different back then, as you've seen.
What's Russian for "flop"?
Quote from: eyeresist on July 31, 2008, 07:21:48 PM
It's Tchaikovsky at his most appallingly ingratiating, everything done to curry favour with the listener.
Even if so, this is rather ironic considering how many complaints against modern music are based upon its supposed indifference to the audience.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 31, 2008, 07:21:48 PM
It's Tchaikovsky at his most appallingly ingratiating . . . .
The pianist for whom he wrote it did not find it so, and demanding many passages re-written. Which the composer refused.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 31, 2008, 07:21:48 PM
. . . an elaborate presentation completely without soul.
I think this is the first time ever I have seen anyone suggest that
Tchaikovsky's music "lacks soul."
You do understand that, as a complaint, this is nonsense? Insofar as we can determine soul content of the music, there is a broad consensus in space and time that the
Concerto is amply supplied with soul. If you don't get it, that's your look-out.
It is funny the rhetorical excesses people go to to denigrate a piece of music they don't like.
Quote from: orbital on July 31, 2008, 07:09:30 AM
Good question, Karl. To condemn a piece of art, the only thing that can be needed and put forth might be complete lack of aesthetics, perhaps. That's the only thing I can think of.
And that's only after you define "aesthetics" to the satisfaction of everyone concerned... ??? And even then the condemnation is constantly subjected to judicial review, without a statute of limitations. (If you don't believe that, just consider the changing reputation of Carlo Gesualdo, considered a "madman" for three hundred-plus years but now recognized as one of the most original and masterful of the late Renaissance composers. 8))
I am tempted to ask whether this thread is not obsolete itself, yet; but doing so would technically be trolling.
Still, has not the original topic completely become lost in the haze of tangents already? Or was that the intention?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 01, 2008, 03:26:52 AM
I think this is the first time ever I have seen anyone suggest that Tchaikovsky's music "lacks soul."
You do understand that, as a complaint, this is nonsense? Insofar as we can determine soul content of the music, there is a broad consensus in space and time that the Concerto is amply supplied with soul. If you don't get it, that's your look-out.
It is funny the rhetorical excesses people go to to denigrate a piece of music they don't like.
I was explaining my feelings about the piece, not denigrating it. I understand the consensus contradicts me, but as aesthetic matters are finally subjective, my opinion is not "nonsense". Or at least no more than any other opinion.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 01, 2008, 07:42:14 PMI was explaining my feelings about the piece, not denigrating it.
Really? Here is what you said.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 01, 2008, 07:42:14 PMIt's Tchaikovsky at his most appallingly ingratiating, everything done to curry favour with the listener. It reminds me of one of those creepy Victorian dolls in its fine detail and rich materials, an elaborate presentation completely without soul.
None of that sounds like someone explaining their feelings. "Appallingly ingratiating" is what you say to describe Tchaikovsky. Like a "creepy Victorian doll" is how you describe the concerto, "an elaborate presentation completely without soul." Sounds very much like you're denigrating the piece.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 01, 2008, 07:42:14 PMI understand the consensus contradicts me, but as aesthetic matters are finally subjective, my opinion is not "nonsense". Or at least no more than any other opinion.
Would you mind terribly giving us the missing link (links) in this syllogism?
Premise: aesthetic matters are subjective.
Conclusion: my opinion is not "nonsense."
Without that (them) your claim about your opinion is nonsense. Even with them, perhaps. (I at least was unable to get logically from your statement that "aesthetic matters are subjective" to your conclusion that your "opinion is not 'nonsense'.")
Quote from: some guy on August 01, 2008, 09:28:36 PM
Sounds very much like you're denigrating the piece.
Well, I was trying to express how I feel about the piece, but I wasn't deliberately insulting it.
Quote from: some guy on August 01, 2008, 09:28:36 PM
Would you mind terribly giving us the missing link (links) in this syllogism?
QuoteI understand the consensus contradicts me, but as aesthetic matters are finally subjective, my opinion is not "nonsense". Or at least no more than any other opinion.
Premise: aesthetic matters are subjective.
Conclusion: my opinion is not "nonsense."
Without that (them) your claim about your opinion is nonsense. Even with them, perhaps. (I at least was unable to get logically from your statement that "aesthetic matters are subjective" to your conclusion that your "opinion is not 'nonsense'.")
Aesthetic phenomena have no independent, objective existence.
A statement on aesthetic matters may be consistent or inconsistent with itself or with other such statements, but cannot be correct or incorrect in the sense of truly or falsely describing the world.
Because statements on aesthetic matters relate to things whose independent existence cannot be verified, and are not falsifiable, we may describe them as "nonsense".
Quote from: eyeresist on August 01, 2008, 10:23:18 PM
Aesthetic phenomena have no independent, objective existence.
A statement on aesthetic matters may be consistent or inconsistent with itself or with other such statements, but cannot be correct or incorrect in the sense of truly or falsely describing the world.
Because statements on aesthetic matters relate to things whose independent existence cannot be verified, and are not falsifiable, we may describe them as "nonsense".
These statements fail to distinguish between aesthetic
experience and aesthetic
object. Both are aesthetic phenomena. One's subjective experience of an independent aesthetic object is conditioned by many things: mood; sensitivity; external conditions like weather, lighting, acoustics; and--perhaps most significantly--education. Pushpin is not the equal of poetry, as
anyone familiar with both will confirm. Insofar as your aesthetic statement describes an aesthetic object and not merely your experience of it, the statement is verifiable by reference to the body of knowledge regarding objects of its sort.
Those who know art, know that
Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is a masterpiece and know why. If an art-illiterate (illarterate? ;D ) fails to "get it," his report of his subjective experience says nothing about the painting and everything about him.
Today's composers, and there are many of them, do not have a coherent tradition upon which to build. All he or she can do is listen to some of the things that are going on and try and bring out there own ideas as best they can. It seems to me fairly obvious that in this environment even composers of the stature of Beethoven, Mozart or Bach will be unable to make sufficient impression to mark them out as amongst the great. Therefore the fact that we cannot point them out is scarcely surprising. All we can say is that statistically the probability that composers of this stature not being alive today is incredibly small.
Composers will continue to compose because the compulsion to do so is irrepressible. However, they need to earn a living and somehow their work must be presented to the public in a way that promotes widespread discussion. At the moment this does not seem to be happening.
eyeresist,
Your original conclusion was that your opinions could
not be called nonsense. Your revised conclusion was that all statements about aesthetic matters
could be called nonsense. Hmmm.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 02, 2008, 08:59:00 AMToday's composers, and there are many of them, do not have a coherent tradition upon which to build.
Really? This is going to come as a big surprise to a lot of composers.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 02, 2008, 08:59:00 AMAll he or she can do is listen to some of the things that are going on and try and bring out [their] own ideas as best they can.
Sounds a pretty sensible way to go about one's business. Does there need to be anything more?
Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 02, 2008, 08:59:00 AMIt seems to me fairly obvious that in this environment even composers of the stature of Beethoven, Mozart or Bach will be unable to make sufficient impression to mark them out as amongst the great. Therefore the fact that we cannot point them out is scarcely surprising.
Oh, we can point them out all right. It's just that the people who ask this question aren't seriously asking for information. All they want (or at least all that they actually do) is to say "Oh, but those people aren't 'great' or 'well-known' or whatever." So no one who has sussed this is inclined to play their silly games with them.
Besides, all of that ignores another point, even more important, which is that "composers of the stature of Beethoven, Mozart or Bach" is a non-statement. (Try a little experiment. Ask the esteemed members if Beethoven is of the stature of Bach and see what kinds of responses you'll get!)
Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 02, 2008, 08:59:00 AMAll we can say is that statistically the probability that composers of this stature not being alive today is incredibly small.
If I have successfully maneuvered my way through this wee labyrinth, what you just said is that it's very likely that composers of Bach's stature are alive today. Is that what you meant to say? You didn't seem to be leading up to that conclusion, anyway!
Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 02, 2008, 08:59:00 AMComposers will continue to compose because the compulsion to do so is irrepressible. However, they need to earn a living and somehow their work must be presented to the public in a way that promotes widespread discussion. At the moment this does not seem to be happening.
Wait a tick! What are we doing at this moment? We're not widespread enough for you? Some of us are very widespread indeed, bucko! I must weigh at least 385 pounds by myself.*
*Joke. I'm only 185 stripped. The other 200 come from the body armor I put on to engage in these ferocious battles.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 02, 2008, 08:59:00 AM
Today's composers, and there are many of them, do not have a coherent tradition upon which to build.
There is a rich variety of tradition; it does in large part
cohere, but it is not at all
monolithic.
And, in general, artist have always exercised a creatively selective view of the past. I don't see the present 'scene' in composition as the 'fatal break' from the past which a lot of alarmists fondly imagine they see.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 01, 2008, 03:26:52 AM
I think this is the first time ever I have seen anyone suggest that Tchaikovsky's music "lacks soul."
But what is "soul" in a musical context? This very word makes the name of Ray Charles spring to my mind.
Quote from: premont on August 02, 2008, 10:25:43 AM
But what is "soul" in a musical context? This very word makes the name of Aretha Franklin spring to my mind.
Interesting; it does not thus spring to mine, though I am American.
I can write Ray Charles instead, - he may be better known, even in the USA. 8)
Quote from: premont on August 02, 2008, 10:25:43 AM
But what is "soul" in a musical context? This very word makes the name of Ray Charles spring to my mind.
Yep, that's it. If it has soul, it speaks to the whole being, not just to the poor, retarded little corner of the mind known as the intellect.
Quote from: DavidRoss on August 02, 2008, 11:12:02 AM
Yep, that's it. If it has soul, it speaks to the whole being, not just to the poor, retarded little corner of the mind known as the intellect.
Strange, because I think the Tchaikovsky Piano concerto has got a lot of body, but soul....?
In view of the recording and computer revolution in music, wouldn't "performer as obsolete" be the more relevant question?
(ducking for cover)
Quote from: some guy on August 02, 2008, 09:31:57 AM
Really? This is going to come as a big surprise to a lot of composers.
If I have successfully maneuvered my way through this wee labyrinth, what you just said is that it's very likely that composers of Bach's stature are alive today. Is that what you meant to say? You didn't seem to be leading up to that conclusion, anyway!
Wait a tick! What are we doing at this moment? We're not widespread enough for you? Some of us are very widespread indeed, bucko! I must weigh at least 385 pounds by myself.*
*Joke. I'm only 185 stripped. The other 200 come from the body armor I put on to engage in these ferocious battles.
Point one above is quite clear to me having tried my hand at composing. There are a great many avenues that one can follow and no single coherent style.
Point two - exactly so. Its all perfectly logical.
Point three - I suggest some form of rapid transport system, or maybe cluster bombs. ;)
Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 02, 2008, 12:52:44 PM
Point one above is quite clear to me having tried my hand at composing. There are a great many avenues that one can follow and no single coherent style.
Define
coherent and define
style, please. Is serialism not coherent? Is spectralism not coherent?
Quote from: premont on August 02, 2008, 10:45:14 AM
I can write Ray Charles instead, - he may be better known, even in the USA. 8)
Oh, I know of both Aretha Franklin and Ray Charles; my awareness of the word
soul is larger than their corner of the musical world 8)
The answer to the next 7 questions on this thread:
0. yes
1. yes
2. no
3. yesno
4. what does that have to do with anything?
5. Elgar
6.
6.5. ....
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on August 02, 2008, 02:19:03 PM
The answer to the next 7 questions on this thread:
0. yes
1. yes
2. no
3. yesno
4. what does that have to do with anything?
5. Elgar
6.
6.5. ....
42.
Never forget 42.
Quote from: Renfield on August 02, 2008, 03:33:20 PM
42. Never forget 42.
Why is 44 scared of 42? Because 42 43 44.
(use your imagination with "43", i'm sure you could come up with something, like how it looks, maybe.......)
24.
It's da highest numbah. (Fuggidaboudit.)
Quote from: some guy on August 02, 2008, 05:00:24 PM
24.
It's da highest numbah. (Fuggidaboudit.)
25 is higher.
Quote from: some guy on August 02, 2008, 05:00:24 PM
24.
It's da highest numbah. (Fuggidaboudit.)
Look... all's I'm sayin' is 24 is da highest numba!
Quote from: Renfield on August 02, 2008, 03:33:20 PM
42. Never forget 42.
That's the answer. We still haven't figured out the question! ;D
Quote from: petrArch on August 02, 2008, 01:16:59 PM
Define coherent and define style, please. Is serialism not coherent? Is spectralism not coherent?
The operative word is 'single'. You have already mentioned two.
My thoughts were to experiment electronically with scales based differing numbers of notes to the octave, ie not the traditional 12, but say 14, 15, 16 etc. however, I never found any software that was capable of allowing this.
Quote from: James on July 29, 2008, 07:53:16 AM
I agree with what Wuorinen said.
I don't, I don't think art necessarily requires effort.
But it's true that almost every classical piece I know brings more pleasure when listened carefully (even Vivaldi, Paganini & Liszt, whatever they say ; same with the Rolling Stones and Lee Scratch Perry, by the way)
Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 03, 2008, 12:13:36 AM
The operative word is 'single'. You have already mentioned two.
My thoughts were to experiment electronically with scales based differing numbers of notes to the octave, ie not the traditional 12, but say 14, 15, 16 etc. however, I never found any software that was capable of allowing this.
Oh, the way you worded it implied that no style was coherent. BTW, Csound does alternate tunings quite easily. A scale that has potential is 53 TET, which I actually derived mathematically before I found out it has a rich history.
Quote from: quintett op.57 on August 03, 2008, 12:39:25 AM
Quote from: JamesI agree with what Wuorinen said.
I don't, I don't think art necessarily requires effort.
That's all right.
I just want to note that some of the intelligent and apt objections to
Wuorinen's remarks imply certain rigidities which may or may not be there. His remarks may strike one as more reasonable if, for instance, his distinction between art and entertainment is taken as opposing tendencies, rather than non-miscible elements; and if his characterization of art as 'that which requires effort' (something generally reasonable, I think; who here can say that all — or even most — of the art he loves, came to him effortlessly?) is not taken as a sort of acid-test.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 02, 2008, 12:23:25 PM
In view of the recording and computer revolution in music, wouldn't "performer as obsolete" be the more relevant question?
(ducking for cover)
A very valid question, Ms. Byrd. If you accept at face value what a lot of people say, there aren't any great performers left either. ::)
But all my experiences as listener and performer lead me to feel that there is a spiritual connection established at every live musical event that isn't there, at least to the same degree, when we listen to recordings. The stronger the performers and music, the stronger the connection; yet it exists even for events such as the street rappers I've heard on the bus. (Very good rappers, by the way, and I didn't hear a single "motherf*#!er" in their verses. ;D) I wonder if a backlash against listening-aided-by-technology may develop in the next few years...
Quote from: Corey on August 02, 2008, 07:26:29 PM
Look... all's I'm sayin' is 24 is da highest numba!
But "One is the loneliest..." ;D (Apologies to Three Dog Night.)
Quote from: quintett op.57 on August 03, 2008, 12:39:25 AM
I don't, I don't think art necessarily requires effort.
Speaking as a performer, and thus ostensibly an artist: Yes it does! And the more effortless it looks, the more effort it takes--if not immediate effort, then certainly effort spread over years to produce the effect of effortlessness.
Quote from: -abe- on July 28, 2008, 09:56:27 PM
But it's the Dead Guys that keep the art alive!
It's a trick of perspective to see this as completely true, since 99% of composers are dead. And remember, it isn't the same dead guys, though the overlap is considerable. So even if it takes time to turn over from one era to the next, it still happens. The radicals don't get what they want, instant acknowledgment that they're right and everyone else is wrong, and the conservatives can pretend that they always liked the now acceptable modernists.
(http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/3903/20080326dy5.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Cybernetic Composer Replacement.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 03, 2008, 06:33:49 AM
I just want to note that some of the intelligent and apt objections to Wuorinen's remarks imply certain rigidities which may or may not be there. His remarks may strike one as more reasonable if, for instance, his distinction between art and entertainment is taken as opposing tendencies, rather than non-miscible elements; and if his characterization of art as 'that which requires effort' (something generally reasonable, I think; who here can say that all — or even most — of the art he loves, came to him effortlessly?) is not taken as a sort of acid-test.
Actually, going back to the article again, it is clear that Wuorinen is talking only about cultural relativism, the kind that our frequent opponent, "dq" on the CMF is always advocating. This is the attitude that says rock, rap, blues, whatever else, are to be considered equal, and it is snobbery and elitism to assert the superiority of classical music. He (Wuorinen) even implies that art encompasses entertainment.
But to say, as so many cultural observers do, that really, these things are all the same, they are all of equivalent value - the person who sticks a microphone in his mouth and sings a rock song is the equivalent of a highly trained opera singer, for example - it's just nonsense. One is accused of being too sober or too severe. That's just silly.
People are missing the fun of high art if they think such things.Harbison then tries to bring up the sense of art vs. entertainment that has so often come up in our discussions, but Wuorinen rejects that angle:
HARBISON: I like that, but I would want to say this about it, too: that it's possible for people who intend to always entertain to produce something that is very perceptible as art, and by contrast it's also possible for people who are intending to make very high art to produce nothing more than entertainment. In other words, there's an accidental blurring that takes place quite often.
WUORINEN: I'm not speaking about what happens in the real world. I'm speaking about a kind of cultural ideology which is promoted ...,
So, based on the context of the article, it is clear that Wuorinen is not saying something that I can stand opposed to. And what he's saying is something different than either of us has been trying to make it.
Quote from: petrArch on August 03, 2008, 03:43:51 AM
Oh, the way you worded it implied that no style was coherent. BTW, Csound does alternate tunings quite easily. A scale that has potential is 53 TET, which I actually derived mathematically before I found out it has a rich history.
Thanks. I'm glad something exists now. I was trying to work on it twenty odd years ago.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 03, 2008, 01:33:40 PM
Thanks. I'm glad something exists now. I was trying to work on it twenty odd years ago.
Csound/Music N (its precursors) have existed since the late 60s.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 03, 2008, 06:33:49 AM
...his characterization of art as 'that which requires effort' (something generally reasonable, I think; who here can say that all — or even most — of the art he loves, came to him effortlessly?)
Have you never encountered a work of art and immediately known that it was wonderful? How very sad....
Quote from: some guy on August 02, 2008, 09:31:57 AM
Your original conclusion was that your opinions could not be called nonsense. Your revised conclusion was that all statements about aesthetic matters could be called nonsense. Hmmm.
What I said was "... as aesthetic matters are finally subjective, my opinion is not "nonsense". Or at least no more than any other opinion."
Strange to have to defend such a flippant remark!
Quote from: eyeresist on August 03, 2008, 07:39:11 PM
Have you never encountered a work of art and immediately known that it was wonderful? How very sad....
Of course I have, many times; so you'll have to reconsider my remark.
Not all the works of art which I knew immediately to be wonderful, did I understand completely, or even very well, right away.
Quote from: petrArch on August 03, 2008, 03:10:42 PM
Csound/Music N (its precursors) have existed since the late 60s.
Ah, but I only had a Dragon 32 at the time! :(
Quote from: jochanaan on August 03, 2008, 09:25:39 AM
A very valid question, Ms. Byrd. If you accept at face value what a lot of people say, there aren't any great performers left either. ::)
But all my experiences as listener and performer lead me to feel that there is a spiritual connection established at every live musical event that isn't there, at least to the same degree, when we listen to recordings. The stronger the performers and music, the stronger the connection; yet it exists even for events such as the street rappers I've heard on the bus. (Very good rappers, by the way, and I didn't hear a single "motherf*#!er" in their verses. ;D) I wonder if a backlash against listening-aided-by-technology may develop in the next few years...
You raise good points about live performance. I often pine for the return of (regular) live performers. There's a man that plays an electronic piano outside of a locksmith shop, and he always commands my attention. Whenever I hear *live* instruments, I become curious and seek out the source with much fascination. On the other side of the coin we have the piped in music problem in public and professional spaces. This music is almost always unwelcome to any lover of art, and is pretty much homogeneous everywhere, mirroring smooth jazz and soft rock radio stations designed for 40 something housewives with questionable tastes. A street performer, however, is pretty much different from what you'd immediately find on any radio station or muzak filth, good or bad, at least it's not the same ol'.
Quote from: LVB_opus.125 on August 04, 2008, 01:22:44 PM
You raise good points about live performance. I often pine for the return of (regular) live performers. There's a man that plays an electronic piano outside of a locksmith shop, and he always commands my attention. Whenever I hear *live* instruments, I become curious and seek out the source with much fascination. On the other side of the coin we have the piped in music problem in public and professional spaces. This music is almost always unwelcome to any lover of art, and is pretty much homogeneous everywhere, mirroring smooth jazz and soft rock radio stations designed for 40 something housewives with questionable tastes. A street performer, however, is pretty much different from what you'd immediately find on any radio station or muzak filth, good or bad, at least it's not the same ol'.
I agree that live music is great to listen to. However, we all have favorite pieces that we listen to time and time again on CDs because no performer can be persuaded to play it time and time again for us. That is one of the advantages of being a performer oneself, even if not at a professional level.
Quote from: LVB_opus.125 on August 04, 2008, 01:22:44 PM
On the other side of the coin we have the piped in music problem in public and professional spaces. This music is almost always unwelcome to any lover of art, and is pretty much homogeneous everywhere, mirroring smooth jazz and soft rock radio stations designed for 40 something housewives with questionable tastes.
Music in public places is my nemesis, especially in pubs and cafes. I can't help but listen, and if I dislike the music I have a terrible time. I seem to be the only person who can't just block it out.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 04, 2008, 03:41:52 AM
Not all the works of art which I knew immediately to be wonderful, did I understand completely, or even very well, right away.
Which raises the question "Does art have to be deeply understood?" There are undoubtedly rewards for study, but such study has always been the province of an expert minority. Until the self-consciousness of Modernity, I don't know know that many artists thought their audiences had a duty to be reverently attentive (except for church music, obviously).
Quote from: jochanaan on August 03, 2008, 09:25:39 AM
A very valid question, Ms. Byrd. If you accept at face value what a lot of people say, there aren't any great performers left either. ::)
But all my experiences as listener and performer lead me to feel that there is a spiritual connection established at every live musical event that isn't there, at least to the same degree, when we listen to recordings. The stronger the performers and music, the stronger the connection...
That's just it, whether the specialized "great" performer, if the definition includes being a note machine with reams of memorized repertoire, is a dinosaur. Knowing fewer pieces and/or improvising, playing to those who appreciate--you don't need to fill the big halls--well, that seems like the trend for the performer of the present and future. It's not that we will disappear but we don't have to be Rubinsteins or Heifetzes in order to claim that title.
ZB
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 05, 2008, 05:50:37 AM
That's just it, whether the specialized "great" performer, if the definition includes being a note machine with reams of memorized repertoire, is a dinosaur...
Exactly, and that's why I avoided the word
great in my previous comment. A strong performance doesn't have to be one of superhuman speed and accuracy; these things help, but only if there's equal strength in the performers' inner beings. And certain instruments, such as the oboe, the 'cello, and especially the human voice, lend themselves more to a style that emphasizes tone, phrasing, and "soul" rather than speed and accuracy.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 04, 2008, 07:10:51 PMUntil the self-consciousness of Modernity, I don't know know that many artists thought their audiences had a duty to be reverently attentive (except for church music, obviously).
Wow, way to load things up there, eyeresist. "Self-conscousness," eh? Like the Sturm und Drang folks, perhaps? "Modernity" with a capital "M," even, as if all art since... (since when?) were self-conscious--or as if all art before... (before when?) were
not self-conscious.
And "duty" and "reverently"!! Do you have any evidence that any of this is any other than your own single and prejudicial imagining? (And did I use too many "any's" in that last question?) Church composers would have been the
least likely to think this, as reverence in that case would have been assumed--and assumed to be directed towards the same things their music was directed.
I think the key here is in the words "I don't know." Composers have for hundreds of years complained about audiences not paying attention to their works in concerts. Of course, if you
do count "modern" as covering the past two or three hundred years, then I have to take everything back. ;)
Some Guy, or any other of the Moderners, what do you think is the best medium for works from contemporary composers for exposure?
Would it be film?
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 05, 2008, 08:57:48 AM
Some Guy, or any other of the Moderners, what do you think is the best medium for works from contemporary composers for exposure?
Would it be film?
Or a variant thereof (television, etc.)
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 05, 2008, 08:57:48 AM
Some Guy, or any other of the Moderners, what do you think is the best medium for works from contemporary composers for exposure?
Would it be film?
Ugh.
I'm still waiting for "Josquin des Prez" or anyone else to enlighten me: when and with whom did music start going downwards? I've heard so many versions that I'm confused. For instance, one very serious guy I've heard in a TV show pretended that Beethoven "dragged music in a morass out of which it was never lifted again". Yet another is to be found here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2005/jun/07/classicalmusicandopera.television). Now, what am I to make of these?
Not film, for sure. Though there are a lot of composers making videos nowadays, and a lot of composers collaborating with filmmakers.
The problem with film is that for most people the images will be the most compelling part of the experience, with the music barely noticed.
I once played some electroacoustic music for my cousin, who was very angered that that kind of thing even existed! Then a little later, my cousin and I happened to go to that movie about the guy who skied down Everest, which has a soundtrack of electronic music. Afterwards, I asked him who he had liked the music? "Oh, I didn't even notice it."
A lot of new musics have been used in films for many years. That has not led to any uptick in the consumption of new music.
Quote from: Florestan on August 05, 2008, 09:57:06 AM
one very serious guy I've heard in a TV show pretended that Beethoven "dragged music in a morass out of which it was never lifted again". Yet another is to be found here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2005/jun/07/classicalmusicandopera.television). Now, what am I to make of these?
I really don't see the point of such articles, other than being a vehicle for the author to express how good his tastes are and lash his hates--and it became pretty clear who his pet hates are. He lost all credibility as soon as he uttered the "I wish that Beethoven was more like Mozart or Haydn". If he wants Mozart or Haydn, listen to Mozart or Haydn!
Quote from: petrArch on August 05, 2008, 10:48:27 AM
I really don't see the point of such articles, other than being a vehicle for the author to express how good his tastes are and lash his hates--and it became pretty clear who his pet hates are. He lost all credibility as soon as he uttered the "I wish that Beethoven was more like Mozart or Haydn". If he wants Mozart or Haydn, listen to Mozart or Haydn!
I agree with you all right. I just wanted to show that the "turning point" of music could be chosen
ad libitum, according to the tastes and intellect of the chooser. ;D
Always assuming that there ever was a point where music took a turn for the worse.
I would have hoped that THAT would have been the first thing to have been called into question....
Quote from: Florestan on August 05, 2008, 09:57:06 AM
I'm still waiting for "Josquin des Prez" or anyone else to enlighten me: when and with whom did music start going downwards? I've heard so many versions that I'm confused. For instance, one very serious guy I've heard in a TV show pretended that Beethoven "dragged music in a morass out of which it was never lifted again". Yet another is to be found here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2005/jun/07/classicalmusicandopera.television). Now, what am I to make of these?
The Bard has your answer:
It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Quote from: DavidRoss on August 05, 2008, 06:59:03 PM
The Bard has your answer:
It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Hmm. Sounds like a self-fulfilling blog, doesn't it? 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 06, 2008, 04:07:37 AM
Hmm. Sounds like a self-fulfilling blog, doesn't it? 8)
Too bad the fellow you have in mind isn't able to appreciate the irony...but then, if he were bright enough, it might not be so ironic!
Quote from: jochanaan on August 05, 2008, 08:22:32 AM
Exactly, and that's why I avoided the word great in my previous comment. A strong performance doesn't have to be one of superhuman speed and accuracy; these things help, but only if there's equal strength in the performers' inner beings. And certain instruments, such as the oboe, the 'cello, and especially the human voice, lend themselves more to a style that emphasizes tone, phrasing, and "soul" rather than speed and accuracy.
Speed and accuracy are not usually a problem, mainly the hours one puts into them and hopefully not at the expense of expression. As long as there are multiplicious recordings of the same works, the question arises, what is the point of yet another Tschaikovsky Piano Concerto or Waldstein Sonata on CD? And the people who are supposed to supply this doubtful need, are being trained in conservatories to churn out these works, but maybe the change of the function of the musician should descend upon the bastions of learning. This was always a problem back in the days of Cherubini vs. Berlioz and the flak Debussy had to endure from the old guard.
The revolution of computer generated music makes it possible for the performer and composer to be one and the same without having to master all the instruments manually. The emphasis of the specialised performer as the faithful servant of the composer is a little outdated. Playing for one's enjoyment and for others, to delve into the great music of the past and present--all this is fine.
ZB
Quote from: some guy on August 05, 2008, 10:30:42 AM
A lot of new musics have been used in films for many years. That has not led to any uptick in the consumption of new music.
I don't know. Ligeti was ultimately one of the most widely marketed contemporary composers, but were his music not featured in
2001: A Space Odyssey, he'd be as relatively obscure as the other Darmstadt figures.
Quote from: Florestan on August 05, 2008, 09:57:06 AM
I'm still waiting for "Josquin des Prez" or anyone else to enlighten me: when and with whom did music start going downwards?
Perhaps around 1810-15 when the range of the fortepiano was extended a perfect fourth
down. But then at the same time it was extended a perfect fifth
up. This is all so confusing . . . .
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 05, 2008, 08:57:48 AM
Some Guy, or any other of the Moderners, what do you think is the best medium for works from contemporary composers for exposure?
Would it be film?
With a few exceptions, no. You generally don't find extremely modernistic music in films produced for mass consumption. (The films of Stanley Kubrick are a happy exception, and in another vein, so is the "Qatsi" series by director Godfrey Reggio and composer Philip Glass:
Koyaanisqatsi, Nakoyqatsi, and
Powaqqatsi. And a lot of early scifi films, before and including Logan's Run of 1975, have electronic and other modernistic music in the soundtracks.)
Probably the best way to explore modernistic music is through small groups that dedicate themselves to this repertoire, such as the Kronos Quartet. Then if you find something you like, look for other works by that composer. 8)
Quote from: Sforzando on August 06, 2008, 07:28:36 AM
Perhaps around 1810-15 when the range of the fortepiano was extended a perfect fourth down. But then at the same time it was extended a perfect fifth up. This is all so confusing . . . .
:D
Quote from: jochanaan on August 06, 2008, 08:26:32 AM
With a few exceptions, no. You generally don't find extremely modernistic music in films produced for mass consumption. (The films of Stanley Kubrick are a happy exception, and in another vein, so is the "Qatsi" series by director Godfrey Reggio and composer Philip Glass: Koyaanisqatsi, Nakoyqatsi, and Powaqqatsi. And a lot of early scifi films, before and including Logan's Run of 1975, have electronic and other modernistic music in the soundtracks.)
Another example is the film "The Illusionist". Set in Austria-Hungary during the late 1800's, I expected the score would most likely feature music that was "Brahmsian" or "Mahlerian". Instead, the effective (as well as affective) soundtrack was also composed by Philip Glass.
The question seems to have been answered. The composer is still required for film music. I really will have to start visiting the cinema!
Quote from: -abe- on July 28, 2008, 08:18:29 PM
No one really cares about what composers have to offer today as evidenced by the fact that orchestras don't rely on them to bring in audiences.
The substance of classical radio and performance is dominated by music that was composed before the first world war, with some notable exceptions, of course.
While many modern composers comfort themselves with the idea that they are artists who are unjustifiably ignored, the reality might be that they are just irrelevant and obsolete because they are incapable of writing music that can please audiences.
Let me quote a pathetic "modern" composer rationalizing his insignificance:
Drawing such a distinction between "art" and "entertainment" allows Wourinen to convince himself that his insignificance stems from the unwillingness of classical audiences to "grapple" with his work. Under this paradigm, his works can never be judged as "bad" by audiences, because then, they are just being lazy!
Of course the truly funny thing is that most of the standard repertoire arose at a time when audiences could freely express disgust at what they perceived to be bad music--and composers aimed to please them.
This was all a joke, right?
Quote from: karlhenning on April 24, 2015, 06:05:56 PM
This was all a joke, right?
It's taken you seven years to arrive at this conclusion?
Not sure just how I chanced on this today.
Quote from: some guy on August 05, 2008, 12:09:04 PM
Always assuming that there ever was a point where music took a turn for the worse.
I would have hoped that THAT would have been the first thing to have been called into question....
8)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 24, 2015, 07:37:21 PM
8)
Your second quote misses or ignores -abe-'s point. There certainly DID come a time when the attitude amongst composers and critics changed, and when some started to attribute a lack of success to the audience's failure, not the composer's. I don't think that's a joke at all.
Quote from: Ken B on April 24, 2015, 09:50:34 PM
Your second quote misses or ignores -abe-'s point. There certainly DID come a time when the attitude amongst composers and critics changed, and when some started to attribute a lack of success to the audience's failure, not the composer's. I don't think that's a joke at all.
You mean when Beethoven called the Viennese public "cattle and asses" for not getting the Grosse Fuge, or when he blamed them for preferring the 7th to the 8th symphony because the latter was "so much better," or when he said they had no use for his music and wanted only to hear the operas of Rossini?
Or perhaps Mozart's response when the emperor told him there were "too many notes" in The Abduction? "Exactly as many, excellency, as necessary."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 24, 2015, 07:01:36 PM
It's taken you seven years to arrive at this conclusion?
Looking for a post of mine, I did a search with I forget just what keyword . . . scrolling with parenthetical interest through the search results, I thought, "To what conversation did I pipe in with that remark?..."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 25, 2015, 03:17:38 AM
You mean when Beethoven called the Viennese public "cattle and asses" for not getting the Grosse Fuge, or when he blamed them for preferring the 7th to the 8th symphony because the latter was "so much better," or when he said they had no use for his music and wanted only to hear the operas of Rossini?
Or perhaps Mozart's response when the emperor told him there were "too many notes" in The Abduction? "Exactly as many, excellency, as necessary."
I think I meant when composers made a large part of their living from composing, rather than selling insurance or running a government agency. I believe that was the substance of abe's point after all.
:laugh: No, not at all.
What there is a spate of beyond which any marketplace has a want or need of is staggering numbers of Lumpen postings which are virtual verbatim duplicates of the OP.
It is easily the 500,000th of its kind, virtually interchangeable with all others like it seen on the internet within the last seven and a half months.
If it were more amusing in its Lumpen-ness, one might think the person who will make that future virtually identical Millionth post should get some sort of distinctive prize... Maybe a beer mug with 24 carat writing in High German Gothic font, saying,
"No One Will Ever Be As Good As The Old Boys.
But... sigh. Like the poor, it seems the Lumpen will be forever with us. At least one can laugh at the Lumpen, where it is mean to laugh at the poor. On the other hand, as evidenced in the OP, Lumpen is a kind of poverty also to be pitied.
Well, thank you for raising this topic (again... I mustn't forget Karl contribution ;) )
Typical M. Croche for bringing a topic like this up again LOL
I remember once reading some 458392959 other places on the internet that today's classical music is unmitigated shite. Well, actually that figure should be much lower because barely any of those people choose to pay any attention to it. 8)
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 24, 2016, 03:48:59 AM
Typical M. Croche for bringing a topic like this up again LOL
I remember once reading some 458392959 other places on the internet that today's classical music is unmitigated shite. Well, actually that figure should be much lower because barely any of those people choose to pay any attention to it. 8)
Lol. That was a sort of both exercise and exorcising. Sometimes, after approximately "458392959" exposures to seeing "other places on the internet that today's classical music is unmitigated shite" one can come up with a highly suitable one-size-fits-all response to these more generic of Lumpen posts.
If I was smart, I'd save that response and have it handy to copy and paste as the perfect generic auto-response to the next virtually identical 458392959 Lumpen 'no one like the old boys' posts which will inevitably come up.
Anyone is completely welcome to use my text entire whenever an occasion calls for it.
Feel free to copy and paste it to a word doc saved to your computer.
Because we know there will come another such Lumpen post in moments;
they run as regularly as buses.
CLASSICAL MUSIC IS DEAD CONTEMPORARY COMPOSERS ARE ALL CHARLATANS PEOPLE ONLY PRETEND TO LIKE THIS MUSIC TO LOOK INTELLECTUAL
Quote from: North Star on January 24, 2016, 03:41:15 AM
Well, thank you for raising this topic (again... I mustn't forget Karl contribution ;) )
The inadvertent exhumation, you mean? 8)
Happy Monday,
Karlo!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 29, 2008, 08:03:57 AM
Once you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.
News Flash: "the only great composers are dead German composers."
If you believe that, I have a sure-fire plan to conquer all of Europe, starting with first invading Poland, that I'd like to sell you.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 27, 2016, 09:54:21 PM
News Flash: "the only great composers are dead German composers."
Ummm, no. They are actually Austrian (either by birth or by adoption). ;D
Quote from: Florestan on January 28, 2016, 12:47:19 AM
Ummm, no. They are actually Austrian (either by birth or by adoption). ;D
Right you are, sir: Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Wellesz, Krenek, Cerha, Furrer, Haas, Neuwirth ;D :D :D ;D ;D
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 28, 2016, 01:17:07 AM
Right you are, sir: Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Wellesz, Krenek, Cerha, Furrer, Haas, Neuwirth ;D :D :D ;D ;D
...must be something in that pure and rarified Alpen water they drink.
Hmmm,
marketing idea!
As with all the arts, composers today have to compete with an ever increasing body of music from the past. To create something that is at least distinguishable therefore becomes ever more difficult and it is easy to be tempted into experimental fields that have no appeal whatsoever to the listener. We see this also in the visual arts, where artists imagine that if they display something 'new' they have achieved something. Sadly, most of the time, this is not the case but, fortunately, there are exceptions. I don't think the difficulty of the task should put off those who feel the cause from continuing the search.
Quote from: Ken B on April 25, 2015, 11:21:26 AM
I think I meant when composers made a large part of their living from composing, rather than selling insurance or running a government agency. I believe that was the substance of abe's point after all.
Composers have
almost never made a large part of their living from composing. The great masters of the past made most of their living from playing music.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on January 29, 2016, 01:08:26 PM
...experimental fields that have no appeal whatsoever to the listener....
There are listeners who actually like those "experimental fields." ;D The trick is in informing them about one's concerts. :-\
Quote from: Ten thumbs on January 29, 2016, 01:08:26 PM
As with all the arts, composers today have to compete with an ever increasing body of music from the past. To create something that is at least distinguishable therefore becomes ever more difficult [...]
I'm not certain this follows. The competition with the great sea of lit of the past, makes itself felt most in trying to get "air time."
Creating music of one's own voice, distinguishable from other voices, I think is at once only as difficult as
Beethoven or
Berlioz found it, and in a sense easier because our environment is richer still, richer than ever.
It has always been a question depending on the perception of the listener. To anyone who gives the music fair ear, I think my own voice (for instance) will not be lazily conflated with any composer other.
Quote from: jochanaan on January 29, 2016, 04:35:05 PM
There are listeners who actually like those "experimental fields." ;D The trick is in informing them about one's concerts. :-\
...but, once you're there, you know you're in the right place. The composers and performers are all wearing lab coats, a dead giveaway.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 29, 2016, 06:18:14 PM
...but, once you're there, you know you're in the right place. The composers and performers are all wearing lab coats, a dead giveaway.
Lab coats? No, the wave of the future is jeans around one's hips and caps worn backwards. Or less. ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on January 29, 2016, 04:35:05 PM
There are listeners who actually like those "experimental fields." ;D The trick is in informing them about one's concerts. :-\
This is true but I must say I didn't mean
all experimental fields. Some are valuable, others are not.
Well, as long as people aren't trying to go against Mother Nature and human wellbeing, I'm all for any experimentation. I'd gladly plunge myself into the unknown. 8)
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on February 02, 2016, 01:44:43 AM
Well, as long as people aren't trying to go against Mother Nature and human wellbeing, I'm all for any experimentation.
I have actually had grown adults try to argue that syncopation was physically detrimental to one's heart rate. They really just meant that they disliked pop music; explain to them how much syncopation is in
Mozart, and their brain explodes.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 02, 2016, 03:22:08 AM
I have actually had grown adults try to argue that syncopation was physically detrimental to one's heart rate. They really just meant that they disliked pop music; explain to them how much syncopation is in Mozart, and their brain explodes.
... whatever you do, don't tell them that Bach was more than a little big on starting many a piece out on the anacrusis, because that would melt the minds of those for whom Bach's music is a near visitation/embodiment of 'the deity.' Imagining the deity swingin' 'n' stompin' the universe to a boogie beat, as it were, might be more than a little traumatic for some.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 02, 2016, 03:22:08 AM
I have actually had grown adults try to argue that syncopation was physically detrimental to one's heart rate. They really just meant that they disliked pop music; explain to them how much syncopation is in Mozart, and their brain explodes.
That reminds me of the very silly book
Dionysus Rising by a supposed Roman Catholic intellectual named E. Michael Jones, who claimed in this book that the adultery of
Schoenberg's wife in the free-love atmosphere of
fin de siecle Vienna led
Schoenberg to "free tonality" and therefore to chaos and immorality. ??? ??? ???
He also basically claimed that
Wagner's chromaticism in league with
Schoenberg's "emancipation of the dissonance" led directly to the immoralities of the 1960's and 1970's, and that Catholics would be committing serious sins by listening to their music. ??? ??? ??? ??? All of this would be news to several popes and many bishops throughout the years known to love Wagnerian opera! 0:)
Quote from: Cato on February 02, 2016, 04:03:56 AM
That reminds me of the very silly book Dionysus Rising by a supposed Roman Catholic intellectual named E. Michael Jones, ...
I had never encountered that name...read the précis of some of his books (including the one you mentioned) and the word "wacky" instantly comes to mind! ???
One of those books (whether the author realizes it or not) which is written for entertainment purposes only . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on February 02, 2016, 04:23:22 AM
One of those books (whether the author realizes it or not) which is written for entertainment purposes only . . . .
The Florence Foster Jenkins of cultural critique? :)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 02, 2016, 04:23:22 AM
One of those books (whether the author realizes it or not) which is written for entertainment purposes only . . . .
It would be a most dubious distinction, but you had me just envisioning a bricks n mortar bookstore, with in each section, sociology, musicology, lit crit, etc. a sub-category of, "Inadvertently Funny."
Quote from: ritter on February 02, 2016, 04:21:57 AM
I had never encountered that name...read the précis of some of his books (including the one you mentioned) and the word "wacky" instantly comes to mind! ???
From the vast
Cato archives - under a topic called "Morality in Music?" - we have this:
Quote from: Cato on October 26, 2006, 04:40:52 AMQuoteThe astonishing tome to read on this is one by the "I must've inhaled some wacky tobacky" culture warrior E. Michael Jones...
Some years ago he was banned by a Catholic publication: the wackiness just got out of hand. :D
Hah!
Quote from: Cato on February 02, 2016, 04:03:56 AM
That reminds me of the very silly book Dionysus Rising by a supposed Roman Catholic intellectual named E. Michael Jones, who claimed in this book that the adultery of Schoenberg's wife in the free-love atmosphere of fin de siecle Vienna led Schoenberg to "free tonality" and therefore to chaos and immorality. ??? ??? ???
He also basically claimed that Wagner's chromaticism in league with Schoenberg's "emancipation of the dissonance" led directly to the immoralities of the 1960's and 1970's, and that Catholics would be committing serious sins by listening to their music. ??? ??? ??? ??? All of this would be news to several popes and many bishops throughout the years known to love Wagnerian opera! 0:)
Like parachutes, a mind doesn't work if it isn't open.
Are these immoralitis in reference to Vietnam? I don't think Schoenberg would have advocated for that at all...........
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on February 02, 2016, 12:24:08 PM
Like parachutes, a mind doesn't work if it isn't open.
Are these immoralitis in reference to Vietnam? I don't think Schoenberg would have advocated for that at all...........
I'd guess it's more in reference to free love and drugs. There was plenty of war before and after Vietnam.
Quote from: North Star on February 02, 2016, 12:29:50 PM
I'd guess it's more in reference to free love and drugs. There was plenty of war before and after Vietnam.
Well, these things that existed in the 60s and 70s have always existed all over the world..........perhaps they became more famous in the 60s and 70s? I don't know because I wasn't born yet and I know little about history, politics and even less about religion.
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on February 02, 2016, 01:23:45 PM
Well, these things that existed in the 60s and 70s have always existed all over the world..........perhaps they became more famous in the 60s and 70s? I don't know because I wasn't born yet and I know little about history, politics and even less about religion.
I was there (the 60s) and I think North Star is correct. The rallying cry (that was derided by the conservative establishment) was, Make love, not war.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 02, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
I was there (the 60s) and I think North Star is correct. The rallying cry (that was derided by the conservative establishment) was, Make love, not war.
Sarge
Well at least love isn't organised mass murder
Quote from: North Star on February 02, 2016, 12:29:50 PM
I'd guess it's more in reference to free love and drugs. There was plenty of war before and after Vietnam.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 02, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
I was there (the 60s) and I think North Star is correct. The rallying cry (that was derided by the conservative establishment) was, Make love, not war.
Sarge
It is basically impossible to find any kind of consistency in the contradictions, biases, and outright fantasies creating the
Weltanschauung of Mr. Jones! $:)
On topic, Jones might answer that the composer is definitely NOT obsolete, but that he must be a follower of the school of e.g.
Mendelssohn, like former GMG member (and acolyte of
Mendelssohn par excellence)
Saul, since the music of
Herr Wagner muss verboten werden. ;)
Given the rise of "You Too Can Be A Composer" software, human composers would seem to be on the rise! ;) One must, however, wonder about the quality of the music.
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on February 02, 2016, 01:40:39 PM
Well at least love isn't organised mass murder
I've experienced both: I prefer love over war. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on that...and the violence will continue.
Sarge
Quote from: Cato on February 02, 2016, 01:54:28 PM
Given the rise of "You Too Can Be A Composer" software, human composers would seem to be on the rise! ;) One must, however, wonder about the quality of the music.
One needn't wonder at all; Youtube abounds with freshly created MIDI marvels replete with the lowest grade Garittan sound samples as the medium of choice for playback, most of the instrumental families sounding like one of several varieties of a Kazoo.... Proportionately fewer pieces of the same ilk can be found in many an internet music fora's 'new compositions' category. Ironically, the more wonder-less and shapeless these are, the more likely they are to be mentioned by their authors as 'a composition.' :)
Earlier pre-internet generations learned, by running their first/early essays by other musicians, teachers, mentors, etc. that part and parcel of learning to write meant the near-inevitability of writing a lot of pretty bad music before it went to anything better, or what was [and was not] worth presenting to a larger public. One can bypass all those filters now by going directly to post on the internet... ahhhh.
M. Croche, that is why I would often delete something off my Soundcloud when I no longer feel that it is up to my current best efforts.
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on February 03, 2016, 06:08:50 PM...that is why I would often delete something off my Soundcloud when I felt it was no longer up to my current best efforts.
Admirable. 8)
Every note must know what all the others are doing and what they do shall go beyond or divert from what has been done of which they must be aware, after that good luck.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 02, 2016, 01:56:50 PM
I've experienced both: I prefer love over war. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on that...and the violence will continue.
Sarge
+1