A little history

[Mahlerian]

But all of this has very little to do with resentment or prejudice against modern music per se. It has far more to do with a prejudice against music as light entertainment dominated by virtuosos, divas and fleeting fashions and the resulting distinction between light music (dances, operetta, virtuoso paraphrases etc.) and serious music (symphonies, quartets, musical dramas etc.) that had not so clearly existed at the time of Mozart.

True.  The point is, however, that the animus against contemporary music, and specifically contemporary developments within music, has indeed existed in full force since the 19th century.  According to at least some contemporary reports that some guy has cited in the past, this extended to a suspicion of new works generally on the part of a portion of the audience.  Of course, many composers and critics had these attitudes, and their reactions, unlike those of audiences, are preserved in writing.

Look at the programs of "contemporary" (as opposed to "canonized") music of the 1820s (or better 1790s), "translate" that to the 1920s and imagine Berg's Orchesterstücke or Schönberg's violin concerto [which dates from 1936] in a mixed program with hits from Léhar operettas and a pianist playing jazz improvisations (and maybe the audience drinking and dancing while the music plays). This is how concerts of the "contemporary" 18th/19th century music that were gradually abolished were like. Does anybody really think that this would be the better mode of presentation for the difficult avantgarde music by the 2nd Viennese school or even by Debussy, Mahler or Stravinsky?

Not as far as I'm aware, and I don't think that anyone was arguing for that, either.  Like I said, the programming being a mixture of serious works and light entertainment was not the main point.

[Jo498]

From what I see the mixture programming and its abolition is the main point of the book some guy refers to. As I have not read the book, I am not sure but I still see no argument or historical evidence that lead from the abolishing of mixed (often light) programmes to the general suspicion against "modern music".
I do not deny that such existed. But I do not see the connection with the form of programmes. In fact, as I said, I think that the more serious programmes and the canonization of Bach and Beethoven were a precondition for the modernists (at least for some strains of modernism, others were a more contrary reaction to canon and tradition, above all Satie).
Of course, the serious programmes were also a precondition for a later development that could pose "classical" (older) music against modernist/avantgarde music.

But from what I have seen is that when Fétis is trashing Berlioz' music or Hanslick Wagner's or Bruckner's they never argue that instead of these composers Bach or Mozart should be played in concert (and never forget, when such old music was played in the 19th century is was often in arrangements/editions adapted to contemporary tastes) or that contemporary composers should write like Bach or Mozart. Rather it is other (admittedly often somewhat less daring and more conservative) roughly contemporary composers that are favored against the mid-19th century modernists.

[Mahlerian]

From what I see the mixture programming and its abolition is the main point of the book some guy refers to. As I have not read the book, I am not sure but I still see no argument or historical evidence that lead from the abolishing of mixed (often light) programmes to the general suspicion against "modern music".

I have not read the book, either, so my knowledge of it is also entirely secondhand.  My understanding is that it points out that the low point of contemporary music programming was in the middle of the 19th century, though, rather than the 20th century.

I do not deny that such existed. But I do not see the connection with the form of programmes. In fact, as I said, I think that the more serious programmes and the canonization of Bach and Beethoven were a precondition for the modernists (at least for some strains of modernism, others were a more contrary reaction to canon and tradition, above all Satie).
Of course, the serious programmes were also a precondition for a later development that could pose "classical" (older) music against modernist/avantgarde music.

You are probably right there.  The conditions for an avant-garde existing within public concert life could not be present without a public concert life to present an avant-garde.

But from what I have seen is that when Fétis is trashing Berlioz' music or Hanslick Wagner's or Bruckner's they never argue that instead of these composers Bach or Mozart should be played in concert (and never forget, when such old music was played in the 19th century is was often in arrangements/editions adapted to contemporary tastes) or that contemporary composers should write like Bach or Mozart. Rather it is other (admittedly often somewhat less daring and more conservative) roughly contemporary composers that are favored against the mid-19th century modernists.

Isn't the same true of the vast majority of critics in the 20th century though?  Even someone like Pleasants who thinks that good "serious" music ended with Wagner some seven decades earlier (and considered all "serious" music of his time all equally tainted) favored the contemporary movement of jazz music.

[some guy]

I have not read the book some guy mentions but from what I can glimpse online of the concert programs analysed there I disagree with his conclusion.

Prudence would suggest that you do indeed read the book before expending so much effort into debunking the conclusions of the book, which I am simply reporting.

But since Prudence seems to be absent, I guess it falls to me to wonder about the strength of an agenda that doesn't even need more than a glance to produce a long and detailed rebuttal of...

...of what? That's what's missing from Jo498's multiple screeds, a what. If you would just read the book, maybe you would still have the same denials you have now, but at least there'd be an actual what to talk about.

[Turner]

Or as a help, you could give either a few, minuscule sentences/quotes from the book, or a few page references.

[some guy]

Or as a help, you could give either a few, minuscule sentences/quotes from the book, or a few page references.

Do you seriously think it would help?

Have you been reading this thread at all? Have you listened for several decades to people whinging about music that they don't even know, and that they never have to hear? Why, I probably shouldn't even have started this topic. But hey, there's always a chance, eh? But no, I don't think "a few minscule sentences quotes" or a few references to pages in a book that no one has in their hands would really do a scrap of good.

No, I'm pretty sure that the narrative that twentieth century music is fundamentally flawed, hence unpopular, is just going to have to continue to be perpetrated without any miniscule quotes from a largish book.

[Mahlerian]

Does it really matter?  what difference does it make?  New music will always have its audience.  So what if there are a bunch of people who don't like it and let you know.

Liking or not liking is really not the issue.  It's the falsehoods told and retold to justify that dislike to all and sundry that get so wearisome.

[Parsifal]

Do you seriously think it would help?

Have you been reading this thread at all? Have you listened for several decades to people whinging about music that they don't even know, and that they never have to hear? Why, I probably shouldn't even have started this topic. But hey, there's always a chance, eh? But no, I don't think "a few minscule sentences quotes" or a few references to pages in a book that no one has in their hands would really do a scrap of good.

No, I'm pretty sure that the narrative that twentieth century music is fundamentally flawed, hence unpopular, is just going to have to continue to be perpetrated without any miniscule quotes from a largish book.

It may well be true that the current perceptions that new music is deliberately repulsive compared to works of the past is not new, and prevailed in the 19th century. Well, so what? Wagner, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner emerged from the 19th century and became widely admired. The same will presumably happened for music of the 20th and 21st centuries.

[Parsifal]

I just don't see why that is something that needs a response.  Those who like new music don't care what is said and those that don't like it exist in an echo chamber.

Again, so what?

There's the rub. Evidently there are those (i.e. Mahlerian and some guy) who like new music but do care what is said about it.  Nothing to be done about it.

[Turner]

Do you seriously think it would help?

Have you been reading this thread at all? Have you listened for several decades to people whinging about music that they don't even know, and that they never have to hear? Why, I probably shouldn't even have started this topic. But hey, there's always a chance, eh? But no, I don't think "a few minscule sentences quotes" or a few references to pages in a book that no one has in their hands would really do a scrap of good.

No, I'm pretty sure that the narrative that twentieth century music is fundamentally flawed, hence unpopular, is just going to have to continue to be perpetrated without any miniscule quotes from a largish book.

It´s been said here that you are doing an interpretation of some of the book´s content, and stating conclusions that aren´t really pointed to there. So I thought it would be quite easy to contradict that claim. I guess this could have been mentioned in my post above, but at least I have done that now.

[Florestan]

I probably shouldn't even have started this topic.

Finally, something you and I can agree upon.

the narrative that twentieth century music is fundamentally flawed, hence unpopular

Please show us one single GMG member who has ever made this claim.

[Florestan]

There's the rub. Evidently there are those (i.e. Mahlerian and some guy) who like new music but do care what is said about it.  Nothing to be done about it.

AFAIC, the only result Mahlerian's incessant and relentless crusade against the use of "atonal / atonalism" had on me is a growing aversion to a certain portrait of Mahler...

[some guy]

OK.

Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are both real.

Trickledown economics works.

The earth is flat.

No one should ever express any opinions about anything, unless they coincide with the opinions of Florestan (in which case they are no longer opinions but simply facts).

OK.

If that's the world you want, fine.

[Florestan]

OK.

Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are both real.

Trickledown economics works.

The earth is flat.

No one should ever express any opinions about anything, unless they coincide with the opinions of Florestan (in which case they are no longer opinions but simply facts).

OK.

If that's the world you want, fine.

Having a bad day, I presume?

None of this nonsense answer my question: which GMG member has ever maintained that "twentieth century music is fundamentally flawed, hence unpopular"?

As for expressing opinions, why not give us your opinions on actual musical works and performances, instead of rehashing your obsessions? Actually, I don't remember the last time you posted anything even remotely implying you did listen to some music. Not that you are alone in that, but for a guy who pretends to love music as much as you do the incongruity is striking.

[some guy]

The whining I have seen is from you.

Whinging, sanantonio, whinging. Different word, different meaning from whining.

Plus, if you have seen whining only from me, you just haven't been paying attention!!

Anyway, yes, of course there's lots of new music and lots of people enjoy it.

The point of this thread was quite other.

Lots of people know that trickledown doesn't work, too, but that doesn't mean that we should simply ignore it when a politician argues that it does work, should we?

And who cares if Richard III had his nephews killed or not? Or if Columbus were a hero or a monster? I mean, we would all get up in the morning same as ever, right? And we'd buy our groceries and pay our rents and no one's the worse for it, right?

OK.

I think wrong.

I think truth and accuracy are important. And I think there are consequences for perpetuating falsehoods and for being inaccurate.

Take Galileo. Widely regarded as the poster boy for the conflict between science and religion. Except of course that his situation had nothing to do with religion, not really, but with jealousy. (Yes, I'm over-simplifying.) The cardinals were jealous of his close relationship with the pope. So they started a smear campaign, which was successful, and which basically destroyed Galileo's career. OK. That's all ancient history. But how many people have used Galileo's experience to support their ideas about the baleful effects of religion?

Oh well.

This all seems to have devolved into a string of personal attacks against some guy. Who is, mind you, pretty well impervious. And who will continue to be the best judge of which opinions he will hold and how and when he will express them. Would you (or even Florestan) really and truly want it any other way? That is, would you and Florestan enjoy being held to the same strictures you've been suggesting should apply to my own sweet self?

And it is sweet, I would say, though for those who will never believe that, I have occasionally indulged in a spot of mild sarcasm from time to time. Y'all seem to have missed that aspect of my last post, eh? Going straight for the cause of the words rather than looking at what the words say. That'll mess you up every time, you know.

[Florestan]

Subtle philological distinctions, trickledown economics, Richard III, Columbus, Galileo... anything works when it comes to avoid answering a simple ontopic question, ain't it?

[Mahlerian]

AFAIC, the only result Mahlerian's incessant and relentless crusade against the use of "atonal / atonalism" had on me is a growing aversion to a certain portrait of Mahler...

Evidently, responding to others when they ask one about one's views constitutes an "incessant and relentless crusade" now.

[Florestan]

Evidently, responding to others when they ask one about one's views constitutes an "incessant and relentless crusade" now.

Oh, please. Your latest battle in this crusade started with this salvo:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,19564.msg1099610.html#msg1099610

which was not at all a response to anybody's asking your views, not by a long stretch. The post you replied to was not even addressed to you. But you miss no opportunity to flog your favorite dead horse.

[Mahlerian]

Oh, please. Your latest battle in this crusade started with this salvo:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,19564.msg1099610.html#msg1099610

which was not at all a response to anybody's asking your views, not by a long stretch. The post you replied to was not even addressed to you. But you miss no opportunity to flog your favorite dead horse.

It also has nothing to do with the word or concept of "atonality," but rather about the use of the 12-tone technique.  "Uses all notes equally, in the same order" is not an accurate description of the technique.  Millionrainbows said that this was a description of Schoenberg's music, and I corrected him.

Like some guy said, it's about accuracy and truth, not opinions or taste.

I would challenge you to articulate what my position is, if you feel you've heard it so often that you tire of it.

[Florestan]

Like some guy said, it's about accuracy and truth, not opinions or taste.

I would challenge you to articulate what my position is, if you feel you've heard it so often that you tire of it.

Piece of cake. Your position is that "atonal / atonalism" originated and are used as derisive and highly inaccurate terms and their use should be discarded. Also, that there is no difference whatsoever between "tonal" and "atonal" music, twelve-tone included.