Is the composer obsolete?

[orbital]

You can still like them and be open, too, which is the best.

Which is not an open-minded statement in itself  The best is for people to listen to whatever they enjoy. IMO, music should not be a burden.

[bhodges]

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

[lisa needs braces]

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...

[scarpia]

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.

[some guy]

I 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?

[scarpia]

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.

[lukeottevanger]

Anti-modernist threads are no fun without Sean......

[Josquin des Prez]

I love how you people always turn to condescension when cornered in an argument.

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

[scarpia]

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.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

[Josquin des Prez]

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"? 

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.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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?

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

[Josquin des Prez]

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).

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

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.

[Josquin des Prez]

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?

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:

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.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

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.


 

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

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?