Hurwitz and the Serialists

Started by karlhenning, May 17, 2007, 09:50:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Bunny

At least it's shorter than that other article about vibrato. 

Bach Man

Quote from: Bunny on May 17, 2007, 10:11:01 AM
At least it's shorter than that other article about vibrato. 
Did anyone actually read that one?

Bunny

Quote from: Bach Man on May 17, 2007, 10:14:29 AM
Did anyone actually read that one?

Who has the time?  It must be hundreds of pages long!  And the first page reads like a tabloid news article, to boot. 

I'm not sure he was completely coherent in the serialism editorial, I know he wasn't coherent on the first page of vibrato.  Talk about vanity publications!

karlhenning

Quote from: Bunny on May 17, 2007, 12:30:23 PM
I'm not sure he was completely coherent in the serialism editorial

Read, and find out.

greg


PerfectWagnerite

I have a DG Henze symphony cycle. Is Henze considered serial ?

not edward

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on May 17, 2007, 01:11:50 PM
I have a DG Henze symphony cycle. Is Henze considered serial ?
Henze wrote a few serial works, but soon abandoned the technique.

I don't remember for sure, but I don't think any of the symphonies are serial.
"I don't at all mind actively disliking a piece of contemporary music, but in order to feel happy about it I must consciously understand why I dislike it. Otherwise it remains in my mind as unfinished business."
-- Aaron Copland, The Pleasures of Music

Maciek

Actually, it seems quite coherent to me. And the general idea is quite interesting (melody vs tonality) though somehow it doesn't convince me (a definition of melody would have helped). The last sentence may be a platitude but definitely one worth keeping in mind... The point that irritates me is the first paragraph where he's apparently trying to oppose tonal music to serialism, as if there were no other possible variations of atonality. But my overall impression is quite positive (well, it's an essay not a scientific paper). What are your thoughts, Karl?

Maciek

karlhenning

Quote from: MrOsa on May 17, 2007, 03:30:27 PM
Actually, it seems quite coherent to me. And the general idea is quite interesting (melody vs tonality) though somehow it doesn't convince me (a definition of melody would have helped). The last sentence may be a platitude but definitely one worth keeping in mind... The point that irritates me is the first paragraph where he's apparently trying to oppose tonal music to serialism, as if there were no other possible variations of atonality. But my overall impression is quite positive (well, it's an essay not a scientific paper). What are your thoughts, Karl?

Similarly, Maciek, that the essay is largely "no better than it ought to be."  Notwithstanding that Hurwitz is out of his depth here (and while I agree that a definition for melody would help clarify the discussion, there's no denying that it was tactically shrewd of Hurwitz to avoid the attempt), there are observations he makes which surprise me, partly by their aptness, partly because Hurwitz writes from something of a round-table, 'listener-in-the-street', populist angle.  The open secret that the adjective "tonal" is frequently used as code for "the familiar" is nothing new;  Hurwitz's variant here, I found an interesting twist.  "An ongoing search for new types of melody" is an interesting view of the nineteenth century in music, though I don't know if it really reflects the composers and listeners of the time any better.

In all events, a fellow like Hurwitz reaching the conclusion (inevitable, I should think) that not all the tonal music which has emerged through the twentieth century (and no two composers share exactly the same mixture of interior motivation, but one motivation has been, reaction) is uniformly good (let alone great), and seeming to move from there to artistic sympathy with . . . and here I think, too, that he clouds the matter by fixing on serialism as an arbitrary "in this corner."

Interesting as a music-journalism artifact;  not a bad read;  but yes, a bit blurry  8)

Cato

Hurwitz seems to think that there was no possibility of a "German nationalist school" and that - if I understand the implication correctly - no worthwhile German folk music to draw inspiration from.  (Schumann's "Rhenish" symphony apparently used everything!)

Hurwitz:
QuoteBy the end of the 19th century, German music had, melodically speaking, effectively written itself out.

QuoteOnly in Germany did the aesthetics of nationalism result in a doctrine of musical purity that made it virtually impossible for native composers to absorb new influences, and renew their stock of musical materials.

(My emphasis)

So with "German" folk music not providing inspiration, and disallowed by nationalism to look for folkish models, German composers need a new method of finding melodies?

There was no such place politically as "Germany" anyway until 1871: provincialism reigns to this day.  A Bavarian is a Bavarian first!   The Rhinelanders are somewhat similar, and don't mention the East Frisians!   :o

Schubert, Bruckner, Mahler, and others do have a folk-music coloring in their works: they were Austrians of course, as was Schoenberg, but saw themselves as part of Germanic culture (vid. Schoenberg's (in)famous comment that the 12-tone method would make "German music" dominant for 100 years!).

I am not persuaded that Schoenberg undergoes a crisis of "melody" in the Second String Quartet : his desire for new expression ("I feel the air of another planet") demands a break with tonality, which therefore means that melodies will be different.
"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)

karlhenning

I'm sure I did not mention the East Frisians . . . .

Excellent correctives, thank you, Cato!

Bunny

#12
Quote from: Cato on May 18, 2007, 05:46:03 AM
Hurwitz seems to think that there was no possibility of a "German nationalist school" and that - if I understand the implication correctly - no worthwhile German folk music to draw inspiration from.  (Schumann's "Rhenish" symphony apparently used everything!)

Hurwitz:
(My emphasis)

So with "German" folk music not providing inspiration, and disallowed by nationalism to look for folkish models, German composers need a new method of finding melodies?

There was no such place politically as "Germany" anyway until 1871: provincialism reigns to this day.  A Bavarian is a Bavarian first!   The Rhinelanders are somewhat similar, and don't mention the East Frisians!   :o

Schubert, Bruckner, Mahler, and others do have a folk-music coloring in their works: they were Austrians of course, as was Schoenberg, but saw themselves as part of Germanic culture (vid. Schoenberg's (in)famous comment that the 12-tone method would make "German music" dominant for 100 years!).

I am not persuaded that Schoenberg undergoes a crisis of "melody" in the Second String Quartet : his desire for new expression ("I feel the air of another planet") demands a break with tonality, which therefore means that melodies will be different.

It's those arguments that I found least convincing and most incoherent.  I'd also have liked to have seen a citation for the "fact" that there were no German folk tunes to provide inspiration.  Certainly Bach also had no trouble finding folk tunes to put into his music, and I doubt they disappeared in the ensuing centuries.

greg

those East Frisians..... never mess with them. They'll stuff you into a tuba if they get mad.  :-\

DavidW

#14
I was about to say that I agreed with Hurwitz, when I realized that I didn't.  I recall going to a concert to hear the Shostakovich 5th with my friend, I loved it!  He didn't!  Why?  Certainly not the melodies, that symphony has some killer ones.  Neoromanticism is not cut and dried romanticism.  In terms of rhythm, harmony and tonal shading neoromanticism lives in a different world than the one that romanticism inhabits.  Even works that appear to be conventional like the DSCH 5 are not.  It might be a subtle thing, but people can latch on to it despite that.

Gorecki's string quartets are also not lacking in melodic material, but someone overhearing them told me that it sounded like dropping a drawer of silverware on the floor, only not as musical.

I've been progressing up by layers of modernism, so now let's go now to Berg, which Hurwitz mentions himself.  There was a thread on the older version of this board where a few posters passionately called his VC unlistenable crap.  It is very melodic, they were not reacting to the melodies, they were reacting to other aspects of the music.

I think that Hurwitz does a disservice to listeners by saying that they merely confuse melodic invention with more subtle aspects of modern music.  That's not the case.  It's a very popular misconception that the Joe off the street lacks the ability to do anything but hear a melody.  It's a fabrication of prejudice and not the truth.

Notice that I'm not talking about atonality, my point is that the common listener is sensitive to all of the important aspects of the music, and not just melody. :)

karlhenning

Quote from: Bunny on May 18, 2007, 06:03:16 AM
I'd also have liked to have seen a citation for the "fact" that there were no German folk tunes to provide inspiration.

Strawman;  that's not what was said.

greg

Quote from: DavidW on May 18, 2007, 06:13:06 AM
Gorecki's string quartets are also not lacking in melodic material, but someone overhearing them told me that it sounded like dropping a drawer of silverware on the floor, only not as musical.
now that's just wrong...... you shoulda beat up whoever said that, his string quartets are my favorites

karlhenning

Quote from: DavidW on May 18, 2007, 06:13:06 AM
I think that Hurwitz does a disservice to listeners by saying that they merely confuse melodic invention with more subtle aspects of modern music.  That's not the case.  It's a very popular misconception that the Joe off the street lacks the ability to do anything but hear a melody.  It's a fabrication of prejudice and not the truth.

Excellent, David.

Bunny

Quote from: DavidW on May 18, 2007, 06:13:06 AM
I was about to say that I agreed with Hurwitz, when I realized that I didn't.  I recall going to a concert to hear the Shostakovich 5th with my friend, I loved it!  He didn't!  Why?  Certainly not the melodies, that symphony has some killer ones.  Neoromanticism is not cut and dried romanticism.  In terms of rhythm, harmony and tonal shading neoromanticism lives in a different world than the one that romanticism inhabits.  Even works that appear to be conventional like the DSCH 5 are not.  It might be a subtle thing, but people can latch on to it despite that.

Gorecki's string quartets are also not lacking in melodic material, but someone overhearing them told me that it sounded like dropping a drawer of silverware on the floor, only not as musical.

I've been progressing up by layers of modernism, so now let's go now to Berg, which Hurwitz mentions himself.  There was a thread on the older version of this board where a few posters passionately called his VC unlistenable crap.  It is very melodic, they were not reacting to the melodies, they were reacting to other aspects of the music.

I think that Hurwitz does a disservice to listeners by saying that they merely confuse melodic invention with more subtle aspects of modern music.  That's not the case.  It's a very popular misconception that the Joe off the street lacks the ability to do anything but hear a melody.  It's a fabrication of prejudice and not the truth.

Notice that I'm not talking about atonality, my point is that the common listener is sensitive to all of the important aspects of the music, and not just melody. :)

The Berg violin concerto is not unlistenable crap, but it does require a "new" set of ears, a shift in musical sensibilties, and some hard work to appreciate it.

The first time I heard it, I was completely bored out of my skull.  It sounded more like a practice exercise than something played in recital.  However, repeated exposure eventually let the music establish itself in my mind in such a way that suddenly, as if by magic, it all sounded right.  I'm not sure exactly what process was at work, but the seeming gibberish finally translated itself into a form which I could absorb.  This entailed a lot of hard work, and to this day I will admit that if given a choice, I prefer more accessible music.  There is some difficulty in just accepting series of sounds unrelated to melody (narrative), but it is possible to appreciate it if the sounds are ravishingly beautiful. 

My problems arise when the sounds I'm expected to appreciate are ugly and discordant.  I'd rather not listen to music composed of sounds similar to a fingernail on a blackboard, gears being stripped, or a car crash.  That such sounds can be organized in such a way (usually with the help of algorithms) so as to form a sensible pattern doesn't make them music.  It just makes them organized noises.  Who would ever call a well organized junkyard art?  And please, don't talk to me about paintings that incorporate cow dung; collages of nuts and bolts; or sculptures of compressed scrap metal.  Those works are usually successful because they evoke visual images that are less abstract.  A fitting comparison to that would someone hitting random objects to form a coherent melody.  The mere act of organization cannot not make art.  My kitchen drawer has all of my knives, forks, and spoons organized by my particular set of rules, but the drawer isn't a sculpture.  Why should we call an organized junkyard of sounds music?  Serialism and its rules of composition allow anyone to take any sounds, organize them, and call it music.  For me, that's where it all falls apart.

Bunny

Quote from: karlhenning on May 18, 2007, 06:15:02 AM
Strawman;  that's not what was said.

Troll.  that's what he implied.