# Postmodernism



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

The other day, a friend/colleague and I were talking about this term. From this forum I surprisingly came to realize that it is a very debatable term, even provoking anger it seems! Well, here is an article on postmodernism. Hopefully it can be enlightening for all. If you know of other such articles, please post a link! 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

my understanding of postmodernism is that it is a philosophy coming from social sciences that basically claims that there is no objective truth, but just different perspectives, narratives etc. Of course there is no objective absolute truth, exept for the metatruth proselytized by postmodernism itself  There is some grain of truth in postmodernism, but it has brainwashed a lot of people into believing, that all truths are equal, that are opinions or perspectives are equal. And the result is that some people believe that the picture of the world discovered by objective science such a physics is equal to a religious point of view etc, which is absurd. From my point of view, radical postmodernism is philosophically incompatible with the scientific method, because at the heart of the objective sciences there is a belief in objective truth, objective reality, which we try to approximate, and the theories/knowledge are not equal, but are tested against how well they approximate this objective truth. Hence the value of scientific knowledge is much greater that the value of theology and they are not equal.

For this reason, the postmodernism is quite hated among some people. Here some fun videos that show the consequences of radical postmodernism
Alternative Math
Modern Educayshun


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Jacck said:


> my understanding of postmodernism is that it is a philosophy coming from social sciences that basically claims that there is no objective truth, but just different perspectives, narratives etc...


"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it _thus_."


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Math is hard! Haha! Anyway, that article from Stanford is pretty heavy duty for me...


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

Jacck said:


> my understanding of postmodernism is that it is a philosophy coming from social sciences that basically claims that there is no objective truth, but just different perspectives, narratives etc. Of course there is no objective absolute truth, exept for the metatruth proselytized by postmodernism itself  There is some grain of truth in postmodernism, but it has brainwashed a lot of people into believing, that all truths are equal, that are opinions or perspectives are equal. And the result is that some people believe that the picture of the world discovered by objective science such a physics is equal to a religious point of view etc, which is absurd. From my point of view, radical postmodernism is philosophically incompatible with the scientific method, because at the heart of the objective sciences there is a belief in objective truth, objective reality, which we try to approximate, and the theories/knowledge are not equal, but are tested against how well they approximate this objective truth. Hence the value of scientific knowledge is much greater that the value of theology and they are not equal.
> 
> For this reason, the postmodernism is quite hated among some people. Here some fun videos that show the consequences of radical postmodernism
> Alternative Math
> Modern Educayshun


Postmodernism does not come from social sciences; it's broadly represented in many disciplines, but if you pointed to founders you'd have psychologists, philosophers, historians, and sociologists. Many of its theorists are also deeply interested in science and the scientific method, so again does not contradict anything about science. I believe most of them would be classified as scientific realists. The claim that postmodernists don't believe in objective truth is also unsupported. Every postmodernist I've read believed in truth, objective truth, and believed it was a central topic of inquiry. 
Postmodernism certainly wanted to go beyond what had already been thought before, and so stretched the envelope in many ways, but this is hardly noteworthy; many movements have been premised on that. One of the central tenets of postmodernism is that the world is saturated with meaning, that everything is infinitely more complex and meaningful than we initially think it is. They're all really quite insightful, if you're willing to spend some time with them.

Of course, the kind of postmodernism I just described may differ from the kind practiced in music.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Well I am the one raising the ruckus around here. on just this subject.... 
Its been on my mind some 15 years now, having witnessed composers names pop up, who I felt *what are THEY doing here?*

A few I which I was too rash and did not hesitate to reject, as they seemed too far from my Rachmaninov and Sibelius music. Debussy and Ravel controlled the airways in my head. 


Finally I came around to the *New Styles*. 
Recently I made further advances into this new artistic music. 
Some composers I felt were making music according to their own whims,,i think the term here is New Complexity Composers...

.WOW I have Tubin's 4th on right now,,,a few months ago I was dissing his music, as a *heavy borrowing from RVW and also from Sibelius*,,,Now some months later,,sure the RVW/Sibelius passages are clearly there,,,but cast intoa form that is UNREAL.
Like *Themes and variations on Music by RVW and that of Sibelius*

Tubin borrows, but pays back with Incredible interest on the loan. 

Now I can get back my Sibelius symphonies in a new recast Modernistic style. 
Yes I am happy.


back to post modern subject, after that slight detour....


Post Mod to me is OK, as I have embraced quite a few Modernists, late era, which border on Post modernism. Note the ISM,, ISM = In this Zeitgeist, but lacks some inherent connections to past musical masters. 


2nd Viennese/Varese does offer a style which I consider high classical art. Yet few have madea successful following. Elliott Carter continues in that tradition and also offers his new unique voice. Look at his works, extensive, masterful. He most certainly qualifies as a Classical Composer Master, modern, yet not so much as to be said of *POST modernism*
Elliott Carter still connects to 2nd Viennese very nicely. 
Whereas other contemporaries of Elliott Carter have failed in THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL EXPERIEMENTAL post modernism form. 


They got off the beaten , proven, path up the mountain. 


Why? Not sure. 

dangerous days we live in,,,the mind can be readily fooled into thinking things that err from the true paths of creative musical writing. 

. man this Tubin 4th, opening movement, UNREAL,.,,I dissed that thing so fast months ago,,,and never considered evena 2nd chance, Now just the 1st movement (all YT offers( is mind blowing.


Sure it is *heavily indebted* to RVW/less so to Sibelius, but the pat back. Huge interest on the loans. Tubin was fair and honest. 
In fact, I am quite sure both Sibelius and RVW would be quite happy to know Tubin considered using their music to excellent results. 
Especially Sibelius, as he may have felt, *why revise? this late in life?*. Tubin gives his themes a new life. And RVW is cast into incredible textures melodies, harmonies. 


Written in,,,,be back,,,,are you ready for this,,,1~9~7~~~~8!!,,,Now why could Stockhausen make music in this style? Boulez too? What happened with these guys and Berio, Ligeti. 

These are others should have paid close attention to Tubin and followed his ideas. 
We do not need post modern artists in classical music. We need to get back to our roots, the creative genius has passed in 2012, ,,,and sadly I suspect is that we will all be left with is, 
Post modern-ISMs abounding. 
No thanks.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> We do not need post modern artists in classical music.


hey, I thought you liked Schnittke. Now he (unlike most of the modern composers you mentioned in the other thread) is considered a post-modern composer.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

norman bates said:


> hey, I thought you liked Schnittke. Now he (unlike most of the modern composers you mentioned in the other thread) is considered a post-modern composer.


Yes indeed he is, somewhat post mod,,,Schnittke is not so easy to define... But is this post modern to your ears?






I could list another half dozen,,well not that many, but at least 4 more from Schnittke,,well say 3 more which do not fit the post modernism style. ,,so yes Schnittke is the exception to the rule. 
But when a composer is writing on the level he is composing, post modern influences can easily be forgiven.

Ligeti is no *Schnittke* that's for sure.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

"Postmodernists believe that if they make their terminology sufficiently obscurantist, sesquipedalian, and circumloquatious, nobody will notice the lack of substance. To a large extent, they are correct in that belief. " - Urban Dictionary


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Music composed from the 2nd half of the 20th century and beyond not by Carter, Pettersson, Henze, and Schnittke.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> Music composed from the 2nd half of the 20th century and beyond not by Carter, Pettersson, Henze, and Schnittke.


Tubin composed in the 40's-70;s, not post, he is Modern 100%.
I am looking at Dutilluex as a candidate for Modern Classical. He is still living.

2nd half, 20th C, the 4 you menion are the *Bach/Mozart/Beethoven's* of our era. 
As it began with high genius,,,so ushers out the great tradition with genius of equal caliber, depths. 
I divide the modern era into 3 vague periods, early/mid/late. late being the 4 mentioned.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Becca said:


> "Postmodernists believe that if they make their terminology sufficiently obscurantist, sesquipedalian, and circumloquatious, nobody will notice the lack of substance. To a large extent, they are correct in that belief. " - Urban Dictionary


No one will note their lack of (authenticated) ~Substance~ oh how so very accurate.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

paulbest said:


> Tubin composed in the 40's-70;s, not post, he is Modern 100%.
> I am looking at Dutilluex as a candidate for Modern Classical. He is still living.


I hate to tell you this but Dutilleux died over 6 years ago.


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> Music composed from the 2nd half of the 20th century and beyond not by Carter, Pettersson, Henze, and Schnittke.


Why are they exempt? That's like saying fiction written in the second half of the twentieth century and beyond not by Pynchon, Gaddis, Gass, and Wallace.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Becca said:


> I hate to tell you this but Dutilleux died over 6 years ago.


Read a post on YT, , failed to note the date,,,says *and he is still with us today*. My bad


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Tubin composed in the 40's-70;s, not post, he is Modern 100%.
> I am looking at Dutilluex as a candidate for Modern Classical. He is still living.
> 
> 2nd half, 20th C, the 4 you menion are the *Bach/Mozart/Beethoven's* of our era.
> ...


Then everything late that you don't like is postmodern? All four of those composers are routinely cited as postmodern. And postmodernism in music was never as much of a force as it was in the rest of culture. I'm not sure why that is.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

ECraigR said:


> Why are they exempt? That's like saying fiction written in the second half of the twentieth century and beyond not by Pynchon, Gaddis, Gass, and Wallace.


If you note their credentials , you ill understand why , exemption status is granted. 
Concertos, chamber, choral, lieder . 
Plus the significance of their music, is beyond reproach. 
Yeah these 4 have their sideline critics, folks who have little to NO experience in the music. 
All 4 composers never resort to fluff/fillers/gimickery,,,except Henze at times , when he is in the mood to bash Stockhausen and Boulez,,his 2 nemesis .


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A piece of music is either good, so-so, or bad, and it doesn't matter what you call it.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

ECraigR said:


> Then everything late that you don't like is postmodern? All four of those composers are routinely cited as postmodern. And postmodernism in music was never as much of a force as it was in the rest of culture. I'm not sure why that is.


In have noted basically , roughly 3 Modern eras. 
Henze, Pettersson, Elliott Carter, Schnittke make up my 4 great late 20th C composers. Stockhausen according to wiki's sources, is * a most SIGNIFICANT INFFLUENTIAL composer 20 th C*, They list like 10 solid references as proof of their research. 
Well how could one refute The Authorities?
Henze is mentioned as a *german composer 20th C*. 
. 
What counts is the number of works, and varies styles of works. 
Then ck out Henze list of works. 
You will see clearly what I am talking about.

Trying to get folks to understand who pettersson is in late 20th C classical, a complete waste of energy and time, pettersson has more bashers and haters than any other late 20 TH C composer, Now why is this? 
Does any one know why? 
Does any one care to know why?
No , No, and No. 
But as a researcher of sorts, I always like the know why something is as it is,. Its the german in me that drives me for answers. 
The post mod groupies are a club, almost like a evangelical church group. 
Cultish in a sense.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

MarkW said:


> A piece of music is either good, so-so, or bad, and it doesn't matter what you call it.


Yes, 
Correct, Ligeti may be fantastic music, Boulez also, just not classical.


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

paulbest said:


> In have noted basically , roughly 3 Modern eras.
> Henze, Pettersson, Elliott Carter, Schnittke make up my 4 great late 20th C composers. Stockhausen according to wiki's sources, is * a most SIGNIFICANT INFFLUENTIAL composer 20 th C*, They list like 10 solid references as proof of their research.
> Well how could one refute The Authorities?
> Henze is mentioned as a *german composer 20th C*.
> ...


I'm sorry, who besides Stockhausen and Boulez is postmodern in your estimation? Also, note that Boulez was operating at the same time as the four you cite, and has a wide range of styles. And if conducting is admitted as an art, then his range expands exponentially.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> From this forum I surprisingly came to realize that it is a very debatable term, even provoking anger it seems!


Well, we have one member who has decided it means something (basically anything new he does not like, and that's a lot), and the rest of the world agreeing it means something else (and has done so for decades). "New Age" is another example of this. This member also does not engage in debate, just repeats his own mantra based on next to nothing and some Youtube comments that he agrees with. I would not call this "debatable term", in fact really different words come to mind to describe the situation.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I have mentioned this before in another thread. Until I started participating in various music forums I thought I knew what post modernism meant. Now I have no idea


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> I have mentioned this before in another thread. Until I started participating in various music forums I thought I knew what post modernism meant. Now I have *no idea*


And you are probably correct


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

One can label everything, in which thinking stops, or one can look around and see what’s happening directly without conflicting labels that few can agree on. If it’s the labels that count, I can’t remember the last time one of my neighbors asked me, “How do you enjoy living in the postmodern world?” But the great jazz saxophonist Charlie Parker once wrote a song called “Now’s the Time.” That I can understand. But I never remember him writing anything called “Postmodern Blues”.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

...................................


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)




----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Hey! If you read the little article on postmodernism and philosophy that I posted first, then (none of) this would have happened...


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I recommend POMO, the postmodern generator
http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
(refresh the site to generate new postmodernist wisdom)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't think it is a useful term for categorising music. We have better. But it can be helpful with some music in understanding the environment that the music was composed in.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_music
Wikipedias definition here. I always thought that it was just everything from earlier mashed together...


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

ECraigR said:


> Postmodernism does not come from social sciences; it's broadly represented in many disciplines, but if you pointed to founders you'd have psychologists, philosophers, historians, and sociologists. Many of its theorists are also deeply interested in science and the scientific method, so again does not contradict anything about science. I believe most of them would be classified as scientific realists. The claim that postmodernists don't believe in objective truth is also unsupported. Every postmodernist I've read believed in truth, objective truth, and believed it was a central topic of inquiry.
> Postmodernism certainly wanted to go beyond what had already been thought before, and so stretched the envelope in many ways, but this is hardly noteworthy; many movements have been premised on that. One of the central tenets of postmodernism is that the world is saturated with meaning, that everything is infinitely more complex and meaningful than we initially think it is. They're all really quite insightful, if you're willing to spend some time with them.
> Of course, the kind of postmodernism I just described may differ from the kind practiced in music.


I am not so sure. Just read the entry on wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
"Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress. Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence. "


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

We have had quite a few threads on postmodernism that were mostly about philosophy and sociology rather than music. It would be good if this one could be about music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> We have had quite a few threads on postmodernism that were mostly about philosophy and sociology rather than music. It would be good if this one could be about music.


OK, let's try.

And I'll first note that one possible aspect of postmodernism is to challenge the idea that a piece of music should exhibit unity and coherence, to show it as a value imposed by a culture rather than anything essential. Here's a purported example (though it doesn't seem to be as incoherent as all that to me . . . see what you think.) Jon Zorn's _Forbidden Fruit_.






And here's another one, William Bolcom's _Third Symphony_






An idea which may more or less goes back to Bernd Alois Zimmermann's Musique pour les soupers du roi Ubu






but arguably all of the music we usually categorise as the "second wave of modernism" in Darmstadt etc from the 40s on is postmodern, depending obviously on how one views the definition.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

So pursuing the idea that pluralism is a criterion (in Wittgenstein's sense -- something like X is a criterion for y iff x is necessarily good evidence for y) of postmodernist music, here's George Crumb's _Makrokosmos III,_ which creates a collage which apparently randomly juxtaposes tonal, atonal, noise, vocal grunts and squeaks etc. Is it fragmentary, or is there a unifying idea?






One thing I like is the thought that postmodernist music is egalitarian, refusing to rank for value different styles, or indeed times (the past (in quotation) is just as real as the present.) This is an idea which I think you get in the _Nouveau Roman_ too -- which is a nice.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

]but arguably all of the music we usually categorise as the "second wave of modernism" in Darmstadt etc from the 40s on is postmodern, depending obviously on how one views the definition.[/QUOTE]

I was not aware of the idea, *second wave, of modernism* 
Interesting concept and acceptable, as it allows us to figure out where we came from, where we are at ,a nd where we are going.

I enjoy many *second wave classical composers* and also dismnisss a lot of famous ones as well, Stockhausen/Ligeti/Xenakis/Berio/, quitea few others,,,In fact, lets say, I only consider maybe at the very most, say 5-10 in the 1940-2000 years to be authentic classical composers,,,the rest are post modernism, music,,what ever that is...I have a very strict parameter whereas the TC moderns embrace nearly 100% of composers in the 1940-2000 and beyond era.

The TC members think I am too stringent, too narrow and should *open my mind to new sounds*, Why? 
I would never subject my ears to music that is against my being.

Second wave has come to shore, The CM tradition is officially over. Folks composing today are making music, its just not classical. I am I only,specifically interest in forms/influences that come from Mozart, Schnoenberg, Ravel. 
Avant garde is other than classical,,although I do accept a few late modern composers, as notable classical composers.

Post modern classical is a misnomer,a contradiction. .


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Although my initial post linked a humongous philosophy article, I would like to write about and discuss the music. I kind of believe that postmodern music is a thing that started in the 70s, f.ex. Penderecki's violin concerto from 1976. Can you call post romantic music postmodern?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> OK, let's try.
> 
> And I'll first note that one possible aspect of postmodernism is to challenge the idea that a piece of music should exhibit unity and coherence, to show it as a value imposed by a culture rather than anything essential. Here's a purported example (though it doesn't seem to be as incoherent as all that to me . . . see what you think.) Jon Zorn's _Forbidden Fruit_.
> 
> but arguably all of the music we usually categorise as the "second wave of modernism" in Darmstadt etc from the 40s on is postmodern, depending obviously on how one views the definition.


I suspect that someone like Boulez would have punched in the face a person who would have called him a postmodern composer.

I think that in music (like in other arts, like architecture) the difference between modernism and post-modernism is not temporal (like first half of the century vs second half) but in the approach. Where modernists (more conservative ones, like let's say Hindemith or more radicals like Boulez) try to have a more organic approach to the music, the postmodern approach uses a juxtaposition of elements of different styles, times and genres, sometimes in a serious way, sometimes in a ironic way.
That's why someone like Schnittke (or a Frank Zappa or John Adams to say few names), known for his polystilistic approach is considered
a post modern composer. Obviously it doesn't mean that if a composer uses elements of other cultures or centuries is automatically postmodern, the line is a bit blurred but if the contrast of the elements is evident, maybe on purpose that's more a postmodern approach. I think the effect is something like a person putting together sentences in different languages vs someone who uses elements of different languages to have a new one (like the Esperanto).

This is an example (quite horrible actually) of postmodern architecture that shows what I'm saying:










there are elements (like the giant greek column) together with a modern international style part (the part on the left). There's no fusion of the elements, just a juxtaposition of things, made clearly in a ironic way. I totally dislike this building but that's not the point.

But obviously, that's not what a composer like Boulez was doing.


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

Jacck said:


> I am not so sure. Just read the entry on wikipedia
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
> "Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress. Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence. "


I've yet to see Wikipedia cited in any scholarly journal or book in philosophy or elsewhere dealing with postmodernism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article that was linked at the beginning of this thread is far more authoritative. Neither, of course, substitute for actually reading the thinkers involved, most of whom are no more difficult to read than Aristotle or Kant. There's also a book titled Postmodernism is not what You Think, that's also good.

I'd be interested to see the connection between postmodern thinking and postmodern contemporary classical music. Carter, Messiaen, Adams, and Glass are all routinely cited as postmodern, and they're all extremely different from each other. Most other fields influenced by postmodernism seem to be more coherent. I wonder why this is?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

ECraigR said:


> I'd be interested to see the connection between postmodern thinking and postmodern contemporary classical music. Carter, Messiaen, Adams, and Glass are all routinely cited as postmodern, and they're all extremely different from each other.


I can't see Messiaen more post-modern than Debussy or Ravel. Same for Carter, at least the works of him, where he seemed a bit like a heir of Ives.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Here is one person's (supposedly a leading scholar's) view on postmodernity. Besides the other definition of it concerning music in the other thread (of fragmentation), it can also mean a different context of something presented than previously used. The music by the minimalists and musique concrete artists encapture this, as also the music of Berio and Schnittke.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-2339-9_6


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

There are two types of people in this world. Those that want to break free from tonality and those that don't. It is more complex than that but those others are simply sub-types of the two types.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

haydnguy said:


> There are two types of people in this world. Those that want to break free from tonality and those that don't. It is more complex than that but those others are simply sub-types of the two types.


Actually there _are_ two types of people in the world. Those who divide people into two groups and those that don't.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Becca said:


> Actually there _are_ two types of people in the world. Those who divide people into two groups and those that don't.


Wrong Becca, there are _3_ types...those that can do Math and those who can't.....


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

My approach is different from the views expressed here. 
My belief is that a composer can express music in such a way as Elliott Carter and Schnittke, and still be considered within the traditional groups of classical music composers lists. 

Where others who approach music in similar forms, Boulez, Stockhausen to mention only 2 among the many hundreds of famous post modern movement in music, the late classical period, say 1960-2000ish,,, 
this large group does not offer the same

1) quality of works = no fluff/fillers/tricks/no gimmickery

2) does not offer the same variety of forms in music, lacks true symphonic forms, few to no concertos, little to no chamber. 

3) back to quality of works, none from this group can match Schnittke's Carter's genuine creative methodology, the depths and ranges of the material offers little to make the listener want to come back after 2 , 10,1000 listens. 
Carter and Schnittke's music hold a sense of timelessness that is the musical genius in the music matches , equals , surpasses the great classical composers who worked before them. 


The common opinion is that Tchaikovsky was a greater composer *oh heay, so much greater than Elliott Carter*,,,yet how many of us Modernists have desire to, listen to Tchaikovsky? Often? or if ever again in their life?


Elliott Carter; s music though seemingly similar to other post mods, hasa certain creative quality which transcends this modernistic times we live in. 
= carter is not post modern, his music is part of the great classical tradition beginning with Bach/Vivaldi/others,,,and this trad in the arts , has now officially ended with the passing odf
Elliott Carter
Hans
Henze. 
Both 1 week apart
2012

The post modern/contemporary style of music is huge, wide ranging and very popular,,,,which is why I tag it Post Modernistic musical artist , avant garde, art, , , What irkes me is to see the word ~Classical~ attached to any from this llarge group. So what they use traditional classical instruments. 
Its the quality, variety and quality of woks that determine who makes the list of 
Great Classical Composers, final call list. 
As that door is seal and locked, forever. 

So no , Ligeti is just modern music, has nothing whatsoever to do with the classical forms. A brach of music I am not at all interested in. 
Boulez, a classical composer? 
You got to be joking , right? 
Stockhausen might be world famous, but to be considered classical music, , I can not make the connection work out. . Interesting music for sure, but 
no cigar. 

There is late 20th C classical composers, and there is late 20th Century artists/avant garde. *post modern&*,,,no for that might imply it is still part of the classical genre. 
This is unacceptable. Lets call the music, late 20th C musical art.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

As far as postmodernism in music is concerned, one must be aware that music does not convey concrete meanings like language and the world of "ideas." As Mandryka pointed out, the work of art does not have to exhibit the same "values" as other art, or need to be unified. It is about relationships, and to question the place and function of art. It is a "meta-form." It does not "play the game" art is supposed to play. It can also "follow one thread" of an artistic vision.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Penderecki like Lutoslawski, are both 
modern avant garde artists.
Classical composers? Not
. Both are interesting, if you like late modern art.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> My approach is different from the views expressed here.
> 
> My belief is that a composer can express music in such a way as Elliott Carter and Schnittke, and still be considered within the traditional groups of classical music composers lists.
> 
> ...


yours is not an approach, and you're going way off topic. You're just expressing again your personal taste.

1. the quality of the works of many of the composers you mentioned is for many people here, outstanding, and are in fact celebrated as some of the greatest composers in the last century.

2. a lot of those composers have symphonies (Berio, Norgard) and concertos (Ligeti, Boulez)

3. a lot of those composers are usually celebrated much more than Henze and Schnittke.

so, according to YOUR absurd ideas, the composers you criticized should be seen as modern and those who you like are post-modern. (and by the way as you can see here Henze is mentioned as post-modern: https://www.discogs.com/Hans-Werner...utsche-Grammophon-Recordings/release/12562296). 
But I don't think you care at all for the argument of what truly makes the difference between modernism and postmedernism, besides the umpteenth repetion that the composers you like are modern and those you don't like are postmodern.


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

norman bates said:


> I can't see Messiaen more post-modern than Debussy or Ravel. Same for Carter, at least the works of him, where he seemed a bit like a heir of Ives.


Well chronologically, Messiaen comes around the time of postmodernity, while Debussy and Ravel are just a bit earlier. The same with Carter. I think Messiaen and Carter's attention to tonality and experimentally distinguish them in this regard from Debussy and Ravel.


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Penderecki like Lutoslawski, are both
> modern avant garde artists.
> Classical composers? Not
> . Both are interesting, if you like late modern art.


Both are classically trained composers. I'm not sure you can just disregard that.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

norman bates said:


> yours is not an approach, and you're going way off topic. You're just expressing again your personal taste.
> 
> 1. the quality of the works of many of the composers you mentioned is for many people here, outstanding, and are in fact celebrated as some of the greatest composers in the last century.
> 
> ...


Well obviously we stand opposed. If I go to Boulez's concerto, just what will I find? same old avant garde whirly wiz.

I tried Noragrd's *symphonies*, In the classical sense? Not buying. 
He needs to revision his symphonies.

I guess we will just have to wait the classical community's decision over the next 100 years to decide who makes it intom the classical tradition and whose music just lacks enough authentic genius.

Obviously you and I stand diametrically opposed about this issue of who is who in late 20TH C Music.

With me , tiers/ranking is EVERYTHING. 
I only seek 
le crème de la crème .
Yet do make concessions/exceptions now and then. 
Like Tubin /composed 1950's-1970's. , nice neo romantic./modern works, Borrows lots of RVW and from Sibelius, with nice payback of Interest. 
Tubin is of the classical tradition.

The others you mention are avant garde,,a lower level of creativity.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

ECraigR said:


> Both are classically trained composers. I'm not sure you can just disregard that.


OK, you are correct, 
Lets say minor 20Th C classical composers. 
Minor composers in history , like Rimsky Korsakov, Mussorgsky, are Ok for a newbie, but after a few listens, it wears thin , real fast


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

ECraigR said:


> Both are classically trained composers. I'm not sure you can just disregard that.


it's also funny because Penderecki composed also a lot more traditional stuff.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Well obviously we stand opposed. If I go to Boulez's concerto, just what will I find? same old avant garde whirly wiz.
> 
> I tried Noragrd's *symphonies*, In the classical sense? Not buying.
> He needs to revision his symphonies.
> ...


I wasn't talking of my tastes (you weren't here, but I've STRONGLY criticized Boulez in many threads in the past). I'm saying that the argument was what makes postmodernism "postmodern", and you're unable to say anything even remotely convincing about it, to the point that using those three points the composers you admire should be considered post-modern.
The only thing you seems to be interested is saying that a lot of composers are crap (and therefore post-modern) while the few selected by you are superior and the only ones that belong to the sacred tradition of classical music, no matter what the argument of the thread is.

By the way, avantgarde and modernity are terms relative to a period. In the late 18th century, Debussy was the avantgarde. In the early twentieth century, Bartok and Stravinsky were the avantgarde. In the 50s Carter was the avantgarde. In the 17th century Gesualdo was the modern composer. There were books talking of "modern manner" centuries ago.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

paulbest said:


> I tried Noragrd's *symphonies*, In the classical sense? Not buying.
> He needs to revision his symphonies.


I'm sure he'll do so immediately once he has been informed of your decision.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

ECraigR said:


> I've yet to see Wikipedia cited in any scholarly journal or book in philosophy or elsewhere dealing with postmodernism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article that was linked at the beginning of this thread is far more authoritative. Neither, of course, substitute for actually reading the thinkers involved, most of whom are no more difficult to read than Aristotle or Kant. There's also a book titled Postmodernism is not what You Think, that's also good.
> 
> I'd be interested to see the connection between postmodern thinking and postmodern contemporary classical music. Carter, Messiaen, Adams, and Glass are all routinely cited as postmodern, and they're all extremely different from each other. Most other fields influenced by postmodernism seem to be more coherent. I wonder why this is?


these postmodernist journals are a laughing stock
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

here you have a nice review about the the postmodern assault on science
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/pdf/embor2012130a.pdf


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> Well obviously we stand opposed. If I go to Boulez's concerto, just what will I find? same old avant garde whirly wiz.
> 
> I tried Noragrd's *symphonies*, In the classical sense? Not buying.
> He needs to revision his symphonies.
> ...


Hey Paul, I assume you're Classically trained to know which composers belong in the Classical tradition?


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

Jacck said:


> these postmodernist journals are a laughing stock
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
> 
> here you have a nice review about the the postmodern assault on science
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/pdf/embor2012130a.pdf


Anyone can fake knowledge and get it published in a journal. This is a problem with peer-review and academia, not a philosophical and cultural movement. The article on science is weird, as I've not once seen Paul Feyerbrand listed as a postmodernist, and most of his philosophical descendants are Anglo-American philosophers. Likewise with Khun. Furthermore, questioning science is not assaulting science. Everything should be questioned; don't scientists say that?


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

paulbest said:


> OK, you are correct,
> Lets say minor 20Th C classical composers.
> Minor composers in history , like Rimsky Korsakov, Mussorgsky, are Ok for a newbie, but after a few listens, it wears thin , real fast


Okay, you can decide they're minor. A lot would disagree with you, and that says nothing about postmodernism and their relationship to it.


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Well obviously we stand opposed. If I go to Boulez's concerto, just what will I find? same old avant garde whirly wiz.
> 
> I tried Noragrd's *symphonies*, In the classical sense? Not buying.
> He needs to revision his symphonies.
> ...


How on earth is avant-garde a lower level of creativity? And why rank everything? How is that even possible?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Isn't postmodernism what we call the latest period of western art music? Classical music is the likes of Haydn, Boccherini, Mozart, Cherubini, Beethoven...And avantgarde composers are the highly creative ones!


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Isn't postmodernism what we call the latest period of western art music? Classical music is the likes of Haydn, Boccherini, Mozart, Cherubini, Beethoven...And avantgarde composers are the highly creative ones!


Yes, I believe you're probably right. Postmodernism is really just a chronological measurement, in a lot of ways. If someone were to come along and compose a very tonally stable string quartet, adhering to earlier formal standards, then I'd argue they're still postmodern, in a sense, because they're reacting so strongly against it as to eliminate it. I don't really think there's a substantial difference between postmodern composers and the rest, and the same goes with writers, thinkers, etc.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Postmodernism is over as an idea, it's already here in many ways in how people choose to live their lives, valuing no moral over another, except for equality. When everything is equal--nothing excellent nothing mediocre--moral order dies, and people act by their bodily desires and whims.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism
Here we go! I'm sure postmodernism doesn't include going totally immoral. I liked the links to music showing the diversity of postmodernism.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

norman bates said:


> I wasn't talking of my tastes (you weren't here, but I've STRONGLY criticized Boulez in many threads in the past). I'm saying that the argument was what makes postmodernism "postmodern", and you're unable to say anything even remotely convincing about it, to the point that using those three points the composers you admire should be considered post-modern.
> The only thing you seems to be interested is saying that a lot of composers are crap (and therefore post-modern) while the few selected by you are superior and the only ones that belong to the sacred tradition of classical music, no matter what the argument of the thread is.
> 
> By the way, avantgarde and modernity are terms relative to a period. In the late 18th century, Debussy was the avantgarde. In the early twentieth century, Bartok and Stravinsky were the avantgarde. In the 50s Carter was the avantgarde. In the 17th century Gesualdo was the modern composer. There were books talking of "modern manner" centuries ago.


True, Stravinsky was considered The Avant Garde principle voice at the time of Rite of Spring,. So yes, the term 8avantgarde* is not proper in my context....
Hummm I am in a bind of sorts,,,well I just made a long winded post over at another topic,,which I will post here,,,please disregard my mention of avantgarde and replace that term with 
*post modern experimentalism*. 
Which some is, others less so, but I have to lump all together in one big pile for convenience of argument sake.

How /and who will make standrads to properly tier the many faceted post modernistic movement in music??
As I have repeatedly mention.
1) number of scores
2) quality
3) how varied, concertos?Symphonies? Chamber?

How effective is the music to move the listener to want to come back for more?

In these late modern times,,,seems everyone is completely divided from the next,,,, No standard can be raised, only ina general sense. 
Hopefully my long winded post in the link will provide some more answers.

But bottom line is , no , much of post mod is just that POST, after the fact, = not part of the classical tradition,. 
and I ain;t budging a inch from this ideology.

Please look over post 
#25 for more clarifications on where I stand on these critical issues of deciding, who names remain in the classical tradition, and whose music will be tagged, *post modern art*

Are You Blinded By Your Ears?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism
> Here we go! I'm sure postmodernism doesn't include going totally immoral. I liked the links to music showing the diversity of postmodernism.


No, the future is an opposite reaction, a return to order. How extreme the order depends on how extreme the debauchery gets.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2019)

Becca said:


> "Postmodernists believe that if they make their terminology sufficiently obscurantist, sesquipedalian, and circumloquatious, nobody will notice the lack of substance. To a large extent, they are correct in that belief. " - Urban Dictionary


Absolutely brilliant. And a belief in everything is a belief in nothing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2019)

1996D said:


> people act by their bodily desires and whims.


Bring it on! :devil:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

paulbest said:


> Penderecki like Lutoslawski, are both
> modern avant garde artists.
> Classical composers? Not
> . Both are interesting, if you like late modern art.


Is this really what this forum is coming to? An arguments that a term "classical music" is being used wrongly by the entire industry (record companies, musicians, orchestras, critics etc)? What is the point? It's not going to change but why do you need it to? I do worry about what I think is a genuine misuse of the term - the way that anything played by an orchestra gets called "classical" these days - but I see that as a result of commercial interest. I am sure I cannot stop it, though, and really don't worry too much that some people swallow it.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Is this really what this forum is coming to? An arguments that a term "classical music" is being used wrongly by the entire industry (record companies, musicians, orchestras, critics etc)? What is the point? It's not going to change but why do you need it to? I do worry about what I think is a genuine misuse of the term - the way that anything played by an orchestra gets called "classical" these days - but I see that as a result of commercial interest. I am sure I cannot stop it, though, and really don't worry too much that some people swallow it.


Excellent post, and need to recant my above petulant , shallow comments on the 2 east European composers,

Do you see mmbls's comment on the post Modern topic, there he mentions how he has witnessed the decline in many areas of concert programming, many other segments of The Industry,,,= Decline, with no end in sight, I listen to FM Classical here in New Orlaens, ,, not much dif from 20 years ago,. 
My guess in 20 yrs from now, programming will be very similar if not EXACTLY the same.

I only tune in to note how behind the times the station is locked into, stagnant , and thei have no idea they are *behind the times*.

I ck the major orchestras of the world, the program schedules,,,hardly 1 concert , world wide that interests me, ,,1/2 show is not worth the full price of a ticket,,,especially if the only work I am interested in, plays in the 2nd half.

Who is willing to sit through a music selection , which one has no interest in?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ultimately postmodernism is about how we view history. In relation to music it saw the decline of formalism and emergence of a diversity of approaches, taking into account context and ideology. The emphasis on a piece of music being an organic whole that could be subjected to rigorous analysis stretched from Beethoven to Boulez. After the 1960's formalist analytical approaches - from Schenkerian analysis to those coming out of serialism - became less dominant, and the new musicology embraced aesthetics, culture and history.

Although it only mentions music in passing - from memory Richard Strauss and Stravinsky - I found _The Paradoxy of Modernism_ by Robert Scholes (2006) an interesting read regarding the relationship between modernism and postmodernism. He focuses on literature and visual art, and his main argument was that to come to grips with modernism we have to accept its limitations and understand its contradictions. Despite all its posturings about wiping the slate clean, modernism didn't - and probably couldn't - fully reject what came before it. Elements of modernism grew out of the past, as always art builds upon art.

I think that it boils down to how we view the most significant changes that happened in music from time to time. Do we view certain key moments like the move from modal to diatonic music (or from the latter to atonality and serialism) as being revolutions in themselves or as being part of gradual evolutionary changes? I'm producing a thumbnail sketch, but postmodernism is more inclined to take the latter view - especially of situating gamechangers like Monteverdi, Beethoven or Schoenberg within the context of their lives, times and inspiration.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Now that technology has "caught up to itself" and is becoming more and more refined, change will slow down, and history will once more emerge.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> . From this forum I surprisingly came to realize that it is a very debatable term, even provoking anger it seems!


Very debatable, 
and yes, arouses , bouts of extremism, agitations, with lots of vociferous opinions. If not doctrines and dogmas..
I am a confessed dogmatic and doctrinaire.
And no, there is no amount of argument that will alter my staunch opinion. 
which opinions have received a probation. 
I guess we will just have to carry on this debate for the next 100 years and see who's who among composers post 2100.

= when the dust all settles. 
wheat from the chaff.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This is not strictly on topic but TC has come a long way with regards to postmodernism. Have we finally caught up to being in the present?

When I joined in 2009 there was a dominance of views that can be labelled conservative. The debates involving Hanslick and Wagner, on absolute versus pure music where not far underneath the surface of many topics discussed.

Then after a brief lull came the rise of the modernists around 2013, which took us back to the culture wars that peaked in the 1950's (Boulez, Babbitt, Liebowitz would have been right at home here). Ironically there was denial that aspects of music other than strictly related to the score - such as ideology, aesthetics, history - could have anything to do with these discussions. They said _let's stick to the music_, but they where really saying _let's stick to the music and avoid anything else that would bring our views into question_. Like the formalist ideology they espoused, they where anything but objective. Their best attempt at arguing against even the existence of modernist ideology was that they listened to a wide range of music other than what could be called modern. So they weren't only omnivores - like many - but what I call _righteous omnivores_. Figure it out. Not too hard, I think.

Now in 2019 we have caught up with reality, it seems. Postmodernism exists. We might not all accept what it amounts to, but we on the whole accept that it has been a force since around half a century now. Wow! This is quite a revolution at TC. Are the years of TC being an echo chamber finally over? I won't hold my breath but it would be great if that where true.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

My general observation is that composers that have a more defined set of rules or techniques don't like to be called Postmodernists, but Modernists. Postmodernism suggests acting on a whim, at least what people tend to think. How those Modernist composers are perceived can be totally different than what they intend. Hence Stockhausen and Boulez labelled postmodern which they themselves react strongly against.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

deep, you lost me, ...wish i could participate in the discussion. 
I am left out in the cold as to how this 1945-2000 era in music history unfolded. 
I mean take Allan Pettersson. He may have run into some of the issues you mention, but his bio docu on a short video i've seen about his life, seems to show a man caught up in his last yrs of suffering , all about creating the music he felt needed to be written as a historical testimony of how he viewed what has taken place in history and will continue to take place. 
He was not as social as say Boulez, Stockhausen, Henze and Carter. Even much less of a socialite than Alfred Schnittke. That is to say Pettersson was more caught up in his ideas , so he intentionally left out what was going on around him as far as ideologies over at the major avant garde circles in New York, London, paris, Berlin and anywhere else the avant garde was playing their music, and feeling *something special*. 
He shunned that mod/post mod avant garde group , more so than Schnittke. For as we know Schnittke was mod/post mod/avant garde and all other things in his music. 
Pettersson stuck to his agenda,, not paying any attention to *the new hip music*. (aka avant garde) as it shows in all his symphonies. 
a theme runs through the entire 15 (I delete 16 as part of the cycle). 
many folks do not like his theme. They believe it s too dark, brooding, self pitying, etc etc, i mean , you just can not believe all the criticism s tossed at his music. if every comment against his music was a rotten tomato, the stage would have to be cleaned with a major cleaning equipment loadinga dump truck. He really is ,,despised. . 
You will find more put downs of Pettersson than any other composer you will come across, well except John Cage, he really takes a beating,,and oh Glass, folks love to break Glass' windows


So yeah I get some of your drift, *lets stay within muisc as pure art, not involve this art with ideas, philosophies, *...yet in the end what kind of muisc do we have. What does the muisc of Stockhausen, carter, berio, Ligeti, actually say to you?
To me, nothing. I get no meaning whatsoever of these composers. its just *pure music*,,devoid of *thoughts*, = dead, lifeless, just sounds comming out the speakers. At the end i am only left with *wow, really cool man*. At my age, i am looking for meaning. Something that speaks. Knowledge of things i know something about. Now sure, I can not figure out exactly what carter is trying to get across. If anything. but its not like every work has to be interpreted in a language. But some personal emotional level connection has to be made, otherwise its just *music* and nothing more. I just can not connect with Bach, Stockhausen, just to name 2 of the germanic composers. Both composers are just *music* nothing touching on a personal level. 

I mean we live in a ignorant world,,do we really what to listen to music void of meanings/speech of higher thoughts? 
Meaning has to be inherent in music or its just *music* and nothing more.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> My general observation is that composers that have a more defined set of rules or techniques don't like to be called Postmodernists, but Modernists. Postmodernism suggests acting on a whim, at least what people tend to think. How those Modernist composers are perceived can be totally different than what they intend. Hence Stockhausen and Boulez labelled postmodern which they themselves react strongly against.


Excellent post. 
I have not read up on the things you mention here. 
Yes I label both Stockhausen and Boulez as clearly in the post modern camp,, both to me are The Kings of post ModernISM. 
I just can not place either as modernists. Sorry, just can't. 
I've done my very best to listen with all fair openness as i possible can, but it came up short. 
Others here have argued with me that i am not listening properly to either composer and the majority of avant gardeists here feel my labeling both as post mod is unreasonable, incredulous, w/o merit.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

We should remember post mod, mod,, are only vague categories, having no strict timeline. take Elliott Carter's last works, 2000-2002. Modernism,,Now take many other composer writing in ,, take Stockhausen writing in the 1950's, Post modernISM. 
Linear time does not define the style, its the methodology which does.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> We should remember post mod, mod,, are only vague categories, having no strict timeline. take Elliott Carter's last works, 2000-2002. Modernism,,Now take many other composer writing in ,, take Stockhausen writing in the 1950's, Post modernISM.
> *Linear time does not define the style, its the methodology which does*.


Agree with that statement, but still waiting from you on how the methodology of Stockhausen defines him as postmodern and Carter as Modern.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Excellent post.
> I have not read up on the things you mention here.
> Yes I label both Stockhausen and Boulez as clearly in the post modern camp,, both to me are The Kings of post ModernISM.
> I just can not place either as modernists. Sorry, just can't.
> ...


don't worry, the world doesn't care what you think and if you like their music. They were considered modernists (and modernists who were strongly against post-modernism) for a better reason than your taste.
Your taste is not what makes a composer modern or post-modern, nor just the period (unless someone wants to say that all the composers in the late 19th early 20th century were impressionists like Debussy). It's their approach to music, and they were without a doubt, modern composers.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> We should remember post mod, mod,, are only vague categories, having no strict timeline. take Elliott Carter's last works, 2000-2002. Modernism,,Now take many other composer writing in ,, take Stockhausen writing in the 1950's, Post modernISM.
> Linear time does not define the style, its the methodology which does.


indeed, and they were not post-modern composers, because post-modernism was a different thing. You should really check out some other field like architecture to understand what postmodernism was all about, because I think you really don't have a clue.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree with that statement, but still waiting from you on how the methodology of Stockhausen defines him as postmodern and Carter as Modern.


Shades of grey here. 
So I can not give a clear answer.
Lets say, based on my musical experiences from Sibelius, Mozart, Ravel, Rachmaninov, I can see a transition from these sounds to Henze and Carter, Stockhausen seems to me a ,,diversion...
Sure Carter and Stockhausen has similar compositions. It is the variety and quality of the works which divides the 2.

Here this might help,,,scan down Stockhausen's list of works.

http://www.karlheinzstockhausen.org/complete_list_of_works_english.htm

Now scan Elliott Carter's music list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Elliott_Carter

I think if you compare the 2 lists side by side, you will have the answer you are looking for, to my proposition of the division of the 2 great composers.
I guess no one cared to take time to consider Stockhausen's list of works...To me he is sort of a classical Vangelis ,,,with the 1 exception of his Grupon for 3 orchestras. Which as i say, could go either way, that work is border line classical traditionalists, making it modernistIC, but also post modern. 
Carter's work for 3 orchestras is cleanly, clearly a solid modern work. 
I do not hear both on the same level of craftmanship.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

norman bates said:


> indeed, and they were not post-modern composers, because post-modernism was a different thing. You should really check out some other field like architecture to understand what postmodernism was all about, because I think you really don't have a clue.


Modernism began really with Scriabin late sonatas, Szymanowski's early works, Ravel and Debussy. 
To get past these doors, which I have set up, a composer has to have some credentials. 
I am a post minded style guy in my attitudes, very selective, only wanting the very finest. Yet am only committed to composers who can offer music which can pass the tests of these great modern masters. 
I do not , like many of the post mod crowd , just ball up most late 20th C and call it *classical music*
Everyone here will have their own forms of dividing and selecting, This is the way I make my decisions. 
Does the composer carry on what Ravel began. 
Ravel is my foundation stone. Music has to be heard next to his music. 
As I say, others have their own way of detecting what they like, and what they reject.


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Modernism began really with Scriabin late sonatas, Szymanowski's early works, Ravel and Debussy.
> To get past these doors, which I have set up, a composer has to have some credentials.
> I am a post minded style guy in my attitudes, very selective, only wanting the very finest. Yet am only committed to composers who can offer music which can pass the tests of these great modern masters.
> I do not , like many of the post mod crowd , just ball up most late 20th C and call it *classical music*
> ...


Postmodern composers intentionally meant to break with the tradition. So you can hardly hold that against them.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Modernism began really with Scriabin late sonatas, Szymanowski's early works, Ravel and Debussy.
> To get past these doors, which I have set up, a composer has to have some credentials.
> I am a post minded style guy in my attitudes, very selective, only wanting the very finest. Yet am only committed to composers who can offer music which can pass the tests of these great modern masters.
> I do not , like many of the post mod crowd , just ball up most late 20th C and call it *classical music*
> ...


I know what modernism is, but we are here talking about post-modernism. And you're again not saying anything about what makes post-modernism. 
Postmodernism wasn't a label created as "composers and music that Paulbest doesn't like". It had a meaning, and it's not that one. The fact that you like a certain composer or not is completely irrelevant. It does not have to do with anyone's tastes.
Unless you seriously think that in a encyclopedia or in a philosophical dictionary one can read "ask Paulbest from Talkclassical, if he doesn't like it, it's postmodern".


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

ECraigR said:


> Postmodern composers intentionally meant to break with the tradition. So you can hardly hold that against them.


Yes this is true, Lets take Anton Webern,, positioning Webern's music next to say, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, one can clearly hear a difference. 
This is certainly a *breakage* of old forms, to say the least. Island castaway survivor with all Brahm;s, might make for a long stay,,,whereas a few opus of Webern,,I really might get to love the place,,,fishing while sleeping in a hammock. Webern on,,,please do not rescue to.

Not sure why it is this modern world has altered our senses, our musical appreciations have evolved. 
We now are amazed at each listen to Schnittke and would gladly pay huge monies fora Henze cd, if that is what it would cost,,,whereas we can look at most pre 1900 composers and for FREE, pay only shipping, we might not click buy now button. > So how did we get so far away from our roots, our traditions? 
Its a journey, a path, a challenge, a discovery. 
I mean if you had a time machine and brought Schnittke 's Requiem into a old russian cathedreal,,the czar would have your head. 
Or if we stopped a Beethoven concert there in Vienna/ or Berlin and played Henze on a magnificent Jadis JA500 amp, with massive SEAS speakers , around the year 1850, the reactions would shocking, revolting, , perhaps fainting from the ladies. Men in arms. 
If I may borrow the title from a otherwise worthless book of trash
*Its a Brave New World*
The old forms are just that dated.
Yet from this death arises new life. 
It is these composers which breathes new life into old forms, which i seek and embrace. 
I want to know who are the Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky of todays music. 
Break too far away from traditions,,now the composer sounds more like music from something other than , classicalm tradition. Which is why I reject so many post 1950 composers. 
I just can not hear any living connection.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

norman bates said:


> I know what modernism is, but we are here talking about post-modernism. And you're again not saying anything about what makes post-modernism.
> Postmodernism wasn't a label created as "composers and music that Paulbest doesn't like". It had a meaning, and it's not that one. The fact that you like a certain composer or not is completely irrelevant. It does not have to do with anyone's tastes.
> Unless you seriously think that in a encyclopedia or in a philosophical dictionary one can read "ask Paulbest from Talkclassical, if he doesn't like it, it's postmodern".


well i am only offering a rough sketch of how i wish to define modern and reject that which fails to meet these expectations. 
Everyone here has to figure out for himself, how he will embrace what is truly modern classical composer, and that which is spurious , if not anti-classical tradition. 
Somehow or other i can detect a composer who has not broken so far off the beaten paths, and still remains a classical musical tradition composer. 
Maybe it is my years of listening to Mozart, Sibelius, Rachmaninov, Ravel/Debussy , somehow these main stays within my early years, have programed my sensibilities, my preference for 1 composer and yet strongly reject another contemporary.

Take the Messiaenists, The Ligetists, 
You don;'t see these fans rushing over to Pettersson and Henze camps. 
No they are far far away. As i say, this modern world is splintered into countless sects and cults, 
The Democratic party like its nemesis , both are splintered into multitude of divisions. 
Religions , all hating on one another. Protestantism has countless sects, you will see 2 baptist churches just 1 block away , neither even speak with the other. 
The only thing holding as a unit is sports team of a city, even there, you may find traitors to the home team. 
I hate sports, so i hate the New Orleans saints, Yet others spend $$$$ in support. 
Divisions abound . Not so in Beethoven's day. 
The main show in european cities, was Beethoven. Still is. 
It is this hegemony,, primacy given to the romantics which i am set against. as much as i am against spurious post modern composers, lumped in with the classical tradition. I am fighting 2 fronts, with little backup support. I stand alone.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> well i am only offering a rough sketch of how i wish to define modern and reject that which fails to meet these expectations.


but your wish has nothing to do with definitions that were created with a certain meaning. So no, "everyone here has to figure out for himself" does not apply to the definition of postmodernism.



paulbest said:


> Take the Messiaenists, The Ligetists,
> You don;'t see these fans rushing over to Pettersson and Henze camps.


I love both Messiaen and Ligeti, two of my very favorite composers. I don't have anything against Petterson and Henze (actually I've liked the works I've heard of them) and I don't see any "camp".



paulbest said:


> No they are far far away. As i say, this modern world is splintered into countless sects and cults,
> The Democratic party like its nemesis , both are splintered into multitude of divisions.
> Religions , all hating on one another. Protestantism has countless sects, you will see 2 baptist churches just 1 block away , neither even speak with the other.
> The only thing holding as a unit is sports team of a city, even there, you may find traitors to the home team.
> ...


I don't have anything against the fact that you have your own taste: I'm saying again that you're using the word postmodern in a way that does not have any sense for the rest of the world. A world that often actually defines Henze and Schnittke as post-modern composers. 
But it seems that you are completely unable to understand that the world had already defined in a certain way the meaning of words and you'll keep wandering about "post mod crowds" (like the fans of Schnittke and Henze?)

by the way, Messiaen started composing in 1917 (i thought he started composing in the thirties but he started much earlier) , and was basically an impressionist influenced by Debussy and exotic music, like other impressionist french composers of that period, like Debussy himself, Ravel, Koechlin, Sorabji, Jehan Alain, Delage, Griffes... only in your mind this could fit into something like postmodernism


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Take the Messiaenists, The Ligetists,
> You don;'t see these fans rushing over to Pettersson and Henze camps.
> No they are far far away. As i say, this modern world is splintered into countless sects and cults,


I love both Messiaen and Ligeti. I also love both Pettersson and Henze. I also love both Bach and Beethoven. The camps you see don't exist. I've never seen any evidence of them, besides in your own writings.

You're waging a war with shadows.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

when I see Henze , Pettersson, Carter, Schnittke on concert programs on a world wide basis,,I will halt my assault on the classical powers that Be. 
and the promoters of such agenda. 
You may wish to imagine this battle does not have reality,,i see it all too clearly. 
i might be deaf to the greatness of the great romantics, but i am not blind. 
They are shoving my favs off the charts. 
I am a iconoclast ,,,i just need to watch what i say and how i say it,,,


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

paulbest said:


> when I see Henze , Pettersson, Carter, Schnittke on concert programs on a world wide basis,,I will halt my assault on the classical powers that Be.
> and the promoters of such agenda.
> You may wish to imagine this battle does not have reality,,i see it all too clearly.
> i might be deaf to the greatness of the great romantics, but i am not blind.
> ...


Those 4 will never be programmed as much as the main stars so you are in for a futile fight.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Yes , and so I must refrain from vitriolic rhetoric, and stay within the boundaries of civility. 
Most likely when you see me back again it will be on the Henze topic, as i must finish his autobiography and other books. 
You guys take care.
God Bless


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Those 4 will never be programmed as much as the main stars so you are in for a futile fight.


by the way, even the composers Paul thinks are pushed by an agenda and strongly dislikes (Ligeti, Messiaen, Xenakis, Boulez etc) are extremely far from being programmed frequently. Even Boulez, who was probably one of the most powerful men in modern classical music and effectively often tried to ostracize other composers isn't even remotely listened as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Puccini, Wagner, Verdi, Chopin etc. 
I don't think that even Stravinsky who is probably the most famous modernist composer isn't listened that much compared to the famous composers of the romantic, classical an baroque era.
There isn't any camp in the sense that almost all modern composers are neglected.


----------

