# Listening Intelligently to Atonal Music III



## millionrainbows

For this, the piece is Wolfgang Rihm's Gesungene Zeit (Time Chant) for violin and orchestra, written expressly for Anne-Sophie Mutter.






First, some background to this new terrain, from one of my blogs:

New Conceptions of Musical Time

Linear time: Music that imparts a sense of linear time seems to move towards goals. This quality permeates virtually all of Western music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.

Nonlinear time: Music that evokes a sense of nonlinear time seems to stand still or evolve very slowly.

Western musicians first became aware of nonlinear time during the late 19th century. Debussy's encounter with Javanese gamelan music at the 1889 Paris Exhibition was a seminal event.

Moment Form: broken down connections between musical events in order to create a series of more or less discrete moments. Certain works of Stravinsky, Webern, Messiaen, and Stockhausen exemplify this approach.

Vertical Time: At the other extreme of the nonlinear continuum is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures. A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece. A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases.

Minimalism exemplifies vertical time, but instead of absolute stasis, it generates constant motion. The sense of movement is so evenly paced, and the goals are so vague, that we usually lose our sense of perspective.

Next, words from Wolfgang Rihm himself:

Chanted, not "played."
To me, instrumental virtuosity is an enhancement of vocal abilities. On string instruments, in particular, I love the drawn-out vocal timbre, the vibrating of the ray of time, the energy which collects in the note in order to generate the next note. And between the notes there appears, unimaginably, the thing that we can call music. One note is the experience of music; a second note, the memory of music.
There is something in Wagner which was in the back of my mind, stimulating me, even when I wrote my Viola Concerto (1979-83). Abbreviated and paraphrased, it goes: "spin the thread until it is all spun…"
In a "chanted" time I find the unalterable forward movement of time and the absurd commentary of one who, while living in time, wants to make it stand still, enclose it within the moment, lock it in the moment as if in the living rock---but as movement, energy, breathless but not rigid in death (Artaud's idea of beryl, the singing rock, or a simile that makes sense even musicologically: melos = nerves…).
This calls for a medium with the virtuosic skill to make nerves and strands of thought audible, make them stand out from the immaterial configuration as palpable, sensual shapes.
At the very moment when I was in conversation with Paul Sacher, and he was encouraging me - actually commissioning me - to write for Anne-Sophie Mutter, I remembered in a flash high notes that I had heard her play with uncommon energy, and animation. I had never encountered in her playing that attenuation and impoverishment in SLOW playing in the highest regions that is typical of most virtuosos; on the contrary, precisely in remoteness her playing is richest and most alive. Especially then, when I want to give form to what is most remote, I want its representation to be that of a living being.From that I began to spin. The thread? Until it was all spun?
The orchestra is small, and plays the role of doppelgänger. The violin speaks its nerve-line out into the resounding space - inscribes it there. In essence, this is monophonic music. And it is always song, even where beat and pulse shorten the breath and press it hard.
The line, is it a whole? It all is only a part, a segment, a fragment; it is delivered up to our observation without beginning and without ending - and as we listen we draft the outline of a whole that isn't there. But it must be there...

So with these ideas in mind, it is obvious that a new way of listening is called for here, in order to "intelligently" grasp the piece. How many listeners are prepared enough, experienced enough, open enough, adventurous enough, to even attempt an understanding of music such as this?

It seems to me that music like this is for 'special people' with special abilities of "being," and not for closed minds. The average American "classical music" enthusiast is very likely to view this music, this paradigm, this mindset, this artistic intuitiveness, as "suspect" and "irrational."

You have enough background on the piece to approach it; do you dare?


----------



## Rowy

The less tonal, the more text


----------



## isorhythm

I've heard a lot about Rihm but never gotten around to listening. I think that piece is quite beautiful. You don't need any of that stuff you wrote or quoted to enjoy it.

Do you think "atonal" is the salient quality of this piece? I don't.


----------



## Vox Gabrieli

Another excellent post. Berg and Webern were true disciples to Stravinsky.

If I do not have time to do this myself, for Mark IV a little down the road, I recommend Penderecki Sinfonie No. 1. :tiphat:

Edit: I'm not sure why I would say Berg when clearly the composer was Rihm!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Rowy said:


> The less tonal, the more text


That applies to the visual arts as well. The more abstract a work is... the more likely the use of a poetic/literary title. :lol:

DeKooning noticed the trend himself, pointing out that the very same people who wanted to banish all elements of the narrative and literal/literary spent forever talking and writing about it.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I've heard a lot about Rihm but never gotten around to listening. I think that piece is quite beautiful. You don't need any of that stuff you wrote or quoted to enjoy it.


You can say that with impunity, now that you have actually engaged with the piece enough to "enjoy" it.



isorhythm said:


> Do you think "atonal" is the salient quality of this piece? I don't.


No, I don't; but it is not "tonal" or narrative. After the question of tonality is disposed of, we are faced with how a piece unfolds over time. This is the main concern here; Rihm's attempt to "stop" time.


----------



## millionrainbows

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...DeKooning noticed the trend himself, pointing out that the very same people who wanted to banish all elements of the narrative and literal/literary spent forever talking and writing about it.


That's what they get for trying to "explain" it to the uncomprehending or unaccepting. :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> For this, the piece is Wolfgang Rihm's Gesungene Zeit (Time Chant) for violin and orchestra, written expressly for Anne-Sophie Mutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, some background to this new terrain, from one of my blogs:
> 
> New Conceptions of Musical Time
> 
> Linear time: Music that imparts a sense of linear time seems to move towards goals. This quality permeates virtually all of Western music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.
> 
> Nonlinear time: Music that evokes a sense of nonlinear time seems to stand still or evolve very slowly.
> 
> Western musicians first became aware of nonlinear time during the late 19th century. Debussy's encounter with Javanese gamelan music at the 1889 Paris Exhibition was a seminal event.
> 
> Moment Form: broken down connections between musical events in order to create a series of more or less discrete moments. Certain works of Stravinsky, Webern, Messiaen, and Stockhausen exemplify this approach.
> 
> Vertical Time: At the other extreme of the nonlinear continuum is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures. A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece. A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases.
> 
> Minimalism exemplifies vertical time, but instead of absolute stasis, it generates constant motion. The sense of movement is so evenly paced, and the goals are so vague, that we usually lose our sense of perspective.
> 
> Next, words from Wolfgang Rihm himself:
> 
> Chanted, not "played."
> To me, instrumental virtuosity is an enhancement of vocal abilities. On string instruments, in particular, I love the drawn-out vocal timbre, the vibrating of the ray of time, the energy which collects in the note in order to generate the next note. And between the notes there appears, unimaginably, the thing that we can call music. One note is the experience of music; a second note, the memory of music.
> There is something in Wagner which was in the back of my mind, stimulating me, even when I wrote my Viola Concerto (1979-83). Abbreviated and paraphrased, it goes: "spin the thread until it is all spun…"
> In a "chanted" time I find the unalterable forward movement of time and the absurd commentary of one who, while living in time, wants to make it stand still, enclose it within the moment, lock it in the moment as if in the living rock---but as movement, energy, breathless but not rigid in death (Artaud's idea of beryl, the singing rock, or a simile that makes sense even musicologically: melos = nerves…).
> This calls for a medium with the virtuosic skill to make nerves and strands of thought audible, make them stand out from the immaterial configuration as palpable, sensual shapes.
> At the very moment when I was in conversation with Paul Sacher, and he was encouraging me - actually commissioning me - to write for Anne-Sophie Mutter, I remembered in a flash high notes that I had heard her play with uncommon energy, and animation. I had never encountered in her playing that attenuation and impoverishment in SLOW playing in the highest regions that is typical of most virtuosos; on the contrary, precisely in remoteness her playing is richest and most alive. Especially then, when I want to give form to what is most remote, I want its representation to be that of a living being.From that I began to spin. The thread? Until it was all spun?
> The orchestra is small, and plays the role of doppelgänger. The violin speaks its nerve-line out into the resounding space - inscribes it there. In essence, this is monophonic music. And it is always song, even where beat and pulse shorten the breath and press it hard.
> The line, is it a whole? It all is only a part, a segment, a fragment; it is delivered up to our observation without beginning and without ending - and as we listen we draft the outline of a whole that isn't there. But it must be there...
> 
> So with these ideas in mind, it is obvious that a new way of listening is called for here, in order to "intelligently" grasp the piece. How many listeners are prepared enough, experienced enough, open enough, adventurous enough, to even attempt an understanding of music such as this?
> 
> It seems to me that music like this is for 'special people' with special abilities of "being," and not for closed minds. The average American "classical music" enthusiast is very likely to view this music, this paradigm, this mindset, this artistic intuitiveness, as "suspect" and "irrational."
> 
> You have enough background on the piece to approach it; do you dare?


I have this recording. Rather good and I like it. Don't need the waffle though!


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> I have this recording. Rather good and I like it. Don't need the waffle though!


Well, if you have it and like it, leave the waffle for someone else.

I like to articulate my ideas; I do not wish to be totally intuitive. I like logic and articulated thought. And, I can take it or leave it.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> Well, if you have it and like it, leave the waffle for someone else.
> 
> I like to articulate my ideas; I do not wish to be totally intuitive. I like logic and articulated thought. And, I can take it or leave it.


The quote from Rihm is ineffable twaddle though. " The violin speaks its nerve-line out into the resounding space - inscribes it there", really? Pretentious, moi?

God preserve us from justification like this for music. Just compose and if it's good enough it will find its audience.


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> The quote from Rihm is ineffable twaddle though. " The violin speaks its nerve-line out into the resounding space - inscribes it there", really? Pretentious, moi?
> 
> God preserve us from justification like this for music. Just compose and if it's good enough it will find its audience.


Since the Modernist era artists have been encouraged to think they're aesthetic philosophers by agents, curators, and vendors who recognize that they can sell art to uncomprehending audiences either by flattering the intellectual egos of would-be connoisseurs or by intimidating audiences into accepting the work as somehow important whether or not they actually enjoy it. The "artist's statement" is now a virtually obligatory accompaniment, and probably an expected gateway, to the experience of new art, and it's usually cringeworthy and best ignored.


----------



## Bettina

Woodduck said:


> Since the Modernist era artists have been encouraged to think they're aesthetic philosophers by agents, curators, and vendors who recognize that they can sell art to uncomprehending audiences either by flattering the intellectual egos of would-be connoisseurs or by intimidating audiences into accepting the work as somehow important whether or not they actually enjoy it. *The "artist's statement" is now a virtually obligatory accompaniment,* and probably an expected gateway, to the experience of new art, and it's usually cringeworthy and best ignored.


I suspect that Wagner might be to blame for this trend! :lol:


----------



## jegreenwood

I find it interesting to compare the response of the general public to modernism in various artistic forms. "The Rite of Spring" and Schoenberg's atonalism are roughly contemporaneous with cubism and "Ulysses," "and "The Waste Land." Yet the the art world and the literary world have, for the most part, fully accepted their respective modernist works as well as a range of post-modernist works. The musical world has been much slower to accept modernist as well as post-modernist work.


I actually attribute this to the fact that music works on a more fundamental level of consciousness, one that is more divorced from intellect. This is not intended to "rank" different art forms, just to acknowledge that hey affect us differently.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

jegreenwood said:


> I find it interesting to compare the response of the general public to modernism in various artistic forms. "The Rite of Spring" and Schoenberg's atonalism are roughly contemporaneous with cubism and "Ulysses," "and "The Waste Land." Yet the the art world and the literary world have, for the most part, fully accepted their respective modernist works as well as a range of post-modernist works. The musical world has been much slower to accept modernist as well as post-modernist work.
> 
> I actually attribute this to the fact that music works on a more fundamental level of consciousness, one that is more divorced from intellect. This is not intended to "rank" different art forms, just to acknowledge that hey affect us differently.


Roughly contemporaneous doesn't mean that they have anything in common. 12tone and serial music requires too much and understanding Finnegans Wake would require no efforts compared to understanding something 12tone or serial (they are closer to the experiments of the post-modernists and sci-fi/magical realists/fantasy/ whatever they are called writers).
How much of the modern literature is influenced by the the guys like Samuel Beckett, W. Burroughs etc?
Antinovels and antimusic could have been good experiments, but most of the final product is not pretty.


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> The quote from Rihm is ineffable twaddle though. " The violin speaks its nerve-line out into the resounding space - inscribes it there", really? Pretentious, moi?
> 
> God preserve us from justification like this for music. Just compose and if it's good enough it will find its audience.


Hey, don't use the word 'twaddle.' That's a term reserved for another member.

I don't think Rihm is "justifying" anything, he's just trying to describe his music and artistic process. I think if you were around any _real_ artists, you would understand this sort of language. Sometimes people seem so rational, so literal. That's a very unartistic mode of thought.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Since the Modernist era artists have been encouraged to think they're aesthetic philosophers by agents, curators, and vendors who recognize that they can sell art to uncomprehending audiences either by flattering the intellectual egos of would-be connoisseurs or by intimidating audiences into accepting the work as somehow important whether or not they actually enjoy it. The "artist's statement" is now a virtually obligatory accompaniment, and probably an expected gateway, to the experience of new art, and it's usually cringeworthy and best ignored.


What's cringeworthy are the pedestrian responses to this music. Rihm's statement makes perfect sense in context with the 'moment time' statement. If you are going to dismiss Rihm, you might as well include Varese, Messiaen, Boulez, and many others. This type of 'blanket response' reveals a traditionalist who is not interested in exploring any modern music, but would rather have the museum experience.


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> The quote from Rihm is ineffable twaddle though. " The violin speaks its nerve-line out into the resounding space - inscribes it there", really? Pretentious, moi?
> 
> God preserve us from justification like this for music. Just compose and if it's good enough it will find its audience.


Do you need to "understand" music to enjoy it?

Nahh, man, no professor's gonna tell me what I can and can't like. Just lay back and groove to this Mozart. Here, take a hit off this. W-w-w-w-f-f-f-f....ahh, that's good. Whazzat, a symphony? Hey, that Mozart dude's pretty good.


----------



## JeffD

If you want a text book way to discourage me from listening to something, introduce it like this:



> a new way of listening is called for here, in order to "intelligently" grasp the piece. How many listeners are prepared enough, experienced enough, open enough, adventurous enough, to even attempt an understanding of music such as this? It seems to me that music like this is for 'special people' with special abilities of "being," and not for closed minds. The average American "classical music" enthusiast is very likely to view this music, this paradigm, this mindset, this artistic intuitiveness, as "suspect" and "irrational." You have enough background on the piece to approach it; do you dare?


Regardless of the merits of the piece such an introduction threatens me with segregation from the intelligent "special people with special abilities" into the unintelligent "closed minded", if I don't agree with you.

Its not the music, its the way it is introduced.

IMHO a much better way:



> Here is something kind of cool you might try. Its maybe a little out of the ordinary but I think it repays close attention. One way to think of it is like this, .... give it a listen. What do you think?


----------



## Woodduck

Bettina said:


> I suspect that Wagner might be to blame for this trend! :lol:


Your suspicions are misplaced. Wagner studied, thought and wrote extensively about music and about what he was trying to accomplish. His essay-writing was for his own benefit, to clarify and focus his creative inspiration. He didn't preface his work with pseudo-profound "explanations," or make puerile remarks on concert programs and record jackets. That sort of thing had to await the 20th-century confluence of intellectual pretentiousness and commercialism, which requires that everything prove its value by the way it's marketed to the gullible.


----------



## Woodduck

jegreenwood said:


> I find it interesting to compare the response of the general public to modernism in various artistic forms. "The Rite of Spring" and Schoenberg's atonalism are roughly contemporaneous with cubism and "Ulysses," "and "The Waste Land." Yet the the art world and the literary world have, for the most part, fully accepted their respective modernist works as well as a range of post-modernist works. *The musical world has been much slower to accept modernist as well as post-modernist work.*


That depends on who you think "the musical world" is.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Do you need to "understand" music to enjoy it?
> 
> Nahh, man, no professor's gonna tell me what I can and can't like. Just lay back and groove to this Mozart. Here, take a hit off this. W-w-w-w-f-f-f-f....ahh, that's good. Whazzat, a symphony? Hey, that Mozart dude's pretty good.


We're all smart people who like to talk about ideas, million. We just think your ideas in this particular thread are bad.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> I think if you were around any _real_ artists, you would understand this sort of language. Sometimes people seem so rational, so literal. That's a very unartistic mode of thought.




I wonder if artists, good ones, are so focused at communicating through their art, be it music or painting or whatever, that their communications through words is lacking. In the technical world, one measure of genius is _being able _to effectively explain your work to the generally educated public. One tries, mightily at times, to eschew techno-babble.

But no, I get it. We need special preparation to even understand this sort of language. We are not even smart enough to understand the explanation of the music we don't understand.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> Do you need to "understand" music to enjoy it?
> 
> Nahh, man, no professor's gonna tell me what I can and can't like. Just lay back and groove to this Mozart. Here, take a hit off this. W-w-w-w-f-f-f-f....ahh, that's good. Whazzat, a symphony? Hey, that Mozart dude's pretty good.


But on this thread you appear to be "the professor" who's telling us what to like. Strange reaction indeed. Understanding certainly assists but it's far from crucial in loving music. I certainly do understand that a lot of us don't care why you are so incensed that we don't "intelligently understand " your particular taste in music. Verstehen?


----------



## JeffD

I enjoy a lot of things I don't understand. And I understand a lot of things I don't enjoy.

In those cases where I understand _and_ enjoy, I am not sure which came first. I suppose it occurs both ways.

I often pursue a better understanding of things I enjoy, and often it happens the other way, I don't enjoy something till I do a little research and figure it out.

I think with music, it more often happens that I enjoy it first and then seek to understand it afterwards.


----------



## JeffD

I think it is also very important to say: I don't like or dislike a piece of music_ because _it is of a certain type or genre, and I have no uniform like or dislike for any particular style. (I like more of certain kinds of music, like everyone, and one could perhaps, if asked to, gleen the commonality in what I like and demonstrate that it is a defining characteristic of a particular genre.)

My point is that I don't dislike atonal music as such. A particular piece here and there might appeal to me. I am willing to try. I am not sure how explaining it to me, or telling me how to like it, makes a difference.

(Heck I don't like all tonal music.)


----------



## JeffD

I think the single most effective way to get me to try music is the natural enthusiasm the listeners seem to have for it. 

What I mean is that if you come up to me all excited about a piece of music, and communicate that enthusiasm to me, even if you don't know why you like it or are so overcome with excitement you can't stammer through an explanation, I assure you I will give it a try. I will give it a good try.

All the lecturing as to why I should try it, why educated people like it, why it is logical to like it, why it takes intelligence to like it, why I might be considered little more than a gifted macaque if I don't like it - none of that will encourage me to try it. Quite the opposite, it will ramp up the contrarian in me.


----------



## Taggart

Please be civil and avoid ad hominem remarks. Some posts have been removed.


----------



## jegreenwood

BabyGiraffe said:


> Roughly contemporaneous doesn't mean that they have anything in common. 12tone and serial music requires too much and understanding Finnegans Wake would require no efforts compared to understanding something 12tone or serial (they are closer to the experiments of the post-modernists and sci-fi/magical realists/fantasy/ whatever they are called writers).
> How much of the modern literature is influenced by the the guys like Samuel Beckett, W. Burroughs etc?
> Antinovels and antimusic could have been good experiments, but most of the final product is not pretty.


I not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. Briefly, I would say that trying to achieve even a basic appreciation of "Finnegans Wake" (and I've tried) is far more difficult than achieving a basic appreciation of a Schoenberg Quartet. Do I understand how he chose every note - no. That would take a lifetime, just as it would take a lifetime to understand everything Joyce is trying to do.

What the modernists (and I use the term fairly broadly) have in common is a breaking away from the forms of the 19th Century. Overall, arts lovers have adjusted to the new forms created by graphic and literary artists, better than they have to those created by composers. That's why a Picasso or a Pollock sells for millions, but you can't fill an auditorium for an evening of Schoenberg. If you are saying that is because Schoenberg is more "profound" than Picasso or Joyce, well I suppose everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but to me that pretty much defines comparing apples with oranges. I think the reason we accept modern graphic art and literature more than modern classical music is that the first two are art forms where the intellect plays a greater part in the processing for most people (literary probably more than graphic). We *learn* how to look at a cubist painting or how to read stream of consciousness. For most people music is a more abstract, sensory experience. There are people, including some very wise people on this forum, who apply the same intellect to music, but even within the concert going public they are the exception.

As to how big an influence is Samuel Beckett - I think it's fair to say that in theatre, nobody in the 20th century (except for Chekhov who died in 1904) has had a greater influence.

I now realize I've been anything but brief. I'm going to post this before I have second thoughts about getting into an endless debate.


----------



## jegreenwood

Woodduck said:


> That depends on who you think "the musical world" is.


Fair enough. I'm referring to the people who pay money to go to a concert, buy a book, see a play or visit a museum.


----------



## Woodduck

Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows:

_I think if you were around any real artists, you would understand this sort of language. Sometimes people seem so rational, so literal. That's a very unartistic mode of thought._

I am a "real artist." I make paintings, I make music, and I perform (though I'm mostly retired now). I believe strongly that my work should be allowed to speak for itself. I believe that to attempt to describe my work and to tell people what it "means" is to deprive them of an essential part of the artistic experience and potentially to limit, for them, the range and richness of meaning my art might convey. I feel that to try to "explain" my work may convey a lack of confidence in its quality, a lack of respect for the perceptiveness and imagination of my audience, or an over-eagerness to please. When people have asked me what I've had in mind when creating a painting, I have generally answered something like "shapes and colors"; when they've asked about what I'm tying to "express," I've turned the question back on them and asked what the work says to _them._ They, not I, are the final judge of what I've done, and it isn't my job to rig the jury.

I might also note that artists, when they get together, are more likely to talk about the ridiculous cost of sable brushes, or the upcoming Seahawks versus Packers game, than about the Meaning Of It All. Certainly there are artists of a philosophical turn of mind, and there have been artists whose works are more celebrated for what they "mean" than for what they are (which I think is mainly a modern phenomenon). But even now, when "artists' statements" seem almost _de rigueur,_ that isn't a fate that any "real artist" would welcome.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

jegreenwood said:


> I not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. Briefly, I would say that trying to achieve even a basic appreciation of "Finnegans Wake" (and I've tried) is far more difficult than achieving a basic appreciation of a Schoenberg Quartet. Do I understand how he chose every note - no. That would take a lifetime, just as it would take a lifetime to understand everything Joyce is trying to do.
> 
> What the modernists (and I use the term fairly broadly) have in common is a breaking away from the forms of the 19th Century. Overall, arts lovers have adjusted to the new forms created by graphic and literary artists, better than they have to those created by composers. That's why a Picasso or a Pollock sells for millions, but you can't fill an auditorium for an evening of Schoenberg. If you are saying that is because Schoenberg is more "profound" than Picasso or Joyce, well I suppose everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but to me that pretty much defines comparing apples with oranges. I think the reason we accept modern graphic art and literature more than modern classical music is that the first two are art forms where the intellect plays a greater part in the processing for most people (literary probably more than graphic). We *learn* how to look at a cubist painting or how to read stream of consciousness. For most people music is a more abstract, sensory experience. There are people, including some very wise people on this forum, who apply the same intellect to music, but even within the concert going public they are the exception.
> 
> As to how big an influence is Samuel Beckett - I think it's fair to say that in theatre, nobody in the 20th century (except for Chekhov who died in 1904) has had a greater influence.
> 
> I now realize I've been anything but brief. I'm going to post this before I have second thoughts about getting into an endless debate.


Accepting modern graphic art?
Piccaso and Pollock = who buys this - some millionairs that think it's a good investment. They don't care about the art. If the critics didn't say that it's important, all the modern art goes to the garbage. In the end all this stuff is a marketing campaign. The youngsters want to revolt against the old culture, let's sell them some new ideas, don't mind how ugly are they.
I've yet to see something influenced by Beckett to make it in the pop culture. Or you are talking about the academic circles?
I guess you know Hans Christian Andersen's fable about the emperor's new clothes?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows:
> 
> _I think if you were around any real artists, you would understand this sort of language. Sometimes people seem so rational, so literal. That's a very unartistic mode of thought._
> 
> I believe that to attempt to describe my work and to tell people what it "means" is to deprive them of an essential part of the artistic experience and potentially to limit, for them, the range and richness of meaning my art might convey. I feel that to try to "explain" my work may convey a lack of confidence in its quality, a lack of respect for the perceptiveness and imagination of my audience, or an over-eagerness to please.


I'm sorry if my description of what I hear has been distorted into "explaining what you should hear," but the level of miscomprehension which accompanies this music is the impetus for the demonstration of what I do when I hear it. Listeners need no literal explanations, but seem to need help 'getting on the same page' of modern art, in basic things like abstraction and non-representational art.



Woodduck said:


> When people have asked me what I've had in mind when creating a painting, I have generally answered something like "shapes and colors"; when they've asked about what I'm tying to "express," I've turned the question back on them and asked what the work says to _them._ They, not I, are the final judge of what I've done, and it isn't my job to rig the jury.


But just as a Democracy requires a somewhat educated populace, modern art requires some level of "playing the game" of art, which most stereotypical blanket criticisms seem to deny.



Woodduck said:


> I might also note that artists, when they get together, are more likely to talk about the ridiculous cost of sable brushes, or the upcoming Seahawks versus Packers game, than about the Meaning Of It All. Certainly there are artists of a philosophical turn of mind, and there have been artists whose works are more celebrated for what they "mean" than for what they are (which I think is mainly a modern phenomenon). But even now, when "artists' statements" seem almost _de rigueur,_ that isn't a fate that any "real artist" would welcome.


My friends are thinkers first, capable of philosophical speculation as well as small talk.

Don't lose sight of the purpose of this thread, which is to demonstrate what a genuine encounter with modernism is like, and what it requires, for those who are unable and unwilling to engage. If you are a "deeper" sort, and have already decided "thumbs down," then this is not designed for you.


----------



## millionrainbows

jegreenwood said:


> I not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. Briefly, I would say that trying to achieve even a basic appreciation of "Finnegans Wake" (and I've tried) is far more difficult than achieving a basic appreciation of a Schoenberg Quartet. Do I understand how he chose every note - no. That would take a lifetime, just as it would take a lifetime to understand everything Joyce is trying to do.
> 
> What the modernists (and I use the term fairly broadly) have in common is a breaking away from the forms of the 19th Century. Overall, arts lovers have adjusted to the new forms created by graphic and literary artists, better than they have to those created by composers. That's why a Picasso or a Pollock sells for millions, but you can't fill an auditorium for an evening of Schoenberg. If you are saying that is because Schoenberg is more "profound" than Picasso or Joyce, well I suppose everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but to me that pretty much defines comparing apples with oranges. I think the reason we accept modern graphic art and literature more than modern classical music is that the first two are art forms where the intellect plays a greater part in the processing for most people (literary probably more than graphic). We *learn* how to look at a cubist painting or how to read stream of consciousness. For most people music is a more abstract, sensory experience. There are people, including some very wise people on this forum, who apply the same intellect to music, but even within the concert going public they are the exception.
> 
> As to how big an influence is Samuel Beckett - I think it's fair to say that in theatre, nobody in the 20th century (except for Chekhov who died in 1904) has had a greater influence.
> 
> I now realize I've been anything but brief. I'm going to post this before I have second thoughts about getting into an endless debate.


I think people are more visually oriented than aural, and that's where the problem is. Music is less literal, so it can go either way: either shock or ignored. Plus, it's gone once it has sounded; a picture is more persistent.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> The "artist's statement" is now a virtually obligatory accompaniment, and probably an expected gateway, to the experience of new art, and it's usually cringeworthy and best ignored.


Quite. My wife, in setting up her degree show, and at other exhibitions, had to write her 'artist's statement' and cringed at the prospect. She wanted her work to speak for itself - either people responded to it or they didn't - no waffle required.


----------



## Barbebleu

MacLeod said:


> Quite. My wife, in setting up her degree show, and at other exhibitions, had to write her 'artist's statement' and cringed at the prospect. She wanted her work to speak for itself - either people responded to it or they didn't - no waffle required.


My brother refuses to do so and will withdraw his stuff if the gallery insists. He has had pictures exhibited by the Royal Scottish Academy and feels that if they don't require an "artist's statement" he doesn't need to justify his art to anyone.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Quite. My wife, in setting up her degree show, and at other exhibitions, had to write her 'artist's statement' and cringed at the prospect. She wanted her work to speak for itself - either people responded to it or they didn't - no waffle required.


This is just an anti-intellectual stance, typical.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> This is just an anti-intellectual stance, typical.


Really? Why ?


----------



## Barbebleu

MacLeod said:


> Really? Why ?


I look forward, with much anticipation, to MR's response.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I might also note that artists, when they get together, are more likely to talk about the ridiculous cost of sable brushes, or the upcoming Seahawks versus Packers game, than about the Meaning Of It All.


Yes! And when orchestral musicians get together, they are more likely to go out drinking or play poker. Lecturing one's audience on the meaning or significance of one's own art is more often than not a mistake, even though those who do it may have the purest of motives. However, if the composer is of a different time or place, which is usually the case with classical music, I think it's reasonable to provide some well-chosen background info. With emphasis on *some*.


----------



## Bettina

fluteman said:


> Yes! *And when orchestral musicians get together, they are more likely to go out drinking or play poker.* Lecturing one's audience on the meaning or significance of one's own art is more often than not a mistake, even though those who do it may have the purest of motives. However, if the composer is of a different time or place, which is usually the case with classical music, I think it's reasonable to provide some well-chosen background info. With emphasis on *some*.


Totally agree. Also, Gershwin and Schoenberg often got together to play tennis, with never a word exchanged about Gershwin's tonality or Schoenberg's atonality.


----------



## Woodduck

Bettina said:


> Totally agree. Also, Gershwin and Schoenberg often got together to play tennis, with never a word exchanged about Gershwin's tonality or Schoenberg's atonality.


Having to create the stuff is painful enough. Getting away from it with someone else who understands the need for that it is exquisite pleasure.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think artists are basically intellectuals, and they should be able to articulate at least some of their goals and intents. I think this helps to orient viewers and listeners as well.

When I think of artists who don't speak much, or only make short, pithy statements, I think of Andy Warhol. "Everything is pretty," "I want to be a machine," and stuff like that. He was really just playing the "dumb blonde" card.

I'm used to reading artists' statements, like Stockhausen and Babbitt when they explain some aspect of what they do.

Also, literary statements can be extremely valuable, as in Robert Craft's liner notes on Stravinsky, Boulez, and Stockhausen, and Charles Wuorinen, and Philip Glass (who has written books!) and interviews with artists.

Here are two examples of excellent liner notes; and I mean extremely valuable, informative statements which will add to any listener's ability to grasp modern music:

 (excellent notes by Robert Craft)


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I think artists are basically intellectuals, and they should be able to articulate at least some of their goals and intents. I think this helps to orient viewers and listeners as well.
> 
> When I think of artists who don't speak much, or only make short, pithy statements, I think of Andy Warhol. "Everything is pretty," "I want to be a machine," and stuff like that. He was really just playing the "dumb blonde" card.
> 
> I'm used to reading artists' statements, like Stockhausen and Babbitt when they explain some aspect of what they do.


I'm not sure which is more narrow: your concept of 'artist' or 'intellectual'; probably both equally. Setting aside your doubtless inadvertent insult to my wife ('anti-intellectual'), let's think about others who need not _verbalise _write in order to show their capacity for intellectual thought. I wonder how anti-intellectual this is:

View attachment 95613
or this:

View attachment 95614


----------



## JeffD

Here is a cool artist statement:

"I try to create art that transcends a verbal description. If what I have to say could be said in words, I would write it down, you would read it, and we would be done with it. If you look at my art and don't get it, an essay won't help, and if you do get it, an essay is not needed."


----------



## Barbebleu

JeffD said:


> Here is a cool artist statement:
> 
> "I try to create art that transcends a verbal description. If what I have to say could be said in words, I would write it down, you would read it, and we would be done with it. If you look at my art and don't get it, an essay won't help, and if you do get it, an essay is not needed."


Nice quote. Whose?


----------

