# The five myths about contemporary classical music



## Guest (Jan 7, 2015)

An article for your delectation and a contribution to the fascinating debate about the subject on this forum:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/apr/26/five-myths-contemporary-classical-music


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2015)

Not sure I understand Tom's fifth myth. Doesn't seem to belong with the other four.

And I'm not convinced that Tom has correctly identified the myths about contemporary music.*

You can find all the current canards about contemporary music today in Nicolas Slonimsky's _Lexicon of Musical Invective._ All of them. There is not one negative reaction, no matter how personally (individually) expressed, that has not been anticipated by someone else, hundreds of years before. Every single criticism of contemporary music that you have ever seen on any TC discussion has appeared already, in various guises, for hundreds of years, and so, inevitably, has been applied to Mozart and to Beethoven and to Berlioz and to Bizet and to Tchaikovsky already.

Music itself has changed, and changed immensely over the past two hundred years or so.

The criticisms of whatever is current at any particular time have remained steadfastly exactly the same.

*His article is a good read, however, and a good start at dismantling some common misapprehensions about new music. I wish everyone could read it with an open mind and take his wise conclusions to heart. Discussions here would change dramatically were that possible!!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I have to say that the "fascinating debate" on this forum has rendered me wholly cynical about the topic. All this talk of accessibility, relevance and the like is just red herrings. For me it boils down to: People who want to listen to contemporary music will listen to it. People who want to like it will like it. People who don't, won't. Same as with any other damn thing in life.

Also, I can't believe he trotted out the old "Stockhausen's on the cover of Sergeant Pepper" cliché. Is there any other field of human endeavour where this comes up? Do proponents of black magic try to bring people in by pointing to Aleister Crowley? Do film buffs respond to the complaint "I hate silent Westerns!" with the argument that Tom Mix is there between Marlon Brando and Oscar Wilde?


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> For me it boils down to: People who want to listen to contemporary music will listen to it. People who want to like it will like it. People who don't, won't.


If this is what "it" boiled down to in the rest of the world, then all would indeed be well.

It is because it does not universally (or even often) boil down to this that we have these conversations.

Here's what I have seen, over and over again:

L: Modern music is ugly and drives audiences away.

M: I find it to be beautiful, however, and go to every modern music concert I can find.

L: Why are you putting me down? Can't I express an opinion without you implying that I am inferior?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

some guy said:


> You can find all the current canards about contemporary music today in Nicolas Slonimsky's _Lexicon of Musical Invective._ All of them. There is not one negative reaction, no matter how personally (individually) expressed, that has not been anticipated by someone else, hundreds of years before.


Not only that, but they expressed it better. What really burns me is the modern decline in the quality of musical invective.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> If this is what "it" boiled down to in the rest of the world, then all would indeed be well.
> 
> It is because it does not universally (or even often) boil down to this that we have these conversations.
> 
> ...


It is frankly dishonest not to include something along the lines of:

M: You're an idiot.

Or perhaps:

M: You're a punter.

Although it might be put in terms of "pink cotton candy music" or "popular" or something like that.

Or perhaps:

M: You're a coward, and so are the composers you like.

Although it might be put in terms of fearing the modern world.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I have to say that the "fascinating debate" on this forum has rendered me wholly cynical about the topic. All this talk of accessibility, relevance and the like is just red herrings. For me it boils down to: People who want to listen to contemporary music will listen to it. People who want to like it will like it. People who don't, won't. Same as with any other damn thing in life.


Exactly so.

It is also true that the conversation almost always consists not of people trying to learn to understand each other better but of people trying to establish themselves as the culturally superior side. Of course the modernists have won before the discussion even starts, but evidently everyone needs to be reminded of the score on a daily basis.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> You can find all the current canards about contemporary music today in Nicolas Slonimsky's _Lexicon of Musical Invective._ All of them. There is not one negative reaction, no matter how personally (individually) expressed, that has not been anticipated by someone else, hundreds of years before. Every single criticism of contemporary music that you have ever seen on any TC discussion has appeared already, in various guises, for hundreds of years, and so, inevitably, has been applied to Mozart and to Beethoven and to Berlioz and to Bizet and to Tchaikovsky already.


That says more about the limitations of musical invective, than of any consistent factor or "constant" in music. Actually, I think newer music has surpassed the ability of musical invective to accurately convey the real degree of nausea most listeners feel. ...And I'm doing you a favor by calling it "music."


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2015)

Ouch! I think one of the points the Guardian article makes is that contemporary classical music is continuing to evolve, and in many cases has evolved beyond the "squeeky gate" nadir that turned off so many listeners.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

some guy said:


> Not sure I understand Tom's fifth myth. Doesn't seem to belong with the other four.
> 
> And I'm not convinced that Tom has correctly identified the myths about contemporary music.*
> 
> ...


The people who "liked" this post...There is something not quite right.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2015)

science said:


> It is frankly dishonest not to include something along the lines of:
> 
> M: You're an idiot.
> 
> ...


You make my point for me very nicely, there.

And the idea of its being dishonest to _not_ lie made me grin.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2015)

Icarus said:


> Ouch! I think one of the points the Guardian article makes is that contemporary classical music is continuing to evolve, and in many cases has evolved beyond the "squeeky gate" nadir that turned off so many listeners.


Now there's an interesting reading of the article. This is very definitely NOT one of the points that the article made.

It said two things about squeaky gates, one that there is recent music that is more melodic than Beethoven or Mozart. And then it goes on to say that that is not what people who level this charge are referring to. For that charge, the article very clearly says that squeaky gates can be an enjoyable experience.

The article then names four "squeaky gate" composers, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez, Luigi Nono and Brian Ferneyhough. All recent composers, too, by the way (two of them still very much alive*), so no question of any simplistic "evolution" from nadir to beyond.

Now, let me ask you this. How many people do you suppose would have ever had any opportunity to hear the music of any of these four? That is, how often would their works be programmed on a symphony concert or a chamber recital, which is where the majority of classical listeners get their live music? And how often would music by any of these four be programmed on tv or the radio? Or, to broaden it out, music by any of these four or any of their colleagues or equally avant-garde predecessors.

Not very many, right? So who are all these "many" listeners you refer to? People who would never have had a chance to have heard any of this music were turned off by it?

Really.

Something does not add up, here.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> You make my point for me very nicely, there.
> 
> And the idea of its being dishonest to _not_ lie made me grin.


I was actually quoting people.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Two more to the pile,

1. Postmodernyth: Music died already.
2. Electromyth: Music that uses technology is bound to become outdated as technology advances.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

What's this "contemporary classical music" I keep reading about? There's a lot being written, some good and some bad, as always. Some I like (and maybe you don't) and vice versa of course. How can we generalize about this music?

One thing I'd accept as fact is that contemporary music, especially orchestral, generally has a pretty hard time competing with the old guys.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Wow.



> For sensuous, harmonious reverie, listen to recent music by John Tavener or Arvo Pärt; for sheer, abundant tune-smithery, look no further than those masters of choral, regal and festive vocality Paul Mealor, Eric Whitacre and John Rutter.


This guy would get _roasted_ here. I cringe just thinking about it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Except for that bit of neo-romantic posturing, it was a great article.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> What's this "contemporary classical music" I keep reading about? There's a lot being written, some good and some bad, as always. Some I like (and maybe you don't) and vice versa of course. How can we generalize about this music?
> 
> One thing I'd accept as fact is that contemporary music, especially orchestral, generally has a pretty hard time competing with the old guys.


"Quality not novelty"-- that's my baseline.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> Also, I can't believe he trotted out the old "Stockhausen's on the cover of Sergeant Pepper" cliché. Is there any other field of human endeavour where this comes up? Do proponents of black magic try to bring people in by pointing to Aleister Crowley? Do film buffs respond to the complaint "I hate silent Westerns!" with the argument that Tom Mix is there between Marlon Brando and Oscar Wilde?


You're right. The 2nd myth is not 'exploded' by citing the pop artists who've used Stockhausen and Satie. All that offers is the idea that something deemed inaccessible has influenced something deemed accessible: an unworthy argument.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> You're right. The 2nd myth is not 'exploded' by citing the pop artists who've used Stockhausen and Satie. All that offers is the idea that something deemed inaccessible has influenced something deemed accessible: an unworthy argument.


I guess is argument isn't so much that pop music redeems classical music but that that if you like the former you might find that you like the latter as well.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2015)

science said:


> I guess is argument isn't so much that pop music redeems classical music but that that if you like the former you might find that you like the latter as well.


The problem with 'inaccessible' is that for any individual listener, of course some works (old and new) might well seem that way - it's not a myth, but in some cases, a state of temporary perception. However, there is also the issue of the intent of the composer: I'm quite sure that The Beatles could see that _Revolution No 9_ would not be as 'accessible' as _Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da _- even if they didn't set out with the explicit purpose of making it 'inaccessible. For some composers, 'inaccessible' is a virtue, or at least an inevitable by-product of other intentions.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> The problem with 'inaccessible' is that for any individual listener, of course some works (old and new) might well seem that way - it's not a myth, but in some cases, a state of temporary perception. However, there is also the issue of the intent of the composer: I'm quite sure that The Beatles could see that _Revolution No 9_ would not be as 'accessible' as _Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da _- even if they didn't set out with the explicit purpose of making it 'inaccessible. For some composers, 'inaccessible' is a virtue, or at least an inevitable by-product of other intentions.


I'm completely confused. I didn't mean to be talking about "accessible," which is one of those words I'm afraid to use (bullying works) and not a very important thing to me anyway.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Don't know why "inaccessible" should be a criticism of the music. I know science and music aren't exactly analogous. But even so, it makes no sense to complain about quantum-mechanics being inaccessible, it's just the nature of quantum-mechanics. You can either ignore it or actually take the time to become familiar with the subject so it's no longer inaccessible to you. It's a similar situation with "inaccessible" music, in my opinion.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

violadude said:


> Don't know why "inaccessible" should be a criticism of the music. I know science and music aren't exactly analogous. But even so, it makes no sense to complain about quantum-mechanics being inaccessible, it's just the nature of quantum-mechanics. You can either ignore it or actually take the time to become familiar with the subject so it's no longer inaccessible to you. It's a similar situation with "inaccessible" music, in my opinion.


The more I read about Quamtum-Mechanics the less I understand it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

violadude said:


> Don't know why "inaccessible" should be a criticism of the music. I know science and music aren't exactly analogous. But even so, it makes no sense to complain about quantum-mechanics being inaccessible, it's just the nature of quantum-mechanics. You can either ignore it or actually take the time to become familiar with the subject so it's no longer inaccessible to you. It's a similar situation with "inaccessible" music, in my opinion.


Using "inaccessible" doesn't criticize the music or the composer, but the listener, who gets blamed for being uneducated, naive, whatever, as if her pleasure in the music were an accomplishment, and her failure to take pleasure in it were culpable.

I don't know bumpskahooeywatch about music theory, but I like pretty much all the music that someone would describe as inaccessible.

So why not just let people say that they like or don't like something?

But of course: Taste gets turned into something quasi-ethical. That's a fun game for a lot of us, but it disgusts and angers me.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> That is, how often would their works be programmed on a symphony concert or a chamber recital, which is where the majority of classical listeners get their live music? And how often would music by any of these four be programmed on tv or the radio?


Being mean to people on a message board isn't going to fix this.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> I guess is argument isn't so much that pop music redeems classical music but that that if you like the former you might find that you like the latter as well.


Well, I was _specifically_ referring to the "on the cover of Sergeant Pepper" argument, which is certainly a non-argument.

And in general I'm unconvinced by the argument "if you like this particular thing, you might like this other quite different thing".


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Well, I was _specifically_ referring to the "on the cover of Sergeant Pepper" argument, which is certainly a non-argument.
> 
> And in general I'm unconvinced by the argument "if you like this particular thing, you might like this other quite different thing".


It's certainly no guarantee of liking.

People's tastes are funny things, though. Not at all rational. So no matter whether the argument is valid, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that someone somewhere started to like Stockhausen because the Beatles put him on their cover.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> It's certainly no guarantee of liking.
> 
> People's tastes are funny things, though. Not at all rational. So no matter whether the argument is valid, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that someone somewhere started to like Stockhausen because the Beatles put him on their cover.


Oh, sure!
I first listened to Mahler (my favourite composer) because some years earlier I'd come across the "Bruder Martin" tune from the 1st symphony in a home computer programming manual.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

science said:


> Wow.
> 
> This guy would get _roasted_ here. I cringe just thinking about it.


Just to clarify; are you talking on the behalf of other members on here, or do you personally find those choices of composers repellent?

I did laugh at that post, but I feel slightly guilty about it. I do regard Whitacre as kitsch, and Mealor too, though a little less so, but now you see I'm already ranking them, which isn't PC on this forum anymore, except if one does it ironically (which is totally crap).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Jobis said:


> Just to clarify; are you talking on the behalf of other members on here, or do you personally find those choices of composers repellent?
> 
> I did laugh at that post, but I feel slightly guilty about it. I do regard Whitacre as kitsch, and Mealor too, though a little less so, but now you see I'm already ranking them, which isn't PC on this forum anymore, except if one does it ironically (which is totally crap).


Well, I admit to enjoying Pärt. I don't know Mealor. Tavener, Whitacre, and Rutter aren't my thing, but I'm trying. Especially with Tavener, whom I feel I ought to enjoy more than I do.

In general I try to approach this stuff as different rather than better or worse. I have no right to judge any of them. Whichever of those composers is the worst has forgotten more about music than I've ever known.

But I do think it's funny how... judgmental we (fans of music) can be about these things. I mean, honestly, if I'd written that I love Whitacre, someone reading this would've judged me. Probably wouldn't've posted anything, but would've thought something. That makes me really wish I liked Whitacre....


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2015)

science said:


> ...honestly, if I'd written that I love Whitacre, someone reading this would've judged me.


You didn't just prejudge "someone," did you?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> You didn't just prejudge "someone," did you?


I know. Harder and harder to judge someone without being judged. It's horribly unfair.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Listen to this Taverner:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> Well, I admit to enjoying Pärt. I don't know Mealor. Tavener, Whitacre, and Rutter aren't my thing, but I'm trying. Especially with Tavener, whom I feel I ought to enjoy more than I do.
> 
> In general I try to approach this stuff as different rather than better or worse. I have no right to judge any of them. Whichever of those composers is the worst has forgotten more about music than I've ever known.
> 
> But I do think it's funny how... judgmental we (fans of music) can be about these things. I mean, honestly, if I'd written that I love Whitacre, someone reading this would've judged me. Probably wouldn't've posted anything, but would've thought something. That makes me really wish I liked Whitacre....


Takes me back to TC's memory lane:

http://www.talkclassical.com/24593-eric-whitacre-3.html#post479329

I put in the effort to type bits of an interview with Whitacre that I had in a magazine. I didn't get thanked for it, just the usual Modernist scorn. But applying historical revisionism to that Whitacre thread, it never happened. Its all made up in my mind. Okay.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Takes me back to TC's memory lane:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/24593-eric-whitacre-3.html#post479329
> 
> I put in the effort to type bits of an interview with Whitacre that I had in a magazine. I didn't get thanked for it, just the usual Modernist scorn. But applying historical revisionism to that Whitacre thread, it never happened. Its all made up in my mind. Okay.


No one thanked me for my post (#44) in that thread either,
http://www.talkclassical.com/24593-eric-whitacre-3.html#post479329
but I don't think to expect, or anticipate, thanks for any post I make.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> An article for your delectation and a contribution to the fascinating debate about the subject on this forum:
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/apr/26/five-myths-contemporary-classical-music


In my opinion, and also amongst many of classical music listeners that I happen to know well, I can say I agree with all of the points, to some degree and by that I mean it is not always true but only in some genres of contemporary composed / freely performed music. That's my opinion (and of folks in the real world that I know). So I don't agree with the article's overall labelling that these are "myths", they are not entirely myths, as real world empirical examples amongst many listeners exist. I am only stating an empirical truth, nothing more , nothing less.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> In my opinion, and also amongst many of classical music listeners that I happen to know well, I can say I agree with all of the points, to some degree and by that I mean it is not always true but only in some genres of contemporary composed / freely performed music. That's my opinion (and of folks in the real world that I know). So I don't agree with the article's overall labelling that these are "myths", they are not entirely myths, as real world empirical examples amongst many listeners exist. I am only stating an empirical truth, nothing more , nothing less.


The article's use of myth is my problem with it and it should be replaced by preconception. Imho the writer of that article just wants to point out that not all contemporary classical music is highly abstract/inaccessible, classical music isn't necessarily old or that all classical music is just for snobs.

People are taking this metaphor way too far and it is just a way of saying:" Maybe you should give contemporary classical music a new try."

Ps: There is nothing empirical about peoples opinions.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

science said:


> Well, I admit to enjoying Pärt. I don't know Mealor. Tavener, Whitacre, and Rutter aren't my thing, but I'm trying. Especially with Tavener, whom I feel I ought to enjoy more than I do.
> 
> In general I try to approach this stuff as different rather than better or worse. I have no right to judge any of them. Whichever of those composers is the worst has forgotten more about music than I've ever known.
> 
> But I do think it's funny how... judgmental we (fans of music) can be about these things. I mean, honestly, if I'd written that I love Whitacre, someone reading this would've judged me. Probably wouldn't've posted anything, but would've thought something. That makes me really wish I liked Whitacre....


Disclaimer: I have not read all the post in this thread so please do take my opinion with a grain of salt.

For me there is a crucial difference between, for example, saying that Whitacre is kitsch(never heard his music) and judging someone who likes that.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> The article's use of myth is my problem with it and it should be replaced by preconception. Imho the writer of that article just wants to point out that not all contemporary classical music is highly abstract/inaccessible, classical music isn't necessarily old or that all classical music is just for snobs.
> 
> People are taking this metaphor way too far and it is just a way of saying:" Maybe you should give contemporary classical music a new try."
> 
> Ps: There is nothing empirical about peoples opinions.


People's opinion, minority or majority, are just that - opinions and perceptions associated. I was stating how based on folks I know, they would also agree (more or less) with those myths (or whatever you prefer to better describe).


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> People's opinion, minority or majority, are just that - opinions and perceptions associated. I was stating how based on folks I know, they would also agree (more or less) with those myths (or whatever you prefer to better describe).


I saw your point but I was just being pedantic about how you worded it. Sorry for that.^^


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> I don't agree with the article's overall labelling that these are "myths", they are not entirely myths, as real world empirical examples amongst many listeners exist. I am only stating an empirical truth, nothing more , nothing less.


The fact that people express these myths does not somehow turn the myths into something else.

They wouldn't be anything, myths or anything else, unless someone had expressed them.

That they _are_ commonly expressed, by you and many people you know, is one of the assumptions of the article. That these opinions are fallacious is one of the conclusions of the article, which sets out to explain _why_ these often expressed opinions do not match with reality.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> Disclaimer: I have not read all the post in this thread so please do take my opinion with a grain of salt.
> 
> For me there is a crucial difference between, for example, saying that Whitacre is kitsch(never heard his music) and judging someone who likes that.


I find it more than regrettable that there are enough whom engage in fora who actually can not see or comprehend the huge difference between stating your opinion "I think this composer / piece is kitsch' is completely other than "because you like composer / piece your taste is kitsch and therefore you have inferior taste."

If it really gets to be 'all about that,' with the added dynamics of a serif where whenever whomever has the hurt feeling over what is a non-criticism must be thought of as the wrongly injured party, and the person who said "I think Whitacre is Kitch" the guilty assailant (which is often where PC, taken to that level of distortion, ends up,) then no one will be feel free to state the least controversial of personal opinions.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I don't see how anyone controls anything here. All anyone does here is voice opinions, that's all it is. See Larry Flint on opinions. If they are expressed in a condescending way, it's not nice and it reflects badly on the people who do so. But one can skip over such things, especially if they don't come unexpectedly.

Aggression/bullying, here and anywhere, I think, is always caused by unresolved conflicts and/or insecurities within the aggressor/bully. Since hardly anyone is truly at peace with themselves, aggression in some form or another is omnipresent.

More to the actual topic, if that article tried to debunk those myths, I don't think it did a very convincing job. But then again, the myths don't really sound all that convincing to me either, especially if they're meant to apply to contemporary classical music in general, which ranges from Pärt to Boulez to god knows what.

Not sure either why the article is titled "_The_ five myths ...", as if there couldn't be more or less than that.

The article is filed under classical on the website, so I presume its targeting people who like classical music but not necessarily the contemporary portion of it. I think one could have written the same kind of article (and guess it's been done) concerning myths about classical music in general, addressed at people who like music but not classical music.

Giving such advice ("Here, I've got something for you, it's good for you, try it!") always implies superiority of knowledge, but, much worse than that, it also implies that one needs to be educated about one's own tastes and preferences. We laugh off commercials and ads as corporate propaganda, and rightfully so. Maybe this has, perhaps unfortunately, rubbed off on other, less profit-oriented kinds of advertisements.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

While members may have strong and deeply held feelings about music, they are reminded of the ToS



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. This applies to all communication taking place on talkclassical.com, whether by means of posts, private messages, visitor messages, blogs and social groups.


This thread has had a number of posts removed. Any further failure to observe the ToS will result in its closure and possible infractions.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I find it more than regrettable that there are enough whom engage in fora *who actually can not see or comprehend the huge difference between stating your opinion "I think this composer / piece is kitsch' is completely other than "because you like composer / piece your taste is kitsch and therefore you have inferior taste." *


There really is _no difference at all_. The former cannot be said without intending the latter.

That doesn't mean the former opinion is incorrect, perhaps even objectively. It just means that _unless_ the goal is to put people "in their place," it has to be stated with great care and sensitivity.

But if that _is_ the goal, let's be blunt.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> There really is _no difference at all_. The former cannot be said without intending the latter.


I think operettas like Lehar's Merry Widow are a little bit kitsch in their own way. But Mahler thoroughly enjoyed that particular operetta and even bought the score for his own personal enjoyment.

I don't have a negative opinion of Mahler's taste at all. Why should I look down upon any others who don't share my own tastes?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I think operettas like Lehar's Merry Widow are a little bit kitsch in their own way. But Mahler thoroughly enjoyed that particular operetta and even bought the score for his own personal enjoyment.
> 
> I don't have a negative opinion of Mahler's taste at all. Why should I look down upon any others who don't share my own tastes?


You hedged a lot: "a little bit ... in their own way."

The underlying respect shines through. You're being careful. But the word "kitsch" doesn't go in that direction, and never was intended to, so if you use it to describe someone you respect, you'll have to modify it quite a bit.

Anyway, even just using value-neutral terms, it's definitely possible to disagree with someone's taste without belittling the person. People do it all the time, in real life and online.

I realize this is ridiculously long, so I apologize:



science said:


> Regarding excellence of taste - as far as I can see, there are two separate things we need to distinguish: awareness, and preference. Let's use literature because it's easier for me to illustrate the difference.
> 
> I do not enjoy _1984_, _Brave New World_, or _Fahrenheit 451_ very much because too many details are meaningless, too much of the dialogue is unnatural, no symbolism is extensively developed, the moral of the story is too obvious, there is not much intertextuality, and the wordplay is not clever. They all have a lot of insight into the modern world and effectively call attention to extremely important problems, but those aspects of the novels are not so important to me. A different person with a similar awareness of literary devices could enjoy them enormously, simply by having different preferences. For example, I'd guess that Isaac Asimov was at least as well aware as I am of the flaws of _The Mists of Avalon_, and that I'm roughly as familiar with its virtues as he was, but he enjoyed it and I didn't, because that work's particular set of virtues pushed his buttons and not mine, while its particular set of flaws pushed mine and not his.
> 
> ...


In those terms, there is a superiority and inferiority of taste, related to knowledge and/or awareness. Just to be super-clear I'll venture the tautology: inferior knowledge is inferior to superior knowledge.

But as for preferences, between friends, between people who respect each other, one is exactly as good as another. Saying otherwise must be part of some kind of game.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

I apologise for not having made any contribution to the debate since my OP, but this has been due to more important recent events here in France, which have now been resolved (at least in the short term).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> No one thanked me for my post (#44) in that thread either,
> http://www.talkclassical.com/24593-eric-whitacre-3.html#post479329
> but I don't think to expect, or anticipate, thanks for any post I make.


So, I come back here (Skinner lab rat I am, pressing the lever again and again to get some result, even though the food has stopped coming long ago). My defence against your automatic invalidation above was removed.

But getting back to the issue at hand, and to apply not only logic but some sort of even handedness here, is it okay to rubbish Schoenberg if its okay (as you and others did on the Whitacre thread) to rubbish Whitacre? Or is it okay to elevate the former and poo-poo the latter.

By the same token, the issue is that I have heard Whitacre's music, and am okay with it. I've not got him in my collection but I've got Lauridsen, somewhat lesser known but equally open to scorn from Modernists. Same reasons - he's more interested in say Monteverdi than Schoenberg as an influence, he's openly diatonic, he's for direct illustration of text and expression of emotions.

I've also got Mantovani in my collection, as well as Elliott Carter's string quartets. I've got a whole lot of other things. I enjoy them pretty much equally, because the few things I don't enjoy I just cull. Same with concerts, I have gone to a variety over the years, from chamber (my favourite), to orchestral, choral, period instruments, avant-garde/electroacoustic, crossover, you name it.

The problem with Modernist debate on this thread, as well at the forum overall, is that people like me (in other words those in middle ground, not ideologically fixed at either extreme, ultra conservative or Modernist), get either ignored or invalidated.

Worst still, recently the disturbing phenomenon of 'mirroring' has happened, from you and others of the Modernist camp. You coopt more moderate views - which can't be Modernist, because Modernism by definition rejects diversity and imposes its own values - and take on more 'friendly' facades. It is less ideological and more about vascillating, changing colours like a chameleon to take advantage of others who have made good arguments against you. But the message is the same - divide and conquer, put people in categories.

But you won't address this, so why do I bother? Why did I ever bother? Maybe you'll tell me to "open my ears" or something. Well I have...and so what? Doesn't save me from scorn, nor does it make the usual Modernist rhetoric look warm and fuzzy.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

some guy said:


> Not sure I understand Tom's fifth myth. Doesn't seem to belong with the other four.


Yes, I see what you mean. He seems to be conflating 'resistance' to CCM and the use of 'classical instruments'. I also think that 'myth' is not the right word, and that Mr Service really means 'common misconceptions'.


some guy said:


> [...] Every single criticism of contemporary music that you have ever seen on any TC discussion has appeared already, in various guises, for hundreds of years [...]


Well, I am a relative newbie here on TC, but I can imagine what you say is true. Still, I refer you to Blancrocher's comment above regarding the quality of invective ...


some guy said:


> [...] His article is a good read, however, and a good start at dismantling some common misapprehensions about new music. I wish everyone could read it with an open mind and take his wise conclusions to heart. Discussions here would change dramatically were that possible!!


Well, that is of course the main reason I posted the link to the article: I rather like Tom Service's inclusive and positive approach to all things sonic, and I'm getting rather tired of the partisanship on this forum. I fully understand different people appreciate different genres, but I cannot understand or tolerate out-of-hand dismissal. I take this opportunity to remind and/or inform TC members that I am a classically trained, wig-wearing instrumentalist with schooling in post-tonal (gasp) and elecroacoustic composition,.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

Well, you are in France, after all, where electroacoustic music began, after all!!

Did you attend any of the Bourges festivals?

That was marvellous good times.

I miss those. But there's the Centquatre festival now, and that's many of the same folks (I saw Françoise Barriere there last year), and good times. (K.K. Null was there too, performing, and that was a thrill and no mistake!!)

And the festival in Crest is still going, isn't it? I've not been for awhile, but that was good times as well.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

Sid James said:


> ...is it okay to rubbish Schoenberg if its okay (as you and others did on the Whitacre thread) to rubbish Whitacre? Or is it okay to elevate the former and poo-poo the latter.


It is "okay," but there will be consequences. If you rubbish Schoenberg, then Schoenberg proponents (and maybe even a few others) will counter your rubbishing.

If you rubbish Whitacre, then Whitacre proponents (and maybe even a few others) will counter your rubbishing.

OKAY?



Sid James said:


> The problem with Modernist debate on this thread, as well at the forum overall, is that people like me (in other words those in middle ground, not ideologically fixed at either extreme, ultra conservative or Modernist), get either ignored or invalidated.


But it's not about you. It's about Schoenberg or Whitacre. Or Xenakis or Karkowski or Pärt or Tavener.

As for invalidation, well, if you say something that someone disagrees with, that someone will disagree.

OK?

Or is disagreeing only for some and not for others?



Sid James said:


> the message is the same - divide and conquer, put people in categories.


Categories like "Modernist" or "ideologue" or "opportunistic vacillators"?

Some of us would very much like to be able to talk about music. We love music, and we love to talk about it, even argue about it, with similarly circumstanced people. That is why focussing on the posters rather than on what the posters post is against the ToS, because it distracts from the main goal of the board, which is to talk about music and musicians, not about posting styles or poster's motivations or anything else personal about your colleagues.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> I have to say that the "fascinating debate" on this forum has rendered me wholly cynical about the topic. All this talk of accessibility, relevance and the like is just red herrings. For me it boils down to: People who want to listen to contemporary music will listen to it. People who want to like it will like it. People who don't, won't. Same as with any other damn thing in life.


Two points there I'd like to address, Nereffid. First, I think it *is* a fascinating debate that has been completely hijacked by an irrelevant partisanship that has more to do with ego than anything else. Cage would back me up on that one. Secondly, I'm not sure that one can really "want to like something"; surely, liking something is not a rational decision?



Nereffid said:


> Also, I can't believe he trotted out the old "Stockhausen's on the cover of Sergeant Pepper" cliché. [...]


 Yes, that was a bit silly to suggest that having Stockhausen's mug staring out at you from an album cover was likely to convert you to the modernist cause! Still, may I give a little anecdote? When I started learning my instrument I was heavily into Beethoven and Bach (still am, btw) and one of my teacher's lent me a disc of Elgar's 1st Symphony that had one of those awfully 'Romantic' pictures on the cover (snow-capped mountains, or something) whilst a school mate of mine at the same time lent me a Stockhausen album (can't remember the title) that had abstract art on it. Not wishing to denigrate the Elgar, I did rather more enjoy the Stockhausen. Still (I keep using that word), I then returned to practicing my _préludes_ and _allemandes_ with a renewed vigour.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

some guy said:


> If this is what "it" boiled down to in the rest of the world, then all would indeed be well.
> It is because it does not universally (or even often) boil down to this that we have these conversations.
> Here's what I have seen, over and over again:
> L: Modern music is ugly and drives audiences away.
> ...


Such an imaginary conversation is not, of course, limited to music; one reads of such things in the plastic arts, literature, film ...
I ask you though, SomeGuy, in all honesty, is it really that on this forum? If one is too doctrinaire, one can encounter a fiercer opposition than one would expect.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

science said:


> It is frankly dishonest not to include something along the lines of:
> M: You're an idiot.
> Or perhaps:
> M: You're a punter.
> ...


I didn't understand your post, Science. I imagine this has something to do with "old history" on this forum between the 'wigs' and the 'moderns'. I can't get my head around that one (such a dated phrase), but what _*is*_ a shame to me is that two evidently intelligent and cultured posters are messing up the sheets for us other lovers.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

science said:


> Wow.
> This guy would get _roasted_ here. I cringe just thinking about it.


Roasted by whom? These so-called roasters - send 'em to me, I'll calm their embers. Just for the record, I listen to Tavener and Pärt with great pleasure.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

science said:


> Except for that bit of neo-romantic posturing, it was a great article.


Thank you! I thought it was worth posting.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> "Quality not novelty"-- that's my baseline.


Nah, Marschallin Blair (crazy name, btw!), never mind the quality, feel the width! [A _meshugganah_ tailor's expression).


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> *The problem with 'inaccessible' is that for any individual listener, of course some works (old and new) might well seem that way - it's not a myth, but in some cases, a state of temporary perception*. [...]


Yes, I think that's right, a 'state of temporary perception'. And that 'perception' can go in all sorts of directions with increased familiarity and wider cultural input.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> [...] For some composers, 'inaccessible' is a virtue, or at least an inevitable by-product of other intentions. [...]


That's a hard one, I must say. Does any artist seek 'inaccessibility'? Maybe a by-product (and we hope a temporary one), but willful? I really don't know right now how to answer that one, and I thank you for the challenge.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

science said:


> I'm completely confused. I didn't mean to be talking about "accessible," which is one of those words I'm afraid to use (bullying works) and not a very important thing to me anyway.


But that was the term for the 2nd myth about which I was commenting...wasn't it?


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

science said:


> I'm completely confused. I didn't mean to be talking about "*accessible," which is one of those words I'm afraid to use (bullying works*) and not a very important thing to me anyway.


Accessible is a "bullying" word? Come on, Science, you're pulling my leg? All MacLeod means (I think) is that certain works are not 'grasped' in their full structural magnificence at initial hearings. This is hardly "Rocket Science".


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

TalkingHead said:


> That's a hard one, I must say. Does any artist seek 'inaccessibility'? Maybe a by-product (and we hope a temporary one), but willful? I really don't know right now how to answer that one, and I thank you for the challenge.


Some composers, in seeking to write the new, must surely have known that they were turning away from the readily accessible. Not that wanted to be completely inaccessible, but they didn't want to continue what had already been tried, and, possibly, what was regarded as 'safe'.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

We've warned against posting in violation of the Terms of Service. This thread is interesting to many members and should continue without inappropriate comments and derailing. So, PLEASE, focus on the thread content.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

science said:


> Using "inaccessible" doesn't criticize the music or the composer, but the listener, who gets blamed for being uneducated, naive, whatever, as if her pleasure in the music were an accomplishment, and her failure to take pleasure in it were culpable.


I see what you're driving at, Science, but I think you're mistaken. The term "inaccessible" is one that I have heard used among 
professional musicians, though usually it means "hard to play" or rather "unidiomatic for my instrument". These two latter comments are perfectly justified within the context of playing "contemporary" music on "classical" instruments, and to a certain extent I am in agreement with that expressed position.



science said:


> I don't know bumpskahooeywatch about music theory, but I like pretty much all the music that someone would describe as inaccessible.


I don't know who are the people you think describe sonic events (OK, music) as "inaccessible", but I wish to convey to you my utter disdain for them. Please PM me with a list so that I can deal with them as only I know how. It need not involve Kalashnikovs.



science said:


> So why not just let people say that they like or don't like something?


Of course, at first sight, why not? It's always interesting and instructive (in the field of aesthetics) to know why, and to do so without fear of ridicule. If it's not so on this forum, I'm on for a punch-up and I'm no pussycat when it comes to a brawl.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Listen to this Taverner:


Nice piece, liked that very much.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

Sid James said:


> Takes me back to TC's memory lane:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/24593-eric-whitacre-3.html#post479329
> 
> I put in the effort to type bits of an interview with Whitacre that I had in a magazine. I didn't get thanked for it, just the usual Modernist scorn. But applying historical revisionism to that Whitacre thread, it never happened. Its all made up in my mind. Okay.


Dear Sid, I posted this thread so I feel beholden to make contributions to it. I'm afraid your historic post you refer to is before my time so I cannot comment on that.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> I think operettas like Lehar's Merry Widow are a little bit kitsch in their own way. But Mahler thoroughly enjoyed that particular operetta and even bought the score for his own personal enjoyment.
> I don't have a negative opinion of Mahler's taste at all. Why should I look down upon any others who don't share my own tastes?


Dear Mahlerian, having played this work some years ago (as 'cellist) for 7 nights in a row in some second-rate flea-pit of an opera house to eek out my student earnings, I can definitely say first hand that *it is a work of utter hateful kitsch*. I must, therefore, as a humble instrumentalist, disagree with a master of Mahler's status !!!!


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

TalkingHead said:


> Dear Mahlerian, having played this work some years ago (as 'cellist) for 7 nights in a row in some second-rate flea-pit of an opera house to eek out my student earnings, I can definitely say first hand that *it is a work of utter hateful kitsch*. I must, therefore, as a humble instrumentalist, disagree with a master of Mahler's status !!!!


Worse was having to watch it from the lighting engineer's box...unable to escape!


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

science said:


> Being mean to people on a message board isn't going to fix this.


I'm with Science on this point. Listen (*I'm talking to SomeGuy, here*), on this forum I agree with a lot of what you say, and I truly enjoy your posts and admire (whilst envying) the breadth of your listening experience. On the other hand (that famous "Well yes, but ..."), you tend to alienate people with your doctrinaire position. Chill out, old boy, most times you're preaching to the choir...


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> Well, I was _specifically_ referring to the "on the cover of Sergeant Pepper" argument, which is certainly a non-argument.
> And in general I'm unconvinced by the argument "if you like this particular thing, you might like this other quite different thing".


Oh Nereffid, you naughty boy! I used to be opposed to drinking any wine based on the _Merlot_ grape variety and then I met a oenologist ..


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

So, I believe I have responded to most of the pertinent posts that address my original OP. My apologies if I have missed anyone, but to be frank, I am exhausted! I am not a retiree and have many professional commitments (not to mention a 'wife' and kids).


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> We've warned against posting in violation of the Terms of Service. This thread is interesting to many members and should continue without inappropriate comments and derailing. So, PLEASE, focus on the thread content.


I think we're on track here, Mmsbls, don't panic us ...


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Worse was having to watch it from the lighting engineer's box...unable to escape!


My dear MacLeod, whilst you were twiddling your knobs (so to speak), I was battling with inane _écriture_ and equally unable to escape the pit...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I have asked the mods to remove my previous response to this member, below is a more calmly reasoned response.



some guy said:


> It is "okay," but there will be consequences. If you rubbish Schoenberg, then Schoenberg proponents (and maybe even a few others) will counter your rubbishing.
> 
> If you rubbish Whitacre, then Whitacre proponents (and maybe even a few others) will counter your rubbishing.
> 
> OKAY?


Pardon me for noticing your ill thought out dichotomy. My argument was against such things, I thought it was readily apparent. For the record, I have done a fair bit of defending not only the likes of Whitacre's music, but also Schoenberg's, Cage's, Rachmaninov's, Sibelius', Xenakis' and others on TC over the years. As I said, I listen to many types of music, but my main argument was for freedom of thought and opinion without the strictures of ideology and tribalism.



> Categories like "Modernist" or "ideologue" or "opportunistic vacillators"?
> 
> Some of us would very much like to be able to talk about music. We love music, and we love to talk about it, even argue about it, with similarly circumstanced people. That is why focussing on the posters rather than on what the posters post is against the ToS, because it distracts from the main goal of the board, which is to talk about music and musicians, not about posting styles or poster's motivations or anything else personal about your colleagues.


Yes, categories. I've noticed that formerly hard line Modernists have changed their spots, like some miraculous leopards or something. Now they are, like you, talking about freedom. That's very interesting because if you look up the definition of vascillator it will describe this process of dithering, sudden changes and about faces.

Years ago there was a political leader here who was called "jelly back" by his colleagues. He didn't provide firm leadership on key issues, and kept changing and doing about faces, yet still talking of listening to his party and forming consensus. But people weren't amused and in the end he was replaced with another leader.

I'll let you figure out what I'm saying with this anecdote.

Have fun with that and with you newly found freedom. Whilst I have to put up (or shut up) without it. Now that's REAL freedom.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

some guy said:


> Well, you are in France, after all, where electroacoustic music began, after all!!


Well, _musique concrète_, sure. I tend to think that EAM _qua_ EAM really began in Cologne.



some guy said:


> Did you attend any of the Bourges festivals?


Please stop embarrassing me! No, goddammit !!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Mahlerian- I think operettas like Lehar's Merry Widow are a little bit kitsch in their own way. But Mahler thoroughly enjoyed that particular operetta and even bought the score for his own personal enjoyment. I don't have a negative opinion of Mahler's taste at all. Why should I look down upon any others who don't share my own tastes?

TalkingHead- Dear Mahlerian, having played this work some years ago (as 'cellist) for 7 nights in a row in some second-rate flea-pit of an opera house to eek out my student earnings, I can definitely say first hand that it is a work of utter hateful kitsch. I must, therefore, as a humble instrumentalist, disagree with a master of Mahler's status !!!!

Who determines what is or is not "kitsch"? The term "kitsch" has a long history of use in the visual arts. Of course many of the terms denoting a given style in art (Baroque, Rococo, Impressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, etc...) were initially derogatory terms that were turned upside-down as the artists embraced these. One of the most well-known contemporary painters, Odd Nerdrum, has comically... and ironically... embraced the term "kitsch"... written a "kitsch" manifesto which has resulted in something of a "kitsch" movement.

Personally, I love Lehar's operettas... as well as those by Johann Strauss, Offenbach, Kalman, etc... No, they are not high "serious" art ala Wagner or Berlioz' _Les Troyens_, or Bach's _St. Matthew Passion._ But then I don't buy the notion that great art must be deadly serious... and besides, sometimes I'm just in the mood for Viennese or Parisian bon-bons... as as bon-bons go, Lehar, etc... produced some of the finest. Honestly, at any given time I would rather enjoy such bon-bons of Lehar, Strauss, etc... than suffer the "serious" Art of Schoenberg, Xenakis, Stockhausen, and many others.

What Sid James and others are pointing out is something of the double standard employed by extremists on either side of the "Modernist" question. It is OK to openly declare that Lehar... and any number of other composers... are little more than "kitsch"... but it is not OK to suggest that Schoenberg or Xenakis is "crap". There are times when I miss the "conservative" extremists who pulled no punches in dismissing a good majority of Modernism... not because I necessarily agreed with their point of vied... I actually listen to a rather broad range of music... but then I appreciated the contrary point of views to certain self-appointed champions of Modernism who rush in anytime there is the least suggestion that someone doesn't like Modern composer X,Y, or Z.










By the way... good to see you still hanging about, Sid. :cheers:


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I think operettas like Lehar's Merry Widow are *a little bit kitsch* in their own way.





StlukesguildOhio said:


> It is OK to openly declare that Lehar... and any number of other composers... are *little more than "kitsch"*... but it is not OK to suggest that Schoenberg or Xenakis is "crap".


StLukes - compare and contrast

...and kitsch can still be enjoyable,and the term possibly even a compliment of sorts in the right context (I can easily imagine calling something "deliciously kitschy"). Crap can only be an insult.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, I love Lehar's operettas... as well as those by Johann Strauss, Offenbach, Kalman, etc... No, they are not high "serious" art ala Wagner or Berlioz' _Les Troyens_, or Bach's _St. Matthew Passion._ But then I don't buy the notion that great art must be deadly serious... and besides, sometimes I'm just in the mood for Viennese or Parisian bon-bons... as as bon-bons go, Lehar, etc... produced some of the finest. Honestly, at any given time I would rather enjoy such bon-bons of Lehar, Strauss, etc... than suffer the "serious" Art of Schoenberg, Xenakis, Stockhausen, and many others.
> 
> What Sid James and others are pointing out is something of the double standard employed by extremists on either side of the "Modernist" question. It is OK to openly declare that Lehar... and any number of other composers... are little more than "kitsch"... but it is not OK to suggest that Schoenberg or Xenakis is "crap". There are times when I miss the "conservative" extremists who pulled no punches in dismissing a good majority of Modernism... not because I necessarily agreed with their point of vied... I actually listen to a rather broad range of music... but then I appreciated the contrary point of views to certain self-appointed champions of Modernism who rush in anytime there is the least suggestion that someone doesn't like Modern composer X,Y, or Z.


I am not a modernist, nor a champion of modernism. I am a music lover, and I am a champion of music I love.

The problem is not, once again, like or dislike.

I dislike lots of things that others like. That is fine.
Many others dislike things that I like, and that is fine as well.

But when someone says that they dislike Wagner's music because there's no melody and it's all screeching, or that Mozart's work consists of facile simple trifles, or that Schoenberg's music is tuneless, then this is not simply dislike, but an implicit argument based on a fallacious reason that stems from a misunderstanding. If I attack that statement, that is no indication that I have any interest in "making" someone like something.

Attacking the argument someone gives for something is not the same as suggesting that they have no basis for what they say. It could rather help them to discover what the true source of their opinion is.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

That's why one has to insult in musically undefined terms like 'meaning'.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

StLukes - compare and contrast

...and kitsch can still be enjoyable,and the term possibly even a compliment of sorts in the right context (I can easily imagine calling something "deliciously kitschy"). Crap can only be an insult.

Of course context can change the meaning. "Deliciously kitschy" is certainly quite different than _"it is a work of utter hateful kitsch."_ But then "kitsch" is generally used in a derogatory manner... dismissing something as trite, cheesy, of little or no aesthetic merit. Honestly, I haven't seen many comments as brazenly insulting as "crap" leveled toward Modern music in quite some time. Usually it is questions of "accessibility" etc... which may or may not be of any relevance. After all, how "accessible" is Dufay, Gesualdo, Perotin... or even opera as a whole?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

TalkingHead said:


> Accessible is a "bullying" word? Come on, Science, you're pulling my leg? All MacLeod means (I think) is that certain works are not 'grasped' in their full structural magnificence at initial hearings. This is hardly "Rocket Science".


No, I'm afraid to use it because I've seen the bullying that happens to people that use it.



TalkingHead said:


> I see what you're driving at, Science, but I think you're mistaken. The term "inaccessible" is one that I have heard used among professional musicians, though usually it means "hard to play" or rather "unidiomatic for my instrument". These two latter comments are perfectly justified within the context of playing "contemporary" music on "classical" instruments, and to a certain extent I am in agreement with that expressed position.
> 
> I don't know who are the people you think describe sonic events (OK, music) as "inaccessible", but I wish to convey to you my utter disdain for them. Please PM me with a list so that I can deal with them as only I know how. It need not involve Kalashnikovs.
> 
> Of course, at first sight, why not? It's always interesting and instructive (in the field of aesthetics) to know why, and to do so without fear of ridicule. If it's not so on this forum, I'm on for a punch-up and I'm no pussycat when it comes to a brawl.


"Inaccessible" is a perfectly reasonable word, especially in the kinds of context you mention, perhaps even in this forum. I, however, would rather not use it.

I'm not interested in such a brawl. The people who once might have described various works of music as "inaccessible" are mostly no longer active here, so it doesn't matter.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

TalkingHead said:


> I didn't understand your post, Science. I imagine this has something to do with "old history" on this forum between the 'wigs' and the 'moderns'. I can't get my head around that one (such a dated phrase), but what _*is*_ a shame to me is that two evidently intelligent and cultured posters are messing up the sheets for us other lovers.


I'm sorry if that's the effect my posts are having. I intend to point to the problem, not to become it. But it is definitely taking more of my time than I'd like.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I am not a modernist, nor a champion of modernism. I am a music lover, and I am a champion of music I love.
> 
> The problem is not, once again, like or dislike.
> 
> ...


Mahlerian, you are such a calm guy, you know as much about music as anyone here, and you explain your ideas very clearly. If you've posted anything mean-spirited toward someone you disagree with, I've missed that post.

The underlying issue is not whether we are able to disagree, but whether we are able to disagree _kindly_.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SimonNZ said:


> StLukes - compare and contrast
> 
> ...and kitsch can still be enjoyable,and the term possibly even a compliment of sorts in the right context (I can easily imagine calling something "deliciously kitschy"). Crap can only be an insult.


There was also a very significant change from "a little bit... in their own way" to "little more than." You don't even need the adjective to feel the difference.

That's one of those things that might be an honest misunderstanding, and if it were important it might be dealt with in a post or two.

I'll say this for "kitsch." At least it has some specific meaning. If someone says something is "crap" I have no idea why they don't like it (unless I can guess from context), but if they "kitsch" I have a better idea. Even so, "kitsch" is an insult, and "deliciously kitschy" is an ironic turn of phrase, employed by people interested in things like camp. Structurally, it's like "wonderfully repulsive."


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

I'm not so sure. I think of "kitsch" as something that can be deliberately employed by a composer. A sort of deliberately vulgarity which is integral to the work. Something like Ades' Powder Her Face for example - both in the story and the music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SimonNZ said:


> I'm not so sure. I think of "kitsch" as something that can be deliberately employed by a composer. A sort of deliberately vulgarity which is integral to the work. Something like Ades' Powder Her Face for example - both in the story and the music.


That's interesting. To me "vulgarity" seems like another word that would ordinarily be intended as an insult, though it could be used in an ironic sense. _Powder Her Face_ is in fact probably "campy."

Anyway, both "kitsch" and "vulgar" can definitely be used as insults, and very easily. As a description of Whitacre's music, it was meant without irony, straightforwardly as condemnation.

Maybe I should try to redeem "crap" as a word too. I can embrace it as a description of the music that I like. That'd be an interesting project.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

^ Its no big thing but I've been turning this over and I think "camp" is something quite narrow and specific, with a well established set of devices and criteria - "kitsch" is broader and vaguer and can come in a great many forms.

And "vulgar" needn't be an insulting term - though I can see that its almost exclusively used that way these days. I was thinking of something like an appeal to over-obvious heart-on-sleeve emotionalism, not the more common usage as something like "disgusting". When Argerich said that when performing the Tchaikovsky PC1 one mustn't be afraid of adding a dash of vulgarity as a performer, it was the big-theme tug-on-the-heartstrings meaning of the word I believe she was referring to, and I don't believe she said it to insult Tchaikovsky, but to highlight a deliberate aspect in his composition.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SimonNZ said:


> ^ Its no big thing but I've been turning this over and I think "camp" is something quite narrow and specific, with a well established set of devices and criteria - "kitsch" is broader and vaguer and can come in a great many forms.
> 
> And "vulgar" needn't be an insulting term - though I can see that its almost exclusively used that way these days. I was thinking of something like an appeal to over-obvious heart-on-sleeve emotionalism, not the more common usage as something like "disgusting". When Argerich said that when performing the Tchaikovsky PC1 one mustn't be afraid of adding a dash of vulgarity as a performer, it was the big-theme tug-on-the-heartstrings meaning of the word I believe she was referring to, and I don't believe she said it to insult Tchaikovsky, but to highlight a deliberate aspect in his composition.


For some romantic era music (while not necessarily exclusive to that one era), 
that quality, as conveyed to me by a piano teacher is:
_"You've got to pee on the piano."_ 
(= from the lower / lowest Chakras, as it were, and very wet & warm


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SimonNZ said:


> ^ Its no big thing but I've been turning this over and I think "camp" is something quite narrow and specific, with a well established set of devices and criteria - "kitsch" is broader and vaguer and can come in a great many forms.
> 
> And "vulgar" needn't be an insulting term - though I can see that its almost exclusively used that way these days. I was thinking of something like an appeal to over-obvious heart-on-sleeve emotionalism, not the more common usage as something like "disgusting". When Argerich said that when performing the Tchaikovsky PC1 one mustn't be afraid of adding a dash of vulgarity as a performer, it was the big-theme tug-on-the-heartstrings meaning of the word I believe she was referring to.


I don't know that quote, but I think we can see from context - such as "afraid" - that Argerich knew that most people wouldn't ordinarily consider vulgarity a good thing. She must've meant "vulgar" as "in bad taste" or "unrefined," contrasting it implicitly to classical values. I wonder what point in the past people would've used "vulgar" in a neutral or good way? I can't easily imagine that.

However, "camp" and "kitsch" gets to a really interesting conversation. I once heard Karsten Harries describe "camp" as "the ironic embrace of kitsch," and I remain convinced that he nailed it, even though not everyone would agree. (Argerich's ironic use of "vulgar" there may be analogous to camp's ironic use of kitsch.)

I sometimes suspect that classical music (perhaps especially in the Anglo-American world) is starting to embrace camp a bit. I can't tell because that is not the way most people would want to talk about it.... But perhaps that lies behind Adams' titling a work "Naive and Sentimental Music," for example. It must be part of Adès' "Powder Her Nose." And covers like this -

View attachment 60714


- appear to me to be intentionally camp. Everything I know about Higdon makes me suspect camp. But again, because I don't think Higdon or Adams or nearly anyone in classical music would want to admit to being camp, I can't tell whether I'm understanding these things well.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I sometimes suspect that classical music (perhaps especially in the Anglo-American world) is starting to embrace camp a bit. I can't tell because that is not the way most people would want to talk about it.... But perhaps that lies behind Adams' titling a work "Naive and Sentimental Music," for example.


Adams' title refers to Friedrich Schiller's essay, _On Naïve and Sentimental Poetry_, which purports there are two sorts, or approaches, artists can (or do?) take.

"The naïve" creates without knowledge of (or at least ignores or dismisses) art in relation to other existing works or thinking about what is being made in relativity to 'art history,' -- which one article I found rather blithely put as an Ars Gratia Artis approach, while not mentioning the importance of naïve either not knowing or paying attention to history and the artist's -- or work's -- place in it.)

The other (opposite) approach is the "sentimental," as meaning art made with all conscious awareness of art and a work's context in history.

A premise for the composer, then realized (I don't know how successfully) to write a work which would somehow in sound manifest these contrasting qualities and aspects of approach.

P.s. to me, it is a complete toss up whether someone listening to the piece would find which of its *Three* movements  -- the naïve or the sentimental -- kitsch.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Adams' title refers to Friedrich Schiller's essay, _On Naïve and Sentimental Poetry_, which purports there are two sorts, or approaches, artists can (or do?) take.
> 
> "The naïve" creates without knowledge (or at least care for) art in relation to other existing works or thinking about what is being made in relativity to 'art history,' -- which one article I found rather blithely put as an Ars Gratia Artis approach, while not mentioning the importance of naïve either not knowing or paying no attention to history and the artist's -- or work's -- place in it.)
> 
> ...


I knew all this, and I've listened to the music. It doesn't affect the point though. Adams (as the liner notes to the Salonen recording point out) was well aware of the potentially sensitive nature of that title. The liner notes don't point out, but I think it's worth noting, Adams has quite a sense of humor, so we should probably detect a note of mischief as well.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Two points there I'd like to address, Nereffid. First, I think it *is* a fascinating debate that has been completely hijacked by an irrelevant partisanship that has more to do with ego than anything else. Cage would back me up on that one. Secondly, I'm not sure that one can really "want to like something"; surely, liking something is not a rational decision?


Absolutely agree about the partisanship. There are several posters I find truly obnoxious; the fact that they like a particular kind of music is, as it were, irrelevant, though of course it does determine which threads they contribute to/ruin.

As for wanting to like something, well of course liking is an irrational process. But some people are willing to make an effort to try to appreciate something they don't initially like, the goal being ultimately to like it, because this strategy often pays off; that's what I mean by "wanting to like something". Other people don't think it's worth the effort and are more quickly dismissive.
Though I'm in the former camp, I don't see the latter as being wrong in their attitude. I will criticise someone for being "close minded" on social issues all right, but when it comes to art it's their own business.
(Of course, if I might be allowed complicate the issue, there are some people who are very "close minded" in their belief that we should all open our ears!)



> Yes, that was a bit silly to suggest that having Stockhausen's mug staring out at you from an album cover was likely to convert you to the modernist cause! Still, may I give a little anecdote? When I started learning my instrument I was heavily into Beethoven and Bach (still am, btw) and one of my teacher's lent me a disc of Elgar's 1st Symphony that had one of those awfully 'Romantic' pictures on the cover (snow-capped mountains, or something) whilst a school mate of mine at the same time lent me a Stockhausen album (can't remember the title) that had abstract art on it. Not wishing to denigrate the Elgar, I did rather more enjoy the Stockhausen. Still (I keep using that word), I then returned to practicing my _préludes_ and _allemandes_ with a renewed vigour.


I think I answered this with my own anecdote earlier. Actually my more basic point was that the "Stockhausen was on the cover of Sergeant Pepper" argument is a _cliché_. I've seen it used several times before.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I knew all this, and I've listened to the music. It doesn't affect the point though. Adams (as the liner notes to the Salonen recording point out) was well aware of the potentially sensitive nature of that title. The liner notes don't point out, but I think it's worth noting, Adams has quite a sense of humor, so we should probably detect a note of mischief as well.


"I knew all this." I'm sure others reading this thread did not.

I agree, he has his own sense of humor (just read about any of his blog posts!), and I think he plays with some loose interior associations when he titles works and movements, sometimes to where 'what is named' is as much a red herring as anything else.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

science said:


> I wonder what point in the past people would've used "vulgar" in a neutral or good way? I can't easily imagine that.


1643 seems to have been the first time "vulgar was used in other than a neutral or good way. So it had around 250 years of only neutral or good.

It continued to have neutral meanings up until 1873, after which time it seems that all its uses were negative.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> Not only that, but they expressed it better. What really burns me is the modern decline in the quality of musical invective.


Never mind that -- what about journalism as in that article, sounding implicitly condescending, and written to the level of a youngster still in primary school?

Then unthinkingly couching the article in such a way which only reinforces those urban myths that indeed it is inaccessible and can only become accessible to you via having your hand held and your anxieties assuaged about its inaccessibility before a 'try it you might like it' approach. (LOL.)

The whole of it is more than a titch off-putting


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> 1643 seems to have been the first time "vulgar was used in other than a neutral or good way. So it had around 250 years of only neutral or good.
> 
> It continued to have neutral meanings up until 1873, after which time it seems that all its uses were negative.


Wow. I'm impressed you knew that.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

TalkingHead said:


> Dear Sid, I posted this thread so I feel beholden to make contributions to it. I'm afraid your historic post you refer to is before my time so I cannot comment on that.


I think that thread sheds light on this and more recent threads on this topic. Its an example of the significant back story to present day debates on TC about contemporary music and the ideologies attached to it.

With regards to that and the vascillating I spoke of earlier, in terms of the Tom Service article, he argues the classic Post-Modernist line. Basically that music presents a diversity of styles and approaches, which has something for everyone. I've got no argument with that, but I've got an issue with how he doesn't give much of a hint of the many ideological bun fights that have marred music during the 20th century and today. He kind of gives the impression that music is one big happy family, which it definitely isn't. In reality, its more similar to all the ideological schisms and faultlines on this forum.

In terms of ideology, I am largely in agreement with composers like Copland, Xenakis, Feldman, Sculthorpe, Ferneyhough, Adams and others who argued for music being about individuality of expression rather than following some falsely united dogma. I am largely not in agreement with those who did indeed do a large amount of ideological vacillation, largely to justify and uphold their own power plays and rivalry of cliques, such as Boulez, Cage and Stockhausen. Whereas the former sought to unite new music under a wide umbrella, the latter wanted to restrict it and control it for their own ends.

The other issue is that sharing ideas on music is exactly that. Doesn't matter if it's a an online forum or in a publication by a critic or composer. There doesn't need to be this proselytising element. Letting others gain insight into our thinking is a generous thing, but it has to be in an atmosphere of openness and acceptance of all contributions. It has to be a situation where all can join in, participate and connect. My experience is that with regards to new music, this has not occurred on TC forum for the last two years.

In that light, I find it more than a bit lame that Service ends the article with the "open your ears" cliché. Surely he could do better than that? Its been used here time and time again by those doing that sort of proselytising, and it has this air of superiority to it and even arrogance and gloating. Its really saying "I am open to this music, and so should you." Its implying that the reader isn't open, and should be open. I don't take this ploy seriously now, and neither should anyone. If I don't ask for advice, then don't give it to me. Don't force your priorities on others. Its that simple (and I have to my own shame used it earlier on my time at TC, but have tried to avoid it for a long time since).

Given my criticism of the article, I understand though that journalists have to work under restrictions (like word length) and can't fit in absolutely everything. Since Service mentions Cornelius Cardew and his impact on John Adams, I thought I would flesh out some of nuance in that connection, both in terms of music and ideology of the 1970's. Below (in green font) is a lengthy extract from John Adams' autobiography _Hallelujah Junction: Composing an American Life_ (pubished in 2008). I have changed the format and divided the paragraphs for easy reading on screen.

*I must emphasize that this is my last post on this thread, and if anyone wants to respond in the same way I got on that Whitacre thread - in effect punishing me for providing a free service in typing this long quote - then YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME.* In any case, such people may well turn around and coopt some of this for their agenda later. Whatever.

But I hope it illuminates aspects of my thinking and contributes to the discussion, for those of few of you who are interested in these aspects of music. The part that I have put in bold is a common criticism of the avant-garde, that it lead to a dead end, and this is an opinion which I have basically come to accept now. I have included the rest to provide lead up and context.

When Cardew came to the West Coast in the spring of 1975, I invited him to give a talk at the Conservatory. To me he was a big name, and I worked furiously to drum up a sizeable crowd of fellow composers and students to attend. But on the afternoon of his talk, he did not appear for more than an hour, and when he did finally arrive, without any apology whatsoever for his delay, the audience had all but departed, disappointed and annoyed at me.

He explained that he had been at an antiwar rally and was unable to call in and advise me that he'd be late. Given that the Vietnam War had for all intents and purposes ended two years earlier, Cardew's ability to ferret out an antiwar protest in a city unfamiliar to him was impressive.

At dinner, I found him intensely serious, humourless, and full of stock Marxist dicta that slammed the door shut on any and all attempts at casual conversation. There was a melancholy about him, and I could detect something of the weary, spiritually besieged missionary in his eyes.

By that point in his creative life he was only writing "people's music," which largely consisted of simple diatonic settings of political prose and poetry like the Chinese Communist inspired ensemble piece he composed for my group, Wild Lillies Bloom Red as Flame.

Not long afterward, he was killed in a hit-and-run accident near his home in a working-class section of London.

One thing Cardew wrote in _Stockhausen Serves Imperialism_ affected me deeply. Describing his earlier devotion to the avant-garde experimentalism of Cage and Stockhausen, Cardew speaks of how he faithfully and rigorously followed all the minute instructions of these process pieces, assuming the iron discipline of a Zen adept and carrying out the master's instructions, no matter how absurd they may be.

Its important to understand what kinds of pieces, particularly by Cage, had become prestigious at the time. A composition like Cage's Variations I wasin truth not a fixed work of art but rather a set of tools with instructions as to how one might make art with them. Pieces like this from the high era of chance music, if you were faithful to the rules, could be fiendishly precise in their detailed performance instructions, all in the service of yielding largely unpredictable and chaotic results.

*Cardew had followed all of Cage's directions to a tee and had done so for years, believing that this discipline would help to remove the ego and let sounds just be sounds. But now Cardew was very publicly renouncing the error of his ways, violently condemning the aesthetics of chance and indeterminacy; proclaiming that the musical, emotional and social results of all this avant-garde activity was, in a word, a "desert."

This was a brutal admission, not only because so many of us had come to revere Cage as our guru but also because Cardew's apostasy threatened to confirm what most conservative music critics had been saying all along: that the musical experiments of Cage and his school where little more than Dadaist doodling. Cardew's recanting of Cage had all the intonation of a Cultural Revolution public confession. "This was a bad thing and I will not offer excuses for it," he said.*


----------

