# What Makes Elliott Carter A Great Composer



## Edmund48 (Apr 1, 2019)

Elliott Carter has written for those who are willing to learn how to understand and follow complex music. The task of the listener is not to reject what seems at first encounter irritatingly “unintelligible,” but rather to stick with the new as if it were a new language, and learn its order and logic and then derive pleasure from it. If emotion and sentiment are communicated by music, they are only accessible after “one understands how the music works”; it is then that one can “perceive the emotion.” All great music demands this kind of time and energy if it is to be understood and loved. What the late music of Elliott Carter suggests is that even the most dense and complex of Carter’s finest works can succeed with the wider audience because his music works on many levels. Because there is so much genuine richness in Carter’s music, it has a real chance for success with the audiences of today and tomorrow.

Perhaps what makes Carter great is that he, through painstaking discipline and concentration, has invented music that works the way the music of the great masters from the Classical era did and that reaches across a wide range of listeners. Carter’s music has, in the end, an emotional necessity behind its existence. It is therefore neither academic nor polemical. Its surface of modernity is not artificial but human in a unique, introspective, dramatic, and elegant manner: what is unexpected and seemingly unintelligible has emerged in an uncompromisingly modern manner akin to Mozart, Haydn, and Chopin, leading listeners to trust what they hear.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think Carter is very different than masters from the Classical era, except at the most basic level of musical gestures. He is probably best known for the use of all-interval chords rather than serialism, which makes his music more natural flowing to me. I listened to his Piano Concerto, Concerto for Orchestra and 3 Occasions over and over on a road trip. It seemed to make more sense by the end of the trip, but I think it was only from being more familiar with the gestures than the choice of notes.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

What are your 5 favorite works of his? Anything online that one might hear as a genuinely example of his greatness? I'm mostly familiar with his string quartets.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Edmund48 said:


> *Elliott Carter has written for those who are willing to learn how to understand and follow complex music.* The task of the listener is not to reject what seems at first encounter irritatingly "unintelligible," but rather to *stick with the new as if it were a new language, and learn its order and logic and then derive pleasure from it. If emotion and sentiment are communicated by music, they are only accessible after "one understands how the music works"; it is then that one can "perceive the emotion."* *All great music demands this kind of time and energy if it is to be understood and loved.* What the late music of Elliott Carter suggests is that even the most dense and complex of Carter's finest works can succeed with the wider audience because his music works on many levels. Because there is so much genuine richness in Carter's music, *it has a real chance for success with the audiences of today and tomorrow.*
> 
> *Perhaps what makes Carter great is that he, through painstaking discipline and concentration, has invented music that works the way the music of the great masters from the Classical era did *and that reaches across a wide range of listeners. Carter's music has, in the end, *an emotional necessity* behind its existence. It is therefore neither academic nor polemical. Its surface of modernity is *not artificial but human* in a unique, introspective, dramatic, and elegant manner: what is unexpected and seemingly unintelligible has emerged in an uncompromisingly modern manner akin to Mozart, Haydn, and Chopin, leading listeners to trust what they hear.


Your first sentence may be true. It does seem unlikely that most listeners who are _unwilling_ "to learn how to understand and follow complex music" will get much out of Carter's work. What does not follow from this - or explain it - is the idea that, in the usual experience of music, emotion and sentiment "are only accessible after 'one understands how the music works.'"

Music isn't normally or primarily addressed to the analytical mind, and most people, as they enjoy music ranging in complexity from a pop song to a classical symphony or opera, haven't the foggiest idea how the music works, or why they are experiencing such pleasure or being so deeply moved. Music isn't normally approached "as if it were a new language" of which people must "learn its order and logic and then derive pleasure from it." It may be true that the music of Carter demands "time and energy to be understood and loved, " but, in general, people are inclined to devote time and energy to music not in order to love it but because they enjoy it to a considerable degree already. Increased exposure, thought and study may heighten that enjoyment and reveal new qualities to enjoy, but they are not the cause of music's initial appeal or its success with the public.

You don't explain in what way the music of Carter "works the way the music of the great masters from the Classical era did." The terms "emotional necessity" and "human" would seem to apply well enough to most music from almost any era. Apparently they are what give Carter's music a "real chance for success with the audiences of today and tomorrow." But then you seem to be saying that some noteworthy amount of time and effort must be expended before the emotional necessity will become apparent, and then only for those "willing to learn how to understand and follow complex music." Given that few listeners are particularly willing and likely to expend that effort, is it really likely that "even the most dense and complex of Carter's finest works can succeed with the wider audience"?

If I've read you correctly, I have to say that you haven't made a case for Elliott Carter as either a great composer or a composer likely to achieve popularity. A case might be made for the former, but as for the latter I think the evidence, as well as the basic nature of what people generally seek in music, cuts very much the other way. Highly complex and dissonant music like Carter's will always appeal to a small minority of classical music listeners. And, of course, there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The only work I've truly cared for by Carter was his 2nd String Quartet. There's a certain democratic equality between the strings that I consider wonderfully captured and American in spirit like a visit to New England: each voice gets to have its say and speak out like at a town hall meeting. But overall, he lived to 104 and yet never seemed to have found his true voice as a modern composer in the midst of the psychological confusion of the 20th-century, and time eventually passed him by and that of the 2nd Vienne School, but of course not until leaving behind something of an impact... I view the recurring dissonance and stridency of Carter and Birtwistle as sometimes one and the same, and I'm sure both consider themselves as representing the language of the 2nd Viennese tradition though they did other things as well.






Works that are strident and chaotic such as this, I think not.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Edmund48 said:


> late music.
> .


When Carter died there was a lot of discussion about his music, and I remember a friend of mine being adamant that he kept on composing too long, his inspiration had inevitably run out when he had achieved a great age, and that the late works weren't interesting.

I've got some sympathy with this (nothing in the late music has caught my imagination as much as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quartets, for example, or even Night Fantasies)

However, I've enjoyed the piece called Epigrams here, for example (it comes from 2012) I've not heard the 5th quartet for years, but I'll dig it out soon.









In fact the last bit of Carter I enjoyed was by Aimard, on a recording of solo piano music called Legato - he plays a gorgeous sequence of three pieces there, including Cateneries.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Edmund48 said:


> Elliott Carter has written for those who are willing to learn how to understand and follow complex music. The task of the listener is not to reject what seems at first encounter irritatingly "unintelligible," but rather to stick with the new as if it were a new language, and learn its order and logic and then derive pleasure from it. If emotion and sentiment are communicated by music, they are only accessible after "one understands how the music works"; it is then that one can "perceive the emotion." All great music demands this kind of time and energy if it is to be understood and loved. What the late music of Elliott Carter suggests is that even the most dense and complex of Carter's finest works can succeed with the wider audience because his music works on many levels. Because there is so much genuine richness in Carter's music, it has a real chance for success with the audiences of today and tomorrow.
> 
> Perhaps what makes Carter great is that he, through painstaking discipline and concentration, has invented music that works the way the music of the great masters from the Classical era did and that reaches across a wide range of listeners. Carter's music has, in the end, an emotional necessity behind its existence. It is therefore neither academic nor polemical. Its surface of modernity is not artificial but human in a unique, introspective, dramatic, and elegant manner: what is unexpected and seemingly unintelligible has emerged in an uncompromisingly modern manner akin to Mozart, Haydn, and Chopin, leading listeners to trust what they hear.


I more or less agree. But what is meant by "understand"? For me it might be what it feels like when the music starts to communicate to me but even that is not really a good description of what happens. What comes to me with Carter's music after several hearings is an enjoyment of the sound world and the gestures. I don't know if that is "understanding". I found Carter's music more difficult than most contemporary music (much more difficult than Boulez, for example) but over time - not listening to it repeatedly in one sitting so much as listening again and again over a year or two - it came to "make sense" in that it "became enjoyable". There are many of his works now that I find enjoyable but I am not sure I understand them.

His late music is easier, I think partly because it is more mellow, but I found the quartets the best route to getting him.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I like some of his music. Some pieces I find pretty easy to get into like the Wind Quintet and early Cello Sonata. Much of it is thornier, and more challenging but I find him generally more colorful than most other composers associated with serialism/atonal music. He also seems strong in counterpoint. Don't know if he'll ever be a favorite of mine, but he strikes me as a skilled composer, and may continue to grow on me.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think Carter has strong ties to serialism, because he uses "all interval sets" which are the same sets found in Forte's index of sets, only Carter found these on his own and uses a different nomenclature. These sets have all six intervals, so I suppose this would give them maximum variety. Also, like the serialists or anyone who uses sets, the music is understood to use all 12 notes continuously, so we shouldn't expect it to sound anything other than modern and chromatic.
I view Carter as rather like Sessions and Babbitt, all being the representatives of a kind of American serialism which has gone into new and unique realms, with its own methods and concerns.
Unlike Boulez, I think Carter is more connected to the idea of music as 'humanly animate' in the way that characters in a play are engaged. This gives his works a sense of narrative which is not as present, if at all, in other serial music.
The way he uses the orchestra has ties to tradition, I think.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think Carter is more connected to the idea of music as 'humanly animate' in the way that characters in a play are engaged.


So I listened to a piece called Syringa recently, here






the voices seem to just do their own thing completely ignoring each other . . . it's not quite Beckett as far as I know, but you can see that it's in the Beckett spirit.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

This idea goes back to Charles Ives, and his string quartet movements "Arguments" etc.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_When Carter died there was a lot of discussion about his music, and I remember a friend of mine being adamant that he kept on composing too long, his inspiration had inevitably run out when he had achieved a great age, and that the late works weren't interesting._

I'd say just the opposite: his living to age 100-plus was his greatest achievement, far greater than any of his music, none of which is regularly played in concert anywhere outside of cities 10 million and larger. The average classical music fan doesn't know who he is, would have no idea why anyone would think of him as great, and probably wouldn't like anything he composed. That reflects on listeners more than the composer, I agree, but I think this is another modern composer writing in a time when classical music is not very good who was overrated by the classical music intelligentsia. I think in another 20 years he will be completely forgotten.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Edmund48 said:


> Elliott Carter has written for those who are willing to learn how to understand and follow complex music. The task of the listener is not to reject what seems at first encounter irritatingly "unintelligible," but rather to stick with the new as if it were a new language, and learn its order and logic and then derive pleasure from it. If emotion and sentiment are communicated by music, they are only accessible after "one understands how the music works"; it is then that one can "perceive the emotion." All great music demands this kind of time and energy if it is to be understood and loved. What the late music of Elliott Carter suggests is that even the most dense and complex of Carter's finest works can succeed with the wider audience because his music works on many levels. Because there is so much genuine richness in Carter's music, it has a real chance for success with the audiences of today and tomorrow.
> 
> Perhaps what makes Carter great is that he, through painstaking discipline and concentration, has invented music that works the way the music of the great masters from the Classical era did and that reaches across a wide range of listeners. Carter's music has, in the end, an emotional necessity behind its existence. It is therefore neither academic nor polemical. Its surface of modernity is not artificial but human in a unique, introspective, dramatic, and elegant manner: what is unexpected and seemingly unintelligible has emerged in an uncompromisingly modern manner akin to Mozart, Haydn, and Chopin, leading listeners to trust what they hear.


It should be made clear that the above are excerpts from concert notes written by Leon Botstein for a concert in honor of Elliott performed on Nov 17, 2013 at Carnegie Hall.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> This idea goes back to Charles Ives, and his string quartet movements "Arguments" etc.


I have a tremendous book on Carter which goes into this a bit, I have a feeling you'd appreciate it. It's David Schiff, _The Music of Elliott Carter _(Faber) He says that Carter was aware of a symbolic meaning that Ives attached to polyphonic complexity, which Ives saw as a metaphor for democracy apparently.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> It should be made clear that the above are excerpts from concert notes written by Leon Botstein for a concert in honor of Elliott performed on Nov 17, 2013 at Carnegie Hall.


FWIW, here is the link to the entire essay from which the program notes were taken:

http://americansymphony.org/elliott-carter-an-appreciation/


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

larold said:


> _When Carter died there was a lot of discussion about his music, and I remember a friend of mine being adamant that he kept on composing too long, his inspiration had inevitably run out when he had achieved a great age, and that the late works weren't interesting._
> 
> I'd say just the opposite: his living to age 100-plus was his greatest achievement, far greater than any of his music, none of which is regularly played in concert anywhere outside of cities 10 million and larger. The average classical music fan doesn't know who he is, would have no idea why anyone would think of him as great, and probably wouldn't like anything he composed. That reflects on listeners more than the composer, I agree, but I think this is another modern composer writing in a time when classical music is not very good who was overrated by the classical music intelligentsia. I think in another 20 years he will be completely forgotten.


I don't think he will ever be completely forgotten; your bias is showing.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I generally like the music of Elliot Carter, though explaining why I like it seems a bit elusive. His music is very complex. His music is very unpredictable, I don't know from note to note where the next note is going. It all seems like a controlled chaos. But that's what I like. 

I haven't listened to a lot of his music: the five string quartets, variations for orchestra, Symphonia: Sum Fluxae Pretium Spei (I am the prize of flowing hope) and a couple of other pieces I can't recall at this moment. 

I will listen to more of his music in the future.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I believe composers like Carter and Crumb will be remembered and performed in the future for their challenging and innovative music. Just as Schoenberg and Varese are remembered today. It's more likely that uninteresting composers such as John Adams will be forgotten. Although his name will appear in future music publications along with Glass as a popular composer of a bygone era.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

starthrower said:


> I believe composers like Carter and Crumb will be remembered and performed in the future for their challenging and innovative music. Just as Schoenberg and Varese are remembered today. It's more likely that uninteresting composers such as John Adams will be forgotten. Although his name will appear in future music publications along with Glass as a popular composer of a bygone era.


You're falling into the same trap as larold; Adams won't be forgotten either.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> You're falling into the same trap as larold; Adams won't be forgotten either.


I didn't say he'd be completely forgotten. But I don't believe his music will be held in high esteem in the future. Like Glass, Adams will remembered as a popular late 20th century composer.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

starthrower said:


> I believe composers like Carter and Crumb will be remembered and performed in the future for their challenging and innovative music. Just as Schoenberg and Varese are remembered today. It's more likely that uninteresting composers such as John Adams will be forgotten. Although his name will appear in future music publications along with Glass as a popular composer of a bygone era.


Interesting pairing and perhaps you are right. I only know Black Angels from Crumb's output but I find myself a little suspicious of it. Is it rather gimmicky? Carter, on the other hand, is clearly a very serious and rigorous composer, who I feel certain will command our interest and pleasure. Am I wrong about Crumb? What should I listen to to convince me?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Is it rather gimmicky?


He was, I think, concerned with instrumental effects (like Scarlatti and Liszt)


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

larold said:


> _When Carter died there was a lot of discussion about his music, and I remember a friend of mine being adamant that he kept on composing too long, his inspiration had inevitably run out when he had achieved a great age, and that the late works weren't interesting._
> 
> I'd say just the opposite: his living to age 100-plus was his greatest achievement, far greater than any of his music, none of which is regularly played in concert anywhere outside of cities 10 million and larger. The average classical music fan doesn't know who he is, would have no idea why anyone would think of him as great, and probably wouldn't like anything he composed. That reflects on listeners more than the composer, I agree, but I think this is another modern composer writing in a time when classical music is not very good who was overrated by the classical music intelligentsia. I think in another 20 years he will be completely forgotten.


Who (if any) would say _wasn't_ 'overrated by the classical music intelligentsia'?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

larold said:


> _When Carter died there was a lot of discussion about his music, and I remember a friend of mine being adamant that he kept on composing too long, his inspiration had inevitably run out when he had achieved a great age, and that the late works weren't interesting._
> 
> I'd say just the opposite: his living to age 100-plus was his greatest achievement, far greater than any of his music, none of which is regularly played in concert anywhere outside of cities 10 million and larger. *The average classical music fan doesn't know who he is, would have no idea why anyone would think of him as great, and probably wouldn't like anything he composed.* That reflects on listeners more than the composer, I agree, but I think this is another modern composer writing in a time when classical music is not very good who was overrated by the classical music intelligentsia. I think in another 20 years he will be completely forgotten.


Not really. Carter composed in a popular/populist and consciously Coplandesque style in his earlier years (_Elegy for Strings_ 1943 



, _1st Symphony_ etc.), later some moderate modernism, and even among the more recent works, there are rather tender pieces, such as the _Enchanted Preludes_ 



.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> He was, I think, concerned with instrumental effects (like Scarlatti and Liszt)


Mmm, OK. And I do like Scarlatti. Maybe that observation will help me (it may even help me with Liszt!) but I don't think it will lead me seeing Crumb paired with Carter.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

starthrower said:


> I didn't say he'd be completely forgotten. But I don't believe his music will be held in high esteem in the future. Like Glass, Adams will remembered as a popular late 20th century composer.


I wonder. I guess many might have thought the same of Rachmaninov in the 1950s but he is clearly surviving as a very noteworthy composer along with Schoenberg and Bartok. I don't think it works to consider music as belonging to a single unitary tradition any more. It is perfectly reasonable to love Shostakovich, Varese, Schoenberg and Stravinsky but not easy to compare them.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> What are your 5 favorite works of his? Anything online that one might hear as a genuinely example of his greatness? I'm mostly familiar with his string quartets.


See what you think of Penthode. And maybe the Brass Quintet. Scarecrow used to _love_ Penthode!


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I love Carter.

Quite a few of his pieces get fairly regular play on my system. 

My technical knowledge of music theory is quite limited, but I know what I like. And Carter gets high marks in my book.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Interesting pairing and perhaps you are right. I only know Black Angels from Crumb's output but I find myself a little suspicious of it. Is it rather gimmicky? Carter, on the other hand, is clearly a very serious and rigorous composer, who I feel certain will command our interest and pleasure. Am I wrong about Crumb? What should I listen to to convince me?


Crumb is a very serious and rigorous composer. Black Angels is one of my least favorite pieces of his. In fact compared to much of his other work I'd call it an atypical piece. Carter's music is incredibly dense, and I'm not always in the mood for that stuff. Crumb knows how to make great use of space and dynamics. A great place to start with Crumb is volume 6 on the Bridge label.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> I wonder. I guess many might have thought the same of Rachmaninov in the 1950s but he is clearly surviving as a very noteworthy composer along with Schoenberg and Bartok. I don't think it works to consider music as belonging to a single unitary tradition any more. It is perfectly reasonable to love Shostakovich, Varese, Schoenberg and Stravinsky but not easy to compare them.


Rachmaninov was one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century and he's remembered for his concertos which pianists love to play. What great pieces has John Adams written for posterity?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

starthrower said:


> Crumb is a very serious and rigorous composer. Black Angels is one of my least favorite pieces of his. In fact compared to much of his other work I'd call it an atypical piece. Carter's music is incredibly dense, and I'm not always in the mood for that stuff. Crumb knows how to make great use of space and dynamics. A great place to start with Crumb is volume 6 on the Bridge label.


Thanks. I will explore further.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

"_Black Angels_" - the recordings mean a lot too, some of them being simply much too agressive, IMO. But I definitely prefer other works of his as well.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

starthrower said:


> Rachmaninov was one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century and he's remembered for his concertos which pianists love to play. What great pieces has John Adams written for posterity?


I am no fan of Adams and have no idea whether he aims for posterity. I suspect he does ... and, from what I can see of the history of music from 1900, feel he will achieve it. And Carter will be there, too!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

”What Makes Elliott Carter A Great Composer?”
I believe that it has not been established that he is indeed a great composer, and yet the statement is presented as if it’s a foregone conclusion. Maybe he is and maybe he’s not. It’s too soon to tell but I like some of his string quartets.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Many years ago I was ar a Solti/CSO tour concert pairing the Mahler Fifth with Carter's Variations for Orchestra. Obviously people came for the Mahler, but a surprising number of people were intrigued to find that, whether they initially liked it or not, the Carter was a real piece of music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Thanks. I will explore further.


I'd be interested to know what you make of this


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I am impressed by George Crumb's sheer sensuality, the expression of new sounds. Favorite recordings:










 This is the definitive version, with Jan DeGaetani singing.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> I'd be interested to know what you make of this


This is great, but listen to it on a good audio system. Small computer speakers can't produce the effects of the overtones.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

In the Makrokosmos III I posted the thing that caught my intention is the way it’s a collage of disparate musical style, with very little interest in unity. In my opinion is a paradigm of musical postmodernism.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> I'd be interested to know what you make of this


Thank you for that. I have only listened on computer speakers (not bad ones, though) but found it lovely and intriguing. Of course, as a first listen this was necessarily (for me) focused on the surface. But I will definitely be listening to it again.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> In the Makrokosmos III I posted the thing that caught my intention is the way it's a collage of disparate musical style, with very little interest in unity. In my opinion is a paradigm of musical postmodernism.


I have a problem with calling Crumb a post-modernist. To me, that must involve a more paradigm-shattering juxtaposition. I see Crumb as firmly rooted in tradition (see early works), using traditional ensembles and forms (Madrigals), and using John Cage's "prepared" ideas in instrumentation (cellos played with mallets, etc.), and basically just extending the ideas of the American avant-garde.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I have a problem with calling Crumb a post-modernist. To me, that must involve a more paradigm-shattering juxtaposition. I see Crumb as firmly rooted in tradition (see early works), using traditional ensembles and forms (Madrigals), and using John Cage's "prepared" ideas in instrumentation (cellos played with mallets, etc.), and basically just extending the ideas of the American avant-garde.


Yes I think that post modernists extend the avant garde in this sense: they build on certain modernist breakthroughs (like the unreality of narratives) Postmodernists don't reject the avant garde, that would make them reactionary composers with a nostalgic temperament.

However one aspect of postmodernism may well involve a rejection of the _concept _of avant garde, since they refuse to rank and classify. All music from the past is good to build on in their compositions.

This little discussion is making me want to go and explore Finnissy some more . . .


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Yes I think that post modernists extend the avant garde in this sense: they build on certain modernist breakthroughs (like the unreality of narratives) Postmodernists don't reject the avant garde, that would make them reactionary composers with a nostalgic temperament.
> 
> However one aspect of postmodernism may well involve a rejection of the _concept _of avant garde, since they refuse to rank and classify. All music from the past is good to build on in their compositions.
> 
> This little discussion is making me want to go and explore Finnissy some more . . .


You may be correct, Mandryka. Perhaps I'm too much of a post-modernist myself to see it.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Carter is a great composer, but unpopular for obvious reasons. In time I believe he will be remembered much as Krenek is today—a minor, relatively important composer.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I have a problem with calling Crumb a post-modernist. To me, that must involve a more paradigm-shattering juxtaposition. I see Crumb as firmly rooted in tradition (see early works), using traditional ensembles and forms (Madrigals), and using John Cage's "prepared" ideas in instrumentation (cellos played with mallets, etc.), and basically just extending the ideas of the American avant-garde.


Is this more like how you see postmodernity?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Edmund48 said:


> ..Perhaps what makes Carter great is that he, through painstaking discipline and concentration, has invented music that works the way the music of the great masters from the Classical era did and that reaches across a wide range of listeners. Carter's music has, in the end, an emotional necessity behind its existence. It is therefore neither academic nor polemical. Its surface of modernity is not artificial but human in a unique, introspective, dramatic, and elegant manner: what is unexpected and seemingly unintelligible has emerged in an uncompromisingly modern manner akin to Mozart, Haydn, and Chopin, leading listeners to trust what they hear.


I won't comment on his music, but the above is rather bizarre. Why not throw in Bach and Beethoven for good measure?


----------



## Edmund48 (Apr 1, 2019)

Thanks for all the comments.

I know more than a few people who say that Carter is .... _"an incredibly overhyped composer whose inspiration comes (if at all) only in the tiniest spurts."_

How can we change their minds?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There are lots of people - including some members of this forum - who will never get Carter. They reject a lot of music that is far more "approachable" than Carter. I don't think you can change their minds. But time moves on and if there are still people with a serious interest in classical music it will become more and more likely that they will include Carter in their "repertoire". For the rest - leave them be!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> ... But time moves on and if there are still people with a serious interest in classical music it will become more and more likely that they will include Carter in their "repertoire". For the rest - leave them be!


So including Carter in one's repertoire is a measure of a serious interest in classical music. Thus, it might just be possible that a majority on this forum don't have a serious interest in classical music. Just sayin'.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Edmund48 said:


> Thanks for all the comments.
> 
> I know more than a few people who say that Carter is .... _"an incredibly overhyped composer whose inspiration comes (if at all) only in the tiniest spurts."_
> 
> How can we change their minds?





Enthusiast said:


> There are lots of people - including some members of this forum - who will never get Carter. They reject a lot of music that is far more "approachable" than Carter. I don't think you can change their minds. But time moves on and if there are still people with a serious interest in classical music it will become more and more likely that they will include Carter in their "repertoire". For the rest - leave them be!


Since what is most unique of Carter's music is his use of the all-interval tetrachord, then his reputation will live or die by the importance or relevance of that concept, and his use of it. Personally I find the significance of the concept questionable. I doubt many fans can tell the difference between dodecaphony and all-interval tetrachords. And if they can't tell what is really going on, are they really enjoying the music for what it really is, and appreciating the compositional process? I suspect there is a placebo effect. Gestures are easily mimicked.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I have no idea what an "all-interval tetrachord" is so I must definitely be in the group of fans who can't tell "the difference between dodecaphony and all-interval tetrachords". But I think your suggestion that this means that I can't tell what is going on in Carter's music and therefore am merely enjoying a "placebo effect" when I enjoy Carter is totally ridiculous. By that measure all my music pleasure - all 55 years of it - is just me imagining I like the music that I feel I love! If it were true that we need to understand what he is doing technically to enjoy Carter then Carter would indeed be a failed composer.

You go on to suggest that those of us who merely enjoy the music are fooling ourselves. Presumably you think that all those who enjoy Beethoven without knowing how he achieves such wonderful music are similarly deluded? If you listen to music merely trying to identify what the composer is doing - merely focusing on the workings underneath (the workings you are _not mean to see_) - then I think your enjoyment and proper understanding of the music will be very limited.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> are they really enjoying the music for what it really is


What's the difference between these things?

1. enjoying the music for what it really is
2. enjoying the music for what it is
3. enjoying the music


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Here's one of the greatest Overtures I've heard by anyone... just tremendous. His stock just went up. It's vibrant and American in the best sense of the word, fabulously orchestrated, reminiscent in the democratic spirit of Charles Ives, brilliant with its incredibly skillful, modern counterpoint that sometimes suggests two different orchestras playing against each other. Deeply impressive. For me, a masterpiece by a great composer, regardless of his other discordant works that I don't exactly care for. At his best, he could truly write with great power, freedom of spirit, and originality.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

From his 'populist' period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday_Overture


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Carter said that he was a radical, who by nature is inclined to perpetual revolt. He continually pushed the boundaries of music, never making concessions to audience taste or even to performers. This is how he retained his personality as a composer.

When he composed his breakthrough piece, String Quartet No. 1, he thought it would be unlikely to be performed. I've enjoyed that work for some time. I elaborated in this old post:
https://www.talkclassical.com/56730-what-do-you-think.html#post1497829

He hasn't got many advocates, but nevertheless his music is performed live on occasion. Its complexity means that only the solo and chamber works have any chance of regular airings.

Metric modulation is the innovation that makes him significant for 20th Century music. That's the essence of it, but I think there's more to Carter than just technique.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I have no idea what an "all-interval tetrachord" is so I must definitely be in the group of fans who can't tell "the difference between dodecaphony and all-interval tetrachords". But I think your suggestion that this means that I can't tell what is going on in Carter's music and therefore am merely enjoying a "placebo effect" when I enjoy Carter is totally ridiculous. By that measure all my music pleasure - all 55 years of it - is just me imagining I like the music that I feel I love! If it were true that we need to understand what he is doing technically to enjoy Carter then Carter would indeed be a failed composer.
> 
> You go on to suggest that those of us who merely enjoy the music are fooling ourselves. Presumably you think that all those who enjoy Beethoven without knowing how he achieves such wonderful music are similarly deluded? If you listen to music merely trying to identify what the composer is doing - merely focusing on the workings underneath (the workings you are _not mean to see_) - then I think your enjoyment and proper understanding of the music will be very limited.





Mandryka said:


> What's the difference between these things?
> 
> 1. enjoying the music for what it really is
> 2. enjoying the music for what it is
> 3. enjoying the music


The OP likened Carter to Mozart and others. I heard similar comparisons by "Modernist" fans. But really the only thing they share are gestures which can convey a certain expression to the listener the same as how different ethnic languages can. Not saying there is anything wrong with that. It may be the only way to enjoy certain modern and contemporary composers. I was questioning how Carter could be considered great or that "serious" listeners would include Carter in the repertoire. With Beethoven and similar composers and even to Bartok and Schoenberg, their genius is apparent even without studying the score. The way they build on elements. But in Carter, 2 of his Pulitzer prize (the same given to Kendrick Lamar) winners are based on random interactions between players. There is a lot left to chance. Obviously this sort of music has its haters. But are the fans actually more informed, or actually get the music beyond simple gestures? Unless they know the significance of the all-interval how can "serious" listeners convince others Carter is that great composer?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I've not a lot of interest in convincing others about Carter and, anyway, probably do not fit your strange definition of "serious listener". I think you should change your name to "Phil loves understanding the technical qualities of classical". Certainly, I can't relate your approach to music to anything that interests me when I listen. You also might find more in Carter if you let go of your inner musician and just try to hear the music.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> The OP likened Carter to Mozart and others. I heard similar comparisons by "Modernist" fans. But really the only thing they share are gestures which can convey a certain expression to the listener the same as how different ethnic languages can. Not saying there is anything wrong with that. It may be the only way to enjoy certain modern and contemporary composers. I was questioning how Carter could be considered great or that "serious" listeners would include Carter in the repertoire. With Beethoven and similar composers and even to Bartok and Schoenberg, their genius is apparent even without studying the score. The way they build on elements. But in Carter, *2 of his Pulitzer prize (the same given to Kendrick Lamar) winners are based on random interactions between players. There is a lot left to chance*. Obviously this sort of music has its haters. But are the fans actually more informed, or actually get the music beyond simple gestures? Unless they know the significance of the all-interval how can "serious" listeners convince others Carter is that great composer?


I studied Carter's music in college and own a few of his scores, including the Third String Quartet, which is one of his Pulitzer Prize winners. Notation-wise it is the very opposite of "random"...NOTHING is left to chance. On the contrary, everything is precisely notated with no use of aleatoric devices.

I will grant you though that it SOUNDS extremely random and chance-like. Thus the paradox of extremely complex notation resulting in aural randomness.

This is not a defense of his music, by the way...I dislike it intensely.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> The OP likened Carter to Mozart and others. I heard similar comparisons by "Modernist" fans. But really the only thing they share are gestures which can convey a certain expression to the listener the same as how different ethnic languages can. Not saying there is anything wrong with that. It may be the only way to enjoy certain modern and contemporary composers. I was questioning how Carter could be considered great or that "serious" listeners would include Carter in the repertoire. With Beethoven and similar composers and even to Bartok and Schoenberg, their genius is apparent even without studying the score. The way they build on elements. But in Carter, 2 of his Pulitzer prize (the same given to Kendrick Lamar) winners are based on random interactions between players. There is a lot left to chance. Obviously this sort of music has its haters. But are the fans actually more informed, or actually get the music beyond simple gestures? Unless they know the significance of the all-interval how can "serious" listeners convince others Carter is that great composer?


Here is John Corigliano discussing musical organization vs. aural perception. He is discussing total serialism (a technique not used by Carter) but what he is saying still applies to very complex, intellectual music such as Carter's:






If the video does not start in the right place, go to 25'30".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> But in Carter, 2 of his Pulitzer prize (the same given to Kendrick Lamar) winners are based on random interactions between players. There is a lot left to chance.


So for Beethoven, the "genius" of a piece of music is something which (some) listeners (in some conditions) can perceive without studying the score.

I like to put this by saying that the quality of the music is perceivable on the surface . . . you don't have to dig into its hidden construction. The essence of the music is not something which is hidden, to be revealed by the academic's analysis.

You think this is true for Beethoven etc, but not for music with a chance component. Let's put aside music with a chance component for the moment . . . without conceding anything.

I guess you think it holds true for Carter's music which doesn't have a chance element. I.e. noprincipled difference between Beethoven and a Carter quartet.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Charles Rosen discusses a Carter piece in this lecture, starting at 58:30: 




Rosen was undeniably one of the all-time great classical music writers. _The Classical Style_ is probably the most illuminating book I've read about classical music. The fact that he loved Carter makes me suspect I'm missing something.

Nonetheless, his riff on this piece, _90+_, doesn't really help me. It's nothing like his explorations of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven - it's just walking through the nuts and bolts of how the piece is put together. A steady pulse at one speed, a series of chords that change at a slower speed (every 17 triplets relative to the original pulse), a melodic line (which he calls very expressive - debatable) on top, gradually accelerating. There's no discussion of the pitch content.

Everyone who talks about Carter seems to focus on his rhythmic ideas, which are large-scale polyrhythms and "metric modulation." These ideas are actually not complicated at all. Rosen mentions that it's "not easy to do," which I'm not sure I buy - doesn't he just choose the rhythmic parameters and go to town? what would it sound like if it were done poorly? - but in any case, I'm not sure why I would care about any of this.

There are things about Carter's self-professed musical interests that just put me off. For one thing, his fascination with the "all-interval tetrachord," a tetrachord containing all six interval classes. Isn't that, literally, the least distinctive possible harmony? Then the stuff about rhythm in pre-modern music being about marching soldiers, unsuited to the modern world of jets, or whatever. I don't know what to make of someone who devoted his life to music and held on so hard to an idea like that.


----------



## Edmund48 (Apr 1, 2019)

A very different view of Carter's music.

*"In order to produce finely etched music demands a great ear, a large heart, a rich and deep personality, and an unerring sense of drama and pacing. Elliott Carter just didn't have it to give, or he thought he was on to something better, but wasn't.

His deluded music of the eternal present will sadly have little future."*

http://johnborstlap.com/on-the-death-of-elliott-carter/


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I've not a lot of interest in convincing others about Carter and, anyway, probably do not fit your strange definition of "serious listener". I think you should change your name to "Phil loves understanding the technical qualities of classical". Certainly, I can't relate your approach to music to anything that interests me when I listen. You also might find more in Carter if you let go of your inner musician and just try to hear the music.





Haydn70 said:


> I studied Carter's music in college and own a few of his scores, including the Third String Quartet, which is one of his Pulitzer Prize winners. Notation-wise it is the very opposite of "random"...NOTHING is left to chance. On the contrary, everything is precisely notated with no use of aleatoric devices.
> 
> I will grant you though that it SOUNDS extremely random and chance-like. Thus the paradox of extremely complex notation resulting in aural randomness.
> 
> This is not a defense of his music, by the way...I dislike it intensely.





Mandryka said:


> So for Beethoven, the "genius" of a piece of music is something which (some) listeners (in some conditions) can perceive without studying the score.
> 
> I like to put this by saying that the quality of the music is perceivable on the surface . . . you don't have to dig into its hidden construction. The essence of the music is not something which is hidden, to be revealed by the academic's analysis.
> 
> ...


I'm just prodding some of you fans to come up with a little more than "I like Carter so he must be great" or "you know it when you hear it". So say what is so great about his music, because many other composers could be explained in more tangible terms. I can hear obvious gestures, but the sonorities, rhythms are not particularly special and not above more accessible music. The great masters had much more than simple gestures and surface manipulation of sounds. To elevate Carter to their level to me shows underappreciation of those masters. I make fun of Brahms sometimes, but his talent level is way beyond Carter, who I do think is more of technical interest only

His 3rd quartet may be fully annotated, but the interaction of each duo is completely coincidental, their movements overlap with each other.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> His 3rd quartet may be fully annotated, but the interaction of each duo is completely coincidental, their movements overlap with each other.


It may be a metaphor for discord and democracy etc. It would be quite an achievement if he filled hours and hours of music with discordant voices which don't interact, and the music was still interesting to hear.

In the 4th quartet there's a brief moment just before the end where the four players quieten down and play together for a brief time, and then the discord starts again. I'm not sure what's being said.

Generally I think you're wasting your time trying to rank for quality, or to try to get clear about other people's rankings. I suspect that all people are saying is that they enjoy Carter or Mozart or whoever, which might matter to them but not to anyone else!

Much better to try to say what's going on in the music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think Phil's block is that he doesn't accept music which is by nature using all 12 notes. This is a modernist principle which goes hand in hand with 12-tone and serial music.

He will never receive a satisfactory answer to his challenge, because for him the only "right" answers are harmonic ones, which he equates with "good" music and musical "meaning."

Listening to Carter, like any non-harmonically based music, involves listening "in the now" from moment to moment, and listening to the various gestures in terms of sound, texture, individual lines, and momentary sonority.

Harmonically, there will be no connected narrative as there is in Beethoven.
If you asked this same thing of a Beethoven listener, if pressed, they would be hard pressed to actually describe what it is they are hearing...how do you describe a melody, or a chord progression? Literally, you can't except in musical terms.

So all music is going to be described as a visceral response to a series of "musical gestures" to which there is no literal definition or description, except in terms of our subjective response.

The fact that traditionally most music has a "shared harmonic logic and meaning" is simply a matter of consonance/dissonance, the way our ears hear, which is a harmonic principle , and that doesn't apply to serial music except in a very fleeting way.

So what are we hearing in Carter which replaces this "harmonic" sense?

Gestures, rhythms, chromatic lines, interactions of voices and layers, colors, textures; in short, the same "unexplainable" things which attract us to all music, minus the harmony.

I'll admit, this can be a challenge for many.

When Phil observes that "The great masters had much more than simple gestures and surface manipulation of sounds," i ask him: what do you mean?


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

I don't know what you expect to hear but I find Elliott Carter's work to be very vibrant, well-structured and refreshing to listen to. It doesn't matter what period of his work either, early or very late in his career, he had a great approach to pitch and rhythm and his music (like many other great 20th/21st century composers) provide a real journey through his pieces.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I think Phil's block is that he doesn't accept music which is by nature using all 12 notes. This is a modernist principle which goes hand in hand with 12-tone and serial music.
> 
> He will never receive a satisfactory answer to his challenge, because for him the only "right" answers are harmonic ones, which he equates with "good" music and musical "meaning."
> 
> ...


With Beethoven and others you can easily describe with chord progression, motivic development. There isn't a moment where you're wondering how it fits in as a whole. Scriabin, Bartok, Messiaen, Schoenberg and Webern also used all 12 notes, but there is way more organization, structure and unity. With Stockhausen, it is tightly organized more by rhythms, plus he had interesting timbres to boot. With Carter, there is little associations. To me that is missing a lot the other composers had.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I think Phil's block is that he doesn't accept music which is by nature using all 12 notes. This is a modernist principle which goes hand in hand with 12-tone and serial music.


Carter didn't consider himself to be a serialist.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

larold said:


> _When Carter died there was a lot of discussion about his music, and I remember a friend of mine being adamant that he kept on composing too long, his inspiration had inevitably run out when he had achieved a great age, and that the late works weren't interesting._
> 
> I'd say just the opposite: his living to age 100-plus was his greatest achievement, far greater than any of his music, none of which is regularly played in concert anywhere outside of cities 10 million and larger. *The average classical music fan doesn't know who he is, would have no idea why anyone would think of him as great, and probably wouldn't like anything he composed.* That reflects on listeners more than the composer, I agree, but I think this is another modern composer writing in a time when classical music is not very good who was overrated by the classical music intelligentsia. I think in another 20 years he will be completely forgotten.





joen_cph said:


> Not really. Carter composed in a popular/populist and consciously Coplandesque style in his earlier years (_Elegy for Strings_ 1943
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just getting back to this conversation. Carter moved towards a less hard edged approach in his later music. Enchanted Preludes is amongst these more mellow works (its on the 100th Anniversary Naxos album that I like, along with other late chamber works). There's also Sound Fields for String Orchestra, a work that surprised those who first heard it because it was so simple.

Everything old was new again in the '80's, and much like Peter Maxwell Davies with his symphonies, Carter embarked on writing concertos for solo instruments. I had the one for violin and it puts orchestral complexity in the background, the soloist to the fore. While his more challenging works use block structures, this one is in the traditional three movement format.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Edmund48 said:


> Elliott Carter has written for those who are willing to learn how to understand and follow complex music. The task of the listener is not to reject what seems at first encounter irritatingly "unintelligible," but rather to stick with the new as if it were a new language, and learn its order and logic and then derive pleasure from it. If emotion and sentiment are communicated by music, they are only accessible after "one understands how the music works"; it is then that one can "perceive the emotion." All great music demands this kind of time and energy if it is to be understood and loved. What the late music of Elliott Carter suggests is that even the most dense and complex of Carter's finest works can succeed with the wider audience because his music works on many levels. Because there is so much genuine richness in Carter's music, it has a real chance for success with the audiences of today and tomorrow.
> 
> Perhaps *what makes Carter great is that he, through painstaking discipline and concentration, has invented music that works the way the music of the great masters from the Classical era did and that reaches across a wide range of listeners.* Carter's music has, in the end, an emotional necessity behind its existence. It is therefore neither academic nor polemical. Its surface of modernity is not artificial but human in a unique, introspective, dramatic, and elegant manner: what is unexpected and seemingly unintelligible has emerged in an uncompromisingly modern manner akin to Mozart, Haydn, and Chopin, leading listeners to trust what they hear.


That is one of the funniest and most inaccurate things I have ever read on TC. "...reaches across a wide range of listeners." Yeah, right.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> With Beethoven and others you can easily describe with chord progression, motivic development. There isn't a moment where you're wondering how it fits in as a whole. Scriabin, Bartok, Messiaen, Schoenberg and Webern also used all 12 notes, but there is way more organization, structure and unity. With Stockhausen, it is tightly organized more by rhythms, plus he had interesting timbres to boot. With Carter, there is little associations. To me that is missing a lot the other composers had.


Do you not feel that in the 3rd quartet say, the music is "tightly organised more by rhythms" ? My impression is that it is, very much so.

It is true that the musicians don't exchange melodic material in any obvious way, and the music doesn't seem to work by harmonic motion.

The form is interesting too. It's not like a story or a speech with recapitulation and development etc. It's more like a series of episodes which to me sound like different perspectives on the same ideas.

I just report informally that listening to it for me resembles listening to a mass by Ockeghem or Pierre de la Rue.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> Here's one of the greatest Overtures I've heard by anyone... just tremendous.


I agree, really enjoyed that. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

In his later years, Carter himself said that in the future, the audience would like more complicated music, and that he was pretty sure his music would be even more appreciated then. What seems confusing now may not be regarded so later on, with the course of time and the public being exposed to newer musical and cultural developments. Obviously, a lot of parallels to especially early 20th century music that have become classics, are easy to find.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> With Beethoven and others you can easily describe with chord progression, motivic development. There isn't a moment where you're wondering how it fits in as a whole. Scriabin, Bartok, Messiaen, Schoenberg and Webern also used all 12 notes, but there is way more organization, structure and unity. With Stockhausen, it is tightly organized more by rhythms, plus he had interesting timbres to boot. With Carter, there is little associations. To me that is missing a lot the other composers had.


What are you talking about? Chord progression, motivic development? I just listen.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Carter didn't consider himself to be a serialist.


This has already been explained. He used the same Forte sets, including all-interval rows. This is a non-issue. Where have you been, or what's your point?

My post #9:

I think Carter has strong ties to serialism, because he uses "all interval sets" which are the same sets found in Forte's index of sets, only Carter found these on his own and uses a different nomenclature. These sets have all six intervals, so I suppose this would give them maximum variety. Also, like the serialists or anyone who uses sets, the music is understood to use all 12 notes continuously, so we shouldn't expect it to sound anything other than modern and chromatic.
I view Carter as rather like Sessions and Babbitt, all being the representatives of a kind of American serialism which has gone into new and unique realms, with its own methods and concerns.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> This has already been explained. He used the same Forte sets, including all-interval rows. This is a non-issue. Where have you been, or what's your point?
> 
> My post #9:
> 
> ...


I would say not even close to serialism like Babbitt, in terms of approach. He doesn't try to use all 12 notes continuously. I analyzed his "Nighttime Fantasies" and experimented with something similar to his approach, and made a study in the Today's Composers forum. I got a better sense now of what his music is about. He still achieves atonality without forcing himself to use strictly 12 notes. It is very improvisational.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I analyzed his "Nighttime Fantasies" and experimented with something similar to his approach, and made a study in the Today's Composers forum. I got a better sense now of what his music is about.


You _may_ have got a better understanding of how he makes his music but I don't think your method could have told you what his music was about. For that you would have been better advised to just listen to it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> You _may_ have got a better understanding of how he makes his music but I don't think your method could have told you what his music was about. For that you would have been better advised to just listen to it.


What the music is about? The score is really a roadmap to maybe everything contained in the music. I would agree with your statement in more accessible composers, there are things I can only pick up by hearing, but for atonal composers there is more in the score than what can be heard, especially in serialism like Babbitt. So far I didn't hear how anyone heard in his music more than just more isolated fragments. I'm saying with the older masters even atonal ones like Webern, there is way more built in the music binding the notes together, not just surface details or improvisations on one chord type. It seems that I hear as much as Carter fans, but just want something more.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I cannot prove you wrong so we will just agree to disagree. I suppose we expect a performer to work out what s/he wants to say with a piece of music from their reading of the score (which should, ideally, come first). But it does seem to me that many lesser mortals would do well not to look at a score until they have understood through hearing what the music is (or may be, if you prefer) about. I don't see why that should be different for serial music. And I guess that gifted performers and conductors have often been adept with all sorts of music (not just serial or atonal music) at showing us new things in a familiar score. And then we listeners hear that, too. But I must accept that you are convinced in your view and therefore feel that I and many others are not able to understand such music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> I would say not even close to serialism like Babbitt, in terms of approach. He doesn't try to use all 12 notes continuously. I analyzed his "Nighttime Fantasies" and experimented with something similar to his approach, and made a study in the Today's Composers forum. I got a better sense now of what his music is about. He still achieves atonality without forcing himself to use strictly 12 notes. It is very improvisational.


Give us the link to that.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> Give us the link to that.


The last one I posted. I agree with the Capt'n it is rather Jazzy, and likely different from Carter's aesthetic.
My experimental pieces and so forth thread



Enthusiast said:


> I cannot prove you wrong so we will just agree to disagree. I suppose we expect a performer to work out what s/he wants to say with a piece of music from their reading of the score (which should, ideally, come first). But it does seem to me that many lesser mortals would do well not to look at a score until they have understood through hearing what the music is (or may be, if you prefer) about. I don't see why that should be different for serial music. And I guess that gifted performers and conductors have often been adept with all sorts of music (not just serial or atonal music) at showing us new things in a familiar score. And then we listeners hear that, too. But I must accept that you are convinced in your view and therefore feel that I and many others are not able to understand such music.


Not saying it is necessary to see the score to make some general observations about the music. I agree with you the way to actually enjoy Carter's music is just to listen to the fragments, and bits of colour. Babbitt wrote an interesting piece on listening to his music. He expects the listener to be able to keep track of pitches, duration, rhythm, and dynamics all throughout his music to be able to follow the structure. I think it is impossible for anybody to do. If you don't remember or missed one dynamic, it would ruin all the associations with the other qualities, what he calls "false identification" in the 6th paragraph. I doubt Babbitt only wants us to hear isolated bits of sound.

http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html

Less challenging, but still not easy listening, is to hear the transformations in Webern's music. Again, I doubt Webern only wanted us to hear isolated sounds, or listen only in the moment, since his music definitely has a narrative.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Edmund48 said:


> Elliott Carter has written for those who are willing to learn how to understand and follow complex music. The task of the listener is not to reject what seems at first encounter irritatingly "unintelligible," but rather to stick with the new as if it were a new language, and learn its order and logic and then derive pleasure from it. If emotion and sentiment are communicated by music, they are only accessible after "one understands how the music works"; it is then that one can "perceive the emotion." All great music demands this kind of time and energy if it is to be understood and loved. What the late music of Elliott Carter suggests is that even the most dense and complex of Carter's finest works can succeed with the wider audience because his music works on many levels. Because there is so much genuine richness in Carter's music, it has a real chance for success with the audiences of today and tomorrow.
> 
> Perhaps what makes Carter great is that he, through painstaking discipline and concentration, has invented music that works the way the music of the great masters from the Classical era did and that reaches across a wide range of listeners. Carter's music has, in the end, an emotional necessity behind its existence. It is therefore neither academic nor polemical. Its surface of modernity is not artificial but human in a unique, introspective, dramatic, and elegant manner: what is unexpected and seemingly unintelligible has emerged in an uncompromisingly modern manner akin to Mozart, Haydn, and Chopin, leading listeners to trust what they hear.


No doubt about it, Elliott Carter is far and away , the greatest ever American soil, composer. Elliott Carter needs no apologist, nor fan rooting club house. His music stands alone , with no other American composer as second to his works. carter stands alone, as Schnittke, Pettersson, Henze stand alone in their musical creations. Unique voices of powerful musical high genius. 
Elliott Carter true greatness lies in his ability to absorb learning from the 3 great 2nd Viennese masters, along with Varese of course , (w/o Varese, many a composer may have been lessened, weaker), and reshaped these ideas, bringing forth spectacular creative musical formations. Many of which will take us a lifetime to fully explore and experience its fullness. 
Elliott Carter, far away America's greatest stand alone composer. 
... had to be redundant here , as Elliott seems to have a bashing group following him, where he goes....these bashers feel Elliott *sold out* to the modern expression, and so breached the conservative new England mind set. 
I hear in Carter musical ideas which I also hear akin to Hans Henze's creations, . A relation as say Ravel and Debussy were both contemporaries, yet distinct in formations. .


----------



## NovAntiqua (6 mo ago)

Elliott Carter: Figment IV (2007) for viola


----------

