# twelve tone technique and 20th century classical music



## smoth (Oct 13, 2009)

I am writing a paper on the influences leading up to 20th century classical music, specifically atonality and the twelve tone technique. 

I think it would be nearly impossible to argue that Schoenberg was not pivotal in the change away from romanticism. However, I am having trouble finding information on his influences. Most often his contributions are often phrased in such a way as to imply that they were solely of his own development. Any recommended recordings that best exemplify his influence on future composers. 

Since my paper is limited to 5-6 pages, I need to focus my studies on a particular time period, which I have chosen as the time between the two world wars when much of the development was starting to take hold. Stravinsky's Neoclassical period, Schoenberg's development of the twelve tone technique. Stravinsky's neoclassical influences are a bit more clear than Schoenberg's. 

Are there any other specific movements that I need to address to provide adequate cause to the developments that I mentioned above?

Any readings or recordings related to the above subjects (preferable on the shorter side, only have a week to write this) would be greatly appreciated. 

Thanks for your help.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I am by no means an expert on Schonberg, but I understand he loved Mahler. He referred to Mahler as a "saint."


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I would say that Impressionism in music was a huge deal in bringing about 20th century non-tonal music. The premiere of Debussy's prelude of the afternoon of a faun arguably had about as much influence (if not so insane) as that of Le Sacre. Add to that the fact that Debussy's piece was written and performed a decade or two before Le Sacre, and one could say that Impressionism and very late Romanticism planted the seeds of the 20th century.


----------



## Davidjo (Sep 30, 2009)

How many people actually like Schoenberg? 

Music is about patterns. What sticks in people's minds are strong patterns. Only what sticks is liked. I think there is a very strong strain of pseudery and determined elitism in a professed liking for atonality. 

Not to deny the influence of atonality. Certainly, the atonal tradition has freed up mainstream, with often good results. 

But pure atonal music is I think an enthusiasm really for musicologists and those who like to feel part of a small select cognoscenti (not for the sake of the music, but for the sense of being part of a tiny group of gnostics). 

Incidentally I think I read that the "12 tone" system is really a bit of a con. Once you are freed of harmony then you might as well call it a 7 tone or a 28 tone system. That's not my view necessarily - I merely pass it on.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I think the greatest influence for the atonal composers was Wagner. They just took a logical step from music that constantly changes the key and only very vaguely obeys the rules of tonality to music that has no key or tonality at all. So that's definately what inspired Schoenberg to write his pre-serial atonal music. After that twelve-tone method was invented as some kind of an alternate way of organizing music; Schoenberg didn't want to just destroy all the old rules and systems, he also wanted to create new ones. He probably felt that atonal music would have been too chaotic without any organizing principle. But as far as I know nobody had really done anything near to twelve-tone method before him.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Davidjo said:


> How many people actually like Schoenberg?


I don't...........


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Davidjo said:


> How many people actually like Schoenberg?


I do, & I'm not a musicologist, or part of any 'elite.'

Anyway, I've read that (like Wagner mentioned above), the Russian composer Scriabin also pushed the limits of tonality to the extreme, in works like his _Poem of Ecstasy_. I doubt that he influenced Schoenberg, but Scriabin's music is certainly an interesting parallel, which went on to influence other Russian composers who came to write 'atonal' music, like Roslavets.

Another member of this forum has pointed out to me how the 'Tristan chord,' invented by Liszt had a great influence on composers like Berg, especially his early _Piano Sonata_. How much this influence was passed on to Schoenberg, I don't know.

It's also common knowledge how Schoenberg was a big admirer of Brahms, but I don't think that composer influenced him to develop the 12-tone technique. This influence is more prevalent in his early output, like the _Gurrelieder _or _Transfigured Night..._


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I love Schoenberg. He has his own qualities, and there are certainly harmonies that he exploits. In his rhythmic device he refers constantly back to Bach, and he plants melodies in the middle of a colorful jungle of notes.

I'd have to say that to smoth, that you definitely want to give some credit to Scriabin. He was a big factor in the beginning of the Decadent and Avante Garde compositions.


----------



## Davidjo (Sep 30, 2009)

"But as far as I know nobody had really done anything near to twelve-tone method before him."

but more importantly - does anyone much bother with it since...

Whereas 90% of musicians still defer to traditional harmony.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Why does every time Schoenberg's name is mentioned, some reactionary has to pop up & cast doubt upon his contribution to classical music?


----------



## Praine (Dec 20, 2008)

Davidjo said:


> How many people actually like Schoenberg?


*raises hand*


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Why does every time Schoenberg's name is mentioned, some reactionary has to pop up & cast doubt upon his contribution to classical music?

I would say this is for the same reason that people still question Picasso or Jackson Pollack or James Joyce or Samuel Beckett. His work challenges much of what went before him to an extent that leaves many still baffled. A great majority... even of those who love classical music... find him to be inaccessible... and perhaps even unpleasant. To a great degree the work and the challenges it represents have not been fully absorbed into the larger culture outside that of music academia. I personally like the _Gurrelieder_ and _Transfigured Night_ which alone make it clear that Schoenberg is not to be dismissed as a fraud... but I can't say that I am all that fond of his later work. In the thread that I just posted on Mozart someone immediately commented that he found Mozart boring. Others have expressed a dislike for Bach (the Atheists! Don't they know Bach is God!?). Such comments are largely ignored. To convey a dislike for Schoenberg or atonalism, however, is almost seen by many as a litmus test for musical sophistication.

I think that in a way Schoenberg and atonalism are not unlike abstraction in painting. There are many who imagined that abstraction spelled the end of figurative art and represented the only legitimate possibility for the serious contemporary artist. When figurative art reasserted itself and eventually regained dominance there were still tensions between acolytes of either camp. A composer as central as Boulez has conveyed on more than one occasion that tonalism and harmony were dead and that atonalism was the only possible road for the serious composer. None of us can like every type of music. I think it needs to be recognized that we can dislike atonalism and still be knowledgeable of classical music... and even follow contemporary music... and that one can like Schoenberg and still like Mozart, Wagner, Copland, and other tonal composers.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

By the way... I don't like much that I've heard of later Schoenberg, but I am not in complete rejection of atonalism. I quite like this:






and this:






and this:


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

In my humble opinion, insulting Schoenberg or any other atonal composers (although I believe that all music is in fact tonal), is nothing but musical bigotry. You don't understand it, so you hate it.

Music isn't about what it gives to you on a silver platter. Respect it and study it intensely. A majority of the folks who know everything about an atonal composer will say that he is a genius, that he/she gives kudos to a lot of great baroque and classical composers, that he/she manipulates and isolates a concept in a very stunning manner, and that his/her work is very sonorous and harmonically rich.

Just give it a chance, will ya?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> In my humble opinion, insulting Schoenberg or any other atonal composers (although I believe that all music is in fact tonal), is nothing but musical bigotry. You don't understand it, so you hate it.
> 
> Music isn't about what it gives to you on a silver platter. Respect it and study it intensely. A majority of the folks who know everything about an atonal composer will say that he is a genius, that he/she gives kudos to a lot of great baroque and classical composers, that he/she manipulates and isolates a concept in a very stunning manner, and that his/her work is very sonorous and harmonically rich.
> 
> Just give it a chance, will ya?


*Hoping this thread doesn't become a debacle like the last Schönberg thread...*

Any composer or artist is fair game when it comes to criticism or insults. And I HATE the notion that if you do not like (or even hate) a composer or artist, it's because you "don't understand."

I personally cannot stand Schönberg. But please don't insult my intelligence by telling me I don't understand him. I've been listening to classical music for half of my life and I have had a large helping of Schönberg. I understand 12-tone music. I know what it is, how it works, and what it tries to achieve. I still don't like it.

And for anyone who gets on the defensive when it comes to Schönberg and uses expressions like "You don't like what you don't understand," please take a look at the composers and artists YOU don't like and ask yourself if you understand them or not.

In other words, we in this forum probably tend to know a litle bit more about classical music than the average joe. We all have different tastes, and I'd like to think our tastes are informed. But I am sure most would be relectant to admit they "don't understand" the composers they don't like. I'm sure most people would say they base their distaste of certain composers due to years of exposure and being able to appreciate the sound or not. But I find this more an issue of personal taste than "understanding" how the music works or why it exists. *Appreciation is different than understaning*.

And let's face it: most of Schönberg sounds God-awful, even though structurally it is precise. One can "understand" how the music is contructed, and one can understand that Schönberg wanted to move above and beyong traditional tonality to create a groundbreaking type of musical argument, but personal taste comes in when it says "despite all of that, it still sounds like rubbish. I'd like to listen to Tchaikovsky's 5th now, please, instead of this."

Not trying to rile anyone here, but when one says "you don't understand," you are basically saying two things: that you DO understand and the other person does not. Let's avoid that type of presumtion about other people's tastes and be a little more accepting when someone spits on the name of the composer you worship.

Disagreement is fine, but please don't tell me I don.t understand. After all, maybe it's YOU who doesn't understand and I do...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I must agree with Tapkaara. Because I understand something does not mean that I will like it. My profession and my field of expertise is art. I am fully knowledgeable of art history (I have taught it and worked in research in the field). I can give you more than a detailed history, precedence etc... for any number of contemporary artists whom I passionately detest. I like them even less now that I know what their intentions were than I did before. I have repeatedly listened to Chinese music... and I can't stomach it... but I love certain Japanese music. I have no use for heavy metal or rap in spite of having been exposed to more than enough of each... but I love jazz, real blue grass, the Rolling Stones, Spanish Sephardic chants, Bach, Mozart, Rachmaninoff, Arvo Part, Messiaen... but not the later serial atonal works of Schoenberg. I have listened to Stravinsky's _Noches_ a slew of times... but it doesn't resonate with me the least... while I love the _Rite, Petruschka, The Soldier's Story, the Firebird_, etc... Schoenberg, it might be remembered, dismissed most of Stravinsky... and yet one would assume that Schoenberg understood Stravinsky.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I must agree with Tapkaara. Because I understand something does not mean that I will like it. My profession and my field of expertise is art. I am fully knowledgeable of art history (I have taught it and worked in research in the field). I can give you more than a detailed history, precedence etc... for any number of contemporary artists whom I passionately detest. I like them even less now that I know what their intentions were than I did before. I have repeatedly listened to Chinese music... and I can't stomach it... but I love certain Japanese music. I have no use for heavy metal or rap in spite of having been exposed to more than enough of each... but I love jazz, real blue grass, the Rolling Stones, Spanish Sephardic chants, Bach, Mozart, Rachmaninoff, Arvo Part, Messiaen... but not the later serial atonal works of Schoenberg. I have listened to Stravinsky's _Noches_ a slew of times... but it doesn't resonate with me the least... while I love the _Rite, Petruschka, The Soldier's Story, the Firebird_, etc... Schoenberg, it might be remembered, dismissed most of Stravinsky... and yet one would assume that Schoenberg understood Stravinsky.


I'm glad you agree with me!

What a great example that appreciation and understanding are two different things. There is no doubt a competant musician like Schönberg understood what Stravinsky was doing. I'm sure Schönberg knew about the inner workings of Stravinsky's art much better than I could ever hope to myself. Yet Schönberg was not a fan. Perfect example that, sometimes, you just don't care for something no matter how much you know about it.

And by the way, Schönberg's greatness and facility in music are not up for debate. I have said it before in this forum, and I'll say it again. I have nothing but respect for the man's background and achievements. He is a pivotal figure not just of the 20th century but all of music. I "understand" this. It's just too bad I don't like his music. Can't stand really. I have often laughed at it when I've heard it on the radio.

Just my opinion.


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

it is likely that you truly do not understand.

the problem lies in the term "atonal." the music is not atonal. it is simply the new tonal. learn to hear the melodies. atonality is incredibly complex tonality. traditional tonality is constricted to certain color combinations. when you go into full on atonality and shoenbergs techniques you get to see something entirely new. people who deride his music as being purely intellectual are completely, completely missing the point. the music is incredibly vibrant and beautiful.


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

ok perhaps you understand but aren't perceiving it in a way that would make it sound "pleasurable" or "beautiful"


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

vamos said:


> ok perhaps you understand but aren't perceiving it in a way that would make it sound "pleasurable" or "beautiful"


I think this is closer to the mark as opposed to when you said:

_it is likely that you truly do not understand.

the problem lies in the term "atonal." the music is not atonal. it is simply the new tonal. learn to hear the melodies. atonality is incredibly complex tonality. traditional tonality is constricted to certain color combinations. when you go into full on atonality and shoenbergs techniques you get to see something entirely new. people who deride his music as being purely intellectual are completely, completely missing the point. the music is incredibly vibrant and beautiful. _

(I was told I didn't understand and I missed the point in one beautiful post...truly killing two birds with one stone!!)

Anyway, whatever your definition of "atonal" is (no tonality or "new, complex tonality"), I most certainly understand what it is and what it seeks to achieve. But I do not like it. (At least not for the most part.) It's really as simple as that. And if you find beauty in this "new, complex" tonality, I am very happy for you. Good, beautiful music is in the ear of the beholder.

But you are right in your second post. I am not perceiving it the way you are. That's natural. We are different people with different ideas of what is beautiful and what is ugly. It's not understanding; I think we both understand 12-tone music for what it is. It's our appreciation of it is which is different, and *the appreciation ultimately has nothing to do with our understanding*, obviously, since we both understand it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

vamos said:


> [Schoenberg's] music is incredibly vibrant and beautiful.


Agreed. I myself did not think Schoenberg's music to be colourful or vibrant and beautiful, as you say, until I heard _*Moses und Aron*_. His orchestration in that opera rivals (or maybe even outdoes?) Wagner and Puccini (who used atonality a bit in _Turandot,_ but within tonal prameters). In any case, it's more modern, and so riveting. But, as you say, it requires the listener to be very perceptive, which some people will never be, no matter what. They hear, but they can't perceive...


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Andre said:


> They hear, but they can't perceive...


And lack or perception DOES NOT mean lack of understanding. It's natural and right that some will see/hear things differently than others.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> And lack or perception DOES NOT mean lack of understanding. It's natural and right that some will see/hear things differently than others.


You have a point. I just think that when some people listen to atonal music, they easily dismiss is after one listening. There is nothing wrong with going back & giving it repeated listenings, even though it doesn't display the same type of harmony as tonal music. In my case, I wouldn't be without atonal music, exactly because it is so different than tonal music. But we're talking absolutes here, and music is never like that. I actually read recently that Sibelius didn't use a tonal center in two of the movements of his _Symphony No. 3_. I haven't heard this work for a while now, maybe it would be good to acquire it. But sometimes it's not useful to label a composer as firmly being in the tonal or atonal camp. There are many such examples of 'tonal' composers using atonal technniques. I can even hear hints of atonality in Hovhaness' _Trumpet Concerto_, this from a man who reputedly rejected atonality. But we are digressing from the point of this thread, I guess...


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Andre said:


> You have a point. I just think that when some people listen to atonal music, they easily dismiss is after one listening. There is nothing wrong with going back & giving it repeated listenings, even though it doesn't display the same type of harmony as tonal music. In my case, I wouldn't be without atonal music, exactly because it is so different than tonal music. But we're talking absolutes here, and music is never like that. I actually read recently that Sibelius didn't use a tonal center in two of the movements of his _Symphony No. 3_.


Well, I appreciate your acknowledging my point. It's nice when others do that!

Not all atonal music is off my plate. Takemitsu is often atonal, but he has a way of creating very beautiful sounds nevertheless. He was also a wonderful orchestrator, and the harmonies he employed added to the beauty of his music.

Leifs is another one whose music lack traditional tonality, but again, he does it in such a way that is pleasing (at least not ugly) to my ears.

Schönberg is often just ugly to me.

It would be going too far to say that the 3rd symphony (or any other work) of Sibelius is "atonal." "Tonally ambiguous" would be better. Tonal ambiguity would not have been alien to Sibelius. So many other composers come to mind who have written such works: Debussy, Wagner, R. Strauss, Mahler, for example. There is a difference. While passages in Sibelius may become tonally ambiguous (4th Symphony, for example), there is always a return to traditional tonality, even if there is a key change, of course. So, tonally ambiguous and atonal are not necessarily the same thing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Any composer or artist is fair game when it comes to criticism or insults.


Why so? Criticism maybe, but why insults? (I wonder if I should start in on insulting Sibelius, just to test your theory....)


Tapkaara said:


> And I HATE the notion that if you do not like (or even hate) a composer or artist, it's because you "don't understand."


Of course. No one likes their intelligence called into question. But realistically, we all have blind spots, we all make mistakes, we all let certain prejudices keep us from enjoying things. Back in the 80s, when I was pretty well "caught up" in my listening--that is, I was listening in the 80s to music that was being written in the 80s--I first heard the music of Scelsi. I hated it. I had heard other European avant garde, I had heard other minimal music. And enjoyed it. But not Scelsi. Years later, twenty probably, I mentioned my distaste to a musician friend of mine who said I should maybe give Scelsi another chance. Maybe I'd just heard the wrong pieces--his output was quite various

OK, I trusted my friend and tried some more Scelsi. Glorious!! In minutes (oh, OK, weeks) I had dozens of Scelsi albums which I played (and play) over and over again. Delightful stuff. I certainly wouldn't have described myself as an ignorant listener. I was never antagonistic to new music generally, never suspicious or cautious. But there was something about Scelsi I just didn't get.

Perhaps, Taapkara, there is something about Schoenberg that you just don't get. The message there is not that your intelligence in general is in question, but that given the possibility that there's something about Schoenberg that you don't get, perhaps your opinions about him are not universally valuable. My opinions about Scelsi, which I expressed whenever I could, turned out to be worthless, and I'm ashamed of them. Well, not ashamed of _them,_ but ashamed of expressing them. What good did I do by bad-mouthing Scelsi, who I obviously didn't "understand"?



Tapkaara said:


> I personally cannot stand Schönberg.


We know. You take every opportunity to express this. But you must realize that this raises a question, namely, "Who are you?" What do you like, what do you know, what gives you credibility? A statement like this


Tapkaara said:


> And let's face it: most of Schönberg sounds God-awful, even though structurally it is precise


calls your credibility into question much more efficiently and clearly than anything I could say. Most of Schoenberg does not sound God-awful; maybe to you it does, but that leads us back to the "Who are you?" question. And if, in your defense (the attackers of Schoenberg are also capable of being defensive, too, note!!) you say that you were just giving your opinion, which is allowed, you hope!, then that raises yet another question, then why, Tapkaara, are you asking us to face the fact that you don't like Schoenberg?? Because either your asking us that, or you're asking us to face a fact about. Not an individual's opinion about Schoenberg, but a fact, which is that his music sounds "God-awful." But I don't think it does. So is that what it comes down to? Your opinion against mine? Your listening experience and knowledge against mine? How appallingly jejune. Surely a civilized conversation among intelligent listeners can go beyond that!!

Well, this has been very serious so far, so let's end on a light note, shall we? Here's a bit of humor:


Tapkaara said:


> Let's... be a little more accepting when someone spits on the name of the composer you worship.


Hahaha, now THERE'S funny!!


----------



## smoth (Oct 13, 2009)

Thanks for the direction at the beginning of this tread. 

My English teacher says there are two things you have to consider while writing: So what? and Who Cares? Given that the majority of posts consist of debate on the merits of this type of music, I would say I have both of those thoroughly covered.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

some guy said:


> No one likes their intelligence called into question. But realistically, we all have blind spots, we all make mistakes, we all let certain prejudices keep us from enjoying things.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Wow. That's putting you straight, Tappy.

I bet you never thought you'd get a free psycho-analysis merely for say that Schoenberg sounds God-awful.

I wonder if he does Tarat cards readings as well?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

some guy said:


> Why so? Criticism maybe, but why insults? (I wonder if I should start in on insulting Sibelius, just to test your theory....)
> Of course. No one likes their intelligence called into question. But realistically, we all have blind spots, we all make mistakes, we all let certain prejudices keep us from enjoying things. Back in the 80s, when I was pretty well "caught up" in my listening--that is, I was listening in the 80s to music that was being written in the 80s--I first heard the music of Scelsi. I hated it. I had heard other European avant garde, I had heard other minimal music. And enjoyed it. But not Scelsi. Years later, twenty probably, I mentioned my distaste to a musician friend of mine who said I should maybe give Scelsi another chance. Maybe I'd just heard the wrong pieces--his output was quite various
> 
> OK, I trusted my friend and tried some more Scelsi. Glorious!! In minutes (oh, OK, weeks) I had dozens of Scelsi albums which I played (and play) over and over again. Delightful stuff. I certainly wouldn't have described myself as an ignorant listener. I was never antagonistic to new music generally, never suspicious or cautious. But there was something about Scelsi I just didn't get.
> ...


Being critical or even insulting to Sibelius is allowed in here, isn't it? I have encountered much of this either in here or elsewhere. He is a composer that people either seem to love or hate and I have learned to accept that. I may try to convince someone that they should give him another try, but I would never call into question the person's "understanding" or lack thereof. It would be awfully presumptuous to do so. And, if someone says despite their best efforts to get him, and they don't, well, so be it. What can I do? Or really, what SHOULD I do?

Andre, for example, is obviously a guy with good musical knowledge and good musical taste. He is often critical of Sibelius's symphonies and in one thread even referred to Sibelius's "supposed greatness." I disagree with that statement, but Andre has every right to make it and you'd think such a statement would leave him open to attack from me. Well, far be it from me to go on the attack for something like that! So, if anyone would like to bash/insult Sibelius, go right ahead. Test the theory, as it were.

As for the "blind spots" and "prejudices" comment, sure. I would say that Schonberg is a blind spot for me, as if Mozart, for example. And I am prejudiced against music that is boring and ugly. Seems natural.

And now for my favorite part: "Who are you?" and the notion that a distaste of Schonberg could call my credibility into question. And the jejune exercise of pitting my opinion against yours (or anyone else's)...

Who am I? What does it matter? Who are you? Who is Krummhorn? Who is Andre? Who is anyone? Personal taste is a very simple matter, and is not necessarily based on one's background or credentials. Again I will refer to the great "Schonberg doesn't like Stravinsky" example. Could you imagine someone going up to Schonberg and saying "who are you?"

And finally, my dear Some Guy, could we please have a list of about 5 composers you don't like (or even hate) so we can call into question your credibility and ask who you are?


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2009)

Tap, maybe reread my post? I certainly never said your _distaste _of Schoenberg calls your credibility into question!! Wow. If I had, that certainly would have called MY credibility into question!!

As for your favorite part, surely it's clear to you that anyone who gives an opinion, particularly a personal one without much in the way of support, raises the question "Who are you?" It's nothing to do with you, Tapkaara, per se, it's just logic.

Anyway, to go on as if we were still having a conversation(!), I think that knowledge and understanding are different things. You may _know_ all about twelve-tone technique and how Schoenberg developed it. You may recognize his significance in musical history. But if you can say these exact words "And let's face it: most of Schönberg sounds God-awful" then there's obviously something you don't get, isn't there? Which is that most of Schoenberg sounds glorious.

And if we were to get into a exchange like this: "No he doesn't. Yes he does. No he doesn't. Yes he does" that most certainly would, I hope you'll agree!, be hopelessly jejune, n'est pas?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I'm going to have to root for Tapkaara and say that Sibelius is awesome (but I think everyone is awesome, so I guess that makes me a bit of a musical fluzie).

In response to Tapkaara: It was a bit underhanded of me to say that you don't understand Schoenberg. I was simply frustrated that people take music and try to appreciate it, but eventually find it distasteful because they just don't get something they want out of it. I really don't to like to think of music in terms of what I want from it, but what there is to get from it. I think Rameau was just as much of a genius as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Wagner, Lyapunov, Scriabin, Satie, Prokofiev, Xenakis, Sorabji, Tibbs, etc.

But I do occasionally find music distasteful. However, that hasn't much to do with the ideas, rather how well they are put together, however egotistical the premise is (I may have worded that strange but I meant that I _don't_ like egotistical art), whether or not there is any emotional substance to it, etc. You can correct me and find the premise behind all of it and tell me it, but until then, I guess some music I simply will find to be rubbish (Simon Glass).

I'm not above reproach either though. I can be wrong and I can be right, but I simply just want to learn.

I'm sorry if I got into a rant, but at some point another I hope I said something relevant.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

some guy said:


> Tap, maybe reread my post? I certainly never said your _distaste _of Schoenberg calls your credibility into question!! Wow. If I had, that certainly would have called MY credibility into question!!
> 
> As for your favorite part, surely it's clear to you that anyone who gives an opinion, particularly a personal one without much in the way of support, raises the question "Who are you?" It's nothing to do with you, Tapkaara, per se, it's just logic.
> 
> ...


Well, I guess I did not read your post right, and I did read it a few times!

Whew, I am glad that you are not calling my credibility into question. For a moment, I was thinking that you were and thus putting yourself on the proverbial high horse. I'm so happy that's not the case. High horse-ism is a staple of classical forums. My apologies for misinterpreting your post. (Shakes your hand vigorously.)

My saying that most of Schönberg is merely an opinion, if worded somewhat strongly. I'm sure to certain ears it is a glorious sound, and I have nothing against anyone who finds glory in his music. I guess I wish I could. But, alas, I do not.

So it goes!


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> I'm going to have to root for Tapkaara and say that Sibelius is awesome (but I think everyone is awesome, so I guess that makes me a bit of a musical fluzie).
> 
> In response to Tapkaara: It was a bit underhanded of me to say that you don't understand Schoenberg. I was simply frustrated that people take music and try to appreciate it, but eventually find it distasteful because they just don't get something they want out of it. I really don't to like to think of music in terms of what I want from it, but what there is to get from it. I think Rameau was just as much of a genius as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Wagner, Lyapunov, Scriabin, Satie, Prokofiev, Xenakis, Sorabji, Tibbs, etc.
> 
> ...


Did you mean PHILIP GLASS when you said Simon Glass? Philip Glass is often derided, and I love him. So I'm thinking you mean Philip...

You needn't apologize. If you like Schönberg, that's great!

And of course, if you like Sibelius, well, I am eternally your friend!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I meant Phillip, but I think I'll just keep calling him the wrong name for fun. I'm sorry, it's just that the insanely repetitive relative minors isn't very witty at all. Beethoven or Mozart can bring out that kind of a progression wonderfully during an orchestral or solo work, but they don't seem to mean anything at all by themselves. What can you possibly get out of minimalism, I might ask? Please educate me.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> I meant Phillip, but I think I'll just keep calling him the wrong name for fun. I'm sorry, it's just that the insanely repetitive relative minors isn't very witty at all. Beethoven or Mozart can bring out that kind of a progression wonderfully during an orchestral or solo work, but they don't seem to mean anything at all by themselves. What can you possibly get out of minimalism, I might ask? Please educate me.


I like the primitiveness of minimalism. There is a hypnotic strangeness to it that I appreciate. I guess I'm just a big fan of ostinati. My two favorite composers were known for their use of ostinati (repetitive melodic or rhythmic structures), so there must be something within me that likes the textures/sounds that repetition has to offer.

I understand why the likes of a Glass would be hard going for many classical fans. I don't blame anyone, honestly, if they don't like him. I just happen to.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

He's just relentless, that's all. He writes so many works that just use endless moving triads with the piano, and maybe a little doodling with a violin occasionally. It drives me more mad than I already am.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

But realistically, we all have blind spots, we all make mistakes, we all let certain prejudices keep us from enjoying things.

Certainly... but are we to assume that the blind-spots of someone like Boulez (dismissing all tonal music after Schoenberg) or Schoenberg dismissing Stravinsky as a "lightweight" composer are not blind-spots but sophisticated opinions, while someone like Hovhaness dismissing atonalism is a sign of ignorance? Of not understanding? What I don't like is a result of my educated opinion, but what you don't like is merely the result of ignorance?

Perhaps, Taapkara, there is something about Schoenberg that you just don't get. The message there is not that your intelligence in general is in question, but that given the possibility that there's something about Schoenberg that you don't get, perhaps your opinions about him are not universally valuable.

Or... perhaps Schoenberg did write crappy music. It seems that there are more than a few people who are not lacking in knowledge of classical music and of Schoenberg who still dislike his music just as there are still more than a few who dislike Jackson Pollack and James Joyce. It may be just more than possible that the verdict is still out upon the contributions of these artists 50 or 75 years is nothing in the history of art/music/literature. It may be possible that it is not solely the audience who is to be blamed for the unpopularity of Schoenberg (or Joyce or Pollack). Or perhaps we are to assume that we should like every work of music as long as a certain number of academics deem that it is important?

But you must realize that this raises a question, namely, "Who are you?" What do you like, what do you know, what gives you credibility? A statement like this

"And let's face it: most of Schönberg sounds God-awful, even though structurally it is precise..."

calls your credibility into question much more efficiently and clearly than anything I could say. 

And so we are to assume that the credibility should be in question of anyone who questions the merits or admits the dislike of any work of art that has attained a certain following? This is the sort of "group think" that leads many to ponder whether the whole of Modern art is not one great fraud... an "Emperor's New Clothes". I do not advocate such a belief, myself. I love a great deal of Modern and Contemporary art, music, and literature. My opinions are not ignorant in that they are based upon having invested a good deal of time and effort into the study of the same... but I don't buy the notion that we must follow the party line and all embrace the same works of art... certainly not when discussing Modern and Contemporary art.

Most of Schoenberg does not sound God-awful; maybe to you it does, but that leads us back to the "Who are you?" question. 

Which might be easily inverted into questioning "Who are you, that you insist that Schoenberg is great or enjoyable"? The insinuation is continually there that anyone who does not like Schoenberg... or any Modern or Contemporary composer simply "doesn't get it"... is ignorant in comparison to those enlightened ones who do.

Why, Tapkaara, are you asking us to face the fact that you don't like Schoenberg?? Because either your asking us that, or you're asking us to face a fact about. Not an individual's opinion about Schoenberg, but a fact, which is that his music sounds "God-awful." But I don't think it does. So is that what it comes down to? Your opinion against mine? Your listening experience and knowledge against mine? How appallingly jejune. Surely a civilized conversation among intelligent listeners can go beyond that!!

But does it go beyond that? Do you honestly assume that Schoenberg can be proven objectively to be a great composer whose works make for endless hours of pleasurable listening? All art is subjective... but some opinions are worth more than others. Over time the artists who continue to resonate with future generations of art lovers, academics, and subsequent artists will be the artists who will survive. The nearer the art is to us in time, the more open it is to disputes as to its merit. There is no clear-cut agreement upon Schoenberg's merits. Certainly, there is currently an agreement upon the importance of his innovations among academics and certain camps of composers and music lovers... but in no way is this unanimous. Not even close. How Schoenberg or Boulez or Cage or Philip Glass may fare after a century or longer is still up in the air. In the meantime, all that exists is individual opinions and how much we esteem any of these is based upon how intelligently they argue their case and what experience they bring to the table.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I think we've kind of run into a different bandwagon altogether. We ended up have a conversation about why people should like music in the first place, or that someone is more educated than someone else. Why don't we get back to naming composers who contributed to atonal and 12 tonal music?

I'd like to say that Henry Cowell did some very interesting work, and it was all very expressive, however fiendish it's sense of humor may seem. Cowell was obviously very influential in the Avante Garde genre; but don't get your hair raised because I said it's obvious (I realize that's a bit of a strong statement). I think we can all agree that he was definitely influential.

I also think Luciano Berio made a lot of wonderful music, and that his "sequences" for the several different instruments are more than a little satirical, and expressive. I also like that he isolates different rhythmic devices and explores with them a bit. He really explores how everything is arranged, and you kind of get the kindred spirit he injects into all of it. Berio wrote some really wonderful stuff.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Why don't we get back to naming composers who contributed to atonal and 12 tonal music?


Groovy idea!

In fact, I'd like to go to the heart of the issue presented in this thread: namely, what were the influences that led to 12 tone composition.

First, 12 tone was not the beginning of atonality. Schoenberg had been composing atonal music for quite some time before he developed this pitch organizing system. In my humble opinion, it is this period which contains 3 of his greatest works - Pierrot Lunaire, Ewartung, and the 5 Pieces for Orchestra. He also wrote Harmonielehre at this time, still considered one of the most important theoretical works on harmony.

In this period, he had desire to move away from tonal centres. Indeed, Mahler had expanded the tonal system quite far already (from Wagner and also in Strauss) - triadic, yes. But not all of the harmony was functioning. Also, as was mentioned, Debussy had discarded much of the functional language, but his direction was quite different.

What Schoenberg (and Webern, Berg) were trying to do is to break concepts into packages, motives one might call them, and use these motives to structure harmonic and melodic ideas. Called "pitch class sets" (perhaps after the fact), these motives were in essence designed solely around their intervalic content. Without going into detail, a collection of intervals would become the primary material for both harmonic and melodic ideas - simultaneously, or apart. It is quite fascinating and very hard to decipher!

Needless to say, Schoenberg was not fully convinced by these techniques, and wanted to codify the work as a whole - he needed a system that would function to create a more cohesive structure. He was worried, and rightly so, that in these early atonal works, there was little room for memory to latch onto the passing motivic figures. They needed to become more standardized within each work.

His conclusion, after years of research and experimentation, was the 12 tone system. And the language of classical music was forever changed - or perhaps more succinctly, was hugely expanded upon.

What other composers were doing, such as Stravinsky, or Cowell for instance, had very little impact on what Schoenberg was up to. In many ways, his music is much more connected to the classical tradition - more embedded with counterpoint, classical form, and as was said, motivic development, all concepts at the root of the classical tradition. It is from this that Schoenberg had his complaints with Stravinsky. He was a purist, and felt deeply connected with the classical tradition, especially of Germany.

It is worth reading "Composition with twelve notes related only to one another" by Josef Rufer to get some insight into this development. And he is so into this technique, it becomes infectious! He bubbles with enthusiasm.

It should also be noted that there was also a very significant evolution that took place around this time that had little to do with composers - the equal tempered tuning system became the standard. The impact of this should not be underestimated. Only in an equal tempered system could 12 tone composition exist. The purity of intervals was already seriously jeopardized in lieu of extended modulations within a composition - atonality was a very logical next step.


----------



## smoth (Oct 13, 2009)

I have been doing a lot of reading on the figures mentioned so far and while I have been finding lots of personal influences, I am having trouble linking all of these composers' styles to a single (or multiple) external influences. I have seen a few references to an outright rebellion against romancticism following WWI which seems to spread well beyond just music. I have also read a few references to impressionistic painting as a possible influence which overran France in the late 19th century. I have mainly been searching for political and/or sociological influences as most sources cite 19th century music as developing after WWI which seems like to big of a coincidence to just be accidental. Also the fact that so many different styles emerged as prominent forces in classical music around the same time leads me to think that there must be some global influences around that time.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

smoth said:


> Also the fact that so many different styles emerged as prominent forces in classical music around the same time leads me to think that there must be some global influences around that time.


Well, these points I'd assume were general knowledge. But a review is in order.

I just grabbed these off the internet - wiki stuff. But, discuss in brief 3 huge areas of change, leading to a war that none had ever witnessed before. It is no surprise that artists were reacting to it in a multitude of ways:

1. The Industrial Revolution:

* Textiles - Cotton spinning using Richard Arkwright's water frame, James Hargreaves's Spinning Jenny, and Samuel Crompton's Spinning Mule (a combination of the Spinning Jenny and the Water Frame). This was patented in 1769 and so came out of patent in 1783. The end of the patent was rapidly followed by the erection of many cotton mills. Similar technology was subsequently applied to spinning worsted yarn for various textiles and flax for linen.
* Steam power - The improved steam engine invented by James Watt was initially mainly used for pumping out mines, but from the 1780s was applied to power machines. This enabled rapid development of efficient semi-automated factories on a previously unimaginable scale in places where waterpower was not available.
* Iron founding - In the Iron industry, coke was finally applied to all stages of iron smelting, replacing charcoal. This had been achieved much earlier for lead and copper as well as for producing pig iron in a blast furnace, but the second stage in the production of bar iron depended on the use of potting and stamping (for which a patent expired in 1786) or puddling (patented by Henry Cort in 1783 and 1784).

2. Electrical Engineering and Radio (leading to television)

By the end of 1906, Fessenden sent the first radio broadcast of voice. Also in 1906, Robert von Lieben and Lee De Forest independently developed the amplifier tube, called the triode.[9] Edwin Howard Armstrong enabling technology for electronic television, in 1931.[10]

3. Telephone - direct communication over long distances.

1915: First U.S. coast-to-coast long-distance telephone call, ceremoniously inaugurated by A.G. Bell in New York City and his former assistant Thomas Augustus Watson in San Francisco, California.

It should be no surprise that artists were reacting to this!

But, Schoenberg is a special case (as many were), and that is why I tend to stick to the musical transformations, as these show his unique take on the evolution of music (I really don't like his work lumped with others because they sound "atonal"). But, if you want to get into the deeper issues, I strongly suggest reading "Art in the age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin. It is arguably the most profound treatise on the effects of these changes on the artist, and more succinctly, art it self, and how it is appreciated.

http://design.wishiewashie.com/HT5/WalterBenjaminTheWorkofArt.pdf

We really can't understand what it was like before electricity, mass production, and long distance communication. But, when approaching the art of the beginning of the 20th century, one must try to empathize with what it was like to witness these miraculous transformations, and their horrific side effects, such as the effects of a war of machines.

I think we are now at the beginning of the next era of massive change, with the advent of the computer and the internet and all that this entails. And I am quite excited to think of where the art will go from here.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

On the subject of Schoenberg, I have been reading his _Structural Functions of Harmony and Fundamentals of Music Composition  lately and would recommend them to any musician/composer.

Reading these books it's hard to believe it's the same man who wrote such groundbreaking music. In my opinion he comes across as a traditionalist in his writings yet his music shows him to be an uber radical. He shows himself to be excellent in composing in the Germanic Romantic style yet it was as if he felt it was his duty to try to 'push' the music forward by offering an alternative to the prevalent diatonic system. Obviously, other composers like Scriabin and Debussy were pushing traditional harmonic conventions to the limits but I feel they never really organised their methods into a system like Schoenberg.

That being said I prefer Schoenberg's pre-WW1 atonal works as opposed to his later twelve-tone stuff.

And I can agree with Lukecash12 about Glass. Although I like quite a lot of his work, especially his solo piano pieces and Glassworks, he does overuse that 6 note arpeggio figure. I suppose it's trademark._


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2009)

Argus said:


> In my opinion he comes across as a traditionalist in his writings yet his music shows him to be an uber radical.


Interesting. And I would say that he comes across as a traditionalist in his music as well. But that's maybe partly because a hundred years has passed already since he got going on the pantonal and twelve-tone stuff, which I must say I find much easier to listen to than the earlier works. Easier to hear over and over again without getting tired.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Interestingly, I have a friend who is a literature professor whose grandmother studied under Schoenberg in college in California. She had no idea who Professor Schoenberg was and the impression she took of him was that he was a typically conservative German intellectual. She was more than surprised when she eventually discovered that her kindly Professor Schoenberg was a well-known composer... and absolutely shocked when she actually listened to the sort of music he wrote.

By the way... I quite like Schoenberg's early works myself... _Verklarte Nacht_ and _Gurrelieder_... these certainly prove his mastery of the elements of Romanticism. I would never question his abilities or dismiss his work as the product of an incompetent (as some criticism of Modernism tend to do). The later works that I have listened to simply do nothing for me. I will admit, however, that I am interested in giving _Aaron and Moses_ a try... considering some of what I have heard of the work.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

(Disclaimer: this is only my opinion and I don't wish to really be assaulted about it, but feel free to discuss it)

I see saying that Schoenberg is necessarily a great composer just because he started the 12-tone system as being kinda ridiculous... it's like saying Henry Ford is the greatest car producer ever just because he invented the assembly line. If you like Schoenberg and think he is a great composer, all the power to you, but have a better reason than that he made up the twelve-tone system. Besides, another composer made it up at the same time totally independent of Schoenberg. It was gonna happen anyway.

Also, since Schoenberg was one of the first composers in the 12-tone system, he had nothing before him more established or whatever. His 12-tone system was relatively primitive compared to what Boulez or late Copland would have access to. The greatest composers of any given era of music are pretty much never the first composer in that era (in Renaissance, it's Palestrina or Josquin; Baroque, Bach; Classical, Mozart or Beethoven, etc.).

The Romantic music of Schoenberg may well be perfectly fine, but his fame, from what I've known, is entirely due to 12-tone music, and I personally think it shouldn't be.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

World Violist said:


> I see saying that Schoenberg is necessarily a great composer just because he started the 12-tone system as being kinda ridiculous... it's like saying Henry Ford is the greatest car producer ever just because he invented the assembly line.


You are mixing words.

Henry Ford WAS a great car producer. Just not necessarily the greatest (something not measurable anyways). Same with Schoenberg.

But, here is why I think he is a great composer (rather than just a great innovator/thinker, which should be given credit to him as well):

These are my favorite pieces of his, and the ones in bold just blow my mind.

*Kammersymphonie *[Chamber symphony] no. 1, E major
String Quartet no. 2, F-sharp minor (with Soprano)
Drei Klavierstücke
*15 Gedichte aus Das Buch der hängenden Gärten *
*Fünf Orchesterstücke [5 Pieces for Orchestra],* 
Erwartung [Expectation], monodrama in one act, [for soprano and orchestra]
*Pierrot lunaire,* 
4 Lieder [4 Songs] for Voice and Orchestra
5 Stücke [5 Pieces] for Piano
Wind Quintet
2 Stücke 
*Violin Concerto, Op. 36* 
Kammersymphonie [Chamber symphony] 
*Piano Concerto, *
Theme and variations for Band
*A Survivor from Warsaw*



World Violist said:


> The Romantic music of Schoenberg may well be perfectly fine, but his fame, from what I've known, is entirely due to 12-tone music, and I personally think it shouldn't be.


No, it isn't entirely due to his 12 tone music. Pierrot, 5 Pieces for Orchestra, and Ewartung are incredible pieces, composed in a freely pantonal methods, and display a deep richness in orchestration, form, melody, and harmony. They are revered works, still commonly performed works, and studied works. Also, even though Verklärte Nacht isn't in my top works, many people do enjoy this work as well, and it continues to receive performances and recordings.

If others are claiming the 12 tone method to be the sole reason to give him credit, than please tell us who these people are, or quote someone on this thread who you believe is making the claim (and also showing you read what others write before you join the conversation).

It should also be mentioned that there were many inventions in musical language that either remain at the fringe, or are completely obscure. Not the 12 tone system (or, more importantly, the tone row concept - that is where the real genius lies, and it's inventiveness paired with it's flexibility, and strong connection to the tradition). That it continues to be a subject of discussion so long after the fact (coming up to 100 years) shows it's staying power and great influence (I'm sure StLukes will want to correct me about that, and that we need a few more years to really see if it was important...)

Ok, I can agree, to an extent, that the innovators are not always the best at bringing their innovations to life. But, I can't just say that Boulez or Carter are better composers because they expanded further the techniques he developed. Carter is a wonderful composer, and so is Boulez (although, more hit and miss I find than Carter or Schoenberg.) Another incredible tone row composer was Zimmermann. Die Soldaten is an incredible opera - so intense. And of course, the composers Webern and Berg composed some amazing music as well. I just heard the Lyric Suite live by the St. Lawrence string quartet - bloody awesome! Especially when played with such a beautiful blend of precision and passion.

And Nono, Henze, Martin, Sessions, Birtwhistle, and, well, thousands of others.

I don't find his music hard to listen to - not anymore at least. When I first heard it, I thought it was quite strange, but I kept at it, and slowly fell in love with it. The first time I heard Pierrot Lunaire (live), I can honestly say that it was one of the most intense live listening experiences I have ever had. No other orchestral work makes it to my stereo than the 5 Pieces for Orchestra.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Scott, thanks for the reply; it shed some light on Schoenberg for me. I like hearing other peoples' thoughts on things, and I'm glad you presented yours in a civil way. 

I think I'll have to check out the works you listed someday.


----------



## kmisho (Oct 22, 2009)

Even going on a century old, 12 tone is still divisive.

I was playing some music for my 3 year old when we were outside playing recently. At one point, I put on Delius's On Hearing the First Cuckoo in Spring. Her 3 year old ears heard dread and she told me it sounded scary. So I went back to REM.

My point is that children like consonance and hate dissonance. They also like candy and hate beer. The ability to appreciate more complicated musical fabric is acquired. I don't mean to be insulting but I do believe it is true: appreciating only consonant music is to listen with the ears of a child.

To add another layer of difficulty, some of you speak of loving romantic or impressionist music but hating serial music. I hope you realize that when ravel and Debussy came on the scene, their music seemed twisted and painful...just as my 3 year old hears it. People were scandalized by the pounding 7th chord near the beginning of Beethoven's 3rd. Now we think nothing of it, and think of impressionistic chords as resembling pink cotton candy clouds. But know it was not always this way.

I love serial music. It sounds as coherent and consonant to me as Mozart sounds to a lover of Mahler.

Someone suggested 12 tone was a scam. Not in the least. Schoenberg had been writing true dissonant music with no rules and found this to be a dead end. He realized, just as I and many artists have realized, that total freedom of technique and approach has a strong tendency to behead creativity. So he artificially devised a technique to force rules on himself but also allowed a new vocabulary beyond tonal sonatas.

The direct precursor to Schoenberg was indeed Mahler. And I do mean direct. Especially in Mahler's later works, one can hear tonality literally ripping apart. Schoenberg's 12 tone system was, in reality, only a small step beyond what Mahler had already done.

My favorite serialist by far is Webern. In my opinion, he had the lightest touch and the most sensitive ears of the Big 3. He uses polyphonic techniques combined with strict rules of serialism to create music that to my ears sounds like a cross between The Well-Tempered Clavier and Daphnis and Chloe. Cotton candy Bach!


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

kmisho said:


> Even going on a century old, 12 tone is still divisive.


I don't think this will ever change!



kmisho said:


> My point is that children like consonance and hate dissonance. They also like candy and hate beer. The ability to appreciate more complicated musical fabric is acquired. I don't mean to be insulting but I do believe it is true: appreciating only consonant music is to listen with the ears of a child.


The metaphor is great, but, I'm not so sure this is exactly true.

One can grow older, and still not like beer! (certainly not me, though....). For me, I had to have the desire to want to like his music first - then, I listened closely, and grew to love the language. Ultimately, it was the desire that led the way,and I'm not sure that kind of desire is necessarily an adult trait per say. And I think that kind of desire is rarer than it should be, to be honest.



kmisho said:


> To add another layer of difficulty, some of you speak of loving romantic or impressionist music but hating serial music. I hope you realize that when ravel and Debussy came on the scene, their music seemed twisted and painful...just as my 3 year old hears it. People were scandalized by the pounding 7th chord near the beginning of Beethoven's 3rd. Now we think nothing of it, and think of impressionistic chords as resembling pink cotton candy clouds. But know it was not always this way.


Sure - an old argument. But the radical shift that atonality offers is more than beginning a work with a 7th chord (Beethoven 1st), don't you think?



kmisho said:


> I love serial music. It sounds as coherent and consonant to me as Mozart sounds to a lover of Mahler.


Well...when it is done well!



kmisho said:


> Someone suggested 12 tone was a scam. Not in the least. Schoenberg had been writing true dissonant music with no rules and found this to be a dead end. He realized, just as I and many artists have realized, that total freedom of technique and approach has a strong tendency to behead creativity. So he artificially devised a technique to force rules on himself but also allowed a new vocabulary beyond tonal sonatas.


I agree, but again to a point. He did construct "rules", or syntax for those freely atonal works - they just weren't as thorough. And I love those pieces, and they are some of his most performed, so not exactly a dead end!



kmisho said:


> The direct precursor to Schoenberg was indeed Mahler. And I do mean direct. Especially in Mahler's later works, one can hear tonality literally ripping apart. Schoenberg's 12 tone system was, in reality, only a small step beyond what Mahler had already done.


As I am listening now to Mahler 9, I would have to say that Schoenberg's was a pretty big step...well, in pitch organization that is - the orchestration, and form, and rhythm can be seen as a direct link to Mahler for sure.



kmisho said:


> My favorite serialist by far is Webern. In my opinion, he had the lightest touch and the most sensitive ears of the Big 3. He uses polyphonic techniques combined with strict rules of serialism to create music that to my ears sounds like a cross between The Well-Tempered Clavier and Daphnis and Chloe. Cotton candy Bach!


I couldn't choose a favorite - each offers such a unique experience to the other, and within each composer's portfolio. Certainly I would agree Webern had the light touch - the detail, focus and reserve is astounding, especially compared to the exuberant emotion and chaos of Berg's music! But isn't that what is so great about the technique is it's ability to express a wide diversity of emotions and ideas?

Compare:


----------



## kmisho (Oct 22, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> The metaphor is great, but, I'm not so sure this is exactly true.
> 
> One can grow older, and still not like beer! (certainly not me, though....). For me, I had to have the desire to want to like his music first - then, I listened closely, and grew to love the language. Ultimately, it was the desire that led the way,and I'm not sure that kind of desire is necessarily an adult trait per say. And I think that kind of desire is rarer than it should be, to be honest.


True. And I'm not saying you MUST like dissonant music or else you're a baby. But if you like beer, you acquired the taste. A child will take one sniff and go yuck! That doesn't mean that beer can not or should not taste good.



> Sure - an old argument. But the radical shift that atonality offers is more than beginning a work with a 7th chord (Beethoven 1st), don't you think?


Of course there's a big difference, but the phenomenon is clear. Today's shock is tomorrow's blasé.



> I agree, but again to a point. He did construct "rules", or syntax for those freely atonal works - they just weren't as thorough. And I love those pieces, and they are some of his most performed, so not exactly a dead end!


Rules in his atonal works were themselves freeform in that they need not apply to any other work. In my view, Shoenberg felt he needed a vocabulary, an alphabet, in order to return to a sense of speaking a language again.



> As I am listening now to Mahler 9, I would have to say that Schoenberg's was a pretty big step...well, in pitch organization that is - the orchestration, and form, and rhythm can be seen as a direct link to Mahler for sure.


I only mean that the transition between them was entirely logical. Serialism was not so much the radical departure as many think of it. There was precedent.



> I couldn't choose a favorite - each offers such a unique experience to the other, and within each composer's portfolio. Certainly I would agree Webern had the light touch - the detail, focus and reserve is astounding, especially compared to the exuberant emotion and chaos of Berg's music! But isn't that what is so great about the technique is it's ability to express a wide diversity of emotions and ideas?


In this case I'm of course speaking of my own personality. Though I like plenty of Romantic music and a little Classical, I tend to prefer Modern and Impressionist then skip straight back to Baroque.

Serialism can be highly diverse. I think that was sort of the point, to write a new alphabet for anyone's use.


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

Davidjo said:


> How many people actually like Schoenberg?
> 
> Music is about patterns. What sticks in people's minds are strong patterns. Only what sticks is liked. I think there is a very strong strain of pseudery and determined elitism in a professed liking for atonality.
> 
> ...


I really like Schönberg's music. And as I look at it Schönberg was the climax of late romanticism, he truly composed with his heart and was by no means one of the "engineer-composers" (such as Boulez or most of the people who Schönberg's technique influenced), in fact he broke his rules (which he himself didn't even talk about as rules) whenever he felt the music demanded it, which was quite often.

It's a horribly false statement that Schönberg's music is free of harmony, on the contrary it is more true that it is free of counterpoint (of course nobody can actually recognize the retrogrades and inversions of those 12 tone rows) but the harmony and the harmonic structure is more important than ever. Schönberg wrote highly-regarded books, that are still taught at many universities, on both harmony and musical structure, he knew exactly what he was doing.



Scoot Good said:


> As I am listening now to Mahler 9, I would have to say that Schoenberg's was a pretty big step...well, in pitch organization that is - the orchestration, and form, and rhythm can be seen as a direct link to Mahler for sure.


I encourage you to listen to Schönberg's early _Verklärte Nacht_, and also if you are interested, the _2nd String Quartet_. Those are the pieces between Mahler and atonal Schönberg I'd say.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Saturnus said:


> It's a horribly false statement that Schönberg's music is free of harmony


What music is free of harmony unless it's a solo work or solo passage in a larger work? When was Schonberg accused of not having harmony in his works?


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

By DavidJo, it's in the quote in my post. My point is also that Schönberg's harmony is thought out, it's not as it's some 12th century motet.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Hey, there's nothing wrong with 12 century motets Well, Tapkaara: I studied Glass for hours like a hound, and I agree now; He's a genius. His 5th string quartet is so well put together, and he isolates simple, singular elements so well. Not to mention it's wonderfully atmospheric.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> Hey, there's nothing wrong with 12 century motets Well, Tapkaara: I studied Glass for hours like a hound, and I agree now; He's a genius. His 5th string quartet is so well put together, and he isolates simple, singular elements so well. Not to mention it's wonderfully atmospheric.


Well, I would not go so far as to call him a genius (!), but I do love him. And yes, I think much of Glass's music is very atmospheric...strange, even. It creates quite a mood.

Having said all of that, I can understand why folks wouldn't like him. He can be, um, repetitive.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I think it's in general a bit corny and sentimental to call an artist a "genius." Why would you call an artist a genius? Because you happen to like his/her art really really much? I think art is so subjective pursuit that we can't really talk about geniuses in the same sense as in science.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think it's in general a bit corny and sentimental to call an artist a "genius." Why would you call an artist a genius? Because you happen to like his/her art really really much? I think art is so subjective pursuit that we can't really talk about geniuses in the same sense as in science.

Nonsense. What is it about science that demands a greater degree of intellect than art? The greatest achievements in either field are often the result of an individual who has a mastery of the concepts and ideas of his or her predecessors, but imagines things in an entirely new or unexpected manner. Even those within the fields of education and psychology recognize that brilliance in art, music, literature... even theology/spirituality, sports, diplomacy and any number of other disciplines are as much owed to brilliance or genius of intellect to the same degree as brilliance in such quantifiable fields as science and mathematics. In other words, it is recognized that Micheal Jordan didn't outplay his opponents because of some innate talent or even as a result of his physical prowess (although his discipline surely demands as much)... rather, he out-thought his opponents... like a master chess player he was able to envision moves well in advanced of others. Art, music, literature are no less an intellectual pursuit rather than a talent that someone is born with.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think it's in general a bit corny and sentimental to call an artist a "genius." Why would you call an artist a genius? Because you happen to like his/her art really really much? I think art is so subjective pursuit that we can't really talk about geniuses in the same sense as in science.
> 
> Nonsense. What is it about science that demands a greater degree of intellect than art? The greatest achievements in either field are often the result of an individual who has a mastery of the concepts and ideas of his or her predecessors, but imagines things in an entirely new or unexpected manner. Even those within the fields of education and psychology recognize that brilliance in art, music, literature... even theology/spirituality, sports, diplomacy and any number of other disciplines are as much owed to brilliance or genius of intellect to the same degree as brilliance in such quantifiable fields as science and mathematics. In other words, it is recognized that Micheal Jordan didn't outplay his opponents because of some innate talent or even as a result of his physical prowess (although his discipline surely demands as much)... rather, he out-thought his opponents... like a master chess player he was able to envision moves well in advanced of others. Art, music, literature are no less an intellectual pursuit rather than a talent that someone is born with.


I agree with all of this. Well put!

Why should "genius" only be applied to the sciences? Is art, though, not the science of asthetics?

Beethoven was not a genius because he was not a "scientist?" Poppycock, I say! Utter poppycock.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think it's in general a bit corny and sentimental to call an artist a "genius." Why would you call an artist a genius? Because you happen to like his/her art really really much? I think art is so subjective pursuit that we can't really talk about geniuses in the same sense as in science.
> 
> Nonsense. What is it about science that demands a greater degree of intellect than art? The greatest achievements in either field are often the result of an individual who has a mastery of the concepts and ideas of his or her predecessors, but imagines things in an entirely new or unexpected manner. Even those within the fields of education and psychology recognize that brilliance in art, music, literature... even theology/spirituality, sports, diplomacy and any number of other disciplines are as much owed to brilliance or genius of intellect to the same degree as brilliance in such quantifiable fields as science and mathematics. In other words, it is recognized that Micheal Jordan didn't outplay his opponents because of some innate talent or even as a result of his physical prowess (although his discipline surely demands as much)... rather, he out-thought his opponents... like a master chess player he was able to moves well in advanced of others. Art, music, literature are no less an intellectual pursuit rather than a talent that someone is born with.


Shouldn't this be obvious: The analogy with Michael Jordan fails because there are no "winners" in art like there are in sports. Assuming that Michael Jordan's had extremely high success because he out-thought his opponents, we can maybe call him a genius because there are clear rules in sport when you win the game, unlike in arts.

In science, you have very clearly defined goal: to describe reality accurately. Science isn't about opinions or preferences. Einstein wasn't a genius because he came up with a theory that was thought to be awesome by many people, he was genius because his theory of relativity was TRUE and it radically changed our views on physics.

In the arts there is no objective truth. Some art just happens to please somebody but not somebody else. What if Beethoven's music sounds like crap to somebody's ears? To my ears surely it doesn't, but how could I explain to him that he really was a genius nevertheless?


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Saturnus said:


> I encourage you to listen to Schönberg's early _Verklärte Nacht_, and also if you are interested, the _2nd String Quartet_. Those are the pieces between Mahler and atonal Schönberg I'd say.


I have of course not only heard, but studied these pieces (hasn't my obsession been made clear!). It is the later works, starting around Ewartung, and Book of the Hanging Gardens, and the First Chamber Symphony where I feel that Schoenberg's calling, and unique and powerful contribution to the art form starts to take real shape. Maybe on paper the links can be shown, but to the ears, he was opening up a brand new sound world. As was put by someone else, a new alphabet!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Shouldn't this be obvious: The analogy with Michael Jordan fails because there are no "winners" in art like there are in sports. Assuming that Michael Jordan's had extremely high success because he out-thought his opponents, we can maybe call him a genius because there are clear rules in sport when you win the game, unlike in arts.


There are no "winners" or "losers" in art? Are you so sure. It would seem to me that a "winner" would be one who achieved something of lasting importance... a real and profound addition to the field in which he or she was active. Mozart, Beethoven, Rembrandt, Shakespeare... to continue the analogy... would seem to be "winners"... as opposed to any number of competent artists whose work largely faded from memory. But what I am speaking of is not an analogy, but rather scientific fact (read Howard Gardner's now largely accepted Theory of Multiple Intelligences). Brilliance and innovation in art is no less an intellectual achievement... at its highest: "genius"... than is any achievement in science, mathematics, or sports... irrelevant of whether those disciplines are based upon rules and objective "facts" or not.

In science, you have very clearly defined goal: to describe reality accurately. Science isn't about opinions or preferences. Einstein wasn't a genius because he came up with a theory that was thought to be awesome by many people, he was genius because his theory of relativity was TRUE and it radically changed our views on physics.

You are suggesting that the disciplines based upon objective fact and rules are somehow more important and more demanding of intellectual rigor, ingenuity, and "genius"... and are perhaps more important and more lasting than the arts? But here I would say you are even further from the truth. The great cultures from throughout history are remembered for their contributions to culture and to the arts far more than they are for their achievements in science. Einstein's _Theory of Relativity_... which was not without flaws (as later physicists have discovered... certainly had a major impact upon the field of physics... but how large of an impact upon everyday life. One might argue that the invention of the computer, the TV, and the automobile have had a far greater impact upon daily human existence... but is the impact of an idea or invention upon daily human existence really a measure of the "genius" behind the idea? One might note that a great many scientific "discoveries" are accidental in nature, and many would certainly would have been hit upon eventually by someone. Are we to believe that Christopher Columbus was one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived? Certainly his discovery of the Americas had a far more profound impact upon the course of human history than anything achieved by Einstein or Newton. But it was also dumb luck... a sheer accident... and someone else would have eventually stumbled upon this continent if not him. I doubt someone would have stumbled upon _Le Nozze di Figaro_ had Mozart not lived.

In the arts there is no objective truth. Some art just happens to please somebody but not somebody else. What if Beethoven's music sounds like crap to somebody's ears? To my ears surely it doesn't, but how could I explain to him that he really was a genius nevertheless?

Art is subjective... but only to an extent. The art that survives for centuries... even millenia... and continues to resonate and speak to the educated art audience is not a mere fluke of history... a mere social construction is nothing more than a flawed theory rooted in post WWII critical theory... an idea which has long been unchallenged... but an idea which increasingly appears to contrary to all observed realities. There are universal elements to art. In spite of an ignorance of Asian culture and traditions Western artists and art lovers are inexplicably drawn to the same masterpieces of Indian of Japanese art as are the Asians. The Japanese and Chinese are drawn to Mozart and Beethoven. Disagreements on art exist... but these largely center upon recent or new art... art which has not been absorbed or digested by the culture... art which has not unquestionably entered into the canon. Yes... one might declare that Beethoven sounds like crap... but largely such an opinion would be dismissed as either an eccentricity in a person with an educated opinion (and universals are not based upon the exceptions)... or the opinion of the uneducated/inexperienced... and as such, of little worth.

But all of this has nothing to do with the "genius" of an artist. The fact that a teenage headbanger thinks "Mozart sucks" and "Shakespeare is so boring" is irrelevant to the merit of either artist... and even more irrelevant to how brilliant their achievements were within their disciplines... how great of a "genius" either was.


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

What decides the "winners" in music is called "a collective subjective opinion", or the corresponding personal opinions shared by the highest number people, a really handy term. The only objective quality we can find in music is uniformity in the way the tones/noises are organized, in other words; style.



Dim7 said:


> In science, you have very clearly defined goal: to describe reality accurately. Science isn't about opinions or preferences. Einstein wasn't a genius because he came up with a theory that was thought to be awesome by many people, he was genius because his theory of relativity was TRUE and it radically changed our views on physics.


Scientific truth _is_ subjective, the only objective truths are mathematical (as in games; the team which has higher _number_ of points/goals/whatever wins, but considering the winning team better is only traditional, a subjective opinion).


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I don't believe that at all. Ingenuity makes itself obvious, so it is marked as genius. I behest looking at music in such a stylistic and animalistic manner. It doesn't have to satisfy anything. I simply see something that is very unique (you might argue that there isn't much variance in certain periods, but I'd retort that the subtleties mean everything), and I try to get what it _deems_ to give me.

And if it gives something (which a lot of music does), then it ought to be called genius. I can tell you that it's the most difficult thing in art; Actually putting something out there. You might also argue that people can get any manner of feeling from any piece there is, but I've found uncanny similarities in the analysis of those who are well studied and appreciate of art. For example: You might call Alkan's "Fire in The Neighboring Village" etude a dry and uncharacteristic piece with cheap parlor effects, until you understand what he is representing in the piece.

He intended for that specific piece to be seen from the perspective of a common person of the times. It even makes itself painfully obvious with the wonderful, "domestic sounding" introduction, the uncontrolled panic of the flames, the rapturous savior entrance of the military theme, the recurrence of the flames, the conflict of the two, and the mourning and rebuilding thereafter. And then it ends in this fantastic statement of "I've said everything I have to say", and you just feel glorious.

Here's a link to the piece if you aren't familiar: 




And I know, I have terrible writing skills, so cut me a break if I didn't come across very well. I believe the semantics of my opinion on the matter laid themselves out well enough to be spotted.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

Dim7 said:


> I think it's in general a bit corny and sentimental to call an artist a "genius." Why would you call an artist a genius? Because you happen to like his/her art really really much? I think art is so subjective pursuit that we can't really talk about geniuses in the same sense as in science.


'Genius' or 'brilliant' are words often used interchangeably with with 'good' in music, and 'good' is subjective while 'brilliant' is much less so.

Beethoven's 9th is brilliant, as the interaction of themes and motifs is evidence of genius-- someone with lesser brainpower could not have composed it. The chord progression in the Beatle's "Blackbird" (which in my opinion is THE BEST stepwise/chromatic progression ever including all of Romanticism where the technique was oft used but never as elegantly--- analyze it, every chord makes sense) is so freaking good, but not brilliant.

So perhaps I'm dodging the question, but I don't think all music contains genius/brilliance or the potential for genius/brilliance. Cage's 4'33", a brilliant concept, will never be, and never was, brilliant music.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Cage's 4'33", a brilliant concept, will never be, and never was, brilliant music.


SO TRUE. 4'33" is a concept, or as I have always said, a stunt. Much of Cage's oeuvre consists of stunts, meant to provoke more than anything.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I wouldn't give him too hard a time, though. It's not so bad to have some satirical humor in the middle of a concert, and he did write some truly great music too. But yes, 4'33" isn't really music, although it's pretty fun to do mid-concert (at least I've heard).

I don't think I've played much of his pieces in concert, though, so I guess I'm not totally sure whether or not he's all that great.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> I wouldn't give him too hard a time, though. It's not so bad to have some satirical humor in the middle of a concert, and he did write some truly great music too. But yes, 4'33" isn't really music, although it's pretty fun to do mid-concert (at least I've heard).
> 
> I don't think I've played much of his pieces in concert, though, so I guess I'm not totally sure whether or not he's all that great.


Some of Cage's stuff for prepared piano is pretty good...beautiful even. It's proof the man was capable of being a true musician. But his other weird stuff (like 4'33") is just silly for the sake of being silly. Well, actually, Cage would have tried to convince all of us that silence is just as musical as music with a "work" such as this, but really all he proves is that there are people out there naive enough to take "works" like 4'33" at their word. Anyone who thinks 4'33" is music...the joke's on you.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Some of Cage's stuff for prepared piano is pretty good...beautiful even. It's proof the man was capable of being a true musician. But his other weird stuff (like 4'33") is just silly for the sake of being silly. Well, actually, Cage would have tried to convince all of us that silence is just as musical as music with a "work" such as this, but really all he proves is that there are people out there naive enough to take "works" like 4'33" at their word. Anyone who thinks 4'33" is music...the joke's on you.


True. But 4'33" isn't silence: It's different every time, because the random noises, coughing, and whispering are different every time


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> True. But 4'33" isn't silence: It's different every time, because the random noises, coughing, and whispering are different every time


Please...the belches, farts and qweefs of the audience as some a**hole "pianist" sits in front of his instrument (like a complete fool) for a disturbingly awkward 4 minutes and 33 seconds (or thereabouts) are not notated and explicitly written by the composer. It's no more notated than the belches, farts and qweefs of the audience when you attend a concert at your city's symphony hall while they try to hack their way through An American in Paris or El Salon Mexico.

The ambient noises during a concert are not the product of the composer. They exist in spite of the composer. And they are certainly not written by him.

If 4'33" is a true composition, it is such a slap in the face to any composer who has actually sat at his ledger and actually WRITTEN something. In this "work," Cage tries to expose that silence (or ambient noise) is just as musical as music. If that's the case, a random pile of cinder blocks (around which homeless people are coughing, farting, belching and qweefing) is every bit a building as the Sears Tower or Notre Dame de Paris.

Let's stop pretending to be artistically informed by buying into this pseudo-artistic nonsense. Beethoven's 9th is music. Cage's 4'33" is the intellectual flop of a mid-20th century provocateur. Putting the two in the same category is akin to saying the grafitti at your local bus stop is every bit a legitimate masterpiece as the Mona Lisa.

Get outta town!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Actually, I don't like the Mona Lisa all that much. I think you might have taken that a little hard, my friend. I never said 4'33" was music, I just said it wasn't silence. It makes for a fantastic joke, and would work pretty well in a concert. I think if anyone wants to blame Cage, they should blame Chico, Pachmann the Bagwan, Marc Andre Hamelin, Andre Watts, even Alkan (dear sweet jesus!) for injecting a little satire into their concert programs.

I really don't take Cage at his word that he thought that was music. It's just a hilarious stunt, just like the stumbling about of the youngster in Alkan's Les Quatre Ages _20 ans_.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> Actually, I don't like the Mona Lisa all that much. I think you might have taken that a little hard, my friend. I never said 4'33" was music, I just said it wasn't silence. It makes for a fantastic joke, and would work pretty well in a concert. I think if anyone wants to blame Cage, they should blame Chico, Pachmann the Bagwan, Marc Andre Hamelin, Andre Watts, even Alkan (dear sweet jesus!) for injecting a little satire into their concert programs.
> 
> I really don't take Cage at his word that he thought that was music. It's just a hilarious stunt, just like the stumbling about of the youngster in Alkan's Les Quatre Ages _20 ans_.


As long as we can agree that 4'33" is NOT music, I am a happy man. True, it's not pure silence either, but I suppose pure silence is not really possible anyway.

Indeed, 4'33" is a stunt, but I'm not sure how hilarious it is. What is hilarious, however, is that there are people who think it's a true composition.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> As long as we can agree that 4'33" is NOT music, I am a happy man. True, it's not pure silence either, but I suppose pure silence is not really possible anyway.
> 
> Indeed, 4'33" is a stunt, but I'm not sure how hilarious it is. What is hilarious, however, is that there are people who think it's a true composition.


I think it is a true composition. Do I run to recitals that have it on their program...no...but that doesn't strip it of it's right to exist as a notated piece of music. Why should it? It has a title, form, and instruction like any composition.

I'm glad that Cage came up in this thread as he was one of Schoenberg's prize students. Although what Cage did is very different than 12 tone technique...well, to a degree. It depends on what parts of this technique one considers fundamental.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Scott Good said:


> I think it is a true composition. Do I run to recitals that have it on their program...no...but that doesn't strip it of it's right to exist as a notated piece of music. Why should it? It has a title, form, and instruction like any composition.
> 
> I'm glad that Cage came up in this thread as he was one of Schoenberg's prize students. Although what Cage did is very different than 12 tone technique...well, to a degree. It depends on what parts of this technique one considers fundamental.


I'm sorry, but lack of music does not constitute music, the same way lack of food is not the same as food or the lack of a Gothic cathedral on my property is the same as a Gothic catherdral on my property. The lack of something is not the same as something.

Although this has already been hashed out in another thread, I would like to make my point on this again here. Silence IN A MUSICAL CONTEXT is indeed musical. If you are listening to a symphonic work, for example, and all music stops to a dead silence before starting up again, that lack of sound works musically with work with (or against) the sounds for needed contrast. This is VERY different from something that begins and ends with no sound what so ever.

Music is music because, in part, it is audible. Watching a "pianist" sit in front of his instrument and not play it CANNOT be music because no sound is being made. And the coughs and hiccups from the audience...that was not composed by Cage. He deserves no credit for having "composed" the ambient noises during 4'33" no more than Beethoven deserved to be credited for the coughs and hiccups heard during his Moonlight Sonata, for example, which is a legitmate piece of music because it involves the actual playing of an instrument to produce SOUND.

You said that 4'33" has form and has the right to exist as a notated piece of music? How is this work notated? Empty staffs with the instructions to sit still for 4'11"? Should such "notation" really be taken seriously? Doesn't it reek more of a joke that a real work?

If that's your idea of music, you can certainly have it. I am just shocked that anyone could fall for this artistic swindling of a man who should be remembered, perhaps, more as a charlatan than as a musician.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I'm sorry, but lack of music does not constitute music, the same way lack of food is not the same as food or the lack of a Gothic cathedral on my property is the same as a Gothic catherdral on my property. The lack of something is not the same as something.


But there isn't any silence - that is the point. It is also about expectations, and how we hear (once again, like all compositions).



Tapkaara said:


> Although this has already been hashed out in another thread, I would like to make my point on this again here. Silence IN A MUSICAL CONTEXT is indeed musical. If you are listening to a symphonic work, for example, and all music stops to a dead silence before starting up again, that lack of sound works musically with work with (or against) the sounds for needed contrast. This is VERY different from something that begins and ends with no sound what so ever.


But it does begin, and it does end.

It is a piece of music, as the instructions are specifically geared to sound, to be performed in concert.

Simple, and easy to understand. Why fight it?



Tapkaara said:


> Music is music because, in part, it is audible. Watching a "pianist" sit in front of his instrument and not play it CANNOT be music because no sound is being made. And the coughs and hiccups from the audience...that was not composed by Cage. He deserves no credit for having "composed" the ambient noises during 4'33" no more than Beethoven deserved to be credited for the coughs and hiccups heard during his Moonlight Sonata, for example, which is a legitmate piece of music because it involves the actual playing of an instrument to produce SOUND.


The point is sound is being made - even if only by the flowing blood in the still body. Which is, in fact, deafening under the right circumstances.

Yes, many elements of this music are not predictable - some are - so what?



Tapkaara said:


> You said that 4'33" has form and has the right to exist as a notated piece of music? How is this work notated? Empty staffs with the instructions to sit still for 4'11"? Should such "notation" really be taken seriously? Doesn't it reek more of a joke that a real work?


Cage felt it was his most important composition. Since it continues to become the centre of attention, then I guess he is right.

But yes, there is a score - even movements. Check it out before you say it doesn't exist. Maybe you should perform it once before you pass judgment.



Tapkaara said:


> If that's your idea of music, you can certainly have it.


Comments like this are entirely unnecessary.



Tapkaara said:


> I am just shocked that anyone could fall for this artistic swindling of a man who should be remembered, perhaps, more as a charlatan than as a musician.


I'm sorry you feel this way. He was quite kind and gentle - very influenced by eastern philosophy, an avid studier of music and cultures of the world. Anyone I know who knew him said he was a fine person. He also had a tremendous work ethic, and lived a simple, and healthy lifestyle. He was a good man, and a smart man - you should be more respectful.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I'm sorry, but lack of music does not constitute music, the same way lack of food is not the same as food or the lack of a Gothic cathedral on my property is the same as a Gothic catherdral on my property. The lack of something is not the same as something.
> 
> Although this has already been hashed out in another thread, I would like to make my point on this again here. Silence IN A MUSICAL CONTEXT is indeed musical. If you are listening to a symphonic work, for example, and all music stops to a dead silence before starting up again, that lack of sound works musically with work with (or against) the sounds for needed contrast. This is VERY different from something that begins and ends with no sound what so ever.
> 
> ...


I agree with a majority of that, but calling Cage a charlatan was entirely uncalled for. Are you going to call Xenakis, Tibbs, Cowell, or Berio charlatans because they pulled a few stunts? Cage was a fantastic composer, and 4'33" often makes for an interesting addition to a concert. That's all there is to it.

Cage is great in that he wrote some wonderful music, a real genius of a composer. And he never ceased to find ways to get well studied people to quit taking themselves so seriously. People should take they can get from a concert, and certainly will never have any grounds as a critic if they can only say that it didn't please some animal instinct they have for everything to sound like Rach's 3rd piano concerto. It's pretty off base to even try to put a negative connotation on Cage. Music puts something across to people, and Cage's stunts tell people they can bugger off if they can't use a little perspective and imagination when they listen to the music he slaved over for them.

Please don't assume I'm angry, though, as I nearly always agree with the sentiments you present. But these are the "brass facts".


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Scott Good said:


> But there isn't any silence - that is the point. It is also about expectations, and how we hear (once again, like all compositions).
> 
> But it does begin, and it does end.
> 
> ...


If you think 4'33" is a real piece of music, you are very much entitled to that opinion.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> I agree with a majority of that, but calling Cage a charlatan was entirely uncalled for. Are you going to call Xenakis, Tibbs, Cowell, or Berio charlatans because they pulled a few stunts? Cage was a fantastic composer, and 4'33" often makes for an interesting addition to a concert. That's all there is to it.
> 
> Cage is great in that he wrote some wonderful music, a real genius of a composer. And he never ceased to find ways to get well studied people to quit taking themselves so seriously. People should take they can get from a concert, and certainly will never have any grounds as a critic if they can only say that it didn't please some animal instinct they have for everything to sound like Rach's 3rd piano concerto. It's pretty off base to even try to put a negative connotation on Cage. Music puts something across to people, and Cage's stunts tell people they can bugger off if they can't use a little perspective and imagination when they listen to the music he slaved over for them.
> 
> Please don't assume I'm angry, though, as I nearly always agree with the sentiments you present. But these are the "brass facts".


Cage could compose real music if he wanted to. I said earlier some of his prepared piano works are very nice.

But since he is best known for the debacle known as 4'33", I think this means his fame rests more on this point-making stunt more than actual music, so maybe he should be considered a charlatan, or a demi-charlatan. if you ask me, truly great composers should be known for the music they've written, not for their silly Monty Python-esque antics employed to make a point that "silence is deafening" or "music can even be the creak of a chair in a quite room." It's more philosophy and performance art than it will ever be real music.

Just my opinion!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I know you're going to loathe this phrase, seeing as we all do, but it seems you've _missed the point entirely_.  There's nothing wrong with pulling a stunt during a concert, and it's absolutely fiendish to call a great composer a charlatan. He did do something important with that piece. He entirely broke people's expectations of what a concert is supposed to be like. Now our ears are reopened, and it's great. So he can say it's his most important work, and from some perspectives it is. He changed a lot of opinions, gave a lot of laughs, made tons of people awkward for the hell of it, and wrote an extraordinarily easy piece of music. I'm guessing it isn't very hard to sit and count at all.

You definitely can't insult someone who gave so much because he gets credit for something you just don't enjoy. Things work out much more elegantly than that (in my opinion). But everyone is just a self appointed expert.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> I know you're going to loathe this phrase, seeing as we all do, but it seems you've _missed the point entirely_.  There's nothing wrong with pulling a stunt during a concert, and it's absolutely fiendish to call a great composer a charlatan. He did do something important with that piece. He entirely broke people's expectations of what a concert is supposed to be like. Now our ears are reopened, and it's great. So he can say it's his most important work, and from some perspectives it is. He changed a lot of opinions, gave a lot of laughs, made tons of people awkward for the hell of it, and wrote an extraordinarily easy piece of music. I'm guessing it isn't very hard to sit and count at all.
> 
> You definitely can't insult someone who gave so much because he gets credit for something you just don't enjoy. Things work out much more elegantly than that (in my opinion). But everyone is just a self appointed expert.


Whaaaaaaaaaatever!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Perhaps this quote will help Tapkaara modify his opinion about Cage's 4'33": "Works of art make rules; rules do not make works of art.” 

(The person who that's attributed to is Claude Debussy.)


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> It's more philosophy and performance art than it will ever be real music.


Ha! I am vindicated! You confess it is a piece of music, but just more so philosophy.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Scott Good said:


> Ha! I am vindicated! You confess it is a piece of music, but just more so philosophy.


If it makes you feel as if you've won to take my quoted statement as an admission that 4'33" is music, I encourage you to do so. Be my guest.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

some guy said:


> Perhaps this quote will help Tapkaara modify his opinion about Cage's 4'33": "Works of art make rules; rules do not make works of art."
> 
> (The person who that's attributed to is Claude Debussy.)


I would not deny the 4'33" is performance art. So, it very likely is an artistic expression. But it's just not music.

Again, I do not deny that Cage's "chef d'oeuvre" is art, if that will unbunch your panties.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> If it makes you feel as if you've won to take my quoted statement as an admission that 4'33" is music, I encourage you to do so. Be my guest.


what a boob! why do you even come to post on this thread - just to insult people? bravo, dude! real impressive.

what a wasted thread. possibly some interesting discussion about 12 tone music turned into cage bashing.

just like MI...i thought you were above this.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Scott Good said:


> what a boob! why do you even come to post on this thread - just to insult people? bravo, dude! real impressive.
> 
> what a wasted thread. possibly some interesting discussion about 12 tone music turned into cage bashing.
> 
> just like MI...i thought you were above this.


How have I insulted you? Or anyone else? I've come to this thread to voice my opinion on a controversial subject. Same reason why you are here, by the way.

But have I really insulted anyone? In fact, you have just insulted me by calling me, of all things, a boob! 

You said, with a laugh, that you were vindicated by something I said. All I said in response is that if your misinterpretation of my statements makes you feel vindicated, and thus the winner of our little discussion, you are welcome to it.

And please do not compare me to MI. That's just not fair. Insulting, even.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> In fact, you have just insulted me by calling me, of all things, a boob!


You don't like boobs?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Aramis said:


> You don't like boobs?


What a complicated question...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I'll be honest, I think they're Grrrrreat!!! They turn me into the Frosted Flakes Tiger.

I'm only really harried because you feel that 4'33" is grounds for discrediting Cage as a whole, and that's a massive usurper of a statement.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I know you're going to loathe this phrase, seeing as we all do, but it seems you've missed the point entirely. There's nothing wrong with pulling a stunt during a concert, and it's absolutely fiendish to call a great composer a charlatan. He did do something important with that piece. He entirely broke people's expectations of what a concert is supposed to be like. Now our ears are reopened, and it's great.

C'mon... it was just a juvenile stunt... typical of the pseudo-art churned out in all of the arts mid-century. In the visual arts we had Piero Manzoni who canned his own excrement and labeled it "Artist's ****" and then priced it at the going rate of gold per ounce. And then there was Vito Acconci, whose installation, Seedbed consisted of the artist laying hidden underneath a gallery-wide ramp installed at the Sonnabend Gallery, ************ while vocalizing into a loudspeaker his fantasies about the visitors walking above him on the ramp. And of course we had the brilliant films of Andy Warhol such as Sleep which consists of 6 and a half hours of film footage of someone sleeping. Or perhaps we might look at Chris Burden's Shoot from 1971 in which the artist had an assistant shoot him in the arm. After this piece he was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation.

Every single one of these "artists" challenged peoples expectations as to what art is, and every one of these "artists" are currently well-known and respected by a good portion of the art community... if we consider that being represented in the major art periodicals, art galleries, art museums, and major surveys of art history counts for something. But is it really ART? And if it is ART then is it ART of any real merit? Art worthy of comparison with Rembrandt, Matisse, or Rothko? In what way is the intellectual onanism of 4:33 or Ligetti's 100 Metronomes piece anything more than the stupid conceptual pieces of these oh so clever visual artists?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

You don't like boobs?

What a complicated question... 

Complicated??? I'll take boobs over John Cage any day. Hell... they even give Mozart a run for the money.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> I'll be honest, I think they're Grrrrreat!!! They turn me into the Frosted Flakes Tiger.
> 
> I'm only really harried because you feel that 4'33" is grounds for discrediting Cage as a whole, and that's a massive usurper of a statement.


I am not discrediting him AS A WHOLE. But I think much of his legacy, quite honestly, is built upon 4'33" and, thus, he is most famous for this stunt more than his actual music.

I think this fame as a composer built on a "piece" which includes absolutely no composition is worthy of being discredited. I suppose he should be lauded as a greater performance artist for 4'33".

He has written some cool works for prepared piano, which proves he was capable of writing decent music.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I know you're going to loathe this phrase, seeing as we all do, but it seems you've missed the point entirely. There's nothing wrong with pulling a stunt during a concert, and it's absolutely fiendish to call a great composer a charlatan. He did do something important with that piece. He entirely broke people's expectations of what a concert is supposed to be like. Now our ears are reopened, and it's great.
> 
> C'mon... it was just a juvenile stunt... typical of the pseudo-art churned out in all of the arts mid-century.


So very well put.


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird (Jan 25, 2009)

4'33" is good music. its super chill


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> C'mon... it was just a juvenile stunt... typical of the pseudo-art churned out in all of the arts mid-century. In the visual arts we had Piero Manzoni who canned his own excrement and labeled it "Artist's ****" and then priced it at the going rate of gold per ounce. And then there was Vito Acconci, whose installation, Seedbed consisted of the artist laying hidden underneath a gallery-wide ramp installed at the Sonnabend Gallery, ************ while vocalizing into a loudspeaker his fantasies about the visitors walking above him on the ramp. And of course we had the brilliant films of Andy Warhol such as Sleep which consists of 6 and a half hours of film footage of someone sleeping. Or perhaps we might look at Chris Burden's Shoot from 1971 in which the artist had an assistant shoot him in the arm. After this piece he was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation.


Ah, there's worse than that. There was a guy who lopped of his *****, inch by inch, and filmed it. Then he died from blood loss (in fact, I don't think he finished the job...). I know of others but will keep it to myself in the spirit of decency.

However, we are talking about music here.

Cage's work was not to, at least from what I have read of him, shock. It was to display two ideas - that we can never have silence, and that what we call music is simply what we decide to frame as music.

He asks only 4 minutes and 33 seconds - divided into 3 parts. That is it. It is not 6 hours - it is not public display of defecation - it is not a public display of sexuality. It isn't any of these things in the slightest. It is a simple, elegant work. It wasn't arrived at by sitting around scheming - it was an honest reaction to both spending time in sensory deprivation, bearing witness to the impossibility of silence, and the influence of Japanese art music, specifically Noh, where the silences and still moments are the points of arrival - of maximum drama.

See, any individual work of art can be put into context by it's surroundings. Obviously, no one is going to perform a recotal of nothing but 4'33''. It will be given a place, and within the context could have strong impact. Maybe humorous as Luke is suggesting (and I was at one performance that turned into a laughing fit!) - maybe not so funny - possibly very serious.

Perhaps it is the perfect piece of music to perform on Remembrance day. Maybe following Waltzing Matilda and before amazing grace, Can you not see that it could function beautifully in this context?

This is the same with visual art. Works of extreme abstraction can sit besides others, giving them context designed by the curator. But displaying ones pooh is going to have a very different effect of a solid blue canvass, yes? Therefor, they are not the same thing.

And Ligeti's simple little 100 metronome work is just that, a simple little concept. Doesn't carry the same weight as 4'33'', and certainly wasn't considered by Ligeti to be a significant work, and is only slightly indicative of his output. I don't think he cared for it much at all.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> How have I insulted you? Or anyone else? I've come to this thread to voice my opinion on a controversial subject. Same reason why you are here, by the way.
> 
> But have I really insulted anyone? In fact, you have just insulted me by calling me, of all things, a boob!
> 
> ...


well, the boob was silly, and was taken that way (phew), that's what the laugh was for.

but, here are some of the quotes I find offensive:
_
Well, actually, Cage would have tried to convince all of us that silence is just as musical as music with a "work" such as this, but really all he proves is that there are people out there naive enough to take "works" like 4'33" at their word. Anyone who thinks 4'33" is music...the joke's on you._

So, I am naive, and a sucker.

_If that's your idea of music, you can certainly have it. I am just shocked that anyone could fall for this artistic swindling of a man who should be remembered, perhaps, more as a charlatan than as a musician._

You call Cage a swindler, and a charlatan. That is rude and uncalled for.

_Let's stop pretending to be artistically informed by buying into this pseudo-artistic nonsense. Beethoven's 9th is music. Cage's 4'33" is the intellectual flop of a mid-20th century provocateur._

You suggest I am pretending.

_If 4'33" is a true composition, it is such a slap in the face to any composer who has actually sat at his ledger and actually WRITTEN something._

I am a composer, and have great respect for the art of composition...and, think 4'33'' is legit.

_Please...the belches, farts and qweefs of the audience as some a**hole "pianist" sits in front of his instrument (like a complete fool) for a disturbingly awkward 4 minutes and 33 seconds_

Myself, and friends, are a**holes, and fools.

Want me to find more? How am I supposed to frame these comments as not insulting?

And, tell me why you had to voice your opinion on this subject? Why? This is why I make the comparison to MI (which was a low blow, I must admit...and certainly over stated, so, sorry 'bout that). But, it is the sort of behavior he would do all the time. This isn't a debate - it is a discussion, and is supposed to be about 12 tone composition. I could relate 4'33'' to 12 tone method, but why bother. I am just going to be insulted and ridiculed.

It is just so tiring.

At any rate, I gave reasons to call 4'33'' music that are based in solid logic (score, instructions dealing with sound etc), and so did Lukecash (performing history and utility) - interesting that they are from very different perspectives.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Ah, there's worse than that. There was a guy who lopped of his *****, inch by inch, and filmed it. Then he died from blood loss (in fact, I don't think he finished the job...).

That was something of an urban legend. Actually the Austrian artist only simulated self mutilation cutting up fish instead... but the "artist" Chris Burden made a passing joke about his having died from performing self-castration and the story stuck.

I know of others but will keep it to myself in the spirit of decency.

However, we are talking about music here.

The point is that such "music" had it counterparts in the visual arts and in literature... books with no text, books in which the text was all crossed out, random collections of letters and words... etc... The period marked a shift in the education of artists, composers, and writers away from Art Schools or Music Schools or periods of study under an established "master" toward the arts being an accredited course of study in the universities. With this shift, there was also a shift away from rigorous study of the "craft", if you will, toward a focus upon the concept. You are right that there is a difference between Manzoni's **** in a can and an abstract painting by Rothko. The Rothko may be challenging to those who assume painting should look like something... but it is still recognizably Art... Painting. By the same token, the atonal music of Schoenberg or the harrowing sounds of Penderecki's Threnody are equally challenging to those accustomed to tonal music... but they are far more recognizable as serious musical expressions than Cage 4'33 or Ligetti's 100 Metronome piece (which I happen to own and which almost ruins the disc of his mechanical music which otherwise I quite like... something almost Bach-like... Bach on drugs perhaps... but still quite intriguing.

Cage's work was not to, at least from what I have read of him, shock. It was to display two ideas - that we can never have silence, and that what we call music is simply what we decide to frame as music.

He asks only 4 minutes and 33 seconds - divided into 3 parts. That is it. It is not 6 hours - it is not public display of defecation - it is not a public display of sexuality. It isn't any of these things in the slightest. It is a simple, elegant work. It wasn't arrived at by sitting around scheming - it was an honest reaction to both spending time in sensory deprivation, bearing witness to the impossibility of silence, and the influence of Japanese art music, specifically Noh, where the silences and still moments are the points of arrival - of maximum drama.

My feeling is that all art is conceptual... conveys an idea. It is not the idea or the "meaning" but the experience itself that matters... the form. The form of 4'33 is just a little joke... no different than Manzoni's **** can... which had an equally "profound" conceptual base: The artist wished to confront the audience with a recognition that that the artist's name had almost become something of a name brand... so that if a drawing had Picasso's or Matisse's signature it was afforded this great status and value... even if it were a piece of **** (figuratively). Thus he set out to prove this point literally by marketing and selling **** priced at the same value as gold. The joke was on him... or the whole art world... as now these cans o' **** sell for far more than gold.

See, any individual work of art can be put into context by it's surroundings. Obviously, no one is going to perform a recital of nothing but 4'33''. It will be given a place, and within the context could have strong impact. Maybe humorous as Luke is suggesting (and I was at one performance that turned into a laughing fit!) - maybe not so funny - possibly very serious.

I agree that silence... within a context of a musical performance, a theater piece, or even within a film can be quite effective. I'm uncertain that anyone needs Cage's 4'33 to realize this.

I'm not going to suggest that anyone who buys into Cage's work (or any similar such piece) is a fool, but I would expect that the same courtesy be afforded to those who suspect that it may not be all it is claimed to be. One can be quite knowledgeable of contemporary art and music and still suspect that a great deal of it is nothing more than crap. In the long run, the majority of all art is mediocre at best, and only the strongest work survives... that which continues to speak to subsequent artists and art lovers. There is nothing near to a consensus on Schoenberg... let alone Cage. In the end we can only follow what speaks to us. If we don't get Cage... or Glass... or Golijov... it doesn't necessarily mean we "don't get it" or we're stuck in the 19th century. I quite love the late 19th century decadents myself... but I listen far more to Bach and even earlier music... some of which many find as weird as anything by most Modernists.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Scott Good said:


> Ah, there's worse than that. There was a guy who lopped of his *****, inch by inch, and filmed it. Then he died from blood loss (in fact, I don't think he finished the job...). I know of others but will keep it to myself in the spirit of decency.
> 
> However, we are talking about music here.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I used strong language. I have been insulting to Cage. But not to you. At least not to you directly. Please don't take any of it personally.

Anything in this forum is fair game. I can comment on any topic I want. I'm sure you woulnd't ask '"Why do you feel the need to comment on Cage" if I were being laudatory. So please respect my right, as it were, to comment on topics in this forum, even if the comment is negative and contrary to your own thoughts on the matter.

Having said all of that, I have stated my opinions on Cage and have not meant anyone any personal harm. I've said all I have to say on the topic, and I feel good for having been able to express myself.

I move forward from here...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

My god do we have a lot of fun getting riled up at little things like this... Great way to rest my hands after practice.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> My god do we have a lot of fun getting riled up at little things like this...


Yeah & what's this all got to do with the original topic of this thread?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

We were entirely finished with the original topic, so we played a few notes off key. That's a good thing.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> We were entirely finished with the original topic, so we played a few notes off key. That's a good thing.


Anyone who expects these threads to stay pinpoint on topic at any time is gonna be real disappointed real quick!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> well, the boob was silly, and was taken that way (phew), that's what the laugh was for.
> 
> but, here are some of the quotes I find offensive:
> _
> ...


Actually, I agree with your perspective just as much. I'm just addicted to dry, satirical humor. Something humorous and simple as a person sitting at a piano and counting in his/her head in front of an oblivious crowd is genius on so many levels.


----------



## kmisho (Oct 22, 2009)

Poppin' Fresh said:


> 'Genius' or 'brilliant' are words often used interchangeably with with 'good' in music, and 'good' is subjective while 'brilliant' is much less so.
> 
> Beethoven's 9th is brilliant, as the interaction of themes and motifs is evidence of genius-- someone with lesser brainpower could not have composed it. The chord progression in the Beatle's "Blackbird" (which in my opinion is THE BEST stepwise/chromatic progression ever including all of Romanticism where the technique was oft used but never as elegantly--- analyze it, every chord makes sense) is so freaking good, but not brilliant.
> 
> So perhaps I'm dodging the question, but I don't think all music contains genius/brilliance or the potential for genius/brilliance. Cage's 4'33", a brilliant concept, will never be, and never was, brilliant music.


You have to admit when all the voices come in at the same time, it sounds pretty bad. But then Beethoven had been deaf for many years when he wrote that.


----------



## kmisho (Oct 22, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Some of Cage's stuff for prepared piano is pretty good...beautiful even. It's proof the man was capable of being a true musician. But his other weird stuff (like 4'33") is just silly for the sake of being silly. Well, actually, Cage would have tried to convince all of us that silence is just as musical as music with a "work" such as this, but really all he proves is that there are people out there naive enough to take "works" like 4'33" at their word. Anyone who thinks 4'33" is music...the joke's on you.


4'33" was a logical continuation of the direction the arts (not only music) were headed.

There was a conceptual artist whose name escapes me at the moment who created a work that was in the form of a single sentence: Think anything at all for any length of time.

People like this, including Cage, were, among other things, asking questions about what art is. One thing they decided, and I think they were completely correct in this, is that newness (and its brother, shock) are no longer valid aesthetic components.

Things can be new and things can be shocking, of course, but that they are new or shocking is not in itself a criterion of their quality. I think Cole Porter summed it up best: "anything goes." In a world where anything goes, the questions about what an artist can do, the questions an artist asks himself about what he will do, are very different from they were before.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

kmisho said:


> 4'33" was a logical continuation of the direction the arts (not only music) were headed.
> 
> There was a conceptual artist whose name escapes me at the moment who created a work that was in the form of a single sentence: Think anything at all for any length of time.
> 
> ...


Well said. Art is meant to do nothing more than provoke a thought.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well said. Art is meant to do nothing more than provoke a thought.

Is that so? I'm always wary of any definition limiting what art should or shouldn't do. Still, in my own personal opinions... as an artist (albeit a visual artist)... a great work of art cannot be reduced to a simple "meaning" or "idea". If it could, there would be no need to experience the work more than once. Indeed... I would suggest that art... not unlike life... cannot even begin to be reduced to a simple meaning. What is the "meaning" of Mozart's clarinet quartet? No... art (again like life) is far more about the experience than the destination. Art that is but a clever representation of a clever idea by the clever boy strikes me as sophomoric... and quickly forgotten. Not unlike the one-line joke.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I say "meant", because I believe art is a thing that's been given to us (but this isn't the time for a religious discussion). So many things can be intended for a work of art, but what is the most fundamental element, and the only singular thing that can generally define art? It's evocative. It brings our hidden aspirations to life. It sums up the very meaning of consciousness, and that is the will of the individual. Art characterizes what exactly it means to exist. The fact that we are aware of it, means we think about it. And my goal is to strive to understand/interpret correctly, which I never will do.

There is no destination, and there is no set of experiences any greater than any one other. There is no authentic, or more profound experience a person can achieve. Every life, and every event within a life has it's philosophical implication, elegant design, and unique qualities to it. The only thing art does is characterize/bring about a thought, whether it be sentimental, rebellious, purely experimental, religious, hateful, erotic, romantic, eerie, etc.

And thus, I stick by exactly what I said. But having said that art provokes thought, I didn't say that there was no good and bad art. I (personally) determine art by whatever beneficial sentiments it may imply, and some art simply doesn't imply much of anything beneficial (such as pop culture jargon). Art is at the very center of what makes us human. Without it, there wouldn't be any such thing as philosophy, religion, etc. because art is product or characterization of such things. Just like the fact that without marriage there would be no pleasantries between people, because the developments because of marriage lie at the very center of our social nature. And art lies at the center of thought.

Furthermore, the reason I prefer music is because it is (generally speaking) the most specific, individual, least vain (hopefully), and most sentimentally and culturally significant art form. I couldn't think of anything more wonderful to study and understand that God hath deemed to gift us (besides the Bible, which is the penultimate work of art).

I know, I had a bit of a rambling session there. I apologize


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Art that is but a clever representation of a clever idea by the clever boy strikes me as sophomoric... *and quickly forgotten*. Not unlike the one-line joke.[emphasis mine]


This strike _me_ as wishful thinking. But Cage's 4' 33" has not been forgotten, as witness the number of times it comes up in classical forum threads. (You should give the Amazon forum a visit some time!!)

No, Cage's 57 year old work still seems young and fresh, able to delight and infuriate with the best of 'em. (Cage, just by the way, was just short of his 40th birthday when that piece was premiered. Hardly a boy.)


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Man, nothing creates a discussion like 4' 33''. In my opinion it is definitely art but certainly not music. It's the least musical 'thing' possible. It lacks the one thing needed to be music. It's more a philosophical rhetorical question about the nature of art and the human condition.

What are peoples opinions on stuff like Stockhausen's _Helicopter String Quartet_. This I find funnier than 4' 33'' because it's much more imaginitive. Karlheinz must have been having a right laugh with that one to see if he could do something so ludicrous and excessive while trying to present it as serious music to critics and audiences. At least it is music and can be judged as such.

It seems to me that if a guy can compose or play like a master but chooses to create or perform music that sounds like it was made by a four year old in a kitchen he is seen as an avant-garde genius or something along those lines yet if an an actual four old makes the same music it's just some kid banging on some pots and pans. In some ways I agree with this sentiment. For example, if a pianist can play say Schuberts _Wanderer Fantasy_ and write a piece of similar calibre yet when he performs in public just repeatedly smashes his forehead on the keys giving the resulting noises titles, any more or less a genius than the guy who does the latter in the first place, and are his 'compostions' any greater than people writing the same stuff with no talent. I know it's a weird question but I think the artist's ability and previous works give credentials to anything else he produces, therefore no piece of art can truly be judged without bias.

One last question, if a non-musician, say a dishwasher in a hotel, were to have 'written' 4'33'' and tried to get it performed would it have even got to the performance stage? Same applies to all other pieces of music that required minimal skill or ability to compose.

I lied that wasn't my last question, my last question is this. What does or will 21st century classical music sound like?


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Argus said:


> I lied that wasn't my last question, my last question is this. What does or will 21st century classical music sound like?


This topic was discussed previously here: _http://www.talkclassical.com/3275-what-does-future-hold.html

_It seems rather earie, as I look back at some of these threads, to see how many former members have been banned._
 _


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Argus said:


> Man, nothing creates a discussion like 4' 33''. In my opinion it is definitely art but certainly not music. It's the least musical 'thing' possible. It lacks the one thing needed to be music. It's more a philosophical rhetorical question about the nature of art and the human condition.


Perhaps it is MORE philosophical, if such things can be quantified - ok. But, the reason it is a piece of music is that the instructions are geared specifically to sound and form, as all pieces of music are. It is not a painting, or a movie, or a sculpture, or a book...

For me, this is the end of the story, but it seems people just have to go on and on about there being no notes - is music just "notes"? I spent years on your side until I realized that it was futile to argue against this simple fact.



Argus said:


> What does or will 21st century classical music sound like?


A wonderful multiplicity of the human experience! It will not be a thing, a sound, but everything. Such is the power and capacity of this great art form.

What in the world did the music of the 20th century sound like? There were tens of thousands of composers. The depth of musical possibility explored is a gift to us - we should treasure it, and it's diversity.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> I say "meant", because I believe art is a thing that's been given to us (but this isn't the time for a religious discussion). So many things can be intended for a work of art, but what is the most fundamental element, and the only singular thing that can generally define art? It's evocative. It brings our hidden aspirations to life. It sums up the very meaning of consciousness, and that is the will of the individual. Art characterizes what exactly it means to exist. The fact that we are aware of it, means we think about it. And my goal is to strive to understand/interpret correctly, which I never will do.
> 
> There is no destination, and there is no set of experiences any greater than any one other. There is no authentic, or more profound experience a person can achieve. Every life, and every event within a life has it's philosophical implication, elegant design, and unique qualities to it. The only thing art does is characterize/bring about a thought, whether it be sentimental, rebellious, purely experimental, religious, hateful, erotic, romantic, eerie, etc.


This is great! Thanks.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

> Perhaps it is MORE philosophical, if such things can be quantified - ok. But, the reason it is a piece of music is that the instructions are geared specifically to sound and form, as all pieces of music are. It is not a painting, or a movie, or a sculpture, or a book...
> 
> For me, this is the end of the story, but it seems people just have to go on and on about there being no notes - is music just "notes"? I spent years on your side until I realized that it was futile to argue against this simple fact.


To me the only necessity for something to be considered music is sound. In 4'33'' there is an absence of sound. I know you could argue inadvertant noises the audience make can become part of the piece but surely these are found everywhere and using that logic it would make sense to say that 4'33'' is being played constantly and everwhere simultaneously (discounting in a vacuum or to deaf people) and indeed that all sound can be labelled as music/art.

It doesn't matter whether he gave instructions geared towards sound and form there is still no sound. If the performer read out loud the instructions then it could be music. I can't say I have seen the score to the work but if he's written a tempo marker at the start he's just taking the ****.

If we start using the wrong words to describe things then the words become meaningless and conversations become complicated affairs. 4'33'' will only become classed as music when the meaning of the word changes.

Finally, a thought just occurred to me. If we hear music in our heads and the music is not something we are recalling from memory, in that it never existed in waveform or actual physical frequency, is it still music. Even more, does the music heard in ones head actually exist?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

What is art, anyway?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

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


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

It isn't silence. There is no such thing as silence. It's nothing but a statement saying "listen everywhere and all the time, and you will hear music". So 4'33" is very much music. If you don't want to attach anything emotional to life, and want to think of absolutely everything mundane as cold and lifeless, go ahead. Categorize everything so that you can ignore it.

Or relearn entirely what is and isn't significant. Plus, there is two types of sound:

"The ancient Vedic scriptures teach that there are two types of sound. One is a vibration of Ether, the upper and purer air near the celestral realm. This sound is called Anahata Nad or unstruck sound. Sought after by great enlightened yogis, it can only be heard by them. The sound of the universe is the thought by some to be like the music of the spheres that the Greek Pythagors described in the 6th century B.C. The other sound Ahata Nad or struck sound, is the vibration of air in the lower atmosphere closer to the earth. It is any sound that we hear in nature or man-made sounds, musical and non-musical."

At least, that's the Hindustani beliefs.

4'33" is made up of sound, and it inspires you. That seems like the parameters of music for me. Music isn't about working or not working on something. It's about imparting something. I don't listen to Beethoven and say "Well that must have been a pain in the **** to compose". I go after the sentiments he left behind.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

As for 21st century music, I'm very much convinced that it is going to be completely unlike everything else in music history, mostly because it will turn out to be completely unrestricted, since music has virtually been stretched to and beyond its limits. Of course, there will still be advances, but I doubt very much that there will be as much proselytizing about a particular style. I would just as soon wait and contribute in what ways I can.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> It isn't silence. There is no such thing as silence. It's nothing but a statement saying "listen everywhere and all the time, and you will hear music". So 4'33" is very much music. If you don't want to attach anything emotional to life, and want to think of absolutely everything mundane as cold and lifeless, go ahead. Categorize everything so that you can ignore it.
> 
> Or relearn entirely what is and isn't significant. Plus, there is two types of sound:
> 
> ...


Of course there is such a thing as silence. If a person is born completely deaf he does not know sound and therefore lives in total silence. Or has he the innate ability to hear things in his mind without actually experiencing them externally through his senses.

Also, that Vedic quote is utter ******** according to your own logic. It states 'sound that we hear in nature or man-made sounds, musical and non-musical'. But if you believe 4'33'' to be music there is no such thin as 'non-musical' sounds. Complete oxymoron.

The fact is that 4'33'' is not music. Any music heard during the performance can not be attributed to the composition entitled '4'33'' or creditted to John Cage in any way. It's an idea, a performance, a piece of art, a mindset and many other things, but it is not music. For example, if an audience member coughs during the performance it could be considered music but not a part of the work called 4'33''.

It may just be that language is incapable of or not evolved far enough to be able to fully describe the notion of music but at this point in time 4'33'' cannot be considered music as the meaning assigned to the word 'music' is in opposition to the concept of 4'33''.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2009)

Argus said:


> To me the only necessity for something to be considered music is sound. In 4'33'' there is an absence of sound. I know you could argue inadvertant noises the audience make can become part of the piece....


Exactly. One, there is no such thing as "silence." There are always sounds, some of them intended by the composer, some not. Cage wanted to let the not intended sounds in, that's all.


Argus said:


> 4'33'' will only become classed as music when the meaning of the word changes.


Again, exactly. That is precisely what has happened. So here we are. Music is all sounds. Wonderful!! Now let's go listen some.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Argus said:


> Of course there is such a thing as silence. If a person is born completely deaf he does not know sound and therefore lives in total silence. Or has he the innate ability to hear things in his mind without actually experiencing them externally through his senses.
> 
> Also, that Vedic quote is utter ******** according to your own logic. It states 'sound that we hear in nature or man-made sounds, musical and non-musical'. But if you believe 4'33'' to be music there is no such thin as 'non-musical' sounds. Complete oxymoron.
> 
> ...


In your opinion. Inactivity has it's own philosophical merits. 4'33" makes you listen to the sounds you've tried to ignore for most of your life. Life is music, so listen to it. No, John Cage didn't compose life, he just gave it a little attention. So it is his most important work.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

Surprisingly, in my recent totally non-academic music obsession, I am now beginning to enjoy the atonal works of Schoenberg, the late serial Stravinsky and, to a lesser extent Bartok. Perhaps I don't understand these works inside out, but the same can be said of Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart. I think because we are weaned, from an early age, on tonal music, we are too quick to deem tonality as an end in itself than a simply a means, amongst many, through which music can speak to us. To me, it sounds as if the modernists opened up new avenues through which music could explore the limitless possibilities of timbre and rhythm.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Il Seraglio said:


> Surprisingly, in my recent totally non-academic music obsession, I am now beginning to enjoy the atonal works of Schoenberg, the late serial Stravinsky and, to a lesser extent Bartok. Perhaps I don't understand these works inside out, but the same can be said of Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart. I think because we are weaned, from an early age, on tonal music, we are too quick to deem tonality as an end in itself than a simply a means, amongst many, through which music can speak to us. To me, it sounds as if the modernists opened up new avenues through which music could explore the limitless possibilities of timbre and rhythm.


Agreed. It's nothing more than sound, right? The same thing happened with the Hebrews in Jesus' time. They built up a wall of made up traditions, and killed him because he wasn't some conquering hero come to please every little whimsy of the Pharisees. I'm not suggesting you have to become Christian, just making a comparison.


----------



## kmisho (Oct 22, 2009)

Il Seraglio said:


> Surprisingly, in my recent totally non-academic music obsession, I am now beginning to enjoy the atonal works of Schoenberg, the late serial Stravinsky and, to a lesser extent Bartok. Perhaps I don't understand these works inside out, but the same can be said of Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart. I think because we are weaned, from an early age, on tonal music, we are too quick to deem tonality as an end in itself than a simply a means, amongst many, through which music can speak to us. To me, it sounds as if the modernists opened up new avenues through which music could explore the limitless possibilities of timbre and rhythm.


Good observation. Leonard Bernstein said that serialism brought a "new air" of harmonic flavor and that is pretty much the way I think of it.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*I like....*

Schönberg very much but I prefer Alban Berg, Anton Webern and furthermore...Egon Wellesz.
I also like very much Luigi Dallapiccola.

They are great.


----------

