# Post modern composers Versus Modern Composers , Time for calling out



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I have seen in past chat forums how often when discussing late modernism, quite often, composers names would come up, and I would be like 

:lol:


I mean come on,,,can't we all figure out what/where the standrads are to determine who is who among late modern composers. 
Some people get all carried away with any composer who is using orchestral instruments, to add his name into the category of The Classiacl music tradition..
I have Rautavaara, cantus articus,,,this is not classical music,. It is something otyher than. 
Put it wherever you want, just don;'t bring up Rautavaara in Modern Classical Music discussions. 


So name 10 composers who you feel do not belong to be mentioned when in discussion of Modern Classical Music,

Do not mention cage, as we all know its just something other than,,that name is to easy to expel.

Try to limit the list to 10,,,but if you overflow, by all means go ahead and list all you want, names you hope never care to witnessed mentioned on a Modern Classical Music discussion topic..

A category which should be a subgenre,,,called New Age Classical,,yeah that's better. 


Xenakis, yes?
Stockhausen, that's a easy one.

Ligeti, another headed for New age Classical,

Boulez orchestral, New age, His piano , I am not decided as yet.

Messiaen, new Age

Hovhaness , new Age


Berio

Rihm


Part


Rautavaara


Gorecki


Penderecki 



. someone help me out here, there are several more famous post mods, who somehow have *snuck in the back door*. 
and we need to place them where they belong. Sub category, New Age Classical. 
So who am I missing here?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I qwould love to add more,,,but am waiting for any post mods to open attacks...I have some back up offenseives in case of attack.
Also seems the romantic/Mahlerian crowds are not interested in this topic,,so that's good,,,I could not sustain attacks from both fronts, The post Mod groupies AND the romantics. 
Seem's I am caught smack dab in the middle here...so far no interest in my topic to discuss. 
Although its really not open to discuss, Just state your picks that do not belong in the Classical Music Composers Forums. 


Just a name will do some composer who was recommended bya post mod, you go out, buy the cd, and you are like



after 1 play,,if that.


No mention of Glass, please, He has been picked on enough over the past few years.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I guess I have not been reported to the mods, only 2x's past few weeks, not bad, shows a great capacity for tolerance around here, and free speech, non flaming of course,,,is the best thing for classical music's survival next 100 years. 

seems I am not under too much attack here on this topic due to
1) most of the post Mods have packed their bags and headed back over to GMG,,or wherever. 
2) seems the big ruckus over at *Wagner/religion/God* debacle has allowed me to get away with a lot lately. 
Kind of like , my rants , just ain't worth upsetting the old apple cart. 
If the Post Mods were here in force,,I'd be ganged up on in a NY second. 
Or maybe,,,they have played their post mod music, enough now, and perhaps realize what I am saying here,,,may hold some truth.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

listening to some 
Birtwistle


From a Modernist perspective, interesting music , for sure.

But what does Birtwistle offer , which we can not find in better form in the music of Elliott Carter?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Look, if some listeners need to be hit over the head with tension and discord to feel stimulated and alive - then fine. But classifying Ligeti, Boulez orchestral, Messiaen, and Hovhaness as New Age can only be a figment of one's imagination. If you're going to falsely reference them that way, then reference such an opinion about them being New Age composers by someone other than yourself for some measure of credibility. I've never heard these composers referenced this way, ever, especially Boulez, and it does not work that one person's personal opinion is the same as a collective or universal opinion of these composers. It's necessary to hear more of their works before trying to slap a misleading or limiting label on them.






Is everybody relaxed after_ Notation II_ and New Age meditative? Well, at least it gives everyone in the orchestra something to do even if the trumpets are stepping all over their difficult parts. But New Age... no.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This is a certain writer's perspective, more concerning literature:
Post-modernism is primarily concerned with skepticism, with what is false, with what we cannot know, with what makes us confused; the modernism that preceded it was above all else concerned with knowing reality in more depth than ever before, with depicting both the physical world and inner psychological experience with an unprecedented level of realism.

In music what is the most characteristic element of postmodern music is fragmentary nature, at least according to more common sources. Sometimes it is more obvious what is fragmentary, but often less obvious. I'm sure a lot of Babbitt will appear fragmentary to any listener without the key, code, system of what holds it all together. Same with Stockhausen, but Stockhausen and Boulez even though classified as postmodern by some, deny any sort of association, since it is like admitting their music is disjointed. I was surprised even Lachenmann, who I thought was a typical postmodernist, also insisting there is some sort of system the sounds are organized.

So basically what sounds random, may not necessarily be. But what matters the most is to the listener I think. Some complex algorithm or matrix generating a sequence of notes is in essence random, and disjointed, fragmentary. I heard a story of how a guy figured out the complex algorithm to a lottery system that wasn't exactly random, and picked the winning numbers twice. They made him give back the winnings. :lol:


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I agree, 
The New Age slap labeling, was not well thought out. 
This Boulez is not New Age....
New Age is that spacy music like Vangelis and stuff. 
My bad.

OK, we are clear on that.
I just listened to the Boulez Notations... I realize you can nott makea quick judgement call based on one piece,,,thats being unfair,. But I have heard snippets of his other orchestral and it seems a bit far out the beaten paths, w.o making some tangible accruements to the Modern Classical Tradition.

OK,. so lets re phrase the New Post Modern style, and acll it , Free form classical. 
I think this is preferred. 
I can accept Elliott Carter and Schnittke into the Modern Classical Movement,,,but the others above, seems not to bring enough creative efforts to the table.

Boulez is much better I think, in his solo piano works.

Would you consider Xenakis, Ligeti, Rihm, Berio, as Modern Classical?

How so? Based on what factors? 
Just because they utilized classical instruments?

Now I am aware almost every great composer in the past was dismissed by their profs/teachers at the conservatoire , I do not wish to set myself up as faulting what truly is classical music.

But this is post modern times, completely different epoch from Ravel's early days at composition.

I am looking for the post mods to step up and give reasosn why the above mentions, should be included as Modern Classical composers.

Why the justification?
We can follow Brahms directly from Beethoven, Mahler directly from his teachers, like Wagner and others...
But when we come to Boulez,,,where did he arrive at such ideas?

Varese?

No Elliott Carter picked up where Varese left off.

Ligeti, in which steps does he follow?
Xenakis, who were his teachers?

No iain;'t buying into the post Mod movement. 
'its too weird, odd, even strange if I may say. 
Its too far off course. 
They have all gone off on their own,,and offering nothing which we can really say
*This is great music*.

This Boulez I find of some interest,,i have not made my decision as yet.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> This is a certain writer's perspective, more concerning literature:
> Post-modernism is primarily concerned with skepticism, with what is false, with what we cannot know, with what makes us confused; the modernism that preceded it was above all else concerned with knowing reality in more depth than ever before, with depicting both the physical world and inner psychological experience with an unprecedented level of realism.
> 
> In music what is the most characteristic element of postmodern music is fragmentary nature, at least according to more common sources. Sometimes it is more obvious what is fragmentary, but often less obvious. I'm sure a lot of Babbitt will appear fragmentary to any listener without the key, code, system of what holds it all together. Same with Stockhausen, but Stockhausen and Boulez even though classified as postmodern by some, deny any sort of association, since it is like admitting their music is disjointed. I was surprised even Lachenmann, who I thought was a typical postmodernist, also insisting there is some sort of system the sounds are organized.
> ...


Excellent coments,,,helps me out here,,,as I am not sure what exactly to make of post mod music...Only that based on my early experiences of Mozart, Rachmaninov, RVW, Sibelius, Grieg, Ravel, Debussy, 
,these post mod composers stands out clearly in contrast,,so it does not take me very long to detect, and call it out by name...although, as I say,,i am on the fence on a few pieces/composers.

Not sure who these post moderns are trying to reach out to,,,apparently these composers have their fan base,,as the concerts have a audience .
These fans would most certainly defend their post mod composers, as ligit classical genre.
As I say, who am I to block their votes.

I think its good that other Moderns chime in now and lets see what other opinions are among us Moderns.

I don't wish to pretend to speak for the entire group, setting myself up as the official voice for Modern Classical. 
I don't know, perhaps others feel the same way as I do about this matter. 
For more than 15 years, I've noted this break in tradition,,and that quite often names would pop up in discussions, music which I whole heartedly felt was less than Classical Music ;'/ Moreso today am I adamant in this attitude towards rejecting post modern composers.

I think its time for a calling out. 
Lets see how others feel about this situation. Before things get even further out of hand.

I guess if the majority votes them in, as part and parcel of the Classical Tradition, who I am to block the passage?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

There are piano and violin comps. Why not composer comps?
Gold Silver Bronze,a few runner ups, 
the rest go home and try again later.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

You are having a nice discussion with yourself, using your own terms and definitions, Paul. Could you clarify what you require from us.


----------



## Schoenberg (Oct 15, 2018)

paulbest said:


> There are piano and violin comps. Why not composer comps?
> Gold Silver Bronze,a few runner ups,
> the rest go home and try again later.


There already are composer competitions, and they are very similar to violin and piano competitions-no professional player plays in them, and amateurs (generally) play in them so that they can be granted the opportunity to get recruited by a recording firm.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

paulbest said:


> ...I mean come on,,,can't we all figure out what/where the standrads are to determine who is who among late modern composers.
> Some people get all carried away with any composer who is using orchestral instruments, to add his name into the category of The Classiacl music tradition...


I think you've already figured out your set of criteria, but you have done it intuitively. I'll clarify your position.

To be part of the "Classical Music Tradition," Paul Best's criteria are:

1. There must be a concern with the usual aspects of the traditional musical system, _pitch and rhythm_ being the most important. This excludes Ligeti, who did not use pitch or rhythm in a traditional way, but only as "sound" or textures.

2. Music can approach the 12 note collection diatonically or chromatically. This is a concern with the aspect of _pitch, and pitch collections (scales, sets). _Exotic or non-Western scales are not allowed. This excludes Allan Hovhaness, Lou Harrison, Henry Cowell, Messiaen, and others.

3. The more rhythm resembles _speech-like phrasing,_ the better.

4. Traditional instruments must be used; this excludes electronic works.

5. Music cannot be used as "sound" only. Additionally, music must convey _musical meaning _in a traditional sense; this excludes Varese, who used sound as "stuff" in big blocks to be moved around. John Cage is excluded on this count.

6. Ultimately, atonal systems and serial methods must be excluded, not because they are _NOT_ using the materials of pitch and rhythm, but because of the _WAY _they are used, referring back to (5.)

&. Music can pass or fail these criteria for many reasons; as in Schoenberg, although he used traditional instruments and speech-like phrasing at times, he ultimately fails because he is using an atonal system.

This seems like a very traditional approach which would satisfy the most conservative of us. It's also contradictory on Paul Best's part, since he likes Elliott Carter. He seems to have excluded many composers using these or similar criteria, and cherry-picks those exceptions based on his subjective whims.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I think you've already figured out your set of criteria, but you have done it intuitively. I'll clarify your position.
> 
> To be part of the "Classical Music Tradition," Paul Best's criteria are:
> 
> ...


Excellent, I might add a few footnotes,,,but I'd say these points are my main criteria , yet as you explain , these are braod sweeping rules,,,at times can be and will be broken, AS In accepting Elliott Carter,,,which is borderline with me at times,,although I did say I am a huge fan of Carter,,, and someone might object, *you like Carter's work for 3 orchestras, which came after Stockhausen's work for 3 orchestras,,,and they sound basically the same, not much difference*,,
True, so true,,well I thought about that as I was waking up. 
Here is why is reject Stockhausen and not Carter who no doubt was influenced by Stockhausen.

As Millionrainbows mentiins, Stockhausen at times reverts to electronic stuff AND more importantly, has no significant concertos for piano and for violin,,as does Crater...Look dwon carter's works, hundreds,,,Look at Stockhausen's works, hit N miss, ogg ball stuff, nothing significant outside 1 or 2 major works. 
Carter had masterpiece after masterpiece,,,hardly any *duds*.

So Stockhausen goes back to Sub Classical.

Webern, Berg, Schoenberg's music seems outside all trad forms, yet I LOVE it. Its really spectacular music,,,
varese as Millionrainbows suggests, is borderline at times, masterful at others,,,I like varese,,he is the father to Carter, Stockhausen anda whole host of this style of writing. 
I like Varese.

Rules can be and should be broken. But at least give us substantial music. 
Something we can hang our hats on.

Ck out Eduard Tubin,,,late Modern,,,I have cds arriving tomorrow or Monday, syms 3,5,7,8. I am looking forward.

I have 1 cd from Rihm, and heard bits of YT uploads,,,is this Late Modern Classical,,or is it amateur stuff?

Berio? 
Whats his game?
Ligeti has been dejected as he offers some far out, off any beaten Trad Track. Hovhaness is all over the place, and and nothing distinctly we can say. This belongs in traditional classical established criteria. 
I think it is he and/or some others whose names escape me,, few others who copy from RVW and Sibelius, yet pay back nothing in return, with no *Interest*.

I am leaving off any criticisms of the romantic/classical composers,,And re-directing all my energies in highlighting post modern composers, who I feel have no right to be brought into classical music discussion boards.

These composers are sub genre classical,,and we need to finda tag for these composers who fall below the basic criteria of Traditional music.

Take Schnittke, breask new ground in nearly every work. Modern? Post Modern? 
Or just Schnittke making incredible creations?

This subject is hard to draw strict guide lines, these will be exceptions.

Its the whole picture of each composer we should look at. Quantity of excellent scores, quality standards, arte concertos offered? 
Chamber offered?

All these elements need to be taken into consideration when deciding, major Modern Composer, or is he just a upstart who in 100 years will be completely forgotten.

Part, Gorecki, Penderecki all lack ,,add Messiaen , lack a cerain level of crafting and have a narrow range of styles. Messiaen wrote no concertos,. no chamber. Or if he did, how is the quality? 
On the level of say Mozart's PC 20?

Rihm, he offers a concerto or 2, some chamber,,,but no symphonic scaled works. Its all hodge podge. His music has nothing memorable. Memorable here is like what Mahler's music brings to his fans. They look forward to listening often.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Seems Rihm is up for 
re-evaluation
I may have to strike his name from the *Black list* and re-instate him 
Not sure, yet,,,need some months before I can make that call


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

New Complexity Music composers

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

New Simplistic music/ aka Minimalism

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


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Here is a excellent synopsis of the main issues with *contemporary classical*, as presented expertly by composer david Bruce, in a rebuttal to composer Samuel Andreyev, Samuel is PRO POST MODERN expressionaistic, He advocates for all post modern styles to be accepatable as *Classical Music*..
Whereas I stand with David, that is, does the public consider every post mod as classical music. 
No, there are many of us who have issues with so many post mod composers...As I say it is not easy to draw lines at times,,,like with Rihm,,but with Ligeti, its a no brainer, His music is post mod and has nothing at all to share with true classical tradition. 
Messiaen? Not classical, its some weird pseudo religious fantasy stuff.

This New Complex and Minimal schools, we need to sfit that stuff, 
If there is any wheat, then good, passes the test. 
if it is chaff, its nothing more than *Post modern classical*,,,whatever that may be.

We really need to sort through the composers of the past 2 decades. park, Gorecki as I say, separated from classical , as something *other*.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I see there is a separate thread, 
Exploring CONTEMPORARY composer, I have no issues with that label,,, Yet if the word *classical * is tagged on, now there's a problem.

Found this piece of Rihm, now you see with something like this, I find it not too difficultn to knock Rihm back to *Contemporary Composer* status,,which is music, other than classical. 
Contemporary is just that, Temporary. nothing of lasting value. 
No thanks
Contemporary composers are also, folks in contempt of the great classical tradition. 
This is what Contemporary means to me, Both Temporary and composers who are in Contempt. 
making the tag *Contemporary* a perfect shoe fit.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

the problem is that your personal taste doesn't determine who is a classical composer and who isn't.
And it doesn't seem that you're using any criteria besides your taste, so it seems just another thread to say what you like and what you don't.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> Excellent, I might add a few footnotes,,,but I'd say these points are my main criteria , yet as you explain , these are braod sweeping rules,,,at times can be and will be broken, AS In accepting Elliott Carter,,,which is borderline with me at times,,although I did say I am a huge fan of Carter,,, and someone might object, *you like Carter's work for 3 orchestras, which came after Stockhausen's work for 3 orchestras,,,and they sound basically the same, not much difference*,,
> True, so true,,well I thought about that as I was waking up.
> Here is why is reject Stockhausen and not Carter who no doubt was influenced by Stockhausen.
> 
> ...


Paul, your writing style is so... postmodern :lol:


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Please add Norgard to the big heap pile we call
*Contemporary* whatever music. 
And the list keeps expanding.

My purpose, objective, to make sure newbies don;'t fall for this as *Classical Music*…
I hope they don't fall for this stuff like I did back yrs ago,

Hey if they want to go down that road of Contemporary , more power to them,,,Don't come back complaining *I just spend X $'s on a lot of this contemporary stuff,,,and now I want a refund*,,,

Newbies go at your own risk into Contemporary stuff,.

Or take my advice and stay far from IT.

The following has nothing at all to do with Classical Music.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> Paul, your writing style is so... postmodern :lol:


Lacks polished rhetoric , you mean?
Yes I agree, But hopefully some will get the message and avoid the pitfalls which awaits the unwary who chart these Contemporary Composers music.

I always felt cheated after buying Contempt Composers music,,and months later I want to cry over the $'s wasted. Could have gone for real classical, like Szymanowski, Tubin, and other modern true classical music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Please add Norgard to the big heap pile we call
> *Contemporary* whatever music.
> And the list keeps expanding.
> 
> ...


actually you've mentioning a lot of fantastic composers. Messiaen, Ligeti, Per Norgard, Xenakis, those are some of the greatest and most original composers of the century.

Newbies should know also what you said about Bach: "Bach is good for a sunday morning coffee and newspaper read. Background music." 
In a thread that was an exact copy of this one.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> Please add Norgard to the big heap pile we call
> *Contemporary* whatever music.
> And the list keeps expanding.
> 
> ...


Not even close to postmod in my view. I always go with analogies to literature, which is better defined than in music. From Wikipedia:

"Modernist literature sees fragmentation and extreme subjectivity as an existential crisis, or Freudian internal conflict, a problem that must be solved, and the artist is often cited as the one to solve it. Postmodernists, however, often demonstrate that this chaos is insurmountable; the artist is impotent, and the only recourse against "ruin" is to play within the chaos. "


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Contemporary COMPOSERS

See its this tag *composers* which is my sticking point. 
Can't we rephrase this as 
*Contemporary Artists*. 
Makes all the sense to me. Why? 
Because Mozart isa composer. 
Can we say Rihm too is a *composer*. How so? 
What gave him the right to earn this prestigious title?

I would like to see the Contemporary Composer thread recast as 
Contemporary Artists.

be back , let me see how it is worded.
…..Exploring Contemporary Composers.

I take strong issues with this thread title.

I am not like the sportsman who raised issues with the Betsy Ross falg on the Nike shoe, that's just kooky. 
Here, it is more a invasive intrusion upon what we all know as The Classical tradition.

What gives these post mod artists the gateway into the classical world? Are their creations worthy to be granted this prestigious realm of classical music?

More Rihm's *funny stuff*






and with this vid, I have nothing to do with Rihm ever again in my life.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Not even close to postmod in my view. I always go with analogies to literature, which is better defined than in music. From Wikipedia:
> 
> "Modernist literature sees fragmentation and extreme subjectivity as an existential crisis, or Freudian internal conflict, a problem that must be solved, and the artist is often cited as the one to solve it. Postmodernists, however, often demonstrate that this chaos is insurmountable; the artist is impotent, and the only recourse against "ruin" is to play within the chaos. "


yes, those weren't at all post modern composers. Stravinsky sometimes has been mentioned as a postmodern because his neoclassical works (so his critics like Adorno said that he was toying with the past), but most of the guys mentioned in this thread are definitely modern. Xenakis wasn't certainly looking to old models for his music.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> Not even close to postmod in my view. I always go with analogies to literature, which is better defined than in music. From Wikipedia:
> 
> "Modernist literature sees fragmentation and extreme subjectivity as an existential crisis, or Freudian internal conflict, a problem that must be solved, and the artist is often cited as the one to solve it. Postmodernists, however, often demonstrate that this chaos is insurmountable; the artist is impotent, and the only recourse against "ruin" is to play within the chaos. "


This definition , portrays exactly how I hear contemporary artists works. Nihilistic , dark, quirky, knotty , tangled mess, pauses with faint lines of 1 instrument, after 10 seconds , explodes in chaos, if not nonsense, thorny, like a sticker on the foot when you were a kid at the summer ball park....,,,throwing chords around like you just had a head on collision.

music is to convey meaning, beauty, purpose, , to allow transformations of the inner man to bloom. Music is for the spirit in man, when we find the world against us, we have our classical music to grant us wind in our sail, and into softer kinder seas. 
Music is a means by which we can transcend this evil world. Contemporary artists want to hold us back down in this mire, this slop. I stand so opposed to Contemporary artists. 
Its a disconnect, and conveys nothing about this world as I see it. 
In short,,, its weird stuff. 
Do we want more weirdness in our life, intentionally by subjecting our Self to this Post Mod Art?

So long as we limited our use of tags here, Contemporary Art, and not be so generous as to apply that Golden term, Classical Music...
'Then we can all get along just fine.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

norman bates said:


> yes, those weren't at all post modern composers. Stravinsky sometimes has been mentioned as a postmodern because his neoclassical works (so his critics like Adorno said that he was toying with the past), but most of the guys mentioned in this thread are definitely modern. Xenakis wasn't certainly looking to old models for his music.


Stravinsky was like setting paris and the entire European art world heads upside down with his new works. Yet I hear much better , finer works in Ravel, Debussy, Prokofiev,. 
I never came around to any of Stravinsky;'s works,,,others to this day absolutely adore him. 
Mystery there for me. Schoenberg had a few criticisms of Stravinsky's works. Schoenberg to me is still Modern, and his music possesses this *timeless sense* about it. = Will not tarnish.

Xenakis is 100% contemporary, there is nothing at all in his music which even closely approaches the great scores of the past. 
call it pop classical, Post Modern music, Contemporary, 
I just can not grant his music that characteristic quality we all know as Classical Music. Its all about the genius ina work, is there substantial genius involved? 
Take Elliott Carter, genius? Look at the number of his works, beginning early through his entire life. 
Yes Elliott Carter, though controversial, is a Classical COMPOSER. 
Whereas Stockhausen , is not a classical composer.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> This definition , portrays exactly how I hear contemporary artists works. Nihilistic , dark, quirky, knotty , tangled mess, pauses with faint lines of 1 instrument, after 10 seconds , explodes in chaos, if not nonsense, thorny, like a sticker on the foot when you were a kid at the summer ball park....,,,throwing chords around like you just had a head on collision.
> 
> music is to convey meaning, beauty, purpose, , to allow transformations of the inner man to bloom. Music is for the spirit in man, when we find the world against us, we have our classical music to grant us wind in our sail, and into softer kinder seas.
> Music is a means by which we can transcend this evil world. Contemporary artists want to hold us back down in this mire, this slop. I stand so opposed to Contemporary artists.
> ...


if you keep using post modernism for those artists, you don't know in the first place what postmodernism is. That is not "composers that Paulbest doesn't like". Second, there's a definite place for nihilistic, dark, knotty music (hey, aren't you a fan of Petterson, a composer known EXACTLY for those qualities?). Many would say that for Henze, the composer you love so much.
Art is also about unpleasant things, because human experience includes dark things. That's why there's dark literature, paintings, movies and music. Messiaen was in a concentration camp, his wife died crazy, Xenakis had his face deformed by a grenade during the war. So it's clear that men who experience those things had to find a different way to express themselves, and they did with depth and in a rigorous way, like it or not.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Stravinsky was like setting paris and the entire European art world heads upside down with his new works.


Yes, the rite of Spring, not the works I'm mentioning. And many say that actually many of the riots were due to the naked dancers than to the music. Fantastic work nonetheless.
But my point is that postmodernism has a definite sense, and you can't reinvent it and use it like you want.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

norman bates said:


> if you keep using post modernism for those artists, you don't know in the first place what postmodernism is. That is not "composers that Paulbest doesn't like". Second, there's a definite place for nihilistic, dark, knotty music (hey, aren't you a fan of Petterson, a composer known EXACTLY for those qualities?). Many would say that for Henze, the composer you love so much.
> Art is also about unpleasant things, because human experience includes dark things. That's why there's dark literature, paintings, movies and music. Messiaen was in a concentration camp, his wife died crazy, Xenakis had his face deformed by a grenade during the war. So it's clear that men who experience those things had to find a different way to express themselves, and they did with depth and in a rigorous way, like it or not.


Was unaware of these terrible tragic fates, suffered by these composers,,And also Ligeti, suffered under the Nazi's.

Yet coniser Shostakovich, Hartman, Pettersson, no grenades blown in their faces, now thats dreadful,,,all 3 suffered immensely.

All 3 developed their creativity to brings us high quality classical music, in their style, yet based on deep studies of past masters.

Sure I am bicking the composer out which I don't like,,, yet I am basing my opinions on past musical experiences, My word has some weight. 
Now back 15 yrs ago,,,all these contemporary composers were ojnly names,,,a list went on forever. 
Now I can hear a split, a dead end, where one genre ends and another, Contemporary Art, begins.

Look here is Tubin, nothing on the level of Beethoven or Mahler, yet he is still expressing musical ideas which partake of the Golden Classical Music tradition

Tubin is a Classical composer,
Whereas Nono, Gorecki, Stockhausen, Berio, Rim, Messiaen,, all have failed to pass the credentials to quality. 
Their music is *something other than*

Tubin, a true classical composer, he earned the rights to this illustrious genre in music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Whereas Nono, Gorecki, Stockhausen, Berio, Rim, Messiaen,, all have failed to pass the credentials to quality.
> Their music is *something other than*


No, their music is classical music. I'd say that it's music you don't like or don't understand or both.
Messiaen to me for instance has produced some of the most beautiful music ever created, with a completely original harmonic sound. He was a master of harmony like few composers in the century.

Hey, I've never been a fan of Boulez, but I would never say he wasn't a classical composer. He was in fact a very intelligent, extremely prepared musician, and without a doubt a classical composer. I would argue about his artistic merits, but I know my taste play definitely a role and 
most important, my taste doesn't define who belongs to a genre and who doesn't. And onestly many musician don't even care if the audience put them in a genre or in another. They care for quality, not genres.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> This definition , portrays exactly how I hear contemporary artists works. Nihilistic , dark, quirky, knotty , tangled mess, pauses with faint lines of 1 instrument, after 10 seconds , *explodes in chaos, if not nonsense*, thorny, like a sticker on the foot when you were a kid at the summer ball park....,,,throwing chords around like you just had a head on collision.
> 
> music is to convey meaning, beauty, purpose, , to allow transformations of the inner man to bloom. Music is for the spirit in man, when we find the world against us, we have our classical music to grant us wind in our sail, and into softer kinder seas.
> Music is a means by which we can transcend this evil world. Contemporary artists want to hold us back down in this mire, this slop. I stand so opposed to Contemporary artists.
> ...


This is where it comes to subjective interpretation or familiarity of a style. I don't find Norgard chaotic at all, possibly because I'm a bit familiar with his method.



paulbest said:


> Stravinsky was like setting paris and the entire European art world heads upside down with his new works. Yet I hear much better , finer works in Ravel, Debussy, Prokofiev,.
> I never came around to any of Stravinsky;'s works,,,others to this day absolutely adore him.
> Mystery there for me. Schoenberg had a few criticisms of Stravinsky's works. Schoenberg to me is still Modern, and his music possesses this *timeless sense* about it. = Will not tarnish.
> 
> ...


Stockhausen is a classical composer to me, even if he also plays around with electronics. Instead of electronics he could have used traditional instruments. The methods are similar to Webern's. Stravinsky might have been seen as postmodern by those who thought his music was chaotic and nihilistic. But over time people got used to the methods he used, and it doesn't sound so chaotic as when it first came out. Some critics thought even Prokofiev's music was random at the time. Maybe over time a lot of postmodern music won't seem so chaotic anymore, except those that were intended to be.

I nominate Cage's later style as the ultimate postmodern. He makes no attempt to express something in particular. His methods use complete random chance, and leaves everything to the listener to make sense or no sense out of it.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

paulbest said:


> ...My word has some weight....


With whom and on what rationale?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I am just seeing paul's posts in this thread as just another musical conservative wanting to expel contemporary music from the classical citadel. God alone know why it matters to him (especially as he has already consigned most of the classical genre to the dustbin).


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Paul, you have great passion for classical music. You exhibit enormous energy in your posts, and we can tell that you love to discuss certain aspects of music. You have strongly held views, but then, so do many others. I would like to point out a few issues and then repeat a suggestion I made to you earlier.



paulbest said:


> I qwould love to add more,,,but am waiting for any post mods to open attacks...I have some back up offenseives in case of attack....


This statement gives the impression that you intentionally post comments to rile up others.



paulbest said:


> ... My purpose, objective, to make sure newbies don;'t fall for this as *Classical Music*…I hope they don't fall for this stuff like I did back yrs ago,...


Art music of the past 50 years is considered classical music on TalkClassical, in music schools, and on concert stages. You may not enjoy it and think it's distinctly different from earlier music, but we consider it classical music.

These two statements, along with many other posts, indicate a desire to provoke others with inflammatory comments. Maybe that's not your intent; nevertheless, such comments are really not appropriate especially if they are repeated endlessly. None of us care if someone occasionally posts negative comments. We all do at times. I checked 50 recent posts of yours and found that 32 are unambiguously negative, 8 are positive, and 10 are perhaps neutral. The 8 positive would have been 4 if not for Tubin's 8th symphony. So, as I mentioned earlier, it's fine to make a negative comment (e.g. you don't like Schubert or you think Schnittke is much better than Haydn), but repeated, strong, negative comments aimed at how others _ought to think_ are a bit overboard.

My suggestion now, as it was then, is to start threads and make comments about things you enjoy. Talk more about Pettersson symphonies. Start a thread about Schnittke concertos (the 4th violin concerto is a favorite of mine). Tell us more about your experience with Tubin's symphonies without comparing them to ones you feel should be placed in the dustbin. Many on TalkClassical have mentioned how they came to love a work or a composer because another member championed that work or composer. You just might get some converts to composers you value so strongly.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> This is where it comes to subjective interpretation or familiarity of a style. I don't find Norgard chaotic at all, possibly because I'm a bit familiar with his method.
> 
> Stockhausen is a classical composer to me, even if he also plays around with electronics. Instead of electronics he could have used traditional instruments. The methods are similar to Webern's. Stravinsky might have been seen as postmodern by those who thought his music was chaotic and nihilistic. But over time people got used to the methods he used, and it doesn't sound so chaotic as when it first came out. Some critics thought even Prokofiev's music was random at the time. Maybe over time a lot of postmodern music won't seem so chaotic anymore, except those that were intended to be.
> 
> I nominate Cage's later style as the ultimate postmodern. He makes no attempt to express something in particular. His methods use complete random chance, and leaves everything to the listener to make sense or no sense out of it.


You raise excellent points . 
Stravinsky must have seemed from *another world*,,But so was ravel' smuisc, The one composer who I think made some intro to *far out* , * way ahead of his time* music, was Prokofiev, opening to the 3rd sym, even more opening to his 2nd symphony, which to this very day, is *electrifying and explosive* to everyone who hears it. 
Not sure how I would have approached those symphonies, especilally had I beena big fan of his 1st, then off to a concert where his nd opening, unprepared takes the listen by storm...No doubt at that time, 1920's? I would have walked out in protest,,,screaming.

You got me on that one for sure.
Ok seems the vote is against me here.
Stockhausen uses, electronics, its OK, could have used other means,,,,.
Hummm, still not buying.

Was it not Stockhausen and Boulez that had some falling out with Henze, So yes, there is part of my peeve. I have to stand with those whose music I prefer.

I would not feel right listening to Stockhausen/Boulez, knowing both had issues with Henze. 
Besides , honestly, if Stockhausen and Bloulez did offer something on the level of Henze,,,then sure, old hangups can be forgiven, 
I just do not hear it. Stockhausen and Boulez seem like,,,,contrasts, may I say opposites to Henze..
And that's what this thread is all about, Opposition.

many I see here have taken the road to accept , invite post modern, contemporary oon at least some levels as 
true
Classical Muisc
Got that. As some are claiming , its all sematics any way, It is what it is, tag it however you wish, or not, names do not add nor take away.

I do not know
I am not so sure
I am holding on to the stubborn idea that the word composer, only be applied to artists who have something to add to this great tradition.
And yes I am in a bind, as I just dissed , nearly every composer , pre 1900. 
now nearly every composer writing late 20th C. 
So far late 20th C, only includes Henze, Schnittke, Pettersson as 3 most significant composers. 
INO in our time, as they say of contemporary composers, 
These 3 rank, along with Elliott Carter as the Bach, Mozart, Beethoven of our day.

Just so long as we know how the echelon is configured, I have no issues really,
I often see Henze draged down in reference to names like Boulez, Stockhausen.

It is like referring to Haydn when talking about Mozart's masses. 
Completely different level of composition. 
One is a minor composer, the other a supreme master. 
This is my beef. 
Lets not drag in some late moderns who have earned the rights to be considered a Classical composer,,which many on my list, sadly , just don't cut it.

had Stockhausen made at least 1 piano concerto, and 1 violin concerto, I may have granted him more creditability. 
His SQ's? Where are they?

Rihm , I can at least hear has some interesting orchestra works, then his chamber completely falls off the table , making me reject , critiquing everything he wrote.

No I just can not be liberal here and open the doors to every Tom Dick and harry who wants to be donned
A Classical composer. 
I feel a need to play guardian of the entrance.

for me Tiers are essential and important , in every era of classical music.

Grates my nerves when I read,*so and so composer wrote the most exquisite and greatest piano music* 
When we all know Ravel is the supreme master at piano music, all others fall below. 
This should be common knowledge in 2019, evident fact.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> Paul, you have great passion for classical music. You exhibit enormous energy in your posts, and we can tell that you love to discuss certain aspects of music. You have strongly held views, but then, so do many others. I would like to point out a few issues and then repeat a suggestion I made to you earlier.
> 
> This statement gives the impression that you intentionally post comments to rile up others.
> 
> ...


I understand, As you know music means a lot to all of us here, and perhaps some emotional reactions in my posts, stem from this, lets say *semi religio* fervor in my devotion to this greatest of all man;s acheivements in the arts, that of classical music. 
I've been this way about classical now for decades, and these opinions do often become , ideologies and cause to me to outburst.

OK, so the consensus here is, in favor of opening the doors wide open to any composer who comes along.

Ok,. so now, if there are consequences to this open acceptance, this warm embrace of all compositions, ,, then any eminent repercussions from this gingerly happy reception of all things musical, of any form/style/nature, these unforeseen results, may have born the fruits of which many here, may not want to see, like to see, and would love to go back in time.

Once the deed, the *hey come right on in* is done, no going back.

Am I clear on this, possibility, if not eventual flowering and fruiting of such actions by the TC group?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> ... but repeated, strong, negative comments aimed at how others _ought to think_ are a bit overboard.


Not only that but often wording things as if they come from a definitive authority is demeaning to those who legitimately feel differently.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> Grates my nerves when I read,*so and so composer wrote the most exquisite and greatest piano music*
> When we all know Ravel is the supreme master at piano music, all others fall below.


No, 'fraid not, 'tis not true, doesn't fly, seriously nada, notably not, can't be serious.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

paulbest said:


> Grates my nerves when I read,*so and so composer wrote the most exquisite and greatest piano music* When we all know Ravel is the supreme master at piano music, all others fall below.
> This should be common knowledge in 2019, evident fact.


I think I will quote it too. Simply because it's beyond belief how one can write the first sentence and follow it with the second. Is it comedy? Is it lack of care? Is it deliberate?

I don't even know what the criteria is for making statements like:



paulbest said:


> So far late 20th C, only includes Henze, Schnittke, Pettersson as 3 most significant composers.
> INO in our time, as they say of contemporary composers,
> These 3 rank, along with Elliott Carter as the Bach, Mozart, Beethoven of our day.


Under what strict and reasoned criteria are composers like e.g. Miecyzslaw Weinberg and Arthur Honnegger or Darius Milhaud or Paul Hindemith not admitted to this canon of 'greats'? Isn't this just what Norman Bates said it was at the beginning of the thread: Paul Best's personal choices, based on no reasoning? And how much can one reason about taste?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> Was it not Stockhausen and Boulez that had some falling out with Henze, So yes, there is part of my peeve. I have to stand with those whose music I prefer.
> 
> I would not feel right listening to Stockhausen/Boulez, knowing both had issues with Henze.


Brahms and Wagner are my two favorite composers of the Romantic era. They "had issues" with each other. How can I feel right listening to either of them?

You must solve the riddle or the sphinx will eat you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> And that's what this thread is all about, Opposition.


Zen master says: when the student sees that there is nothing to oppose, he will laugh and be free.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Brahms and Wagner are my two favorite composers of the Romantic era. They "had issues" with each other. How can I feel right listening to either of them?
> 
> You must solve the riddle or the sphinx will eat you.


The solution is simple, err on the side of caution and discard both composers in favour of a neutral third ... Offenbach perhaps?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> The solution is simple, err on the side of caution and discard both composers in favour of a neutral third ... Offenbach perhaps?


The sphinx says you would be delicious with truffles and cream sauce.


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

I feel very uncomfortable with absolute statements - this or this is _the_ best thing, no objections. Let alone when such claims are made in order to put down a composer's work. It's often so unfair. I just don't understand how anyone can be so sure of anything.

Dutilleux and Boulez (two composers I _passionately_ love) famously did not get on very well, but later in their lives they learnt to ignore each other and "do their own things". Dutilleux said something in an interview that I'd like to share. He's talking about Boulez but I think it's something each and every one of us should keep in mind:



> "I have no problems with [Boulez]. *I even like the fact that he is no longer certain, but is a man riven by doubt, as we all should be.*"


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> Grates my nerves when I read,*so and so composer wrote the most exquisite and greatest piano music*
> When we all know Ravel is the supreme master at piano music, all others fall below.
> This should be common knowledge in 2019, evident fact.


I'm sure with the help of those certain hearing aids you spoke of before, it would corroborate that plain fact. How could I get one?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Janspe said:


> I feel very uncomfortable with absolute statements - this or this is _the_ best thing, no objections. Let alone when such claims are made in order to put down a composer's work. It's often so unfair. I just don't understand how anyone can be so sure of anything.
> 
> Dutilleux and Boulez (two composers I _passionately_ love) famously did not get on very well, but later in their lives they learnt to ignore each other and "do their own things". Dutilleux said something in an interview that I'd like to share. He's talking about Boulez but I think it's something each and every one of us should keep in mind: "I have no problems with [Boulez]. I even like the fact that he is no longer certain, but is a man riven by doubt, as we all should be."


Indeed. A composer (or anyone) needs to feel sure of his own goals and processes, but not about the ultimate value of his, or anyone else's, work. I gather that Dutilleux felt better toward Boulez as the latter shed some of his notorious youthful arrogance and scorn for everything he considered "establishment."

At least Boulez was a talented musician. I don't know what qualifications the originator of this thread may imagine he has that could entitle him to his _ex cathedra_ judgments. He's either a better man than you, I or Boulez, or he's eating from the wrong side of the mushroom.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

samm said:


> I think I will quote it too. Simply because it's beyond belief how one can write the first sentence and follow it with the second. Is it comedy? Is it lack of care? Is it deliberate?
> 
> I don't even know what the criteria is for making statements like:
> 
> Under what strict and reasoned criteria are composers like e.g. Miecyzslaw Weinberg and Arthur Honnegger or Darius Milhaud or Paul Hindemith not admitted to this canon of 'greats'? Isn't this just what Norman Bates said it was at the beginning of the thread: Paul Best's personal choices, based on no reasoning? And how much can one reason about taste?


I just visited some Honnegger works, 
Interesting symphonies, I think his 3rd and 5th I liked best. The 4th was not offering as much. , 3sq;'s are OK.

Read what Gerard Begni says in the 1st comment. Please overlook his spelling, not sure why he writes in this style, but all his comments are, enlightening, to say the least. 
He knows as much as anyone on the TC board. 
He mentions he is a devoted Honnegger fan. 
He hardly ever makes negative criqtue, in fact never does. Apparently he is a post modern fan and accepts all styles.

Read his comments on Henze

*Henze is just now coming into notoriety*,,,and further *Henze is a moderate atonalist in the sense that he never forgets this new technique must be submitted to revisited to traditional values, harmonies and melodies*

Dropped the bomb on quite a few *contemporaries stuff*. 
harmony, Melody , traditional values/forms/ideas.

I suspect, not sure though, throughout this 5th symphony, Henze just can not resist making jabs and sneers at both Stockhausen and Boulez;'s releases at that time. 
Or am I wrong?
And after he has smashed Boulez and Stockhausen down, making jokes on both's music,, Henze then settles back to real serior composing. 
Showing both post mods, how to compose with finesse, melody, sensitivity to older forms. Henze brings back in harmony , something dreadfully lacking in Stockhausen/Boulez's mechanical stuff.

Henze, the magician.

This is why I have no interest in so many of your post modern artists. 
If Henze did not exist, then surely, I would jump on your band wagon.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

In short, you don't really know what you are talking about, despite all the passion. I suggest lessons from Gerard Begni.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Janspe said:


> I feel very uncomfortable with absolute statements - this or this is _the_ best thing, no objections. Let alone when such claims are made in order to put down a composer's work. It's often so unfair. I just don't understand how anyone can be so sure of anything.
> 
> Dutilleux and Boulez (two composers I _passionately_ love) famously did not get on very well, but later in their lives they learnt to ignore each other and "do their own things". Dutilleux said something in an interview that I'd like to share. He's talking about Boulez but I think it's something each and every one of us should keep in mind:


I don't hear doubts in henze,,,he knows what/how. he wishes the end result to go forth. 
As I say, henze was so up on the game,,,he just could not resit making pot shots at both Stockhausen and Boulez.

If you can not hear the opposition in Henze vs the Boulez/Stockhausen approach to composing, its all there. Henze leaves both in the dust of post modern , which is devoid of feeling, emotions.

Henze instinctively knew, in order to bring in new ideas, the music has to connect with past values,,otherwise what good is it.
Stockhausen /Boulez is like a nice veneer, Henze is real solid oak. 
I do find Boulez most interesting in his piano works,,,which I need to further explore.

I have not heard anything by Dutilleux, but I will right,,,now.....


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

The premise of this thread is unfathomable. Boulez, Berio, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Xenakis are not modern classical composers, but rather "new age" composers?

In college I had a radio show (contemporary classical), which was preceded by a new age music radio program. I would so delight in starting my show, without warning as my predecessor's George Winston or whatever faded out, with a nice tuneful Xenaskis piece. Pithoprakta anyone? Heh. Seriously, though, that DJ and her audience? They were the least likely consumers of Xenakis, Berio, Boulez, et al, imaginable.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

samm said:


> In short, you don't really know what you are talking about, despite all the passion. I suggest lessons from Gerard Begni.


Begni is like you guys, open to all new music, liberal. 
I am a committed Modernist.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I like Dutilleux and may very well, in fact if this Shadows of Time can hold this quality through to the end, I may buy the Tortelier/BBC /Chandos 5 cd set today.

Thanks for the mention.

His works seems to be 
Fluff/filler/gimmick 
Free Music. 

I said seems to be,,,here now at the coda of Shadows of time,,,his quality level fades a bit,,,hummm, right at the coda, he just ends it,,,with no flourishing, nothing special...hummm, all in all a solid piece of music,,,


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> I don't hear doubts in henze,,,he knows what/how. he wishes the end result to go forth.
> As I say, henze was so up on the game,,,he just could not resit making pot shots at both Stockhausen and Boulez.
> 
> If you can not hear the opposition in Henze vs the Boulez/Stockhausen approach to composing, its all there. Henze leaves both in the dust of post modern.


Stahp.
Those are not post-modern composers. At all. 
Just go somewhere and read what postmodernism is all about, instead of applying that label to what you don't like. 
It's ok not to like post-modernism. It's ok to have opinions, and not to like certain composers. It does not have any sense to just bring the music you dislike and apply to it the label of post-modernism.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Yes I am going to buy the Tortelier /Chandos set, Read what Begni says in the opening comment. Pretty nice work here, , at least Dutilleux avoids post modern schematics, for the majority in this work.

Please note Begni's interesting comments in the YT upload
.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Begni is like you guys, open to all new music, liberal.
> I am a committed Modernist.


actually, the fact that we like certain composers doesn't mean at all "we" (we who?) are open to all new music.
I think that on the other hand it's you drawing the line unable probably to understand (not because you can't but because not everything clicks immediately) a different approach to music. By the way, it's quite funny since Henze was inspired also by jazz and rock music. It seems he was quite open musically.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

norman bates said:


> Stahp.
> Those are not post-modern composers. At all.
> Just go somewhere and read what postmodernism is all about, instead of applying that label to what you don't like.
> It's ok not to like post-modernism. It's ok to have opinions, and not to like certain composers. It does not have any sense to just bring the music you dislike and apply to it the label of post-modernism.


Are you suggesting , confuting , my assumption that contemporary artists are too far away from the classical style to be considered, classical forms?

There are limitations, , which do allow for some individualistic expressiveness. But lets not get carried away here. Prokofiev in the openings to his 3rd symphony, especially 3rd symphony,,,tosses all classical forms right out the window, smashes to pieces all the wonders Bach, Mozart and Beethoven bestowed upon the classical forms. 
Yet Prokofiev, come back and delivers music so gorgeous, which equals anything from the classical realms. 
Genius!

Henze too , instinctively knew not to (throw the baby out with the bath water*. 
This is why I find Henze a superior genius to Boulez and Stockhausen, Berio and a whole host of new artists in music. 
Ligeti, what is that? 
Classical? Of what tradition? 
Connects back to which great composer. 
Ligeti is pop classical.

Look, we have to hold to some standards. Stockhausen has some interesting works. But he is rather limited. No concertos, no significant chamber, both of which Henze offers, Henze is a classical composer
Stockhausen/Boulez are POST, after the fact, classical. 
Classical music, new works, is over, The last 2 greats have passed on.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PeterFromLA said:


> The premise of this thread is unfathomable. Boulez, Berio, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Xenakis are not modern classical composers, but rather "new age" composers?
> 
> In college I had a radio show (contemporary classical), which was preceded by a new age music radio program. I would so delight in starting my show, without warning as her George Winston or whatever faded out, with a nice tuneful Xenaskis piece. Pithoprakta anyone? Heh. Seriously, though, that DJ and her audience? They were the least likely consumers of Xenakis, Berio, Boulez, et al, imaginable.


hey, but Paul has decided that the whole world doesn't know what new age is. 
All the world knows new age as calming, slow, often tonal and mellow atmospheric music. And bam, "hey guys, for all you lovers of new age music I have exactly what you want to hear: Xenakis".
I'd love to see the reaction of the audience, that would be something.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

norman bates said:


> actually, the fact that we like certain composers doesn't mean at all "we" (we who?) are open to all new music.
> I think that on the other hand it's you drawing the line unable probably to understand (not because you can't but because not everything clicks immediately) a different approach to music. By the way, it's quite funny since Henze was inspired also by jazz and rock music. It seems he was quite open musically.


 Oh yes indeed, I've often come back to composers I once ignored. 
Yet now with some more experience in this new music field, I pretty much can hear, what has significant scores and which are missing something.

Agree in Henze you can hear a force of influences. Jazz I have no connections with, exception would be John Mclaughlin's Live at Central park, Mahavishnu orchestra. ,,from way back. 
I am not sure, but at times I feel Henze takes a break from his music, and takes pot shots at Boulez and Stockkhausen. after these cheap shots,,,he goes back to serious music making. 
Can you detect this in his music?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> Are you suggesting , confuting , my assumption that contemporary artists are too far away from the classical style to be considered, classical forms?
> 
> There are limitations, , which do allow for some individualistic expressiveness. But lets not get carried away here. Prokofiev in the openings to his 3rd symphony, especially 3rd symphony,,,tosses all classical forms right out the window, smashes to pieces all the wonders Bach, Mozart and Beethoven bestowed upon the classical forms.
> Yet Prokofiev, come back and delivers music so gorgeous, which equals anything from the classical realms.
> ...


Define Classical, pop-classical and postmodern. I'm having trouble fitting Debussy as a Classical composer based on your criteria it seems.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Ligeti........


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

if Ligeti is pop classical and Xenakis is new age, from now on Henze is reggae and Carter doom metal.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Oh yes indeed, I've often come back to composers I once ignored.
> Yet now with some more experience in this new music field, I pretty much can hear, what has significant scores and which are missing something.
> 
> Agree in Henze you can hear a force of influences. Jazz I have no connections with, exception would be John Mclaughlin's Live at Central park, Mahavishnu orchestra. ,,from way back.
> ...


of course, I can hear he was deeply influenced by the rocksteady of the sixties, but with Bob Marley on the horizon he produced new exciting reggae music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Define Classical, pop-classical and postmodern.


it's quite simple:

classical: Paul likes it
pop-classical: Paul doesn't like it
postmodern: Paul doesn't like it
new age: Paul doesn't like it


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Look here is how you can detect if a late modern composer is of the classical tradition and who is of post modern-ISMs influences/free forms/In My Own Way.
Ck out the comments after someone make the discovery ina certain compose...sure you can find many testimonies in Ligetis, Stockhausen, Rihm, Berio, Xenakis pages, Its there. 
But if we add up all the comments from Henze, Schnittke, Pettersson, you will clearly see the expressions are more profound, more meaningful, much more expressive,,almost like a *Enlightenment* a *Revelation* has taken place.
This is the differences. 
As a student of Jung, I always note the smallest of details in what someone says when caught up in a powerful moment. 


What is off, but true,,,We began this tradition with only a few greats, Corelli, Vivaldi, Telemann, Bach, then on to Mozart, Beethoven,,,then a tremendous upsurge of new ,,,(of did I forget Haydn,,,how could I have?),,new composers,,,,conituning into the early 20th C,,,going forward,,some more,,,then 
like .DONE!
Over.

2012
The day The Music Died. 


IMHO
The ending was more a creative powerful flourishing of genius , than at the beginning with Bach. Just my opinion of course,,,don't get all rankled up over it.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Brahms and Wagner are my two favorite composers of the Romantic era. They "had issues" with each other. How can I feel right listening to either of them?
> 
> You must solve the riddle or the sphinx will eat you.


From Jan Swafford's biography:



> "When he brought up the subject of Wagner himself, or when he heard criticism of his rival and suspected it was done to curry favor, Brahms was apt to put on his mask as best of the Wagnerians. "I repeatedly heard Rheingold and Walkure at Munich," he told Henschel, "and admit it would greatly interest me [to go to the full Ring premiere at Bayreuth], but---well, we'll think about it."


The above quote alludes to this, which Richard Specht quotes:



> "I once said to Wagner himself that I was today the best of the Wagnerians. Do you suppose that I am so limited that I cannot be delighted with the humor and greatness of 'Die Meistersinger'?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Here is a modern composer, recommended to me , months ago, by a fellow Petterssonian

I have been meaning to listen to some

Luigi Dallapiccola 
this work dates from 1962-63
Three Questions with Two Answers

Interesting work,
Now how would a romanticist hear this work? Say next to a Brahms, a Mahler, a Bruckner symphony? 
I know a few of you embrace multiple eras, but I am speaking of the solid romantic group, who can not bear such compositions.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

but then I move onto another Dallapiccola work, dates from 1951, for violin/orchestra, A bit thin, Making his works inconsistent. 
My friend mentions on the Yt comment, *great work by a master*,. See he is a cheer leader for Dallapiccola. 
I can not do such a thing, every modern composer;s work has to stand on its own, no hyping, no propaganda. 
Just let the work play and see how the notes fall. 
this is a bit thin.






here is a work recommended by our friend in Toulouse Begni, 
A bit more substantial than his work above. 
Begni says it is from Dallapiccola;s later period, its OK, Interesting , , at times a bit thin.


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Begni is like you guys, open to all new music, liberal.
> I am a committed Modernist.


All postmodernists were committed modernists. That's why they built upon it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Here is a modern composer, recommended to me , months ago, by a fellow Petterssonian
> 
> I have been meaning to listen to some
> 
> ...


Dallapiccola is unique among 12-tone composers, in that he managed to make it sound like really GOOD music. His title is evocative, too. I think many "romanticists" might like this for a lark.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Don't forget Stockhausen! I don't care "what" his music is...we virtually worshipped him in the 1970s, and nobody was producing such intuitive, atmospheric, and challenging music as he. His series of DG vinyls --- Mantra, Hymnen, Stimmung, Kontakte, and then later Ceylon, Japan...he was a towering figure among us. A REAL artist, too, not just a dilettante.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> Don't forget Stockhausen!


Did you not receive the memo? Stockhausen has been classified as New Age (post 1 in this thread).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Okay, I accept the "New Age Classical" challenge of Paul Best, and defend such music as Stockhausen in this way:

Paul Best doesn't know how to listen to it! One has to be in a different, non-linear, non-narrative state of mind to understand it. Here's how it works:

*New Conceptions of Musical Time **

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

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

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

*Vertical Time: *At the other extreme of the nonlinear continuum is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures. A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece. A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases.
*
Minimalism* exemplifies vertical time, but instead of absolute stasis, it generates constant motion. The sense of movement is so evenly paced, and the goals are so vague, that we usually lose our sense of perspective.

_In "New Age" terms, Paul Best is "stuck in his ego." He is not "in the now." He must "transcend" his old-fashioned narrative, linear way of experiencing music._

Yes, as it states above, this is a more "Eastern" way of listening. Debussy's encounter with Javanese gamelan music at the 1889 Paris Exhibition could just as well have resulted in minimalism!

What makes Paul Best respond in this way? My theory is that he uses music to "escape" or to enable the "smoother" passage of time. He feels "trapped" by time. He is "trapped" in his identity, for one reason or another. He "seeks transcendence" in music, whether he realizes it or not; but now, he must SUBMIT FURTHER, and totally surrender his ego, and "die a soul death" in order that he be "reborn" as pure spirit, existing not as the "identity" of "Paul Best," but as a free spirit, existing only in the now.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Look here is how you can detect if a late modern composer is of the classical tradition and who is of post modern-ISMs influences/free forms/In My Own Way.
> Ck out the comments after someone make the discovery ina certain compose...sure you can find many testimonies in Ligetis, Stockhausen, Rihm, Berio, Xenakis pages, Its there.
> But if we add up all the comments from Henze, Schnittke, Pettersson, you will clearly see the expressions are more profound, more meaningful, much more expressive,,almost like a *Enlightenment* a *Revelation* has taken place.
> This is the differences.


you seems to forget that that it's just your experience.
In my experience I started listening seriously to classical music (even if as a kid I listened a bit of the usual suspects) when I saw 2001 space odyssey, and not because of Strauss but because of Ligeti. I didn't know anything about him, I didn't know anything about criticism (unlike your absurd pretension that those who say who like certain composers are just plagiarized). I just istantly loved the music for its sheer power. And he's still one of my very favorite composers. Some of his music is still one of the best and deepest musical experiences ever.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

norman bates said:


> you seems to forget that that it's just your experience.
> In my experience I started listening seriously to classical music (even if as a kid I listened a bit of the usual suspects) when I saw 2001 space odyssey, and not because of Strauss but because of Ligeti. I didn't know anything about him, I didn't know anything about criticism (unlike your absurd pretension that those who say who like certain composers are just plagiarized). I just istantly loved the music for its sheer power. And he's still one of my very favorite composers. Some of his music is still one of the best and deepest musical experiences ever.


Yeah, that's how we all got "turned on" to Ligeti. We were probably high on grass or mushrooms. Where was Paul Best during this period? Probably wearing a biker jacket, hair greased back, robbing a 7-11.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Yes and no, I do seek transcendence in music, music that is UNREAL, , this quality has to be there. Now look I am not so modern as to completely leave behind old favorites, older styles. I am just now discovering Tubin. A throwback to neo romanticism, Tubin to me is like Sibelius, reborn, ina new form. So I gave up the Sibelius 7 symphonies some decades ago,,,and with patience, Sibelius has come back to me, ina new style, via Tubin. 
Also I have Kalabis, another neo romantic composer. 
Sure I have dissed most (99% of the romantic/classicists) 
yet
lo and
behold
I am finding the romantic spirit come back in a mind blowing new form!!!
Who would have guessed. ? Not me. I have no idea I would ever come to embrace romanticism, late in life. Tubin, Syymanowski, Kalabis,and a few others.


These 3 new composers are part of the reason I shun the late post mod era composers. 


I had seen LPss at tower Reco9rds of Stockhausen,,,although I was still intosome rock, new age space music, Stockhausen just never made my *cup of tea*. 
now that I know of this historic event surrounding the *darnstedt controversy* twix Henze and the musical elitists at the institution, all the more reason for me to not come around to the 2 main figures at the institution, Stockhasuen/Boulez. 

Its like a nice excuse to dissed both composers in support of Henze. 
Although I do have some interest in Boulez's piano solo. I am not such a ideologue as to miss on interesting music, due to a old ax grinding dispute decades ago. 

. Anyhow, lots of very interesting, if not , enlightening posts lately here. 
it is great we can all get things off our chests about this som called, multi faceted , not so easy, nor simple to define/catalogue , nor hang a hat on, late 20th C musical art. 

Seems to me, each individual, stress on the uniqueness of the individual, has his own tier system when coming to this vast open realm of late modern art. While the contemporary group embraces nearly every late 20Th C composer and this main group thinks/feels I am being unjust, unfair, and plainly a idiot, in my crass, stodgy opinions, I see things differently. 


For a late Modern composer to make it in the halls of the great tradition, his music must have certain qualities and hold interest. 

I am the arch-enemy to the New modernistic movement. 
Lets be clear on that.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, I accept the "New Age Classical" challenge of Paul Best, and defend such music as Stockhausen in this way:
> 
> Paul Best doesn't know how to listen to it! *One has to be in a different, non-linear, non-narrative state of mind to understand it.* Here's how it works:
> 
> ...


In all of Stockhausen's music, I'm very aware of the passage of time. It is like Debussy to me, with more exotic timbres, attacks, reverberation. This is probably my most listened piece. It clearly makes use of momentum.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> While the contemporary group embraces nearly every late 20Th C composer.


there isn't any contemporary group, and anybody has difference experiences. I love Ligeti, I don't like Boulez. I love Maurice Ohana, I like only few selected works of Stockhausen. I love Scelsi and Webern, I didn't particularly like Romitelli. I don't like Ferneyhough(or better, what I've heard of him), I like Xenakis. I love Ravel, I struggle with Mozart. Actually I dislike certain works of composers I like, and I like certain works of composers I generally don't like or don't understand.

Stop acting like you're particularly different from the rest of the world, like you're the freethinker who knows the truth in a world of stupid sheeps who have all the same opinions dictated by someone else. We all have our tastes and our limitations.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, that's how we all got "turned on" to Ligeti. We were probably high on grass or mushrooms. Where was Paul Best during this period? Probably wearing a biker jacket, hair greased back, robbing a 7-11.


personally I was absolutely sober, but the music was mindblowing in any case


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

norman bates said:


> there isn't any contemporary group, and anybody has difference experiences. I love Ligeti, I don't like Boulez. I love Maurice Ohana, I like only few selected works of Stockhausen. I love Scelsi and Webern, I didn't particularly like Romitelli. I don't like Ferneyhough(or better, what I've heard of him), I like Xenakis. I love Ravel, I struggle with Mozart. Actually I dislike certain works of composers I like, and I like certain works of composers I generally don't like or don't understand.
> 
> Stop acting like you're particularly different from the rest of the world, like you're the freethinker who knows the truth in a world of stupid sheeps who have all the same opinions dictated by someone else. We all have our tastes and our limitations.


Excellent post, Thanks fort the open minded approach. 
I love it
Yes what I mean by 
*the contemporary/post modernistic/avantgarde groupies*, is that in GENERAL, you guys have no issues with listening to say Ravel,,,then listening to say,,,Boulez or Ligeti, no conflicts whatsoever. 
I am old fashioned, I have to maintain some degree of connectedness to old past masters. Xenakis? 
he could never fit in with my scale of tier-ed composers. 
Thus he is out of bounds, of the great classical tradition,,,this is what I meant by the post mod gang pretty much open arms to any music which sounds *pretty cool*. 
I have to hear it with Ravel as a standard,. 
Sure this could be held against me as snobbish, petulant, even silliness, but it is the way my inner man operates. 
We do have a over soul, a Self, something far greater than the ego, he too has a say in how/what we choose to listen to.

As I say, I am pretty much the archenemy to the late post modernistic movement.

I have these invisible parameters surrounding what I consider The Classical tradition. 
A composer to be considered as part of this great tradition, has to meet certain qualifications. 
Stockhausen does offer at times some highly intriguing music, I can hear this genius,,Yet he falls short in other areas, which to me disqualifies him as part of the tradition. 
I won't comment on Ligeti, as I've do so too often already.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Excellent post, Thanks fort the open minded approach.
> I love it
> Yes what I mean by
> *the contemporary/post modernistic/avantgarde groupies*, is that in GENERAL, you guys have no issues with listening to say Ravel,,,then listening to say,,,Boulez or Ligeti, no conflicts whatsoever.


because I listen to music, not to a Tradition. Like Miles Davis said, call it anything. If I feel the music is good, is good no matter if it's classical music or any other genre. Like there's a lot of great classical music (obviously) there's a lot of certified classical belonging to the "GREAT TRADITION" that I think it's absolutely boring or leaves me cold. It's the artist (or even better: the piece of music) that counts, not the genre.

By the way, your argument still does not make a lot of sense. For instance, according to a theorist like Heinrich Schenker, composers like Debussy, Ravel and a lot of musicians of the first half of the century don't belong to the "great tradition", because of the lack of the Urlinie, that he didn't find in any non tonal music, from Wagner to the impressionists to the atonal/serial works of composers like Schoenberg/Webern etc. And tradition or not, they were doing in fact a very different, revolutionary kind of music compared to the past.
So it's easy to see why someone considered them another thing compared to what came before.
See? Go back in the past and you will find persons saying exactly the things you're saying about the sacred tradition... but against the music you like. And with more concrete reasons. Even because there's a way bigger difference between Brahms (considered by Schenker the last master of the "great classical tradition") and Debussy than between Debussy and Messiaen, or Webern and Boulez.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Another outstanding, provocative post from norman bates.
Great insights, and really helps us sorts thinsg out here.


Ok, this idea 0f *The Grand Tradition*,,, is of course not so easy to define nor establish,,,But it is almost universally agreed upon, the 3 main foundation stones of this art edifice are the obviously, along with Corelli and Vivaldi and perhaps Telemann and Handel as honorable mentions. 


Then we come to the great *Post Beethoven era*. 
Its more wide open and the great race is now officially on. 


If not for Bernstein, Mahler to this day , may have still been less recognized/hardly discovered. 
The Mahlerians are like
*You mean you do not understand his music, love his music??* *But why?*. 
The outsiders, we just can not connect , even on 1 notes worth. 
So is Mahler included in the grand tradition, Of course, look at the concert halls, 
MAHLER on the program. 


So the grand tradition began with a foundation of 3-5 main corner stones to the edifice, this cathedral of musical art.


Then we come to main columns , Brahms, Dvorak, , Tchaikovsky, etc. then others, Mendelssohn, we have the schubertians , who wish to believe their fav is at laest as great as Beethoven, Schumann fans are saying their fav is yet superior to Schubert... 
We of the Modernist camp, look on with complete lack of any interest whatso ever how those discussion end up. 


We Modernists only hold on some of the past forms, onlyn the ones, as you say, are of interest, the rest is nothing more than chaff. 
like Mendelssohn, I have no use for anything he wrote. 


I am glad you also feel like its a personal connection,,,not just to a composer, but to be selective in all his works. 

yet I do feel if one connects to a few of a composers works , will most likely embrace the majority. 
I can not think of even 1 of my fav composers where I love a rare few selections, and diss his many others. 

yes I know late modern composers have many phases, early, mid, late. 
Thus it is almost like if it is 3 different composers. 
This I can understand, But I have no fav where I diss his majority of scores and hold on to a select few.
Its acceptable, as it is a individual choice. 


I don;'t know, somehow I feel the need to play out as *guardian of the great gates of the grand classical tradition* 
A bit egositic seeming, but it is just the way I've always been in my life.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Tradition = many styles yet each new style has to meet certain qualifications to be justly considered and included into the 
grand tradition. 
Not just one form, no, Atonal, 12 tone, serial, all are equally important as the romantic pure style. 
None are greater than the other, it is the individual which makes the decision to dismiss nearly the entire composer roster pre 1900, as non essential music, Music that could just as well be vaulted in the dungeon, and not be missed. ...though I would sneak in late at night, grab some gems and run out clandestinely.,And leave the rest where it lay,,,dark cold dungeon.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> In all of Stockhausen's music, I'm very aware of the passage of time. It is like Debussy to me, with more exotic timbres, attacks, reverberation. This is probably my most listened piece. It clearly makes use of momentum.


Two of those are very early works, though.

I already named the Stockhausen works in which I thought this concept of 'moment time' was most prominent: Kontakt, Hymnen, Stimmung, et.

But in fact, I see the same thing in these early works.

You can listen to it as a narrative if you wish, especially since I assume you like it.

This was really directed towards those more conservative listeners who are "stuck" in narrative time.

I'm not the "time police." :lol:

Nonetheless, I'd be happy to read any large, detailed posting of yours about "momentum in Stockhausen" should you decide to abandon those short, pithy replies designed for scoring discussion points and contradiction for the sake of contradiction.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

norman bates said:


> personally I was absolutely sober, but the music was mindblowing in any case


Good for you! You don't want to be associated with "hippies" now, do you? We're so proud of what you've accomplished so far! Watch the language, though.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Good for you! You don't want to be associated with "hippies" now, do you? We're so proud of what you've accomplished so far! Watch the language, though.


No, it wasn't my point. Just saying that the music is good also without any help.

You know, I can see someone saying that certain music is good only if you listen to it stoned


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It was a passing comment. Now I have to listen to Henry Rollins?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> In all of Stockhausen's music, I'm very aware of the passage of time. It is like Debussy to me, with more exotic timbres, attacks, reverberation. This is probably my most listened piece. It clearly makes use of momentum.


The point is not to be "unaware of the passage of time;" the point is "moment time". Stockhausen and Debussy are not based on traditional notions of Development and narrative. The point is NOT to turn everything into a linear narrative which one can "capture" with one's attention, and this kind of music is not intended for that kind of narrative, "egoic" experience.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> It was a passing comment. Now I have to listen to Henry Rollins?


no, I just thought it made the sense of what I was saying more clear. And it's a quite funny and short video.
But obviously it doesn't matter


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I used to think I had a clearer idea of what 'postmodern' is in Contemporary Music (which was basically music I didn't understand, nor worth understanding ), but the more I understood it, the harder it was to recognize or classify what it really is compared to Modern.

My latest definition is music that is made of building blocks used in a radically different context than previous known or accepted. The Wikipedia definition is more based on its 'fragmentary nature', but I don't think it holds water anymore, because any intelligible music can be heard as continuous, and not fragmentary (not the same as in literature).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Look , it's easy.

*Postmodernism*: simple structures, nondeterminate, practice-centred, physical, repetitive, static, references popular culture, sponsored by art colleges and galeries, practitioners are self-employed, entrepreneurial and use low tech.

*Modernism*: complex structures, determinate, cerebral, text centred, linear, cumulative, teleological, does not acknowledge popular culture, sponsored by universities and state institutions, practitioners are employed by institutions or the state and use high tech.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Look , it's easy.
> 
> *Postmodernism*: simple structures, nondeterminate, practice-centred, physical, repetitive, static, references popular culture, sponsored by art colleges and galeries, practitioners are self-employed, entrepreneurial and use low tech.
> 
> *Modernism*: complex structures, determinate, cerebral, text centred, linear, cumulative, teleological, does not acknowledge popular culture, sponsored by universities and state institutions, practitioners are employed by institutions or the state and use high tech.


Would you care to describe classical and romantic eras with the same parameters taken into account? I'm interested what your definitions of those would be...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Fabulin said:


> Would you care to describe classical and romantic eras with the same parameters taken into account? I'm interested what your definitions of those would be...


Also, is New Complexity postmodern or modernist? It's not that easy.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Look , it's easy.
> 
> *Postmodernism*: simple structures, nondeterminate, practice-centred, physical, repetitive, static, references popular culture, sponsored by art colleges and galeries, practitioners are self-employed, entrepreneurial and use low tech.
> 
> *Modernism*: complex structures, determinate, cerebral, text centred, linear, cumulative, teleological, does not acknowledge popular culture, sponsored by universities and state institutions, practitioners are employed by institutions or the state and use high tech.


Except that this is completely wrong...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Except that this is completely wrong...


Let's not let that get in the way.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> Also, is New Complexity postmodern or modernist?


Modernist, obvs. Ferneyhough and Roger Reynolds would not want to be called postmodern! And quite correctly.

Finnissy is more difficult to nail, because he has changed styles.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> Would you care to describe classical and romantic eras with the same parameters taken into account?


I'm just not interested enough in the music to do it!


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

paulbest said:


> I have seen in past chat forums how often when discussing late modernism, quite often, composers names would come up, and I would be like
> 
> :lol:
> 
> ...


Wowie! Are you an angry guy or what?
Actually I think people should read some music history and also agree on what different styles and genres are called. Don't think one should discuss what already is defined.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Modernist, obvs. Ferneyhough and Roger Reynolds would not want to be called postmodern! And quite correctly.
> 
> Finnissy is more difficult to nail, because he has changed styles.


I don't think it's so obvs.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Wowie! Are you an angry guy or what?
> Actually I think people should read some music history and also agree on what different styles and genres are called. Don't think one should discuss what already is defined.


Well that was nearly 2 years ago so maybe he's cooled down since then. :lol:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> I don't think it's so obvs.


Why?

So,m. N s,m. S,m. S


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Look , it's easy.
> 
> *Postmodernism*: simple structures, nondeterminate, practice-centred, physical, repetitive, static, references popular culture, sponsored by art colleges and galeries, practitioners are self-employed, entrepreneurial and use low tech.
> 
> *Modernism*: complex structures, determinate, cerebral, text centred, linear, cumulative, teleological, does not acknowledge popular culture, sponsored by universities and state institutions, practitioners are employed by institutions or the state and use high tech.


Not quite buying it. Non-determinate works is quite narrow band, and minimalism is considered postmodern.

I think modernism is more highly conceptual, while postmodern is more based on the aural experience and less on ideals. It's hard to objectively classify though. Seems like postmodernists except for Cage don't like to be labelled as such.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Yes American minimilism is indeed postmodern - is there something I said which means that’s a problem for me? Non determinate music is huge - think all the text scores and graphic score, all the music made up of modules which the performer can arrange . . . Postmodernists love to be called postmodern, they are loud and proud. Think Zorn, for example.

Maybe you’re thinking that all my criteria have to always apply - but it’s not like that (like there are elements of romanticism in Mozart, elements of modernism in . . . one of those turn of the last century composers I never listen to.)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Yes American minimilism is indeed postmodern - is there something I said which means that's a problem for me? Non determinate music is huge - think all the text scores and graphic score, all the music made up of modules which the performer can arrange . . . Postmodernists love to be called postmodern, they are loud and proud. Think Zorn, for example.
> 
> Maybe you're thinking that all my criteria have to always apply - but it's not like that (like there are elements of romanticism in Mozart, elements of modernism in . . . one of those turn of the last century composers I never listen to.)


I think 'true postmodernists' are loud and proud. So that makes Cage one of them. But in music, there don't seem to be many. Boulez, Stockhausen, Carter, Ferneyhough, are considered postmodern in Wikipedia and other sources, but I think they themselves associate postmodernism as being without concept, and reject the idea of being called that (especially Stockhausen, who called postmodernists lazy, (which I interpret as in not having the rigour to work things out conceptually, but only for effect), which, reading into how they compose their music, I can definitely understand their position. I think the only postmodernists are the ones who proclaim it, and the listener might not detect any difference between what makes one modernist and one postmodern.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> My latest definition is music that is made of building blocks used in a radically different context than previous known or accepted. The Wikipedia definition is more based on its 'fragmentary nature', but I don't think it holds water anymore, because any intelligible music can be heard as continuous, and not fragmentary (not the same as in literature).


I think your idea is quite right. I was thinking about it myself lately, because while I love a lot of modernist artists I wasn't so found of post modernism, and actually I realized that some of them were clearly in many ways (altough maybe not entirely) post modern artists. I'm thinking about Frank Zappa or David Lynch for instances. And thinking about their works (the fragmentary nature of music the wikipedia mentions for instance could be clearly heard in Brown shoes don't make it, where in few minutes there are a lot of different styles put together one after the other 



). 
At the end of the day I think that postmodernism has its function. Modernism was often about artists making their own path and saying "my path for a better music is the correct one, the other are wrong", post-modernism is, in a world that also makes available to the listener so many different things, the realization that different things have their own validities and post-modern artists try to use those many styles combining it in different ways. Some would say it's sterile and a dead end, but I think that this method produces in itself something new, not just a different perspective (or the ironic use of the material) but in this recombination produces also new musical possibilities.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think 'true postmodernists' are loud and proud. So that makes Cage one of them. But in music, there don't seem to be many. Boulez, Stockhausen, Carter, Ferneyhough, are considered postmodern in Wikipedia and other sources, but I think they themselves associate postmodernism as being without concept, and reject the idea of being called that (especially Stockhausen, who called postmodernists lazy, (which I interpret as in not having the rigour to work things out conceptually, but only for effect), which, reading into how they compose their music, I can definitely understand their position. I think the only postmodernists are the ones who proclaim it, and the listener might not detect any difference between what makes one modernist and one postmodern.


I can't see why those composers (Boulez, Stockhausen, Carter in particular) should be considered post modernists. Someone like Boulez was the true definition of a modernist in my opinion (and I'm saying this not being a fan of him).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> I can't see why those composers (Boulez, Stockhausen, Carter in particular) should be considered post modernists. Someone like Boulez was the true definition of a modernist in my opinion (and I'm saying this not being a fan of him).


I agree. It's more like (and I'm guilty of it too), like the OP, that if you don't get their music or how they composed it, they automatically become postmodern.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think 'true postmodernists' are loud and proud. So that makes Cage one of them. But in music, there don't seem to be many. Boulez, Stockhausen, Carter, Ferneyhough, are considered postmodern in Wikipedia and other sources, but I think they themselves associate postmodernism as being without concept, and reject the idea of being called that (especially Stockhausen, who called postmodernists lazy, (which I interpret as in not having the rigour to work things out conceptually, but only for effect), which, reading into how they compose their music, I can definitely understand their position. I think the only postmodernists are the ones who proclaim it, and the listener might not detect any difference between what makes one modernist and one postmodern.


Boulez and Carter are not postmodern composers! Neither was Stockhausen nor Ferneyhough. I don't think you can be a postmodern composer and compose systematically, like some form of total serialism.

I can assure you of one thing, the postmodern composers I know are loud and proud. Cassandra Miller, for example. And Jennifer Walshe.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> I agree. It's more like (and I'm guilty of it too), like the OP, that if you don't get their music or how they composed it, they automatically become postmodern.


I think of "postmodern" as more of a mindset and Zeitgeist rather than some rigorous musical/artistic standard that can be applied with precision.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I see nothing wrong or dangerous with postmoderism, or any composer self-identifying as a postmodern composer. These labels are useless, IMO, and often divisive and counter-productive.

What I consider much more problematic are the "taste police" trying to censor discussions or defending classical music from the "barbarians" at the gates.


----------

