# Complexity in music...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I am currently reading a book by composer Aaron Copland (1900-1990) titled _Music and imagination_ which was published in the early 1950's.

In it, Copland discusses many issues to do with the contemporary classical music of that time. There are many stimulating things in this book, but one thing struck me when he was talking about the music of Pierre Boulez:

"The few Boulez scores that I have examined are of a truly formidable complexity. Questioned as to the necessity of so complex a texture, the composer maintained that, given the enormous variety of procedures open to the dodecaphonic composer, he was seeking for a corresponding "atonality" of the rhythmic frame..." (p. 72, HERE on Google Books).

Now I don't want to bash Boulez, his music does tend for complexity - as does Elliott Carter's - but I do like some of their works, I understand or "get" at least a few of them, but many I'm just baffled with.

So it begs these types of questions/issues -

- When is music too complex for it's own good?

- When does a composer, through too much complexity, lose the majority of the audience to whom such high level of complexity goes above their heads?

- If Mr. Copland, one of the foremost composers of the c20th, says some of this music is too complex for even him, then do 'mere mortals' like us have a chance?

- Do you worry about whether something is too complex for you to understand/grasp, even given many hearings, or do you just go along for the ride? (eg. just for enjoyment, whatever that means to you, nothing much else)

- Do some composers try to do too much at once, in your opinion? Does this eclipse an important reason to compose in the first place, which is communicate with the/an audience?

- Does too much complexity equal pretentiousness in your opinion? Do you think it is wise for a composer to aim for a balance between the complexity & other aims of a piece?

- & so on and so forth, all related thoughts, esp. with concrete examples of pieces/composers (eg. pieces that you perhaps find too complex, etc.), are very welcome...

[Please note that I'm not only referring to modern/contemporary musics, eg. I find Antoine Brumel's _Earthquake Mass_ from around 1500 to be very complex, I don't approach it like I do music that is much more simple - eg. even some c20th works like Carl Orff's _Carmina Burana_ can be said to be more simple than the Brumel in many ways]...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I am currently reading a book by composer Aaron Copland (1900-1990) titled _Music and imagination_ which was published in the early 1950's.
> 
> In it, Copland discusses many issues to do with the contemporary classical music of that time. There are many stimulating things in this book, but one thing struck me when he was talking about the music of Pierre Boulez:
> 
> ...


1. hmm I'm not sure what "too complex for it's own good" implies. I guess if it is so complex that absolutely no one can wrap their heads around it...but I've never come across a piece like that. Also, if it were that complex, I'm sure there would be some people that would find great pleasure trying to "crack the code" of the piece, because their brains are just like that.

2. Well, you know all too well Sid, that a majority of an audience can be lost from playing Mahler's 9th.  So I guess it depends on the audience. I assume Boulez's audience, or his fans as it were, would be up for a good bit of complexity in the first place, so no worries there.

3. hmm, to me, it doesn't seem like Copland is saying he doesn't like the music, he just says that they are complex. Copland was a real great guy, really open minded when it came to new music. I'm sure, even if he didn't enjoy Boulez's music, he at least appreciated the effort at a new voice (unless something in the book you're reading proves opposite).

4. I don't worry if a piece is too complex for me. I actually enjoy it. I am a composer, and study composition in college. So that's the viewpoint that I usually am coming from when I listen to music. For me it's all about coming to understand a piece of music, and the more laborious that task is, as it usually is with Boulez, the more rewarding it is when I do finally get it. I don't worry that I wont get it, especially with someone like Boulez who is highly regarded, even if you don't like his music. For example, I have read plenty of reviews praising Boulez's piano sonatas and talking about the structure and the themes, comparing the 2nd to Beethoven's Hammerklavier ect. I don't yet understand these pieces, but I don't worry because I figure if others have understood them in such a way, certainly I could as well.

5. Definitely not. As many on the forum know, I am a firm believer in composers composing pieces however they would like to. If they have decided that complex is their musical language than so be it. It's not pretentious just because they dig complexity just as it's not stupid if another composer digs simplicity. It's just a matter of taste, style, ect. If someone doesn't like complex music, they don't have to listen to it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for reading & yr reply,* violadude*, I'm on the run now, but I'll just answer one of your answers -



> ...
> 3. hmm, to me, it doesn't seem like Copland is saying he doesn't like the music, he just says that they are complex. Copland was a real great guy, really open minded when it came to new music. I'm sure, even if he didn't enjoy Boulez's music, he at least appreciated the effort at a new voice (unless something in the book you're reading proves opposite).


No, Copland doesn't diss Boulez in any way, he just argues for balance between complexity and other things. I know for a fact that Copland had high regard for Elliott Carter, he called Carter the most significant composer of the USA of the c20th. So Copland wasn't against complexity or intellectuallism, he was just saying he prefers more balance...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Sid James said:


> - When is music too complex for it's own good?


when it is complex just for the sake of complexity


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hah. I wasn't aware that Boulez's music is complex. For me it is a collection of sounds made with musical instruments, that I have never been able to make 'sense' of. In some of Carter's music, even some late Schnabel, repeated 'long line' listening has found grab-handles; not Boulez.

Anyway, complexity need not to be 'for complexity's sake'. Much of Medtner's music feels complex to me, lots of notes that seem 'extra' when first I hear them. They aren't 'extra'; they are part of the sense of the music. Alkan's music has passages containing large gobs of notes, but their purpose seems clear to me. His music isn't complex physically, really, it's complex after it enters one's head, and that probably isn't what this thread is about.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

1. *When is it too complex?* I'm not entirely convinced that this is a question of complexity alone. Is Beethoven any less complex than Boulez? I don't think so; I just think they explore and utilise complexity in different ways. As such, I think it's less _how_ complex, more _what_ is complex. Complexity can certainly be extremely rewarding, but I imagine it is largely (a)(non)tonal complexity that can alienate a listener more than anything else (though, of course, extreme structural or rhythmic complexity can be just as difficult).

2. *Losing the audience*. As violadude said, it depends on who the audience is and, perhaps more importantly, who the composer wants their audience to be. Again, the complexity of Beethoven is too much for the majority of living individuals who listen to some kind of music. There is naturally a spectrum involved here, from ultra-easy pop, to cross-over music, then perhaps neoClassical/Romantic and 'new complexity' _etc._, each appealing to a smaller audience. It's part of the composer's task to identify who their audience is and question whether their music is 'too much' for them (I don't mean that to sound patronising, but I don't want to spend a whole host of paragraphs explaining it either!).

3. *Copland vs. Me*. If Copland, a professional composer, didn't understand something compositional, then I seriously doubt I am going to be able to understand it myself. However, I don't think _either_ of us _needs_ to understand the music for it to be good - again with Beethoven, I don't consciously understand every complex compositional aspect to his music, but it still envelops me and takes me on a mental journey. Complexity is still, I think, irrelevant. See number 1.

4. *Do I care?* Absolutely not. In listening to any piece of music, all I ever do is try to take in the novel sound world and see how it affects me emotionally or even intellectually.

5. *Do some composers do too much?* I wouldn't say I have a sense of people trying to do too many things at once, so much as I would say doing completely the wrong things to begin with!  I think a composer should write in whatever style they believe expresses their ideas best for them, but part of the entire culture of music is an audience's reception, so of course the audience needs to be borne in mind.

6. *Is complexity pretentious?* No, I don't think so, and, converse to that, I would also say that I don't think simplicity or accessibility is vain or worthless. I do indeed believe that composing music is about striking a certain balance.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Polednice said:


> 4. *Do I care?* Absolutely not. In listening to any piece of music, all I ever do is try to take in the novel sound world and see how it affects me emotionally or even intellectually.


This articulates my approach perfectly! My musical education is at the rudimentary level, so I don't pretend to understand what is going on in highly complex scores, nor does it have any bearing on my enjoyment of the music.

I get the impression that some folks here are working a little to hard at music listening. I'll let the composers and musicians worry about the details. Besides, if there isn't a transcendent quality getting beyond the notes and reaching me as a listener, simplicity verses complexity is irrelevant.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> This articulates my approach perfectly! My musical education is at the rudimentary level, so I don't pretend to understand what is going on in highly complex scores, nor does it have any bearing on my enjoyment of the music.
> 
> I get the impression that some folks here are working a little to hard at music listening. I'll let the composers and musicians worry about the details. Besides, if there isn't a transcendent quality getting beyond the notes and reaching me as a listener, simplicity verses complexity is irrelevant.


_Polednice_ mentions a 'spectrum' of complexity, and then says that complexity is irrelevant. You can't really have it both ways. Classical music needs to be complex enough so I don't hear all there is in it on first hearing. e.g. Brahms' music is complex enough even in the seemingly simple melodies that one hearing won't mark the path. In Alkan I am always aware that the simple melody I am hearing is apt to lead to strangeness that may not 'compute' on first hearing.

Gotta have 'complex'; but I do need a grab handle once in awhile. (Ives' Concord Sonata used to make zigs that caused me to lose the path, and then a fragment of a familiar tune would say "It's over here". That's providing a grab handle.) Listening to late Schnabel is like wandering in strange surroundings, and then he slides close enough to tonality, just long enough for me to get my bearings. Yep, another grab handle.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> _Polednice_ mentions a 'spectrum' of complexity, and then says that complexity is irrelevant. You can't really have it both ways. Classical music needs to be complex enough so I don't hear all there is in it on first hearing. e.g. Brahms' music is complex enough even in the seemingly simple melodies that one hearing won't mark the path. In Alkan I am always aware that the simple melody I am hearing is apt to lead to strangeness that may not 'compute' on first hearing.
> 
> Gotta have 'complex'; but I do need a grab handle once in awhile.


In fairness to myself, that's not what I said!  I said that there is a general spectrum of complexity, but also that there are _different kinds_ of complexity, some of which alienate and some of which don't.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hopefully the alienation factor will begin to subside with repeated listening. If it doesn't, I'll move on to some other music. I just picked up a couple of Schnittke CDs from the library, and this stuff isn't sounding like much fun to listen to at all. Maybe this will change if I keep listening, or maybe not?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> In fairness to myself, that's not what I said!  I said that there is a general spectrum of complexity, but also that there are _different kinds_ of complexity, some of which alienate and some of which don't.


Hmph. Read No. 3 in your post. I zeroed in on that, as part of my plan to discredit you. You should be aware that I keep a sharpened stake, made from the heartwood of a mountain ash, close by at all times.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

starthrower said:


> This articulates my approach perfectly! My musical education is at the rudimentary level, so I don't pretend to understand what is going on in highly complex scores, nor does it have any bearing on my enjoyment of the music.
> 
> I get the impression that some folks here are working a little to hard at music listening. I'll let the composers and musicians worry about the details. Besides, if there isn't a transcendent quality getting beyond the notes and reaching me as a listener, simplicity verses complexity is irrelevant.


I am trained in music theory, but I also agree that generally it is not necessary to analyze a piece in order to get more enjoyment out of it. Music theory is mostly important for composers, and only vaguely important for performers in that they grasp how the main themes should be played and what the general structure of the piece is.

Certainly, however, more active listening is more rewarding than passive listening. In pieces that contain discernible themes, for instance, especially sonata form and fugue form, it helps to be able to recognize the main subjects when they return in the recapitulation or a middle entry.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Certainly, however, more active listening is more rewarding than passive listening. In pieces that contain discernible themes, for instance, especially sonata form and fugue form, it helps to be able to recognize the main subjects when they return in the recapitulation or a middle entry.


I've always considered myself to be an active listener with limitations for my appreciation of a piece of music from a technical standpoint due to my limited education. I listen for various musical ingredients such as themes, rhythmic structures, and modern harmonies even if I can't tell you the names of the chords, or more complex rhythmic structures. I'm sure there are many aspects of a piece I am unaware of as well. Many times I need to read an educated critique of a work to enhance my appreciation of subsequent listening sessions.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

You guys express a 'common theme', one which seems to me to intellectualize music. I am not an anti-intellectual, but this analyzing music while listening to it must involve rational thought. How can that not detract from feeling the music as a non-rational process?

Sorry if the question makes no sense to you. It stems from the same attitude that causes me to dislike program music (it puts _ideas_ in my head), and treat vocal music as a mongrel form only distantly related to 'pure' music (I enjoy Josquin, but probably wouldn't if I understood the words).

[Now it is revealed - not only do I harass_ Polednice_, I am a Music Neanderthal.]


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You guys express a 'common theme', one which seems to me to intellectualize music. I am not an anti-intellectual, but this analyzing music while listening to it must involve rational thought. How can that not detract from feeling the music as a non-rational process?
> 
> Sorry if the question makes no sense to you. It stems from the same attitude that causes me to dislike program music (it puts _ideas_ in my head), and treat vocal music as a mongrel form only distantly related to 'pure' music (I enjoy Josquin, but probably wouldn't if I understood the words).
> 
> [Now it is revealed - not only do I harass_ Polednice_, I am a Music Neanderthal.]


You and I must be polar opposites. It's like a dichotomy in my head, that I rationalize everything, specifically in order to be emotional about it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> You and I must be polar opposites. It's like a dichotomy in my head, that I rationalize everything, specifically in order to be emotional about it.


That is interesting, probably more so than it should be to me. In my ignorance, I wonder if that is a learned mechanism in high-level autism. If so, the 'translation' to emotional is a process I would like to understand - because being your 'polar opposite' isn't the ideal condition. I have for several years had the conscious intention to study music notation and rudimentary music theory, but never got to first base. I suspect I am afraid of 'losing the magic' of music.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That is interesting, probably more so than it should be to me. In my ignorance, I wonder if that is a learned mechanism in high-level autism. If so, the 'translation' to emotional is a process I would like to understand - because being your 'polar opposite' isn't the ideal condition. I have for several years had the conscious intention to study music notation and rudimentary music theory, but never got to first base. I suspect I am afraid of 'losing the magic' of music.


No, it isn't necessarily an autism mechanism. It's what musicologists in general do. There is a social, historical, theoretical, and personal context, for each piece of music, that actually makes the music much more emotional. Can you imagine listening to a Cantata by Bach, and not knowing that each contrapuntal voice represents an individual character, not knowing what a Cantata is, and not knowing who Bach was? Even worse: Could you imagine not even knowing the moods represented by Bach when a chromatic progression is written?

But there's even more to it. Each key signature used by Baroque artists, had it's own character. The WTC (which was written for "well temperament", not "equal temperament") showcased the character of every key. The sourer and sweeter notes of each key signature was capitalized upon. People wonder why the Baroque artists often had an aversion to music that was too dissonant, when those people don't realize that the Baroque artists already had a banquet of dissonance to work with.

Music is so well grounded in history, individuality, theory, tradition, and practice, that it's hard for me to imagine not emotionally responding to it. It is an index of human history. Have you ever heard someone play the same Lyre that King David played? Ever had the pleasure of reading a treatise by someone like Rohrbaugh on the sociological impact of music? As long as you can recognize the relevance of every study in music, you don't need to be fearful of 'losing the magic' of music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I think the premise of this thread is rather naive, along with the apparent "virtues" of "balance"/"moderation" that kept getting mentioned here and in other threads.

Well, the reality is of course that classical music is the most complex music around. But the key is often, but not always, whether this complexity was crafted under the hands of a great master or a mediocre one. Take the very popular fugal complex finish of symphony #41 _Jupiter_ by Mozart; it ain't no child's play from just about any technical viewpoint, and yet we all love it. The complexity and the beauty of this music blended into one, the latter concealing the former, never loosing the listener, who can just about happily listen and marvel at it from any perspective. Complexity or simplicity as an ideology doesn't bother me in classical music; in fact, I think it's nonsense (the ideaology). Like all forms of music, it's the composer that matters and whether he wrote relatively more complex or relatively simple music that was idiomatic of his style and times, and how well that has managed to reach the listeners. Good stuff speaks for itself, but crap punishes itself. I'm not sure where complexity necessarily sits in this.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

It's so interesting, Sid, because I actually do enjoy and like to play music that is difficult to play...as a performer it makes you feel good to be able to play stuff that is 'hard'...but at the same time,...and this coming from someone who has no problem playing three-chord jams because I know the value of well sung lyrics and being true in a performance that I don't need a certain degree of difficulty to make me feel satisfied.

So, basically, as I've read a couple of times in this thread...it is almost always pretty obvious when something is hard for the sake of being hard and when something is hard just because it is but that is the precise and best way the composer could have expressed oneself. Chopin or Liszt's most difficult study for the piano is just as much fun to play as kv545 is what I'm trying to say...just depends on the person and what they may want to or not feel the need to,...prove.

p.s. - remember, however, that i am speaking of this piece being played at least like (link posted below) this...those trudging and somber sound like you're about to die versions don't come to mind.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I'm sorry to ask...But who's Copland? Who is Boulez?

Martin, dreaming


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> [...]
> As long as you can recognize the relevance of every study in music, you don't need to be fearful of 'losing the magic' of music.


Ah, there's the rub. All of this studied _recognition_ of music is OK (maybe), if it is done _outside the listening experience_. If you go back and 'replay' what you heard, and pick out this and that thingy, no problem, and I suppose it is an intellectual boon - as long as the analysis isn't stuck in your head the next time you hear the music. When I'm listening to music I don't want no stinkin' analysis.

!!


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I'm sorry to ask...But who's Copland? Who is Boulez?
> 
> Martin, dreaming


Copland is a country that is predominantly inhabited by police officers and other law enforcers.
And Boulez is an STD you could contract if you lay with a Boo.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> It's so interesting, Sid, because I actually do enjoy and like to play music that is difficult to play...as a performer it makes you feel good to be able to play stuff that is 'hard'...but at the same time,...and this coming from someone who has no problem playing three-chord jams because I know the value of well sung lyrics and being true in a performance that I don't need a certain degree of difficulty to make me feel satisfied.


Technical pieces make one a better pianist, too. Just take a look at the Allegro Vivace from Alkan's op. 76 no. 1 (for left hand):






Listen to it at 3:16, and read the knuckle buster a little bit. It's wonderfully written, with various technical challenges, modulating those progressions at 4:05 (cartwheel motion, I would suppose?)... These works make you a better pianist, and rhapsodize judiciously. Is technical bravura something pompous? I'd prefer to call it ecstatic, colorful and varied. Why not play with a musical device like that, as a composer? Music is exciting, and alive.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some interesting discussion here, thank you all.

What I get from a number of people's posts is that there are different ways of approaching music. If you're a musician or composer you'll obviously hear more (on the technical side) than the layman or non-musician. There are of course different types of listeners as well, from beginner to intermediate to advanced. We all get different things out of music, on many levels.

What Copland talks about in that chapter - which I provided a link to in my OP - is that it is admirable for music to be able to reach as many levels of listeners as possible (but not mandatory). I think Copland tried to do this in some of his own music, eg. incorporate new techniques but still "speak" to as many people as possible, from "lowbrows" to "highbrows" and in between.

& yes, ideology of particular points in time in history can be very important, Copland talks to that too. During the time he gave this lecture (1950's), there was a split between those who argued for a composer to speak to the general audience (be "accessible" if you like) and those who wanted to really push the boundaries of music, in directions not always in line with the understanding of the average listener. In 1948 at a conference on music in Prague, a statement was made that music should avoid unneccessary complexity and clutter and aim to speak to people more directly. Some of the more "conservative" if you will members of the musical community/industry in Western Europe agreed with this & put their name to it, and so too did many of those in the Soviet bloc (which was still in the Stalinist phase, all that "formalist" cr*p). This was in line with a kind of post-war optimism, a kind of feel that doesn't exist in this day and age of general apathy surrounding much new music and many other things. There was a lot of ideology around then, in terms of the culture wars between progressives and conservatives. I think it's largely over now, we're in an age of plurality, but every opinion has some ideology behind it, it's inescapable.

I like Hilltroll's description of a "handle" or "hook" he finds in pieces of complex music to hang onto. I try to do that too in some ways, find a theme or maybe some mood or repeated phrase or whatever to act as a guide. Ives does do this in some of his works that I've heard.

& I agree with the gist of what you say Polednice, many works were not written in the fashion of the times. Beethoven's and Schubert's late sonatas and quartets, which were profound and long, were out of step with the craze of the time sweeping the European capitals, incl. Vienna, which was the phenomenon that was Rossini & later Bellini & Donizetti in Italian comic opera mode. People wanted to be entertained, yet Beethoven & Schubert were offering them the opposite of that. It took decades for these works to be more deeply understood and appreciated. Similar thing could be said of Mahler, who was more famous as a conductor, esp. of opera, than a composer during his lifetime. His name as a composer became a household name & world phenomen in the era of the vinyl LP, post-1945. Similar with Liszt, I understand he never performed more complex works like the _Sonata in B minor _in public, he tended to play the crowd pleasers, esp. his transcriptions. So yes, often the audience does take a long time to catch up, public taste evolves and goes through phases.

To end, here are some complex works that I enjoy and get something out of one some level, eg. a journey, etc. Not an exhaustive list, but just a general one. Some,esp. the newer ones, I can't claim to fully understand or get a grip what's going on. Eg. in Schoenberg's _Violin Concerto_, I am a bit lost until that big dance theme enters and takes over in the thrid movement (finale).
I have a similar issue with the Bartok_ Sonata for Two Pianos & Percussion_, but it's only been recently that I heard it for the first time. In any case, with these types of works, I am interested in their history/context, maybe a "theme" or "hook," going through them (or several of these), changes of mood/emotion, dynamics, tempo/rhythm, if it's a vocal work the text & how it is illustrated by the music, etc. I think for me as a lay listener, these pieces "work" in successfully combining complexity with a type of accessiblity or engagement. All of these are mainstream composers, except maybe Partch, although his music is being performed more now, even in this country. Partch was one of the major microtonal composers, I know for a fact our composition students study his music - as they do that of Xenakis, Haba, etc. - at conservatorium level.

Monteverdi - Vespers of 1610
Brumel - Earthquake Mass
Beethoven - Late String Quartets
H. Partch - The Delusion of the Fury
Boulez - Piano Sonatas 1-3
Schoenberg, Berg, Hindemith - Violin Concertos
Bartok - Sonata for Two Pianos & Percussion
Carter - String Quartet #1, Piano Sonata, Violin Concerto
Ives - Piano Sonata #1
Xenakis - La Legende d'Eer for 8 track tape, Akrata for 16 winds, Pollha ta dinha for children's choir & chamber orch., Herma for piano, Nomos Alpha for cello (whith Xenakis I just like the sound, he is experimental but interesting to me, I hear new things each time I listen to his music, esp. these works, but they can be very intense)
Berg - String Quartet Op. 3, Piano Sonata, Wozzeck (opera)
Alkan - Grande Sonate "Les Quatre Ages"
Liszt - A Faust Symphony, Sonata in B minor
Mahler - Symphony #9
Messiaen - Quartet for the End of Time, Harawi (song cycle)
Bernstein - Symphonyies #1 "Jeremiah," #3 "Kaddish"
....


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Bernstein - Symphonyies #2 "Jeremiah," #3 "Kaddish"
> ....


I hate to be "that guy" but Bernstein's 2nd symphony is "Age of Anxiety". The 1st is the Jeremiah one.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I think the premise of this thread is rather naive, along with the apparent "virtues" of "balance"/"moderation" that kept getting mentioned here and in other threads...


Well maybe I'm doing overkill, but you weren't on this forum when it was mayhem and a war zone. The "era" of jtech and others. Just go to the "No More Minimalism" thread he created, it's a very good illustration of what I'm saying. So yes, maybe I am naive but I'd rather be that than a raving ideologue. & yes we need balance/moderation, that is why we call our moderators "moderators." You won't see me creating a "No More Wagner" thread or the like, just because I'm not a huge fan of him. Get it now?...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> To end, here are some complex works that I enjoy
> 
> Xenakis - La Legende d'Eer for 8 track tape .


Were you referring to this that you enjoy? Lucky you I guess.

Warning: damage to ear could result if too loud.


----------



## jdavid (Oct 4, 2011)

Elliot Carter won the Prix de Rome (in the 50's, I think) when he moved to the desert southwest and determined to write only the music that interested him. The result was his String Quartet No. 1, a tremendously difficult and dense work, yet one that is highly admired. I personally believe that a composer must write according to the logic of their own musical syntax and care nothing for the listener. Only in this way do we get sincerity and perhaps, revelation. I feel this strongly, but it's only my opine. (btw - Carter just premiered his flute concerto and he is 103 years old!!! - calls for a toast, I'd say


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

jdavid said:


> Elliot Carter won the Prix de Rome (in the 50's, I think) when he moved to the desert southwest and determined to write only the music that interested him. The result was his String Quartet No. 1, a tremendously difficult and dense work, yet one that is highly admired. I personally believe that a composer must write according to the logic of their own musical syntax and care nothing for the listener. Only in this way do we get sincerity and perhaps, revelation. I feel this strongly, but it's only my opine. (btw - Carter just premiered his flute concerto and he is 103 years old!!! - calls for a toast, I'd say


"I personally believe that a composer must write according to the logic of their own musical syntax and care nothing for the listener."

Strictly observed, that attitude is the equivalent of playing with oneself. Beethoven knew that his late quartets were not going to 'work' for the audiences at their premieres, but he did expect the music to be appreciated sometime down the line. Somewhere in his career, Carter decided to compose for the benefit of the performers of his works, and let audience appreciation be incidental to that. Since the performers are actually the first rank of listeners, pleasing them gives audiences a door slightly open.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Andre... the answer to question, it would seem to me, is that the complexity of a work of music becomes too much if it detracts from my ability to enjoy the work. This certainly varies from individual to individual. I am willing to put forth a good degree of effort into attempting to come to terms with a work if I believe that ultimately it will result in a degree of pleasure equal or greater to the effort put forth. If I take Chinese opera for example, I suspect that it has a great many adherents for whom it brings great pleasure. The learning curve, however, for me to really come to terms with this music strikes me as far too great for me to willingly invest my time when there are so many other works of music that I am able to enjoy. Ultimately, I'm not certain that it is "complexity" alone that represents a challenge. Bach created a body of music that can be incredibly complex... but it is also accessible on other levels. In this sense he is like Dante's _Comedia_ or Shakespeare's plays which can be appreciated at one level without a great deal of background knowledge and experience, as opposed to James Joyce' _Finnegan's Wake_ which largely leaves even the most well-read individual baffled. And is it only "complexity" that makes a body of music inaccessible or rather turns off the listener?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Andre... the answer to question, it would seem to me, is that the complexity of a work of music becomes to much if it detracts from my ability to enjoy the work. This certainly varies from individual to individual. I am willing to put forth a good degree of effort into attempting to come to terms with a work if I believe that ultimately it will result in a degree of pleasure equal or greater to the effort put forth. If I take Chinese opera for example, I suspect that it has a great many adherents for whom it brings great pleasure. The learning curve, however, for me to really come to terms with this music strikes me as far too great for me to willingly invest my time when there are so many other works of music that I am able to enjoy. Ultimately, I'm not certain that it is "complexity" alone that represents a challenge. Bach created a body of music that can be incredibly complex... but it is also accessible on other levels. In this sense he is like Dante's _Comedia_ or Shakespeare's plays which can be appreciated at one level without a great deal of background knowledge and experience, as opposed to James Joyce' _Finnegan's Wake_ which largely leaves even the most well-read individual baffled. And is it only "complexity" that makes a body of music inaccessible or rather turns off the listener?


Hey, Stlukes
Think you could hook me up with some Chinese Opera? I am throughly intrigued.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Enjoy!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Complexity in music is a relative thing. What's bafflingly complex in one era may eventually become an established and beloved masterpiece in the future.
There's the well-known story of the Emperor Joseph of Austria telling Mozart after the premiere of the opera The Abduction from the Seraglio that it had "to many notes"
When Beethoven's 9th was new, it was the longest and most complex symphony that had ever been written. Many found it a daunting challenge to hear at first. They were accustomed to the brief and simple symphonies of the 18th century. There is no question that many found it as difficult to comprehend as many people find the music of Boulez and Carter today. 
The key is repeated hearings. That's why recordings of the music of Boulez,Carter and other rigorously complex composers is so important. If you hear one of their works for the first time live, you don;t have the luxury of repeated hearings.
Only time will tell what the place of composers such as Boulez,Carter,Babbitt and others will be in music. Myself, I'm not opposed to complexity in music, but aridity .
If the complexity results in boredom, and the music does not say anything to one, then reject it. But complexity does not necessarily make oa work pretentious.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Enjoy!


That was pretty interesting. I wish I knew what they were saying though!


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Try this one.






In China there are several opera 'flavours': Beijng, cantonese, Huangmei, Yueju...

Curiously, for a westerner, perhaps the easiest way to enter Chinese opera would be the so called Modern Revolutionary Operas, that were less stylized, and more direct.






Though the traditional chinese music is, of course, much better represented by the former 'flavours'.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

superhorn said:


> Complexity in music is a relative thing. What's bafflingly complex in one era may eventually become an established and beloved masterpiece in the future.
> There's the well-known story of the Emperor Joseph of Austria telling Mozart after the premiere of the opera The Abduction from the Seraglio that it had "to many notes"
> When Beethoven's 9th was new, it was the longest and most complex symphony that had ever been written. Many found it a daunting challenge to hear at first. They were accustomed to the brief and simple symphonies of the 18th century. There is no question that many found it as difficult to comprehend as many people find the music of Boulez and Carter today.
> The key is repeated hearings. That's why recordings of the music of Boulez,Carter and other rigorously complex composers is so important. If you hear one of their works for the first time live, you don;t have the luxury of repeated hearings.
> ...


The most intriguing difference for me is that the audiences of the Classical and Romantic period did not become gradually accustomed to Mozart and Beethoven through the luxury of recordings. Repeated exposure over a long period wasn't as necessary as it is now...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Were you referring to this that you enjoy? Lucky you I guess...


Yeah, & if you enjoy 4 or 5 hour long operas which I find extremely boring and irritating, good luck to you. Also, if you enjoy putting other people down - like jtech and his rubbish ilk - good luck to you as well. If you enjoy judging people because they don't enjoy what you enjoy, good for you. I could go on and on about your "nice" qualities. I actually expose my drawbacks, weaknesses. I put up discussions and this time only you have been negative. This thread has garnered some interesting discussion. I actually put an effort into stimulating debate, not strangling it, nor making boring fart jokes (even more boring to me than 5 hour Wagnerian operas). Put up or shut up?

Now I will put you on my ignore list for a good while, which is what a normal member here advised me a while back...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> The most intriguing difference for me is that the audiences of the Classical and Romantic period did not become gradually accustomed to Mozart and Beethoven through the luxury of recordings. Repeated exposure over a long period wasn't as necessary as it is now...


I'm not sure about Mozart, but in terms of Beethoven's late quartets, recordings did probably lead to people appreciating them more. Esp. in the era of the vinyl LP, as with Mahler's symphonies to a greater extent. So I suppose it depends which works you're talking about. During his lifetime, Beethoven's most popular work was the _Septet_ from his early period, & he was apparently greatly peeved off that people didn't appreciate his symphonies as much as he hoped they would...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

superhorn said:


> ...Only time will tell what the place of composers such as Boulez,Carter,Babbitt and others will be in music. Myself, I'm not opposed to complexity in music, but aridity .
> If the complexity results in boredom, and the music does not say anything to one, then reject it. But complexity does not necessarily make oa work pretentious.


That's how I see it now, I just go by what I like, not whether it's complex or not. As for your comments on history re the evolving appreciation of Mozart & Beethoven's music, they are good points.

I provided a link to the full chapter, the context of that Copland quote, on Google Books. If people have time to read it, please do. He isn't arguing against complexity but for balance between complexity and other things. He wasn't dissing the new music of the time (1950's). As far as I can tell, he wasn't taking sides in the various ideological battles going on then. He says that between the two world wars, many composers got the balance right between the various factors of their music, incl. complexity. But he admits that trends like neo-classicism had run their course by the 1950's, well and truly. New territories had to be explored and opened up. I think Copland is just putting out thoughts and questions, not necessarily answering them. There are no easy answers and many of these things, what we like or don't, what we understand or don't, what grabs us straight away & what takes time, is kind of hard to explain in words.

As I said, I enjoy things like, talking Boulez as an example, his piano sonatas. His 2nd sonata is a seminal work in that genre of it's time, just like the _Hammerklavier_ was in Beethoven's time, as violadude pointed out earlier. I have a disc on the DGG label, and it has some of his chamber and electro-acoustic works. The two small works,_ Messagesquisse _and_ Anthemes 2_, I can enjoy and understand to some degree. But the work for three each of pianos, harps, percussionists called _Sur Incises _is too complex for me, even after a fair few listens. Boulez says in his usual circumvented way, that this work is like a labyrinth which the listener can easily get lost in. I can understand that, but it's very confusing to me. If the point of this piece is complexity in itself, or the listener kind of losing his way, I'm not sure if that's going to be very fruitful for the average listener, even a fan of new music like myself. I'll have to listen to this work again as I've been getting into harp music lately, maybe my newfound love for the sound of this instrument will deliver the goods, so to speak. Maybe I just have to accept that complexity is complexity no matter how I approach it, etc...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Yeah, & if you enjoy 4 or 5 hour long operas which I find extremely boring and irritating, good luck to you. Also, if you enjoy putting other people down - like jtech and his rubbish ilk - good luck to you as well. If you enjoy judging people because they don't enjoy what you enjoy, good for you. I could go on and on about your "nice" qualities. I actually expose my drawbacks, weaknesses. I put up discussions and this time only you have been negative. This thread has garnered some interesting discussion. I actually put an effort into stimulating debate, not strangling it, nor making boring fart jokes (even more boring to me than 5 hour Wagnerian operas). Put up or shut up?
> 
> Now I will put you on my ignore list for a good while, which is what a normal member here advised me a while back...


That's your interpretation of other people's writings, not mine. Nobody ever forced words into your mouth. Sad that you seem to take offense extremely easily. Fragility is not your best.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Andre... the answer to question, it would seem to me, is that the complexity of a work of music becomes to much if it detracts from my ability to enjoy the work. This certainly varies from individual to individual. I am willing to put forth a good degree of effort into attempting to come to terms with a work if I believe that ultimately it will result in a degree of pleasure equal or greater to the effort put forth...





> ...And is it only "complexity" that makes a body of music inaccessible or rather turns off the listener?


I agree there are other factors than complexity,it's only one slice of the pie (which can be a huge, complex pie in itself!). But as I said, I was just trying to put forth Copland's thoughts on this in that book that I'm reading as a springboard to general discussion of related matters, etc. I'm not trying to narrow down the discussion to just complexity, discussing related matters is fine by me.



> ...If I take Chinese opera for example, I suspect that it has a great many adherents for whom it brings great pleasure. The learning curve, however, for me to really come to terms with this music strikes me as far too great for me to willingly invest my time when there are so many other works of music that I am able to enjoy. Ultimately, I'm not certain that it is "complexity" alone that represents a challenge...


I agree, I think language can be a part of this, as well as cultural factors (with your example of Chinese opera). In terms of my own experience with Boulez's music above, I just have to maybe accept that some of him music will appeal and connect with me on some level, some not (as with any other composer, virtually, or with certain genres like opera in general). This is preference, but in terms of the Boulez piece _Sur Incises _it is more complex than his other works which I connect with more, eg. in terms of the instruments used - more of them, more colours, more complex counterpoint/rhythm, etc. It's more overwhelming than one of his sonatas for solo piano, that's for sure.



> ...
> Bach created a body of music that can be incredibly complex... but it is also accessible on other levels...


Interesting how he was a "composer's composer" for a long long while after his death, in the mid c19th with Mendelssohn exposing his choral works to the public, then in the early to mid c20th with Casals, Landowska & others with his solo instrumental works. Composer's composers of today, like John Cage, are in a better position than J.S. Bach was, not obscure in terms of their music being not available or physically accessible, but more in terms of just beginning to make cautious headway into the concert repertoire (I have noticed his music being performed in chamber concerts here, last year one appeared, and next year there will be a short clarinet piece which will be in a general chamber concert of others like Debussy & I think Brahms, so it's happening, Cage's music is getting out there, slowly)...



> ...In this sense he is like Dante's _Comedia_ or Shakespeare's plays which can be appreciated at one level without a great deal of background knowledge and experience, as opposed to James Joyce' _Finnegan's Wake_ which largely leaves even the most well-read individual baffled...


Yes, well the audience of Joyce I think is still the literati and people highly into literature or those studying it, in the industry, etc. As for Shakespeare he's been translated into so many languages, he's as "universal" as one can get, although I don't like the ideology of universalism by any means, but I concede Shakespeare is probably near as that we can get in some ways...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Polednice said:


> The most intriguing difference for me is that the audiences of the Classical and Romantic period did not become gradually accustomed to Mozart and Beethoven through the luxury of recordings. Repeated exposure over a long period wasn't as necessary as it is now...


I think that's a fair point. I have now listened to Schoenberg's violin concerto about 6 or 7 times over the course of now approaching 20 months / nearly 2 years. It hasn't really warmed up very much more than after first 2 or 3 listens. I know it quite well but I still find it a bit dry and lacklustre, though interesting in terms of soundscapes (the range and breadth of solo and orchestral sounds). I was wondering just now if original/early audiences had the luxury of repeated listenings like we do now in order to appreciate, or at least eventually come to appreciating, this complex work?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

...well the audience of Joyce I think is still the literati and people highly into literature or those studying it, in the industry, etc. As for Shakespeare he's been translated into so many languages, he's as "universal" as one can get, although I don't like the ideology of universalism by any means, but I concede Shakespeare is probably near as that we can get in some ways...

What I was getting at with the analogy is that neither Shakespeare nor Dante are incredibly difficult to read and appreciate for the narrative... but both also reward the repeated readings by the highly literate as more and more layers of the allusion and symbolism and poetry reveals itself like layers of an onion. In this manner I see them as analogous to Bach who surely rewards the casual listener as well as the musicologist. Approaching _Finneagan's Wake_ or the music of Boulez or Xenakis or certain other composers without a firm background, on the other hand, will likely leave one absolutely baffled.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think that's a fair point. I have now listened to Schoenberg's violin concerto about 6 or 7 times over the course of now approaching 20 months / nearly 2 years. It hasn't really warmed up very much more than after first 2 or 3 listens. I know it quite well but I still find it a bit dry and lacklustre, though interesting in terms of soundscapes (the range and breadth of solo and orchestral sounds). I was wondering just now if original/early audiences had the luxury of repeated listenings like we do now in order to appreciate, or at least eventually come to appreciating, this complex work?

HC... I'll have to get back to you concerning the Schoenberg violin concerto. I just picked up on this disc today:










While Hahn is praised for her virtuoso and lyrical interpretation of Schoenberg... and Esa-Pekka Salonen is the perfect partner for this repertoire... the music may indeed be something of a bitter tonic following the rich and gorgeous splendors of Richard Strauss' _Four Last Songs_.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> What I was getting at with the analogy is that neither Shakespeare nor Dante are incredibly difficult to read and appreciate for the narrative... but both also reward the repeated readings by the highly literate as more and more layers of the allusion and symbolism and poetry reveals itself like layers of an onion. In this manner I see them as analogous to Bach who surely rewards the casual listener as well as the musicologist. Approaching _Finneagan's Wake_ or the music of Boulez or Xenakis or certain other composers without a firm background, on the other hand, will likely leave one absolutely baffled.




Well this balance between complexity and accessibility - & complex music reaching a broad audience - if you like, is what Copland was getting at in that chapter from which he quoted from. However, I think he gave c20th examples mainly or solely (don't remember, I'll have to check, but I put up the link if you want to). It would not have been very useful for him to compare works of art that are hundreds of years apart.

I personally find Harry Partch's _Delusion of the Fury _quite emotionally engaging and kind of exciting, despite it's complexity, the Boulez piano sonatas which I like are more intellectually and technically satisfying, well crafted, etc. (that French tradition) than emotionally riveting or expressive. But it's even dicey to compare those composers, _Delusion of the Fury _is a stage work, incorporating mime, dance, acting (eg. operatic), whereas I don't think Boulez has produced anything of this sort. Another thing is that one is microtonal, the other is not (whatever it is, all three of Boulez's sonatas are quite different in terms of technique). So that talks to how even comparing complex works of similar time period is fraught with difficulty, eg. what about genre or techniques used to produce them, etc?


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I don't like very much Pierre Boulez, I quite dislike Pierre Boulez...I rather hate Pierre Boulez, he destroyed Lulu. I paid a lot for this bad Lulu version...Except a few pieces (e.g. le marteau sans maître), I consider this guy as a "touche-à-tout" who "tried" to conduct Alban Berg and Wagner as well...Everything sounds very personal...not saying weird. He's convinced, so Frenchies are that he's a genious. I don't think he is. I think he's rather a braggart. About Copland, I hears one or two things...Not bad, not very good either...

Martin


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ Well you say it like you think, which is good. I haven't heard Boulez conducting opera, it is not my main area of interest. I have him conducting other things, incl. his own music (yes,_ Le Marteau sans Maitre _is one by him I like as well, at least there's the text to hang onto), & I think he's pretty good. Pretty much the antithesis of more flamboyant conductors, he's a bit restrained, but he does justice to the music he conducts, imo. Mr. Boulez did say some things when he was younger which come across now as ideological ranting, but he's kind of admitted that he was being a bit of a bully. As for Copland, I like his music, and in terms of that book I'm reading, it has given me insight into some of the "nuts and bolts" of music in general, esp. of the c20th which is my main area of focus...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have mixed feelings concerning Boulez. I largely have little use for his own compositions (and even less for his dogmatic critical commentaries). As a conductor I found him quite good on a lot of French music as well as the Second Viennese School and other Modernist works. His _Symphony Fantastic_ is great... as are his performances of Bartok. His Ravel and Debussy may be a bit brash. I personally prefer Dutoit and Martinon... but I would guess that Boulez' goal is to stress the Modernist aspects of these composers. I can't speak of Boulez' ability with Berg's Lulu... or opera in general... as I have no operatic efforts by him. I certainly wouldn't even think of looking into his recordings of Wagner considering all the great versions already available (Solti, Bohm, Kielberth, Krauss, Knappertsbusch, etc...). Like any conductor of merit, some will love him and some will hate him.

As for Copland... seriously he is not a major composer... but he did create some lovely works... every bit as good as a great many of those second- and third-tier Russian and Viennese composers that Martin loves so much.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I have mixed feelings concerning Boulez. I largely have little use for his own compositions (and even less for his dogmatic critical commentaries). As a conductor I found him quite good on a lot of French music as well as the Second Viennese School and other Modernist works...


I agree, as I said above earlier, some of his works I like quite a bit, but as he kind of got more and more complex (eg. _Sur Incises _which I talked to earlier) he's kind of lost me. I'm not that interested in hearing _Repons_ at this stage, I doubt if I can't get my head around music coming from 9 players as in _Sur Incises_, I'd probably have heaps of trouble making any headway into a large scale/long orchestral work with electronic mixing, etc. So I'm happy to leave it at that with his music, I've got plenty to absorb and what I like does repay repeated listening.

As for his conducting, I often prefer restraint so he's alright by me, but sometimes he does kind of go overboard and comes across to me as bit kind of clinical. Mr. Boulez has kind of recanted on his rantings of the past, I think now he's more into making music than talking about it, or at least sticking to talking about his own music, which I think is more positive and wise than criticising the music of others.



> ...
> As for Copland... seriously he is not a major composer... but he did create some lovely works... every bit as good as a great many of those second- and third-tier Russian and Viennese composers that Martin loves so much.


Well, if Copland wasn't a "major composer" as you put it, who was? Copland put out a slew of works which are now firmly part of the mainstream American repertoire, THE canon, I daresay. In the area of art song, orchestral, solo piano he has works firmly in the repertoire. His later ventures into more experimental music I haven't heard, so I can't judge that. But based on knowing a good deal of his music until about the 1950's, I can make solid statements that he was a "major composer" whatever that means. So I disagree with both of you on that, but anyway.

[BTW - You're probably joking putting down Martin like that, commenting indirectly on his taste, but I think this is really not necessary].


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well, if Copland wasn't a "major composer" as you put it, who was?

If I'm speaking of a "major composer"... even of the 20th century... I would be referring to someone of the stature of Mahler, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Puccini, Richard Strauss, Bartok, and in spite of my own reservations, certainly Schoenberg, etc... figures who had a major impact upon the direction taken by music. This doesn't mean I see everyone else as "minor" or unworthy. I'm simply speaking of their clear and unquestionable historical relevance. I quite love Delius, Korngold, Sibelius, Vaughan-Williams, Szymanowsky, Joseph Marx, Copland, Barber, and a good many others... sometimes more than I admire some of the major figures. Of course my reference to Martin's beloved Russians and 2nd generations Viennese is not intended as any sort of insult, but rather simply a suggestion that to a great many Copland, Hovhaness, d'Indy, Barber, Vaughan-Williams, Delius, Poulenc, Messiaen, Frank Martin, Respighi, may be thought of as every bit the equal of Gliere, Balakirev, Kalinnikov, Balikirev, Glazunov, Lyapunov, Schreker, Korngold, Szymanowski, Zemlinski, etc...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I have mixed feelings concerning Boulez. I largely have little use for his own compositions (and even less for his dogmatic critical commentaries). As a conductor I found him quite good on a lot of French music as well as the Second Viennese School and other Modernist works. His _Symphony Fantastic_ is great... as are his performances of Bartok. His Ravel and Debussy may be a bit brash. I personally prefer Dutoit and Martinon... but I would guess that Boulez' goal is to stress the Modernist aspects of these composers. I can't speak of Boulez' ability with Berg's Lulu... or opera in general... as I have no operatic efforts by him. I certainly wouldn't even think of looking into his recordings of Wagner considering all the great versions already available (Solti, Bohm, Kielberth, Krauss, Knappertsbusch, etc...). Like any conductor of merit, some will love him and some will hate him.
> 
> As for Copland... seriously he is not a major composer... but he did create some lovely works... every bit as good as a great many of those second- and third-tier Russian and Viennese composers that Martin loves so much.


Agreeable. I think Boulez will be remembered more as a conductor than as a big gun composer of the period he belongs too. I mean, most people now think of Boulez as "whatever version" of particular old repertoire under his baton with DG. He certainly isn't the only composer around writing avant-garde music today but his edge is conducting (which is not necessarily to say he is a great conductor).

I don't think Copland is a major composer in the broad sense of the word over all periods, he might at best be a major American composer. I think you would be better qualified to assess that coming from America. How much of his music is played by top tier orchestras there?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> If I'm speaking of a "major composer"... even of the 20th century... I would be referring to someone of the stature of Mahler, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Puccini, Richard Strauss, Bartok, and in spite of my own reservations, certainly Schoenberg, etc... figures who had a major impact upon the direction taken by music. This doesn't mean I see everyone else as "minor" or unworthy... sometimes more than I admire some of the major figures...




Well you can construct your own canon, incrorporating elements of "THE" canon, but it kind of gets a bit more complex when you nut it out in detail. Eg. Puccini didn't leave any instrumental works that are as highly regarded as those of Copland (& vice versa, Copland didn't leave any opera that has entered the repertoire or "canon" as many of Puccini's have). I would'nt put Vaughan Williams, Sibelius or Messiaen alongside some of the others you list in that lower/more minor groups, as these guys did innovate to quite a high degree (if that's what our value judgement is based on, as in things entering the repertoire, being widely admired by listeners, musicians, scholars alike, etc.). I could go on dissecting this but I won't.

I think you're basically putting up your canon, which is fair enough, but I think that Copland's use of many new or newer techniques between the wars, bringing them closer into the mainstream, was a big deal in many ways, esp. for American music. Eg. the block chords and the "American" open air feel were to be replicated by others but he was really on the cutting edge with these types of things. At least you don't poo-poo him as lowbrow or cliche or populist which some uninformed idiots do.



> Of course my reference to Martin's beloved Russians and 2nd generations Viennese is not intended as any sort of insult...


Well, like all these things, when we comment on another person's taste, I think the comparison tends to be a bit spurious, not holding that much water. I try not to do this, some people do, if it's without malice it's fine. I don't do this in "real life" when talking about music, that's for sure. It just doesn't make sense if a former musician I know doesn't like Mendelssohn but likes J.S. Bach (she is was a keyboard player). I am in reverse to that, I'm not a huge fan of Bach & I prefer Mendelssohn by far. So we talk about what's relevant & at hand, not focussing on these differences (we have a lot of other things in common). She doesn't throw things in my face like "Mendelssohn is just as inferior to Bach as Dvorak is." I think it's of limited utility or value, etc...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> Well you can construct your own canon, incrorporating elements of "THE" canon, but it kind of gets a bit more complex when you nut it out in detail. Eg. Puccini didn't leave any instrumental works that are as highly regarded as those of Copland (& vice versa, Copland didn't leave any opera that has entered the repertoire or "canon" as many of Puccini's have). I would'nt put Vaughan Williams or Messiaen alongside some of the others you list in that lower/minor group, as these guys did innovate to quite a high degree (if that's what our value judgement is based on, as in things entering the repertoire, being widely admired by listeners, musicians, scholars alike, etc.). I could go on dissecting this but I won't.
> 
> I think you're basically putting up your canon, which is fair enough, but I think that Copland's use of many new or newer techniques between the wars, bringing them closer into the mainstream, was a big deal in many ways, esp. for American music. Eg. the block chords and the "American" open air feel were to be replicated by others but he was really on the cutting edge with these types of things. At least you don't poo-poo him as lowbrow or cliche or populist which some uninformed idiots do.


Stlukesguild isn't constructing any canon. He pointed out the criteria of influence, and coined those who excel in that criteria as "major composers". It was a fairly accurate estimate of why the cows are the cows, and he even gave the disclaimer that he personally felt that some minor composers were better.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ Well, I think that was a construction of a canon, HIS canon. Some of it corresponds with more objective or baseline/consensus views, others would not. Eg. I'd say that Messiaen, Vaughan Willams, Balakirev and probably Glazunov as well (as well as some of the others in his lower/second tier list, but that may be pushing it) were major composers of their time/generation. This just shows the iffy nature of presenting something as fact and ranking things that in some ways have things in common, in other ways not much.

None of the musicians, former musicians or music lovers who I personally know do this kind of ranking. Ordinary people are not obsessed about this kind of thing. It's only on these forums, not so much here on TC but elsewhere where I've been (& thank God) left, is this a major past-time. Oh, and also comparing a dozen or two Beethoven, Mahler, Shostakovich cycles or whatever. Then dissing certain conductors for not getting some symphony "right" although often the "critic" doesn't give any solid reasons, it seems to be based on just "I don't like it, so it's mediocre" & that's that. Basically, often what happens on these online forums strikes me as rather odd and maybe even trivial/pedantic compared to conversations, etc. with "real" people on the ground who are into classical music that I know. This is not reflecting on this thread but just a general observation...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> Stlukesguild isn't constructing any canon. He pointed out the criteria of influence, and coined those who excel in that criteria as "major composers". It was a fairly accurate estimate of why the cows are the cows, and he even gave the disclaimer that he personally felt that some minor composers were better.


"major" and "minor" are to at least some extent subjective designations. _Stlukesguild_'s estimates are as good as any, better than some. Copland was a major _American_ composer in my estimation, based on popularity and esteem. He made intelligent, inventive use of the American equivalent of folk music (much of which has always been by known authors), jazz and jazzlike elements, paid attention to the 'modern' music of his time. He did those things while retaining the 'tool usage' of Western Classical Music.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "major" and "minor" are to at least some extent subjective designations. _Stlukesguild_'s estimates are as good as any, better than some. Copland was a major _American_ composer in my estimation, based on popularity and esteem. He made intelligent, inventive use of the American equivalent of folk music (much of which has always been by known authors), jazz and jazzlike elements, paid attention to the 'modern' music of his time. He did those things while retaining the 'tool usage' of Western Classical Music.


Which is why he coined them "major composers". Notice the quotation marks, and that what he was actually expressing was the relationship between influence and affluence. His estimates weren't subjective, because the 20th century composers he mentioned are heavily influential. For example, our modern idea of serialism is much indebted to Schoenberg, and Schoenberg had dozens of famous composers that learned from him and followed in his wake. For another example, Prokofeiv's compositions have a great deal to do with the neoclassical works we hear today.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Which is why he coined them "major composers". Notice the quotation marks, and that what he was actually expressing was the relationship between influence and affluence. His estimates weren't subjective, because the 20th century composers he mentioned are heavily influential. For example, our modern idea of serialism is much indebted to Schoenberg, and Schoenberg had dozens of famous composers that learned from him and followed in his wake. For another example, Prokofeiv's compositions have a great deal to do with the neoclassical works we hear today.


Well, I hate to rake over old coals, but this statement is what I was reacting to initially -



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> As for Copland... seriously he is not a major composer... but he did create some lovely works... every bit as good as a great many of those second- and third-tier Russian and Viennese composers that Martin loves so much.


Then you guys trundle out your usual comparisons, constructing your own canons, and referring to the elements of "the" canon which suits your argument.

Anyway, in my initial reply, I argued Copland's case with reference to HIS music, HIS legacy, not that of others. It seems that if one cannot or doesn't want to engage with the matter at hand - eg. a certain composer's legacy, importance, place in the repertoire or whatever - one just brings up comparisons, plenty of them, some relevant and some not, but many of dubious worth, imo.

As I said, the "real" people I know in conversations about music don't do this. If the issue is about the merits of Copland, the focus of the conversation will tend to be Copland. Here, people often trundle out their "rankings" which I find unneccessary. Just as commenting on some other member's taste or preference, etc. This is the reason why I largely avoid the "top 100 symphonies" threads and stuff like that. It's largely of no interest to me, doing these rankings, which mean like zero to many listeners. I've just started getting into guitar & also harp musics, and just listen to a broad variety of it. I don't know if it's necessary to worry about whether Castelnuovo-Tedesco is "greater" than Rodrigo or Villa-Lobos in their guitar compositions, etc...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Copland isn't terribly influential. I had never even heard of him publishing any literature, before you mentioned it.

Villa-Lobos is much more influential than Tedesco or Rodrigo, because the Chorro form and Brazilian art music wouldn't be what it is today if not for him.

So, I don't see why this is hard to understand for you. Stlukesguild was not proposing a canon, regardless of whether or not he has one.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Copland isn't terribly influential. I had never even heard of him publishing any literature, before you mentioned it.
> 
> Villa-Lobos is much more influential than Tedesco or Rodrigo, because the Chorro form and Brazilian art music wouldn't be what it is today if not for him.
> 
> So, I don't see why this is hard to understand for you. Stlukesguild was not proposing a canon, regardless of whether or not he has one.


Hmm, Copland wrote quite a few books. He was very influential in providing America with a true voice of its own and also being one of the first composers to incorporate authentic North American styles (Jazz, Mexican music, folk music of the pioneers) into classical forms. He basically invented the "western" style.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Copland isn't terribly influential. I had never even heard of him publishing any literature, before you mentioned it...


I have argued his case, I'll go no further. His writing on music is known to classical music lovers, at least on this forum, which is where I heard about it (saw that book at a bookshop and bought it with that info in mind).



> ...
> Villa-Lobos is much more influential than Tedesco or Rodrigo, because the Chorro form and Brazilian art music wouldn't be what it is today if not for him...


Well, all I'll say is that ALL THREE of these composer's music is coming up here in a guitar concert I'm going to soon, that's kind of the reason why I've been listening to their music. Your priority may be influence, but as far as getting into the guitar area, I want to hear a wide variety of things, influence or innovation or whatever is just one important factor of several. In fact, I like all of their music pretty much equally. I had previously dismissed Rodrigo as conservative, which may be true, but now I'm just enjoying his music for what it is - music, not ideology, not rankings, not canons, constructed or real.



> ...
> So, I don't see why this is hard to understand for you. Stlukesguild was not proposing a canon, regardless of whether or not he has one.


It's okay to propose a canon, but I don't really know how that talks to Copland's or anyone else's place in music of their time, their significance, impact, innovations, context, influence, whatever. It's just saying something like "this is what I value, this is what I don't value, this is what I somewhat value" etc. I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about Copland. But it seems that this kind of focus on one thing at a time, making it more relevant, etc. is too simple for some people here, whatever...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The Verdict From On High: In this instance_ Luke_ is FOS.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> Well, all I'll say is that ALL THREE of these composer's music is coming up here in a guitar concert I'm going to soon, that's kind of the reason why I've been listening to their music. Your priority may be influence, but as far as getting into the guitar area, I want to hear a wide variety of things, influence or innovation or whatever is just one important factor of several. In fact, I like all of their music pretty much equally. I had previously dismissed Rodrigo as conservative, which may be true, but now I'm just enjoying his music for what it is - music, not ideology, not rankings, not canons, constructed or real.


I forwarded no priority. I forwarded a distinction, in line with the distinction stlukesguild made. Not to sound like a jerk, but you seem to be tripping up a bit here, when it comes to reading comprehension.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> I forwarded no priority. I forwarded a distinction, in line with the distinction stlukesguild made. Not to sound like a jerk, but you seem to be tripping up a bit here, when it comes to reading comprehension.


Well fair enough, but I just have to underline my point that if arguing the merits of a composer, it's not necessary to complicate things too much. Ranking doesn't necessarily have to come into it. My bias here is that I find such things a bit boring, and I'm not happy with the vibe of some people here to throw things in my (or eachother's) face based on their canons (eg. you don't like such and such, so your opinions on classical are of little/no worth, you don't know what "real" classical music is, etc.)...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Andre... the "canon" is what it is regardless of our individual preferences. It is comprised of the "greatest" as opposed to the "best" in the sense that it is made up of those artists who have had the largest impact upon the narrative of art as we know it. I'll speak here specifically of my own field of expertise and note that within the narrative of art history, it most certainly is well understood that certain artists, among them Michelangelo, Giotto, Leonardo, Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Rubens, Vermeer, Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso, etc... are towering figures. They could not be removed from the historical narrative of art as we now know it without immense consequences. Having said this much, we might notice that if we were living 100 or 120 years ago, Vermeer (as well as Monet and Picasso) would not have been part of the "canon" because his role within the narrative of art history was at that time, tiny at best. Neither should we imagine this narrative as some guide to what we should enjoy the most or think is the best.

When I taught art history courses, I repeatedly had students ask why this or that artist was largely ignored in the history books. I always told them this has nothing whatsoever to do with which artists anyone as an individual prefers... and it is debatable whether the narrative of art history (and as such, the "canon") defines who is "better" or "worse". Picasso is undeniably the "greatest" artist of the 20th century. The whole of Modernism virtually revolves around his innovations. I fully acknowledge this in spite of the fact that I far prefer Bonnard and Matisse among other artists and feel that both of them are far better painters. Duchamp has over the last 30 or 40 years become the second most influential figure of Modernism, as a result of his impact upon subsequent developments in conceptual art, the use of found objects, etc... Seriously, there is hardly a single artist who looks at Duchamp's oeuvre and imagines it as rivaling that of Beckmann, Klee, Kandinsky, or Matisse... let alone Picasso. But he currently has far more influence than any of those artists and as such stands as a central figure in the present narrative of art history. In a sense he's somewhat equivalent to John Cage as an artist... his influence and reputation currently far outstripping his actual body of work.

I agree that playing the "better/best" game is boring... and has little to do with real critical discussion of art. If you were to ask me to name my ten favorite painters of the 20th century, I might think for a bit... but not once would I be weighing reputations or influence or whether they are better or worse than another. 

1. Bonnard
2. Beckmann
3. Klee
4. Modigliani
5. Degas (died 1917)
6. Monet (died 1926)
7. Edvard Munch
8. Matisse
9. Balthus
10. George Tooker/Diego Rivera

Picasso is clearly "greater" than anyone on that list... but he doesn't speak to me with the same immediacy.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ I started out challenging what you said about Copland not being a great composer or whatever. Then you posted your canon as a reply but it doesn't really address what I was saying/asking re your assertions about him.

Somehow, we always wind up with "the" canon, confusing it with various individual canons (that we all construct), then the boring objective versus subjective "debate." I made a thread about this topic, called http://www.talkclassical.com/15439-canon-your-canon.html.

I admit that I myself have gone off topic on this thread, which isn't really about various canons but about complexity in relation to music & appreciation, accessiblity, effectiveness of music for an audience or individual listeners, etc.

In any case, I will return sometime soon and put some more interesting quotes from Copland's book, which I hope will stimulate more discussions...


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Well, if Copland wasn't a "major composer" as you put it, who was?
> 
> If I'm speaking of a "major composer"... even of the 20th century... I would be referring to someone of the stature of Mahler, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Puccini, Richard Strauss, Bartok, and in spite of my own reservations, certainly Schoenberg, etc... figures who had a major impact upon the direction taken by music. This doesn't mean I see everyone else as "minor" or unworthy. I'm simply speaking of their clear and unquestionable historical relevance. I quite love Delius, Korngold, Sibelius, Vaughan-Williams, Szymanowsky, Joseph Marx, Copland, Barber, and a good many others... sometimes more than I admire some of the major figures. Of course my reference to Martin's beloved Russians and 2nd generations Viennese is not intended as any sort of insult, but rather simply a suggestion that to a great many Copland, Hovhaness, d'Indy, Barber, Vaughan-Williams, Delius, Poulenc, Messiaen, Frank Martin, Respighi, may be thought of as every bit the equal of Gliere, Balakirev, Kalinnikov, Balikirev, Glazunov, Lyapunov, Schreker, Korngold, Szymanowski, Zemlinski, etc...


I think our society is very demanding and OFTEN we associate a great composer to somebody who brought something NEW or is VERY PERSONAL (i.e. you can identify the composer even if the work is new for you because of his/her "typical" style, like a "coup de pinceau"). Indeed, Stravinsky (The rite of spring), Bartok, Schönberg, Bach, Prokofiev, Shostakovich and many others had a very personal style that you cannot mix with others. This "personal touch" makes a composer different and, if you want to say it that way, GREAT. Saint-Saëns is a nice composer, not great though. Debussy was great, unique! Copland is not that personal in my humble opinion. Even if I don't "love" Boulez, I have to recognize he's personal...even conducting, his ring is just weird...LOL

Martin, to be followed


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I think our society is very demanding and OFTEN we associate a great composer to somebody who brought something NEW or is VERY PERSONAL (i.e. you can identify the composer even if the work is new for you because of his/her "typical" style, like a "coup de pinceau"). Indeed, Stravinsky (The rite of spring), Bartok, Schönberg, Bach, Prokofiev, Shostakovich and many others had a very personal style that you cannot mix with others. This "personal touch" makes a composer different and, if you want to say it that way, GREAT. Saint-Saëns is a nice composer, not great though. Debussy was great, unique! Copland is not that personal in my humble opinion. Even if I don't "love" Boulez, I have to recognize he's personal...even conducting, his ring is just weird...LOL
> 
> Martin, to be followed


I think Boulez's Ring is alright. But many thought he didn;t really understand it or ought to have. There is this interesting quote about him.

"The worst row in Bayreuth's history broke out over this issue [the conductor not understanding the score] when Boulez conducted a new production of the Ring in 1976. In the opinion of most of the musicians, Boulez had neither mastered the score nor had any feeling for it. His interpretation, which among other things was deemed to have suppressed the leitmotifs, incited an open revolt by nearly three-quarters of the orchestra. The players even disavowed him publicly by refusing to appear with him on stage at the conclusion of the premiere performance." - Frederic Spotts, "Bayreuth: A History of the Wagner Festival," 1994, pg. 21


----------

