# Alma Deutscher deserves more love!



## GrosseFugue

I don't understand the Classical Music world's snubbing of Alma Deutscher, the child prodigy composer. Because she uses sonata form? Is melodious? Harmonious? Doesn't hit the ear with jagged, ugly dissonance?

She's stlll very young and still learning, growing. I can't wait to see what symphonies she'll produce.

As this article put it so well, it appears the lack of acceptance is due to the fact she produces "beautiful music" -- what irony! https://newcriterion.com/issues/2020/2/music-to-our-ears

_*"...she exists in some sense on a musical island as the waves of pop triviality and of modernist sound-without-harmonic-and-thematic-structure lap the shore."*_

I've heard her improvise and listened to her piano concerto and Siren Sounds Waltz (great fun!). Will her concerto beat out Beethoven's Emperor? No. But it's still remarkable. 




What stood out in particular was the slow mvt (17 mins in). Had an almost Rachmaninoff-tinged melancholy. Look, I'm no music theorist, but this was written when she was between 9 and 12. And performed when she was 12. One is tempted to believe in Angels...

Here's a passage from Wikipedia that gives her aesthetic in a nutshell:

*She explained that some people have told her that she should not compose beautiful melodies in the twenty-first century, because music must reflect the complexity and ugliness of the modern world. "But I think that these people just got a little bit confused. If the world is so ugly, then what's the point of making it even uglier with ugly music?"*


----------



## Forster

Deutscher must write what she wants, and get the love from those who want to hear what she writes. She's not going to get the love from those who don't want to hear it.


----------



## 59540

> As this article put it so well, it appears the lack of acceptance is due to the fact she produces "beautiful music" -- what irony! https://newcriterion.com/issues/2020...ic-to-our-ears


I think that demonstrates why music became ugly, jagged and dissonant in the first place. Her music is, let's face it, derivative. It's trying to wring every last possible drop out of common practice.


----------



## Phil loves classical

How about more love for some of those composers who produce that 'ugly' music?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

She is young. Good with instruments and basic music theory, but I think we should wait 10 or 15 years or even more before we really know what she is capable of.


----------



## mikeh375

uh oh......


----------



## mbhaub

She's an anachronism. I can't make sense of her - where did she learn to write music so fluently? Derivative or not, she would have had to listen to and know a heck of a lot of music to derive from. Her music has a prettiness that fits well with the general public's exposure to classical music: Andre Rieu, Bocelli, even Yanni. But in the long run it's going to sound really kitschy there's no edge. Every year the Tucson Symphony sponsors a young-persons composition festival and I've heard works by kids her age that are far more advanced and interesting. But still, I couldn't write as well as she does.


----------



## jojoju2000

She has talent no doubt. 

Once she matures however; she should enter a rigorous Conservatory where they can point her in the right direction.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^yep..been saying that for a while.


----------



## amfortas

Perhaps she doesn't need more love *or* hate from the world at large; either of those can be problematic for adults, let alone someone so young. The more important thing would be continuing love and support from family, friends, and teachers. The rest will come over time.


----------



## jojoju2000

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^yep..been saying that for a while.


And because her parents SEEM to have financial resources; she can go anywhere she wants. Julliard, Royal Conservatory in the UK; anywhere she wants.


----------



## 59540

mbhaub said:


> She's an anachronism. I can't make sense of her - where did she learn to write music so fluently? Derivative or not, she would have had to listen to and know a heck of a lot of music to derive from. Her music has a prettiness that fits well with the general public's exposure to classical music: Andre Rieu, Bocelli, even Yanni. But in the long run it's going to sound really kitschy there's no edge. Every year the Tucson Symphony sponsors a young-persons composition festival and I've heard works by kids her age that are far more advanced and interesting. But still, I couldn't write as well as she does.


Yes she's talented, but it sounds to me like a pastiche with a little Mozart here, Mendelssohn or Schumann there. I just don't find it that interesting to listen to. I feel the same way about a lot of early Mozart too, for that matter.


----------



## Bwv 1080

mbhaub said:


> where did she learn to write music so fluently?


Robert Gjerdingen

"By the time Alma was 4, I had taught her all I could about music. We were living in Oxford then so I talked to some music teachers there and suggested that they teach her theory. They laughed and told me to come back in 10 years.

"Then I found a book by Robert Gjerdingen about the Naples conservatory in the 18th and early 19th centuries and its method to teach the youngest students the principles of music - not as theory but through active experience. I knew this was the right way for Alma.

"Since Alma was 5, Gjerdingen has been monitoring her development from afar. Every few months he sends her exercises and we send him some of the pieces she's writing. He returns them with comments, which she doesn't always accept. We've never met him in person."
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/culture/.premium-how-to-teach-a-prodigy-music-1.5375678


----------



## Flamme

Sending love to child prodigy alma deutch!!!


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

GrosseFugue said:


> She explained that some people have told her that she should not compose beautiful melodies in the twenty-first century[/B]


who are these people? Who would be against beautiful melodies?


----------



## Neo Romanza

For me, she's in same category as Jay Greenberg (who is currently filed under “where are they now?”). Being a child prodigy doesn’t mean anything unless that talent has had the time to be cultivated, shaped and matured. In 10-15 years, we’ll see how well she develops. Quite frankly, if she continues in the same direction, she’ll be kitsch and I despise kitschy composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

GrosseFugue said:


> *She explained that some people have told her that she should not compose beautiful melodies in the twenty-first century, because music must reflect the complexity and ugliness of the modern world. "But I think that these people just got a little bit confused. If the world is so ugly, then what's the point of making it even uglier with ugly music?"*


*

Looking at your username and avatar, it's a bit ironic you post this*


----------



## mbhaub

Neo Romanza said:


> For me, she's in same category as Jay Greenberg (who is currently filed under "where are they now?"). Being a child prodigy doesn't mean anything unless that talent has had the time to be cultivated, shaped and matured. In 10-15 years, we'll see how well she develops. Quite frankly, if she continues in the same direction, she'll be kitsch and I despise kitschy composers.


A flash in the pan? It was pretty impressive for a 15 kid to have the London Symphony with Serebrier record his symphony - the Fifth no less. I suppose he finished his DMus but seems to have disappeared. Happens a lot.


----------



## Bulldog

So far, Alma has been a "throw-back" with melodies less memorable and beautiful than the composers she tries to emulate. Obviously, she's loaded with talent, but her decision making has been suspect. However, being so young gives her ample opportunity to improve.


----------



## science

She's fifteen. She needs to be left alone and allowed to grow up a little, not turned into the site of an ideological battle that last had importance about forty years before she was born.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

science said:


> She's fifteen. She needs to be left alone and allowed to grow up a little, not turned into the site of an ideological battle that last had importance about forty years before she was born.


You're very right. But that also applies to whoever champions her because she writes _pretty_ and common practice music


----------



## Neo Romanza

mbhaub said:


> A flash in the pan? It was pretty impressive for a 15 kid to have the London Symphony with Serebrier record his symphony - the Fifth no less. I suppose he finished his DMus but seems to have disappeared. Happens a lot.


Well, he was a part of a media hype machine much the same way this Deutscher kid has been. She'll be forgotten much like Greenberg has been forgotten.


----------



## science

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> You're very right. But that also applies to whoever champions her because she writes _pretty_ and common practice music


Who did you think I had in mind?

I hate words.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

science said:


> Who did you think I had in mind?
> 
> I hate words.


Maybe I should have said "and" instead of "but". I wanted to add something to what you said.

I hate words too.


----------



## amfortas

science said:


> I hate words.





allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> I hate words too.


Rosencrantz: What are you playing at?

Guildenstern: Words, words. They're all we have to go on.

--Tom Stoppard, _Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead_


----------



## 59540

Neo Romanza said:


> Well, he was a part of a media hype machine much the same way this Deutscher kid has been. She'll be forgotten much like Greenberg has been forgotten.


That's pretty harsh and unfair. Maybe both of these are composing or will eventually compose masterpieces. This is probably the same kind of thing Mozart faced in his adult years after the child-prodigy fame wore away.


----------



## Neo Romanza

dissident said:


> That's pretty harsh and unfair. Maybe both of these are composing or will eventually compose masterpieces. This is probably the same kind of thing Mozart faced in his adult years after the child-prodigy fame wore away.


While it's true that we can't see into the unforeseeable future, I was going merely on hunch rather than any actual factual information. This assertion shouldn't be taken to heart.


----------



## Sid James

science said:


> She's fifteen. She needs to be left alone and allowed to grow up a little, not turned into the site of an ideological battle that last had importance about forty years before she was born.


There's much truth to this. As regards to this forum, I see her as being a hate figure like John Cage, albeit from those at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. Perhaps it is more polarising figures like this who bring up our fears and insecurities about the _anything goes_ ethos of postmodernism? Not only in terms of their music, but their views about it.


----------



## Portamento

science said:


> She's fifteen. She needs to be left alone and allowed to grow up a little, not turned into the site of an ideological battle that last had importance about forty years before she was born.


Well said. Can we close this thread now?


----------



## Bwv 1080

If you listen to her teacher Robert Gjerdingen, he would say his methods were the same as the 19th century French conservatories up through Nadia Boulanger - and those students did not grow up to write pastiche, so she has a good chance of growing into a good composer

Anyone know what Korngold’s (another prodigy) juvenalia sounded like?


----------



## Neo Romanza

Bwv 1080 said:


> Anyone know what Korngold's (another prodigy) juvenalia sounded like?


Heavily influenced by Richard Strauss, but he soon found his own way.


----------



## Haydn70

Not to go off-topic, but Jay Greenberg was mentioned and referred to as "forgotten". Jay is now Naomi Weinroth. Here is the link to her page on _Making Waves_ an Australian new music site: https://makingwavesnewmusic.com/special-editions/new-zealand-composers/naomi-weinroth/ It looks like the latest stuff on that page and her Soundcloud site is from 2018.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Haydn70 said:


> Not to go off-topic, but Jay Greenberg was mentioned and referred to as "forgotten". Jay is now Naomi Weinroth. Here is the link to her page on _Making Waves_ an Australian new music site: https://makingwavesnewmusic.com/special-editions/new-zealand-composers/naomi-weinroth/ It looks like the latest stuff on that page and her Soundcloud site is from 2018.


No wonder he's been forgotten...lol.  Oh gawd...help us all!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Portamento said:


> Well said. Can we close this thread now?


Why? Is this too inconvenient a subject for you?


----------



## Portamento

hammeredklavier said:


> Why? Is this too inconvenient a subject for you?


Everything useful and non-polemic to be said on this subject has already been said.


----------



## Simon Moon

There are plenty of late 20th century, and 21st century composers that are tonal, create 'beautiful melodies', without sounding as if they are from 130 years ago. Arvo Part and John Tavener are 2 that immediately come to mind, but there are plenty more.

There are other choices when it comes to composition, other than: it should sound like it is over 100 years old, or it will be atonal, dissonant. That is the problem with that article, and it is also a problem some people here have, by painting the entirety of late 20th century and 21st century music with the same broad brush, which is; all of late 20th and 21st century classical music must be as extreme as the few most extreme examples. 

'Beauty' can be done, yet still sound modern and fresh. 

But, even with the music that so many here refer to as 'ugly', many others of us do not. Sometimes beauty can be found in art that is not obviously, immediately recognized as beautiful (endless canvases of the sun breaking through clouds, French or Dutch pastures, portraits of noble people, etc, etc, no matter how incredible the technique is, can begin to seem trite). 

Sometimes beauty can be inferred, without the need for constant consonance and harmony. Sometimes, in art, beauty may not even be the goal, and conveying other aspects of the human condition has more integrity. After all, Picasso's painting, "Guernica" is considered almost universally as a masterpiece of art, yet is not exactly beautiful.

My complaint with Alma is not that she chooses to compose tonal music. It is that she chooses to make it sound like pastiche (whether she is conscious of it or not). She is young, though, and hopefully, if she continues to compose tonal music, she will do something with it in her own voice, not the voices of 19th century composers.


----------



## Bulldog

Portamento said:


> Well said. Can we close this thread now?


Good Idea........................


----------



## fbjim

Bwv 1080 said:


> If you listen to her teacher Robert Gjerdingen, he would say his methods were the same as the 19th century French conservatories up through Nadia Boulanger - and those students did not grow up to write pastiche, so she has a good chance of growing into a good composer
> 
> Anyone know what Korngold's (another prodigy) juvenalia sounded like?


Well I don't think Die Tote Stadt sounds like Alma D....

Actually Alma should do a throwback German expressionist opera for funsies.


----------



## ORigel

hammeredklavier said:


> Looking at your username and avatar, it's a bit ironic you post this


The central "slow movement" of the Grosse Fuge is beautiful. As is the ending.


----------



## ORigel

I've listened to her violin concerto. She will have to get better than that (and less derivative) to maintain fame past her child prodigy phase. Hopefully she becomes a great neo-Romantic composer in a few decades.


----------



## Forster

science said:


> She's fifteen. She needs to be left alone and allowed to grow up a little, not turned into the site of an ideological battle that last had importance about forty years before she was born.


Except that the claims that are made about her being a prodigy demand examination now...

...or at least, that's what those making the demands want. I've seen a documentary about her and get the sense that her parents are not averse to the publicity about Alma's 'genius'.


----------



## science

Forster said:


> Except that the claims that are made about her being a prodigy demand examination now...
> 
> ...or at least, that's what those making the demands want. I've seen a documentary about her and get the sense that her parents are not averse to the publicity about Alma's 'genius'.


So they've found a meal ticket, but I don't have to go along with it.


----------



## Forster

science said:


> So they've found a meal ticket, but I don't have to go along with it.


Indeed you don't. But should the rest of us? I mean, should the claims be ignored? Debunked? Confirmed?


----------



## science

Forster said:


> Indeed you don't. But should the rest of us? I mean, should the claims be ignored? Debunked? Confirmed?


I don't feel any imperative to respond to the claims. I just hope she'll manage to survive the attention without having her emotional and intellectual growth too hindered. But if people want to sacrifice her on the altar of their ideology, I can't stop them.


----------



## Flamme

Dont close the thread...Alma deserves more!!!


----------



## amfortas

fbjim said:


> Actually Alma should do a throwback German expressionist opera for funsies.


If Alma Deutscher wrote her own version of _Wozzeck_, I might have to start worrying about her.


----------



## Sid James

Flamme said:


> Dont close the thread...Alma deserves more!!!


I'm not a fan, but I think she does deserve more love from those who are. It's unfortunate how we tend to define ourselves by what we hate. It's become such a pervasive feature of our culture, and online discussion/social media in particular.

While I don't think that this thread should be locked, there is also the option for members to discuss Alma's music on her guestbook page: Alma Deutscher


----------



## hammeredklavier

Flamme said:


> Dont close the thread...Alma deserves more!!!


Agreed. It's only the haters who think otherwise.


----------



## Luchesi

Bulldog said:


> So far, Alma has been a "throw-back" with melodies less memorable and beautiful than the composers she tries to emulate. Obviously, she's loaded with talent, but her decision making has been suspect. However, being so young gives her ample opportunity to improve.


Yes, audiences find the compositions attractive, easy listening. They're getting clear and clever things from the soundscapes of Haydn, Mozart and Mendelssohn. Of course, maybe she's discovered their 'logic' wholly on her own, but I suspect she has been a quick study since her early exposure to them.


----------



## Forster

Sid James said:


> I'm not a fan, but I think she does deserve more love from those who are.


Eh? Why does she deserve _more _love from her fans?


----------



## GrosseFugue

Simon Moon said:


> There are plenty of late 20th century, and 21st century composers that are tonal, create 'beautiful melodies', without sounding as if they are from 130 years ago. Arvo Part and John Tavener are 2 that immediately come to mind, but there are plenty more.
> 
> There are other choices when it comes to composition, other than: it should sound like it is over 100 years old, or it will be atonal, dissonant. That is the problem with that article, and it is also a problem some people here have, by painting the entirety of late 20th century and 21st century music with the same broad brush, which is; all of late 20th and 21st century classical music must be as extreme as the few most extreme examples.
> 
> 'Beauty' can be done, yet still sound modern and fresh.
> 
> But, even with the music that so many here refer to as 'ugly', many others of us do not. Sometimes beauty can be found in art that is not obviously, immediately recognized as beautiful (endless canvases of the sun breaking through clouds, French or Dutch pastures, portraits of noble people, etc, etc, no matter how incredible the technique is, can begin to seem trite).
> 
> Sometimes beauty can be inferred, without the need for constant consonance and harmony. Sometimes, in art, beauty may not even be the goal, and conveying other aspects of the human condition has more integrity. After all, Picasso's painting, "Guernica" is considered almost universally as a masterpiece of art, yet is not exactly beautiful.
> 
> My complaint with Alma is not that she chooses to compose tonal music. It is that she chooses to make it sound like pastiche (whether she is conscious of it or not). She is young, though, and hopefully, if she continues to compose tonal music, she will do something with it in her own voice, not the voices of 19th century composers.


I understand what you're saying. Yes, there is the danger of being kitschy or pastiche-y. To use your Art analogy -- do we want to see someone paint exactly like Rembrandt? And yet...consider that most modern art (and music) is an ephemeral affair. MOMA holds many "daring" and "cutting edge" artwork but the artists seldom garner many fans. But if you have a Van Gogh exhibit suddenly people are waiting in line. Similarly, you can schedule Xenakis or Steve Reich or Hildur Guðnadóttir and people don't exactly come running. No, they need their Beethoven or Mozart or Tchaikovsky.

I have heard some Part and do enjoy a few of his works. I'm less familiar with Tavener, however I have dipped my toes. But they both tend toward minimalism, which is not my Desert Island choice. (If there are works of theirs you think are particularly rich then please do recommend them to me!)

I think Alma reminds some people of why they fell in love with Classical Music in the first place: beautiful melody, rich themes, harmony. I'm sure the discerning listeners can tell there's an element of pastiche to her work, but they can forgive that because she's very young. What they see is her POTENTIAL and let's face it: it is huge. She's like the antidote, in their eyes, to all the modern music and art they find inaccessible (and maddening).

Yes, I'm sure there is still beautiful art and music being created. But it seems to be struggling against an institutional disdain which the article pointed out. It's a similar situation in literature, where unabashed sentiment is frowned upon and anything "easy to read" is deemed idiotic. Yet the irony is that millions have bought Where The Crawdads Sing for its emotional heft (melody) and sense of story (tonal language) while a book like Infinite Jest (the equivalent of Ligeti???) remains perhaps respected but gathering dust.

PS: Perhaps a better analogy would be if a young child wrote a book in cantos style in terza remi rhyme scheme (a'la Dante) or showed total command of iambic pentameter. It'd be an anachronism. On the other hand, it'd be pretty cool too. And who's to say what the child would be capable of doing next? 

PPS: Actually, I don't know if the above analogy is better! Musical "anachronisms" are the stuff we find the most accessible whereas we probably don't automatically reach for Beowulf to read at night. Lol.


----------



## Sid James

Forster said:


> Eh? Why does she deserve more love from her fans?


I meant that its better to be positive rather than negative. I hoped I was clear, given the context of what I said there, and in my previous post:



Sid James said:


> There's much truth to this. As regards to this forum, I see her as being a hate figure like John Cage, albeit from those at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. Perhaps it is more polarising figures like this who bring up our fears and insecurities about the _anything goes_ ethos of postmodernism? Not only in terms of their music, but their views about it.


On this forum, there's been a number of composers who attract a kind of hate subculture. That is, members united by what they hate. Deutscher seems to be one such composer, and another has definitely been Cage. Its obvious that many who hate one love the other, and vice-versa.

I don't want to go on about this. I hope my explanation has been helpful to you.


----------



## arpeggio

^^^^
Since you bring up Cage:

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones." Cage. :devil:


----------



## ORigel

GrosseFugue said:


> I have heard some Part and do enjoy a few of his works. I'm less familiar with Tavener, however I have dipped my toes. But they both tend toward minimalism, which is not my Desert Island choice. (If there are works of theirs you think are particularly rich then please do recommend them to me!)


Part Symphony no. 3. It was composed a few years before Part became a holy minimalist.


----------



## BachIsBest

My chief problem with Ms Deutscher is not that she sounds like the romantics (I don't get the modern disgust with pastiche), but that the great romantics were, in virtually every aspect of composition, a decent bit better than her. Why would I listen to her, when Brahms, Strauss, and Schubert are available? I would actually have no issue with someone writing music in the style of the 19th century; it just better stand up to the best the 19th century has to offer, and in this case, the test is failed.


----------



## amfortas

BachIsBest said:


> My chief problem with Ms Deutscher is not that she sounds like the romantics (I don't get the modern disgust with pastiche), but that the great romantics were, in virtually every aspect of composition, a decent bit better than her. Why would I listen to her, when Brahms, Strauss, and Schubert are available? I would actually have no issue with someone writing music in the style of the 19th century; it just better stand up to the best the 19th century has to offer, and in this case, the test is failed.


I thought the real interest in Deutscher lies in what she may become, not what she's achieved so far.


----------



## Luchesi

BachIsBest said:


> My chief problem with Ms Deutscher is not that she sounds like the romantics (I don't get the modern disgust with pastiche), but that the great romantics were, in virtually every aspect of composition, a decent bit better than her. Why would I listen to her, when Brahms, Strauss, and Schubert are available? I would actually have no issue with someone writing music in the style of the 19th century; it just better stand up to the best the 19th century has to offer, and in this case, the test is failed.


Yes, that's the bottom line isn't it.

Here's some minimalism. Would you rather listen to this or the young girl? They both have uninteresting figurations, repetition, and very predictble ideas.

I've had a thought that the top-selling pop music of today has devolved into a sickening minimalistic parody of all the bad stuff from the time of disco. That might be too harsh, because we have to remember that many many people have inexperienced ears for music.. And it's not just their fault alone... but if you're going to sell it they have to be able to hear something 'attractive'.


----------



## fbjim

I wasn't aware people with "inexperienced ears" listened to west-coast US minimalist composers.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> I wasn't aware people with "inexperienced ears" listened to west-coast US minimalist composers.


Is that what you think I wrote? Or is that a phrase used to describe people who compose solely by computer?

"THESE DAYS, anyone with a computer can be a composer. Sort of. Give a piece of commercial software such as Magenta, developed by Google, the first few notes of a song, and it will make something merrily tuneful out of them. Tuneful, but not sophisticated. At least, that is the view of Gerhard Widmer of Johannes Kepler University, in Linz, Austria.In Dr Widmer's opinion, "what they create may contain certain statistical properties. It's not dissonant, but it's not actually music...It would create a piece that would last three days because it has no notion of what it wants to do. It doesn't know that things need an end, a beginning, and something in-between.""


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> Is that what you think I wrote? Or is that a phrase used to describe people who compose solely by computer?
> 
> "THESE DAYS, anyone with a computer can be a composer. Sort of. Give a piece of commercial software such as Magenta, developed by Google, the first few notes of a song, and it will make something merrily tuneful out of them. Tuneful, but not sophisticated. At least, that is the view of Gerhard Widmer of Johannes Kepler University, in Linz, Austria.In Dr Widmer's opinion, "what they create may contain certain statistical properties. It's not dissonant, but it's not actually music...It would create a piece that would last three days because it has no notion of what it wants to do. It doesn't know that things need an end, a beginning, and something in-between.""


This has zero relevance to what people who make electronic music actually do. This is like those AI bots which compose Bach-style stuff or something.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> This has zero relevance to what people who make electronic music actually do. This is like those AI bots which compose Bach-style stuff or something.


Electronic music composers? The few that I have been acquainted with know a lot more about composing (educated in electronics and higher harmonies) than I do, but what they come up with is not very interesting to me. It doesn't bring to my mind any natural traits of human expression, and that's what I want from the arts because it's so continually mysterious. The affinities are difficult to explain from our perspective today.


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> ^^^^
> Since you bring up Cage:
> 
> "I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones." Cage. :devil:


I wonder how familiar Cage even was with those "old ideas".


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> I wonder how familiar Cage even was with those "old ideas".


What makes you wonder? Do you think he wasn't?


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> What makes you wonder? Do you think he wasn't?


Maybe, I don't know his biography well enough. To me, even his early music doesn't show firm roots in any tradition. I don't think there's any doubt that Schoenberg knew what he was talking about when it came to harmony. I don't know if the same can be said of Cage. But then maybe I'm wrong. I've always considered Cage as more of a sort of conceptual artist than a composer. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as the saying goes.


----------



## fbjim

I'm not sure how many relevant avant-garde guys were true outsiders with no formal education in music. Moondog, I guess?


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Maybe, I don't know his biography well enough. To me, even his early music doesn't show firm roots in any tradition. I don't think there's any doubt that Schoenberg knew what he was talking about when it came to harmony. I don't know if the same can be said of Cage. But then maybe I'm wrong.


Well to explore that here would be to wander too far away from the subject of the OP, imo.

Funny how a discussion about one single performer/composer can throw out so much chaff.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> Maybe, I don't know his biography well enough. To me, even his early music doesn't show firm roots in any tradition. I don't think there's any doubt that Schoenberg knew what he was talking about when it came to harmony. I don't know if the same can be said of Cage. But then maybe I'm wrong. I've always considered Cage as more of a concept artist than a composer.


This is what's said about Pollock and Rauschenberg. It's kinda silly.


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> This is what's said about Pollock and Rauschenberg. It's kinda silly.


I don't know, maybe that's what they were too. Why is it silly?


----------



## fbjim

The statement being that modern artists did what they did because they lacked the education and skill to paint like Vermeer or something. It's fundamentally a bad-faith accusation.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> The statement being that modern artists did what they did because they lacked the education....


Who said that? I didn't. But if you refute the "old ideas" without having a firm grip on what the "old ideas" were, it makes you ignorant of the old ideas. It would produce a sort of "naive art". Avant garde Stravinsky and Schoenberg certainly knew what they were moving away from.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Who said that? I didn't. But if you refute the "old ideas" without having a firm grip on what the "old ideas" were, it makes you ignorant of the old ideas. It would produce a sort of "naive art". Avant garde Stravinsky and Schoenberg certainly knew what they were moving away from.


Btw, there are people who seem to think most avant-gardists "mastered" the common practice. But none of the avant-gardists had a beginning like Alma Deutscher, did they?



chu42 said:


> What we are discussing here is whether or not Stockhausen mastered the common practice era before diverging from it. Based on his compositions alone (many of which are tonal), I would say yes. Based on his institutional accreditations and resume before starting his experimental works, I would also say yes.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> Who said that? I didn't. But if you refute the "old ideas" without having a firm grip on what the "old ideas" were, it makes you ignorant of the old ideas. It would produce a sort of "naive art". Avant garde Stravinsky and Schoenberg certainly knew what they were moving away from.


There's some sense in actually _not_ studying to any great depth something like common practice for a more modern thinking composer because the language and techniques needed to be fluent in contemporary practice are totally different to, and are not necessarily reliant on older ways. Modern practice also requires much study and immersion in order to speak well with it.

Besides the 'tradition' for a forward thinking composer today will often not include common practice at all because the art of composing has developed many more tools giving much more in the way of creative options available.


----------



## hammeredklavier

jojoju2000 said:


> She has talent no doubt.
> Once she matures however; she should enter a rigorous Conservatory where they can point her in the right direction.


Those of you who say Alma needs "conservatory education", would you want her to go through this:



EdwardBast said:


> From the perspective of a music student educated in the late 20thc I would say that the significance of serial composition both historically and aesthetically was comically exaggerated for decades. As an undergrad I signed up for a composition course that required a preliminary interview with the professor/composer. When I was told the first assignment (write a short 12-tone work observing the "non-repetition myth" and avoiding any sequences of tones with tonal or triadic implications) I said "I have no interest in doing that and won't be taking the course." *I was verbally abused as I stood and left the man's office.*


----------



## fbjim

Without wishing to be rude to the poster, I can't imagine me going to a music class and refusing to do the first assignment I was given and walking out would cause a positive reaction.


----------



## fbjim

also you realize that all the stuff Alma Deutscher can do is because common practice tonal composition, and things like counterpoint theory have been codified to the extent that you can learn it in, you know, musical conservatories, right? like there are literally now textbooks on how to do this


----------



## 59540

mikeh375 said:


> There's some sense in actually _not_ studying to any great depth something like common practice for a more modern thinking composer because the language and techniques needed to be fluent in contemporary practice are totally different to, and are not necessarily reliant on older ways. Modern practice also requires much study and immersion in order to speak well with it.
> 
> Besides the 'tradition' for a forward thinking composer today will often not include common practice at all because the art of composing has developed many more tools giving much more in the way of creative options available.


But that creates a problem: then absolutely no claim can be made that these composers are in the "classical tradition". Therefore the calls for segregation of "modern" from "classical" has some justification. (Not that that's what I want to see. I'm just following the logic here.)


----------



## fbjim

Cage studied under Schoenberg. At what point do you cut it off?


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Cage studied under Schoenberg. At what point do you cut it off?


What did he learn?


----------



## Forster

amfortas said:


> I thought the real interest in Deutscher lies in what she may become, not what she's achieved so far.


Well, if you look at her website, it's the prodigy bit that is most prominent:



> Alma Deutscher, born 2005, is a composer, violinist and pianist. She started playing the piano when she was two years old and the violin when she was three. At six, she composed her first piano sonata, and at nine a concerto for violin and orchestra. These were followed by a piano concerto, a full length opera, Cinderella, as well as shorter orchestral pieces, chamber works, and numerous songs and piano pieces.


https://www.almadeutscher.com/

On the other hand, the NY Times reported:



> "She is not good because she is young," Mr. Wildner said. "She is good because she is extremely talented and has matured very early."


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/world/europe/alma-deutscher-prodigy-mozart.html



Luchesi said:


> Yes, that's the bottom line isn't it.
> 
> Here's some minimalism. Would you rather listen to this or the young girl? They both have uninteresting figurations, repetition, and very predictble ideas.
> 
> I've had a thought that the top-selling pop music of today has devolved into a sickening minimalistic parody of all the bad stuff from the time of disco. That might be too harsh, because we have to remember that many many people have inexperienced ears for music.. And it's not just their fault alone... but if you're going to sell it they have to be able to hear something 'attractive'.


I'd set that thought aside if I were you. The top-selling 'pop' music of today should encompass just as broad a range of music as we're inclined to allow under the 'classical' label . In other words, let's not dismiss 'pop' as some narrow slice of what we don't like.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> What did he learn?


Presumably, he learned music.

I do not understand the point of these questions. Do we frequently demand that artists show proof of their theoretical mastery of all that preceded them before they're allowed to do anything creative?


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Presumably, he learned music.
> 
> I do not understand the point of these questions. Do we frequently demand that artists show proof of their theoretical mastery of all that preceded them before they're allowed to do anything creative?


If you're going to be considered a part of an ongoing artistic tradition then yes, you do, to the best of your ability.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> If you're going to be considered a part of an ongoing artistic tradition then yes, you do, to the best of your ability.


A tradition is not theoretical knowledge, it is a practice that is passed down over time. I can not imagine any other form of art where this criterion applies.

This is not to mention that modern and avant-garde composers do have theoretical knowledge, though apparently this is not enough. Maybe we could dig up Brian Ferneyhough's report card to see what grade he got in his counterpoint courses.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> A tradition is not theoretical knowledge, it is a practice that is passed down over time. I can not imagine any other form of art where this criterion applies.


Are you kidding? Tradition includes theoretical knowledge. You don't think that applies to architecture, sculpture or painting?


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> ... Maybe we could dig up Brian Ferneyhough's report card to see what grade he got in his counterpoint courses.


If he's going to be considered an heir to Bach, then most definitely.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Are you kidding? Tradition includes theoretical knowledge. You don't think that applies to architecture, sculpture or painting?


Of course knowledge is passed down over time, but this is part of the tradition of western music composition, it does not constitute it- and you do not need to "demonstrate mastery" (by some unknown standard) at every part of it to be part of that tradition.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Of course knowledge is passed down over time, but this is part of the tradition of western music composition, it does not constitute it- and you do not need to "demonstrate mastery" (by some unknown standard) at every part of it to be part of that tradition.


No, that mastery is your foundation, even if you depart from it. IF you're going to be considered a "classical composer". Do you think Samuel Beckett didn't know his Shakespeare?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> No, that mastery is your foundation, even if you depart from it. IF you're going to be considered a "classical composer".


To be a classical composer, you need to:

1) compose classical music

This is a truly bizarre argument. Art is full of artists who produced good and bad art and were known for various levels of theoretical and technical knowledge. At no point have I ever heard the idea of "Well, I'm sorry, but you got a B+ in your polyphony class, so I'm afraid your compositions aren't classical music".


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> To be a classical composer, you need to:
> 
> 1) compose classical music
> 
> This is a truly bizarre argument. Art is full of artists who produced good and bad art and were known for various levels of theoretical and technical knowledge. At no point have I ever heard the idea of "Well, I'm sorry, but you got a B+ in your polyphony class, so I'm afraid your compositions aren't classical music".


You probably weren't there when Brahms gave Wolf his grades then.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> ... At no point have I ever heard the idea of "Well, I'm sorry, but you got a B+ in your polyphony class, so I'm afraid your compositions aren't classical music".


You didn't hear it from me either. Taking that polyphony class in itself would be an indicator of some study of the subject. At no point have I ever heard "I'm a classical composer because, dammit, I compose classical music!"


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> You didn't hear it from me either. Taking that polyphony class in itself would be an indicator of some study of the subject. At no point have I ever heard "I'm a classical composer because, dammit, I compose classical music!"


You are of curse free to not consider any composer a classical music composer. Just as they are free to compose classical music as they see it, and develop an audience who also appreciates the classical music they compose.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> You didn't hear it from me either. Taking that polyphony class in itself would be an indicator of some study of the subject. At no point have I ever heard *"I'm a classical composer because, dammit, I compose classical music!"*


That, in fact, is exactly what defines a classical composer. Do you think Mussorgsky formally studied Renaissance or 18thc counterpoint? Or that Schubert did for that matter?


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> That, in fact, is exactly what defines a classical composer. Do you think Mussorgsky formally studied Renaissance or 18thc counterpoint? Or that Schubert did for that matter?


1. Then if Cardi B declares herself a "classical composer", then that's what she is.
2. Their works show an understanding of it. I don't think either was unaware of what came before them. Bach never formally studied at any conservatory but his knowledge of the music before him was probably extensive.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Just as they are free to compose classical music as they see it....


What is that exactly?


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> What is that exactly?


It is the music he is writing.

Most composers identify with a tradition of which they feel a part; but there are some composers who don't care at all about how their music is classified as long as it doesn't inhibit their creativity. There is a direct line from the composer to an audience, via his music. A label is not necessarily a part of that path.

You seem overly preoccupied with labeling.


----------



## science

I don't know if it's relevant, but one of the main things that revealed to me that I am not a classical composer was a music theory and composition class. Thank goodness for the gentleman's A.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> It is the music he is writing.
> 
> Most composers identify with a tradition of which they feel a part; but there are some composers who don't care at all about how their music is classified as long as it doesn't inhibit their creativity. There is a direct line from the composer to an audience, via his music. A label is not necessarily a part of that path.
> 
> You seem overly preoccupied with labeling.


Wait, aren't you the one with the relatively rigorous definition of "classical music" that excludes film scores?


----------



## Luchesi

science said:


> I don't know if it's relevant, but one of the main things that revealed to me that I am not a classical composer was a music theory and composition class. Thank goodness for the gentleman's A.


naughty.. ....


----------



## 59540

science said:


> I don't know if it's relevant, but one of the main things that revealed to me that I am not a classical composer was a music theory and composition class. Thank goodness for the gentleman's A.


Well, you can still simply always call yourself one.


----------



## fbjim

Be right back, I'm going to demand that the moderators remove every post in the classical music composition form unless the posters there display mastery of classical counterpoint. Not asking for Handel, but at least Spohr or Cherubini levels.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Be right back, I'm going to demand that the moderators remove every post in the classical music composition form unless the posters there display mastery of classical counterpoint. Not asking for Handel, but at least Spohr or Cherubini levels.


Well it would be nice if they have an idea as to who those are...


----------



## fbjim

I think by far the funniest part of this is that a majority of modern composers of note are formally trained and true outsiders are rare. Somehow people find ways to discount this, however.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I think by far the funniest part of this is that a majority of modern composers of note are formally trained and true outsiders are rare. ...


Lol...which is fine and dandy. But formally trained in "classical" or "modern"?  :devil:


----------



## science

dissident said:


> Well, you can still simply always call yourself one.


Maybe _that's_ what will finally persuade my loved ones to have me put in an asylum.

Where are my old notebooks of sheet music?


----------



## 59540

science said:


> Maybe _that's_ what will finally persuade my loved ones to have me put in an asylum.
> 
> Where are my old notebooks of sheet music?


Science, hereafter known as the resident classical modern composer.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Lol...which is fine and dandy. But formally trained in "classical" or "modern"?  :devil:


Speaking of arbitrarily deciding that formal education actually doesn't count, well,


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Speaking of arbitrarily deciding that formal education actually doesn't count, well,


No no, I'm following the logic expressed in an earlier post that declared knowledge of common practice to be a hindrance to modern creativity. Your gripe would be with that, not with me.


----------



## fbjim

The actual argument was to demonstrate "mastery" of CPT music, not knowledge of it, where "mastery" is a completely subjective statement.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> Science, hereafter known as the resident classical modern composer.


_Post_modern, thank you very much.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> 1. Then if Cardi B declares herself a "classical composer", then that's what she is.


That's a disingenuous response and you know it. The phrase in question was your own: "because … I compose classical music," not the slithery version you're fobbing off now, the one that only requires declarations. Why the switch?: Because my examples completely refute your argument. Mussorgsky and Schubert did not study the basics of music as the Classical masters had. This is precisely equivalent to Cage or whatever straw person you want to put up not learning common practice harmony from the ground up - if indeed that's even the case, which I doubt.



dissident said:


> 2. Their works show an understanding of it.


No they don't! It's an essential aspect of both composers' styles that they don't demonstrate much facility with or practical understanding of the techniques of 16thc or 18thc counterpoint.



dissident said:


> Bach never formally studied at any conservatory but his knowledge of the music before him was probably extensive.


Bach's extended family _was_ a conservatory. He essentially grew up and worked in one for every conscious year of his life, as did WF, CPE, and JC.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Mussorgsky and Schubert did not study the basics of music as the Classical masters had. This is precisely equivalent to Cage or whatever straw person you want to put up not learning common practice harmony from the ground up - if indeed that's even the case, which I doubt.


Schubert studied with Sechter during the last year of his life, and worked throughout his life to come up with his own expressions while "respecting the tradition". Cage, on the other hand, pretty much "disowned the tradition" by saying; 
*"If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same. But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different."*


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Wait, aren't you the one with the relatively rigorous definition of "classical music" that excludes film scores?


and also excludes what he regards as "pop-classical", "derivative pianist-composers' music".


----------



## Forster

Never mind Cage and the rest. 

There's no doubting Alma Deutscher's compositions belong in the classical tradition, that she is enjoying success, and getting plenty of love from her fans. It's rather too soon to make any kind of declaration about where her future lies, and it would be foolish to extrapolate from this one case, what the future holds for classical itself.

What surprises me is that anyone so talented could have come from Basingstoke, the quintessential bland English town.


----------



## janxharris

science said:


> I don't know if it's relevant, but one of the main things that revealed to me that I am not a classical composer was a music theory and composition class. Thank goodness for the gentleman's A.


The gentleman's A?


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> But that creates a problem: then absolutely no claim can be made that these composers are in the "classical tradition". Therefore the calls for segregation of "modern" from "classical" has some justification. (Not that that's what I want to see. I'm just following the logic here.)


I tried to choose my words carefully when I said "not studying _to any great depth_". Learning basic procedures is obviously a given but the modern imagination has no real need for the syntax and forms one needs to master in common practice. At some point, a composer with a modern outlook will have to move on to learning and mastering contemporary techniques and concepts that have been developed to control wider expanded tonal fields. Another vital and influential aspect of modernity is rhythm and this too, requires a deep dive by the composer into freeing him/herself from the barline that dominates totally in common practice.

The paradigm and aesthetics of modernity is not a 'classical' one and the techniques that have been developed in the last 100 years or so reflect that. They are a kickback against their immediate traditions and in that sense, completely in keeping with the history of the art and its development.

I always tend to use the term 'concert' music as opposed to 'classical' because it is a more all-encompassing adjective and personally see no point in the quibbling about what is classical or not - it's all just music to me.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> That's a disingenuous response and you know it. The phrase in question was your own: "because … I compose classical music," not the slithery version you're fobbing off now, the one that only requires declarations. Why the switch?: Because my examples completely refute your argument. Mussorgsky and Schubert did not study the basics of music as the Classical masters had. This is precisely equivalent to Cage or whatever straw person you want to put up not learning common practice harmony from the ground up - if indeed that's even the case, which I doubt.


No, it's an honest response to cant and cliché.



> No they don't! It's an essential aspect of both composers' styles that they don't demonstrate much facility with or practical understanding of the techniques of 16thc or 18thc counterpoint.


Sure they do, at least to an extent. Not even Mussorgsky totally disavowed everything before him. He put in some studies. And Schubert? Come on. He was constantly studying and trying to absorb.



> Bach's extended family _was_ a conservatory. He essentially grew up and worked in one for every conscious year of his life, as did WF, CPE, and JC.


Right, thanks for proving my point.


----------



## 59540

mikeh375 said:


> I tried to choose my words carefully when I said "not studying _to any great depth_". Learning basic procedures is obviously a given but the modern imagination has no real need for the syntax and forms one needs to master in common practice. At some point, a composer with a modern outlook will have to move on to learning and mastering contemporary techniques and concepts that have been developed to control wider expanded tonal fields. ...


But still that leaves "modern" as, as you said, totally different from common practice "classical". And exactly how allowably shallow should study of the "basic procedures" be?


----------



## Portamento

According to the definition I've seen in this thread, composers belong to the "classical music" (or "Western art-music," or whatever) tradition if their music shows an understanding of all that came before it. This conception of classical music is based on an _intuition_: part of what makes music "classical" is its explicit show of understanding of the past. Different people can reach different classificatory intuitions due to, among other things, the method(s) they use to determine new instances, what authority figures say, which aspects of culture they think are universal, and their overall reflectiveness. Someone could easily infer that music is classical if it's played in a concert hall, or if most of the audience has gray hair (and this would simply be because they had a different starting point). Eventually, all these intuitions shape communal classificatory practices, which are then subject to norms that constitute an object's "folk conception." These folk conceptions are manifested psychologically among community members and allow people to lump similar stuff together for similar reasons. Classical music has a distinct folk conception, and it's what allows people to classify music by both Beethoven and Brahms as for their grandparents, relaxing, good for their soul, anti-commercial, high art, signifying social class, etc.

However, our communal taxonomies are tested when new objects surface. How do we tax cryptocurrency? How do we classify Cage's music? There's always going to be _some_ arbitrariness in the way new things are treated, but here at TC we have extensive disagreement on how to deal with composers of a certain stripe. And this implies a lack of consensus about why the "main" classical composers are even grouped together. Why do Josquin and Stravinsky fit in the same bucket? There is much arbitrariness to the way the category of classical music has stretched to subsume each new artistic movement, and often it has been loud voices (rather than coherent rules) that call the shots. When loud voices use old words to describe new instances, sometimes these uses penetrate public discourse and classificatory norms are updated. Due to the idea of conceptual conservatism, if music is classified as "classical" some time, it will remain "classical" for all subsequent times: Bach is not going to suddenly cease being a classical composer. The extension of classical music's folk conception becomes like adding buildings to a city without guaranteeing proper infrastructure.

So let's not try to define classical music in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions - that's pointless as long as our folk conception of it keep updating. A true definition would be one that somehow captures the relationship between the nature of classical music and its folk conception. All "classical music is this and that" statements can hope to achieve is to serve as an analysis of a current folk conception (and judging by the numerous objections it's clear that the "definition" put forth in this thread doesn't even do a good job of that).


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> But still that leaves "modern" as, as you said, totally different from common practice "classical". And exactly how allowably shallow should study of the "basic procedures" be?


It doesn't bother me in the least that a modern compositional mindset is different to a classical one, that's as it should be when it comes to relevant art.

Accordingly, there is no right depth of study for common practice as every composer is different. The composer with a modern mindset will most likely know when they have enough common practice technique or if indeed they even want to go into anything other than a cursory familiarity with it. The more conservative composer may well delve a little more deeply into traditional techniques. As an aside, when I was at my conservatory, I remember a composer a year or two above me who wrote in contemporary style telling me he'd never studied fugue. I was taken aback at first but subsequently began to appreciate that he didn't need to because of the great disparity in approach and resulting effect when working within the different disciplines.

One could almost say that total immersion in common practice has the potential to have a negative and detrimental impact on a modern musical mindset by diluting the resulting music and even tempering the imagination. Put simply, common practice is not relevant nor essential anymore, it's not even the immediate tradition against which contemporary composers contend. (Personally, I do believe there is an advantage in becoming fluent in CP, even for a contemporary outlook but that's another discussion).

Ultimately, composers can now follow their own path and cater to their own needs and aesthetic proclivities by hunting out and settling on, techniques and styles they have been influenced by and are deemed relevant to their expression. This is all to the good and for the benefit and survival of an art because it keeps it vital.


----------



## SanAntone

At one time or other the following composers were considered "modern"

Philippe de Vitry
Johannes Ciconia
CPE Bach
Beethoven
Chopin
Wagner
Liszt
Mahler
Strauss
Debussy
Schoenberg
Stravinsky
Ives
Cage
Boulez
Stockhausen

Etc.

Usually a composer is considered "modern" if their style is a departure in some aspect from the prevailing consensus. It does not mean they are not part of the same tradition and it especially does not mean that their training or education in the tradition is superficial. 

Nothing has changed in our time. Today's composers writing new music have almost without exception studied at a conservatory, learned the entire classical music tradition and canon, as well as subjects such as 16th, 18th, and 20th century counterpoint and harmony.

All this talk about contemporary music being a different animal than "classical music" is poppycock.


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> Nothing has changed in our time. Today's composers writing new music have almost without exception studied at a conservatory, *learned the entire classical music tradition and canon, as well as subjects such as 16th, 18th,* and 20th century counterpoint and harmony.
> 
> All this talk about contemporary music being a different animal than "classical music" is poppycock.


That's not my experience of conservatory life SA. Some composers wilfully stayed away from learning or shall we say fully _mastering_ specific older techniques and I do not recall any emphasis or requirement for advanced common practice or earlier study at my Alma Mater's composition dept. There the emphasis was on developing individually and all was geared towards that. In fact, I took it upon myself to plough through texts on 16thC counterpoint in my spare time. Perhaps it's different these days.

I don't know precisely what you mean by "classical music" but it stands that a different creative and technical paradigm is necessary from the composer in order to write in a contemporary way. I do feel though that modernity _is_ an extension of the so called 'canon' and should easily be viewed as such.


----------



## SanAntone

mikeh375 said:


> That's not my experience of conservatory life SA. Some composers wilfully stayed away from learning or shall we say _mastering_ older techniques and I do not recall any emphasis or requirement for advanced common practice study at my Alma Mater's composition dept. where the emphasis was on developing individually and all that doing so entailed. Perhaps it's different these days.
> 
> I don't know precisely what you mean by "classical music" but it stands that a different creative and technical paradigm is necessary from the composer in order to write in a contemporary way. I do feel though that modernity _is_ an extension of the so called 'canon' and should easily be viewed as such.


I got my degree in composition in 1973, so I don't have first hand knowledge of today's curriculum. But I have interviewed about 75 composers, many in their 20s and 30s, and without exception they had a traditional classical music education, and in many cases are now professors themselves.

Yes, developing an individual style is important, as it always has been, but that does not mean there is a complete break with the tradition.


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> I got my degree in composition in 1973, so I don't have first hand knowledge of today's curriculum. But I have interviewed about 75 composers, many in their 20s and 30s, and without exception they had a traditional classical music education, and in many cases are now professors themselves.
> 
> Yes, developing an individual style is important, as it always has been, but that does not mean there is a complete break with the tradition.


 I personally do not think there's a break with tradition neither, just a different and new way of approaching composition out of necessity given the expansion of sound in all aspects. Much remains in common (ha) with earlier music although that is obviously dependant on how far extremes are pushed. We'll agree on that I'm sure given we both have gone through the mill right?

From what you say, the younglings have gone through the mill and more power to them. I personally am in favour of learning earlier techniques to an advanced standard as I said above, even if they are not the immediate tradition anymore because they can inculcate much musicality and offer options.


----------



## science

janxharris said:


> The gentleman's A?


I believe the original was the gentleman's C, then it became the gentleman's B. In that case I was the recipient of a gentleman's A, which is not unheard of. I myself am one of the pioneers of the nascent tradition of the very rare gentleman's D.


----------



## fbjim

The definition of that seems to have changed over time, apparently it used to be a literal "upper class kids don't get Fs" thing, but when I was in college it was more "you won't get failed in an elective class if you're clearly putting in the work" because nobody wanted to screw with someone's major degree because they took an elective class of something they ended up being terrible at.


----------



## fbjim

I also don't know enough about "actual" contemporary (e.g. released in like the last decade) but I imagine anyone wanting to compose in say, a polystylistic idiom is probably going to be putting in the work to learn CPT techniques along with modern composition


----------



## amfortas

science said:


> I believe the original was the gentleman's C, then it became the gentleman's B. In that case I was the recipient of a gentleman's A, which is not unheard of. I myself am one of the pioneers of the nascent tradition of the very rare gentleman's D.


I was too often the recipient of the scoundrel's F.


----------



## fbjim

mikeh375 said:


> I always tend to use the term 'concert' music as opposed to 'classical' because it is a more all-encompassing adjective and personally see no point in the quibbling about what is classical or not - it's all just music to me.


"classical music" has severe problems as a technical term but I still prefer to use it because unlike "western art music"/"serious music"/"concert music" it has the benefit of actually being in use, and it's generally not hard to tell if someone specifically is referring to like, CPE-Bach-up-to-Beethoven, or "literally all music part of an artistic tradition of western composition" (or the ever popular "everything until Schoenberg ruined music")


----------



## Forster

mikeh375 said:


> it stands that a different creative and technical paradigm is necessary from the composer in order to write in a contemporary way. I do feel though that modernity _is_ an extension of the so called 'canon' and should easily be viewed as such.


I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to want to eat your cake and have it. You say a different paradigm is needed to write 'contemporary' music, but then acknowledge that 'modern' is an extension of 'canon'. Surely a different paradigm is a different paradigm, not an extension of the previous paradigm?

I noted elsewhere that I had listened to Thomas Adès' _Exterminating Angel_. It was recognisably a 'classical piece', but was distinctly different from CPT. I'd argue that any current composer is 'contemporary' or 'modern', regardless of what they write, and Alma Deutscher is not an exception to that just because she writes in the style of her CPT antecedents.

Perhaps the difficulty here is that the words 'contemporary' and 'modern' are problematic - one of the reasons why pedantry has its place in helping us to keep definitions narrow and meaningful.


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to want to eat your cake and have it. You say a different paradigm is needed to write 'contemporary' music, but then acknowledge that 'modern' is an extension of 'canon'. Surely a different paradigm is a different paradigm, not an extension of the previous paradigm?
> 
> I noted elsewhere that I had listened to Thomas Adès' _Exterminating Angel_. It was recognisably a 'classical piece', but was distinctly different from CPT. I'd argue that any current composer is 'contemporary' or 'modern', regardless of what they write, and Alma Deutscher is not an exception to that just because she writes in the style of her CPT antecedents.
> 
> Perhaps the difficulty here is that the words 'contemporary' and 'modern' are problematic - one of the reasons why pedantry has its place in helping us to keep definitions narrow and meaningful.


I like cake.
The paradigm (shift!) I meant is a technical one, but also admittedly and crucially, one of the imagination less bounded given the freeing up of sound from the narrower confinements of CP. I see no conflict though in viewing the resultant music , within reason, as an extension of the existing canon. A logical outcome perhaps, or a development, inevitable even. Besides (and speaking of definitions), the 'canon' from a contemporary composers perspective is not necessarily the 3B's et al.

It's the imagining of new sound that comes from a particular stance in one's attitude to music, the emphasis on personal approaches to expression as opposed to the mass expectation of it that's lacking in AD's work which for me means that I personally don't consider her as contemporary (I also define that word in a vague way that at least acknowledges in some way the last hundred years of musical development and innovation). Her outlook is anachronistic but don't get me wrong though, I mean she's bloody marvellous and I have great admiration for her, she's fantastically gifted.

BTW I enjoyed the Ades too.


----------



## fbjim

neoclassical probably counts as contemporary, to be fair- actually "neoclassical" as a concept kind of only makes sense as a part of contemporary music


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> At one time or other the following composers were considered "modern"
> 
> Philippe de Vitry
> Johannes Ciconia
> CPE Bach
> Beethoven
> Chopin
> Wagner
> Liszt
> Mahler
> Strauss
> Debussy
> Schoenberg
> Stravinsky
> Ives
> Cage
> Boulez
> Stockhausen
> 
> Etc.


Starting with Schoenberg most still are considered modern.



> Usually a composer is considered "modern" if their style is a departure in some aspect from the prevailing consensus. It does not mean they are not part of the same tradition and it especially does not mean that their training or education in the tradition is superficial.
> 
> Nothing has changed in our time. Today's composers writing new music have almost without exception studied at a conservatory, learned the entire classical music tradition and canon, as well as subjects such as 16th, 18th, and 20th century counterpoint and harmony.
> 
> All this talk about contemporary music being a different animal than "classical music" is poppycock.


So demonstrate for me the musical kinship between Bach /Beethoven and Cage/Ferneyhough.


mikeh375 said:


> Her outlook is anachronistic


But then the outlook of Pärt and Hovhaness or any other composer drawing inspiration from medieval music would be similarly anachronistic.


----------



## Malx

mikeh375 said:


> uh oh......
> 
> View attachment 157926


Move over I'll join you if theres any popcorn left.


----------



## Portamento

fbjim said:


> "classical music" has severe problems as a technical term but I still prefer to use it because unlike "western art music"/"serious music"/"concert music" it has the benefit of actually being in use, and it's generally not hard to tell if someone specifically is referring to like, CPE-Bach-up-to-Beethoven, or "literally all music part of an artistic tradition of western composition" (or the ever popular "everything until Schoenberg ruined music")


"Western art music" is actually fairly well established in academic writing.

I've always thought this section from the essay "On Exoticism, Western Art Music, and the Words We Use" by musicologist Ralph P. Locke was highly perceptive:



> "Classical music" was the standard phrase when I was growing up in the USA in the 1950s and 60s. Nowadays I have come to abhor all the terms and phrases most commonly used to refer to it, and for various reasons.
> 
> • The phrase "classical music" may resonate unhelpfully with connotations of "classic" (e.g., exemplary; of superior value). Also, certain readers may erroneously take it as equivalent to "the Classic era" (sometimes called the "Viennese Classic period"), which is often understood to have lasted from something like 1750 to around 1810 and to have included, among much else, the music of Haydn, Mozart, and early-to-mid Beethoven.
> 
> • "Serious music." This term was once a favored alternative, and one still encounters it in German-language writings: E-Musik (i.e., "ernste Musik"). But it may, however inadvertently, imply that anything else is frivolous "entertainment" ("Unterhaltung," whence the converse term: U-Musik).
> 
> • "Cultivated" music. This term has been embraced by many specialists in American music. It is less value-laden than "serious" yet still helpfully acknowledges the aesthetic claims that the music makes and that were/are made, often strenuously, on behalf of it. Its opposite and complement is "vernacular," a word that these scholars substitute for the word "popular." They presumably perceive the term vernacular as, likewise, less value-laden than popular. Vernacular also has a further advantage: it avoids suggesting, as popular might, that all vernacular musics were widely enjoyed and purchased - that they were "very popular in their day" - and, conversely, that no "cultivated" ones have ever been "very popular," or even can be. (Beethoven's Fifth Symphony? Tchaikovsky's _The Nutcracker_? Debussy's _Clair de lune_?) The term-pair cultivated/vernacular has proven particularly apt for emphasizing the often bifurcated nature of America's musical culture across several centuries. But it may give the erroneous impression that European concert and operatic repertoires are, by their very nature, the inevitable cultural property of an elite social Stratum. The fact is, though, that in America - as indeed in many European countries - those European repertoires became common, deeply loved property among broad stretches of the population during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
> 
> • "Concert music," when used for this repertoire, suggests, inadvertently, that the writer lives in a time warp. After all, rock and jazz musicians often give concerts, sometimes in the very same halls and summer-festival shells that, on other afternoons or evenings, host piano recitals, philharmonic programs, or operas.
> 
> • The phrase "Western _art_ music" may seem to imply a vaguely monopolistic attitude toward "art," as if folk and popular musics (including the more accessible strands of jazz) cannot possibly be artistic - indeed, are little more than formulaic fodder to help the lower Orders make their miserable lives easier to bear. What room would such an attitude leave for the distinctly _art_ful achievements of Scott Joplin (and Janis), the Gershwins, Bessie Smith, Duke Ellington, Édith Piaf, Coleman Hawkins, Patsy Cline, The Beatles, Umm Kulthum, Willie Nelson, Aretha Franklin, Billy Joel, Stevie Wonder, Melissa Etheridge, Dave Matthews Band, or the great Chinese folk musician Abing?
> 
> Since I find all of these terms unsatisfactory, I mostly settle for the last of them, "Western art music" - in part because it is deeply ingrained in scholarly writing but also because it has well-accepted parallels in regard to other cultures: e.g., "traditional Indonesian art-music genres, centered on the gamelan and analogous ensembles."


----------



## Luchesi

science said:


> I believe the original was the gentleman's C, then it became the gentleman's B. In that case I was the recipient of a gentleman's A, which is not unheard of. I myself am one of the pioneers of the nascent tradition of the very rare gentleman's D.


are they memes?


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> The definition of that seems to have changed over time, apparently it used to be a literal "upper class kids don't get Fs" thing, but when I was in college it was more "you won't get failed in an elective class if you're clearly putting in the work" because nobody wanted to screw with someone's major degree because they took an elective class of something they ended up being terrible at.


Yeah, I guess we got a few of those here at the lab. They moved on quite quickly. They don't do well in research, but I hear one of them is doing OK in a conventional fabricating job (with university experimenters). 'Not what she studied.


----------



## Luchesi

Portamento said:


> "Western art music" is actually fairly well established in academic writing.
> 
> I've always thought this section from the essay "On Exoticism, Western Art Music, and the Words We Use" by musicologist Ralph P. Locke was highly perceptive:


If a young person comes to the idea one day that he might want to put the effort into looking into CM

and then he hears an older experienced person who loves CM (or writes an essay of opinions like that above)

BUT who says there's actually no more value in CM

than music turned out for the primary intention of making money, making a living, fame and being admired by his consumers.

I can guess what would happen to that person, who might've gained a new, lifelong interest in something incomparable.


----------



## Portamento

Luchesi said:


> BUT who says there's actually no more value in CM


No one said that.



> than music turned out for the primary intention of making money, making a living....


Like Bach or Mozart?


----------



## Haydn70

Portamento said:


> "Western art music" is actually fairly well established in academic writing.


Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## fbjim

It is, I just kind of dislike the term because I have a preference toward more colloquial terms than technical/jargon ones, at least when I'm not like, writing a paper.


----------



## 59540

Portamento said:


> Like Bach or Mozart?


Making money wasn't Bach's primary motive for making music.


----------



## Luchesi

Portamento said:


> No one said that.
> 
> Like Bach or Mozart?


That's how I read it, because there's been opinions like that since the 60s, and probably before that. 
I think SanAntone says that. Maybe he doesn't any longer..

Perhaps Bach and Mozart were like the Beatles, struggling for fame and money and the gravy train. History is just people's opinions put down on paper, and then it gets filtered over time. I guess we'll never know.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> That's how I read it, because there's been opinions like that since the 60s, and probably before that.
> I think SanAntone says that. Maybe he doesn't any longer..
> 
> Perhaps Bach and Mozart were like the Beatles, struggling for fame and money and the gravy train. History is just people's opinions put down on paper, and then it gets filtered over time. I guess we'll never know.


I have never said there was no value in CM. What I have said is that I do not think CM is more valuable than other kinds of music.


----------



## mossyembankment

Luchesi said:


> Perhaps Bach and Mozart were like the Beatles, struggling for fame and money and the gravy train. History is just people's opinions put down on paper, and then it gets filtered over time. I guess we'll never know.


Wait, has anyone suggested that they weren't?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I have never said there was no value in CM. What I have said is that I do not think CM is more valuable than other kinds of music.


So, seriously...the achievements of Bach are on the same value plane as Alvin and the Chipmunks?


mossyembankment said:


> Wait, has anyone suggested that they weren't?


I have. That's a pretty cynical view of motivation, which says more about those who hold it than it does about Bach or Mozart. Yeah, Bach was a craftsman who like any other craftsman wanted recognition and wanted to make a living. But music, like everything else, was an act of worship for him.


----------



## Portamento

fbjim said:


> It is, I just kind of dislike the term because I have a preference toward more colloquial terms than technical/jargon ones, at least when I'm not like, writing a paper.


Gotcha. To be fair, "I like listening to Western art music" is something that would never come out of my mouth in a regular conversation. "Classical music," though an incredibly problematic term, sounds much less... well, highfalutin.



dissident said:


> Making money wasn't Bach's primary motive for making music.


Nonsense. The majority of musicians during Bach's time were in court employment and had to be capable of writing acceptably in a socially pleasing idiom; Telemann, for example, wrote roughly 600 overtures by the time he was 60, and these works did nothing but satisfy established tastes. Bach, who was the Thomaskantor in Leipzig, was expected to interpret the words of the Bible and liturgy for the instruction of worshipers through his church music; chorale melodies were integral to the service, which is why he composed all those preludes. Bach may have _wanted_ to compose yearly cycles of cantatas, but the primary motive for him doing so was because he _had to_ as part of demands made on the Cantor (and he needed the money). Naturally, all the composers from around this time wrote to order. Even Haydn, when asked why he had composed no quintets, replied: "Nobody has ordered any." Why did Haydn stop writing Sturm und Drang symphonies so suddenly? Most likely because his prince employer did not wish to be disturbed. After all, the court composer was simply an upper servant - consciousness of the wishes of their audience, the chief member of which was their employer, was one of the composer's essential duties. If the composer happened to be a Kapellmeister, they wrote what was needed (be it a mass, opera, symphony, set of dances, or whatever), and if allowed they could send a bundle of works to a patron in hopes of being rewarded monetarily. The Kapellmeister was a little higher up the social scale, but anything they wrote was still the property of their patron and could not be published/distributed without the patron's consent. Under Haydn's contract with Prince Paul Esterhazy, the prince could dismiss him on the spot; Bach was imprisoned in Weimar because he demanded his release from a position too forcefully. The entire musical climate depended on the character of the patron: Frederick the Great reigned until 1786, but the music heard in his courts was quite conservative because Frederick's tastes never evolved past the 1730s. Johann Joachim Quantz, who supplied him with hundreds of flute concertos, was paid 2000 thalers/year while CPE Bach was paid 500 and received little encouragement because his forward-looking music meant nothing to Frederick.

These were the times Bach lived in, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is flagrant revisionism.



Luchesi said:


> That's how I read it, because there's been opinions like that since the 60s, and probably before that.
> I think SanAntone says that. Maybe he doesn't any longer..


Criticizing the term "classical music" is different from criticizing the music itself.


----------



## 59540

Portamento said:


> Nonsense. The majority of musicians during Bach's time were in court employment and had to be capable of writing acceptably in a socially pleasing idiom; Telemann, for example, wrote roughly 600 overtures by the time he was 60, and these works did nothing but satisfy established tastes. Bach, who was the Thomaskantor in Leipzig, was expected to interpret the words of the Bible and liturgy for the instruction of worshipers through his church music; chorale melodies were integral to the service, which is why he composed all those preludes. ...


You mean the Orgelbüchlein, most of which was completed in Weimar? Nonsense. You mean the Mass in B minor that he worked on for over a decade knowing that it would probably never be seen as suitable in an ecclesiastical setting? Nonsense. The Lutheran chorale was central to Bach the musician and individual, not just because they were heard in church and he had to pop off something to keep his job.


----------



## mossyembankment

dissident said:


> So, seriously...the achievements of Bach are on the same value plane as Alvin and the Chipmunks?
> 
> I have. That's a pretty cynical view of motivation, which says more about those who hold it than it does about Bach or Mozart. Yeah, Bach was a craftsman who like any other craftsman wanted recognition and wanted to make a living. But music, like everything else, was an act of worship for him.


I think you have a pretty cynical view of the nobility of what the Beatles were doing (no comment re: Alvin and the Chipmunks).


----------



## 59540

mossyembankment said:


> I think you have a pretty cynical view of the nobility of what the Beatles were doing (no comment re: Alvin and the Chipmunks).


I didn't say a thing about the Beatles. I think they were actually striving for artistic expression in *most* of what they did. As for Alvin and the gang, they were apparently no less valuable than Bach, so they are worthy of study. I'll have to dig out that old LP.


----------



## mossyembankment

dissident said:


> I didn't say a thing about the Beatles. I think they were actually striving for artistic expression in *most* of what they did. As for Alvin and the gang, they were apparently no less valuable than Bach, so they are worthy of study. I'll have to dig out that old LP.


I thought by your reply you were saying that the Beatles were less pure from an artistic standpoint, and were only after money. I stand corrected.

In any case, I think most good artists of all eras and all genres are after both pure artistic expression, recognition, and financial compensation, even if the last one is only by necessity. I don't think rock is any different from classical in this way.


----------



## 59540

mossyembankment said:


> I thought by your reply you were saying that the Beatles were less pure from an artistic standpoint, and were only after money. I stand corrected.
> 
> In any case, I think most good artists of all eras and all genres are after both pure artistic expression, recognition, and financial compensation, even if the last one is only by necessity. I don't think rock is any different from classical in this way.


Well there are some in the pop world who go a long way with little in the way of talent just by virtue of p.r. and stage presence, charisma and whatnot. I don't think that's quite as true in the classical world.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> So, seriously...the achievements of Bach are on the same value plane as Alvin and the Chipmunks?


It is up to each listener to determine the value for them of any music.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> It is up to each listener to determine the value for them of any music.


Well yeah, and if you have enough such individual judgements going the same way, then you have a consensus.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Well yeah, and if you have enough such individual judgements going the same way, then you have a consensus.


The only consensus that I care about is the one I created for myself. And the largest consensus is for popular music like rock, rap and pop.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> The only consensus that I care about is the one I created for myself.


So why discuss it with anybody else?


> And the largest consensus is for popular music like rock, rap and pop.


Yeah and the uninformed consensus might be that wallpaper is of more value than a Rembrandt. It doesn't make them equal.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> So why discuss it with anybody else?


Discuss what?



> Yeah and the uninformed consensus might be that wallpaper is of more value than a Rembrandt.


Uninformed? Everyone is uninformed about something, actually most of us only have a limited knowledge about most things.

But even the most uninformed person knows the kind of music he values.


----------



## mossyembankment

dissident said:


> Well there are some in the pop world who go a long way with little in the way of talent just by virtue of p.r. and stage presence, charisma and whatnot. I don't think that's quite as true in the classical world.


Stage presence and charisma are forms of talent, I think - Liszt would certainly back me up on that, and so would most audiences. Anyway, even if there's some kernel truth in what you're saying in a general sort of way, it's a difference of degree not of kind. I think there are plenty of exceptions to your generalization on both sides.

It's also hard to hold today's artists to the standards of Bach in terms of worship... Bach lived in a time when being devoutly religious was common, today relatively few people are. More to the point, there are a lot of Christian rock musicians who probably match Bach in their religious fervor, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'd want to listen to them.


----------



## Portamento

dissident said:


> You mean the Mass in B minor that he worked on for over a decade knowing that it would probably never be seen as suitable in an ecclesiastical setting? Nonsense.


Let's talk about the Mass in B minor. It would seem that Bach may have created it with no specific practical end in mind, which is great for those who want to align his music with the snobbish aesthetic model of the "autonomous" work which emerged in the early 19th century; Bach's status as a creator of anti-commercial "high art" (as opposed to money-seeking "low art") can be preserved. But things are not so simple. No evidence suggests that Bach prepared performing parts for the Mass in its entirety, and no evidence suggests that Bach conceived of the Mass as an autonomous and inherently integrated work. In fact, the surviving manuscript sources suggest that Bach essentially compiled the Mass from music he had composed for other purposes over a period of nearly four decades, combining pre-existing bits and pieces to form a totality which reimagined the purpose of its components. It's a process that defies modern notions of artistic creation but fits completely with the conventions of Bach's time. With this in mind, the Mass is best seen not as an autonomous project that Bach was secretly toiling away at but as a sort of "greatest hits" collection. And a very good one at that.


----------



## Portamento

dissident said:


> The Lutheran chorale was central to Bach the musician and individual, not just because they were heard in church and he had to pop off something to keep his job.


Sure, but would he have composed hundreds of them had he not needed to churn them out to earn a living? I don't doubt that music was an act of worship for Bach, but that doesn't change the fact that what he composed (and how much of it) was strongly shaped by monetary concerns.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Portamento said:


> Why did Haydn stop writing Sturm und Drang symphonies so suddenly? Most likely because his prince employer *did not wish to be disturbed.*


That's only a speculation. Sturm-und-drang symphonies were one of several ways to express storm and stress in music at the time. It's generally thought the minor-key symphonies are "Sturm-und-drang", but they don't stay in the "turbulent" minor-keys for very long, or they contain "light-hearted" subsequent movements. It's hard to define "Sturm-und-drang" anyway.








On the other hand, a "regular" symphony could still contain movements or sections of "storm and stress". 
For example, of these, only the 44th, 45th are generally considered to be "Sturm-und-drang", but how much different are they from the 60th, 85th in expressions like
45th/i: 



60th/i: 



85th/i: 



44th/iv: 



60th/iv: 






Portamento said:


> The entire musical climate depended on the character of the patron: Frederick the Great reigned until 1786, but the music heard in his courts was quite conservative because *Frederick's tastes never evolved past the 1730s.*


"Frederick despised music that "smells of the church;" he represented the new Galant style, whose music aimed solely to delight." https://wybc.com/broadcasts/6509



Portamento said:


> Johann Joachim Quantz, who supplied him with hundreds of flute concertos, was paid 2000 thalers/year while CPE Bach was paid 500 and received little encouragement because his *forward-looking music* meant nothing to Frederick.


Is that really true? I find that their general styles aren't that much different; although C.P.E. may have been more skillful or inspired in certain aspects, the idioms they worked with were basically the same. Emanuel also "churned out" about half a hundred concertos.








It's true Emanuel has moments like 



, (that is, after he escaped to Hamburg) but a lot of his stuff feels like his contemporaries' and colleagues' "cycles of note-spins". 



 (Also look at similar works by Graun, Richter, Monn, W.F. Bach, etc.),
generic slow movements with constant recitative-like expressions (I'm not quite sure how to describe them). For instance, this movement lasts 8 minutes, but the use of rhythm and mood is pretty much constant: 



^this wasn't "forward-looking music" of the mid-18th century.


----------



## Forster

^^^ And we get further and further away from the subject of the OP. It just goes to show that some people don't even want to acknowledge Alma Deutscher in her own thread, never mind love her.


----------



## Portamento

Yeah, let's take this to the CPE Bach thread...


----------



## arpeggio

Really. With all of the support she has been receiving and I am willing to wager when she sees any criticism she cries all the way to the bank.


----------



## 59540

mossyembankment said:


> It's also hard to hold today's artists to the standards of Bach in terms of worship... Bach lived in a time when being devoutly religious was common, today relatively few people are.


Relatively few in Europe, but Europe obviously isn't the entire globe.


> More to the point, there are a lot of Christian rock musicians who probably match Bach in their religious fervor, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'd want to listen to them.


No, that's totally beside the point.


----------



## 59540

Portamento said:


> ]Let's talk about the Mass in B minor. It would seem that Bach may have created it with no specific practical end in mind


Period, end of.

It's a little ironic that we're apparently not allowed to suggest that Cage's primary motivation was filthy lucre.


----------



## amfortas

dissident said:


> So, seriously...the achievements of Bach are on the same value plane as Alvin and the Chipmunks?


Oh God, not again! Could we please move this discussion to one of those rancorous, seemingly endless Alvin and the Chipmunks threads?


----------



## jojoju2000

Forster said:


> ^^^ And we get further and further away from the subject of the OP. It just goes to show that some people don't even want to acknowledge Alma Deutscher in her own thread, never mind love her.


Because people like Alma and let's be honest John Williams too; they are just chess pieces in the ideological battles over what is Classical Music, and what is not.


----------



## arpeggio

Some people like Bach, some dislike Bach.

Some people like Mozart, some dislike Mozart.

I have actually read some posters who think Beethoven's _Ninth_ is overrated.

Some people like Ms. Deutscher, some dislike Ms. Deutscher. Some do not care. So what?


----------



## fbjim

Just about every composer who ever lived detested at least one or more composers on the list of Accepted Canonical Greats. 

Especially the French composers. Saying rude things about other composers, (especially other French composers) is practically a national pastime in France.

Thomas Beecham thought Beethoven was vulgar. Bernstein thought Bruckner was trash. Esa-Pekka Salonen apparently thinks Shostakovich is garbage. You could fill a book with great composers and conductors who hated Wagner. We all have our opinions.


----------



## SanAntone

jojoju2000 said:


> Because people like Alma and let's be honest John Williams too; they are just chess pieces in the ideological battles over what is Classical Music, and what is not.


Alma Deutscher writes derivative classical music and John Williams writes derivative film scores that he sometimes arranges as concert works, i.e. light classical fare. It is obvious to everyone except the most ardent fans of either of these figures that while they are talented and write music which has an audience, ultimately it is inconsequential.

If these people write the kind of music you think of as good examples of classical music, enjoy it to your heart's content and be happy. And in the process please stop trying to convince those of us who have a higher bar of the merits of their music.


----------



## amfortas

fbjim said:


> Just about every composer who ever lived detested at least one or more composers on the list of Accepted Canonical Greats.
> 
> Especially the French composers. Saying rude things about other composers, (especially other French composers) is practically a national pastime in France.
> 
> Thomas Beecham thought Beethoven was vulgar. Bernstein thought Bruckner was trash. Esa-Pekka Salonen apparently thinks Shostakovich is garbage. You could fill a book with great composers and conductors who hated Wagner. We all have our opinions.


Opinions are like a box of chocolates. Everybody has one.

Or something like that.


----------



## fbjim

anyway with opinions I like assuming good faith and John Williams is popular enough that I'm going to assume people are listening to him because they legitimately like his music. 

Alma Deutscher, well- at the risk of contradicting myself, I can guess why The New Criterion wrote highly of her.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Alma Deutscher writes derivative classical music and John Williams writes derivative film scores that he sometimes arranges as concert works, i.e. light classical fare. It is obvious to everyone except the most ardent fans of either of these figures that while they are talented and write music which has an audience, ultimately it is inconsequential.
> 
> If these people write the kind of music you think of as good examples of classical music, enjoy it to your heart's content and be happy. And in the process please stop trying to convince those of us who have a higher bar of the merits of their music.


You have some kind of a point...but I'm rather less keen on the notion of 'inconsequential'. Inconsequential to whom? Not to the fans that, you acknowledge, both have. I'm also less keen on the notion that some composers (or their works) might be, objectively, less inconsequential than others.

To some extent, all music is inconsequential, unless you do it to make a living from it. Bach might enrich your soul, but he doesn't offer shelter, food on the table, clothe you, pay your bills. Deutscher is the same.


----------



## Portamento

dissident said:


> Period, end of.


Nope.



> It's a little ironic that we're apparently not allowed to suggest that Cage's primary motivation was filthy lucre.


You can suggest it, but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## fbjim

You can probably create some objective framework involving artistic influence to measure "consequentiality" but there are other reasons to listen to music than just hearing the most influential works ever written, as fun as that may be.

And besides, if we measured artistic worth by influence, everyone here would have to listen to John Cage and minimalism.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Alma Deutscher writes derivative classical music and John Williams writes derivative film scores that he sometimes arranges as concert works, i.e. light classical fare. It is obvious to everyone except the most ardent fans of either of these figures that while they are talented and write music which has an audience, ultimately it is inconsequential.
> 
> If these people write the kind of music you think of as good examples of classical music, enjoy it to your heart's content and be happy. And in the process please stop trying to convince those of us who have a higher bar of the merits of their music.


What?? It could be equally "obvious" to some that hop hop is just profane noise. "Higher bar"?


----------



## 59540

Portamento said:


> Nope.


Yep.


> You can suggest it, but that doesn't make it true.


Oh, come on. Anyone who's even read through these "modern music" tussles knows that it's verboten to question the composers' sincerity and motivations or even skill and knowledge.


----------



## janxharris

fbjim said:


> Just about every composer who ever lived detested at least one or more composers on the list of Accepted Canonical Greats.
> 
> Especially the French composers. Saying rude things about other composers, (especially other French composers) is practically a national pastime in France.
> 
> Thomas Beecham thought Beethoven was vulgar. Bernstein thought Bruckner was trash. Esa-Pekka Salonen apparently thinks Shostakovich is garbage. You could fill a book with great composers and conductors who hated Wagner. We all have our opinions.


Esa-Pekka Salonen on Shostakovich's 4th symphony:






_'For me it's one of his deepest and most profound masterpieces...but it took me a while to understand why it is the way it is'._


----------



## fbjim

janxharris said:


> Esa-Pekka Salonen on Shostakovich's 4th symphony:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _'For me it's one of his deepest and most profound masterpieces...but it took me a while to understand why it is the way it is'._


It might have been an earlier interview or something- I do specifically remember EPS or maybe one of the other modernist conductors of the Boulez mold trashing Shostakovich's music.


----------



## Neo Romanza

fbjim said:


> Esa-Pekka Salonen apparently thinks Shostakovich is garbage.


Are you sure Salonen thought _all_ of Shostakovich was garbage? These recordings tell a different tale:


----------



## fbjim

I think I figured it out- he thought Shostakovich Symphony No. 7 was bad, and I incorrectly remembered the extent of his quote.


----------



## Luchesi

arpeggio said:


> Really. With all of the support she has been receiving and I am willing to wager when she sees any criticism she cries all the way to the bank.


Imagine a grownup (like me or you) creating this mimicry for audiences.


----------



## Neo Romanza

fbjim said:


> I think I figured it out- he thought Shostakovich Symphony No. 7 was bad, and I incorrectly remembered the extent of his quote.


I think Salonen is rather ambivalent about Mahler and Shostakovich, but he has conducted both composers many times, so it does seem that there are certain works he has a great affection for. In Mahler, he's expressed his love for the 3rd symphony for example. In Shostakovich, he expressed his great admiration of his 4th symphony.

Anyway, I'm getting off-topic....back to Alma what's her name.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I have never said there was no value in CM. What I have said is that I do not think CM is more valuable than other kinds of music.


Read it again. I don't remember saying that.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> You have some kind of a point...but I'm rather less keen on the notion of 'inconsequential'. Inconsequential to whom? Not to the fans that, you acknowledge, both have. I'm also less keen on the notion that some composers (or their works) might be, objectively, less inconsequential than others.
> 
> To some extent, all music is inconsequential, unless you do it to make a living from it. Bach might enrich your soul, but he doesn't offer shelter, food on the table, clothe you, pay your bills. Deutscher is the same.


I'm always concerned about the next generation. My generation and the one before it are the kind of listeners they are.. I mean, the new appeal and the initial learning is over for them. It will be very difficult for them to change.


----------



## arpeggio

SanAntone said:


> And in the process please stop trying to convince those of us who have a higher bar of the merits of their music.


I do not have a higher bar. I do not drink.

Wait a second. I am Greek and I occasionally drink ouzo.

OK. So my bar is not as high as your bar.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Alma Deutscher writes derivative classical music and John Williams writes derivative film scores that he sometimes arranges as concert works, i.e. light classical fare. It is obvious to everyone except the most ardent fans of either of these figures that while they are talented and write music which has an audience, ultimately it is inconsequential.
> 
> If these people write the kind of music you think of as good examples of classical music, enjoy it to your heart's content and be happy. And in the process please stop trying to convince those of us who have a higher bar of the merits of their music.


But all the other stuff aside, I pretty much agree with you. She has potential and talent to create some very interesting music, but what I don't find what she's produced so far to be very interesting. OK, 'nuff said.


----------



## Portamento

dissident said:


> Anyone who's even read through these "modern music" tussles knows that it's verboten to question the composers' sincerity and motivations or even skill and knowledge.


It's not. People do it all the time. It's been my experience, however, that most of these people are quite myopic and lack any knowledge of cultural-historical context. But there are certainly criticisms of "modern music" to be made.


----------



## 59540

Portamento said:


> It's not. People do it all the time. ...


Yeah, right. Anyone who does such "all the time" would end up being banned and you know it.


----------



## Portamento

dissident said:


> Yeah, right. Anyone who does such "all the time" would end up being banned and you know it.


Only if they're an a-hole to other members in the process.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I'm always concerned about the next generation. My generation and the one before it are the kind of listeners they are.. I mean, the new appeal and the initial learning is over for them. It will be very difficult for them to change.


Not quite sure I understand. What is it you are worrying about, wrt the next generation?


----------



## arpeggio

My youngest son is a freelance musician and music teacher in Los Angeles.

We were having a discussion concerning Ms. Deutscher and music prodigies in general.

He made an interesting observation concerning Ms. Deutscher. She reminded him of a five year old who could color within the lines of a coloring book. She would never be a great composer until she learns how to effectively color outside of the lines.


----------



## ZJovicic

I think it's already time for Alma to stop living off her old glory, and to try to give us some new, more mature works.

I can't wait to hear her first symphony.

She's not that young anymore. This year she is 16. She's not a kid. In February she'll be 17.

So she really needs to try to distance herself from child prodigy status.

There's still so much emphasis on her website on her earliest works and how young she was when she composed them.
That's all fine but you can't live your whole life as a child star.

But it seems that this child prodigy narrative still sells well, and probably for this reason she keeps going with it. Which is a pity IMO.

I root for her. I think she's really talented and I would like to hear her more mature works, but also more mature image and presentation.

BTW, more mature, doesn't mean that she needs to adopt modernist dogmas. She can find her own voice, her own idiom, her own esthetic, but still get more mature.


----------



## Machiavel

Op says she deserves more love. Let’s see. She has rich parents, great public relations, she is herself already rich and will get richer and will have a career similar to Andre Rieu . She will get ovation wherever she goes. I thinks she gets enough of it… I’m pretty sure you can find plenty of elites students much better than her at the same age in terms of playing.

The only critic she gets is that she writes derivative music which is the case. God I would like my life if it was the only negative critic I guess. I do not think any negative critics gets to her


----------



## Neo Romanza

Machiavel said:


> Op says she deserves more love. Let's see. She has rich parents, great public relations, she is herself already rich and will get richer and will have a career similar to Andre Rieu . She will get ovation wherever she goes. I thinks she gets enough of it… I'm pretty sure you can find plenty of elites students much better than her at the same age in terms of playing.
> 
> The only critic she gets is that she writes derivative music which is the case. God I would like my life if it was the only negative critic I guess. I do not think any negative critics gets to her


She'll find out soon enough that she'll be nothing more than a pun or bad party joke to people who actually listen to classical music seriously. If she does end up like Yanni or Rieu at least she won't starve as what was that quote from Ives..."If he [a composer] has a nice wife and some nice children, how can he let the children starve on his dissonances?"


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> My youngest son is a freelance musician and music teacher in Los Angeles.
> 
> We were having a discussion concerning Ms. Deutscher and music prodigies in general.
> 
> He made an interesting observation concerning Ms. Deutscher. She reminded him of a five year old who could color within the lines of a coloring book. She would never be a great composer until she learns how to effectively color outside of the lines.


It depends on what the lines represent. If the lines represent sounding a little too much like Mozart or Mendelssohn, sure.


ZJovicic said:


> She's not that young anymore. This year she is 16. She's not a kid. In February she'll be 17.


16 or 17 is still a kid.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Hi guys. Have been away from the forum for many months and thought i would look in. Could find no thread of interest on the first page but always interested to know what is happening with Alma Deutscher. 

Personally - I would have no reasons for listening to her music as I try to listen to the best (for me) classical music - life is too short to spend time listening to anything that is not near the highest level. I have yet to get through the works of some very great composers - and I would think it would be 1000 lifetimes before I come to Ms Deutscher unless there is a very good reason.

Exceptional young talents - especially musical talents - do attract a lot of media attention - they always have and always will. So what looks good in an adult - the same level in a child looks miraculous. Leopold Mozart traded his son's talents on this fact and so have other parents of well trained children. Note I did not use the word gifted. I would wager than nearly any reasonably capable child given Alma's early start and training - providing they did the same work under the same STRICT SUPERVISION - would do well - some not as well as Alma - some as good - and others better. 

Her parents were sharp - encouraged her in the composition of tuneful classical and romantic era type music and she imitates well - from what I have heard. And many people, in the belief that a child has some uncanny knack to compose pure and innocent uplifting melodies - have put their money down. This encouragement may keep her music rooted firmly in the past - since it brings her much love - and money.

I knew an adult English composer a while ago - and he gave me some of his conservatoire compositions to listen to. Opera - sounding very impressively, in a mature way like Richard Strauss at his best. I was amazed and said so - making the mistake of mentioning Strauss influence. He looked at me with great shame and embarrassment - saying it was a stepping stone to finding his own voice. But he - though respected by fellow professionals as an accomplished 21stC composer - is little known and has a small audience compared with Alma.

Alma has not found her own voice - that is the point. And from the interviews I have seen she believes she has. In order to find her own voice - she will need to be fully aware that she is moving towards that goal.

I agree with those who say she does not need a Bmus. Better to take private lessons, self study and set her own goals. She would only attract a lot of envy and frankly - she is a damned good pianist and violinist - so I don't see what a Bmus will give her other than a formal qualification.

In the meantime - may she have much success and happiness in music and indeed life.


----------



## ZJovicic

No one seems to be commenting on her personality...
I think she enjoys attention and has a particular style of speech. She's also kind of opinionated and has certain attitude.
She likes to make spoken introductions to her videos...
here's the newest example:


----------



## ZJovicic

Also sense of humor, sort of:


----------



## ZJovicic

Half hour interview... good way to get to know her views and personality:
P.S. (don't be fooled by the title, the interview is in English, not German)


----------



## EdwardBast

PlaySalieri said:


> I agree with those who say she does not need a Bmus. Better to take private lessons, self study and set her own goals. She would only attract a lot of envy and frankly - she is a damned good pianist and violinist - so I don't see what a Bmus will give her other than a formal qualification.


What studying in a good music program might give her is a chance to meet many other talented people with different perspectives on music and life and a more comprehensive understanding of the people she's currently working with and where they fit into the world at large. At that age the last thing she needs is an insular world where she's encouraged to believe her own publicity machine.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> What studying in a good music program might give her is a chance to meet many other talented people with different perspectives on music and life


*"I have no interest in doing that and won't be taking the course."* - sounds exactly like what she would say if faced with the same situation: 


EdwardBast said:


> From the perspective of a music student educated in the late 20thc I would say that the significance of serial composition both historically and aesthetically was comically exaggerated for decades. As an undergrad I signed up for a composition course that required a preliminary interview with the professor/composer. When I was told the first assignment (write a short 12-tone work observing the "non-repetition myth" and avoiding any sequences of tones with tonal or triadic implications) I said "I have no interest in doing that and won't be taking the course." I was verbally abused as I stood and left the man's office.


----------



## fluteman

While the OP titles this thread to make it look like the topic is Alma Deutscher, the text of his post makes clear it's really just another anti-modern music screed of the type that fills TC on a daily basis. The trouble with such arguments, aside from their being tedious and repetitive, is that modern and contemporary music often is entirely tonal in the traditional sense: based on the tonic-dominant relationship of the diatonic scale, and harmonic progressions of triads along the circle of fifths. And a lot of contemporary music "de-emphasizes" traditional harmony without departing from it entirely. Originality is not synonymous with dissonance.

Should she end up with a successful career in the "classical pops" genre like Andre Rieu, I find nothing dishonorable in that. In fact, she strikes me as having the most potential as a conductor rather than as a composer or performer. I can picture the television specials already. I guess the rich get richer.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> *"I have no interest in doing that and won't be taking the course."* - sounds exactly like what she would say if faced with the same situation:


I said a good music program, not one populated by ideologues like mine was. Why would she be faced with the same situation?


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> it's really just another anti-modern music screed of the type that fills TC on a daily basis.


Oh, come on. "Fills"? Looking at the first page of the list in this subforum I see no threads of that type. At the bottom of the list on page 1 is a thread called "Future" which isn't an "anti-modern screed". On page 2 there's one about Ligeti and Stockhausen: ditto.


> The trouble with such arguments, aside from their being tedious and repetitive, is that modern and contemporary music often is entirely tonal in the traditional sense: based on the tonic-dominant relationship of the diatonic scale, and harmonic progressions of triads along the circle of fifths. And a lot of contemporary music "de-emphasizes" traditional harmony without departing from it entirely. Originality is not synonymous with dissonance.


The arguments aren't any more tedious than constantly complaining about them. Not everybody likes modern music. Not everybody likes Baroque or Romantic or Renaissance music. Find some way to cope.


> Should she end up with a successful career in the "classical pops" genre like Andre Rieu, I find nothing dishonorable in that. In fact, she strikes me as having the most potential as a conductor rather than as a composer or performer. I can picture the television specials already. I guess the rich get richer.


Or maybe she'll be a serious composer in the tonal style that you just protested that "anti-moderns" overlook or minimize.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> What studying in a good music program might give her is a chance to meet many other talented people with different perspectives on music and life and a more comprehensive understanding of the people she's currently working with and where they fit into the world at large. At that age the last thing she needs is an insular world where she's encouraged to believe her own publicity machine.


That is true - but a Bmus is a huge commitment - maybe Saturday junior departments is the way to go. Or young composer workshops.


----------



## PlaySalieri

ZJovicic said:


> No one seems to be commenting on her personality...
> I think she enjoys attention and has a particular style of speech. She's also kind of opinionated and has certain attitude.
> She likes to make spoken introductions to her videos...
> here's the newest example:


She is an exceptionally talented violinist. There are few players her age (and older) that can produce that maturity of tone. She must have had top class tuition and dedicated long hours of practice to reach that level. Far more impressed with her ability as an instrumentalist.

She doesn't sound British. She sounds like her surname suggests - German!


----------



## Xisten267

Alma Deutscher deserves freedom from the spotlights in which her parents put her in. Poor girl has to please the expectations of listeners from all over the world because... well, just because. She must feel a lot of pressure, coming from all sides - the media, her parents, the people who project their expectations upon her. It must be difficult for her to, as a teenager, respond to all of that.


----------



## Forster

PlaySalieri said:


> She doesn't sound British. She sounds like her surname suggests - German!


Born in the UK, but to an Israeli father and British mother.


----------



## Enthusiast

I expect she'll grow up, take up the bottle and join a jazz band. She comes over as a little girl at the moment.


----------



## fluteman

Enthusiast said:


> I expect she'll grow up, take up the bottle and join a jazz band. She comes over as a little girl at the moment.


Funny how some here think she'll compose the next Great Symphony, others that she'll disappear out of music and into obscurity. But one can examine the careers of people like her from the past, and see that neither of those outcomes is the most likely, especially nowadays, when being a celebrity can be a lucrative career even for the talentless, and enormously lucrative for the talented and pretty.


----------



## Red Terror

Alma Deutscher deserves more money! :tiphat:


----------



## Neo Romanza

Xisten267 said:


> Alma Deutscher deserves freedom from the spotlights in which her parents put her in. Poor girl has to please the expectations of listeners from all over the world because... well, just because. She must feel a lot of pressure, coming from all sides - the media, her parents, the people who project their expectations upon her. It must be difficult for her to, as a teenager, respond to all of that.


When she reaches a certain age, she'll have the choice of stepping away from it all. We'll see what happens. Until then, she's nothing special musically. Nothing more than a rehash of a rehash of yet another rehash.


----------



## DaveM

Neo Romanza said:


> When she reaches a certain age, she'll have the choice of stepping away from it all. We'll see what happens. Until then, she's nothing special musically. Nothing more than a rehash of a rehash of yet another rehash.


I think there's something special about a young person who has so much influence of the classical-romantic era in their DNA. And, apparently, there is a market for a 'rehash' of music with melody and harmony in a style that is so familiar to so many of us. This may not be music at the level of the masters, but the audiences of the sold-out performances seem to think there's something special musically about a person who can play the piano and violin at such an advanced level and who composes the music being played.

Btw, given the state of contemporary music where there are no consistent rules or formats, I can't envision an Alma Deutscher drawing crowds with compositions in the way of new 'hash' music. I could be wrong.


----------



## arpeggio

But she is not the only one.

How many times do I have to list all of the young music prodigies I have worked with who compose in a romantic style?


----------



## DaveM

That are accomplished at the violin and the piano and compose concertos and an opera that have played in the big venues and have been recorded? I don't think so. Why the _'How many times do I have to_...' as if there are countless Alma Deutschers out there?


----------



## mikeh375

I'm waiting for the chocolates.......


----------



## Neo Romanza

DaveM said:


> I think there's something special about a young person who has so much influence of the classical-romantic era in their DNA. And, apparently, there is a market for a 'rehash' of music with melody and harmony in a style that is so familiar to so many of us. This may not be music at the level of the masters, but the audiences of the sold-out performances seem to think there's something special musically about a person who can play the piano and violin at such an advanced level and who composes the music being played.
> 
> Btw, given the state of contemporary music where there are no consistent rules or formats, I can't envision an Alma Deutscher drawing crowds with compositions in the way of new 'hash' music. I could be wrong.


My point is that she's not doing anything musically interesting _to me_. I could careless if she sells out every concert --- go watch any concert video of Yanni or Andre Rieu and you'll see they fill seats, too, but for me this isn't a testament to anything other than these people getting as much money as they can rather than actually creating something of artistic worth. I have zero interest in listening to music that caters to the masses in the most kitschy way possible, which is what I believe Alma Deutscher and her ilk do on a daily basis. As I said, we'll see where her career leads, but I'll be honest and say I'm not optimistic.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Forster said:


> Born in the UK, but to an Israeli father and British mother.


That is weird - how do you account for her very unbritish way of talking?


----------



## Forster

PlaySalieri said:


> That is weird - how do you account for her very unbritish way of talking?


There's more than one British way of talking? We're not all Toffs or Cockneys.


----------



## Red Terror

Neo Romanza said:


> My point is that she's not doing anything musically interesting _to me_. I could careless if she sells out every concert --- go watch any concert video of Yanni or Andre Rieu and you'll see they fill seats, too, but for me this isn't a testament to anything other than these people getting as much money as they can rather than actually creating something of artistic worth. I have zero interest in listening to music that caters to the masses in the most kitschy way possible, which is what I believe Alma Deutscher and her ilk do on a daily basis. As I said, we'll see where her career leads, but I'll be honest and say I'm not optimistic.


I think the goal is to make as much money as possible while novelty is on her side. If her parents/handlers do their job well, she'll be exceptionally wealthy and financially secure by her early 30s. Devil's advocate: who cares about 'art' when money, power and status are there for the taking?

:tiphat:


----------



## Red Terror

DaveM said:


> That are accomplished at the violin and the piano and compose concertos and an opera that have played in the big venues and have been recorded? I don't think so. Why the _'How many times do I have to_...' as if there are countless Alma Deutschers out there?


You realize they're selling a whole package, yes? Her modest talent is only one component.


----------



## JackRance

Phil loves classical said:


> How about more love for some of those composers who produce that 'ugly' music?


This is the main problem of her. She can't decide by her opinions what is ugly and beautiful music.


----------



## JackRance

arpeggio said:


> But she is not the only one.
> 
> How many times do I have to list all of the young music prodigies I have worked with who compose in a romantic style?


Listen to Twoset fans compositions. She's not the only prodigy.


----------



## JackRance

I'm 14 years old, I'm 1 year younger than Alma. I will respect her only when she will study and understand music. All types of music. If she can't understand Wozzeck or Lux Aeterna, I can't take her seriously. Jerome Ducros said a lot of things similars to Alma Deutscher. But Jerome Ducros was one of the best interpreters of atonal music. Then he made his idea. But if Alma don't want to study and understand music, I never will respect her.


----------



## JackRance

And I don't agree to the idea "This is good music because she is only a child". Good music is always good music regardless the age, the importance or the spontaneity of the composer.


----------



## JackRance

What about Trifonov music? It sounds a lot like Rachmaninov, and I'm not interest about it, but nobody says "Trifonov is a genius" as much as "Alma Deutscher is a genius"


----------



## JackRance

There is still no coherent style because there is still no composer who has imposed himself on others. If Alma Deutscher wants to write the future of music (as it seems to me she wants to do) she has to find meaning in her music.


----------



## DaveM

Red Terror said:


> You realize they're selling a whole package, yes? Her modest talent is only one component.


Without the component of her talent, there is no 'whole' package, yes? You seem hung up on the fact that money is being made here. Considering how many talented classical artists make a pittance, why are people annoyed or suspicious about it? And the talent is far more than modest and she's only sixteen.


----------



## 59540

Phil loves classical said:


> How about more love for some of those composers who produce that 'ugly' music?


In the words of the Bonnie Raitt song, "You can't make your heart feel something it won't..."


----------



## PlaySalieri

DaveM said:


> Without the component of her talent, there is no 'whole' package, yes? You seem hung up on the fact that money is being made here. Considering how many talented classical artists make a pittance, why are people annoyed or suspicious about it? And the talent is far more than modest and she's only sixteen.


I agree - she has exceptional ability. It would be really interesting to see her compositional style become truly inventive.


----------



## PlaySalieri

JackRance said:


> What about Trifonov music? It sounds a lot like Rachmaninov, and I'm not interest about it, but nobody says "Trifonov is a genius" as much as "Alma Deutscher is a genius"


Because he is a fully mature artist.

There are scores of mature composers who can imitate Rachmaninov as well as if not better than Trifonov.

When Alma is 25 if she is till composing similar music - she will have an audience perhaps as she already has a following - and the ignorant will call her a genius - but it wont mean she is a top level composer.


----------



## PlaySalieri

JackRance said:


> I'm 14 years old, I'm 1 year younger than Alma. I will respect her only when she will study and understand music. All types of music. If she can't understand Wozzeck or Lux Aeterna, I can't take her seriously. Jerome Ducros said a lot of things similars to Alma Deutscher. But Jerome Ducros was one of the best interpreters of atonal music. Then he made his idea. But if Alma don't want to study and understand music, I never will respect her.


I don't think Alma ever said she doesn't want to study and understand music. I am sure she does. Work hard and try to surpass her your own way - don't be jealous though.


----------



## PlaySalieri

arpeggio said:


> But she is not the only one.
> 
> How many times do I have to list all of the young music prodigies I have worked with who compose in a romantic style?


and why is Alma famous and those other prodigies are unknown?

Do they play their own violin and piano concertos with professional orchestras?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Forster said:


> There's more than one British way of talking? We're not all Toffs or Cockneys.


I am British and I know all the regional accents.

Alma does not sound British in the way she speaks. Her father is an Israeli - so I can hear his influence. I can only imagine that in the Deustcher household he must do most of the talking.


----------



## Forster

PlaySalieri said:


> I am British and I know all the regional accents.
> 
> Alma does not sound British in the way she speaks. Her father is an Israeli - so I can hear his influence. I can only imagine that in the Deustcher household he must do most of the talking.


She does sound quaint, but not un-British to my ears.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Forster said:


> She does sound quaint, but not un-British to my ears.


It is not entirely german sounding - I have listened to Israeli's speaking english and the fact that her father is an Israeli and coupled that she was home schooled and not exposed to the linguistic influences of her peers - would explain it.


----------



## EdwardBast

PlaySalieri said:


> and why is Alma famous and those other prodigies are unknown?
> 
> Do they play their own violin and piano concertos with professional orchestras?


Promotion and exploitative parents maybe?


----------



## JackRance

PlaySalieri said:


> Because he is a fully mature artist.
> 
> There are scores of mature composers who can imitate Rachmaninov as well as if not better than Trifonov.
> 
> When Alma is 25 if she is till composing similar music - she will have an audience perhaps as she already has a following - and the ignorant will call her a genius - but it wont mean she is a top level composer.


If she isn't a top level composer she don't deserve more love.


----------



## JackRance

PlaySalieri said:


> I don't think Alma ever said she doesn't want to study and understand music. I am sure she does. Work hard and try to surpass her your own way - don't be jealous though.


She never said she doesn't want to study and understand music, but she doesn't study and understand music. The problem is that she's too much young for compose music, and a lot of people paid too much attention on her, so she thinks that her music is already a good music and it's not necessary for her to grow up, because she think that she's the best composer today.


----------



## fbjim

Does she have a record deal, by the way?


----------



## SanAntone

With so much music written by giants to listen to why bother with this minnow?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> With so much music written by giants to listen to why bother with this minnow?


Many people feel the same way about the "Big 3 and Co." vs modern music.


----------



## gregorx

dissident said:


> Many people feel the same way about the "Big 3 and Co." vs modern music.


Well that would be a false equivalency. The last 120 years of classical music is hardly a minnow.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Many people feel the same way about the "Big 3 and Co." vs modern music.


Yes, that's true, but people feel that way because they dislike modern music while they love the "Big 3 and Co." Many people also feel that way about the "Big 3 and Co." vs Renaissance music. In the case of Deutscher, she writes in a very similar style to the "Big 3 and Co." so one can wonder why people wish to listen to her rather than more accomplished composers from the past (giants versus a minnow).


----------



## 59540

gregorx said:


> Well that would be a false equivalency. The last 120 years of classical music is hardly a minnow.


To you, maybe, but not to someone who thinks those 120 years are a minnow. One person's giant is another person's minnow. Prove otherwise.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> ... In the case of Deutscher, she writes in a very similar style to the "Big 3 and Co." so one can wonder why people wish to listen to her rather than more accomplished composers from the past (giants versus a minnow).


Let's say there's a contemporary composer who writes atonal music. Why would someone want to listen to him/her when they could listen to Schoenberg or Webern?


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Let's say there's a contemporary composer who writes atonal music. Why would someone want to listen to him/her when they could listen to Schoenberg or Webern?


If the composer wrote very similar music to Schoenberg and was relatively unknown, I would guess few would listen to the contemporary composer unless there was some non-musical reason to do so. It sounds like you are agreeing with SanAntone, but maybe I don't understand your question.

I did start a thread wondering how many orchestral listeners want to hear music from someone like Deutscher. Clearly some do, but I don't know how many and exactly why.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> If the composer wrote very similar music to Schoenberg and was relatively unknown, I would guess few would listen to the contemporary composer unless there was some non-musical reason to do so. It sounds like you are agreeing with SanAntone, but maybe I don't understand your question.
> 
> I did start a thread wondering how many orchestral listeners want to hear music from someone like Deutscher. Clearly some do, but I don't know how many and exactly why.


Most of the composers living today that are writing new music do not sound anything like Schoenberg or Webern or Alma Deutscher. There seems to be a lack of knowledge about what is really happening in new music among some TC members (even if they were really interested).

Alma Deutscher is not doing anything new, but there are many young composers who are.

Which is why I asked my question.


----------



## DaveM

IMO, the interest in Alma Deutscher’s music is very much associated with the her as a prodigy. In other words, it is unlikely that her works are likely to be recorded or performed by other artists, at least while she is performing herself. Audiences go to see her and hear her music.

That’s not to diminish her accomplishments. In fact, I think that a part of the attraction is that she represents a combination of these same talents that gave rise to a number of composers in the 18th and 19th centuries. What would she have become if she had lived then? (Unfortunately, given the truth of those times, she would also have to have been a male.)

A good question is what would have been the outcome if Alma Deutscher had, these days, come on the scene with her talents and presented atonal/avant-garde works instead of music of the CP era?


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> If the composer wrote very similar music to Schoenberg and was relatively unknown, I would guess few would listen to the contemporary composer unless there was some non-musical reason to do so. It sounds like you are agreeing with SanAntone, but maybe I don't understand your question.


No, I'm saying that if you want to dismiss a composer on the grounds that what he/she writes is "very similar to" whatever, there can be a huge number of dismissals. I do think that while she's talented her music *is* too similar to the greats to be interesting to me. I feel the same way about a lot of other composers. I could spend my time listening to Bach or Beethoven instead.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> ...
> A good question is what would have been the outcome if Alma Deutscher had, these days, come on the scene with her talents and presented atonal/avant-garde works instead of music of the CP era?


That is a good question. Or if her music was tied more to "political activism".


----------



## mikeh375

AD has chosen to ignore the last 100 years of music which may have stymied her own development. I'd be more understanding of her anachronistic approach if she had actually studied the last 100 years or so and was writing as she does from a more informed perspective. Does anyone know if she has made a concerted effort to study, absorb and appraise the 20th and 21stC before deciding that music by colossal giants is too ugly? I'm doubting it but would be happy to be proved wrong. 
Either way, I still think she is incredibly talented.

Here's a little tale that I can't help thinking is relevant. A friend of mine at the Royal Academy went to see Henze at his house whilst a student with a view to showing him some of his work to date. He came away with one piece of advice only and it was something like "you need to go travelling", that was pretty much it. We decided over our beers in the students bar that yes, it was actually good advice but only in the long-run. Perhaps AD just needs time...but perhaps not.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> Let's say there's a contemporary composer who writes atonal music. Why would someone want to listen to him/her when they could listen to Schoenberg or Webern?


Simple: Because atonality, the mere absence of a trait, doesn't define a style, whereas the characteristics of Classical Era common practice do. Your question is as misguided as saying Why read atheist Richard Dawkins when one can read Voltaire. The mere absence of a belief doesn't mean their writing or thinking shares anything substantive.


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> Let's say there's a contemporary composer who writes atonal music. Why would someone want to listen to him/her when they could listen to Schoenberg or Webern?


Are you really not aware of the many notable and very worthwhile composers have written wonderful atonal music since Schoenberg, Berg and Webern? Just as each of those three pioneers wrote very different music so those who have followed them have written a wide variety of (atonal) music.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> A good question is what would have been the outcome if Alma Deutscher had, these days, come on the scene with her talents and presented atonal/avant-garde works instead of music of the CP era?


Her audience at the moment is made up on classical fans who, like her, reject the last 100 years of music. As this thread demonstrates, these people often treat the issue of whether or not CM got lost in the 20th century in an almost political way. She helps them to feel less left behind and they support her like a populist politician. If she had been writing atonal music the result might have been better music (although it would still surely show her age) but would it have been good enough to attract an audience solely on its merit as music? Probably working on that achievement would take her well into adulthood.


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> Are you really not aware of the many notable and very worthwhile composers have written wonderful atonal music since Schoenberg, Berg and Webern? Just as each of those three pioneers wrote very different music so those who have followed them have written a wide variety of (atonal) music.


The point is that that goes for those who write in a tonal style as well. A lot of people who preach against artistic hierarchies seem always to be clutching for those hierarchies when convenient.


----------



## fbjim

Enthusiast said:


> Her audience at the moment is made up on classical fans who, like her, reject the last 100 years of music. As this thread demonstrates, these people often treat the issue of whether or not CM got lost in the 20th century in an almost political way. She helps them to feel less left behind and they support her like a populist politician. If she had been writing atonal music the result might have been better music (although it would still surely show her age) but would it have been good enough to attract an audience solely on its merit as music? Probably working on that achievement would take her well into adulthood.


To be honest, her audience seems like the talk show circuit. To the extent that there is discussion on her online it seems to primarily focus on turning her into a political football for ideological points that have virtually no basis in her actual work.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> To be honest, her audience seems like the talk show circuit. ...


As opposed to what, the faculty lounge? Isn't that a tad elitist?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> As opposed to what, the faculty lounge? Isn't that a tad elitist?


No, more like an explicit result of her father's attempts to market her as a packaged media human interest story.


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> The point is that that goes for those who write in a tonal style as well. A lot of people who preach against artistic hierarchies seem always to be clutching for those hierarchies when convenient.


I may not understand you but if you are saying that a unique musical personality is a must for any composer of note, whether atonal or not, then I agree with that. You point about hierarchies mystifies me. I have always been comfortable with the idea that some composers were for me better (greater, more rewarding) than others ... so I suppose I believe in there being a hierarchy in my preferences.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> To be honest, her audience seems like the talk show circuit. To the extent that there is discussion on her online it seems to primarily focus on turning her into a political football for ideological points that have virtually no basis in her actual work.


To be honest, when I hear Alma Deutscher's music, what immediately comes to my mind is, what a remarkable genius Johann Strauss the younger was.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> To be honest, when I hear Alma Deutscher's music, what immediately comes to my mind is, what a remarkable genius Johann Strauss the younger was.


TBH, I only listened to enough to know there was no reason to listen to any more. But then, I don't even listen to Mendelssohn and a number of other CPT composers. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven fill that bill with more than enough music for my taste.

When I listen to new music by a living composer, I want it to sound *new*. That's the whole point, IMO. But who knows, maybe one day she'll develop a unique voice.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> ..If she had been writing atonal music the result might have been better music (although it would still surely show her age) but would it have been good enough to attract an audience solely on its merit as music?..


She wouldn't be attracting the present audiences if the music was not good. On what basis might the music be better if it was atonal?


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> Most of the composers living today that are writing new music do not sound anything like Schoenberg or Webern or Alma Deutscher. There seems to be a lack of knowledge about what is really happening in new music among some TC members (even if they were really interested).
> 
> Alma Deutscher is not doing anything new, but there are many young composers who are.
> 
> Which is why I asked my question.


I agree with all of this.


----------



## JackRance

fluteman said:


> To be honest, when I hear Alma Deutscher's music, what immediately comes to my mind is, what a remarkable genius Johann Strauss the younger was.


Johann Strauss is one of the worst composers ever. His composition are only technique and uses the sames harmonic progressions ever.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> No, I'm saying that if you want to dismiss a composer on the grounds that what he/she writes is "very similar to" whatever, there can be a huge number of dismissals. I do think that while she's talented her music *is* too similar to the greats to be interesting to me. I feel the same way about a lot of other composers. I could spend my time listening to Bach or Beethoven instead.


Yes, I agree. I do spend a modest amount of time listening to "lesser" versions of some "great" composers, and sometimes I wonder if I will eventually vastly reduce my time listening to those works. For example, awhile ago I bought several works by Foote, but I have not listened to them in quite some time.


----------



## JackRance

SanAntone said:


> When I listen to new music by a living composer, I want it to sound *new.*


If today nobody can't write *new* music, today I won't listen music anymore.


----------



## JackRance

I want to know her opinion not only about Schoenberg, but also about Stravinsky, Debussy, Bartòk. If she can't understand good music, and defines what she doesn't like as ugly music, i refuse to listen to her.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I agree with all of this.


So do I. There are many here who prefer the music of Johann Strauss and his contemporaries and predecessors to that of later composers. That's fine, but there is no reason to be dogmatic to the extent of factually distorting and misrepresenting what music of the 20th and 21st centuries, and for that matter, music of the 18th and 19th centuries, is. The idea that modern and contemporary music necessarily is ugly and dissonant (as if those two words mean the same thing), and intentionally so, as the first post in this thread not too subtly implies, simply doesn't hold water. To be fair, there are many devoted and knowledgeable fans here of 18th and 19th century music who know not to spout such nonsense. The general level of sophistication here is high, once one does a bit of judicious, um, editing.



JackRance said:


> Johann Strauss is one of the worst composers ever. His composition are only technique and uses the sames harmonic progressions ever.


Don't hold back, Jack! :lol: Let's just say, having had the real Johann Strauss over a century ago, we probably don't need a string of lesser imitators.


----------



## fbjim

this whole thing seems to posit that this is like when Barber and Rochberg started rejecting serialist composition and there was suddenly a huge amount of serious discussion back and forth about the merits and implications of this and it's not. much like John Cage and John Williams she seems to exist less as a topic for musical discussion and more as some kind of discourse firebomb which can be detonated to cause arguments, except more people here actually listen to Cage and Williams.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> So do I. There are many here who prefer the music of Johann Strauss and his contemporaries and predecessors to that of later composers. That's fine, but there is no reason to be dogmatic to the extent of factually distorting and misrepresenting what music of the 20th and 21st centuries, and for that matter, music of the 18th and 19th centuries, is. The idea that modern and contemporary music necessarily is ugly and dissonant (as if those two words mean the same thing), and intentionally so, as the first post in this thread not too subtly implies, simply doesn't hold water. To be fair, there are many devoted and knowledgeable fans here of 18th and 19th century music who know not to spout such nonsense. The general level of sophistication here is high, once one does a bit of judicious, um, editing.


I am currently doing a deep dive into German composers from 1890-1930 and enjoying the journey quite a bit. But I am interested in composers from that time period, not finding a composer alive today writing like that. What was cutting edge music in 1910 becomes pastiche in 2021.


----------



## fbjim

traditionalism and pastiche are postmodern, so technically she is cutting edge


----------



## Red Terror

fbjim said:


> traditionalism and pastiche are postmodern, so technically she is cutting edge


Cutting edge terrible. :tiphat:


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> The idea that modern and contemporary music necessarily is ugly and dissonant (as if those two words mean the same thing), and intentionally so, *as the first post in this thread not too subtly implies*, simply doesn't hold water.


It's not none too subtle - it's explicit - because the OP quotes Deutscher herself. She is entitled to hold the opinion that modern music is ugly, and just as entitled to write what music she wants.

It's a little surprising that some TC members are so vexed by the woman.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> It's not none too subtle - it's explicit - because the OP quotes Deutscher herself. She is entitled to hold the opinion that modern music is ugly, and just as entitled to write what music she wants.
> 
> It's a little surprising that some TC members are so vexed by the woman.


Anyone is entitled to any opinion. But saying that modern music cannot have harmonic and thematic structure and must reflect the "ugliness and complexity of the modern world" is just setting up factually incorrect straw men. It's a sophist debating technique that seems to be intended to shift attention away from an honest and direct evaluation of her own music. She is the one who is 'vexed', or pretending to be, as she tries to build herself a lucrative Andre Rieu-like career.


----------



## Forster

I don't see it that way. Judging by what she is reported to have said (and so much has been repeated endlessly in various places it's not easy to get either a coherent or nuanced picture of what she actually believes) she's only echoing what plenty of music lovers across the world say about "modern" music, even here at TC.

Does her music need a direct and honest evaluation? Isn't it already getting one by the audiences that pay to hear it? She didn't strike me as vexed at all.


----------



## fbjim

i do find it interesting that her music is supposedly symbolic of the kind of music that Schoenberg killed, and not like, the kind of music Beethoven killed.


----------



## DaveM

Like it or not, Alma Deutscher is drawing audiences with music modeled on the CP era that no other composer/artist combo with music modeled after contemporary has equaled in the last many decades and it's not even close. That seems to be troubling a number of posters above given the derogatory comments.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Like it or not, Alma Deutscher is drawing audiences with music modeled on the CP era that no other composer/artist combo with music modeled after contemporary has equaled in the last many decades and it's not even close. That seems to be troubling a number of posters above given the derogatory comments.


Fritz Kreisler comes to mind.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> traditionalism and pastiche are postmodern, so technically she is cutting edge


The label "Postmodernism" has been attached to composers as different as Elliott Carter and Philip Glass, or John Tavener and Brian Ferneyhough. (Here's a Wikipedia list.) IMO it is a meaningless term. But composers who have used a broad stylistic palette such as George Rochberg, or Leonard Bernstein are among my favorites, because despite the stylistic variety they maintain a unique voice.

I can easily recognize Bernstein but wonder if the same can be said of Deutscher.


----------



## fbjim

it's mostly a joke but removing CPT music form its original context and placing it in a modern one is postmodern whether the composer likes it or not, as the joke goes


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> It's not none too subtle - it's explicit - because the OP quotes Deutscher herself. She is entitled to hold the opinion that modern music is ugly, and just as entitled to write what music she wants.
> 
> It's a little surprising that some TC members are so vexed by the woman.


I get the impression that CM enthusiasts have a fear that her popularity will have a bad affect on music and on the listeners we need for the health of CM.

This quote below popped into my head (and I don't subscribe to those fears, but everything seems to have been watered down and dumbed down as media has become so pervasive).
"That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love." Shakespeare


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I don't see it that way. Judging by what she is reported to have said (and so much has been repeated endlessly in various places it's not easy to get either a coherent or nuanced picture of what she actually believes) she's only echoing what plenty of music lovers across the world say about "modern" music, even here at TC.
> 
> Does her music need a direct and honest evaluation? Isn't it already getting one by the audiences that pay to hear it? She didn't strike me as vexed at all.


I'm surprised by how often I see the argument used here that "plenty of people", or even "Plenty of people at TC", "are saying the same thing". I'm not especially interested in what "plenty of people" say. Plenty of people, in fact the overwhelming majority of people, have no interest whatsoever in classical music and think Bach and Beethoven are crashing bores.

I do agree that she does not strike me as vexed at all, either. She strikes me as laughing, or smirking, all the way to the bank, as Liberace, whom she reminds me more than a little of, did.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Like it or not, Alma Deutscher is drawing audiences with music modeled on the CP era that no other composer/artist combo with music modeled after contemporary has equaled in the last many decades and it's not even close. That seems to be troubling a number of posters above given the derogatory comments.


Oh, I don't begrudge her any success, but if she is so successful why does she deserve more love? Sounds like she is getting plenty.


----------



## Forster

My point about 'plenty of people' is not an argumentum ad populum in support of her opinions, only that her opinion is common, unexceptional, and hardly worth the vexation it seems to be causing.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> I do agree that she does not strike me as vexed at all, either. She strikes me as laughing, or smirking, all the way to the bank, as Liberace, whom she reminds me more than a little of, did.


Thomas Kinkade in music.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> My point about 'plenty of people' is not an argument um ad populum in support if her opinions, only that her opinion is common, unexceptional, and hardly worth the vexation it seems to be causing.


To the extent there is vexation it is because the thread claims she needed more love. An odd request, IMO.


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> My point about 'plenty of people' is not an argumentum ad populum in support of her opinions, only that her opinion is common, unexceptional, and hardly worth the vexation it seems to be causing.


the "vexation" is that her music is entirely secondary to her usage as a rhetorical device


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Thomas Kinkade in music.


Liberace actually was fond of saying that he laughed all the way to the bank. In his case, I think it was a measure of revenge against those who would ridicule and belittle him, as were his outrageous outfits and the huge candelabra on the piano in later years (he didn't start out with such an undignified act). I don't remember Thomas Kinkade saying anything like that in the interview I remember, but I do seem to remember that he got a similar satisfaction from his broad popularity. That's fine. Most people don't want classical music or art, and never will.


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> I may not understand you but if you are saying that a unique musical personality is a must for any composer of note, whether atonal or not, then I agree with that. You point about hierarchies mystifies me. I have always been comfortable with the idea that some composers were for me better (greater, more rewarding) than others ... so I suppose I believe in there being a hierarchy in my preferences.


No, it's a response to mmsbls' comment to the effect "why would anyone be interested in listening to her music when they can just listen to the great CP composers?" If the point about hierarchies mystifies you, then consider the fact that for some personal hierarchies, Alma Deutscher ranks higher than in yours. Everything's cool then.


DaveM said:


> Like it or not, Alma Deutscher is drawing audiences with music modeled on the CP era that no other composer/artist combo with music modeled after contemporary has equaled in the last many decades and it's not even close. That seems to be troubling a number of posters above given the derogatory comments.


I think there's a lot of truth in that.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> the "vexation" is that her music is entirely secondary to her usage as a rhetorical device


I'm not sure I follow...?



SanAntone said:


> To the extent there is vexation it is because the thread claims she needed more love. An odd request, IMO.


See my first post in response to the OP.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Liberace actually was fond of saying that he laughed all the way to the bank. In his case, I think it was a measure of revenge against those who would ridicule and belittle him, as were his outrageous outfits and the huge candelabra on the piano in later years (he didn't start out with such an undignified act). I don't remember Thomas Kinkade saying anything like that in the interview I remember, but I do seem to remember that he got a similar satisfaction from his broad popularity. That's fine. Most people don't want classical music or art, and never will.


According to Wikipedia Thomas Kinkade died of "acute intoxication" from alcohol and the drug diazepam at the age of 54. Doesn't sound like a happy person.


----------



## JackRance

Alma doesn't deserve more love.


----------



## mikeh375

fluteman said:


> Liberace actually was fond of saying that he laughed all the way to the bank. In his case, I think it was a measure of revenge against those who would ridicule and belittle him, as were his outrageous outfits and the huge candelabra on the piano in later years (he didn't start out with such an undignified act). .


fluteman, If AD can do this, I'm in, IIb - V - I and sinker.......


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> I'm not sure I follow...?


I mean there is barely any discussion of the music as music, it seems to amount to a weird political football where it's used to launch the nth argument in the Serialism Wars.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I mean there is barely any discussion of the music as music, it seems to amount to a weird political football where it's used to launch the nth argument in the Serialism Wars.


Well the gang's all here, weirdly enough. So why not? :lol:


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I mean there is barely any discussion of the music as music, it seems to amount to a weird political football where it's used to launch the nth argument in the Serialism Wars.


No politics or vexation from me. She seems to be another Liberace, or perhaps Mantovani, at least potentially. If it turns out she has the talent and work ethic for it, we'll end up seeing a lot more of her on TV. Musicians of that sort can and do become enormously popular and successful for a reason. But if she doesn't make it to that level, someone else likely will. There is no point in getting vexed about it.

The 'politics' comes, if anywhere, from her own overbroad and unsupportable attacks on modern music, which according to her is ugly and has no harmony or thematic structure. I suppose attack is the best defense, but methinks the lady doth protest too much. She will do better letting her music speak for itself and attract the audience it attracts.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> Fritz Kreisler comes to mind.


You mean the Fritz Kreisler whose main performing career was almost 100 years ago and whose repertoire at the time was CPT music and his own compositions that were modeled after early-mid 19th century music?


----------



## 59540

The girl's 16 years old. I think this urge to write her off as another Liberace is downright bizarre, as if the criterion for true success is to write relatively inaccessible stuff for the delectation of a few hundred modern music devotees.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> I mean there is barely any discussion of the music as music, it seems to amount to a weird political football where it's used to launch the nth argument in the Serialism Wars.


Well, if her music was the subject of the thread, you might expect a discussion of it, but as it's about how much love she is getting and should get...


----------



## SanAntone

> In February 2017, Deutscher made a public statement about her style, her love of melody, and her musical aesthetics, in a message to a press conference of the Carinthian Summer Music Festival in Austria. She explained that some people have told her that she should not compose beautiful melodies in the twenty-first century, because music must reflect the complexity and ugliness of the modern world. "But I think that these people just got a little bit confused. If the world is so ugly, then what's the point of making it even uglier with ugly music?".[12] She then cited the lullaby by Richard Strauss mentioned above as her early inspiration to write music that is beautiful.[13] In July 2017, Deutscher further elaborated this point in an interview with the newspaper Der Standard. Asked about her dreams for the next ten years, she said: "...but the best thing would be if people stopped telling me how it is allowed or not allowed to compose in the twenty-first century. I hope they will have stopped counting my dissonances."[14] In 2019, Deutscher explained to The New York Times: "Lots of people have been telling me that if I want to grow up, I have to compose music that will reflect the ugliness of the modern world. I don't want to do this. I want to compose music that I find beautiful."


Who are these people telling her this? It seems absurd and more like PR than real.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> Who are these people telling her this? It seems absurd and more like PR than real.


I imagine that she has heard quite a few negative critiques of her style from numerous people both to her face and indirectly (online, in the press, etc.). Many of them would not have identified modern music as ugly but rather as different, reflecting today's world, freed from CPT. However, presumably some would have used phrases such as "ugliness of modernity" or "harsh reality". She may have merged all those comments together into one basic critique and responded to that singular criticism rebelling against the need for what she perceives as unpleasant music.

On TC we frequently comment on how composers words are vastly less important than their music. Adults say things that, in retrospect, have little value. Children and even more inclined to do so.


----------



## mikeh375

I'd still like to know how familiar she is with the repertoire of the last 100 years or so. Such an insight would tell us how her musical outlook was shaped. Was she shielded from music deemed somehow inappropriate, or did she come to her appraisal of the 20th and 21stC from a self-informed position? Is there any info on this particular aspect of her development to date? 

I do not know of, nor can I even imagine, a composer who wouldn't at least be curious about some advances made beyond CPT and experiment for themselves. I'm not even talking about radical techniques or atonality, maybe a more expanded tonality which I think would be a good fit for her and help increase the possibility of a more original voice without alienating the general listener. Did she have an opportunity to find out for herself where her aesthetic proclivities lie through learning and direct experience handling material in ways beyond CPT one wonders.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> I imagine that she has heard quite a few negative critiques of her style from numerous people both to her face and indirectly (online, in the press, etc.). Many of them would not have identified modern music as ugly but rather as different, reflecting today's world, freed from CPT. However, presumably some would have used phrases such as "ugliness of modernity" or "harsh reality". She may have merged all those comments together into one basic critique and responded to that singular criticism rebelling against the need for what she perceives as unpleasant music.
> 
> On TC we frequently comment on how composers words are vastly less important than their music. Adults say things that, in retrospect, have little value. Children and even more inclined to do so.


I guess my point was, as someone who listens to and enjoys new music, I don't listen to it looking for a reflection of the ugliness of modern life. I would never describe it like that, nor would I think that were any kind of endorsement of it. And I certainly don't think that is what is the overall motivation or goal of most living composers.

For me, much new music I hear is beautiful, although not tonal. These "quotes" sound like a parody of what the enemies of new music say - not what true fans of it think.


----------



## arpeggio

I have mentioned this before.

The problem is not with Deutscher and her music.

The problem is with those who have placed her on a pedestal as a savoir of classical music.


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> I have mentioned this before.
> 
> The problem is not with Deutscher and her music.
> 
> The problem is with those who have placed her on a pedestal as a savoir of classical music.


I understand your view, but I wouldn't call it a problem. The likelihood that her music and her career could noticeably change contemporary music seems rather remote to me. Other composers do not wish to compose in an older style. They will continue to find their own voice and create what most of us think of as new music.

I suppose she could progress to write music in the Classical/Romantic style that is considered quite good rivaling the "great masters", but more likely she would get better yet only write music that is considered below the top tier. In that case I assume people would prefer Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, Schumann, etc..


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> I suppose she could progress to write music in the Classical/Romantic style that is considered quite good rivaling the "great masters"


So, out of current composers, who are her direct competitors? She surely can't be the only living composer aping traditional CPT...can she?


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> I guess my point was, as someone who listens to and enjoys new music, I don't listen to it looking for a reflection of the ugliness of modern life. I would never describe it like that, nor would I think that were any kind of endorsement of it. And I certainly don't think that is what is the overall motivation or goal of most living composers.
> 
> For me, much new music I hear is beautiful, although not tonal. These "quotes" sound like a parody of what the enemies of new music say - not what true fans of it think.


Most people probably don't think like that, but they certainly do exist. I remember a teacher once quoted Adorno and told us, that we can not write romantic poems because that doesn't reflect the ugliness of our world.

I guess people like that left a big impression on Alma Deutscher, even if they may not be the majority.


----------



## mmsbls

Forster said:


> So, out of current composers, who are her direct competitors? She surely can't be the only living composer aping traditional CPT...can she?


I'm sure there are plenty of people composing in Classical/Romantic styles, but I don't know how many, if any, have recordings.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of people composing in Classical/Romantic styles, but I don't know how many, if any, have recordings.


And performances?


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> I have mentioned this before.
> 
> The problem is not with Deutscher and her music.
> 
> The problem is with those who have placed her on a pedestal as a savoir of classical music.


Sorry, but I think the success (such as it is) and the attention she gets reflects a general dissatisfaction and estrangement from the contemporary classical music scene. It has nothing to do really with pedestals or thinking she's the savior of anything.


----------



## Bulldog

dissident said:


> Sorry, but I think the success (such as it is) and the attention she gets reflects a general dissatisfaction and estrangement from the contemporary classical music scene.


Right, but only from the dissatisfied like yourself.


----------



## 59540

Bulldog said:


> Right, but only from the dissatisfied like yourself.


I'm not really an Alma Deutscher fan. I admire her talent but don't listen to her music. But there must be quite a lot of the dissatisfied in any case.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Sorry, but I think the success (such as it is) and the attention she gets reflects a general dissatisfaction and estrangement from the contemporary classical music scene. It has nothing to do really with pedestals or thinking she's the savior of anything.


Many are dissatisfied with contemporary music, but what several, including you, have wondered is why listen to Deutscher rather than Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner, Dvorak, Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky, and many, many others. Do you think the dissatisfaction with contemporary music is related to the success of Deutscher? You are dissatisfied with contemporary music but don't listen to her. Why do you think others do listen?


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> Many are dissatisfied with contemporary music, but what several, including you, have wondered is why listen to Deutscher rather than Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner, Dvorak, Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky, and many, many others. Do you think the dissatisfaction with contemporary music is related to the success of Deutscher? You are dissatisfied with contemporary music but don't listen to her. Why do you think others do listen?


Because they find her music to be accessible, and also the novelty aspect as being from a kid. It isn't intentionally off-putting or bizarre as so much (not all) contemporary music seems to be.


----------



## SanAntone

I tend to think the audiences for Deutscher and contemporary music are mutually exclusive.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I tend to think the audiences for Deutscher and contemporary music are mutually exclusive.


Well some tend to think the same of audiences for Bach and contemporary music.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Well some tend to think the same of audiences for Bach and contemporary music.


Anyone reading lots of TC threads would know that is not true. Further Nereffid did a series of polls that allow us to test a closely related theory. Whether one likes or dislikes Stockhausen and Xenakis, one has the same likelihood of liking Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. Very few people who like modern/contemporary music dislike CPT music.


----------



## arpeggio

*Give Me a Break*

For years many of us have been providing the names of living composers who employ CPT.

Yet I have read some posts as if that has never been done here. Have all of these posts magically disappeared.

I had mentioned one composer that I personally know, Mark Camphouse. I have provided examples of his music.

I remember when I had a discussion with him where he stated that he considered himself a CPT composer. Then I remember one member commenting that he could not be a CPT composer because he did not sound like Brahms. Give me a break. He is a CPT composer who sounds like Camphouse.

There are some people who follow classical music who think it died with Mahler. These people live in a tower and they do not want to be told that it may have a weak foundation.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> I'm not really an Alma Deutscher fan. I admire her talent but don't listen to her music. But there must be quite a lot of the dissatisfied in any case.


You've heard the concept, Art is about significance. Hers is not significant, but much modern music is. I hold these as facts, and she probably will also, someday.


----------



## Forster

arpeggio said:


> For years many of us have been providing the names of living composers who employ CPT.
> 
> Yet I have read some posts as if that has never been done here. Have all of these posts magically disappeared.


No, but not everyone here has been around long enough to remember either the posts or the names. My question was a genuine one, because mots of the contemporary music I listen to (and it's not a lot) doesn't sound very CPT to my ears.

This week, I listened to a world premiere by George Lewis. I posted about it in two threads. Last month I listened to the UK premiere of a piece by Thomas Ades. I posted about that too.

No one responded to either - too busy arguing about Deutscher I guess.


----------



## arpeggio

If a contemporary composer employs CPT and succeeds in creating a unique sound, he is still a CPT composer.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Anyone reading lots of TC threads would know that is not true. Further Nereffid did a series of polls that allow us to test a closely related theory. Whether one likes or dislikes Stockhausen and Xenakis, one has the same likelihood of liking Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart...


This infers that the active TC mirrors the general classical listening population and I don't think it does, particularly now. In the years I've been a member, those who have a particular love for contemporary music have become the louder and more aggressive voices and anyone reading some of the threads here would reasonably think that the interest in contemporary music on TC was at least on a par with that of CPT music or more so. That is not true on the outside.

The fact is that the CPT repertoire of consistently popular works continues to far outnumber those of the period since around 1925. There really isn't any specific era that followed the Romantic era. Contemporary classical music is a mishmash of many different forms and, in general, there are relatively few works that rise to a level of being accessible to a broad audience. As a result concert orchestras still largely depend on CPT music to survive and over the last century that hasn't changed.

I believe the present situation has resulted in confusion among those -separate from those who are in some way educated in it- who might want to develop an interest in classical music. Contemporary works that sound far different are inserted in the middle of otherwise CPT works at concerts. And you have mentioned how an interest in and understanding of contemporary works often takes more work and dedication than music of the CP era. Classical music used to be a niche at the best of times; now it is even more of a mystery to many.

So, along comes this extremely talented young girl who was born in the wrong century. No other piano & violin playing, concerto/opera composing prodigy has caught the interest of the public or come along in a century at the level of Alma Deutscher. Her music is not at the level of the CPT masters, but it is very accessible and quite an accomplishment by someone who composed it when barely a teenager. Those who post derogatory comments about it must have motives I don't understand because IMO anyone who loves classical music regardless of whether they prefer CPT or contemporary music should be able to appreciate the wonderment of this young individual. And that doesn't mean that her music is some glorious addition to the CPT repertoire or that it signals some move away from contemporary music.


----------



## mikeh375

^^Dave, you forgot about Britten, probably the most naturally gifted (on a level with Mozart) composer in the last 100 years. Recognised by his peers as one of the finest pianists of his generation, a brilliant conductor and a composer who according to Imogen Holst who could rattle off 12 pages of manuscript a day without hardly going to the piano to physically hear the sound.

What he had over AD (so far at any rate), was a distinct voice that went on to write original masterpieces that are clearly descended from CPT and have endured. His kind of technical, virtuosic mastery and especially invention, in all aspects of composition and music making is quite rare imv. Maybe AD can achieve on her own personal level, what Britten and others (yes there are others too), have managed, I hope she does as I think she is capable for sure.


----------



## SanAntone

arpeggio said:


> If a contemporary composer employs CPT and succeeds in creating a unique sound, he is still a CPT composer.


Well, that's the thing. I am not concerned whether composer writes tonally or atonally, what is of interest to me is a unique voice.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> She wouldn't be attracting the present audiences if the music was not good. On what basis might the music be better if it was atonal?


You surely do not still believe - after all the discussions on similar subjects that you have participated in - that musical popularity is a measure of musical or artistic quality? Your question ("on what basis ...") is unclear to me. What do you mean by basis? Serious and talented musicians willing to play it? For me it would just be the subjective reward I get from music - and with AD that is a negative (nausea).



> Like it or not, Alma Deutscher is drawing audiences with music modeled on the CP era that no other composer/artist combo with music modeled after contemporary has equaled in the last many decades and it's not even close. That seems to be troubling a number of posters above given the derogatory comments.


I am not sure this makes sense, does it? Are you saying that she is already more played and more popular than any other composer of the last 100 years? That is clearly wrong, if you are. And why should we not express our views of what we hear from her? Just because she is popular (you say)? As many have said her music is heading towards the sort of thing that Liberace and Mantovani and others of their ilk excel at. She should be compared with them by those who like their music. If that sort of music pleases you and you find yourself having enough time for it without missing the great composers who you also love then that is fine. But I have a hunch that those of us who listen to and enjoy the music that she (a child) describes as ugly get a lot more satisfaction from that "ugly music" than anyone can from her music. As has been said, her importance is (small p) political ... it is a flag for those who feel their lives are ruined by the existence of Bartok, Shostakovich, Schoenberg and Boulez ... sometimes it sometimes seems even to the extent of wanting to have it burned or banned.


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> If a contemporary composer employs CPT and succeeds in creating a unique sound, he is still a CPT composer.


That isn't really true. The common practice era is over.


----------



## EdwardBast

mikeh375 said:


> ^^Dave, you forgot about Britten, probably the most naturally gifted (on a level with Mozart) composer in the last 100 years. Recognised by his peers as one of the finest pianists of his generation, a brilliant conductor and a composer who according to Imogen Holst who could rattle off 12 pages of manuscript a day without hardly going to the piano to physically hear the sound.
> 
> *What he had over AD (so far at any rate), was a distinct voice that went on to write original masterpieces* that are clearly descended from CPT and have endured. His kind of technical, virtuosic mastery and especially invention, in all aspects of composition and music making is quite rare imv. Maybe AD can achieve on her own personal level, what Britten and others (yes there are others too), have managed, I hope she does as I think she is capable for sure.


Prokofiev sounded like himself as a young teen. Shostakovich too had an original voice as a teen.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> Anyone reading lots of TC threads would know that is not true. Further Nereffid did a series of polls that allow us to test a closely related theory. Whether one likes or dislikes Stockhausen and Xenakis, one has the same likelihood of liking Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. Very few people who like modern/contemporary music dislike CPT music.


So why then is it impossible that someone could be a Xenakis fan but at the same time at least be kind of neutral on the subject of Alma Deutscher? What I've seen for the most part from the "mods" here is a weird kind of vitriol, of the kind they're always whining about "anti-mods" engaging in. If you despise the whole Alma Deutscher phenomenon, why even bother?



DaveM said:


> This infers that the active TC mirrors the general classical listening population and I don't think it does, particularly now. In the years I've been a member, those who have a particular love for contemporary music have become the louder and more aggressive voices and anyone reading some of the threads here would reasonably think that the interest in contemporary music on TC was at least on a par with that of CPT music or more so. That is not true on the outside.


Yeah, exactly.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> This infers that the active TC mirrors the general classical listening population and I don't think it does, particularly now. In the years I've been a member, those who have a particular love for contemporary music have become the louder and more aggressive voices and anyone reading some of the threads here would reasonably think that the interest in contemporary music on TC was at least on a par with that of CPT music or more so. That is not true on the outside.


SanAntone commented that the audiences for Deutscher and contemporary music are mutually exclusive. dissident replied that some tend to think the same of audiences for Bach and contemporary music (i.e. that they are mutually exclusive). My comment was intended to show that the audiences are not mutually exclusive given that many like both, but yes, TC does not mirror general classical listening.



DaveM said:


> ...So, along comes this extremely talented young girl who was born in the wrong century. No other piano & violin playing, concerto/opera composing prodigy has caught the interest of the public or come along in a century at the level of Alma Deutscher. Her music is not at the level of the CPT masters, but it is very accessible and quite an accomplishment by someone who composed it when barely a teenager. Those who post derogatory comments about it must have motives I don't understand because IMO anyone who loves classical music regardless of whether they prefer CPT or contemporary music should be able to appreciate the wonderment of this young individual. And that doesn't mean that her music is some glorious addition to the CPT repertoire or that it signals some move away from contemporary music.


I can understand people not appreciating her music, wishing that attention were more focused on contemporary composers they feel are more deserving, or pushing back on the idea that this could be the future of classical music, but posting derogatory comments about Deutscher or her music does not seem useful or appropriate. As you say, she's simply a talented young musician writing music she loves.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> Prokofiev sounded like himself as a young teen. Shostakovich too had an original voice as a teen.


On the other hand, Stravinsky's Op. 1 sounds a lot like Rimsky-Korsakov.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> SanAntone commented that the audiences for Deutscher and contemporary music are mutually exclusive. dissident replied that some tend to think the same of audiences for Bach and contemporary music (i.e. that they are mutually exclusive). My comment was intended to show that the audiences are not mutually exclusive given that many like both, but yes, TC does not mirror general classical listening.


Comparing Deutscher to Bach I think is a stretch, to say the least. I listen to Bach and contemporary music because in both cases the music is of high quality. I don't get that from what I have heard of Deutscher.

I don't listen to Deutscher because she writes in a tonal style, I enjoy plenty of tonal music. I don't listen to it for the same reason I am not interested in any mediocre music.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> So why then is it impossible that someone could be a Xenakis fan but at the same time at least be kind of neutral on the subject of Alma Deutscher? What I've seen for the most part from the "mods" here is a weird kind of vitriol, of the kind they're always whining about "anti-mods" engaging in. If you despise the whole Alma Deutscher phenomenon, why even bother?


I assume it's far from impossible that someone could be a Xenakis fan but at the same time at least be kind of neutral on the subject of Alma Deutscher. I'm not particularly a Xenakis fan, but I do like a lot of modern/contemporary music. I am generally neutral on Deutscher. TC is an internet forum so comments tend to be written by those most invested in a given view. The few here who are not neutral on Deutscher do not speak for all or likely even most contemporary music lovers.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> ... I am not interested in any mediocre music.


Which is also why the listenership for contemporary music overall is miniscule.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> What he had over AD (so far at any rate), was a distinct voice that went on to write original masterpieces


To me, this work written by the 17-year old Mozart












foreshadows:


----------



## SanAntone

IMO Deutscher is a trick pony, a curiosity. The music she writes is mediocre.

Some here are trying to turn this into a traditional vs. modern music debate. It is not about that. It is about a teenage girl who writes mediocre Classical music attracting the attention of the popular press. If she does not mature into a serious composer with a unique voice, she will disappear as just another passing fad.


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> To me, this work written by the 17-year old Mozart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> foreshadows:


nice. I must listen to these again, it's been years. When in Salzburg we went to a church where the first performance of the Mass took place. That evening we even dined in the restaurant WM took his family to on a regular basis, even the menu was authentic.

https://www.salzburg.info/en/dining-shopping/inns/st-peter-stiftskeller


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Which is also why the listenership for contemporary music overall is miniscule.


I know it may be fun for you to say that, and you may (hopefully) be joking. More seriously, do you believe contemporary composers are generally of the same ability of earlier composers? In every 50 year interval there are many who write classical music. Some eras may have produced a few who stood above the others, but generally every era has very talented composers. I believe that the group of contemporary composers are equally as talented as groups of composers from earlier eras.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> IMO Deutscher is a trick pony, a curiosity. The music she writes is mediocre.
> 
> Some here are trying to turn this into a traditional vs. modern music debate.


Oh I think it became that when the forum's resident mod-music advocates flocked to the Deutscher threads for some reason. And in a way it is the same traditional vs modern debate. However you're free to call Alma Deutsche and her music whatever you like, and I have no problem with it. If I do the same to a darling of the "mod" crowd, it's trolling and the report button is smashed. :lol:


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I know it may be fun for you to say that, and you may (hopefully) be joking. More seriously, do you believe contemporary composers are generally of the same ability of earlier composers? ...


It's sarcasm. The overall audience for Bach and Beethoven is also relatively miniscule after all, but the disconnect now between audience and composer that we see is fatal, I think. Do I believe contemporary composers are as skilled as earlier ones? Very, very, VERY few. That may be because the earlier greats were singularities and we're assuming that such singularities are going to continue in an uninterrupted stream, when they really can't. Who knows.


----------



## mikeh375

mmsbls said:


> I know it may be fun for you to say that, and you may (hopefully) be joking. More seriously, do you believe contemporary composers are generally of the same ability of earlier composers? In every 50 year interval there are many who write classical music. Some eras may have produced a few who stood above the others, but generally every era has very talented composers. I believe that the group of contemporary composers are equally as talented as groups of composers from earlier eras.


I'd go further mmsbls and say that a composer today has to master much more complexity when it comes to orchestration, harmony and especially rhythm when compared to CPT. That's not really in doubt and the study road is a hard one but many composers today are highly skilled in spite of the arduous path because they have to be.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> You surely do not still believe - after all the discussions on similar subjects that you have participated in - that musical popularity is a measure of musical or artistic quality? Your question ("on what basis ...") is unclear to me. What do you mean by basis? Serious and talented musicians willing to play it? For me it would just be the subjective reward I get from music - and with AD that is a negative (nausea).


That post was a response to a number of posts that were either snarky or diminished this young girl's accomplishment. While I have already said, to the effect, that her music is not at a level that would have made a mark per se in the 19th century, considering what is involved in orchestrating violin and piano concertos and composing an opera, *for her age* there is considerable musical and artistic quality there. And btw, musical popularity may not always guarantee musical or artistic quality, but that doesn't mean that the former can't often result because of the latter. Besides, are you assuming that those people attending her concerts are musically ignorant?



> I am not sure this makes sense, does it? Are you saying that she is already more played and more popular than any other composer of the last 100 years?


No I am not and I didn't.



> And why should we not express our views of what we hear from her? Just because she is popular (you say)? As many have said her music is heading towards the sort of thing that Liberace and Mantovani and others of their ilk excel at. She should be compared with them by those who like their music.


Many have not said that. One poster repeated it twice and one or two others parroted him. The association of her concertos with Liberace and Mantovani is bizarre. I can only assume that those with that opinion have not listened to her concertos and Liberace and Mantovani. I grew up listening to far too much of the latter two since that kind of music was a favorite of my father.



> If that sort of music pleases you and you find yourself having enough time for it without missing the great composers who you also love then that is fine. But I have a hunch that those of us who listen to and enjoy the music that she (a child) describes as ugly get a lot more satisfaction from that "ugly music" than anyone can from her music. As has been said, her importance is (small p) political ... it is a flag for those who feel their lives are ruined by the existence of Bartok, Shostakovich, Schoenberg and Boulez ... sometimes it sometimes seems even to the extent of wanting to have it burned or banned.


Are you and others who have posted likewise threatened by the feelings of an 11 to now 16 year old girl? And just because someone has said 'her importance is (small p) political' (and the rest of that silliness that follows) doesn't infer credibility. There seems to be an agenda for some to see a condemnation of contemporary music under every rock. It's getting very old.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> Are you and others who have posted likewise threatened by the feelings of an 11 to now 16 year old girl? And just because someone has said 'her importance is (small p) political' (and the rest of that silliness) doesn't infer credibility. There seems to be an agenda around here for some to see a condemnation of contemporary music under every rock. It's getting very old.


Yeah, I get a huge insecurity vibe.


----------



## mmsbls

mikeh375 said:


> I'd go further mmsbls and say that a composer today has to master much more complexity when it comes to orchestration, harmony and especially rhythm when compared to CPT. That's not really in doubt and the study road is a hard one but many composers today are highly skilled in spite of the arduous path because they have to be.


I've commented in the past that I find it hard to believe that contemporary composers are not at least as talented if not better than earlier ones. There are many more people alive today. A greater percentage of those people have the opportunity to study classical music (e.g. not just white male Europeans). People are vastly healthier than in the past. Teaching techniques presumably benefit from past history. Perhaps the most important difference is that any person can hear essentially all music from the past 700-800 years, and IMSLP allows anyone to view a huge amount of scores.


----------



## 59540

mikeh375 said:


> I'd go further mmsbls and say that a composer today has to master much more complexity when it comes to orchestration, harmony and especially rhythm when compared to CPT. That's not really in doubt and the study road is a hard one but many composers today are highly skilled in spite of the arduous path because they have to be.


That's like taking a Rubik's cube, rearranging and mixing the squares all over the place and then saying that it takes a lot of skill to rearrange it exactly as I did.


----------



## Forster

In response to the suggestion that haters are piling in on AD, I think I've read only two posters who raise substantial objections to AD's music, and none of the objections, IMO, are abusive or unkind. I certainly wouldn't describe those posters as 'haters'. While one or two actively like her work, most seem to be indifferent about her and focus instead in their posts on the fuss being made about her.


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> Oh I think it became that when the forum's resident mod-music advocates flocked to the Deutscher threads for some reason. And in a way it is the same traditional vs modern debate. However you're free to call Alma Deutsche and her music whatever you like, and I have no problem with it. If I do the same to a darling of the "mod" crowd, it's trolling and the report button is smashed. :lol:


But how could you do that? You would need to know the music to write about it, even negatively. Writing on the basis of a one-off hearing of a single piece (or perhaps the start of the piece) would indeed lead to you getting trashed and deservedly so.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> That's like taking a Rubik's cube, rearranging and mixing the squares all over the place and then saying that it takes a lot of skill to rearrange it exactly as I did.


No it's not. Best stick to what you know.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Are you and others who have posted likewise threatened by the feelings of an 11 to now 16 year old girl? And just because someone has said 'her importance is (small p) political' (and the rest of that silliness that follows) doesn't infer credibility. There seems to be an agenda for some to see a condemnation of contemporary music under every rock. It's getting very old.


This is becoming like a playground squabble. No one is threatened, I'm sure, but some do believe in being discriminating when it comes to great art.


----------



## SanAntone

If the music of Deutscher had been written by a middle-aged man it would be unknown. She is a media sensation, because of her "prodigy" status. When she ages out of that class she will need to find a new gimmick. Possibly like Jay Greenberg did by changing his sex.


----------



## Enthusiast

SanAntone said:


> IMO Deutscher is a trick pony, a curiosity. The music she writes is mediocre.
> 
> Some here are trying to turn this into a traditional vs. modern music debate. It is not about that. It is about a teenage girl who writes mediocre Classical music attracting the attention of the popular press. If she does not mature into a serious composer with a unique voice, she will disappear as just another passing fad.


For me that is the post that sums the whole thing up. Now you have done that for us the thread should be closed down as it is just going around in circles.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> If the music of Deutscher had been written by a middle-aged man it would be unknown. She is a media sensation, because of her "prodigy" status.


But by that logic, wouldn't this be a fair accusation on certain avant-garde music?:
The "Bubbles" experiment - What is contemporary music worth?


chipia said:


> It's about the Dutch composer Alexander Comitas. He wanted to test whether the modern atonal art music, which is usually promoted nowadays, can be distinguished from hitting random keys on the piano.
> For this purpose he "composed" a piece called "Bubbles" by letting his young children, who had no musical education, play random notes on the keyboard. In the end, the children only divided the notes among the instruments. However, the composer did not tell anyone how the piece was made.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> This is becoming like a playground squabble. No one is threatened, I'm sure, but some do believe in being discriminating when it comes to great art.


Says he who was drawn to the painting by an elephant saying that if one liked a particular work then it didn't matter who the artist was.  And didn't you have an issue with the word 'great'? Though I could be wrong on that.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> For me that is the post that sums the whole thing up. Now you have done that for us the thread should be closed down as it is just going around in circles.


It would be unfortunate if the thread was shut down on the basis that that post was the final authentic thought. I might add that AD is not middle-aged and we don't know what level of music she might be composing at that age. With those comments, she's being effectively damned and thrown out at the age of 16. For all we know, she might end up embracing contemporary music and write a masterpiece...


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> That's like taking a Rubik's cube, rearranging and mixing the squares all over the place and then saying that it takes a lot of skill to rearrange it exactly as I did.


Could you be a bit clearer what you mean? Your comment seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with Mike's unless you believe that contemporary orchestration, harmony, and rhythm are essentially random.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> If the music of Deutscher had been written by a middle-aged man it would be unknown. She is a media sensation, because of her "prodigy" status. When she ages out of that class she will need to find a new gimmick. Possibly like Jay Greenberg did by changing his sex.


The last comment is a bit unfair. We don't know what will happen with Deutscher. She might become a performer. She might modify her style. She might choose to continue writing in her present style. When she's 25 or 30, perhaps the interest will wane because she's no longer a precocious child. Maybe then she'll reevaluate her music. I think most people here are happy to wait and see about her future.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> It would be unfortunate if the thread was shut down on the basis that that post was the final authentic thought. I might add that AD is not middle-aged and we don't know what level of music she might be composing at that age. With those comments, she's being effectively damned and thrown out at the age of 16. For all we know, she might end up embracing contemporary music and write a masterpiece...


No. It seems you don't do logical any more, Dave. The post I was praising postulated that her value would depend on whether she did mature to produce distinctive and great music. But you have a habit of misquoting, ignoring context etc, as is seen by this (one misrepresentation of something I said and one totally wrong attribution - I regularly use the word great):



> Says he who was drawn to the painting by an elephant saying that if one liked a particular work then it didn't matter who the artist was. And didn't you have an issue with the word 'great'? Though I could be wrong on that.


I have you back on ignore which is what I do when I engage with someone who keeps trolling me (twisting meanings, misquoting etc). Bye.[/QUOTE]


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> The last comment is a bit unfair. We don't know what will happen with Deutscher. She might become a performer. She might modify her style. She might choose to continue writing in her present style. When she's 25 or 30, perhaps the interest will wane because she's no longer a precocious child. Maybe then she'll reevaluate her music. I think most people here are happy to wait and see about her future.


Maybe I was a bit unfair, or facetious. But I've already posted about the possibility that she might improve was she matures. But I won't be holding my breath.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

SanAntone said:


> Maybe I was a bit unfair, or facetious. But I've already posted about the possibility that she might improve was she matures. But I won't be holding my breath.


And the only way to improve is by following the style of composers you like.


----------



## mikeh375

mmsbls said:


> I've commented in the past that I find it hard to believe that contemporary composers are not at least as talented if not better than earlier ones. There are many more people alive today. A greater percentage of those people have the opportunity to study classical music (e.g. not just white male Europeans). People are vastly healthier than in the past. Teaching techniques presumably benefit from past history. Perhaps the most important difference is that any person can hear essentially all music from the past 700-800 years, and IMSLP allows anyone to view a huge amount of scores.


The one thing some might not want to hear here is that CPT is a stepping stone for many, merely basic knowledge. This is possible as you say, because of the giants prior to the 20thC , their achievements and the accessibility of their work. Not all who have a contemporary aesthetic will study CPT to the point of mastery as it does not have much in common with the language of the new. Conversely (and I'd include myself and a few others here on TC regarding this), many do master CPT and I for one can see much benefit in doing so - it's not necessary though depending on the language one aspires to ultimately use.

Reaction to AD from some composers will be an eye rolling one because professionally, itcomposing like she does is not such a special thing, although I still maintain that it is special in that it is coming from one so young. I'm sure I'll get the musical equivalent of the Fermi Paradox thrown at me with..'well where are they, these CPT composers?" Well some are trying to find a way that shakes off any overt influence for a crack at something a little more uniquely personal.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> I have you back on ignore which is what I do when I engage with someone who keeps trolling me (twisting meanings, misquoting etc). Bye.


Trolling you? You responded to my post #326 which was not originally addressed to you. I have no problem with the fact that you did, but the point is that I didn't originally seek you out.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of people composing in Classical/Romantic styles, but I don't know how many, if any, have recordings.


Ever see the 1998 motion picture, The Red Violin? Contemporary composer John Corigliano composed its Academy Award-winning soundtrack and then turned it into a violin concerto. Not only is it predominantly tonal, but its debt to the Romantic violin concerto tradition, and the Brahms violin concerto in particular, is obvious. No great surprise, as Corigliano's father was a violinist, and long the concertmaster of the New York Philharmonic. Yes, one clearly can hear the influences of Stravinsky and Copland, too. Prokofiev and Shostakovich and their violin concertos, and symphonies, even (an almost direct quote from the first Shostakovich violin concerto just passed by, as I listen to it now). But isn't all of that mostly tonal, too?






Where are all the Corigliano threads? He is a great composer, still living last I checked, who has won Academy and Grammy awards and achieved recognition in his lifetime, and who writes in a mostly (not entirely) tonal idiom, modern, yes, but with the clear influence of the romantic era as well.


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> For me that is the post that sums the whole thing up. Now you have done that for us the thread should be closed down as it is just going around in circles.


OK, so why is saying the same thing about John Cage or Brian Ferneyhough such a horrible trespass that enrages our modern music advocates?


DaveM said:


> Trolling you? You responded to my post #326 which was not originally addressed to you. I have no problem with the fact that you did, but the point is that I didn't originally seek you out.


The impulse to shut people up is also troubling.


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> But how could you do that? You would need to know the music to write about it, even negatively. Writing on the basis of a one-off hearing of a single piece (or perhaps the start of the piece) would indeed lead to you getting trashed and deservedly so.


And I'd guarantee that people have listened to maybe a couple of minutes of this kid's music, as I have, and then it's Liberace-dom and "trolling" a couple of threads.


mikeh375 said:


> No it's not. Best stick to what you know.


Well, so it seems. But then again we can't always be "masters of CPT" like yourself. 


mmsbls said:


> I've commented in the past that I find it hard to believe that contemporary composers are not at least as talented if not better than earlier ones. ...


Is the music better?


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> ...Is the music better?


I'm not sure if you are asking "Do more people like the music?", "Do you like the music more?", or "Is the music better?"

I will answer what you wrote. I am not qualified to assess the quality of music in any era. I assume the music is as good because I assume the contemporary composers are at least as talented. I would have to defer to those who study music for a living, who talk frequently to others who study music for a living, and who frequently read the analyses of music from various eras. I would also likely only listen to those who enjoy music from all eras. I personally don't enjoy Country music or heavy metal music so no one should ever listen to any value statement from me about those genres.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> Well, so it seems. But then again we can't always be "masters of CPT" like yourself.


Like I say, CPT is not a unique nor in some cases relevant skill. Every composer has to learn CPT to some extent. To what degree they immerse themselves in CPT beyond the basics is up to them. I chose to be thorough in my studies but I'm not unique in that regard and certainly don't think I'm special. There are many composers in the world who can write very well with CPT and can adapt it to their own ways and means and right now there are countless others who are learning it.

I note with some amusement that your sarcasm would also logically apply to every instrumentalist who has mastered scales and arpeggios, every conductor who has memorised a score or thirty, every musicologist and theorist, every orchestrator and transcriber. In fact anyone who knows what's required, acquires it and then finds themselves at a professional level.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> And I'd guarantee that *people *have listened to maybe a couple of minutes of this kid's music, as I have, and then it's Liberace-dom and "trolling" a couple of threads.


How many "people" here (one, by my last count)? By all means tackle the individuals you have some issue with, but your assertion that implies there's lots of "people" who are posting things about AD that you take exception to is hyperbolic.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> How many "people" here (one, by my last count)? By all means tackle the individuals you have some issue with, but your assertion that implies there's lots of "people" who are posting things about AD that you take exception to is hyperbolic.


Relatively "lots". A good chunk of the modern music advocates on the forum have camped out in two Deutscher threads for a few days now.


mmsbls said:


> I assume the music is as good because I assume the contemporary composers are at least as talented.


So you would assume that this





is on the same level as this?


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> On the other hand, Stravinsky's Op. 1 sounds a lot like Rimsky-Korsakov.


Yes, Stravinsky sounded like one of his contemporaries in his youth. _Contemporaries_, not someone who lived more than two centuries before he was born.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, Stravinsky sounded like one of his contemporaries in his youth. _Contemporaries_, not someone who lived more than two centuries before he was born.


So what? He still hadn't found his own unique voice. Would you give Alma a break if she sounded like Philip Glass?



mikeh375 said:


> Like I say, CPT is not a unique nor in some cases relevant skill. Every composer has to learn CPT to some extent. To what degree they immerse themselves in CPT beyond the basics is up to them. I chose to be thorough in my studies but I'm not unique in that regard and certainly don't think I'm special. There are many composers in the world who can write very well with CPT and can adapt it to their own ways and means and right now there are countless others who are learning it.
> 
> I note with some amusement that your sarcasm would also logically apply to every instrumentalist who has mastered scales and arpeggios, every conductor who has memorised a score or thirty, every musicologist and theorist, every orchestrator and transcriber. In fact anyone who knows what's required, acquires it and then finds themselves at a professional level.


I don't think even Bach would have described himself as such. But then again he wouldn't have needed to do so.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> So what? He still hadn't found his own unique voice.
> 
> I don't think even Bach would have described himself as such. But then again he wouldn't have needed to do so.


Pathetic, bickering baiting. Funnily enough I was going to mention Bach at the end of my post as he too would technically be a victim of your sarcasm, him being a professional too.


----------



## 59540

mikeh375 said:


> Pathetic, bickering baiting. Funnily enough I was going to mention Bach at the end of my post as he too would technically be a victim of your sarcasm, him being a professional too.


No, with Bach the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> No, with Bach the proof is in the pudding.


Agreed, likewise with many modern composers.


----------



## 59540

mikeh375 said:


> Agreed, likewise with many modern composers.


OK, we'll leave it at that. By the way I've listened to some of your work on your website and it's very good and enjoyable.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> So what? He still hadn't found his own unique voice. Would you give Alma a break if she sounded like Philip Glass?


Hah! I don't give Philip Glass a break for sounding like Philip Glass. But if she sounded like a _good_ minimalist composer I might. 



Johnnie Burgess said:


> And the only way to improve is by following the style of composers you like.


This is false. One can improve by writing original music as well.



dissident said:


> No, with Bach the proof is in the pudding.


Do you mean "The proof of the pudding is in the eating?" That's the aphorism you are misstating.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> Do you mean "The proof of the pudding is in the eating?" That's the aphorism you are misstating.


Yeah, that's the one. 


> In this case, the expression "the proof is in the pudding," as well as "the proof in the pudding" and "the proof of the pudding," is a version of the proverbial "the proof of the pudding is in the eating (or tasting)"-all of which have become established in the language through frequent servings...


OK, I don't feel so guilty about making such an error now...


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> OK, we'll leave it at that. By the way I've listened to some of your work on your website and it's very good and enjoyable.


Agreed again...
Seriously though, that was a little unexpected but very nice of you to say so anyway.


----------



## 59540

mikeh375 said:


> Agreed again...
> That's a little unexpected but very nice of you to say so.


I think your work does show a lot of skill. I'll have to listen to it more. I'll always have to defer ultimately to those who put their work out there.


----------



## JTS

dissident said:


> Relatively "lots". A good chunk of the modern music advocates on the forum have camped out in two Deutscher threads for a few days now.
> 
> So you would assume that this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is on the same level as this?


I think anyone with any ear can see they're not on the same level. If people want to listen to Babbit good luck to them. I wish them every joy, as long as I am not in earshot! I wonder whether folks will still be listening to him 200 years from now with the same joy we are listening to JSB


----------



## mikeh375

JTS said:


> I think anyone with any ear can see they're not on the same level. If people want to listen to Babbit good luck to them. I wish them every joy, as long as I am not in earshot! I wonder whether folks will still be listening to him 200 years from now with the same joy we are listening to JSB


The comparison is surely flawed (although reading the posts I understand where it came from). The aesthetics and techniques of the Babbitt have nothing in common with Bach. These might be a more suitable comparison, displaying as they do, 20thC mastery that is more aesthetically equivalent being as they are both descended from CPT and easier to judge and compare as exemplars of the skill seen in more recent (ish) times.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> So you would assume that this
> 
> is on the same level as this?


First, the second video is not available to me, but I believe you posted Bach's cantata BWV #80. I would not think Philomel was as good as Bach's cantata. However, hearing a general statement and then inferring a particular example does not follow. If I heard someone say they assume cities in Europe are roughly as populous as cities in the US, I would not counter with, "So you would assume Dover, England is as populous as New York City?"

I explained why I think contemporary composers are essentially as good or perhaps better than earlier period composers. That doesn't mean that there are contemporary composers as good as Mozart. It means that, on average, they are as good (or better).


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> No, but not everyone here has been around long enough to remember either the posts or the names. My question was a genuine one, because mots of the contemporary music I listen to (and it's not a lot) doesn't sound very CPT to my ears.
> 
> This week, I listened to a world premiere by George Lewis. I posted about it in two threads. Last month I listened to the UK premiere of a piece by Thomas Ades. I posted about that too.
> 
> No one responded to either - too busy arguing about Deutscher I guess.


Maybe the reason no one responded with because no one listened to the pieces because they weren't interested in them. I certainly wasn't.


----------



## mikeh375

mmsbls said:


> "So you would assume Dover, England is as populous as New York City?"


dunno mmsbls, after a busy day on the sea for our border patrol it can sometimes feel that way....


----------



## Forster

JTS said:


> Maybe the reason no one responded with because no one listened to the pieces because they weren't interested in them. I certainly wasn't.


Maybe, but the point of my post was simply to illustrate that many posts are ignored, overlooked or forgotten, and for a whole variety of reasons.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I would not think Philomel was as good as Bach's cantata.


So...why not? What about Babbitt's entire output compared with Bach's? Or Telemann's, Chopin's or Schumann's, for that matter.


> I explained why I think contemporary composers are essentially as good or perhaps better than earlier period composers. That doesn't mean that there are contemporary composers as good as Mozart.


I don't get "on average". That would mean that there *are* some contemporary composers, or at least one, "as good as Mozart", wouldn't it? 


> If I heard someone say they assume cities in Europe are roughly as populous as cities in the US, I would not counter with, "So you would assume Dover, England is as populous as New York City?"


That's an objective criterion. You were the one who said contemporary composers were as talented as, if not more so, than past ones. Now if you said "New York City is more important/less important/as important than/as Dover" that would be more fitting.


----------



## fluteman

mikeh375 said:


> Like I say, CPT is not a unique nor in some cases relevant skill. Every composer has to learn CPT to some extent. To what degree they immerse themselves in CPT beyond the basics is up to them. I chose to be thorough in my studies but I'm not unique in that regard and certainly don't think I'm special. There are many composers in the world who can write very well with CPT and can adapt it to their own ways and means and right now there are countless others who are learning it.
> 
> I note with some amusement that your sarcasm would also logically apply to every instrumentalist who has mastered scales and arpeggios, every conductor who has memorised a score or thirty, every musicologist and theorist, every orchestrator and transcriber. In fact anyone who knows what's required, acquires it and then finds themselves at a professional level.


Correct, and to say the least. Of composers or other musicians here, who believes they have the "common practice" musical skills of, say, John Corigliano or Peteris Vasks? Or even Liberace, the very mention of whom no doubt raises howls of protest here? Even in his later years as a (imo) pathetic, tasteless clown (no disrespect intended to Liberace fans), his common practice musical skills were off the charts. And Beethoven's violin concerto was premiered by another clown who liked to perform with his violin upside down. So there's even a proud CP tradition of clowning around.

The lack of understanding and respect of some here for the skills and talent of today's top musicians, or those of the last 100 years in general, astounds me. And that very much includes "common practice."

Edit: Here's Liberace, in a concert with the London Philharmonic in 1983, taking a long list of popular song requests from the audience as an encore, and then playing a medley of all of them:


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> Correct, and to say the least. Of composers or other musicians here, who believes they have the "common practice" musical skills of, say, John Corigliano...


Would you say Corigliano is equal to Beethoven?


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> So...why not? What about Babbitt's entire output compared with Bach's? Or Telemann's, Chopin's or Schumann's, for that matter.


I have said I am not qualified to assess value in music. I would think that Bach's oratorio might be better simply because I have often read it described as a truly superior work of music. I have never read Philomel described that way. If I spoke to someone who I believed was an expert on both Bach and Babbitt and she explained why Philomel was actually a similarly superior work to BWV #80, I would maybe change my mind. But I don't view it as a competition. I listen to what I think are works that I might like. And if I do like a work, I often listen to it again or many times.



dissident said:


> I don't get "on average". That would mean that there *are* some contemporary composers, or at least one, "as good as Mozart", wouldn't it?


I'm not sure if you are joking or if you truly don't understand averages.

50, 60, 70, 100 have an average of 70

65,75,75, 85 have an average of 75

There is no number in the second series as high as 100.



dissident said:


> That's an objective criterion. You were the one who said contemporary composers were as talented as, if not more so, than past ones. Now if you said "New York City is more important/less important/as important than/as Dover" that would be more fitting.


I think you are missing the point of my statement. I simply was pointing out the flaw in going from generalities to particulars.

As far as I can tell, you think contemporary composers are not as good as earlier ones because you do not enjoy their music as much. Perhaps you also feel that the earlier music has superior craftmanship. But I wonder if you know how to tell how well a contemporary work is constructed. The composers on TC seem to believe many contemporary works and composers are quite good.


----------



## JTS

dissident said:


> Would you say Corigliano is equal to Beethoven?


Looking a5 this thread is embarrassing, comparing these guys to Mozart, Bach, Betthoven etc.. Bernstein had it right when someone mention him and Mozart in the same breath: " Mozart?" he said," whose in that league anyway?"


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> I have said I am not qualified to assess value in music. I would think that Bach's oratorio might be better simply because I have often read it described as a truly superior work of music. I have never read Philomel described that way. If I spoke to someone who I believed was an expert on both Bach and Babbitt and she explained why Philomel was actually a similarly superior work to BWV #80, I would maybe change my mind. But I don't view it as a competition. I listen to what I think are works that I might like. And if I do like a work, I often listen to it again or many times.
> 
> I'm not sure if you are joking or if you truly don't understand averages.
> 
> 50, 60, 70, 100 have an average of 70
> 
> 65,75,75, 85 have an average of 75
> 
> There is no number in the second series as high as 100.
> 
> I think you are missing the point of my statement. I simply was pointing out the flaw in going from generalities to particulars.
> 
> As far as I can tell, you think contemporary composers are not as good as earlier ones because you do not enjoy their music as much. Perhaps you also feel that the earlier music has superior craftmanship. But I wonder if you know how to tell how well a contemporary work is constructed. The composers on TC seem to believe many contemporary works and composers are quite good.


The problem is some contemporary think just because a work is complex it must be good. Complxetie is not the only or most important part of craftmenship.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I have said I am not qualified to assess value in music


Well I assume you can hear.


> I'm not sure if you are joking or if you truly don't understand averages.
> 
> 50, 60, 70, 100 have an average of 70
> 
> 65,75,75, 85 have an average of 75
> 
> There is no number in the second series as high as 100.


If "on average" the composers of today are maybe even more talented than in the past, you could point out some examples of those who surpass the older ones. Otherwise the presence of the Big 3 alone is going to weight "the past" upward.


> The composers on TC seem to believe many contemporary works and composers are quite good.


Appeal to authority. I'll defer to mikeh375 on his own demonstrated skill set, but he's not going to do my listening and thinking for me.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> I have said I am not qualified to assess value in music. I would think that Bach's oratorio might be better simply because I have often read it described as a truly superior work of music. I have never read Philomel described that way. If I spoke to someone who I believed was an expert on both Bach and Babbitt and she explained why Philomel was actually a similarly superior work to BWV #80, I would maybe change my mind. But I don't view it as a competition. I listen to what I think are works that I might like. And if I do like a work, I often listen to it again or many times.
> 
> I'm not sure if you are joking or if you truly don't understand averages.
> 
> 50, 60, 70, 100 have an average of 70
> 
> 65,75,75, 85 have an average of 75
> 
> There is no number in the second series as high as 100.
> 
> I think you are missing the point of my statement. I simply was pointing out the flaw in going from generalities to particulars.
> 
> As far as I can tell, you think contemporary composers are not as good as earlier ones because you do not enjoy their music as much. Perhaps you also feel that the earlier music has superior craftmanship. But I wonder if you know how to tell how well a contemporary work is constructed. The composers on TC seem to believe many contemporary works and composers are quite good.


And composers could be afraid if they say anything negative about another contemporary work it will kill their career.


----------



## 59540

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And composers could be afraid if they say anything negative about another contemporary work it will kill their career.


Yeah, groupthink is a definite possibility.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> So you would assume that this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is on the same level as this?


Also one of the things I don't get about "avant-garde music enthusiasts" is that they don't admit SOME avant-garde composers simply write random notes, The "Bubbles" experiment - What is contemporary music worth? like how certain abstract painters simply spray things on canvas. (I believe Torkelburger is the only member who got close to admitting "certain avant-garde music is just mindlessly written".) I wonder why.
Maybe because admitting that SOME of them do may lead to questioning if ALL of them do; like how admitting the existence of SOME flaws in a system may lead to questioning the value of (or shake the enthusiasts' faith in) the WHOLE thing? 
I wouldn't presume to discuss its "artistic value", but the "propaganda" (eg. "John Williams is less a classical music composer than John Cage") is just baffling and troubling.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe because admitting that SOME of them do may lead to questioning if ALL of them do; like how admitting the existence of SOME flaws in a system may lead to questioning the value of (or shake the enthusiasts' faith in) the WHOLE thing?


Eggggggggggzackly.


----------



## JTS

I’ve just caught up on this thread as to what it is actually about. Alma Deutscher is a highly talented kid just as Mozart, Mendelssohn, Saint Saenz were. They were shown off just like she is. The difference of course that years ago they didn’t have the Internet for a world audience. Mozart’s compositions when he was a kid are remarkable for a kid - just that. The fact that he blossomed into one of the greatest composers ever was due to his fathers tuition and his own innate genius. We will have to give Alma time to see whether she has genius or merely remarkable talent. As it is I can’t see why on earth she can’t be allowed to write music which at least is pleasant to the ear. I do realise some people feel it’s a crime but I can’t think why. It does at least make a change to some of the cacophony I hear coming out of the radio.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> Well I assume you can hear.
> If "on average" the composers of today are maybe even more talented than in the past, you could point out some examples of those who surpass the older ones. Otherwise the presence of the Big 3 alone is going to weight "the past" upward.
> Appeal to authority. I'll defer to mikeh375 on his own demonstrated skill set, but he's not going to do my listening and thinking for me.


I think of all the advancements in music, harmony, form, orchestration AND the opportunities for education that all the old composers never had. I therefore conclude unemotionally that modern music is more effective artistically than the music of before 1840. I don't think this is a quirky view of this question, but some people do.


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> I think of all the advancements in music, harmony, form, orchestration AND the opportunities for education that all the old composers never had. I therefore conclude unemotionally that modern music is more effective artistically than the music of before 1840. I don't think this is a quirky view of this question, but some people do.


The same could be said for filmmaking. Technology and knowledge available today is unmatched. I'll still take Jean Renoir, Orson Welles and François Truffaut any day over the Justice League.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Well I assume you can hear.
> 
> If "on average" the composers of today are maybe even more talented than in the past, you could point out some examples of those who surpass the older ones. Otherwise the presence of the Big 3 alone is going to weight "the past" upward.
> 
> Appeal to authority. I'll defer to mikeh375 on his own demonstrated skill set, but he's not going to do my listening and thinking for me.


Yes, I can hear, and of course, I appeal to authority. I have a Ph.D. in physics, but it's in particle physics. I would absolutely defer to an expert in solid state physics over my thinking on that subject. So of course, I defer to others whom I think have a much better understanding of composition than I do. They can't tell me which music I'll like or appreciate more, but they likely know vastly more than I do about compositional skill.

The Big 3 do weight that era upward as do Boulez, Ligeti, Messiaen weight the modern era upward. Any composer better than average would weight her era upward. I told you I don't feel qualified to assess composition, but if I had to do so, I would say Boulez, Ligeti, and Messiaen are superior to Franz Beck, Herschel, and A. Forqueray.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> Also one of the things I don't get about "avant-garde music enthusiasts" is that they don't admit SOME avant-garde composers simply write random notes, ...


I assume all avant-garde enthusiasts know that some works include aleatoric music, and I doubt any enthusiasts hide that fact. Am I missing your point?


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I told you I don't feel qualified to assess composition, but if I had to do so, I would say Boulez, Ligeti, and Messiaen are superior to Franz Beck, Herschel, and A. Forqueray.


But the question is, would they be superior to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven? Not to mention Handel, Haydn, Wagner, Liszt, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, R. Strauss, Sibelius...


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I assume all avant-garde enthusiasts know that some works include aleatoric music, and I doubt any enthusiasts hide that fact. Am I missing your point?


The difference between intentionally and unintentionally aleatoric music, for one.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> But the question is, would they be superior to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven? Not to mention Handel, Haydn, Wagner, Liszt, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, R. Strauss, Sibelius...


That's not the question. That may be your question, but we were discussing whether modern/contemporary composers have similar talent to earlier composers. I would guess that the vast majority of Classical or Baroque era composers were not good enough to get recorded, and we have no idea what music they wrote. With the internet, one can hear just about any contemporary composer no matter how bad.

I've given my reasons for believing contemporary composers should have as much or more talent than earlier era composers. Those reasons don't depend on how good Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart are.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> The difference between intentionally and unintentionally aleatoric music, for one.


What is unintentionally aleatoric music?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> That's not the question. That may be your question, but we were discussing whether modern/contemporary composers have similar talent to earlier composers. I would guess that the vast majority of Classical or Baroque era composers were not good enough to get recorded, and we have no idea what music they wrote. With the internet, one can hear just about any contemporary composer no matter how bad.
> 
> I've given my reasons for believing contemporary composers should have as much or more talent than earlier era composers. Those reasons don't depend on how good Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart are.


Just because a classical or baroque era composer is not recorded does not mean they were bad. It has been estimated that over 12,000 symphonies were written in the classical era alone, how could they all be possibly recorded?


----------



## mmsbls

Johnnie Burgess said:


> The problem is some contemporary think just because a work is complex it must be good. Complxetie is not the only or most important part of craftmenship.


Do you mean some contemporary composers or contemporary music lovers? I would be surprised if either thought a work must be good simply because it is complex. I'm not sure anyone thinks complexity in music is a part of craftsmanship at all.


----------



## chipia

mmsbls said:


> What is unintentionally aleatoric music?


I guess music that was precisely notated but in fact doesn't sound much different from random music.


----------



## arpeggio

hammeredklavier said:


> Also one of the things I don't get about "avant-garde music enthusiasts" is that they don't admit SOME avant-garde composers simply write random notes


Of course some of them just write random notes, we know that. Sometimes it works, sometimes is does not.


----------



## arpeggio

Dissident,

This forum has been around for over fifteen years and you have been a member since May, 2021.

You have not stated anything that we have not seen countless times before. Including accusations that those who follow modern music are tone deaf, elitists, unable to appreciate beauty in music, masterminds behind the Lindbergh kidnapping, _etc._

The bottom line is that most of the members here are very open minded and we do not have a problem with people who love music we may dislike.

And most of us are not against Ms. Deutscher. If she can be successful at writing the music she does she can cry all of the way to the bank. I suspect that she does not give of damn of what some of us may think of her music.


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> Dissident,
> 
> This forum has been around for over fifteen years and you have been a member since May, 2021.
> 
> You have not stated anything that we have not seen countless times before. Including accusations that those who follow modern music are tone deaf, elitists, unable to appreciate beauty in music, masterminds behind the Lindbergh kidnapping, _etc._
> 
> The bottom line is that most of the members here are very open minded and we do not have a problem with people who love music we may dislike.
> 
> And most of us are not against Ms. Deutscher. ...


I couldn't care less how long this forum has been here or if you've been here since Moby Dick was a minnow. I'm not the one that brought the pro-mod advocates to the Deutscher threads to condemn her to Liberacedom or Mantovanidom or whatever mostly because she doesn't sound like Elliott Carter. And say, I wonder how many infractions for "trolling" and "negativity" were handed out over all that? Let me guess: zero.



chipia said:


> I guess music that was precisely notated but in fact doesn't sound much different from random music.


Yeah, that, mmsbls.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> That's not the question.


But that is the question. How else do you determine "talent", the New Grove or the faculty of Juilliard? The comparison of "talent" was yours, not mine.


----------



## Bulldog

dissident said:


> I couldn't care less how long this forum has been here or if you've been here since Moby Dick was a minnow. I'm not the one that brought the pro-mod advocates to the Deutscher threads to condemn her to Liberacedom or Mantovanidom or whatever mostly because she doesn't sound like Elliott Carter. And say, I wonder how many infractions for "trolling" and "negativity" were handed out over all that? Let me guess: zero.most of your psting


Most of your postings are confrontational/contrary regardless of the subject matter. Perhaps a lighter touch would serve you well.


----------



## Red Terror

How about we just leave Deutscher alone? This is beginning to take on the appearance of an obsession.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Red Terror said:


> How about we just leave Deutscher alone? This is beginning to take on the appearance of an obsession.


Because she is getting positive attention some here feel the need to knock her down.


----------



## JTS

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Because she is getting positive attention some here feel the need to knock her down.


And does anyone in their right mind think that she will be the least worried what anyone on this site thinks of her? Or that our opinion matters in the slightest?


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> The same could be said for filmmaking. Technology and knowledge available today is unmatched. I'll still take Jean Renoir, Orson Welles and François Truffaut any day over the Justice League.


You'd take three directors over a fictional gang? So would I. But I might take, say, Joel Coen, Christopher Nolan and Sam Mendes over your three directors.

While we're on the subject of leagues, you didn't actually name, or refer to any members of the AD haters league. I don't think they actually exist, rather like the Justice League.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> You'd take three directors over a fictional gang? So would I. But I might take, say, Joel Coen, Christopher Nolan and Sam Mendes over your three directors.


I guess that's why they make vanilla and chocolate ice cream.


> While we're on the subject of leagues, you didn't actually name, or refer to any members of the AD haters league. I don't think they actually exist, rather like the Justice League.


Labeling detractors or naysayers as "haters" isn't *my* tactic.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> I guess that's why they make vanilla and chocolate ice cream.
> 
> Labeling detractors or naysayers as "haters" isn't *my* tactic.


Not in those precise terms, no. But...



> What I've seen for the most part from the "mods" here is a weird kind of vitriol, of the kind they're always whining about "anti-mods" engaging in


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> Not in those precise terms, no. But...


Yeah and I stand by that. So?


----------



## arpeggio

dissident said:


> I couldn't care less how long this forum has been here or if you've been here since Moby Dick was a minnow. I'm not the one that brought the pro-mod advocates to the Deutscher threads to condemn her to Liberacedom or Mantovanidom or whatever mostly because she doesn't sound like Elliott Carter. And say, I wonder how many infractions for "trolling" and "negativity" were handed out over all that? Let me guess: zero.


Like I have said, we have heard this argument many times before.


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> Like I have said, we have heard this argument many times before.


And I've heard the counterargument many times before. Why didn't you pull out that lecture for your compadres?


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Yeah and I stand by that. So?


So you're making claims about lots of mods and vitriol, but when I asked you to quantify, you generalised. When I asked for names or references to their posts, you evaded.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> So you're making claims about lots of mods and vitriol, but when I asked you to quantify, you generalised. When I asked for names or references to their posts, you evaded.


Read the '&$$&ing threads. I'm not interested in arguing with a fencepost.


----------



## arpeggio

dissident said:


> And I've heard the counterargument many times before. Why didn't you pull out that lecture for your compadres?


I have been accused of this as well


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Read the '&$$&ing threads. I'm not interested in arguing with a fencepost.


But you are interested in talking &$$&ing!


----------



## arpeggio

I have never been accused of being a fencepost. Thanks. I can add that to my list.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> But you are interested in talking &$$&ing!


Whatever...go put on that nice RVW recording now.


----------



## arpeggio

Some of our members like Ms. Deutscher.

Some do not.

Some are indifferent.

So what?

No amount of rhetorical gobbledygook is going to change anybody's mind.


----------



## mmsbls

Let's please get back to discussing Deutscher's music and refrain from personal comments.


----------



## Luchesi

arpeggio said:


> Some of our members like Ms. Deutscher.
> 
> Some do not.
> 
> Some are indifferent.
> 
> So what?
> 
> No amount of rhetorical gobbledygook is going to change anybody's mind.


Well, there are consequences. 
For her, for young people, for the people who don't go beyond show business music, for the future of CM, for critics, for teachers...


----------



## arpeggio

It appears that Ms. Deutscher has a very strong following.

We seriously doubt that any of us have sufficient influence that will have a negative effect on her career, the future of young musicians or classical music in general.


----------



## Red Terror

Forster said:


> You'd take three directors over a fictional gang? So would I. But I might take, say, Joel Coen, Christopher Nolan and Sam Mendes over your three directors.


Joel Cohen is Ok. But the other two (especially Nolan) are terrible. The latter makes "deep" and "serious" tent-pole flicks for people who would sooner choose physical torture over watching a film in any language other than English.


----------



## Forster

Red Terror said:


> Joel Cohen is Ok. But the other two (especially Nolan) are terrible. The latter makes "deep" and "serious" tent-pole flicks for people who would sooner choose physical torture over watching a film in any language other than English.


And still they're better than Dissident's choices


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> It appears that Ms. Deutscher has a very strong following.
> 
> We seriously doubt that any of us have sufficient influence that will have a negative effect on her career, the future of young musicians or classical music in general.


Unfortunately, I don't see her helping the future of classical music, but it's possible. Stokowski did that for me in Disney's Fantasia, and to a lesser extent, Bernstein. Bernstein was a wonderful musician, but as a child I thought he talked too much in those Young People's Concerts. Right now, imo a youtube violin duo called Twoset Violin is leading the way, with millions of mostly young followers worldwide, in introducing young people to great classical music.


----------



## Red Terror

fluteman said:


> Unfortunately, I don't see her helping the future of classical music, but it's possible. Stokowski did that for me in Disney's Fantasia, and to a lesser extent, Bernstein. Bernstein was a wonderful musician, but as a child I thought he talked too much in those Young People's Concerts. Right now, imo a youtube violin duo called Twoset Violin is leading the way, with millions of mostly young followers worldwide, in introducing young people to great classical music.


I bet listening to Hindemith would set her on the right path. Get this girl some Hindemith, pronto!


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Unfortunately, I don't see her helping the future of classical music, but it's possible. Stokowski did that for me in Disney's Fantasia, and to a lesser extent, Bernstein. Bernstein was a wonderful musician, but as a child I thought he talked too much in those Young People's Concerts. Right now, imo a youtube violin duo called Twoset Violin is leading the way, with millions of mostly young followers worldwide, in introducing young people to great classical music.


Yes, with their humor, content and just enough youthful irreverence they can pull in the young people. Quite popular!
This one is my favorite. Great playing by a young girl, and then they make their attempts. ...with a moving score.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> Yes, with their humor, content and just enough youthful irreverence they can pull in the young people. Quite popular!
> This one is my favorite. Great playing by a young girl, and then they make their attempts. ...with a moving score.


I remember that one. Recently, Brett had a lesson with Maxim Vengerov on the Ysaye third sonata, and not long ago Eddy played the Sibelius concerto for Ray Chen! They are good sports, because they are helping kids learn the difference between their very good playing and truly great playing. And they enjoy putting on the child prodigies, including Alma. Another fun bit is when they invite their fans to compose something for them, and they get thousands of submissions, a few of which they play on their channel. That also shows that there are many very talented teen-aged composers out there.


----------



## JTS

fluteman said:


> Unfortunately, I *don't see her helping the future of classical music,* but it's possible. Stokowski did that for me in Disney's Fantasia, and to a lesser extent, Bernstein. Bernstein was a wonderful musician, but as a child I thought he talked too much in those Young People's Concerts. Right now, imo a youtube violin duo called Twoset Violin is leading the way, with millions of mostly young followers worldwide, in introducing young people to great classical music.


Why not? You mean not writing music you personally approve of?


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> OK, so why is saying the same thing about John Cage or Brian Ferneyhough such a horrible trespass that enrages our modern music advocates?


Is it? No. I do bridle at people who attack music that they clearly have not spent much or any time with. And that is the problem: when we don't like something we tend not to spend much time with it. So what we can say about it is very limited. There is a tendency to go round and round in circles - ignoring responses that should have resolved the issue - and that can also be irritating. If I posted something saying listen to this wonderful Cage piece (resist the temptation to repeat for the 1000th time a joke about 4'33", please) and others come back and say they don't like it that is fine, especially if they can give reasons that actually apply to the music, but much anti-contemporary and anti-serial is unsolicited. And when it is a response it is often based on a tired old argument (no one listens to it) that has been disproved hundreds of times. And then there is the tendency to treat the question as a "political" debate ... not to find truth and understanding but to score points over someone without even bothering to be honest or accurate ... . But, most of all, I find it tedious when it occurs in threads that are clearly for people who like the music to compare notes and when it is said or implied that those who like the music are just pretending to so as to seem cool. BTW I am not (so far, anyway) much of a Cage fan.

I'm allergic to being put in a mob of "our modern music advocates". I like a lot of music and I dislike some. I am an individual. Like most people, here.



dissident said:


> The impulse to shut people up is also troubling.


What impulse to shut people up do you discern in me? And why does it trouble you? I'm always happy to debate an issue but when my words are twisted or misquoted or quoted out of context to suggest I said something that I didn't ... when those things happen I get tired of the discussion. And when I find the same person doing that often I tend to feel that I would be better off ignoring them.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Trolling you? You responded to my post #326 which was not originally addressed to you. I have no problem with the fact that you did, but the point is that I didn't originally seek you out.


Did I over-react? Perhaps. But you misquoted me and twisted things I said two years ago to give a different meaning so as to prove a point. For the record (last time), I have never objected to the word "great" - I use it all the time - and all I said about the elephant picture was that I preferred it to the picture you held up as great art, a picture that I was not alone in finding "hack work" (correct me if I am wrong). This sort of misrepresentation is normally called trolling.

Let's drop it.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> Did I over-react? Perhaps. But you misquoted me and twisted things I said two years ago to give a different meaning so as to prove a point. For the record (last time), I have never objected to the word "great" - I use it all the time - and all I said about the elephant picture was that I preferred it to the picture you held up as great art, a picture that I was not alone in finding "hack work" (correct me if I am wrong). This sort of misrepresentation is normally called trolling.
> 
> Let's drop it.


I didn't intentionally misrepresent anything. Following my comment about the word 'great', I said 'I could be wrong about that.' None of this was trolling.

Now we can drop it.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Read the '&$$&ing threads. I'm not interested in arguing with a fencepost.


I _have _been reading the threads, from the beginning. I reject your claims that there has been vitriol from lots of people. By all means offer some evidence to support your assertions, and we can discuss it further, presumably determining which criticisms of AD and her music are valid and which are vitriol.

Alternatively, we could drop it, as it seeme to me that little more can be said about the OP's claim - either about what AD deserves, or about whether she is getting it.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I _have _been reading the threads, from the beginning. I reject your claims that there has been vitriol from lots of people. By all means offer some evidence to support your assertions, and we can discuss it further, presumably determining which criticisms of AD and her music are valid and which are vitriol.
> 
> Alternatively, we could drop it, as it seeme to me that little more can be said about the OP's claim - either about what AD deserves, or about whether she is getting it.


Well, there's one more thing that's fun to check out: TwoSetViolin's take on Alma from three years ago. For those who aren't TSV fans, they love to check out child prodigy musicians, as well as famous soloists, and marvel at their skills, but they also have a keen nose for baloney, in a good-humored way. Here, they respect Alma's talent, but notice how she cheats a bit in the challenge to compose a sonata based on four randomly chosen notes in one minute. Then, though not composers themselves, they cheerfully take up the same challenge. Enjoy.


----------



## Neo Romanza

The title of this thread alone makes me raise an eyebrow. The only thing she deserves is honest criticism, because this is the only way she'll ever improve as a composer. There's nothing worse than a thread that makes pronouncements in which those who do criticize her are wrong because they weren't nodding their heads along with those who praise every little move she makes.


----------



## JTS

Neo Romanza said:


> The title of this thread alone makes me raise an eyebrow. The only thing she deserves is honest criticism, because this is the only way she'll ever improve as a composer. There's nothing worse than a thread that makes pronouncements in which those who do criticize her are wrong because they weren't nodding their heads along with those who praise every little move she makes.


No doubt she will appreciate a letter of criticism from your good self. Take up pen and paper right away sir!


----------



## Red Terror

JTS said:


> No doubt she will appreciate a letter of criticism from your good self. Take up pen and paper right away sir!


You miss the point entirely.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> Well, there's one more thing that's fun to check out: TwoSetViolin's take on Alma from three years ago. For those who aren't TSV fans, they love to check out child prodigy musicians, as well as famous soloists, and marvel at their skills, but they also have a keen nose for baloney, in a good-humored way. Here, they respect Alma's talent, but notice how she cheats a bit in the challenge to compose a sonata based on four randomly chosen notes in one minute. Then, though not composers themselves, they cheerfully take up the same challenge. Enjoy.


I did enjoy. I've not come across these two before, but they were waggish (and a little naughty).


----------



## JTS

Red Terror said:


> You miss the point entirely.


Could you have missed the irony?


----------



## JackRance

I discovered Twoset Violin thanks to Alma. So she has merits for me.


----------



## Red Terror

JTS said:


> Could you have missed the irony?


I am not sure that your 'irony' served any discernible purpose there. It seems you're the only one in on the joke.


----------



## JTS

Red Terror said:


> I am not sure that your 'irony' served any discernible purpose there. It seems you're the only one in on the joke.


Frankly I didn't think the post saying she needed 'criticism' served any discernible purpose but never mind.


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> Frankly I didn't think the post saying she needed 'criticism' served any discernible purpose but never mind.


The post you responded to was not talking about criticism from TC, but from other composers with more experience. Constructive criticism, not Internet blabbing.

Every composer benefits from receiving constructive criticism; Alma Deutscher would be no exception. But we don't know her long term goals. She may wish to go into film scoring, or change genres entirely.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> The post you responded to was not talking about criticism from TC, but from other composers with more experience. Constructive criticism, not Internet blabbing.
> 
> Every composer benefits from receiving constructive criticism; Alma Deutscher would be no exception. But we don't know her long term goals. She may wish to go into film scoring, or change genres entirely.


Of course, most of us who have dealt with young people would call it 'instruction'. I know there's some people who would love to kill her heretical melodious streak which appeals to the masses.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> The post you responded to was not talking about criticism from TC, but from other composers with more experience. Constructive criticism, not Internet blabbing.
> 
> Every composer benefits from receiving constructive criticism; Alma Deutscher would be no exception. But we don't know her long term goals. She may wish to go into film scoring, or change genres entirely.


With no disrespect intended, and not referring only to this thread, some here seem not to appreciate all that goes in to acquiring the high level of 'common practice' skills needed, whether in composing, arranging, singing, playing, or conducting, to perform at a high level in any number of musical genres, including some humble genres that get little respect from many here. Also, talent that is remarkable at an early age is more common than many realize, and only the first of many prerequisites to an even modestly successful career in music.

If even one of a thousand child prodigies became the next Beethoven, we'd have a lot of Beethovens wandering around already.


----------



## Simon Moon

Enthusiast said:


> Is it? No. I do bridle at people who attack music that they clearly have not spent much or any time with. And that is the problem: when we don't like something we tend not to spend much time with it. So what we can say about it is very limited. There is a tendency to go round and round in circles - ignoring responses that should have resolved the issue - and that can also be irritating. If I posted something saying listen to this wonderful Cage piece (resist the temptation to *repeat for the 1000th time a joke about 4'33"*, please) and others come back and say they don't like it that is fine, especially if they can give reasons that actually apply to the music, *but much anti-contemporary and anti-serial is unsolicited. And when it is a response it is often based on a tired old argument (no one listens to it) that has been disproved hundreds of times.* And then there is the tendency to treat the question as a "political" debate ... not to find truth and understanding but to score points over someone without even bothering to be honest or accurate ... . But, most of all, I find it tedious when it occurs in threads that are clearly for people who like the music to compare notes and when it is said or implied that those who like the music are just pretending to so as to seem cool. BTW I am not (so far, anyway) much of a Cage fan.
> 
> I'm allergic to being put in a mob of "our modern music advocates". I like a lot of music and I dislike some. I am an individual. Like most people, here.


The bolded portions above are the only problems I have with some of the anti-modernists here. While the situation has gotten better somewhat recently, it is still there. Demonstrated by the "Bubble experiment" thread.

But one specific example I can remember, but not a unique one, was a thread where the OP, a new member, wanted some recommendations for some serial pieces. It didn't take any longer than the 2nd page for the anti-modernists to chime in with their snarky comments. And they didn't let up for the entire thread.

If the OP was asking whether we liked serial music, then all bets are off, and the anti-modernists, anti-SVS, are welcome to make their feelings known. But the poor person who opened he thread didn't know what hit them. All they wanted to do was explore serialism a bit deeper, but instead, they got hit with pages of snark.

Obviously if one is not a fan of serialism, why feel the need to make any comment on the original thread at all?


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> I know there's some people who would love to kill her heretical melodious streak which appeals to the masses.


You know this? You don't know anything of the sort. You are speculating about what you have come to believe but which is a cliché. Any composition teacher worth his salt has one goal for all his students, including experienced student composers: to help them achieve their goals for their work.


----------



## EdwardBast

JTS said:


> Of course, most of us who have dealt with young people would call it 'instruction'. I know there's some people who would love to kill her heretical melodious streak which appeals to the masses.


Who would want to kill it? Or are you just making that up?


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> You know this? You don't know anything of the sort. You are speculating about what you have come to believe but which is a cliché. Any composition teacher worth his salt has one goal for all his students, including experienced student composers: to help them achieve their goals for their work.


I said some people. You only have to read some of the comments in this thread which appear to imply that!


----------



## JTS

EdwardBast said:


> Who would want to kill it? Or are you just making that up?


We know that Alma has been criticised for writing beautiful melodies which certain people say are out of place in the 21st-century. Fact!


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> We know that Alma has been criticised for writing beautiful melodies which certain people say are out of place in the 21st-century. Fact!


I read that in the article and took to be self-serving tripe.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> I read that in the article and took to be self-serving tripe.


Why should it be? She is a kid. Why shouldn't she be allowed to comment on what people say of her music? You appear to be proving my point. I ought to point out I'm not a fan. I've hardly heard any of her music apart from bits which appear remarkable for a kid but won't probably last the test of time. But then she is only 16 now and Mozart wasn't exactly writing sublime masterpieces at 16


----------



## Haydn70

JTS said:


> Why should it be? She is a kid. Why shouldn't she be allowed to comment on what people say of her music? You appear to be proving my point. I ought to point out I'm not a fan. I've hardly heard any of her music apart from bits which appear remarkable for a kid but won't probably last the test of time. But then she is only 16 now and *Mozart wasn't exactly writing sublime masterpieces at 16*


A post from hammeredklavier should be arriving at any moment.


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> Why should it be? She is a kid. Why shouldn't she be allowed to comment on what people say of her music? You appear to be proving my point. I ought to point out I'm not a fan. I've hardly heard any of her music apart from bits which appear remarkable for a kid but won't probably last the test of time. But then she is only 16 now and Mozart wasn't exactly writing sublime masterpieces at 16


I think it was something maybe someone at some point may have said to her, but my experience of Classical musicians and composers does not reflect that kind of statement being made much. First of all, it is not true. The 21st century has plenty of "beautiful" melodic music being written by Classical composers, as well as others working in the orchestral realm. Second, most composers take a hands-off approach regarding other composers, even successful teenage ones.

It is self-serving tripe since it makes her out to be a victim of the avant-garde elite (who couldn't care less about her or her music) as she fights the good fight of tonal Classical music.

I too hardly listen to her music but wish her well and certainly think she should write the kind of music she feels compelled to - just as any other composer.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> I think it was something maybe someone at some point may have said to her, but my experience of Classical musicians and composers does not reflect that kind of statement being made much. First of all, it is not true. The 21st century has plenty of "beautiful" melodic music being written by Classical composers, as well as others working in the orchestral realm. Second, most composers take a hands-off approach regarding other composers, even successful teenage ones.
> 
> It is self-serving tripe since it makes her out to be a victim of the avant-garde elite (who couldn't care less about her or her music) as she fights the good fight of tonal Classical music.
> 
> I too hardly listen to her music but wish her well and certainly think she should write the kind of music she feels compelled to - just as any other composer.


Let's face it, the. Problem with Alma is tha5 she is successful, something that is bound to arouse the ire and envy of those who are less listened to. I mean, having an opera sponsored by Mehta when she was 12! So not surprised if quite a bit of dirt chucked her way. Of course a lot of prodigies have had the same. Mozart et al.


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> We know that Alma has been criticised for writing beautiful melodies which certain people say are out of place in the 21st-century. Fact!


Certainly people have criticized her style as being quite dated (i.e. her style is essentially that used 150 years or more before her birth). But has anyone actually criticized her beautiful melodies? I didn't reread the thread so perhaps I missed something, but I'd be slightly surprised if people felt she should not write beautiful music.


----------



## JTS

mmsbls said:


> Certainly people have criticized her style as being quite dated (i.e. her style is essentially that used 150 years or more before her birth). But has anyone actually criticized her beautiful melodies? I didn't reread the thread so perhaps I missed something, but I'd be slightly surprised if people felt she should not write beautiful music.


Let's face it Brahms used a dated style and he didn't do too badly


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> Let's face it Brahms used a dated style and he didn't do too badly


Brahms didn't create a new style, but he wrote in the style created during his lifetime rather than one composers used in the Baroque period.

Do you think that members have criticized her beautiful melodies? If anyone did, I certainly see no point in that.


----------



## JTS

mmsbls said:


> Brahms didn't create a new style, but he wrote in the style created during his lifetime rather than one composers used in the Baroque period.
> 
> Do you think that members have criticized her beautiful melodies? If anyone did, I certainly see no point in that.


The style Brahms used was dated when he used it. As was Rachmaninov's. Which caused Grove to say that his music would be forgotten in 40 years. How time makes fools of the critics!


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> The style Brahms used was dated when he used it. As was Rachmaninov's. Which caused Grove to say that his music would be forgotten in 40 years. How time makes fools of the critics!


I agree it was slightly dated, but do you think Brahms' music felt out of place in the late 1800s? I think it fit reasonably well.


----------



## JTS

mmsbls said:


> I agree it was slightly dated, but do you think Brahms' music felt out of place in the late 1800s? I think it fit reasonably well.


What about Rachmaninov's?


----------



## arpeggio

I have performed many works of Brahms and Rachmaninov and I have run into many innovations by these fine composers.


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> What about Rachmaninov's?


Brahms, Sibelius, and Rachmaninov all extended the Romantic style into a period where others were extending and breaking CPT. But there were plenty of others also extending the Romantic style - Respighi, Elgar, Ireland, Holst, etc..


----------



## trazom

JTS said:


> Why should it be? She is a kid. Why shouldn't she be allowed to comment on what people say of her music? You appear to be proving my point. I ought to point out I'm not a fan. I've hardly heard any of her music apart from bits which appear remarkable for a kid but won't probably last the test of time. *But then she is only 16 now and Mozart wasn't exactly writing sublime masterpieces at 16*


No, but what your line-drawing fallacy doesn't allow for is that by 16 Mozart had already found his distinctive voice as a composer:











There's also the perennial favorites like the exsultate jubilate motet k.165, and the k.136-138 divertimenti also written when Mozart was 16. So, perhaps not "sublime masterpieces" but not exactly comparable to Deutscher's situation either.


----------



## JTS

trazom said:


> No, but what your line-drawing fallacy doesn't allow for is that by 16 Mozart had already found his distinctive voice as a composer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the perennial favorites like the exsultate jubilate motet k.165, and the k.136-138 divertimenti also written when Mozart was 16. So, perhaps not "sublime masterpieces" but not exactly comparable to Deutscher's situation either.


Yes but as Bernstein said, 'Who's in Mozart's league anyway?' I'm not comparing her to Mozart just saying that WAM didn't get into writing masterpieces till he was in his 20s.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> The bolded portions above are the only problems I have with some of the anti-modernists here. While the situation has gotten better somewhat recently, it is still there. Demonstrated by the "Bubble experiment" thread.
> 
> But one specific example I can remember, but not a unique one, was a thread where the OP, a new member, wanted some recommendations for some serial pieces. It didn't take any longer than the 2nd page for the anti-modernists to chime in with their snarky comments. And they didn't let up for the entire thread.
> 
> If the OP was asking whether we liked serial music, then all bets are off, and the anti-modernists, anti-SVS, are welcome to make their feelings known. But the poor person who opened he thread didn't know what hit them. All they wanted to do was explore serialism a bit deeper, but instead, they got hit with pages of snark.
> 
> Obviously if one is not a fan of serialism, why feel the need to make any comment on the original thread at all?


I think that's an exaggeration. There will always be a few who are less diplomatic in their criticism. From what I see both sides are at fault. That said, I don't see how your post helps anything other than to insinuate that the pro-modernists are the ones with the angels.


----------



## JTS

arpeggio said:


> I have performed many works of Brahms and Rachmaninov and I have run into many innovations by these fine composers.


When they were 12?


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I think it was something maybe someone at some point may have said to her, but my experience of Classical musicians and composers does not reflect that kind of statement being made much. First of all, it is not true. The 21st century has plenty of "beautiful" melodic music being written by Classical composers, as well as others working in the orchestral realm. Second, most composers take a hands-off approach regarding other composers, even successful teenage ones.
> 
> It is self-serving tripe since it makes her out to be a victim of the avant-garde elite (who couldn't care less about her or her music) as she fights the good fight of tonal Classical music.
> 
> I too hardly listen to her music but wish her well and certainly think she should write the kind of music she feels compelled to - just as any other composer.


Why does this even need saying? We're looking for music that is good, interesting and original, whatever the style. At least, I am. This pro- v. anti-modernist debate is ridiculous, especially in the abstract. Let's hear some music.


----------



## EdwardBast

JTS said:


> Let's face it Brahms used a dated style and he didn't do too badly


In what way was the style of Brahms' music of the 1860s and 70s dated?



JTS said:


> Yes but as Bernstein said, 'Who's in Mozart's league anyway?' I'm not comparing her to Mozart just saying that WAM didn't get into writing masterpieces till he was in his 20s.


The criticism in this thread hasn't been focused on whether AD has produced masterworks yet. There has been a good deal of it, however, pointing out that a number of modern masters, including Prokofiev, Britten, and Shostakovich, already had a unique voice in their teens. To be on a track with modern masters she might have some catching up to do.


----------



## hammeredklavier

JTS said:


> WAM didn't get into writing masterpieces till he was in his 20s.





JTS said:


> But then she is only 16 now and Mozart wasn't exactly writing sublime masterpieces at 16


Listen to the harmonies:


hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, this is beautiful, and David Schildkret argues Mozart wrote it at 16:





hammeredklavier said:


> To me, this work written by the 17-year old Mozart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> foreshadows:





hammeredklavier said:


> Some wonderful chromatic melodies in the Marian litany, K.195 (1774):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> also the "sancta maria" and "agnus dei" and chromaticism of the "salus infirmorum":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare them with works by composers around this period such as J.A. Hasse.


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> I have performed many works of Brahms and Rachmaninov and I have run into many innovations by these fine composers.


Don't go too far out on a limb, arpeggio! :lol:


----------



## arpeggio

JTS said:


> When they were 12?


This is not in the spirit of posts I was responding to.


----------



## hammeredklavier

trazom said:


> by 16 Mozart had already found his distinctive voice as a composer


I actually wrote about this;


hammeredklavier said:


> Look at Bernstein's lecture on Mozart's symphony in G minor K.550:
> "Do you realize that, that wild, atonal-sounding passage contains every one of the twelve chromatic tones except the tonic note G? ... Take my word for it, that out-burst of chromatic rage is Classically-contained, and so is the climax of this development section, which finds itself in the unlikely key of C-sharp minor, which is as far away as you can get from the home key of G minor."
> > and then look at this passage in Missa sancti Trinitatis K.167 [ 3:52 ]
> 
> Look at - Bernstein: "But notice that Mozart's theme is already chromatically formed. And even more so when it repeats."
> > and then look at these passages in
> Missa brevis K.275 [ 3:07 , 3:18 ] , [ 10:33 , 10:58 ] , [ 14:00 , 14:37 ]
> Missa brevis K.257 [ 3:57 , 4:10 ] , [ 8:22 , 9:50 ]
> 
> Look at - Bernstein: "There's that Classical balance we were talking about -chromatic wandering on the top, firmly supported by tonic-and-dominant structure underneath."
> > and then look at these passages in Missa brevis K.258 [ 2:53 ~ 3:31 ]
> 
> Look at - Bernstein: "Even this lead-in to the home key, is chromatically written, firmly held in place by a dominant pedal."
> > and then look at this passage in Missa brevis K.275 [ 7:12 ~ 7:21 ]
> 
> Look at the introduction to the K.465 "dissonance" quartet,
> > and then look at this contrapuntal passage of chromatic fourths in Missa sancti Trinitatis K.167 [ 10:47 ] (there's a wonderful use of Gregorian melody preceding it; [ 9:47 ])
> 
> Also compare K.551/iv with K.192/iii
> 
> Luchesi or Salieri, for example, ([E.M.], [H.M.], [R]) don't orchestrate like this:
> spatzenmesse K.220 [ 2:30 ~ 4:00 ]
> "On the other hand, for the French, Mozart was certainly not 'one of us' from a national point of view. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music." < Mozartian Undercurrents in Berlioz | Benjamin Pearl >


And the hypothesis that Mozart wrote K.275 at 16 seems plausible:
https://www.mozartsocietyofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/newsletters/MSA-AUG-02.pdf#page=10


----------



## arpeggio

fluteman said:


> Don't go too far out on a limb, arpeggio! :lol:


As far as Brahms is concerned I vaguely recall in second year theory doing harmonic analysis of several works Brahms and us discussing several unique harmonic progressions he employed. My old textbooks are buried in the basement and I am not going to waste my time trying to find them for the sake of this discussion.

And none of them were written when he was twelve.

So what, there are many great composers who were not prodigies.

This whole prodigy thing is over blown.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> the pro-modernists are the ones with the angels.


As far as I can see, they are. :angel:


----------



## JTS

hammeredklavier said:


> I actually wrote about this;
> 
> And the hypothesis that Mozart wrote K.275 at 16 seems plausible:
> https://www.mozartsocietyofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/newsletters/MSA-AUG-02.pdf#page=10


But Mozart didn't write Figaro when he was 16.


----------



## science

JTS said:


> But Mozart didn't write Figaro when he was 16.


And no matter how "good" whatever he wrote when he was 16 was, he wrote better stuff when he was 32.


----------



## Enthusiast

JTS said:


> Of course, most of us who have dealt with young people would call it 'instruction'. I know there's some people who would love to kill her heretical melodious streak which appeals to the masses.


That melodious streak might be a starting point but some honest criticism and perhaps (if there is no other way) deflating of her apparent self-satisfaction (which may actually be insecurity .. so care is needed) ... some pushing her to do more with her musical ideas ... could be beneficial. We forget too often in this thread that her music is not actually very good. OK, she's young but I suspect there are quite a few youngsters who produce better music (George Benjamin at her age had written music that deeply impressed Messiaen but was not a media hero, for example) and she has been around long enough now for us to see very little actual development. Perhaps the exploitation is seriously damaging her?


----------



## Enthusiast

JTS said:


> We know that Alma has been criticised for writing beautiful melodies which certain people say are out of place in the 21st-century. Fact!


No. She has been criticised for doing nothing of interest with those melodies. It is likely, though, that anything that could be done with such "rich" melody has already been done so her starting point may be a part of her weakness.


----------



## Enthusiast

JTS said:


> When they were 12?


The age thing is not so important. Everyone matures at a different rate. Most serious artists don't venture into the public domain until they feel ready.


----------



## Enthusiast

arpeggio said:


> So what, there are many great composers who were not prodigies.
> 
> This whole prodigy thing is over blown.


I agree - it needed to be repeated!


----------



## JTS

Enthusiast said:


> That melodious streak might be a starting point but some honest criticism and perhaps (if there is no other way) deflating of her apparent self-satisfaction (which may actually be insecurity .. so care is needed) ... some pushing her to do more with her musical ideas ... could be beneficial. We forget too often in this thread that her music is not actually very good. OK, she's young but I suspect there are quite a few youngsters who produce better music (George Benjamin at her age had written music that deeply impressed Messiaen but was not a media hero, for example) and she has been around long enough now for us to see very little actual development. Perhaps the exploitation is seriously damaging her?


Frankly George Benjamin has produced nothing which I want to listen to even in his maturity. Horrible stuff!


----------



## JTS

Enthusiast said:


> The age thing is not so important. Everyone matures at a different rate. Most serious artists don't venture into the public domain until they feel ready.


Mozart, Mendelssohn, Saint Saens we're not serious artists?


----------



## Enthusiast

JTS said:


> Mozart, Mendelssohn, Saint Saens we're not serious artists?


You mean they ventured into the public domain before they felt ready? Mozart did because of his father's exploitation (as has been said in this thread too many times for you to have missed it). But the other two - not composers I have the highest opinion of but still greats, I suppose - did they not feel ready? They were certainly writing more worthwhile and ready music in their youth than the case we are considering here.


----------



## Enthusiast

JTS said:


> Frankly George Benjamin has produced nothing which I want to listen to even in his maturity. Horrible stuff!


So this whole discussion needs to be based on your current taste? The point is that he has proved himself to widespread acclaim of those who care about contemporary music.


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> So this whole discussion needs to be based on your current taste?


This whole forum is based on current tastes.


----------



## JTS

Enthusiast said:


> So this whole discussion needs to be based on your current taste? The point is that he has proved himself to widespread acclaim of those who care about contemporary music.


As far as I'm concerned the discussions need to be based on my taste because I have to listen to it. The discussion on Alma has to be based on the people who want to listen to it. No one is forcing you to listen to her music just as thankfully no-one is forcing me to listen to George Benjamin. We would sooner listen to Johann Sebastian Bach or Ludwig van Beethoven than either of them actually!


----------



## arpeggio

A few of the members employ an immature playground rhetorical tactic when they will accuse members of something they are not.

I refuse to respond to such remarks.

If a person wants to think I am a pro-modernist (Whatever that means?) or a 'fence post' or some sort of musical bigot or whatever because I do not feel that the music of Ms. Deutscher is that unique, so be it.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Fair enough. So you are saying you like Alma's music and think it is good. Somehow I had failed to register that anyone was saying it is good, only that it is good for someone so young. My apologies. Enjoy it.


----------



## Forster

JTS said:


> As far as I'm concerned the discussions need to be based on my taste because I have to listen to it. The discussion on Alma has to be based on the people who want to listen to it. No one is forcing you to listen to her music just as thankfully no-one is forcing me to listen to George Benjamin. We would sooner listen to Johann Sebastian Bach or Ludwig van Beethoven than either of them actually!


The discussion on AD has to be based on the issue posed in the title of the thread as written by the OP (unless it contains some error, or is inadvertently misleading). If that invites both positive and negative comment, so be it.


----------



## fluteman

Enthusiast said:


> The age thing is not so important. Everyone matures at a different rate. Most serious artists don't venture into the public domain until they feel ready.


Yet another obviously true point, and again, I'm mystified that it needs to be made. Many famous composers destroyed their juvenilia, or never authorized its publication during their lifetimes. Poulenc's first public composition, Rapsodie nègre, written in 1917 when he was 18, contains some highly inventive ideas and anticipates the great music to come. But it also is clearly a youthful work of a potentially great but not yet fully mature composer. People always bring up the Mendelssohn octet, but that is an exception, perhaps the greatest exception in all classical music, to the rule.


----------



## JTS

fluteman said:


> Yet another obviously true point, and again, I'm mystified that it needs to be made. Many famous composers destroyed their juvenilia, or never authorized its publication during their lifetimes. Poulenc's first public composition, Rapsodie nègre, written in 1917 when he was 18, contains some highly inventive ideas and anticipates the great music to come. But it also is clearly a youthful work of a potentially great but not yet fully mature composer. People always bring up the Mendelssohn octet, but that is an exception, perhaps the greatest exception in all classical music, to the rule.


Funny that Mozart did not destroy his juvenilia.


----------



## SanAntone

As far as I can tell the thread creator made one post (#51) after the first one. Is this a case of purposely starting a thread that would create controversy and then sitting back to watch? 

IMO the thread (and the other one) ought to be closed since it seems the discussion has become circular.


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> A few of the members employ an immature playground rhetorical tactic when they will accuse members of something they are not.
> 
> I refuse to respond to such remarks.
> 
> If a person wants to think I am a pro-modernist (Whatever that means?) or a 'fence post' or some sort of musical bigot or whatever because I do not feel that the music of Ms. Deutscher is that unique, so be it.


Not to mention a "HATER!!!!!!!" or "anti-modern" (whatever that means)...
Oh, and "troll". Anyone who disagrees with me and dislikes the music I like is a troll and should be banned lest an echo chamber be disrupted.


----------



## arpeggio

I have just discovered another living composer who was also a child prodigy: Freya Waley-Cohen.

She is an American composer based in London.

She is currently 32.

She started playing the violin at 3 and at age 11 enrolled for a composition course at The Walden School.

When she was the same age as Ms. Deutscher, her music was being performed.

When she was 17 she was a composition fellow at Tanglewood.

Prodigies are a dime a dozen. My point is Deutscher is very good but now the only one.


----------



## Aunty Tonal

Her music sounds like second rate Friedrich Burgmuller


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> People always bring up the Mendelssohn octet, but that is an exception, perhaps the greatest exception in all classical music, to the rule.


Just in case you didn't know:
"Recent research by Nicolas Kitchen of the Borromeo Quartet reveals that a more mature Mendelssohn somewhat substantially edited the score before its final publication in 1832." https://www.earsense.org/chamber-music/Felix-Mendelssohn-Octet-in-E-flat-major-Op-20/
"His two string quintets, both of which follow Mozart's lead and call for two violas, are separated by twenty years, yet both are marked by freshness of affect and the spirit of youth. This is especially true of the first, written before Mendelssohn turned twenty and revised when he was at the ripe old age of twenty-four." https://www.jonathanblumhofer.com/writings/program-notes/mendelssohn-string-quintet-no-1/


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> I have just discovered another living composer who was also a child prodigy: Freya Waley-Cohen.
> 
> She is an American composer based in London.
> 
> She is currently 32.
> 
> She started playing the violin at 3 and at age 11 enrolled for a composition course at The Walden School.
> 
> When she was the same age as Ms. Deutscher, her music was being performed.
> 
> When she was 17 she was a composition fellow at Tanglewood.
> 
> Prodigies are a dime a dozen. My point is Deutscher is very good but now the only one.


She may be a prodigy, but she's not in the category of AD who has composed larger works for orchestra and an opera. She's also proficient in two instruments. Prodigies like AD are not a dime a dozen.

Of course, AD's music has limitations, but her understanding of basic orchestration and the basics of opera composition are rather remarkable for her age. A majority of present-day classical prodigies are in the category of artists on one instrument; they may progress to conducting or doing some composing or some such.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> Poulenc's first public composition, Rapsodie nègre, written in 1917 when he was 18, contains some highly inventive ideas and anticipates the great music to come. But it also is clearly a youthful work of a potentially great but not yet fully mature composer. People always bring up the Mendelssohn octet, but that is an exception, perhaps *the greatest exception in all classical music, to the rule.*


I've never understood the overhype around early Mendelssohn tbh. He was not any more remarkable than the other "prodigies".


hammeredklavier said:


> That says nothing about the quality. I still think this way about early Mendelssohn; he starts off with something chatty, and then in the next bars he goes higher, and and in the next, he goes even higher, and again, again, so on ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His early efforts are certainly *impressive* (and I admire his late works such as the F minor quartet, E minor concerto), but the "overhype" around his early works (ie. all the groundless claims that "they're way better than Mozart's") sometimes strikes me as bizarre/unreasonable.
> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/23/the-youngest-master-2
> https://www.classical-scene.com/2009/10/24/1692/


----------



## arpeggio

Aunty Tonal said:


> Her music sounds like second rate Friedrich Burgmuller


And Deutscher does not sound like a second rate Mozart?


----------



## arpeggio

There are those who have gotten it in their heads that AD is the greatest prodigy since Mozart. I actually found a review of a music critic who claimed that she was going to save classical music. So you have some support out there.

I am not saying that she is a bad composer. She is quite good. Yet no matter what documentation that we provide that there are others that are as good as she is our efforts are derided or misinterpreted.

There was a survey of musicologist and they voted the following as the greatest prodigy composers. The results were:

10. Dmitry Shostakovich
9. Franz Liszt
8. William Crotch
7. Camille Saint-Saëns
6. Benjamin Britten
5. Sergey Prokofiev
4. Alexander Glazunov
3. Erich Korngold
2. Franz Schubert
1. Felix Mendelssohn

If a person does not want to believe these music scholars they are not going to believe anything I have to say about this issue.

I give up.


----------



## Rogerx

Aunty Tonal said:


> Her music sounds like second rate Friedrich Burgmuller


And you are?


----------



## Neo Romanza

DaveM said:


> She may be a prodigy, but she's not in the category of AD who has composed larger works for orchestra and an opera. She's also proficient in two instruments. Prodigies like AD are not a dime a dozen.


So now you are pitting one prodigy against another like it's some kind of competition? This thread has seriously taken a wrong turn and needs to be shutdown.


----------



## Woodduck

Neo Romanza said:


> So now you are pitting one prodigy against another like it's some kind of competition? This thread has seriously taken a wrong turn and needs to be shutdown.


Now, now! Let those with nothing better to do come here and amuse themselves. As the old adage says, those who can't stand the tuna noodle casserole topped with Campbell's high-sodium, preservative-laced cream of mushroom soup should stay out of the kitchen.


----------



## Forster

Neo Romanza said:


> So now you are pitting one prodigy against another like it's some kind of competition? This thread has seriously taken a wrong turn and needs to be shutdown.


Has it broken the terms and conditions applying here then? Aside from the fact that the thread question has been considered more than enough, I see no reason to stop people beating a dead horse if they want to.


----------



## DaveM

Neo Romanza said:


> So now you are pitting one prodigy against another like it's some kind of competition? This thread has seriously taken a wrong turn and needs to be shutdown.


We're comparing composers and artists all the time here. Is that like some competition?


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> Now, now! Let those with nothing better to do come here and amuse themselves. As the old adage says, those who can't stand the *tuna noodle casserole topped with Campbell's high-sodium, preservative-laced cream of mushroom soup *should stay out of the kitchen.


Thanks to that I now feel sick! I guess that's appropriate for this thread, though.


----------



## mikeh375

Woodduck said:


> Now, now! Let those with nothing better to do come here and amuse themselves. As the old adage says, those who can't stand the tuna noodle casserole topped with Campbell's high-sodium, preservative-laced cream of mushroom soup should stay out of the kitchen.


...WD don't forget the sourdough bread made from a 230 year old starter. Every soupy noodley thing needs bread for some bite.


----------



## JTS

arpeggio said:


> There are those who have gotten it in their heads that AD is the greatest prodigy since Mozart. I actually found a review of a music critic who claimed that she was going to save classical music. So you have some support out there.
> 
> I am not saying that she is a bad composer. She is quite good. Yet no matter what documentation that we provide that there are others that are as good as she is our efforts are derided or misinterpreted.
> 
> There was a survey of musicologist and they voted the following as the greatest prodigy composers. The results were:
> 
> 10. Dmitry Shostakovich
> 9. Franz Liszt
> 8. William Crotch
> 7. Camille Saint-Saëns
> 6. Benjamin Britten
> 5. Sergey Prokofiev
> 4. Alexander Glazunov
> 3. Erich Korngold
> 2. Franz Schubert
> 1. Felix Mendelssohn
> 
> If a person does not want to believe these music scholars they are not going to believe anything I have to say about this issue.
> 
> I give up.


Beecham's comment is notable when reading musicologists: "A musicologist is someone who can read music but can't hear it!" From that list it appears Tommy was spot on.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^wow, seriously JTS?


----------



## JTS

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^wow, seriously JTS?


As Mozart is missing, yes!


----------



## SanAntone

IMO, a status of prodigy is of no interest or importance.

The _only _meaningful issue is whether _any_ composer has written a work(s) of lasting impact or importance (I would have also included "beauty" except that is such a subjective concept, left it out).

The age s/he was is completely irrelevant.

Oh, and the comment by Beecham is arrogant and ridiculous. Comparable to "those who can, do; those that can't, teach." Equally reductive BS.

It takes scholars and musicians (often they are one in the same) and audiences, to make the music world go round.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> IMO, a status of prodigy is of no interest or importance.
> 
> The _only _meaningful issue is whether _any_ composer has written a work(s) of lasting impact or importance (I would have also included "beauty" except that is such a subjective concept, left it out).
> 
> The age s/he was is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Oh, and the comment by Beecham is arrogant and ridiculous. Comparable to "those who can, do; those that can't, teach." Equally reductive BS.
> 
> It takes scholars and musicians (often they are one in the same) and audiences, to make the music world go round.


The comment by Beecham was made to provoke exactly the reaction it has in you. It is also very funny to some of us.


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> The comment by Beecham was made to provoke exactly the reaction it has in you. It is also very funny to some of us.


It may be funny to you, but that attitude displays a lack of appreciation for what goes into making Classical music. I have known and worked with a number of musicologists and they have my respect. Without their work we would not know anything about HIP and the history of music in general. They mean a lot more to me than Beecham.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> It may be funny to you, but that attitude displays a lack of appreciation for what goes into making Classical music. I have known and worked with a number of musicologists and they have my respect. Without their work we would not know anything about HIP and the history of music in general. They mean a lot more to me than Beecham.


The problem is, that instead of just chuckling along with Beecham's quip, if we get offended by it we produce exactly the reaction he intended. Like playing Beecham's Messiah to HIP fanatics and watching the reaction!


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> It may be funny to you, but that attitude displays a lack of appreciation for what goes into making Classical music. I have known and worked with a number of musicologists and they have my respect. Without their work we would not know anything about HIP and the history of music in general. They mean a lot more to me than Beecham.


Moreover, the reconstruction and deciphering of early notation systems has been the work of musicologists and this work is the reason we can now listen to performances of medieval and early renaissance music. As for whether the anti-intellectuals who enjoy Beecham's quips would miss these five or six centuries of western musical culture, I have my doubts.


----------



## JTS

EdwardBast said:


> Moreover, the reconstruction and deciphering of early notation systems has been the work of musicologists and this work is the reason we can now listen to performances of medieval and early renaissance music. As for whether the anti-intellectuals who enjoy Beecham's quips would miss these five or six centuries of western musical culture, I have my doubts.


People who enjoy Beecham's quips aren't anti-intellectuals - just people with a sense of humour!


----------



## EdwardBast

JTS said:


> People who enjoy Beecham's quips aren't anti-intellectuals - just people with a sense of humour!


What's the difference between a snake and a conductor?

One's a slimy predator with no ears and the other's a reptile.


----------



## Luchesi

Rogerx said:


> And you are?


Rogerx, you reached 29,000 posts.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> Now, now! Let those with nothing better to do come here and amuse themselves. As the old adage says, those who can't stand the tuna noodle casserole topped with Campbell's high-sodium, preservative-laced cream of mushroom soup should stay out of the kitchen.


Hey! I resemble that remark! :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

JTS said:


> Beecham's comment is notable when reading musicologists: "A musicologist is someone who can read music but can't hear it!" From that list it appears Tommy was spot on.


There's so much anti-intellectualism going around on the Internet and in politics. Some people think it's a good thing...


----------



## JTS

EdwardBast said:


> What's the difference between a snake and a conductor?
> 
> One's a slimy predator with no ears and the other's a reptile.


Dear oh dear! Is that funny?

Or as WS Gilbert said when enquiring about the whereabouts of a singer and being told, "She's around behind," replied, "I know she has, but where is she?"


----------



## JTS

Luchesi said:


> There's so much anti-intellectualism going around on the Internet and in politics. Some people think it's a good thing...


So let's not add to it!


----------



## arpeggio

We have had snide remarks (under the cover of a bad joke) about musicologists. 

If I had presented a list that was prepared by conductors, we would be subjected to bad jokes about conductors.

If I had presented a list that was prepared by composers, we would be subjected to bad jokes about composers.

Give me a break


----------



## Luchesi

JTS said:


> Dear oh dear! Is that funny?
> 
> Or as WS Gilbert said when enquiring about the whereabouts of a singer and being told, "She's around behind," replied, "I know she has, but where is she?"


It's funnier in the last few years because of all the revelations about abuse.


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> It's funnier in the last few years because of all the revelations about abuse.


Glad someone picked that up.


----------



## PlaySalieri

arpeggio said:


> There are those who have gotten it in their heads that AD is the greatest prodigy since Mozart. I actually found a review of a music critic who claimed that she was going to save classical music. So you have some support out there.
> 
> I am not saying that she is a bad composer. She is quite good. Yet no matter what documentation that we provide that there are others that are as good as she is our efforts are derided or misinterpreted.
> 
> There was a survey of musicologist and they voted the following as the greatest prodigy composers. The results were:
> 
> 10. Dmitry Shostakovich
> 9. Franz Liszt
> 8. William Crotch
> 7. Camille Saint-Saëns
> 6. Benjamin Britten
> 5. Sergey Prokofiev
> 4. Alexander Glazunov
> 3. Erich Korngold
> 2. Franz Schubert
> 1. Felix Mendelssohn
> 
> If a person does not want to believe these music scholars they are not going to believe anything I have to say about this issue.
> 
> I give up.


do you have a link to that survey?

Could not find it online - when I do a search on musical prodigies Mozart is virtually always cited as the prime example.


----------



## Forster

PlaySalieri said:


> do you have a link to that survey?
> 
> Could not find it online - when I do a search on musical prodigies Mozart is virtually always cited as the prime example.


I don't know if arpeggio has a link...but I have, I think:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/b...pressreleases/2009/05_may/music_prodigy.shtml



> Felix Mendelssohn has today been crowned the greatest child prodigy of all time by a selection of 16 of the country's leading classical music critics.[...]
> 
> Perhaps surprisingly, Mozart failed to make the critics' top ten. Stephen Johnson argues: "The first real masterpiece is the Symphony in A major, K201, composed when Mozart was 18. There are promising things from his 17th year - the solo cantata 'Exultate, jubilate', the String Quintet K174 and, most strikingly, the 'Little G' minor Symphony, K183 - but nothing comparable in originality, depth of expression or rounded mastery with Mendelssohn's Octet and Midsummer Night's Dream Overture."


----------



## PlaySalieri

Forster said:


> I don't know if arpeggio has a link...but I have, I think:
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/b...pressreleases/2009/05_may/music_prodigy.shtml


Well - who am I to argue with the music critics.

Mendelssohn composed a couple of great early works when he was young - but little else of any note.

Frankly Goethe's statement just demonstrates his ignorance but I expect he knew very little of Mozart's early output.

I would have thought that Lucio Silla, for example - is the best opera ever composed by 16 years or younger composer.

Well let's just say then that the greatest prodigies in history are not necessarily the best composers as Mozart Beethoven and Bach (the best 3 in most lists) are absent from that list.

The only other thing I would add is that Mendelssohn had the major advantage of coming directly after Beethoven and Schubert so had excellent examples from which he could learn. By comparison Mozart was imitating and learning from J C Bach - a minor master. In the classical idiom the only other good composer he could learn from was Haydn. He wasn't in a vacuum by any means but lacked the advantages as a prodigy enjoyed by later composers and the list reflects that - no pre 18th century names on the list.


----------



## Forster

PlaySalieri said:


> Well let's just say then that the greatest prodigies in history are not necessarily the best composers as Mozart Beethoven and Bach (the best 3 in most lists) are absent from that list.


Exactly so. It just goes to show that being a prodigy is a guarantee of nothing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

PlaySalieri said:


> By comparison Mozart was imitating and learning from *J C Bach* - a minor master. In the classical idiom the only other good composer he could learn from was *Haydn*. He wasn't in a vacuum by any means


Actually those two have been vastly exaggerated in that regard. Take a look at:
https://www.talkclassical.com/71802-classical-music-vs-great-3.html#post2114525
https://www.talkclassical.com/71802-classical-music-vs-great-3.html#post2114593


hammeredklavier said:


> No.18 in C:
> 
> 
> 
> (1:17~1:23)
> K.466:
> 
> 
> 
> (1:21~1:28 / 1:48~1:52)





hammeredklavier said:


> No.18 in C (1773), with a length of 26:45 (albeit with some repeats), rivals the most substantial symphonies of other composers of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> (the harmonies at 11:23~12:41 are wonderful).
> Compare it with


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> I don't know if arpeggio has a link...but I have, I think:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/b...pressreleases/2009/05_may/music_prodigy.shtml


The critics didn't know:



hammeredklavier said:


> "Recent research by Nicolas Kitchen of the Borromeo Quartet reveals that a more mature Mendelssohn somewhat substantially edited the score before its final publication in 1832." https://www.earsense.org/chamber-music/Felix-Mendelssohn-Octet-in-E-flat-major-Op-20/
> "His two string quintets, both of which follow Mozart's lead and call for two violas, are separated by twenty years, yet both are marked by freshness of affect and the spirit of youth. This is especially true of the first, written before Mendelssohn turned twenty and revised when he was at the ripe old age of twenty-four." https://www.jonathanblumhofer.com/writings/program-notes/mendelssohn-string-quintet-no-1/


And I never understand; why is it such a sacrilege in the classical music community to admit Mendelssohn also wrote "banalities" in his youth, just like the other "prodigies"?
"he starts off with something chatty, and then in the next bars he goes higher, and and in the next, he goes even higher, and again, again, so on ...




**




 "
**I really hate to say it; If a mature composer wrote like this, it would be an embarrassment. I can't think of another fugal finale more "annoying" than this.


----------



## Forster

PlaySalieri said:


> Well - who am I to argue with the music critics.
> 
> Mendelssohn composed a couple of great early works when he was young - but little else of any note.
> 
> Frankly Goethe's statement just demonstrates his ignorance but I expect he knew very little of Mozart's early output.
> 
> I would have thought that Lucio Silla, for example - is the best opera ever composed by 16 years or younger composer.
> 
> Well let's just say then that the greatest prodigies in history are not necessarily the best composers as Mozart Beethoven and Bach (the best 3 in most lists) are absent from that list.
> 
> The only other thing I would add is that Mendelssohn had the major advantage of coming directly after Beethoven and Schubert so had excellent examples from which he could learn. By comparison Mozart was imitating and learning from J C Bach - a minor master. In the classical idiom the only other good composer he could learn from was Haydn. He wasn't in a vacuum by any means but lacked the advantages as a prodigy enjoyed by later composers and the list reflects that - no pre 18th century names on the list.


So, what you're saying is that Mozart really was a prodigy, but it wasn't his fault that he didn't actually compose anything to rank alongside Mendelssohn's early pieces?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> So, Mozart really was a prodigy, but it wasn't his fault that he didn't actually compose anything to rank alongside Mendelssohn's early pieces.


Take a look at my previous posts
https://www.talkclassical.com/71921-alma-deutscher-deserves-more-33.html#post2144621 
https://www.talkclassical.com/71921-alma-deutscher-deserves-more-32.html#post2144547


trazom said:


> By 16 Mozart had already found his distinctive voice as a composer.
> Perhaps not "sublime masterpieces" but not exactly comparable to Deutscher's situation either.


^I agree with this.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Forster said:


> So, Mozart really was a prodigy, but it wasn't his fault that he didn't actually compose anything to rank alongside Mendelssohn's early pieces.


Not quite - as I think on quality argument he should be on the list or near the top. The small g minor symphony was a great original work and composed at about the same time Mendelssohn composed his overture. But yes he would have been even better as a young composer had there been the quality of contemporary music for him to assimilate into his own work, comparable with what Mendelssohn enjoyed (ie Beethoven and Schubert's entire mature output). Maybe it is good that such composers did not exist - since he was forced to find his own voice.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> Take a look at my previous posts
> https://www.talkclassical.com/71921-alma-deutscher-deserves-more-33.html#post2144621
> https://www.talkclassical.com/71921-alma-deutscher-deserves-more-32.html#post2144547
> 
> ^I agree with this.


Look, I don't know what you're trying to convince me of. I just posted the link to the article. I'm not an advocate for Mendelssohn or against Mozart. I'm just an advocate against the phenomenon of the prodigy.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Look, I don't know what you're trying to convince me of. I just posted the link to the article. I'm not an advocate for Mendelssohn or against Mozart. I'm just an advocate against the phenomenon of the prodigy.


A preoccupation with prodigies is a waste of time, IMO.

I've posted previously that the only thing that matters is the end result of the music - either it is lasting and important or not, and the age of the composer is irrelevant.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> I've posted previously that the only thing that matters is the end result of the music.


So have I .


----------



## JTS

I think this sort of nonsense which says that Mozart was not a prodigy when just about everyone in his day and throughout history has agreed that he was definitely makes Beechams quip about musicologists makes sense


----------



## PlaySalieri

JTS said:


> I think this sort of nonsense which says that Mozart was not a prodigy when just about everyone in his day and throughout history has agreed that he was definitely makes Beechams quip about musicologists makes sense


The musicologists are not saying he wasn't a prodigy - they are saying there were better prodigies in history.

One word : ENVY


----------



## eljr

JTS said:


> I think this sort of nonsense which says that Mozart was not a prodigy when just about everyone in his day and throughout history has agreed that he was definitely makes Beechams quip about musicologists makes sense


but what is a prodigy?

neuroscience has taught us that a prodigy is created not born

but my comment is off on a tangent, excuse me.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> but what is a prodigy?
> 
> neuroscience has taught us that a prodigy is created not born
> 
> but my comment is off on a tangent, excuse me.


Has it really? My understanding is that the very mechanisms forming thought and memory are still a mystery.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

SanAntone said:


> I've posted previously that the only thing that matters is the end result of the music - either it is lasting and important or not, and the age of the composer is irrelevant.


Unless the composer is an A.I. or wrote it for a film...


----------



## JTS

eljr said:


> but what is a prodigy?
> 
> neuroscience has taught us that a prodigy is created not born
> 
> but my comment is off on a tangent, excuse me.


I wouldn't have thought so as neuroscience merely describes the mechanism


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> but what is a prodigy?
> 
> neuroscience has taught us that a prodigy is created not born
> 
> but my comment is off on a tangent, excuse me.


One take on the prodigy question.



> psychologists who study expertise are moving beyond the question of whether experts are "born" or "made." As the psychologist Jonathan Wai put it, it is increasingly clear that "*Experts are born, then made*."


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-a-prodigy1/


----------



## Aries

GrosseFugue said:


> I don't understand the Classical Music world's snubbing of Alma Deutscher, the child prodigy composer. Because she uses sonata form? Is melodious? Harmonious? Doesn't hit the ear with jagged, ugly dissonance?


Hmm, I did not heard of her before, but I have to say, she is great. I like the music instantly.

Producing a 37 pages long thread is a good start. This would not be possible with every composer. That is promissing. She is just 16 years old. She could once be like Mozart or Beethoven.



GrosseFugue said:


> She's stlll very young and still learning, growing. I can't wait to see what symphonies she'll produce.


Yes, actually exciting.


----------



## Luchesi

Aries said:


> Hmm, I did not heard of her before, but I have to say, she is great. I like the music instantly.
> 
> Producing a 37 pages long thread is a good start. This would not be possible with every composer. That is promissing. She is just 16 years old. She could once be like Mozart or Beethoven.
> 
> Yes, actually exciting.


And she's a girl and not a boy doing the same thing?


----------



## Aries

Luchesi said:


> And she's a girl and not a boy doing the same thing?


Huh, she is obviously a girl as everybody can see.


----------



## Luchesi

Aries said:


> Huh, she is obviously a girl as everybody can see.


I suspect a boy wouldn't do as well. Maybe half as well?


----------



## JTS

Luchesi said:


> I suspect a boy wouldn't do as well. Maybe half as well?


This is getting silly!


----------



## Luchesi

JTS said:


> This is getting silly!


Yes, the very premise is taboo.


----------



## arpeggio

Last weeks next Mozart: https://www.talkclassical.com/42026-shane-thomas.html#post1015564


----------



## trazom

arpeggio said:


> Last weeks next Mozart: https://www.talkclassical.com/42026-shane-thomas.html#post1015564


Did he become Mozart yet?


----------



## cybernaut

SanAntone said:


> A preoccupation with prodigies is a waste of time, IMO.
> 
> I've posted previously that the only thing that matters is the end result of the music - either it is lasting and important or not, and the age of the composer is irrelevant.


I would also add that the date of the composition is irrelevant.


----------



## cybernaut

Aries said:


> Hmm, I did not heard of her before, but I have to say, she is great. I like the music instantly.


 Agreed. I instantly liked her music.


----------



## Waehnen

> In 2022 she told The Times: "It is extremely easy to create ugliness - that needs no talent. But to create beauty? That is a challenge." She said she resisted pressure from the classical music establishment to compose ugly modernist music because "I don't want to inflict misery on my audience or myself". "People who push noise down the throats of audiences and pass that off as music that only educated people can understand - these are the people killing classical music".[38]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_Deutscher#cite_note-38

Alma Deutscher is free to compose whatever she wants. I will not be taking any part in speculating where she should go or what her mental state is. None of my business!

But I think her view on composers not concentrating merely on the (her conception of) beauty is… one-dimensional and naive.

Of course there needs to be a wide range variety of music! What a boring thing music would be if beauty was the only value. Oh no!

People should let Alma do what she wants — and Alma should let people do what they want. Mutual respect for different genuine musical perspectives.

Where did she get the idea that someone was killing classical music? Nothing at all can kill art music, it will be with us humans until the end of times.

Edit: Just listened to the Sirene Waltz and some of the piano concerto. They sound like well executed student works to me. Artistically I do not find myself all that interested in the music.

Edit2: Then again I am willing to accept a few juvenile opinions from children, teenagers, young adults and the elderly — and sometimes even from the boring mainstream of the adults.


----------

