# Most Polarizing Composer?



## Sol Invictus

I thought about making this a poll but I didn't know where to start. My first thought was Schoenberg( and/or his disciples) or an avant-garde composer?


----------



## Art Rock

Cage, Stockhausen, Schoenberg, Gorecki, Part probably.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Perhaps I could throw the names of Pierre Boulez, Karl-Heinz Stockhausen and Iannis Xenakis into the ring too?


----------



## silentio

I would expect most opera-only composers like Wagner, Verdi, Puccini, Massenet, or even Britten will be polarizing.

For the non opera-only guys, probably Bruckner and Shostakovich.


----------



## mathisdermaler

John Cage, probably.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Cage, Schoenberg, Bruckner, Wagner. The usual suggestions are predictable really.

Nevertheless even Mozart polarises people.


----------



## hpowders

Curious. Why on earth would Schoenberg be considered polarizing?

Is it because of the musical illiteracy of the listener? The lack of "musical comprehension?"

In that case, I'm sure Beethoven was considered quite the polarizer in his day as many in his audiences didn't know what the heck his music was supposed to be "saying".


----------



## Nereffid

This is a question Portamento's composer project could shed light on: which composer gets a lot of high scores _and_ a lot of low scores.

The first three to my mind would be Schoenberg, Cage and Stockhausen. I imagine Schoenberg has more supporters than the others, so the love/hate may be more balanced.


----------



## Bettina

Before I try to answer this, I think I need some clarification of the term. Does polarizing mean that we actually have angry debates about the composer, in which people call names and receive infractions? :lol: Or can it just mean that there's a lot of variation in how people rate the composer, without anger necessarily being involved?


----------



## Klassik

Bettina said:


> Before I try to answer this, I think I need some clarification of the term. Does polarizing mean that we actually have angry debates about the composer, in which people call names and receive infractions? :lol: Or can it just mean that there's a lot of variation in how people rate the composer, without anger necessarily being involved?


There's a difference? 

Well, except in the case of Mozart I guess. Who can get angry about Mozart even if they don't like him? :lol:


----------



## Sol Invictus

hpowders said:


> Curious. Why on earth would Schoenberg be considered polarizing?
> 
> Is it because of the musical illiteracy of the listener? The lack of "musical comprehension?"
> 
> In that case, I'm sure Beethoven was considered quite the polarizer in his day as many in his audiences didn't know what the heck his music was supposed to be "saying".


You're not wrong. I wouldn't call myself musically literate by any stretch of the imagination. Most of his music I just don't "get", that being said I do like Verklate Nacht and String Quartet No. 2.


----------



## Eschbeg

Historically, a few names come to mind, beyond what has already been mentioned:

Monteverdi
Piccini
Debussy
Stravinsky
Bartok
Adams


----------



## hpowders

Sol Invictus said:


> You're not wrong. I wouldn't call myself musically literate by any stretch of the imagination. Most of his music I just don't "get", that being said I do like Verklate Nacht and String Quartet No. 2.


I doubt if Schoenberg used to wake up and say, " I feel inspired to write some polarizing music today. First, some Quaker Oats."


----------



## Agamemnon

I think Nietzsche is the most controversial composer but not because of his musical compositions.


----------



## Art Rock

Eschbeg said:


> Adams


Probably Glass even more.


----------



## Eschbeg

Art Rock said:


> Probably Glass even more.


Arguably, yeah. I went with Adams because he seems to be the spokesman and/or whipping boy of "New Topicality" more than Glass does, even though Glass was doing it first.


----------



## hpowders

Glass is half full of it.


----------



## mathisdermaler

hpowders said:


> Curious. Why on earth would Schoenberg be considered polarizing?
> 
> Is it because of the musical illiteracy of the listener? The lack of "musical comprehension?"
> 
> In that case, I'm sure Beethoven was considered quite the polarizer in his day as many in his audiences didn't know what the heck his music was supposed to be "saying".


Schoenberg would be considered polarizing because many people love his music and many hate it. I like Schoenberg, but don't you think it's a little bit of a low blow to call someone who doesn't like him "musically illiterate"? I don't think he's as good as either Webern or Berg. There are reasons to dislike Schoenberg beyond the difficulty of his music and even that primary reason is legitimate.


----------



## Agamemnon

If avantgarde composers are controversial because they leave the others behind, then so are the 'reactionary' composers like Bruch and Saint-Saëns who composed music which was regarded outdated by the critics...


----------



## hpowders

mathisdermaler said:


> Schoenberg would be considered polarizing because many people love his music and many hate it. I like Schoenberg, but don't you think it's a little bit of a low blow to call someone who doesn't like him "musically illiterate"? I don't think he's as good as either Webern or Berg. There are reasons to dislike Schoenberg beyond the difficulty of his music and even that primary reason is legitimate.


Musically illiterate some, or more likely, musically lazy and won't make the effort to concentrate on his music.

The Violin Concerto and Piano Concertos are masterpieces, but they require making the effort to comprehend them.

I don't buy the "musically lazy" stating that Schoenberg is polarizing. That's simply a convenient rationalization to keep listeners in their comfort zones, without bothering to really listen.


----------



## hpowders

For me it is Bruckner, a third rate composer who attempted to emulate his idol Wagner, but not very successfully.


----------



## manyene

Glass: Agreed - he fits the polarising category exactly - you either love him excessively or detest him totally


----------



## mathisdermaler

hpowders said:


> Musically illiterate some, or more likely, musically lazy and won't make the effort to concentrate on his music.
> 
> The Violin Concerto and Piano Concertos are masterpieces, but they require making the effort to comprehend them.
> 
> I don't buy the "musically lazy" stating that Schoenberg is polarizing. That's simply a convenient rationalization to keep listeners in their comfort zones, without bothering to really listen.


But he is polarizing. He is objectively polarizing. Anyone who has played his music to a fan of his and then to almost any other person can tell you as much. Whether something is polarizing says nothing about its complexity, innovation, or the potential enjoyment it can offer to certain listeners. It is an objective statement and in this case it is obviously true.


----------



## David OByrne

mathisdermaler said:


> There are reasons to dislike Schoenberg beyond the difficulty of his music and even that primary reason is legitimate.


What is this difficulty you speak of?


----------



## David OByrne

For me, it's Beethoven and Verdi. I'm still new to classical but I've had no trouble getting into modern music at all, it's really fun and exhilarating music. It's like nobody else has any ears


----------



## brianvds

hpowders said:


> I doubt if Schoenberg used to wake up and say, " I feel inspired to write some polarizing music today. First, some Quaker Oats."


I thought he ate tone rows for breakfast.


----------



## Pugg

Boulez, Stockhausen , Xenakis ,Cage, Varese and Schoenberg. 
In no particular order


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> Musically illiterate some, or more likely, musically lazy and won't make the effort to concentrate on his music.
> 
> The Violin Concerto and Piano Concertos are masterpieces, but they require making the effort to comprehend them.
> 
> I don't buy the "musically lazy" stating that Schoenberg is polarizing. That's simply a convenient rationalization to keep listeners in their comfort zones, without bothering to really listen.


If "illiterate" is presumptuous, "lazy" is even more so. We don't need to put down people whose tastes are different from ours.

One may return to music over and over again for a lifetime and find that one's dislike far outlives one's incomprehension. It's even possible to learn to like a composer less, once the fascination of the new wears off.


----------



## Woodduck

brianvds said:


> I thought he ate tone rows for breakfast.


"Cheerios, Fruit Loops, or Tone Rows, Arnie mein Liebchen?"


----------



## Bettina

Woodduck said:


> "Cheerios, Fruit Loops, or Tone Rows, Arnie mein Liebchen?"


So THAT'S how he perfected his cereal techniques! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

manyene said:


> Glass: Agreed - he fits the polarising category exactly - you either love him excessively or detest him totally


I only detest him 98% - basically, from the second iteration of the ostinato on.


----------



## Becca

hpowders said:


> For me it is Bruckner, a third rate composer who *attempted to emulate his idol Wagner,* but not very successfully.


That's simply a convenient rationalization to keep listeners in their comfort zones, without bothering to really listen, i.e. musically lazy and won't make the effort to concentrate on his music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## MarkW

Edward Land .


----------



## KenOC

Becca said:


> That's simply a convenient rationalization to keep listeners in their comfort zones, without bothering to really listen, i.e. musically lazy and won't make the effort to concentrate on his music.


I really really make an effort to stay interested as I watch paint dry, but it's just too hard for me! The mind wanders, as it does listening to Feldman... :lol:


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Klassik said:


> There's a difference?
> 
> Well, except in the case of Mozart I guess. Who can get angry about Mozart even if they don't like him? :lol:


You'd be surprised - it even happens on here at times. When it does, I get the distinct impression that it's because those who react that way resent the attention and esteem Mozart gets from so many (me included).

I quite often find Mahler arouses strong reactions - whether for or against - among musicians of my acquaintance, though not so much on here where (aside from me and one or two other posters) he's widely popular.


----------



## JAS

hpowders said:


> For me it is Bruckner, a third rate composer who attempted to emulate his idol Wagner, but not very successfully.


One might suggest that you are just being musically lazy and not listening properly. That position, of course, would be ridiculous just as it is ridiculous to suggest the same argument in regard to other composers.


----------



## hpowders

Woodduck said:


> If "illiterate" is presumptuous, "lazy" is even more so. *We don't need to put down people whose tastes **are different from ours*.
> 
> One may return to music over and over again for a lifetime and find that one's dislike far outlives one's incomprehension. It's even possible to learn to like a composer less, once the fascination of the new wears off.


 I made a generalization. I can safely guess there are many people who will not come away from their comfort zones and make the substantial effort required to hear what Schoenberg's music has to say. it's simply human nature.

How many of those 90% who love their Beethoven and Brahms have made a genuine effort to listen to Schoenberg's Piano Concerto and Violin Concerto?

You make the effort to listen and you hate it. Fine. No problem.

I hate Bruckner, but at least I did my homework.

You want to be a prosecuting attorney indicting me for stating basic, obvious human nature, be my guest. Just be sure to pick up any legal fees I may incur.


----------



## fluteman

hpowders said:


> Wasn't it you who told ME, I should get off a Wagner thread and come back after I had done my homework, because I refused to be enveloped by the Wagner worship that permeates TC?


I think he was telling you to get off the Wagner thread and stay off for good, because surviving through even one interminable Wagner opera requires weeks of specialized training, and an equally long decompression period afterwards. Even then, you'll feel like you've been put through the ring cycle. By the time you return (if you ever return), there will have been 17 more "Wagner is the summit of western music" threads, 36 more "Schoenberg ruined western music" threads and 1,014 more "our brains require tonality and atonal music is an invalid aberration" threads.


----------



## hpowders

Becca said:


> That's simply a convenient rationalization to keep listeners in their comfort zones, without bothering to really listen, i.e. musically lazy and won't make the effort to concentrate on his music.


 I have two complete sets of the Bruckner symphonies (Jochum/BPO and Jochum/Dresden) and I know them all. I consider them to be third rate music, for the most part, admittedly, among some rare pockets of "musical strength".

I moved out of my comfort zone and I've concluded that I hate Bruckner's music.
That's just the way it is.

Anyone who makes a sincere effort at exposure, comes along and claims "I hate it"; I have no problem with that.


----------



## hpowders

JAS said:


> One might suggest that you are just being musically lazy and not listening properly. That position, of course, would be ridiculous just as it is ridiculous to suggest the same argument in regard to other composers.


I have 2 sets of the complete Bruckner symphonies (Jochum/BPO and Jochum/Dresden). I have made the effort, giving up several valuable months of listening, I will never be able to ever get back.

I hate Bruckner's music. I made the effort. I'm happy with that.


----------



## fluteman

hpowders said:


> I hate Bruckner. Get over it and move on.


Bruckner himself did not think highly of his own music. I don't find it unreasonable to take him at his word. ;-)
And incidentally, I vote for Carl Ruggles. It's hard to be halfway with him, which I suspect is how he would have wanted it.


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> You are making an assumption. I have two complete sets of the Bruckner symphonies (Jochum/BPO and Jochum/Dresden) and I know them all. I consider them to be third rate music, for the most part, admitedly among rare pockets of "musical strength".
> 
> A lawyerly way of branding me "musically lazy"?
> 
> I have made the effort.
> 
> You know nothing about me.
> 
> I hate Bruckner. Get over it and move on.


Bruckner reminds me of that film "*As Good As it Gets*". The Helen Hunt character, Carol, writes a letter too Mr. Udall (Jack Nicholson) trying to give her thanks for his helping out with her sick child. The letter is pages and pages long and Udall looks bored and uncomfortable in the restaurant as she attempts to read it to him. Reminds me of the never-ending Bruckner, without the humour of Bruckner!!

I love these lines: "Carol the waitress, meet Simon the ***"!!!!


----------



## hpowders

fluteman said:


> Bruckner himself did not think highly of his own music. I don't find it unreasonable to take him at his word. ;-)
> And incidentally, I vote for Carl Ruggles. It's hard to be halfway with him, which I suspect is how he would have wanted it.


It's puzzling to me how posters cannot simply accept that I hate Bruckner's music.

I came. I listened. I hated it. I moved on, as far away from Bruckner's music as I can be.

For those who hate Schoenberg's music, that is fine, if you have made the effort and I mean EFFORT to expose oneself to his music and give one's brain a fighting chance to absorb and process the different musical sounds. It may take a month. It may take several months. Then, if you don't like it, fine. I have no problem with that.


----------



## hpowders

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Bruckner reminds me of that film "*As Good As it Gets*". The Helen Hunt character, Carol, writes a letter too Mr. Udall (Jack Nicholson) trying to give her thanks for his helping out with her sick child. The letter is pages and pages long and Udall looks bored and uncomfortable in the restaurant as she attempts to read it to him. Reminds me of the never-ending Bruckner, without the humour of Bruckner!!
> 
> I love these lines: "Carol the waitress, meet Simon the ***"!!!!


Whatever happened to Helen Hunt. I like her, but don't see her around much anymore.


----------



## hpowders

mathisdermaler said:


> But he is polarizing. He is objectively polarizing. Anyone who has played his music to a fan of his and then to almost any other person can tell you as much. Whether something is polarizing says nothing about its complexity, innovation, or the potential enjoyment it can offer to certain listeners. It is an objective statement and in this case it is obviously true.


Beethoven's music was objectively polarizing to anyone doing listener research in 1820.


----------



## JAS

hpowders said:


> I have 2 sets of the complete Bruckner symphonies. I have made the effort.
> 
> You might "suggest", but you would incorrect.
> 
> I hate Bruckner's music. Get over it.


I was "over it" before this thread even started. I really have no deep concern that you don't like Bruckner's music. As I have stated repeatedly, every listener's response is valid. I have listened to Schoenberg, and Berg (many but certainly not everything), so I have made the effort too, and I dislike their music, for the most part, even more each time I hear it. I have even listened to all of the examples on the 21rst Century Listening Chain (up to a day or so ago as I may not be absolutely current), which is like a catalog of horrors. Life is complicated, and taste is taste.


----------



## Mandryka

Sol Invictus said:


> I thought about making this a poll but I didn't know where to start. My first thought was Schoenberg( and/or his disciples) or an avant-garde composer?


Mozart.

I would add Brahms but I'm not sure many people listen to him much.

.........


----------



## hpowders

JAS said:


> I was "over it" before this thread even started. I really have no deep concern that you don't like Bruckner's music. As I have stated repeatedly, every listener's response is valid. I have listened to Schoenberg, and Berg (many but certainly not everything), so I have made the effort too, and I dislike their music, for the most part, even more each time I hear it. I have even listened to the examples on the 21rst Century Chain, which is like a catalog of horrors. Life is complicated, and taste is taste.


Okay. Assumptions are ridiculous to make about a poster's background. I assumed my classical music "street cred" has already been well-established on TC over the last several years.

That's all I ask anyone: make the effort and if you hate it, so be it.


----------



## JAS

hpowders said:


> Okay. Assumptions are ridiculous to make about a poster's background. I assumed my classical music "street cred" has already been well-established on TC over the last several years. That's all I ask anyone: make the effort and if you hate it, so be it.


You do have "street cred" to the extent that you have indeed demonstrated on TC broad experience as a listener of classical music, and you are the absolute, unquestionable authority on what you like and don't like. (But I also add that you lose "street cred," at least in my insignificant eyes, when you say something that suggests that people who don't like the music of Schoenberg or Berg or whoever haven't really listened to it. That starts to veer into MR territory, and I certainly hope that you don't want to go there.)

May you have a wonderful day of nothing but music that pleases you.


----------



## fluteman

hpowders said:


> Beethoven's music was objectively polarizing to anyone doing listener research in 1820.


I enjoyed reading Berlioz' account of the Paris premiere of Beethoven's 5th symphony, shortly after the composer's death. Even then Beethoven was a polarizing figure, as you say, though the event apparently had a profound effect on Berlioz.


----------



## hpowders

JAS said:


> You do have "street cred" to the extent that you have indeed demonstrated on TC broad experience as a listener of classical music, and you are the absolute, unquestionable authority on what you like and don't like. (But I also add that you lose "street cred," at least in my insignificant eyes, when you say something that suggests that people who don't like the music of Schoenberg or Berg or whoever haven't really listened to it. That starts to veer into MR territory, and I certainly hope that you don't want to go there.)
> 
> May you have a wonderful day of nothing but music that pleases you.


I wrote that there are many who won't come out of their comfort zones to give Schoenberg's music a fair chance.

Classical listeners are mainly conservative, no? Beethoven, Brahms, etc.

If you play two bars of Schoenberg to such a listener, the brain rebels. They need "immersion"-enough time for the brain to adjust.

I never wrote that all those who don't like Schoenberg haven't really listened....but I bet there are plenty who haven't.


----------



## hpowders

David OByrne said:


> What is this difficulty you speak of?


Beethoven's music is "difficult", yet 90% of the TC posters have no trouble listening to his music.

Give the brain a fair chance to adjust.

The great music is there, waiting:

Schoenberg Piano Concerto.

Schoenberg Violin Concerto.


----------



## JAS

hpowders said:


> I wrote that there are many who won't come out of their comfort zones to give Schoenberg's music a fair chance.
> 
> Classical listeners are mainly conservative, no? Beethoven, Brahms, etc.
> 
> If you play two bars of Schoenberg to such a listener, the brain rebels. They need "immersion"-enough time for the brain to adjust.
> 
> I never wrote that all those who don't like Schoenberg haven't really listened....but I bet there are plenty who haven't.


I am now belaboring a point of no great importance (but it is TC, so that is the norm anyway).

What you say above may be what you meant to say, but what you actually said was:



hpowders said:


> Musically illiterate some, or more likely, musically lazy and won't make the effort to concentrate on his music.
> 
> The Violin Concerto and Piano Concertos are masterpieces, but they require making the effort to comprehend them.
> 
> I don't buy the "musically lazy" stating that Schoenberg is polarizing. That's simply a convenient rationalization to keep listeners in their comfort zones, without bothering to really listen.


That lends itself to a much wider inclusion. I think playing whole pieces by Schoenberg won't create any better impression on most listeners. (And I have decades of actual experience to back up that claim.) It will always be a niche thing.


----------



## hpowders

fluteman;1262969 Bruckner himself did not think highly of his own music. I don't find it unreasonable to take him at his word. ;-)
And incidentally said:


> I believe the number of revisions and alternate versions of the Bruckner symphonies, tell one all one needs to know.
> 
> I didn't care going in about all the revisons. I gave the guy a fair shot. He lost.


----------



## Blancrocher

I haven't seen any mentions of Morton Feldman or Andrew Lloyd Webber yet.


----------



## JAS

Blancrocher said:


> I haven't seen any mentions of Morton Feldman or Andrew Lloyd Webber yet.


There are still people who like Andrew Lloyd Webber? (Classical music fans?)


----------



## Blancrocher

JAS said:


> There are still people who like Andrew Lloyd Webber?


I was listening to a portion of Cats the other day and caught myself enjoying it, God help me.


----------



## JAS

Blancrocher said:


> I was listening to a portion of Cats the other day and caught myself enjoying it, God help me.


Something other than "Memories"? (I think it was during a tribute to Johnny Carson that I saw a compilation of all the people who went on "The Tonight Show" and sang "Memoires." If nothing else, it was ironic, since it was an entire show of memories.) I know someone else who plays Webber over speakers in her back yard to drive off deer.


----------



## OperaChic

hpowders said:


> I didn't care going in. I gave the guy a fair shot. He lost.


No one cared the first time you stated you don't care for Bruckner, and no one cares after the 100th time. But maybe you should stop belaboring the point.

I mean, I know I know, trashing great artists who enrich people's lives immeasurably more than these frivolous discussion on TC is so hip and fun and cool. But people tend to get defensive when something that they consider meaningful and which brings them great pleasure is endlessly insulted and ridiculed.


----------



## hpowders

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.


One of the most important rules for living a sane life that I religiously follow is, if it's music written between 1700-1900 and Trevor Pinnock has conducted it, it must be non-polarizing.

So that makes rum cake out of your selections, as keenly and carefully chosen by you, nevertheless.

Bruckner? On the other hand?


----------



## Klassik

Animal the Drummer said:


> You'd be surprised - it even happens on here at times. When it does, I get the distinct impression that it's because those who react that way resent the attention and esteem Mozart gets from so many (me included).
> 
> I quite often find Mahler arouses strong reactions - whether for or against - among musicians of my acquaintance, though not so much on here where (aside from me and one or two other posters) he's widely popular.


You're probably right. There might be a lot of jealousy for composers who get discussed a lot on here or who get played frequently on classical radio (perhaps the problem Vivaldi has). OTOH, I think some of the Mozart haters know that they'll get bashed on here if they speak too poorly of Wolfgang!

I'm not much of a Mahler fan, but I've never caught too much flack about that here. Maybe it's because I admit to liking a couple of his symphonies. With Bruckner, I didn't like him the first time I heard him. That first listen was a Karajan recording of Symphony No. 4 on a DG LP. DG made good records, but the inner-groove distortion was so bad on the final movement that it totally ruined the experience.  Once I heard Bruckner properly on a CD, it was a revelation. Of course, even then I only like about half of Bruckner's symphonies. It's more than what I like of Mahler, but there are other composers who have a higher batting average in Klassik's book!


----------



## hpowders

OP: One must include Wagner in any "most polarizing" list, because with the exception of the atonality discussions, nobody gets one's emotions more ajuiced than a Wagner discussion as to his character, his anti-semitism and his music.

So my real-time list as to the most polarizing composers would include Bruckner, Wagner, and a new addition, Nielsen- the composer Carl- and NOT the "Put the lime in the coconut and eat it all up" guy named Harry Nillson.


----------



## Nereffid

hpowders said:


> One of the most important rules for living a sane life that I religiously follow is, if it's music written between 1700-1900 and Trevor Pinnock has conducted it, it must be non-polarizing.
> 
> So that makes rum cake out of your selections, as keenly and carefully chosen by you, nevertheless.
> 
> Bruckner? On the other hand?


Ahem......


----------



## Klassik

hpowders said:


> OP: One must include Wagner in any "most polarizing" list, because with the exception of the atonality discussions, nobody gets one's emotions more ajuiced than a Wagner discussion as to his character, his anti-semitism and his music.
> 
> So my real-time list as to the most polarizing composers would include Bruckner, Wagner (and a new addition, Nielsen).


It's Wagner's neck beard that gets my emotions going! Not in a good way either! 

Is Nielsen really popular enough to be polarizing? :lol: I guess, if anything, one might say that the movement names within his Aladdin Suite are not very P.C. these days!


----------



## Pat Fairlea

If TC were a group of pigeons, this thread appears to be the cat...!

Wagner, obviously, because some people appear to be greatly enamoured of his bombastic, derivative ramblings (heheheheh). :devil:

More seriously, I have heard people highly polarised as regards Debussy, including saying things such as "I really can't stand his music".


----------



## EdwardBast

David OByrne said:


> What is this difficulty you speak of?


Yeah, I don't get the difficulty thing. It's just listening to music.


----------



## EdwardBast

Becca said:


> That's simply a convenient rationalization to keep listeners in their comfort zones, without bothering to really listen, i.e. musically lazy and won't make the effort to concentrate on his music.


So wait, are you promising that if I concentrate really hard Bruckner's music will suddenly sound good and interesting? Wow, who knew it could be so easy!


----------



## JAS

The OP does say "Most Polarizing," and since there is probably a certain amount of disagreement over any composer you can name, and, in some sense, the "Most Polarizing" composers are probably the ones with the broadest name recognition. Now, the question becomes whether "most polarizing" is matter of numbers or degree.


----------



## DavidA

Look over the threads on TC and you will find no-one polarises opinion more vehemently than Wagner. He'd probably be delighted as history reveals he loved to be the centre of attention!


----------



## Chronochromie

manyene said:


> Glass: Agreed - he fits the polarising category exactly - you either love him excessively or detest him totally


I'm in the middle, I like much of his music, especially his earlier works, but much prefer Reich as far as Minimalists go.


----------



## Tallisman

Probably Schoenberg


----------



## David OByrne

EdwardBast said:


> Yeah, I don't get the difficulty thing. It's just listening to music.


Exactly! There's nothing more to it unless you decide to create more


----------



## David OByrne

hpowders said:


> Beethoven's music is "difficult", yet 90% of the TC posters have no trouble listening to his music.
> 
> Give the brain a fair chance to adjust.
> 
> The great music is there, waiting:
> 
> Schoenberg Piano Concerto.
> 
> Schoenberg Violin Concerto.


I love Schoenberg's concertos, very thankful to EddieRUkiddingvarese for putting me onto his enthralling music


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

The only polarizing thing about senior Schoenberg, is that he is writing romantic music with a largely chromatic harmonic language. There really is nothing else to it in that regard. 



Daniel


----------



## mmsbls

Daniel Atkinson said:


> The only polarizing thing about senior Schoenberg, is that he is writing romantic music with a largely chromatic harmonic language. There really is nothing else to it in that regard.
> 
> Daniel


I'm not sure that explanation is enough to account for the polarization. I believe Verklärte Nacht could be described as Romantic music with a largely chromatic harmonic language (correct me if I'm wrong). Many people I know had no or only modest difficulty coming to enjoy that work. Many of those same people, including myself, had much more difficulty enjoying his later works.

I believe there's something in later works, which break further from traditional late romantic harmonic music, that causes more "difficulty" in "learning" that language and allowing one to enjoy those works. Certainly my listening to the Piano Concerto, String Quartet No. 3, and Quartet No, 4 differs significantly from the way I listen to Verklärte Nacht.

Maybe the change can be characterized as another modest step away from traditional romantic harmony, but it seemed like a huge leap to me. And I suspect it seems that way to many others.


----------



## fluteman

Blancrocher said:


> I haven't seen any mentions of Morton Feldman or Andrew Lloyd Webber yet.


I think Morton Feldman was mentioned. IMO, he has a legitimate place in the history of western music, and helped lay the groundwork for the mystical "new age" and minimalist movements. Perhaps you need to be sitting on a yoga mat and, um, imbibing something to get on his wavelength. Andrew Lloyd Weber, on the other hand -- yuck. For me, his one decent show was Jesus Christ Superstar, if you don't count the early but spirited effort, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. After that, he got progressively pompous and dreary.


----------



## Bettina

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure that explanation is enough to account for the polarization. I believe Verklärte Nacht could be described as Romantic music with a largely chromatic harmonic language (correct me if I'm wrong). Many people I know had no or only modest difficulty coming to enjoy that work. Many of those same people, including myself, had much more difficulty enjoying his later works.
> 
> I believe there's something in later works, which break further from traditional late romantic harmonic music, that causes more "difficulty" in "learning" that language and allowing one to enjoy those works. Certainly my listening to the Piano Concerto, String Quartet No. 3, and Quartet No, 4 differs significantly from the way I listen to Verklärte Nacht.
> 
> Maybe the change can be characterized as another modest step away from traditional romantic harmony, but it seemed like a huge leap to me. And I suspect it seems that way to many others.


Good points. I agree with you about the huge gulf between Schoenberg's earlier works (chromatic but tonal) and his later works (atonal). In fact, I'm not sure if Schoenberg's atonal music could even be considered chromatic. It seems to me that chromaticism can only exist in a tonal context, where it refers to notes outside the key of the piece. When there's no overall key, the distinction between diatonicism and chromaticism makes no sense; it's a distinction which requires a tonal framework.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> So wait, are you promising that if I concentrate really hard Bruckner's music will suddenly sound good and interesting? Wow, who knew it could be so easy!


Becca was quoting/satirizing hpowders' own statement on people "too lazy" to enjoy Schoenberg.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

mmsbls said:


> I believe there's something in later works, which break further from traditional late romantic harmonic music, that causes more "difficulty" in "learning" that language and allowing one to enjoy those works. Certainly my listening to the Piano Concerto, String Quartet No. 3, and Quartet No, 4 differs significantly from the way I listen to Verklärte Nacht.


Do you mean in the way that it moves away from the Brahms/Wagner sense of lyricism to more of a Scriabin/Bartok aesthetic? (which is still very late romantic). Else-wise I fail to see your point.

Regards

Daniel


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bettina said:


> Good points. I agree with you about the huge gulf between Schoenberg's earlier works (chromatic but tonal) and his later works (atonal). In fact, I'm not sure if Schoenberg's atonal music could even be considered chromatic. It seems to me that chromaticism can only exist in a tonal context, where it refers to notes outside the key of the piece. When there's no overall key, the distinction between diatonicism and chromaticism makes no sense; it's a distinction which requires a tonal framework.


I believe Schoenberg and Schnittke both used quite a bit of chromaticism in their works, by using the 12 tone notes closer together, that you can hear the chromatic harmony (all or most of the notes, like looking into a diamond), while Cage Is much less chromatic, and his lines jump around at different intervals in his indeterminate music, so many notes of the chromatic scale are spaced outside of memory, and sounds more angular, disconnected and random


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure that explanation is enough to account for the polarization. I believe Verklärte Nacht could be described as Romantic music with a largely chromatic harmonic language (correct me if I'm wrong). Many people I know had no or only modest difficulty coming to enjoy that work. Many of those same people, including myself, had much more difficulty enjoying his later works.
> 
> I believe there's something in later works, which break further from traditional late romantic harmonic music, that causes more "difficulty" in "learning" that language and allowing one to enjoy those works. Certainly my listening to the Piano Concerto, String Quartet No. 3, and Quartet No, 4 differs significantly from the way I listen to Verklärte Nacht.
> 
> Maybe the change can be characterized as another modest step away from traditional romantic harmony, but *it seemed like a huge leap to me. And I suspect it seems that way to many others.*


It _is_ a huge leap, despite the efforts by some to minimize it and label as ignorant reactionaries or lazy bums those who recognize the difference and feel it keenly. Those efforts only inspire disbelief in the sensitivity of those who think the systematic displacement of tonality is no big thing. It's actually as big a thing as listeners feel it is, and in general they seem to feel that it's pretty big.


----------



## Bettina

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe Schoenberg and Schnittke both used quite a bit of chromaticism in their works, by using the 12 tone notes closer together, that you can hear the chromatic harmony (all or most of the notes, like looking into a diamond), while Cage Is much less chromatic, and his lines jump around at different intervals in his indeterminate music, so many notes of the chromatic scale are spaced outside of memory, and sounds more angular and random.


I see what you mean about half steps. I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. You're right - when talking about atonal music, we could perhaps use the word "chromatic" to refer to music with many prominent half steps. I was thinking about the tonal context, where chromatic refers to non-scale tones.


----------



## hpowders

Nereffid said:


> Ahem......
> 
> View attachment 95547


Yeah. I ordered it for Christmas.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bettina said:


> I see what you mean about half steps. I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. You're right - when talking about atonal music, we could perhaps use the word "chromatic" to refer to music with many prominent half steps. I was thinking about the tonal context, where chromatic refers to non-scale tones.


Yeah, just edited my last post for Cage's music notes to be more harmonically disconnected with each other, while in Schoenberg's they form part of a living whole.


----------



## hpowders

Klassik said:


> It's Wagner's neck beard that gets my emotions going! Not in a good way either!
> 
> Is Nielsen really popular enough to be polarizing? :lol: I guess, if anything, one might say that the movement names within his Aladdin Suite are not very P.C. these days!


Nielsen has his passionate advocates. His best piece could be his wind quintet.

True. Nielsen simply might not be popular enough to be considered "polarizing".

When society brands you "a polarizing figure", you know you have arrived!!


----------



## Woodduck

Bettina said:


> Good points. I agree with you about the huge gulf between Schoenberg's earlier works (chromatic but tonal) and his later works (atonal). In fact, I'm not sure if Schoenberg's atonal music could even be considered chromatic. It seems to me that chromaticism can only exist in a tonal context, where it refers to notes outside the key of the piece. When there's no overall key, the distinction between diatonicism and chromaticism makes no sense; it's a distinction which requires a tonal framework.


I'm pleased that someone has the sense to point out the audible difference, and the difference in principle, between chromaticism in the context of tonality (at least assumed, even if not distinctly spelled out) and chromaticism detached from that grounding. Whether the latter ought even to be called chromaticism, when diatonicism is nowhere in sight or even implied, is an interesting question which I've never seen asked before. Maybe a different term is needed to indicate this distinction. "Panchromaticism" seems to be the best we have.


----------



## fluteman

Bettina said:


> Good points. I agree with you about the huge gulf between Schoenberg's earlier works (chromatic but tonal) and his later works (atonal).


There are indeed big differences between Schoenberg's earlier works and his later ones. There are also very strong similarities. In many ways Schoenberg remained an arch-conservative firmly rooted in 19th century traditions, and other 20th century modernists, even if they continued to write partly or fully tonal music (much to his chagrin), left him far behind in other ways. Bartok, Hindemith, Stravinsky and Messiaen certainly did. To me it's a huge mistake to evaluate modern music solely or even mostly from the viewpoint of harmony, but I guess TC is a harmony forum. Though not always harmonious.


----------



## David OByrne

Woodduck said:


> It _is_ a huge leap, despite the efforts by some to minimize it and label as ignorant reactionaries or lazy bums those who recognize the difference and feel it keenly. Those efforts only inspire disbelief in the sensitivity of those who think the systematic displacement of tonality is no big thing. It's actually as big a thing as listeners feel it is, and in general* they seem to feel that it's pretty big*.


no, not at all


----------



## Woodduck

David OByrne said:


> no, not at all


What percentage of classical music listeners do you think you're speaking for? Do you really believe that that the perception that Schoenberg's 12-tone works sound very different from his early, post-Wagnerian, tonal ones is not a common perception? Do we really need to take surveys as people exit concert halls (provided we can find concerts at which the comparison is even possible)?

The truth is that even after 100 years in which everyone can look at the whole of Schoenberg's work and the historical evolution of music, Schoenberg's _Moses and Aron_ does not sound anything like _Gurrelieder._ So why paper over that fact? Is it somehow shameful? Why not just be honest about it? Who is going to be helped to appreciate atonal music by being told that it's really just a "logical" development in musical style and no big deal - expecially when their ears and brains tell them otherwise? People aren't deaf.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> There are indeed big differences between Schoenberg's earlier works and his later ones. There are also very strong similarities. In many ways Schoenberg remained an arch-conservative firmly rooted in 19th century traditions, and other 20th century modernists, even if they continued to write partly or fully tonal music (much to his chagrin), left him far behind in other ways.


Wouldn't you say that the similarities are more likely to be apparent to those with a technical knowledge of music, or an understanding of the further developments in atonal music that came later? Without that context, its useless to argue about whether the late works are more traditional or more radical. More traditional or more radical than what? I'd guess that most music lovers are just listening to music, not giving themselves a history lesson.


----------



## David OByrne

Woodduck said:


> What percentage of classical music listeners do you think you're speaking for? Do you really believe that that the perception that Schoenberg's 12-tone works sound very different from his early, post-Wagnerian, tonal ones is not a common perception? Do we really need to take surveys as people exit concert halls (provided we can find concerts at which the comparison is even possible)?
> 
> The truth is that even after 100 years in which everyone can look at the whole of Schoenberg's work and the historical evolution of music, Schoenberg's _Moses and Aron_ does not sound anything like _Gurrelieder._ So why paper over that fact? Is it somehow shameful? Why not just be honest about it? Who is going to be helped to appreciate atonal music by being told that it's really just a "logical" development in musical style and no big deal - expecially when their ears and brains tell them otherwise? People aren't deaf.


I think you're overreacting and yes, it is a logical development, a really cool one I think too. The only other composer I know with the same emotional depth is probably Mahler


----------



## Gradeaundera

Woodduck said:


> Do you really believe that that the perception that Schoenberg's 12-tone works sound very different from his early, post-Wagnerian, tonal ones is not a common perception? Do we really need to take surveys as people exit concert halls (provided we can find concerts at which the comparison is even possible)?


Mister Woodduck, it is fair enough to assume that the causal folk music fan in their 60s may not be a fan of death metal, this does not mean that folk music or death metal doesn't have merits, it also doesn't mean that death metal fan may also be a folk music fan too. You can't put numbers on these things


----------



## mmsbls

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Do you mean in the way that it moves away from the Brahms/Wagner sense of lyricism to more of a Scriabin/Bartok aesthetic? (which is still very late romantic). Else-wise I fail to see your point.


I think you are missing my point. I know very little of music theory so I can't say what the music itself does. I can say how it affected me (and some others both on this forum and whom I know). The transition to works such as Verklärte Nacht or Strauss' Metamorphosen seemed mild. Those works were relatively easy to like. The transition to later Schoenberg and other 2nd Viennese School composers' works was much greater.

The question is not so much, "How has the music changed?" but rather, "Why do many brains respond as they do to such changes?" That is, "Why do so many brains raised on common practice tonality experience a large disconnect with latter Schoenberg?"

By far the best answer (although it's very simplistic) I've heard is that modern music changed enough to become too unfamiliar to many people. To bridge that unfamiliarity, people need to listen enough (and likely differently) to the new music such that they become at least enough familiar to begin to enjoy the new music.


----------



## Ziggabea

Ok, I'm not the biggest modern listener but I happen to think this whole atonal controversy is the placebo effect in action.


----------



## Bettina

No, it's not a "placebo effect." Atonal music actually does affect the brain differently than tonal music. This has been demonstrated in functional MRI studies. See page 4 of this book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z...H#v=onepage&q=atonal music brain fmri&f=false


----------



## Ziggabea

Bettina said:


> No, it's not a "placebo effect." Atonal music actually does affect the brain differently than tonal music. This has been demonstrated in functional MRI studies. See page 4 of this book:
> https://books.google.com/books?id=Z...H#v=onepage&q=atonal music brain fmri&f=false


Pseudo-science :lol:

Bettina, what if the term atonal never existed? then what?

I might just be the stupidest girl in the world, but I reckon that there is nothing at all controversial or even eyebrow raising about it. It's a flashy term that people throw around with no grounds for reason. It has it's use throughout last century but still using the term nowadays is more than just a misleading to both listeners and from the composers themselves


----------



## Bettina

Ziggabea said:


> Pseudo-science :lol:
> 
> *Bettina, what if the term atonal never existed? then what? *
> 
> I might just be the stupidest girl in the world, but I reckon that there is nothing at all controversial or even eyebrow raising about it. It's a flashy term that people throw around with no grounds for reason. It has it's use throughout last century but still using the term nowadays is more than just a misleading to both listeners and from the composers themselves


Why do you call it pseudo-science? Can you point to a specific flaw in the methodology for the study?

Anyway, even if we had no word to describe atonality, it would still activate different brain regions than tonal music. Here's a study in which babies responded differently to atonal music: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106920 _They _certainly couldn't have been biased by the word!


----------



## Ziggabea

Bettina said:


> Why do you call it pseudo-science? Can you point to a specific flaw in the methodology for the study?
> 
> Anyway, even if we had no word to describe atonality, it would still activate different brain regions than tonal music. Here's a study in which babies responded differently to atonal music: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106920 _They _certainly couldn't have been biased by the word!


The first major thing that I noticed that stood out like a pimple, was that it starts under the false presumption that "atonal music" only sounds one way or expresses one emotion. It's quite easy to overlook that if there is another agenda behind it, as I said: pseudo-science.

I would think immediately without even second-guessing yourself, you would agree that not all tonal music sounds the same, that not all tonal music expresses the same thing and that the reactions to that alone would be be far from comprehensive. Then take into account 120 (roughly) years of music bannered "atonal" (even though it existed prior, side note) up till now and look me straight in the eyes and tell me it sounds all the same and achieves the same things both among the listeners and the composers.

Assessing this conundrum can't be done from such a biased and preconceived position :lol:


----------



## KenOC

Ziggabea said:


> Pseudo-science :lol:


Pseudo-science? Perhaps so. But I once read of an interesting study. Several idiot savants were tested; each could easily play, pretty exactly, any piano piece they heard. Their skills were quite miraculous, at least in that regard. None had musical training.

It was found that they could reproduce quite vast tracts of tonal (probably common practice tonality) music easily and accurately on a single hearing. As the music became more chromatic and "modern" (Bartok was mentioned) their performance faltered, and so on to serial or fully atonal music.

I leave interpretation of these results to the reader.


----------



## Woodduck

David OByrne said:


> I think you're overreacting and yes, it is a logical development, a really cool one I think too. The only other composer I know with the same emotional depth is probably Mahler


Overreacting to what? Its nice that you love Schoenberg. Far be it from me to question that. I don't think that's what we're discussing.

I'd be cautious about saying that musical developments are "logical." Schoenberg may have felt that the renunciation of tonality was the necessary outcome of the increased chromaticism of 19th-century harmony and the growing acceptance of dissonances as consonant, but these are theories conceived as self-justification, not facts. There is a difference in kind, not merely in degree, between chromaticism employed in a context of tonal expectation, and "panchromaticism" in which pains are taken to avoid tonal centers and suggestions of tonality. And there is no reason to think, as Schoenberg evidently did, that an increasing acceptance as consonant of intervals previously regarded as dissonant is destined to result in an obliteration of any perceived difference between consonance and dissonance. "Logic" based on faulty premises may contradict both fact and common sense.

We might see Schoenberg's "logical" justification of his procedures as but one of many questionable applications, common at the time, of Darwinian evolutionary theory.


----------



## Bettina

Ziggabea said:


> The first major thing that I noticed that stood out like a pimple, was that it starts under the false presumption that "atonal music" only sounds one way or expresses one emotion. It's quite easy to overlook that if there is another agenda behind it, as I said: pseudo-science.
> 
> I would think immediately without even second-guessing yourself, you would agree that not all tonal music sounds the same, that not all tonal music expresses the same thing and that the reactions to that alone would be be far from comprehensive. Then take into account 120 (roughly) years of music bannered "atonal" (even though it existed prior, side note) up till now and look me straight in the eyes and tell me it sounds all the same and achieves the same things both among the listeners and the composers.
> 
> Assessing this conundrum can't be done from such a biased and preconceived position :lol:


I agree with you that not all tonal music sounds the same. But I would argue that it all uses the same language - a language based mainly on dominant and tonic chords as the underlying structure. And of course these chords are embellished in all sorts of diverse ways, but they're essentially the building blocks of most tonal pieces. In other words, the foreground patterns might vary widely from one tonal piece to the next, but the background patterns are generally consistent. This is why most tonal pieces affect the brain in a similar way (as shown by the above-cited studies) even when they sound totally different on the surface.

The point of my posts is not to criticize atonal music. I'm not saying that it's inferior to tonal music. Actually, it's much more diverse than tonal music! There is a lot more variation among atonal pieces. Each atonal piece invents its own language and creates its own unique set of expectations.


----------



## Chronochromie

Woodduck said:


> Overreacting to what? Its nice that you love Schoenberg. Far be it from me to question that. I don't think that's what we're discussing.
> 
> I'd be cautious about saying that musical developments are "logical." Schoenberg may have felt that the renunciation of tonality was the necessary outcome of the increased chromaticism of 19th-century harmony and the growing acceptance of dissonances as consonant, but these are theories conceived as self-justification, not facts. There is a difference in kind, not merely in degree, between chromaticism employed in a context of tonal expectation, and "panchromaticism" in which pains are taken to avoid tonal centers and suggestions of tonality. And there is no reason to think, as Schoenberg evidently did, that an increasing acceptance as consonant of intervals previously regarded as dissonant is destined to result in an obliteration of any perceived difference between consonance and dissonance. "Logic" based on faulty premises may contradict both fact and common sense.
> 
> We might see Schoenberg's "logical" justification of his procedures as but one of many questionable applications, common at the time, of Darwinian evolutionary theory.


Did Schoenberg really avoid "suggestions of tonality"? I'm sure Berg didn't, and I've read that Schoenberg didn't either, at least in his 12-tone works like the Piano Concerto.


----------



## David OByrne

Woodduck said:


> Overreacting to what? Its nice that you love Schoenberg. Far be it from me to question that. I don't think that's what we're discussing.
> 
> I'd be cautious about saying that musical developments are "logical." Schoenberg may have felt that the renunciation of tonality was the necessary outcome of the increased chromaticism of 19th-century harmony and the growing acceptance of dissonances as consonant, but these are theories conceived as self-justification, not facts. There is a difference in kind, not merely in degree, between chromaticism employed in a context of tonal expectation, and "panchromaticism" in which pains are taken to avoid tonal centers and suggestions of tonality. And there is no reason to think, as Schoenberg evidently did, that an increasing acceptance as consonant of intervals previously regarded as dissonant is destined to result in an obliteration of any perceived difference between consonance and dissonance. "Logic" based on faulty premises may contradict both fact and common sense.
> 
> We might see Schoenberg's "logical" justification of his procedures as but one of many questionable applications, common at the time, of Darwinian evolutionary theory.


Your kind of reasoning is just simply, not how art works and no Schoenberg wasn't "avoiding tonality" (however questionable that preposition may be).

Schoenberg found his voice, he found a way to express his ideas in a unique and fluent way. This happened (to my knowledge) with quite a few other composers around that time. Not everybody had the same answer, but there where others too that saw problems in the 7 note scale.

It is certainly a logical development, not evolution. Music didn't result in one answer :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> Did Schoenberg really avoid "suggestions of tonality"? I'm sure Berg didn't, and I've read that Schoenberg didn't either, at least in his 12-tone works like the Piano Concerto.


It appears that his practice was less stringent than his theory. In theory, and early on in his post-tonal practice, he stressed the need to avoid anything that would suggest the establishment of a tonal center (e. g. the use of triads or other consonances, the doubling of certain notes, too much emphasis on certain notes, bass lines proceeding by fifths suggesting traditional key relationships, etc.). Ultimately he allowed some limited tonal suggestiveness back into his style. Berg always retained elements of tonality, even writing extended tonal passages: the last orchestral interlude in _Wozzeck_ is a powerful example, and there are similar tonal passages in _Lulu_ at moments of deep emotion in the drama. And of course there's the poignant, atmospheric violin concerto, which seems to be loved by many people who don't care for more strictly atonal works.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Sounds like the most polarizing composer according to this thread is Schoenberg, with Bruckner a distant second.


----------



## Woodduck

David OByrne said:


> Your kind of reasoning is just simply, not how art works and no Schoenberg wasn't "avoiding tonality" (however questionable that preposition may be).
> 
> Schoenberg found his voice, he found a way to express his ideas in a unique and fluent way. This happened (to my knowledge) with quite a few other composers around that time. Not everybody had the same answer, but there where others too that saw problems in the 7 note scale.
> 
> It is certainly a logical development, not evolution. Music didn't result in one answer :lol:


What is "my kind of reasoning"? What I did was to describe Schoenberg's reasoning. Are you unacquainted with his writings and his extensive explanations and justifications for what he was doing? Maybe you aren't interested in his thinking, but when you describe his innovations as "logical" you certainly raise questions about the logic he felt lay behind them. Most artists, at least up to that time, didn't codify the beliefs and rules governing their procedures in such detail. That activity in itself was something of an innovation, though it soon became quite fashionable to issue artistic manifestos. And it's always interesting to compare what artists say they are doing with what history later judges them to have done.


----------



## mmsbls

Ziggabea said:


> Bettina, what if the term atonal never existed? then what?
> 
> I might just be the stupidest girl in the world, but I reckon that there is nothing at all controversial or even eyebrow raising about it. It's a flashy term that people throw around with no grounds for reason. It has it's use throughout last century but still using the term nowadays is more than just a misleading to both listeners and from the composers themselves


As used on music forums, the term is probably often misused and likely poorly understood by many. To musicologists and students studying music theory, there is nothing much controversial about atonal music or the term atonal. The term is not flashy but rather highly technical. Those who have repeatedly analyzed musical works using various principles learn which principles lead to better results, and musicologists will assign the terms tonal and atonal to works based on their analysis.


----------



## eugeneonagain

mmsbls said:


> As used on music forums, the term is probably often misused and likely poorly understood by many. To musicologists and students studying music theory, there is nothing much controversial about atonal music or the term atonal. The term is not flashy but rather highly technical. Those who have repeatedly analyzed musical works using various principles learn which principles lead to better results, and musicologists will assign the terms tonal and atonal to works based on their analysis.


Except that it _is_ controversial even in musicology. Despite claims in this thread to be working from "the writings of Schoenberg" the man himself famously rejected the term as meaningless in relation to the sort of music he wrote, since he used the same tools any so-called 'tonal' composer would use and was not outside the Western musical tradition.
It follows for other music written in the same vein by other composers.

Most of the dispute is around specified 'tonal centres' or the 'tonic' and in that case it should be 'non-tonic' music or some other like term. Even then tonality constantly rears its head because it is always there.

Atonality is a pejorative term for most people and used as such by people who speak from a perspective of subjective taste rather than objectivity.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> Atonality is a pejorative term for most people and used as such by people who speak from a perspective of subjective taste rather than objectivity.


Atonality is a pejorative term for most people because it is the term generally used to identify a broad collection of music that has a widely held negative reaction. Whatever term might be used in its place would have the same effect as it would be identifying the same reaction. Trying to deny the use of any such term will not work to erase the reaction.

What is this objectivity of which you speak? All listening is subjective. (It may be possible to evaluate music for specific criteria, as a kind of technical analysis, but I would not really call that "listening" in any meaningful sense, even it if does involve the act of listening in a technical sense, any more than counting the number of times a given word appears in a text is actually reading.)

And I think that Schoenberg is being brought up repeatedly as most polarizing because he serves as convenient dividing line.


----------



## Gradeaundera

eugeneonagain said:


> Except that it _is_ controversial even in musicology.


It is a really old topic, it's not new


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Wouldn't you say that the similarities are more likely to be apparent to those with a technical knowledge of music, or an understanding of the further developments in atonal music that came later? Without that context, its useless to argue about whether the late works are more traditional or more radical. More traditional or more radical than what? I'd guess that most music lovers are just listening to music, not giving themselves a history lesson.


My guess is, with the possible exception of Andrew Lloyd Webber, most people would find all of the music mentioned in this thread, and nearly all of the music discussed at TC, as unlistenable. As for the "classical music lovers" you cite, well, New York's last remaining classical music station has fully embraced the "popular classics" format (but had been moving in that direction for many years). That mainly means, short pieces or excerpts of instrumental music, especially that of Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Debussy and Ravel. Very little in the way of long operas or symphonies, or modern or contemporary -- or late romantic -- music (Copland and Bernstein still get played, though.). Lots of flute music, so I suppose I should be happy. Your beloved Wagner gets little air time,other than some of the overtures. (Some Rachmaninov, as he was smart enough to write some short piano pieces.) The station endlessly promotes its fare as "relaxing". In fact, if you've ever seen those CDs of "The World's Most Relaxing Classical Music", you've seen the format. 
That is what the ears and brains of most people (in the US, anyway) who don't reject classical music entirely are enjoying. But some innovative composers still manage to reach ears and brains, even if in indirect or unconventional ways. Their influence is felt throughout our culture, even if their names are not commonly known. No technical knowledge required. To me, those are the true progressives.


----------



## hpowders

OperaChic said:


> *No one cared the first time* you stated you don't care for Bruckner, and no one cares after the 100th time. But maybe you should stop belaboring the point.
> 
> I mean, I know I know, trashing great artists who enrich people's lives immeasurably more than these frivolous discussion on TC is so hip and fun and cool. But people tend to get defensive when something that they consider meaningful and which brings them great pleasure is endlessly insulted and ridiculed.


I wonder why you didn't simply write, "*I *didn't care the first time". You are not the representative of the entire TC Community. "No one cared"? That is simply not true. I speak for others and have been told so.

Yes there is strength in numbers. One states things one wouldn't dream of saying when alone. I found that out as a high school teacher. A kid sitting among 35 of his peers all of a sudden becomes a wise-***, but after I isolated him, one on one, he was just a frightened, insecure little kid. So much for the power of the "group". The *"I"* is impressive. The *"we"* or *"no one"* is not.

So because I don't care for Bruckner's music and a new thread comes along asking for "polarizing" composers, I cannot write "Bruckner" just because you happen to be tired of seeing me write it. I should just sit back in my rocking chair and be a professional lurker?

One must be tolerant of all opinions, especially those that do not coincide with one's own.

I'm sure if I was one of the Bruckner "lovers" and I mentioned that for the 100th time, you wouldn't have even mentioned it and possibly would have "liked" all 100 posts asserting the same Bruckner worship.

If you cannot tolerate my opinion of Bruckner, there is an "ignore" function. Why not use it and simply place me on "ignore"?

But an attempt to stifle in public, my opinion, that Bruckner's music and scherzi, in particular, are rhythmically tedius, that really isn't nice.

There is no composer discussed on TC whose music is more polarizing than Bruckner, with the exception of Schoenberg.

What makes you think that I am any less irked by the Bruckner lovers than you are of me? So what! Everyone has a right to express their opinions.

By the way, the real problem as *I* see it is the tedious re-appearances of thread after thread, worded a little differently, asking for the same opinions many of us have already given, yes, perhaps 100 times. 
"Greatest" composers. "Finest" composers. You get the idea. 

By the way, instead of attempting to embarrass me on a public forum, why couldn't you simply send me a PM?
I would have respected that. :tiphat:


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> What is "my kind of reasoning"? What I did was to describe Schoenberg's reasoning. Are you unacquainted with his writings and his extensive explanations and justifications for what he was doing?


I'm not going to keep going down the Schoenberg path yet again, but as you and I have discussed before, a composer's explanations and justifications of his own music are often not the best sources for understanding that music. For one thing, many of those explanations and justifications are written in the context of or in response to critiques of contemporaries, which themselves are often misleading if not put into historical context.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> Atonality is a pejorative term for most people because it is the term generally used to identify a broad collection of music


 by people who don't care for it


JAS said:


> that has a widely held negative reaction. Whatever term might be used in its place would have the same effect as it would be identifying the same


narrow aesthetic


JAS said:


> reaction. Trying to deny the use of any such term will not work to erase the reaction.





JAS said:


> What is this objectivity of which you speak? All listening is subjective. (It may be possible to evaluate music for specific criteria, as a kind of technical analysis, but I would not really call that "listening" in any meaningful sense, even it if does involve the act of listening in a technical sense, any more than counting the number of times a given word appears in a text is actually reading.)


 Yes, it is partially analysis. That is what is what is required when (false) claims are made about it.



JAS said:


> And I think that Schoenberg is being brought up repeatedly as most polarizing because he serves as convenient dividing line.


He is a indeed a dividing line, but division he represents is often misrepresented. The terms tonal/atonal are convenient terms for broad, perhaps superficial, representation, but they do not tell the whole story.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> by people who don't care for it


One would assume that those who _do_ care for it would not be inclined to use a pejorative term. That may be axiomatic.



eugeneonagain said:


> narrow aesthetic


Is this actually a response, or just an incomplete shot?



eugeneonagain said:


> Yes, it is partially analysis. That is what is what is required when (false) claims are made about it.


You mean like people saying that Ades is melodious? That cannot be anything but subjective.



eugeneonagain said:


> He is a indeed a dividing line, but division he represents is often misrepresented. The terms tonal/atonal are convenient terms for broad, perhaps superficial, representation, but they do not tell the whole story.


What term does represent the whole story?


----------



## mmsbls

eugeneonagain said:


> Except that it _is_ controversial even in musicology. Despite claims in this thread to be working from "the writings of Schoenberg" the man himself famously rejected the term as meaningless in relation to the sort of music he wrote, since he used the same tools any so-called 'tonal' composer would use and was not outside the Western musical tradition.


My understanding is that the term is used regularly in music theory classes and in journal articles without controversy. Particular analyses suggesting a work is tonal or atonal might be criticized, and clearly there are differences of opinion. Schoenberg apparently did not like the word, but individuals do not get to determine which words are used. That's for society or experts.



eugeneonagain said:


> Most of the dispute is around specified 'tonal centres' or the 'tonic' and in that case it should be 'non-tonic' music or some other like term. Even then tonality constantly rears its head because it is always there.


It's fine to argue that a different word might have a closer meaning to how the term is actually used, but "atonal" became the chosen one. At this point people should focus on how it's used rather than whether it was the best possible word. The charm quark (sub-atomic particle) has nothing to do with charm, but physicists continue to use the term.



eugeneonagain said:


> Atonality is a pejorative term for most people ....


I believe you are correct here. I do feel that the term itself can possibly bias people away from a piece or perhaps make enjoying the work somewhat more difficult due to that initial bias. I do think that TC discussions might be more productive without using the term only because the majority of people probably do not understand the term properly (I am one of them). Of course there are those who have spent many hours analyzing both tonal and atonal works and can use the term properly.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I believe you are correct here. I do feel that the term itself can possibly bias people away from a piece or perhaps make enjoying the work somewhat more difficult due to that initial bias. I do think that TC discussions might be more productive without using the term only because the majority of people probably do not understand the term properly (I am one of them). Of course there are those who have spent many hours analyzing both tonal and atonal works and can use the term properly.


Speaking only for myself, the description of "atonal" applied to a work I have not heard would indeed make me reluctant to listen to it, unless I am particularly bored or in an adventurous mood. In actually listening to a work, it has no influence on me at all, as I merely agree or disagree with the assignment.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Except that [the term "atonality"] _is_ controversial even in musicology. Despite claims in this thread to be working from "the writings of Schoenberg" *the man himself famously rejected the term as meaningless in relation to the sort of music he wrote*, since he used the same tools any so-called 'tonal' composer would use and was not outside the Western musical tradition.
> 
> Most of the dispute is around specified 'tonal centres' or the 'tonic' and in that case it should be 'non-tonic' music or some other like term. Even then *tonality constantly rears its head because it is always there.*
> *
> Atonality is a pejorative term for most people* and used as such by people who speak from a perspective of subjective taste rather than objectivity.


_Tonality is a musical system that arranges pitches or chords to induce a hierarchy of perceived relations, stabilities, and attractions. In this hierarchy, the individual pitch or triadic chord with the greatest stability is called the tonic._ The definition can be restated in any number of ways, and has been on this forum, but I think Wiki will do here. If tonality "rears its head" in music which, like Schoenberg's first rigorous essays in the 12-tone technique, deliberately eschews any device which might suggest it, the "rearing" takes place only in the minds of listeners who haven't learned to listen without bringing familiar expectations to bear. Personally, I think Schoenberg was remarkably successful in quashing tonal expectations; even the hammered-out "G" in the Musette from his Piano Suite doesn't succeed in becoming a tonic. It took a powerful mind and a relentless purpose to achieve that.

Certainly there are people who dislike or reject the term "atonality." Some of them may even be rigorously logical about it and reject "tonality" as well, but surely that's a case where logic exposes the weakness of the basic premise. If tonality exists - and it does - then "atonality," by normal linguistic usage, is a legitimate identifier for its absence. Careless use of words is not normally cause for their elimination from the language. It isn't as if "atonal" were a racist epithet which can never be used without hurting the feelings of whole segments of humanity (although you might think it was, given some people's reactions when they hear it)!

I don't think we need to worry about what terms Schoenberg disliked. He was inconsistent both in theory and in practice, torn between his conviction of being on a mission (he referred to himself as "chosen") to usher in the next great phase of musical evolution and his desire to be seen as the inheritor of the mantle of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Wagner. The debate over whether his atonal works are more revolutionary or more traditional started in Schoenberg's own head.


----------



## KenOC

Calling the word “atonal” pejorative, and seeking an alternative word, is something quite common in my country. We call it political correctness. If most people dislike something, then we who do like it will seek a different name, thinking that will bring others around to our point of view.

In other words, Limburger cheese doesn’t stink; it’s an alternative olfactory experience.


----------



## Klassik

KenOC said:


> Calling the word "atonal" pejorative, and seeking an alternative word, is something quite common in my country. We call it political correctness. If most people dislike something, then we who do like it will seek a different name, thinking that will bring others around to our point of view.
> 
> In other words, Limburger cheese doesn't stink; it's an alternative olfactory experience.


New thread idea: Come up with a new P.C. name for atonal music. The winner gets a free Pierre Boulez CD. And I don't mean a CD of Boulez conducting.

I was going to put this in STI, but why not put it here? :lol:


----------



## Vaneyes




----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> _I don't think we need to worry about what terms Schoenberg disliked. He was inconsistent both in theory and in practice, torn between his conviction of being on a mission (he referred to himself as "chosen") to usher in the next great phase of musical evolution and his desire to be seen as the inheritor of the mantle of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Wagner. The debate over whether his atonal works are more revolutionary or more traditional started in Schoenberg's own head._


_

Forgive the severe trim. I've already tried this discussion in the other thread and it went nowhere. Schoenberg's remarks are worth more attention than you suggest. It seems to me he is far more acutely aware of the place of his system within existing music structures than you are willing to allow.

Also the suggestion that the presence of ordinary "tonality" in so-called "atonal" music is:


Woodduck said:



...only in the minds of listeners who haven't learned to listen without bringing familiar expectations to bear.

Click to expand...

 is quite odd considering you have argued so vociferously to establish the alleged fact that tonality is built into the human mind. It even raises the question of how anyone could even meaningfully conceive 'atonal music' under those circumstances.



Woodduck said:



If tonality exists - and it does - then "atonality," by normal linguistic usage, is a legitimate identifier for its absence.

Click to expand...

This failed logic results from a false premise: namely that tonality is absent. I'm actually exhausted from reiterating how it isn't absent, without having to read yet another wall of text about 'tonics and triads'._


----------



## mmsbls

@eugeneonagain: Often on forums people seem to be arguing about a single topic, but in fact they are arguing about subtly different things. So I'd like to clarify one thing.

Maybe you feel the term atonal is not appropriate. Maybe you feel there is some disagreement among experts. Likely you believe that TC members use the term atonal inappropriately at times (or even most of the time). You also believe that the term is often used in a pejorative sense. I think you also believe that at least some works designated as atonal have some tonal centers or tonal parts.

Given all that, do you believe there is reasonable consensus among musicologists that atonal works (as defined and written about by these experts) exist and that these works can generally be identified by a consensus of these experts?


----------



## eugeneonagain

mmsbls said:


> Given all that, do you believe there is reasonable consensus among musicologists that atonal works (as defined and written about by these experts) exist and that these works can generally be identified by a consensus of these experts?


Yes I think the music referred to as 'atonal' exists.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> This failed logic results from a false premise: namely that tonality is absent. I'm actually exhausted from reiterating how it isn't absent, without having to read yet another wall of text about 'tonics and triads'.


So you are saying that your issue is that at least some of the music described as _atonal_ is actually _tonal and atonal_, and thus atonal does not sufficiently describe it? (I am basing this question on your statement that "tonality is [not] absent.") Would something like _new tonality_ work better for you?


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I've already tried this discussion in the other thread and *it went nowhere. *Schoenberg's remarks are worth more attention than you suggest. It seems to me he is far more acutely aware of the place of his system within existing music structures than you are willing to allow.
> 
> Also the suggestion that the presence of ordinary "tonality" in so-called "atonal" music is:
> is quite odd considering *you have argued so vociferously to establish the alleged fact that tonality is built into the human mind*. It even raises the question of how anyone could even meaningfully conceive 'atonal music' under those circumstances.
> 
> This failed logic results from *a false premise: namely that tonality is absent. I'm actually exhausted from reiterating how it isn't absent*, without having to read yet another wall of text about 'tonics and triads'.


I can't agree that the discussions of tonality and atonality have gone nowhere. I think that they simply haven't gone where you'd like them to go. I know I've taken them to places where you're disinclined to go at all. Others, though, have gone there before me (I can't claim originality) and they will go there after me - and, I assume, much farther than any of us can go at present. The investigation of music from the standpoint of sciences besides acoustics, including particularly the biological sciences, is still young.

In that connection, let me clarify something. I do not believe that tonality is "built into" the human brain, and I've never said that it is. What I believe is that it's in the nature of mind to comprehend reality in terms of hierarchical structures and to seek what mathematicians call "elegance," in which things are ordered in the way that most fully and economically accounts for and explains subordinate elements and functions. Tonality is defined by its hierarchical structure, it represents hierarchy most elegantly, and it has therefore arisen all over the world, in a remarkable variety of guises, as something satisfying and compelling to the human mind. This doesn't prevent anyone from constructing music in which certain of its elements are treated non-hierarchically. Reality is not entirely hierarchical; in many respects it even seems random and chaotic (which is often, however, a limitation of our perception), and art, which is a metaphor of reality, may have good reason, in pursuit of breadth of expression, to take this into account.

If reiterating that tonality is actually present in atonal music exhausts you, perhaps you could try giving us some specific examples of music generally accepted as atonal - Schoenberg's Wind Quintet might be a good example - and point to something about it that makes it tonal.






My ear tells me that Schoenberg was remarkably successful in preventing his harmonies from suggesting tonal centers. He did, after all, invest some time and trouble into explaining techniques for doing just that. Do you think he failed in applying his techniques here?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> What I believe is that it's in the nature of mind to comprehend reality in terms of hierarchical structures and to seek what mathematicians call "elegance," in which things are ordered in the way that most fully and economically accounts for and explains subordinate elements and functions. Tonality is defined by its hierarchical structure, it represents hierarchy most elegantly, and it has therefore arisen all over the world, in a remarkable variety of guises, as something satisfying and compelling to the human mind.


That's the same thing said twice. Once with concision, the second time with more twists and turns than a rabbit's warren.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> That's the same thing said twice. Once with concision, the second time with more twists and turns than a rabbit's warren.


No, it isn't the same thing said twice. Besides, even if it were, who cares? What matters is that you mischaracterized my views, and now you won't acknowledge the correction.

I'm waiting to be shown the tonality in Schoenberg's Wind Quintet.


----------



## fluteman

Klassik said:


> New thread idea: Come up with a new P.C. name for atonal music. The winner gets a free Pierre Boulez CD. And I don't mean a CD of Boulez conducting.
> 
> I was going to put this in STI, but why not put it here? :lol:


I think you've won your own contest. atonal = Limburger; tonal = Chanel No. 5. And I love Limburger, while my wife hates Chanel No. 5. So, send me the Boulez CD when you're done with it.


----------



## bz3

Well this thread proves it - Schoenberg's atonalist nightmare is the most controversial and that's that.

Did we ever figure out "what the point of atonality" was? I may have been out of town.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

Woodduck said:


> No, it isn't the same thing said twice. Besides, even if it were, who cares? What matters is that you mischaracterized my views, and now you won't acknowledge the correction.
> 
> I'm waiting to be shown the tonality in Schoenberg's Wind Quintet.


So you are wanting an analysis?

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

bz3 said:


> Well this thread proves it - Schoenberg's atonalist nightmare is the most controversial and that's that.
> 
> Did we ever figure out "what the point of atonality" was? I may have been out of town.


Bruckner and Beethoven have been of more controversy in this thread bz3

Daniel


----------



## bz3

I read long threads like I do long books - just the beginning and the end. I can't imagine what is polarizing about Beethoven other than his hair but that's internet discussion boards for you. Same, to an extent, with Bruckner.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> No, it isn't the same thing said twice. Besides, even if it were, who cares? What matters is that you mischaracterized my views, and now you won't acknowledge the correction.
> 
> I'm waiting to be shown the tonality in Schoenberg's Wind Quintet.


I don't remember offering to show that. I doubt any of my conclusions would be accepted anyway.

I did not mischaracterise your views, I just highlighted what was already there. There is no correction. You basically claimed and still claim that tonality (tonics and triads, with a slice of lemon) in music is built into the human experience. The funny thing is I broadly agree; except that I'd just say the foundations for music are there and so called 'atonality' is merely one aspect of that.

I'm sorry to have put a stick in your well-turned wheel on this matter. I know it's tiresome to have worked hard at a grand theory only to see its foundations crumble. The philosopher's life is a hard one.


----------



## Ziggabea




----------



## hpowders

bz3 said:


> I read long threads like I do long books - just the beginning and the end. *I* *can't imagine what is polarizing about Beethoven *other than his hair but that's internet discussion boards for you. Same, to an extent, with Bruckner.


Imagine yourself back in 1820. Yoiu would have found Beethoven's music PLENTY puzzling and polarizing. Musicians could barely play the stuff-it was so difficult and like nothing they ever encountered in Haydn and Mozart.

Imagine yourself at the first performance of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony. You would have thought this guy was completely insane-a 50 minute whirlwind to an audience used to 25 minute puffery. The Rite of Spring of its time!!!

No composer was more polarizing than Beethoven in his own time!!! And he reveled in it!!

When musicians complained that the music was too difficult, he told them "I don't care about your damn instruments! The music wasn't written for you!!"

Yes, now we wonder what all the fuss about, but musical "evolution" was quite different in 1820 than it is now.

Beethoven may have been the most polarizing composer who ever lived, to his contemporaries at the time.


----------



## hpowders

Ziggabea said:


>


Finally! I have something good to sing in the shower tonight.


----------



## JAS

hpowders said:


> Put yourself back in 1820. Yoiu would have found Beethoven's music PLENTY puzzling and polarizing. Musicians could barely play the stuff-it was so difficult and like nothing they ever encountered in Haydn and Mozart.
> 
> Imagine yourself at the first performance of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony. Youn would have thought this guy was completely insane-a 50 minute whirlwind to an audience used to 25 minute puffery. The Rite of Spring of its time!!!
> 
> No composer was more polarizing than Beethoven in his own time!!! And he reveled in it!!
> 
> When musicians complained that the music was too difficult, he told them "I don't care about your damn instruments! The music wasn't written for you!!"
> 
> Yes, now we wonder what all the fuss about, but musical "evolution" was quite different in 1820 than it is now.
> 
> Beethoven may have been the most polarizing composer who ever lived, to his contemporaries at the time.


But was he polarizing for 100 years? or even 50 years? even without the advantage of radio and recordings?


----------



## EdwardBast

eugeneonagain said:


> Also the suggestion that the presence of ordinary "tonality" in so-called "atonal" music is:
> is quite odd considering you have argued so vociferously to establish the alleged fact that tonality is built into the human mind. It even raises *the question of how anyone could even meaningfully conceive 'atonal music' under those circumstances*.
> 
> This failed logic results from a false premise: namely that tonality is absent. I'm actually exhausted from reiterating how it isn't absent, without having to read yet another wall of text about 'tonics and triads'.


The occasional emphasis of a given pitch or fleeting hints of pitch centrality do not constitute tonality. Tonality means a consistent and persistently established hierarchy. Since you are the one who has been claiming that tonality is present in Schoenberg's freely atonal and serial works, you should probably show us what you mean. How is the requisite feature of tonality - consistent and persistent pitch hierarchy - established in such music?

Edit: Sorry. I just noticed that Woodduck already asked you to do this. One answer will do for both I imagine.


----------



## EdwardBast

hpowders said:


> Put yourself back in 1820. Yoiu would have found Beethoven's music PLENTY puzzling and polarizing. Musicians could barely play the stuff-it was so difficult and like nothing they ever encountered in Haydn and Mozart.
> 
> Imagine yourself at the first performance of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony. You would have thought this guy was completely insane-a 50 minute whirlwind to an audience used to 25 minute puffery. The Rite of Spring of its time!!!
> 
> No composer was more polarizing than Beethoven in his own time!!! And he reveled in it!!
> 
> When musicians complained that the music was too difficult, he told them "I don't care about your damn instruments! The music wasn't written for you!!"
> 
> Yes, now we wonder what all the fuss about, but musical "evolution" was quite different in 1820 than it is now.
> 
> Beethoven may have been the most polarizing composer who ever lived, to his contemporaries at the time.


I fear you have become unhinged, my good powders, for there is little of your vaunted pithiness in recent posts.  Organ grinders, donkey men, and cockle women were singing the Eroica a year after it was composed.


----------



## hpowders

EdwardBast said:


> I fear you have become unhinged, my good powders, for there is little of your vaunted pithiness in recent posts.  Oh wait, I think I've found it!: Organ grinders, donkey men, and cockle women were singing the Eroica a year after it was composed.


You are correct. I cannot keep this up. I'm ready for a snooze. How do you folks do this, post after post?
Amazing!!

I have a new-found respect for you and the other posters who can somehow manage to write in coherent multi-paragraphs. You are better folk than I.


----------



## ArtMusic

The most polarizing composers are Schoenberg, John Cage and Wagner. Of course, Wagner is the greatest of the most polarizing composers. Fact.


----------



## hpowders

ArtMusic said:


> The most polarizing composers are Schoenberg, John Cage and Wagner. Of course, Wagner is the greatest of the most polarizing composers. Fact.


How do you mean this? Is Wagner the most polarizing due to intensity of visceral reactions of his proponents and detractors or, his music is the greatest of all the polarizing composers?


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't remember offering to show that. I doubt any of my conclusions would be accepted anyway.
> 
> I did not mischaracterise your views, I just highlighted what was already there. There is no correction. You basically claimed and still claim that tonality (tonics and triads, with a slice of lemon) in music is built into the human experience. The funny thing is I broadly agree; except that I'd just say the foundations for music are there and so called 'atonality' is merely one aspect of that.
> 
> I'm sorry to have put a stick in your well-turned wheel on this matter. I know it's tiresome to have worked hard at a grand theory only to see its foundations crumble. The philosopher's life is a hard one.


_Of course_ you didn't offer to show the tonality in Schoenberg's Quintet, for the obvious reason that neither you nor anyone else can do so.

It's hardly your place to tell me whether you've mischaracterized my views. If I tell you that you have, and you can't see in what way, then the proper response from you is to say no more.

I haven't had to "work hard on a grand theory," since I've made no claim to owning it. If you had any interest in recent studies, you'd find support for it and for much else that you'd probably mock and dismiss. So nothing has "crumbled." In your case, there never was anything to crumble. All you seem able to do, as in the Wagner thread, is oppose and deride, insult and sneer.

So: is the Schoenberg Wind Quintet tonal? It's such an easy question.


----------



## EdwardBast

Daniel Atkinson said:


> So you are wanting an analysis?
> 
> Daniel


Actually, this was done in a previous thread, that is, a discussion of tonal suggestion in the first movement of the wind quintet. An enterprising member good at searches might find it.


----------



## hpowders

Sol Invictus said:


> You're not wrong. I wouldn't call myself *musically literate by any stretch* of the imagination. Most of his music I just don't "get", that being said I do like Verklate Nacht and String Quartet No. 2.


Neither am I.

However, I locked myself up with first, the Schoenberg Piano Concerto for several months, exclusively, playing the first movement over and over and over until I felt comfortable enough to move to movement two. Same thing movement two over and over. After I felt comfortable movements 1 and 2, several times. Then movement 3 alone, over and over. Finally movement 4, alone, over and over. Then movements 3 and 4 together several times. Then finally, the whole work, over and over and I found the work at the end of this lengthy process to be hauntingly beautiful and enchanting; a work of true genius.

I'm no genius, but I ain't dumb either, but if I can do it, anyone on TC can do it to, given the motivation.

I repeated the sequence for movements 1, 2 and 3 of the Violin Concerto, which I wound up liking a bit less than the Piano Concerto.

I love the Piano Concerto. I like the Violin Concerto.


----------



## ArtMusic

hpowders said:


> How do you mean this? Is Wagner the most polarizing due to intensity of visceral reactions of his proponents and detractors or, his music is the greatest of all the polarizing composers?


I meant Wagner is polarizing to his proponents and detractors, the man himself and to some extent his music. I was then defending Wagner by stating that his music is by far greater than any polarizing composers (such as Schoenberg and John Cage). I enjoy Wagner's music. I do not polarize his music. It's unfortunate that the man and his music are polarized.


----------



## hpowders

ArtMusic said:


> I meant Wagner is polarizing to his proponents and detractors, the man himself and to some extent his music. I was then defending Wagner by stating that his music is by far greater than any polarizing composers (such as Schoenberg and John Cage). I enjoy Wagner's music. I do not polarize his music. It's unfortunate that the man and his music are polarized.


Yes. I agree. The music is terrific, if that was the only thing we could concentrate on and leave the man and his times out of it.

I attended several Rings at the Met and the music is incomparable.


----------



## DaveM

I'm not sure why the fact that there is or isn't some tonality in atonal works really matters. To my ear, once a work is composed in the manner of atonal, the deed is done. So if there are elements of tonality that appear, it's all the more frustrating when what appears to make sense to me for a moment returns to dissonant cacophony.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> The occasional emphasis of a given pitch or fleeting hints of pitch centrality do not constitute tonality. Tonality means a consistent and persistently established hierarchy. Since you are the one who has been claiming that tonality is present in Schoenberg's freely atonal and serial works, you should probably show us what you mean. How is the requisite feature of tonality - consistent and persistent pitch hierarchy - established in such music?


Well It's possible someone will dig back into a thread to find my own words to contradict me, but I do not mean that Schoenberg actually wrote 'tonal' music which is cunningly disguised as 'atonal' music. I am saying ultimately (for the umpteenth time) that he was working with the same materials of music on the same foundations that produced 'tonal' music. He pushed the ambiguity of tonality as far as he could.

I think we need to consider and keep some things in mind before all these confident definitions of what 'tonal' means:

The chromatic scale, as an example, has no tonal centre. It appears in a great deal of music over a very long period. Long before the development of the triad and common use of thirds in harmony. Bach and the baroque composers employed it widely. Yes he worked in key systems... hold your horses.

Modes, as opposed to scales, do not have tonics or specified tonics. Modal music, pre-dating the rise of so-called 'tonal' music as it is usually classified, must then be justly referred to as non-tonal or 'atonal' right? Well, no because it is called 'modal' and doesn't cause all that much of a fuss. Probably because the most commonly popular modal music has hints of the tonal music to come. The rest is conveniently ignored. Until we see the revival of modality in music again in the 20th century..also in jazz.

'Tonality' really only means the dominant use of major and minor scales, or keys.

On to Schoenberg. What was he doing? His tone-row idea attempts to equalise the tones and thereby give them all equal dominance (or no dominance, depending on how you look at it!). The business of not repeating notes or tones is important to his idea to remove the effect of a dominating tone or a 'tonic'. However, as has long been recognised, this idea can't withstand other attributes of music: rhythm, note durations, necessity of repetitions in melody (and harmony), some sort of musical resting point. It is as if everything conspires to undermine this attempt to remove or avoid the sense of a tonic. In phrasing, in cadences in rhythms, where the length of a note creates a mental/aural foundation. One really has to work hard to fight it.

Let's say, for the sake of this long and winding discussion, that what Schoenberg and some others produced early on, in the heady days of 'new ideas about tonality', ended up being slightly anti-music. They were groping around a bit, despite the claim of working to a mathematical master plan.

In conclusion: actual 'atonal' music is really impossible. You can go some way to obscuring tonality, but it rears its head, as I said before. All you can really achieve is tonal ambiguity and that, dear friends, is not controversial. Whether a person likes the sounds produced is really a matter or taste, culture and exposure.

As a more meaningful use of that dratted word, it would probably be more accurate to describe some of Debussy's preludes as 'atonal', but in the sense of the listener's attention being pulled this way and that as Debussy confounds him by masking the definite sense of a key. Personally I wouldn't even use it there. Something like Tonal-ambiguity is enough to describe that.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Actually, this was done in a previous thread, that is, a discussion of tonal suggestion in the first movement of the wind quintet. An enterprising member good at searches might find it.


I remember that thread (though I'm not sure I could find it). As I recall, the citations of "tonal suggestion" were based on pitch recurrences too widely spaced to call into question the atonality of the whole. Similar instances of what I'd call "pseudotonality" in other Schoenberg 12-tone works have been cited here in other discussions. This search for "tonal centers" which are not the bases for any systematic hierarchy seems at best an academic exercise and at worst a subterfuge, as it tells us nothing essential about the music and potentially obscures the main issue, which may be its intent.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> _Of course_
> 
> It's hardly your place to tell me whether you've mischaracterized my views. If I tell you that you have, and you can't see in what way, then the proper response from you is to say no more.


Yes boss.



Woodduck said:


> I haven't had to "work hard on a grand theory," since I've made no claim to owning it. If you had any interest in recent studies, you'd find support for it and for much else that you'd probably mock and dismiss. So nothing has "crumbled." In your case, there never was anything to crumble. *All you seem able to do, as in the Wagner thread, is oppose and deride, insult and sneer*.


That's not true though, is it? It seems to me your antennae are just more finely tuned to the posts where I probably mock a little too much. These are ones that keep appearing in the lists in the omnibus posts compiled to show how vacuous I am.



Woodduck said:


> So: is the Schoenberg Wind Quintet tonal? It's such an easy question.


See post above.


----------



## hpowders

eugeneonagain said:


> *Yes boss.*
> 
> That's not true though, is it? It seems to me your antennae are just more finely tuned to the posts where I probably mock a little too much. These are ones that keep appearing in the lists in the omnibus posts compiled to show how vacuous I am.
> 
> See post above.


LMFAO!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical

eugeneonagain said:


> Well It's possible someone will dig back into a thread to find my own words to contradict me, but I do not mean that Schoenberg actually wrote 'tonal' music which is cunningly disguised as 'atonal' music. I am saying ultimately (for the umpteenth time) that he was working with the same materials of music on the same foundations that produced 'tonal' music. He pushed the ambiguity of tonality as far as he could.
> 
> I think we need to consider and keep some things in mind before all these confident definitions of what 'tonal' means:
> 
> The chromatic scale, as an example, has no tonal centre. It appears in a great deal of music over a very long period. Long before the development of the triad and common use of thirds in harmony. Bach and the baroque composers employed it widely. Yes he worked in key systems... hold your horses.
> 
> Modes, as opposed to scales, do not have tonics or specified tonics. Modal music, pre-dating the rise of so-called 'tonal' music as it is usually classified, must then be justly referred to as non-tonal or 'atonal' right? Well, no because it is called 'modal' and doesn't cause all that much of a fuss. Probably because the most commonly popular modal music has hints of the tonal music to come. The rest is conveniently ignored. Until we see the revival of modality in music again in the 20th century..also in jazz.
> 
> 'Tonality' really only means the dominant use of major and minor scales, or keys.
> 
> On to Schoenberg. What was he doing? His tone-row idea attempts to equalise the tones and thereby give them all equal dominance (or no dominance, depending on how you look at it!). The business of not repeating notes or tones is important to his idea to remove the effect of a dominating tone or a 'tonic'. However, as has long been recognised, this idea can't withstand other attributes of music: rhythm, note durations, necessity of repetitions in melody (and harmony), some sort of musical resting point. It is as if everything conspires to undermine this attempt to remove or avoid the sense of a tonic. In phrasing, in cadences in rhythms, where the length of a note creates a mental/aural foundation. One really has to work hard to fight it.
> 
> Let's say, for the sake of this long and winding discussion, that what Schoenberg and some others produced early on, in the heady days of 'new ideas about tonality', ended up being slightly anti-music. They were groping around a bit, despite the claim of working to a mathematical master plan.
> 
> In conclusion: actual 'atonal' music is really impossible. You can go some way to obscuring tonality, but it rears its head, as I said before. All you can really achieve is tonal ambiguity and that, dear friends, is not controversial. Whether a person likes the sounds produced is really a matter or taste, culture and exposure.
> 
> As a more meaningful use of that dratted word, it would probably be more accurate to describe some of Debussy's preludes as 'atonal', but in the sense of the listener's attention being pulled this way and that as Debussy confounds him by masking the definite sense of a key. Personally I wouldn't even use it there. Something like Tonal-ambiguity is enough to describe that.


That is a good definition of atonal, tonal ambiguity. But how is that different than the standard definition of a lack of tonal centre? Also in Schoenberg, I don't hear tonality, despite some conventional phrasing. He succeeded at least to my ears i avoid a tonal centre.

By the way, isn't modality a form of tonality? Major and minor are just 2 modes, how are they tonal, while other modes aren't?


----------



## Ziggabea

hpowders said:


> Finally! I have something good to sing in the shower tonight.


Well this is a flute part and flutes are known to jump registers on a regular basis, put that aside.

When the notes themselves being played are put into consideration (or transposed into the same octave) it's just a bunch of descending and ascending minor and major 3rd intervals , plus some minor 2nds and 5ths, which you could very easily sing, yes (even as you are presumably a man)


----------



## Gradeaundera

I challenge anybody to find the tonality in Bach's fugues (and don't let the title of the fugues eg. in D minor fool you)

If you can accurately provide this to me, I shall be very impressed


----------



## Bettina

hpowders said:


> You are correct. I cannot keep this up. I'm ready for a snooze. How do you folks do this, post after post?
> Amazing!!
> 
> I have a new-found respect for you and the other posters who can somehow manage to write in coherent multi-paragraphs. You are better folk than I.


You're holding your own just fine with the multi-paragraph posts. Somehow you're managing to be concise and thorough at the same time...a skill that eludes some of us on TC! 

Your post #137 about Beethoven's polarizing powers is extremely convincing and well-articulated. I completely agree with you about Beethoven being a polarizing figure in his own time, and even for several decades afterwards. This was especially true in France, where it took a long time for his work to be appreciated, despite Berlioz's best efforts to champion the nine symphonies.


----------



## hpowders

Ziggabea said:


> Well this is a flute part and flutes are known to jump registers on a regular basis, put that aside.
> 
> When the notes themselves being played are put into consideration (or transposed into the same octave) it's just a bunch of descending and ascending minor and major 3rd intervals , plus some minor 2nds and 5ths, which you could very easily sing, yes (even as you are presumably a man)


Yes. I am a man. (Sounds like my Bar Mitzvah speech). I've concluded it will not work out well in the shower. I'll stick with Sweet Caroline.


----------



## David OByrne

hpowders said:


> Finally! I have something good to sing in the shower tonight.


While I'm not a musician myself, I don't think a professional tenor would struggle with that at all


----------



## hpowders

Bettina said:


> You're holding your own just fine with the multi-paragraph posts. Somehow you're managing to be concise and thorough at the same time...a skill that eludes some of us on TC!
> 
> Your post #137 about Beethoven's polarizing powers is extremely convincing and well-articulated. I completely agree with you about Beethoven being a polarizing figure in his own time, and even for several decades afterwards. This was especially true in France, where it took a long time for his work to be appreciated, despite Berlioz's best efforts to champion the nine symphonies.


Thank you, Bettina. I appreciate your very kind words. :tiphat:


----------



## eugeneonagain

hpowders said:


> Yes. I am a man. (Sounds like my Bar Mitzvah speech). I've concluded it will not work out well in the shower. I'll stick with Sweet Caroline.


Might be a good idea. You don't want to be getting your flute wet in the shower.

Sounds wrong....


----------



## hpowders

eugeneonagain said:


> Might be a good idea. You don't want to be getting your flute wet in the shower.
> 
> Sounds wrong....


Yes. It already needs a good professional tuning.

*"Yes, boss."* You made my night with that one. Haven't laughed so hard for a while!!


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> Yes. It already needs a good professional tuning.


11 pages, this thread's a smash hit (STI HOF nominated), who cares.


----------



## hpowders

Vaneyes said:


> 11 pages, this thread's a smash hit (STI HOF nominated), who cares.


Yes. I'm grateful to Sol Invictus for creating it. This one can go on for years.


----------



## fluteman

bz3 said:


> I read long threads like I do long books - just the beginning and the end. I can't imagine what is polarizing about Beethoven other than his hair but that's internet discussion boards for you. Same, to an extent, with Bruckner.


You've missed a lot. We figured out atonal music is good, and tonal music is bad. Thousands of past posts here at TC need to be revised. Also, the name of this site is being changed from TC to TAS -- Talk Arnold Schoenberg. Fortunately, little revision is needed on that account, since he is by far the most discussed composer. A section will be retained for jokes about John Cage's 4'33".


----------



## hpowders

fluteman said:


> You've missed a lot. We figured out atonal music is good, and tonal music is bad. Thousands of past posts here at TC need to be revised. Also, the name of this site is being changed from TC to TAS -- Talk Arnold Schoenberg. Fortunately, little revision is needed on that account, since he is by far the most discussed composer. A section will be retained for jokes about John Cage's 4'33".


So is it tonal or not?? I don't have all day.


----------



## EdwardBast

eugeneonagain said:


> Well It's possible someone will dig back into a thread to find my own words to contradict me, but I do not mean that Schoenberg actually wrote 'tonal' music which is cunningly disguised as 'atonal' music. I am saying ultimately (for the umpteenth time) that he was working with the same materials of music on the same foundations that produced 'tonal' music. He pushed the ambiguity of tonality as far as he could.
> 
> I think we need to consider and keep some things in mind before all these confident definitions of what 'tonal' means:
> 
> The chromatic scale, as an example, has no tonal centre. It appears in a great deal of music over a very long period. Long before the development of the triad and common use of thirds in harmony. Bach and the baroque composers employed it widely. Yes he worked in key systems... hold your horses.
> 
> Modes, as opposed to scales, do not have tonics or specified tonics. Modal music, pre-dating the rise of so-called 'tonal' music as it is usually classified, must then be justly referred to as non-tonal or 'atonal' right? Well, no because it is called 'modal' and doesn't cause all that much of a fuss. Probably because the most commonly popular modal music has hints of the tonal music to come. The rest is conveniently ignored. Until we see the revival of modality in music again in the 20th century..also in jazz.
> 
> 'Tonality' really only means the dominant use of major and minor scales, or keys.
> 
> On to Schoenberg. What was he doing? His tone-row idea attempts to equalise the tones and thereby give them all equal dominance (or no dominance, depending on how you look at it!). The business of not repeating notes or tones is important to his idea to remove the effect of a dominating tone or a 'tonic'. However, as has long been recognised, this idea can't withstand other attributes of music: rhythm, note durations, necessity of repetitions in melody (and harmony), some sort of musical resting point. It is as if everything conspires to undermine this attempt to remove or avoid the sense of a tonic. In phrasing, in cadences in rhythms, where the length of a note creates a mental/aural foundation. One really has to work hard to fight it.
> 
> Let's say, for the sake of this long and winding discussion, that what Schoenberg and some others produced early on, in the heady days of 'new ideas about tonality', ended up being slightly anti-music. They were groping around a bit, despite the claim of working to a mathematical master plan.
> 
> In conclusion: actual 'atonal' music is really impossible. *You can go some way to obscuring tonality, but it rears its head*, as I said before. All you can really achieve is tonal ambiguity and that, dear friends, is not controversial. Whether a person likes the sounds produced is really a matter or taste, culture and exposure.
> 
> As a more meaningful use of that dratted word, it would probably be more accurate to describe some of Debussy's preludes as 'atonal', but in the sense of the listener's attention being pulled this way and that as Debussy confounds him by masking the definite sense of a key. Personally I wouldn't even use it there. Something like Tonal-ambiguity is enough to describe that.


Show us where and how it rears its head. Any example from Schoenberg's 12-tone music. Until you do, all of this is just empty verbiage ^ ^ ^ (And most of these arguments have been heard and refuted numerous times on this board. Sounds like paraphrase of a former member, in fact. Can anyone guess who I mean?)

Show us an example from Schoenberg's 12-tone music that exhibits tonality. Tell us where it does so and we'll help you with how if there is anything to your claim.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

EdwardBast said:


> Show us an example from Schoenberg's 12-tone music that exhibits tonality. Tell us where it does so and we'll help you with how if there is anything to your claim.


So Edward, you are trying to tell me that it doesn't?


----------



## Woodduck

Gradeaundera said:


> I challenge anybody to find the tonality in Bach's fugues (and don't let the title of the fugues eg. in D minor fool you)
> 
> If you can accurately provide this to me, I shall be very impressed


You are so easily impressed! :lol:

Should we begin at the beginning with WTC, Fugue #1 in C Major? Start with the _tonic_ note, followed by a _C Major_ scale rising to the _subdominant_ F, falling a step to the _mediant_ E which is heard initially as the major third of the _tonic_ but transitions into the _submediant_ A, succeeded by a fall of a fifth to the _supertonic_ which mediates between _d minor_ and the clear _dominant_ of the succeeding G which caps the whole _tonic-to-dominant_ ascent, after which a descending scale passage returns us to the _tonic,_ thus rounding off the whole subject which outlines the _tonal_ progression _I - IV - I/vi - vi - ii/V - V - I_ (the slashes indicating possible ambivalence) and leads into the entry of the second voice in the _dominant_ key...

Terms indicating that _tonality_ is present are italicized, which you noticed, right?

You really should have asked someone to find the tonality in Schoenberg's Wind Quintet. But I guess we've tried that already and been rebuffed.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> Show us where and how it rears its head. Any example from Schoenberg's 12-tone music. Until you do, all of this is just empty verbiage ^ ^ ^ (And most of these arguments have been heard and refuted numerous times on this board. Sounds like paraphrase of a former member, in fact. Can anyone guess who I mean?)


If they've been refuted numerous times why wasn't I quickly 'refuted' at the beginning using these refined arguments? And now I'm accused of paraphrasing a former member? Someone hounded out for having the 'wrong' opinions perchance?

I'm puzzled by this reaction. Here's what you had to say to millionrainbows on june 15:



EdwardBast said:


> Much tonal music is highly chromatic. *As for the rest, you've told us we shouldn't expect tonality when we listen to atonal music , sounds are just sounds except when they aren't, and when listening to music it helps to listen musically*.


I remember agreeing at the time.

Now this constant 'challenge' to pick apart Schoenberg's works for people too lazy to go through it themselves and test it against the criteria of music I sketched out above?



EdwardBast said:


> Show us an example from Schoenberg's 12-tone music that exhibits tonality. Tell us where it does so and we'll help you with how if there is anything to your claim.


I do not require any assistance. This suggests that I put forward something and a panel of experts decides if I have anything to offer. It's crazy.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> You are so easily impressed! :lol:
> 
> Should we begin at the beginning with WTC, Fugue #1 in C Major? Start with the _tonic_ note, followed by a _C Major_ scale rising to the _subdominant_ F, falling a step to the _mediant_ E which is heard initially as the major third of the _tonic_ but transitions into the _submediant_ A, succeeded by a fall of a fifth to the _supertonic_ which mediates between _d minor_ and the clear _dominant_ of the succeeding G which caps the whole _tonic-to-dominant_ ascent, after which a descending scale passage returns us to the _tonic,_ thus rounding off the whole subject which outlines the _tonal_ progression _I - IV - I/vi - vi - ii/V - V - I_ (the slashes indicating possible ambivalence) and leads into the entry of the second voice in the _dominant_ key...
> 
> Terms indicating that _tonality_ is present are italicized, which you noticed, right?
> 
> You really should have asked someone to find the tonality in Schoenberg's Wind Quintet. But I guess we've tried that already and been rebuffed.


Nice choice of the easy one. I await the full series. Though WTC is not that challenging (half the analytical work has already been done by other people).

I can see you failed or didn't bother to see what I wrote about Schoenberg. I know very well that you chose the Wind Quintet because you imagine that as an early piece - fresh with his 12-tone zeal and desire to avoid ordinary tonality - it will be an impossible task. The work actually sounds more like one of Jean Francaix's neo-classical works. So many of the harmonies are uncontroversial...chords comprising B,G and E, running through the first movement! My word, how daring. Melodic phrase repetitions between the voices? Who does he think he is acting like Bach and Mozart and Beethoven...
There's so much here that isn't even dissonant, especially harmonically. The melody is just jagged to ears accustomed to classical/romantic repertoire.

However, please do a run-through of it in the vein of the above analysis of Bach.


----------



## EdwardBast

Daniel Atkinson said:


> So Edward, you are trying to tell me that it doesn't?


No, because trying to prove negatives is stupid. Those who make claims of fact are sometimes asked to support their claims. Is this surprising to you?


----------



## EdwardBast

eugeneonagain said:


> If they've been refuted numerous times why wasn't I quickly 'refuted' at the beginning using these refined arguments? And now I'm accused of paraphrasing a former member? Someone hounded out for having the 'wrong' opinions perchance?


Here are a few of many possible responses: 
1. Because you just presented your "criteria of music," whatever that means, less than 12 hours ago.
2. Refined arguments aren't required, only obvious ones.
3. You think your previous statements weren't refuted? If so, we have been reading the proceedings above differently.
4. Those who are really interested could look up my answers to all of the arguments you have vaguely alluded to when they were more cogently presented by "the poster whose name cannot be mentioned " over the last couple of years.



eugeneonagain said:


> Now this constant 'challenge' to pick apart Schoenberg's works for people too lazy to go through it themselves and test it against the criteria of music I sketched out above?


Constant challenge? All you have been asked to do is select one 12-tone work of Schoenberg and show us a tonic. Did it not occur to you that someone would expect this given your claims?

Laziness? I've actually analyzed works by Schoenberg. I even debated this very question on TC citing specific notes and measures. You can call others lazy when you demonstrate a similar effort to support your claims.



eugeneonagain said:


> I do not require any assistance. *This suggests that I put forward something and a panel of experts decides if I have anything to offer. It's crazy.*


Uh, isn't this pretty much what it means to make a far-reaching claim on an internet forum? You've already "put forward something." People have been deciding since you started posting. That's how it works.


----------



## fluteman

hpowders said:


> So is it tonal or not?? I don't have all day.


For the answer to that and many other important questions, you need to read Cage's book, "487 Pages".


----------



## hpowders

fluteman said:


> For the answer to that and many other important questions, you need to read Cage's book, "487 Pages".


Fine. After this thread terminates. I have 2023 completely free.


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> Nice choice of the easy one. I await the full series. Though WTC is not that challenging (half the analytical work has already been done by other people).
> 
> I can see you failed or didn't bother to see what I wrote about Schoenberg. I know very well that you chose the Wind Quintet because you imagine that as an early piece - fresh with his 12-tone zeal and desire to avoid ordinary tonality - it will be an impossible task. The work actually sounds more like one of Jean Francaix's neo-classical works. So many of the harmonies are uncontroversial...chords comprising B,G and E, running through the first movement! My word, how daring. Melodic phrase repetitions between the voices? Who does he think he is acting like Bach and Mozart and Beethoven...
> There's so much here that isn't even dissonant, especially harmonically. The melody is just jagged to ears accustomed to classical/romantic repertoire.
> 
> However, please do a run-through of it in the vein of the above analysis of Bach.


Without getting too deeply into this conversation, I do think the Wind Quintet is a conservative work (other than in its de-emphasis of the traditional western scale, which I think we can all agree is a major departure from tradition), but perhaps even more reminiscent of Dvorak or Brahms than the much more recent, and much more French, modern neo-classicist Jean Francaix (1912-1997), who brought jazz, honky-tonk, the street music of Paris, and all sorts of things that Schoenberg never dreamed of (as well as Mozart, of course), into his music. Francaix, as a Nadia Boulanger student, is very much a successor to Stravinsky, Schoenberg and the other first-generation modernists.
Also, I think we can agree their wind quintets are both [email protected] hard to play (Francaix wrote a second wind quintet late in life).


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Nice choice of the easy one. Though WTC is not that challenging (half the analytical work has already been done by other people).
> 
> I can see you failed or didn't bother to see what I wrote about Schoenberg. I know very well that you chose the Wind Quintet because you imagine that as an early piece - fresh with his 12-tone zeal and desire to avoid ordinary tonality - it will be an impossible task. The work actually sounds more like one of Jean Francaix's neo-classical works. So many of the harmonies are uncontroversial...chords comprising B,G and E, running through the first movement! My word, how daring. Melodic phrase repetitions between the voices? Who does he think he is acting like Bach and Mozart and Beethoven...
> There's so much here that isn't even dissonant, especially harmonically. The melody is just jagged to ears accustomed to classical/romantic repertoire.
> 
> However, please do a run-through of it in the vein of the above analysis of Bach.


Are you suggesting that "the hard ones" cannot be shown to be tonal? Or merely that _I_ can't show that they are? The inquiry isn't about me, you realize. It was a general, and frivolous, inquiry addressed to "anyone" (and it wasn't posed by, nor was my response addressed to, you, by the way). It's been answered as seriously and thoroughly as it deserves to be.

It's all just an amusing distraction from the questions of what tonality is, why it exists, why it's such a widespread phenomenon, how we recognize it, and how or whether it's manifested in music widely considered atonal. The thoughts I've advanced are not my only thoughts on the subject, but its hard to want to offer more when I'm greeted by contempt and constant dodges. Your present post is another dodge, from start to finish. The debate is not about generalized "resemblances" between Schoenberg's 12-tone works and earlier music.

Correct me if my geriatric memory is failing, but wasn't the "run-through" request you make at the end the very request that was originally addressed to you?


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Are you suggesting that "the hard ones" cannot be shown to be tonal? Or merely that _I_ can't show that they are? The inquiry isn't about me, you realize. It was a general, and frivolous, inquiry addressed to "anyone" (and it wasn't posed by, nor was my response addressed to, you, by the way). It's been answered as seriously and thoroughly as it deserves to be.
> 
> It's all just an amusing distraction from the questions of what tonality is, why it exists, why it's such a widespread phenomenon, how we recognize it, and how or whether it's manifested in music widely considered atonal. The thoughts I've advanced are not my only thoughts on the subject, but its hard to want to offer more when I'm greeted by contempt and constant dodges. Your present post is another dodge, from start to finish. The debate is not about generalized "resemblances" between Schoenberg's 12-tone works and earlier music.
> 
> Correct me if my geriatric memory is failing, but wasn't the "run-through" request you make at the end the very request that was originally addressed to you?


Ugh. I think it's fair to say, and has been said very repeatedly at TC and elsewhere, that there is a spectrum of many fine gradations as to how firmly and/or consistently music is anchored to a tonal center, from very firmly, to somewhat tenuously, to very tenuously, to almost not at all. Right now I'm not too interested in arguing whether music can be completely free of tonality, or not, as someone just suggested in this thread, but I would concede that the Schoenberg wind quintet is not absolutely free from tonality. I would also concede that the first WTC fugue is rather clearly and firmly in the key of C major, but the WTC preludes and fugues get a lot more complex and even tonally ambiguous as you progress through them, and even the C major one has its subtleties.
None of that is news to anyone who has listened to or studied this music at all.


----------



## Woodduck

I think it's fair to say, and has been said very repeatedly at TC and elsewhere, that there is a spectrum of many fine gradations as to how firmly and/or consistently music is anchored to a tonal center, from very firmly, to somewhat tenuously, to very tenuously, to almost not at all.

I think that's fair as well.

Right now I'm not too interested in arguing whether music can be completely free of tonality, or not.

OK, don't argue. 

I would concede that the Schoenberg wind quintet is not absolutely free from tonality.

Well, what are the tonal elements in it? Do they occupy a conspicuous position in the music, or determine its primary harmonic idiom and direct its harmonic progressions? Are they apparent to the ear, or do we have to study the score to find them? If we do, does it make sense to call the music tonal? Isn't what's actually heard the proper criterion? Does a piece have to be "absolutely free" of tonal elements or allusions to be called "atonal"? Are concepts invalid unless they refer to homogeneous entities with rigid boundaries, no transitional forms, and no exceptions?

I would also concede that the first WTC fugue is rather clearly and firmly in the key of C major, but the WTC preludes and fugues get a lot more complex and even tonally ambiguous as you progress through them, and even the C major one has its subtleties.

I would concede that too, except for the word "rather."

That term "tonal ambiguity," so often used, has got me thinking... "Ambiguity" is the quality of being subject to more than one interpretation. But what if harmony can't be "interpreted" at all? What if there are no implicit principles of harmonic interrelationship and progression on which an interpretation can rest? Calling harmony "tonally ambiguous" would imply that a chord is to be heard as functioning within a certain tonal system, but that it in its particular context it might function in more than one way and induce a certain amount of doubt as to its direction. That seems a good description of much of, say, Wagner's chromatic harmony, which, while establishing an overall tonal context, moves fluently through and around rapidly changing tonal centers, making us aware of their proximity and dynamic potential while not making them explicit. But does it properly describe music that doesn't establish any tonal context at all? Is harmony resulting from a systematic undermining of tonal progression, not allowing it to occur, "tonally ambiguous"? "Ambiguities" have us at least looking for tonal meaning. What if music makes it clear that there's no point in looking?


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> So wait, are you promising that if I concentrate really hard Bruckner's music will suddenly sound good and interesting? Wow, who knew it could be so easy!


Yes, if you keep at it. It might take more "work" (in clearing away your own reflexive, ingrained listening habits) than you are ready to put out.

Actually, terms like "polarizing" and "like/dislike" are beginning to have less and less meaning to me as "purely" musical criteria. They are way too subjective, and are in most cases conditioned and determined by social/cultural factors, and even less by rational reasoning. They say nothing about the music except in the most shallow, obvious way, and say _everything_ about the listener.

I don't have much need for opinions, because I'm interested in music. Isn't that part of being an adult, to be your own guide and stop being concerned with what others think?

I don't get this new internet "democracy of opinion" which seems so prevalent now, as if one's (usually) uninformed opinions have some great importance.


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> Musically illiterate some, or more likely, musically lazy and won't make the effort to concentrate on his music.
> 
> The Violin Concerto and Piano Concertos are masterpieces, but they require making the effort to comprehend them.
> 
> I don't buy the "musically lazy" stating that Schoenberg is polarizing. That's simply a convenient rationalization to keep listeners in their comfort zones, without bothering to really listen.





Woodduck said:


> If "illiterate" is presumptuous, "lazy" is even more so. We don't need to put down people whose tastes are different from ours.
> 
> One may return to music over and over again for a lifetime and find that one's dislike far outlives one's incomprehension. It's even possible to learn to like a composer less, once the fascination of the new wears off.


"Dislike" is a cop-out term. It almost always reflects some sort of subjective, non-musically based reasoning, usually ingrained in habitual conditioning and fear of the strange and unfamiliar.

Some listeners, even well-read, might resent Schoenberg because he "murdered" tonality, and tonality, for them, is the apotheosis of Man's achievements in art.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Sol Invictus said:


> *Most Polarizing Composer?*


I'll go with Ralph Vaughan Williams, on the south side ... and George Lloyd, on the north.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I only detest him 98% - basically, from the second iteration of the ostinato on.


That's because hard-core Glass --- like "Dance (Nos. 1-5) are extremely repetitive and 'trance-inducing,' and this is opposed directly to the Western paradigm of narrative development.

As R.D. Laing said, "The void is forbidden". The "trance state" will "let the Devil in." It's too Eastern.

Even as Humanists, which is just the flip-side of the Western Christian paradigm, replacing God with Man, the ctriteria are still the same as a religious one: "the ego" and Man's will are 'sacred' and must not be relinquished.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure that explanation is enough to account for the polarization. I believe Verklärte Nacht could be described as Romantic music with a largely chromatic harmonic language (correct me if I'm wrong). Many people I know had no or only modest difficulty coming to enjoy that work. Many of those same people, including myself, had much more difficulty enjoying his later works.
> 
> I believe there's something in later works, which break further from traditional late romantic harmonic music, that causes more "difficulty" in "learning" that language and allowing one to enjoy those works. Certainly my listening to the Piano Concerto, String Quartet No. 3, and Quartet No, 4 differs significantly from the way I listen to Verklärte Nacht.
> 
> Maybe the change can be characterized as another modest step away from traditional romantic harmony, but it seemed like a huge leap to me. And I suspect it seems that way to many others.


I think you are correct. The change was bigger; it involved the dismantling of the tonal hierarchy, and created non-harmonically-based music, which is immediately apparent, and distinguishable from mere 'chromaticism.'

I like it, though, because I accept it on its own terms.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bettina said:


> Good points. I agree with you about the huge gulf between Schoenberg's earlier works (chromatic but tonal) and his later works (atonal). In fact, I'm not sure if Schoenberg's atonal music could even be considered chromatic. It seems to me that chromaticism can only exist in a tonal context, where it refers to notes outside the key of the piece. When there's no overall key, the distinction between diatonicism and chromaticism makes no sense; it's a distinction which requires a tonal framework.


Yes, that is a great way of putting it. Atonality is "chromatic" only insofar as it uses all 12 notes, but there the similarity ends.

Miles Davis (in "The Cellar Door Sessions") is chromatic, but still tonal.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> It _is_ a huge leap, despite the efforts by some to minimize it and label as ignorant reactionaries or lazy bums those who recognize the difference and feel it keenly. Those efforts only inspire disbelief in the sensitivity of those who think the systematic displacement of tonality is no big thing. It's actually as big a thing as listeners feel it is, and in general they seem to feel that it's pretty big.


Yes, it is a distinct difference, but you seem to be overblowing the "hugeness" of it to pose it as an "obstacle" to otherwise capable listeners, who can then use it as a justification to reject Schoenberg and non-harmonically based music.

The "big" obstacle is for these listeners to overcome their ingrained habits.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> There are indeed big differences between Schoenberg's earlier works and his later ones. There are also very strong similarities. In many ways Schoenberg remained an arch-conservative firmly rooted in 19th century traditions, and other 20th century modernists, even if they continued to write partly or fully tonal music (much to his chagrin), left him far behind in other ways. Bartok, Hindemith, Stravinsky and Messiaen certainly did. To me it's a huge mistake to evaluate modern music solely or even mostly from the viewpoint of harmony, but I guess TC is a harmony forum. Though not always harmonious.


The "pedestrian" aspect of Schoenberg is his adherence to traditional phrasing, forms, and rhythms. The pitch is not.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> What percentage of classical music listeners do you think you're speaking for? Do you really believe that that the perception that Schoenberg's 12-tone works sound very different from his early, post-Wagnerian, tonal ones is not a common perception? Do we really need to take surveys as people exit concert halls (provided we can find concerts at which the comparison is even possible)?
> 
> The truth is that even after 100 years in which everyone can look at the whole of Schoenberg's work and the historical evolution of music, Schoenberg's _Moses and Aron_ does not sound anything like _Gurrelieder._ So why paper over that fact? Is it somehow shameful? Why not just be honest about it? Who is going to be helped to appreciate atonal music by being told that it's really just a "logical" development in musical style and no big deal - expecially when their ears and brains tell them otherwise? People aren't deaf.


You are over-exaggerrating the radical pitch-aspect of later Schoenberg, without recognizing the traditional aspects. Moses und Aaron, was, after all, an opera with singers and staging, just like other ones.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Wouldn't you say that the similarities are more likely to be apparent to those with a technical knowledge of music, or an understanding of the further developments in atonal music that came later? Without that context, its useless to argue about whether the late works are more traditional or more radical. More traditional or more radical than what? I'd guess that most music lovers are just listening to music, not giving themselves a history lesson.


Now you seem to be saying that Schoenberg is rejected on "simple, uninformed visceral grounds" by Mr. Joe Average just because it sounds unusual compared to Verdi.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Pseudo-science? Perhaps so. But I once read of an interesting study. Several idiot savants were tested; each could easily play, pretty exactly, any piano piece they heard. Their skills were quite miraculous, at least in that regard. None had musical training.
> 
> It was found that they could reproduce quite vast tracts of tonal (probably common practice tonality) music easily and accurately on a single hearing. As the music became more chromatic and "modern" (Bartok was mentioned) their performance faltered, and so on to serial or fully atonal music.
> 
> I leave interpretation of these results to the reader.


I think cultural conditioning is the reason. I could create a group of "idiot serial copiers" if that's all I exposed them to.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Actually, terms like "polarizing" and "like/dislike" are beginning to have less and less meaning to me as "purely" musical criteria. They are way too subjective, and are in most cases conditioned and determined by social/cultural factors, and even less by rational reasoning. They say nothing about the music except in the most shallow, obvious way, and say _everything_ about the listener.


I think I see why you get so worked up about any suggestion that someone does not actively endorse or support more modern forms of music . . . and why you will never convince anyone to adopt your point of view.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I'd be cautious about saying that musical developments are "logical." Schoenberg may have felt that the renunciation of tonality was the necessary outcome of the increased chromaticism of 19th-century harmony and the growing acceptance of dissonances as consonant, but these are theories conceived as self-justification, not facts.


So, it's not a fact. I think that atonality was artistically justified, and a logical result of the direction music was heading.

Besides, if you look at it objectively, tonality starts becoming more vague, less precisely identifiable, when more notes are used, especially twelve. That's a fact of statistics.



Woodduck said:


> There is a difference in kind, not merely in degree, between chromaticism employed in a context of tonal expectation, and "panchromaticism" in which pains are taken to avoid tonal centers and suggestions of tonality.


True, I never said there was not a dividing line regarding pitch and tonality. 
Still, chromaticism itself, the tonal kind, had reached its apotheosis with Wagner. Schoenberg did, indeed, make a leap.

If you think it was not a "next step," then you need to at least recognize that it was based on emergent principles of late tonality: chromaticism, motivic development (necessary when tonal centers are vague), more melodic, linear textures.

To say this was based on logical Darwinian principles, or not, is really moot; the connections and principles are still there.



Woodduck said:


> And there is no reason to think, as Schoenberg evidently did, that an increasing acceptance as consonant of intervals previously regarded as dissonant is destined to result in an obliteration of any perceived difference between consonance and dissonance. "Logic" based on faulty premises may contradict both fact and common sense.


There's no valid reason to think otherwise, either.



Woodduck said:


> We might see Schoenberg's "logical" justification of his procedures as but one of many questionable applications, common at the time, of Darwinian evolutionary theory.


Ok, but the principles are still musical, and are in the material itself: chromaticism, use of all 12 notes, vague harmony, etc.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> It might take more "work" (in *clearing away your own reflexive, ingrained listening habits*) than you are ready to put out.
> 
> Actually, terms like "polarizing" and "like/dislike"...say nothing about the music except in the most shallow, obvious way, and *say everything about the listener.*





millionrainbows said:


> "Dislike" is a cop-out term. It *almost always reflects some sort of subjective, non-musically based reasoning, usually ingrained in habitual conditioning and fear of the strange and unfamiliar.*





millionrainbows said:


> Isn't that part of being an adult, to be your own guide and* stop being concerned with what others think?*


You are absolutely right. I don't care what you think.


----------



## millionrainbows

David OByrne said:


> Your kind of reasoning is just simply, not how art works and no Schoenberg wasn't "avoiding tonality" (however questionable that preposition may be).
> 
> Schoenberg found his voice, he found a way to express his ideas in a unique and fluent way. This happened (to my knowledge) with quite a few other composers around that time. Not everybody had the same answer, but there where others too that saw problems in the 7 note scale.
> 
> It is certainly a logical development, not evolution. Music didn't result in one answer.





Woodduck said:


> It appears that his practice was less stringent than his theory. In theory, and early on in his post-tonal practice, he stressed the need to avoid anything that would suggest the establishment of a tonal center (e. g. the use of triads or other consonances, the doubling of certain notes, too much emphasis on certain notes, bass lines proceeding by fifths suggesting traditional key relationships, etc.). Ultimately he allowed some limited tonal suggestiveness back into his style. Berg always retained elements of tonality, even writing extended tonal passages: the last orchestral interlude in _Wozzeck_ is a powerful example, and there are similar tonal passages in _Lulu_ at moments of deep emotion in the drama. And of course there's the poignant, atmospheric violin concerto, which seems to be loved by many people who don't care for more strictly atonal works.


He was writing 12-tone music, based on the structural material of the rows. If he "avoided tonality," he did so as an artistic choice, because the music itself was not tonal, nor was it intended to be heard that way.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Calling the word "atonal" pejorative, and seeking an alternative word, is something quite common in my country. We call it political correctness. If most people dislike something, then we who do like it will seek a different name, thinking that will bring others around to our point of view.
> 
> In other words, Limburger cheese doesn't stink; it's an alternative olfactory experience.


This whole line of reasoning rests on flimsy assumptions that "like" and "dislike" refer to some inherent quality of the object under consideration. Then, metaphors like "limburger cheese" are used to bolster those assumptions, and metaphors with racism, social equality, and political correctness. What a load of flimsy reasoning.


----------



## millionrainbows

Klassik said:


> New thread idea: Come up with a new P.C. name for atonal music. The winner gets a free Pierre Boulez CD. And I don't mean a CD of Boulez conducting.
> 
> I was going to put this in STI, but why not put it here? :lol:


Some PC comments about atonal music:

"It's non-harmonically-derived music (non-HDM)."

"This is truly democratic music."

"This is non-drone, non-repetitive music to the max."

"Refreshingly varied in terms of root movement, or lack thereof."


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> "Ambiguity" is the quality of being subject to more than one interpretation. But what if harmony can't be "interpreted" at all? What if there are no implicit principles of harmonic interrelationship and progression on which an interpretation can rest? Calling harmony "tonally ambiguous" would imply that a chord is to be heard as functioning within a certain tonal system, but that it in its particular context it might function in more than one way and induce a certain amount of doubt as to its direction. That seems a good description of much of, say, Wagner's chromatic harmony, which, while establishing an overall tonal context, moves fluently through and around rapidly changing tonal centers, making us aware of their proximity and dynamic potential while not making them explicit. But does it properly describe music that doesn't establish any tonal context at all? Is harmony resulting from a systematic undermining of tonal progression, not allowing it to occur, "tonally ambiguous"? "Ambiguities" have us at least looking for tonal meaning. What if music makes it clear that there's no point in looking?



You and others have discussed these issues here before, and doubtless will continue to do so. Some have offered what I think are pretty good answers to your questions, both the questions I quoted above and others. I've touched on them in some of my posts too. Apparently you remain unconvinced by those answers, which is fine. 
But it is ironic that you often talk about what the human ear and brain naturally wants to hear, and my opinion about this music, and music generally, is very much informed by that, and not any intellectual process or decision. That's why I was exasperated when another member here, who writes some very interesting and informative posts, tried to lecture us on learning how to listen to certain music properly. I differ with that on a fundamental level, and very much agree with the posters here, including some in this thread, that learning to appreciate this or any kind of music mainly involves listening to a lot of that music. Studying it in an academic sense or rehearsing it and performing oneself it helps even more, but none of that is strictly necessary, or shouldn't be.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...I do not believe that tonality is "built into" the human brain, and I've never said that it is. What I believe is that it's in the nature of mind to comprehend reality in terms of hierarchical structures and to seek what mathematicians call "elegance," in which things are ordered in the way that most fully and economically accounts for and explains subordinate elements and functions. Tonality is defined by its hierarchical structure, it represents hierarchy most elegantly, and it has therefore arisen all over the world, in a remarkable variety of guises, as something satisfying and compelling to the human mind.


I do believe that tonality (actually one of many 'harmonic models') is built into sound, and the way our ears hear, which is all based on the harmonic structure of sound, which is a branch of physics called "acoustics."

The absence of a linear harmonic hierarchy in music composition, or the absence of a scale-divided octave, does not negate all that; sound, and music, is still heard 'harmonically' by our ears, even in isolated examples.

Every weird "chord" or harmonic simultaneity we hear in a serial music piece _can _be heard as referring to a central note, or as having a "root" in terms of sound: a bass note will provide this 'bottom', or a fifth. But this is not tonality; it is harmonic sound.

Harmonic sound does not depend on a linear hierarchy which is spread out; all it needs is an "internal" vertical hierarchy which gives it a color or 'anchor' in space as a "harmonic entity."



Woodduck said:


> This doesn't prevent anyone from constructing music in which certain of its elements are treated non-hierarchically. Reality is not entirely hierarchical; in many respects it even seems random and chaotic (which is often, however, a limitation of our perception), and art, which is a metaphor of reality, may have good reason, in pursuit of breadth of expression, to take this into account.


I think you need to recognize that this hierarchy can be totally vertical, with no linear qualities, existing as an instant of harmonic sound.



Woodduck said:


> If reiterating that tonality is actually present in atonal music exhausts you, perhaps you could try giving us some specific examples of music generally accepted as atonal - Schoenberg's Wind Quintet might be a good example - and point to something about it that makes it tonal.


I think he means what I am saying; that this "tonality" is actually there from instant to instant.

Also, I think you need to recognize that an "hierarchy" can be created out of successive instances of vertical harmonic stacks, by "comparing" each one to the ones following or preceding; not the kind of hierarchy I think you are describing.



Woodduck said:


> My ear tells me that Schoenberg was remarkably successful in preventing his harmonies from suggesting tonal centers. He did, after all, invest some time and trouble into explaining techniques for doing just that. Do you think he failed in applying his techniques here?


I don't think this was "prevention," but an avoidance of old habits, in order to create new music out of the specific demands of the material.


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> Neither am I.
> 
> However, I locked myself up with first, the Schoenberg Piano Concerto for several months, exclusively, playing the first movement over and over and over until I felt comfortable enough to move to movement two. Same thing movement two over and over. After I felt comfortable movements 1 and 2, several times. Then movement 3 alone, over and over. Finally movement 4, alone, over and over. Then movements 3 and 4 together several times. Then finally, the whole work, over and over and I found the work at the end of this lengthy process to be hauntingly beautiful and enchanting; a work of true genius.
> 
> I'm no genius, but I ain't dumb either, but if I can do it, anyone on TC can do it to, given the motivation.
> 
> I repeated the sequence for movements 1, 2 and 3 of the Violin Concerto, which I wound up liking a bit less than the Piano Concerto.
> 
> I love the Piano Concerto. I like the Violin Concerto.


That's a good post, reflecting a good, positive, hard-working attitude.

I think what is happening here is the description of a new way of listening, in which the usual linear, spread-out tonal hierarchy is absent, and is replaced by a comparative way of listening, in which the music is still very much colorful and harmonic, with plenty of relative dissonances and consonances of many different varieties which resolve, or create tensions, and have goals, by comparison to each other, not to a central tonic.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> ...it is ironic that you often talk about _what the human ear and brain naturally *wants* to hear,_ and my opinion about this music, and music generally, is very much informed by that, and not any intellectual process or decision.


I question the part in italics. The ears hear in a certain way, true; but what the brain "wants" is often at odds with this natural process.

It's fine that your opinions are formed by direct visceral experience, and not intellectual process or decision.



fluteman said:


> That's why I was exasperated when another member here, who writes some very interesting and informative posts, tried to lecture us on learning how to listen to certain music properly. I differ with that on a fundamental level, and very much agree with the posters here, including some in this thread, that learning to appreciate this or any kind of music mainly involves listening to a lot of that music. Studying it in an academic sense or rehearsing it and performing oneself it helps even more, but none of that is strictly necessary, or shouldn't be.


I did not intend to come across as 'lecturing' in those threads; I simply described the way I listen.



fluteman said:


> I differ with that on a fundamental level, and very much agree with the posters here, including some in this thread, that learning to appreciate this or any kind of music mainly involves listening to a lot of that music. Studying it in an academic sense or rehearsing it and performing oneself it helps even more, but none of that is strictly necessary, or shouldn't be.


I agree, and like the earlier *hpowders* described, this is "a new way of listening, in which the usual linear, spread-out tonal hierarchy is absent, and is replaced by a comparative way of listening, in which the music is still very much colorful and harmonic, with plenty of relative dissonances and consonances of many different varieties which resolve, or create tensions, and have goals, by comparison to each other, not to a central tonic."

This sort of listening can only come about by "practice, practice, practice." :lol:


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> I question the part in italics. The ears hear in a certain way, true; but what the brain "wants" is often at odds with this natural process.
> 
> It's fine that your opinions are formed by direct visceral experience, and not intellectual process or decision.
> 
> I did not intend to come across as 'lecturing' in those threads; I simply described the way I listen.
> 
> I agree, and like the earlier *hpowders* described, this is "a new way of listening, in which the usual linear, spread-out tonal hierarchy is absent, and is replaced by a comparative way of listening, in which the music is still very much colorful and harmonic, with plenty of relative dissonances and consonances of many different varieties which resolve, or create tensions, and have goals, by comparison to each other, not to a central tonic."
> 
> This sort of listening can only come about by "practice, practice, practice." :lol:


OK, fair enough, millionrainbows. I do enjoy your posts.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> Here are a few of many possible responses:
> 1. Because you just presented your "criteria of music," whatever that means, less than 12 hours ago.


Not specifically "mine". Unless you think rhythym, note durations, cadences etc are not part of the criteria that make up music?!



EdwardBast said:


> 2. Refined arguments aren't required, only obvious ones.
> 3. You think your previous statements weren't refuted? If so, we have been reading the proceedings above differently.


We certainly have because they're not there. Just the posts of upset people who have been comfortably ensconced in the position of house philosophers, now feeling the discomfort of challenge. And the audacity of of that!



EdwardBast said:


> 4. Those who are really interested could look up my answers to all of the arguments you have vaguely alluded to when they were more cogently presented by "the poster whose name cannot be mentioned " over the last couple of years.


*Vaguely? More cogently? You think because my answers are not securely posted up on boards of TC for posterity that this is the first time I've thought about this issue?



EdwardBast said:


> Constant challenge? All you have been asked to do is select one 12-tone work of Schoenberg and show us a tonic. Did it not occur to you that someone would expect this given your claims?
> 
> Laziness? I've actually analyzed works by Schoenberg. I even debated this very question on TC citing specific notes and measures. You can call others lazy when you demonstrate a similar effort to support your claims.


My claims? I never made initial claims. I just challenged the tired old idea that the work of Schoenberg and other serial and modernist composers is all anti-tonal. In that situation the onus is on the person making THAT claim to show the evidence! Did that not occur to you?



EdwardBast said:


> Uh, isn't this pretty much what it means to make a far-reaching claim on an internet forum? You've already "put forward something." People have been deciding since you started posting. That's how it works.


See above*


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, if you keep at it. It might take more "work" (in clearing away your own reflexive, ingrained listening habits) than you are ready to put out.
> *
> Actually, terms like "polarizing" and "like/dislike" are beginning to have less and less meaning to me as "purely" musical criteria. They are way too subjective, and are in most cases conditioned and determined by social/cultural factors*, and even less by rational reasoning. They say nothing about the music except in the most shallow, obvious way, and say _everything_ about the listener.
> 
> I don't have much need for opinions, because I'm interested in music. Isn't that part of being an adult, to be your own guide and stop being concerned with what others think?
> 
> I don't get this new internet "democracy of opinion" which seems so prevalent now, as if one's (usually) uninformed opinions have some great importance.


I feel the same way about music to a certain degree. I suspended my own like/dislike, and forced myself to listen to the music on the composer's own terms. Putting aside feelings, I could find at least one feature in the music interesting. Eventually I got to like some more or less in varying degrees based on the type of music. Schoenberg, Webern, Penderecki, Ligeti, Varese and others for sure. Indeterminate music by Cage, Cardew, Feldman not so much, but at least my ears are tickled. With Glass, Ades, Norgard, and Chin, I do find my brain reacting against the music, which I believe is due to my perception (right or wrong) of the music being hypocritical, attempting to make music that sounds new, direct, and divorced from previous eras including modern, but obviously was affected by modern.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Phil loves classical said:


> I feel the same way about music to a certain degree. I suspended my own like/dislike, and forced myself to listen to the music on the composer's own terms. Putting aside feelings, I could find at least one feature in the music interesting. Eventually I got to like some more or less in varying degrees based on the type of music. Schoenberg, Webern, Penderecki, Ligeti, Varese and others for sure. Indeterminate music by Cage, Cardew, Feldman not so much, but at least my ears are tickled. With Glass, Ades, Norgard, and Chin, I do find my brain reacting against the music, which I believe is due to my perception (right or wrong) of the music being hypocritical, attempting to make music that sounds new, direct, and divorced from previous eras including modern, but obviously was affected by modern.


Yes, this is the thing. There seems to be more of a worry about modern music, in the sense that one has to either 'get' it all or not get it at all. In reality it's just the same as having a preference for Beethoven over Schubert or vice-versa. Or preferring romantic to classic. This is why it is sometimes annoying when people reject "modern" or "atonal" music out of hand as one uniform block of unlistenable noise. 
Listeners will find things they like and things they don't like and that should be okay.


----------



## JAS

A good deal of these conversations are borderline insanity. They go something like this:

*Person A:* - Why were you late getting in to work this morning?

*Person B:* - I had to drop off my car at the service center. They gave me a loaner vehicle.

*Person A:* - You should buy a pickup truck.

*Person B:* - I don't want a pickup truck. I am perfectly happy with my car.

*Person A:* - But your car doesn't work.

*Person B:* - I am just having an oil change and tuneup. The car works fine.

*Person A:* - If it works fine, why did you leave it at the service center?

*Person B:* - Because that is where they do the oil changes and tuneups.

*Person A:* - You could change your own oil.

*Person B:* - Yes, I could, but I don't want to.

*Person A:* - You would save money.

*Person B:* - Yes, but I don't like changing oil, it is messy, and I can afford to pay someone else to do it. Besides, the tuneup requires special software, which I don't have and have no reason to purchase.

*Person A:* - I still think that you should buy a pickup truck.

*Person B:* - I don't want a pickup truck. I like my car.

*Person A:* - A pickup truck can be very useful, especially for hauling things.

*Person B:* - I don't have anything I want to haul. I just want to get to work and back home. The car is very nice, it is comfortable and it gets good gas mileage.

*Person A:* - If you had a pickup truck, it would be easier to take your big dog to the vet.

*Person B:* - I don't have a big dog. I don't have any dog.

*Person A:* - You should get a big dog.

*Person B:* - I don't want a dog. I have two cats.

*Person A:* - Dogs are good company, and they help to scare away burglars.

And so it goes on, and on, and on.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, if you keep at it. It might take more "work" (in clearing away your own reflexive, ingrained listening habits) than you are ready to put out.


I don't have reflexive listening habits and don't need to work to comprehend music like Bruckner's. I just don't find it interesting on any level. And I certainly don't need advice from you about listening.


----------



## EdwardBast

eugeneonagain said:


> My claims? I never made initial claims. I just challenged the tired old idea that the work of Schoenberg and other serial and modernist composers is all anti-tonal. In that situation the onus is on the person making THAT claim to show the evidence! Did that not occur to you?


No one made THAT claim. No one mentioned the term "anti-tonal" but you. You have clearly decided not to defend the position you presented. That is good. It is a pointless, loser of a position even when ably argued.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I'm all for athesistonalism


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> No one made THAT claim. No one mentioned the term "anti-tonal" but you.


Yes they did. Saying otherwise is ludicrous. Specifically Woodduck who claimed/claims there is no tonality to be found in Schoenberg (or certain of his works). That is what I mean by anti-tonal...not tonal...atonal..what-have-you. As if almost 99% of people with a passing interest in the matter of serialism didn't already know that Schoenberg was aiming for that very thing...even though he failed.

I'm not going to be battered down with these sorts of retorts:


EdwardBast said:


> You have clearly decided not to defend the position you presented. That is good. It is a pointless, loser of a position even when ably argued


I know these sorts of games. Trying to make out that I've somehow back-pedalled to save face in the face of certain, obvious defeat. I have not. Go through this thread again and you'll see a clearly spurious pseudo-philosophical argument (yes the same spurious argument you fellows have been rehashing before I arrived) about how "atonal" music is utterly contrary to the structures of natural reality and completely divorced from "tonality".

It's not me who has to prove this. I didn't state it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> A good deal of these conversations are borderline insanity. They go something like this:
> 
> *Person A:* - Why were you late getting in to work this morning?
> 
> *Person B:* - I had to drop off my car at the service center. They gave me a loaner vehicle.
> 
> etc


The problem here is that only one of the people taking part in the dialogue is being unreasonable. Or was that the intention?


----------



## fluteman

JAS said:


> A good deal of these conversations are borderline insanity. They go something like this:
> 
> *Person A:* - Why were you late getting in to work this morning?
> 
> *Person B:* - I had to drop off my car at the service center. They gave me a loaner vehicle.
> 
> *Person A:* - You should buy a pickup truck.
> 
> *Person B:* - I don't want a pickup truck. I am perfectly happy with my car.
> 
> *Person A:* - But your car doesn't work.
> 
> *Person B:* - I am just having an oil change and tuneup. The car works fine.
> 
> *Person A:* - If it works fine, why did you leave it at the service center?
> 
> *Person B:* - Because that is where they do the oil changes and tuneups.
> 
> *Person A:* - You could change your own oil.
> 
> *Person B:* - Yes, I could, but I don't want to.
> 
> *Person A:* - You would save money.
> 
> *Person B:* - Yes, but I don't like changing oil, it is messy, and I can afford to pay someone else to do it. Besides, the tuneup requires special software, which I don't have and have no reason to purchase.
> 
> *Person A:* - I still think that you should buy a pickup truck.
> 
> *Person B:* - I don't want a pickup truck. I like my car.
> 
> *Person A:* - A pickup truck can be very useful, especially for hauling things.
> 
> *Person B:* - I don't have anything I want to haul. I just want to get to work and back home. The car is very nice, it is comfortable and it gets good gas mileage.
> 
> *Person A:* - If you had a pickup truck, it would be easier to take your big dog to the vet.
> 
> *Person B:* - I don't have a big dog. I don't have any dog.
> 
> *Person A:* - You should get a big dog.
> 
> *Person B:* - I don't want a dog. I have two cats.
> 
> *Person A:* - Dogs are good company, and they help to scare away burglars.
> 
> And so it goes on, and on, and on.


Or maybe:

Person A: Dogs are ugly and disgusting, I'll never go near one. Cats are superior.

Person B: Have you ever actually spent any time with a dog? If you did, it might change your mind.

Person A: I did that once, and I'm not going to do it again. People have a natural aversion to dogs and naturally prefer cats, this dog-owning fad is a nightmare that will soon pass. and people will go back to owning cats, which is what their brains are telling them to do. True pet lovers never liked dogs to begin with.

Person B: Um, OK, but I have a pet dog that I like, and so do a lot of other people, and I don't think there is anything unnatural or wrong about that, though I like cats and have one of those too.

Person A: Dogs are ugly and disgusting. I'll never go near one.

Person B: OK, but didn't you tell us that already?

Person A: Dogs are ugly and disgusting. I'll never go near one.

Person A: Dogs are ugly and disgusting. I'll never go near one.

Person A: Dogs are ugly and disgusting. I'll never go near one.

It is an artist's responsibility and burden to reach an audience, somewhere, some how, and some day, not a potential audience member's responsibility to figure out and appreciate what the artist is doing. An artist may successfully reach an audience, and yet you may not be in it. But, and I mean no disrespect, why should the fact that you don't like an artist's work, or don't want a pickup truck or a dog, be of any interest to anyone else? If someone says, 'I like music X", that interests me, because it may mean I should investigate music X, if I haven't already. But if someone says Music X stinks, or is a nightmare, or is an unnatural offense to the human ear and brain, how is that comment of any interest? It isn't. Nor should anyone endlessly try to convince you to like Music X. I'm happy with people explaining at any length they wish why they like Music X, though.
That's why people who offer analysis or descriptions of any kind of music, however flawed they may be, are offering something at least potentially, and usually at least partly, worthwhile. Those who endlessly tear down that analysis, like those who repeatedly dismiss whole artistic movements and genres, are not.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> The problem here is that only one of the people taking part in the dialogue is being unreasonable. Or was that the intention?


No, it was not unintentional, but I was very careful not to assign roles and to use an entirely disassociated context. Yes, Person A is being perfectly reasonable. Obviously, Person B should get a big dog and a truck, and all would be well.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> No, it was not unintentional, but I was very careful not to assign roles and to use an entirely disassociated context. Yes, Person A is being perfectly reasonable. Obviously, Person B should get a big dog and a truck, and all would be well.


Well then is has a built-in bias and is not representative of the discussion in this thread. I may be coming from a particular viewpoint, but I don't think even the people I am disagreeing with could be fairly represented by the unreasonable Person B. I actually think there is a lot of obscured agreement in some parts.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> Well then is has a built-in bias and is not representative of the discussion in this thread. I may be coming from a particular viewpoint, but I don't think even the people I am disagreeing with could be fairly represented by the unreasonable Person B. I actually think there is a lot of obscured agreement in some parts.


I think each side sees itself as Person B.


----------



## hpowders

Just here to take the temperature of the room:

So are we 100% polarized yet?


----------



## JAS

hpowders said:


> Just here to take the temperature of the room:
> 
> So are we 100% polarized yet?


It isn't 2023 yet.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I'm offering polarizing Sunglasses if it gets to hot in here


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> I think each side sees itself as Person B.


As an unreasonable person? That strikes me as unusual.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> As an unreasonable person? That strikes me as unusual.


You are either kidding or you are missing something. (When I said that Person A was being reasonable, I thought it was obviously snark. I was just being ironic. This thread really needs a little humor.)


----------



## hpowders

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I'm offering polarizing Sunglasses if it gets to hot in here


I have an old Polaroid camera that I can donate. Whether the color is faithful....well that can be polarizing in itself....and that debate can take years.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> I don't have reflexive listening habits and don't need to work to comprehend music like Bruckner's. I just don't find it interesting on any level. And I certainly don't need advice from you about listening.


You're like a goldfish who doesn't realize he's in water.


----------



## millionrainbows

If I may be so bold, I think the "tonality" that eugeneonagain is hearing in late Schoenberg is actually due to other structural devices which function harmonically, but are really not "tonal" in the way that tonality is.

But these structural devices are so effective, colorful, and full of emotion, expressivity, and meaning that, for him, it's the same experience as tonality.

I really don't think that this would work the same way with Milton Babbitt. Not to dis Milton, I love him, but it's not the same.

So why argue with it? I think we are all aware of this "Schoenberg effect" in one way or another, and if not him, then Berg. Even Woodduck seemed to have a certain admiration for Berg's opera.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> You are either kidding or you are missing something. (When I said that Person A was being reasonable, I thought it was obviously snark. I was just being ironic. This thread really needs a little humor.)


You're right. I was not paying attention to who was who. I was struggling to find the humour too, but that might be cultural.:tiphat:


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> You're right. I was not paying attention to who was who. I was struggling to find the humour too, but that might be cultural.:tiphat:


Humor translates poorly . . . and it wasn't really _very_ funny to begin with. It would be funnier if delivered by polished performers, like Burns and Allen, Abbott and Costello, or Bert and Ernie. (In my head, I was hearing Bert and Ernie.)


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

Woodduck said:


> That term "tonal ambiguity," so often used, has got me thinking... "Ambiguity" is the quality of being subject to more than one interpretation. But what if harmony can't be "interpreted" at all? What if there are no implicit principles of harmonic interrelationship and progression on which an interpretation can rest? Calling harmony "tonally ambiguous" would imply that a chord is to be heard as functioning within a certain tonal system, but that it in its particular context it might function in more than one way and induce a certain amount of doubt as to its direction. That seems a good description of much of, say, Wagner's chromatic harmony, which, while establishing an overall tonal context, moves fluently through and around rapidly changing tonal centers, making us aware of their proximity and dynamic potential while not making them explicit. But does it properly describe music that doesn't establish any tonal context at all? Is harmony resulting from a systematic undermining of tonal progression, not allowing it to occur, "tonally ambiguous"? "Ambiguities" have us at least looking for tonal meaning. What if music makes it clear that there's no point in looking?




Have you ever actually studied any of this "atonal" music seriously? I very much do not think so

Daniel


----------



## Woodduck

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Have you ever actually studied any of this "atonal" music seriously? I very much do not think so.
> 
> Daniel


Although you don't say what "atonal" music you think I should study - are we still on the Schoenberg Wind Quintet or have we moved on to _Le marteau sans maitre_? - I have _listened_ seriously to a good deal of music I would identify as atonal, or predominantly so. I very much think that that is what music is for, and that all really meaningful ideas about it are based on what meets the ear.

I marvel at how easily some people make deductions about the musical knowledge and experience of those with whom they disagree. It's a sort of inverted ad hominem fallacy: instead of assuming the truth or falsehood of something based on the character of the person who asserts it, you assume the quality of the person based on whether you think he's asserting something true or false.

In any event, a little musing on the meaning of ambiguity hardly tells you anything about anyone. Now if you'd like to say something about _music_ - or about what _you_ think ambiguity means - I'm, as ever, all ears.


----------



## Strange Magic

A concise theory of aesthetics: I find I like A. Like it a lot. I then trawl through other people's theories and explanations of why they like it also, as well as thinking hard myself about why I should like it, knowing already that I do like it. I look over other people's theories and explanations of why they hate what I like and why I shouldn't like it either. I decide they are idiots, rub my hands together, and go back to enjoying what I like. Works for me.


----------



## Blancrocher

Has John Cage been mentioned yet?


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

Woodduck said:


> Although you don't say what "atonal" music you think I should study - are we still on the Schoenberg Wind Quintet or have we moved on to _Le marteau sans maitre_? - I have _listened_ seriously to a good deal of music I would identify as atonal, or predominantly so. I very much think that that is what music is for, and that all really meaningful ideas about it are based on what meets the ear.
> 
> I marvel at how easily some people make deductions about the musical knowledge and experience of those with whom they disagree. It's a sort of inverted ad hominem fallacy: instead of assuming the truth or falsehood of something based on the character of the person who asserts it, you assume the quality of the person based on whether you think he's asserting something true or false.
> 
> In any event, a little musing on the meaning of ambiguity hardly tells you anything about anyone. Now if you'd like to say something about _music_ - or about what _you_ think ambiguity means - I'm, as ever, all ears.


You Woodduck, are projecting.

We are talking about traits that are inherently either present or not present in this music. For you to state such un-disputable claims as to what this music contains, you would have studied it to be able to confirm those conclusions.

Yes, perception is another thing entirely. We are talking on theoretical principles. Tonal music falls into this category quite more than not. Again, this is not about your own opinions on the music, it's about traits that are either present or not present in the music, which is not something a listener is expected to automatically know with any music.

And no, I don't say which "atonal" music you should study, why should I? it's not about that, it's about your experience that you are using as a basis of your argument as a whole, which doesn't seem very well researched.

Have a nice day 

Daniel


----------



## Woodduck

Daniel Atkinson said:


> *You Woodduck, are projecting.
> *
> We are talking about traits that are inherently either present or not present in this music.* For you to state such un-disputable claims as to what this music contains, you would have studied it* to be able to confirm those conclusions.
> 
> Yes, *perception is another thing entirely. We are talking on theoretical principles.* Tonal music falls into this category quite more than not. Again, this is not about your own opinions on the music, it's about traits that are either present or not present in the music, *which is not something a listener is expected to automatically know* with any music.
> 
> And no, I don't say which "atonal" music you should study, why should I? it's not about that, *it's about your experience that you are using as a basis of your argument as a whole, which doesn't seem very well researched. *
> 
> Have a nice day
> 
> Daniel


And you, Mr. Atkinson, are presumptuous (didn't you catch that when I pointed it out in my last post?).

I don't have to "project' anything on you; you make yourself perfectly clear - transparent, in fact - and you are clearly out of permissible bounds here. You have no authority whatsoever to say anything about my musical experience or my qualifications to speak on any question I've raised. I've recently had to put up with this sort of demeaning, personalized ******** from two other people on this forum who think that discussing music means diagnosing other people's intellectual and psychological deficiencies. Don't think for a minute that you can get such stuff past me.

If you disagree with a particular musical point, state that disagreement and support it. Nothing else is needed or wanted.

I won't bother discussing at length the unwarranted assumptions in your statements about how music is to be understood or what constitutes proper authority for discussing it. But I've gone to the trouble of putting a few words of your post in bold so that you can think them over further if you wish. I'll only point out that the fact that no one is expected to know _anything_ "automatically" is rather widely appreciated.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Hope to put an end to the 12 tone discussion. 12 tone music is based on the tone row. Schoenberg instructed a tone row avoid certain intervals to avoid as much as possible any hints of tonality, while Berg didn't follow these rules. So it is possible to hear some hints of tonality in Berg, but only for brief durations, and there is still not tonal centre. Even if Schoenberg miscalculated and used a more consonant interval, there really still isn't much basis to hear a pervading sense of tonality or tonal centre, over a tone row or over the transformations of the rows.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_row


----------



## Art Rock

Blancrocher said:


> Has John Cage been mentioned yet?


Predictably, early on (post 2).


----------



## EdwardBast

eugeneonagain said:


> Yes they did. Saying otherwise is ludicrous. Specifically Woodduck who claimed/claims there is no tonality to be found in Schoenberg (or certain of his works). That is what I mean by anti-tonal...not tonal...atonal..what-have-you. As if almost 99% of people with a passing interest in the matter of serialism didn't already know that Schoenberg was aiming for that very thing...even though he failed.
> 
> I'm not going to be battered down with these sorts of retorts:
> 
> I know these sorts of games. Trying to make out that I've somehow back-pedalled to save face in the face of certain, obvious defeat. I have not. Go through this thread again and you'll see *a clearly spurious pseudo-philosophical argument (yes the same spurious argument you fellows have been rehashing before I arrived) about how "atonal" music is utterly contrary to the structures of natural reality and completely divorced from "tonality".*
> 
> It's not me who has to prove this. I didn't state it.


I'm not part of some collective. I never made this argument.

You aren't backpedaling. You are making sweeping statements and failing to provide any support for them.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> You're like a goldfish who doesn't realize he's in water.


You're like a goldfish insisting all must be goldfish too
You've no idea what I'm like but like pretending you do. 
'Cause since you're stuck in a bowl you prefer to believe
Your limitations are shared and the air can't be breathed.


----------



## JAS

Goldfish are just stuck in their old habits of using gills and living in water. Goldfish should breath air, like all the smarter animals who really pay attention to living. :devil:


----------



## 20centrfuge

I'd put Boulez at the top of the list


----------



## Blancrocher

20centrfuge said:


> I'd put Boulez at the top of the list


He'd probably have a clear lead if this thread were in the opera subforum. Many aficionados of that genre haven't forgiven him for certain indelicate remarks he made regarding what should be done with opera houses.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not part of some collective. I never made this argument.
> 
> *You aren't backpedaling. You are making sweeping statements and failing to provide any support for them*.


They only appear "sweeping" to those who don't want to hear them. Of course it's not at all sweeping to state that "atonal" music lies outside of natural psychological and musical reality, is it?

The thing with me is, I have no agenda. I'm not a cheerleader for serialism and like methodologies for composition. There's a fair slice of modern music I really don't like, but I'm not offering any pseudo-philosophical quackery about why this is.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> I've recently had to put up with this sort of demeaning, personalized ******** from two other people on this forum who think that discussing music means diagnosing other people's intellectual and psychological deficiencies.


People in glass houses...


----------



## hpowders

eugeneonagain said:


> *People in glass houses.*..


You can say THAT again!!!


----------



## mmsbls

This thread contains a lot of interesting discussion. The fact that the focus has shifted from polarizing composers to atonal music is certainly fine. But, please, refrain from negative comments directly or indirectly towards other members.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'd say John Cage has to be the most polarizing composer, just in terms of his compositions. The "Variations IV" and those pieces are mixes of various sound sources, and many would question whether this is "music" at all; but that's the point.

The following piece is played by David Tudor, with a contact microphone scraped on the strings of a piano. Pretty provocative.


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> I'd say John Cage has to be the most polarizing composer, just in terms of his compositions. The "Variations IV" and those pieces are mixes of various sound sources, and many would question whether this is "music" at all; but that's the point.


Just about everyone here has heard or is familiar with 4'33", but I wonder how many TC members have listened to a range of Cage works from the beautiful _In a Landscape_ and _Quartets_, to the compelling _Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano_, and on to those works many might not consider "real" music. Still he may be the most polarizing.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> Just about everyone here has heard or is familiar with 4'33", but I wonder how many TC members have listened to a range of Cage works from the beautiful _In a Landscape_ and _Quartets_, to the compelling _Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano_, and on to those works many might not consider "real" music. Still he may be the most polarizing.


He might be disappointed if he were to lose the title to someone else.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> I'd say John Cage has to be the most polarizing composer, just in terms of his compositions. The "Variations IV" and those pieces are mixes of various sound sources, and many would question whether this is "music" at all; but that's the point.
> 
> The following piece is played by David Tudor, with a contact microphone scraped on the strings of a piano. Pretty provocative.


So what is a classical music listener to make of this 'work'? Do you defend this as a valuable addition to contemporary music or is it actually representative of a creation that reinforces a negative view of same? My guess is that those who view music as just sound with no restrictions would see this product of Cage as having credibility.

Personally, I find this kind of thing offensive and it is not the only example out there of random dings, bangs, plinks and scratches that are included under the umbrella of classical music. It isn't music. It's effluent resulting from the premise that started in the 20th century that any random sound is music/art and that the creator is an artist. (And I'm not referring to Schoenberg.)

I believe there is some contemporary music has real value, but I would hope that everyone who wants to see classical music survive and grow its audience would separate the above out and call it what it is: #%*+<~#%.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Personally, I find this kind of thing offensive and it is not the only example out there of random dings, bangs, plinks and scratches that are included under the umbrella of classical music.


I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, but I'm curious as to why you consider this offensive. I can understand many not viewing this as music, and I assume that a very small percentage of classical music listeners would enjoy this work. Personally, I don't enjoy it.

I assume the work itself is not offensive unless you mean offensive as unpleasant, but I assume you mean something different. Anyway, could you explain what is offensive?


----------



## Agamemnon

I agree that Cage should win the title (in the way that he must be the most _controversial _composer). What he does is actually identical to what modern visual artists do: e.g. the use of chance in Jackson Pollock (randomly dripping paint on a canvas) and reflecting on what art - music - is (if I buy a can of soup in the supermarket and then put it in a museum: has then that can of soup art become art?). For some reason people have more difficulty with music as art than with painting as art: people tend to be more conservative when it comes to music (perhaps people insist you can sing along with the music so it shouldn't be just a sound collage).


----------



## Art Rock

Agamemnon said:


> Jackson Pollock (randomly dripping paint on a canvas)


Not random. He continued until he was satisfied with the result and analyses of the paintings show the patterns to be far from random (link).


----------



## Agamemnon

Art Rock said:


> Not random. He continued until he was satisfied with the result and analyses of the paintings show the patterns to be far from random (link).


I knew this response was coming.  Of course you are right: it is some kind of controlled chance as the artist reacts on what he produces so he guides the process. At the same time Pollock stressed it was in a way not controlled but a subconscious automatism (while painting he became one with the painting one could say). Anyway, there is some chance involved as he did not know beforehand where each drop would fall... Anyway, perhaps Pollock is not the best example of chance in art. But at least the Dada movement surely meant to use chance in the arts.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I wonder how many people bought that Cage Variations in 1961 and took it back to the shop because they thought it was damaged?


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I wonder how many people bought that Cage Variations in 1961 and took it back to the shop because they thought it was damaged?


I've still got my LP copy.

Interestingly, I read that the album with the largest return history was RCA's release of Lou Reed's 2-LP Metal Machine Music. Here's what it sounds like:


----------



## eugeneonagain

_This video is not available_ Even after all those returns!

I know it anyway. I don't particularly like Lou Reed's music.


----------



## Nereffid

DaveM said:


> I believe there is some contemporary music has real value, but I would hope that everyone who wants to see classical music survive and grow its audience would separate the above out and call it what it is: #%*+<~#%.


But who thinks it's actually representative of 20th century/modern/contemporary music? Cage of course has had a huge influence, but the vast majority of today's classical music doesn't sound like _Variation II_. Classical is surviving quite nicely, not feeling obliged to sound anything like Cage's experiments, but not ashamed of them either.


----------



## Strange Magic

This excerpt is from that Jackson Pollock link:

"Mathematicians claim that fractals are the reason so many people find Pollock’s work so aesthetically pleasing. They claim that a fractal pattern, whether in a Jackson Pollock drip painting or in nature, is subconsciously pleasing to the eye. Researchers studying Jackson Pollock drip paintings are mystified and delighted at the fact that fractals are present in his work, as he was employing it decades before Benoit Mandelbrot came up with the concept in 1975 while studying fluctuations in the cotton market. It is further claimed that artists of all media, whether it is painting, literature, or music, instinctively employ fractal patterns found in nature when they create. Studies indicate that people prefer recurring patterns that are neither too random nor too regular. Of particular interest is the possibility that humanity’s preoccupation with fractals may be linked to survival more than aesthetics. On an African savannah, by tuning into fractal dimensions, people could tell if the tall grass was being ruffled simply by the wind or by a predator."

99% of the above is sheer hooey, and demonstrates just what one can assert with a straight face on the Internet with every assurance that some will believe it. The 1% that isn't claptrap is the statement that people prefer recurring patterns that are neither too random nor too regular. That is why the passage of enough time will winnow out the works of Pollock and Cage that fall into the "too random" category; as it is, only a very small (percentage-wise) group currently appreciates such works--that actually is a fact. Fractals are and have been a current craze, "explaining" many things in much the same way as Deepak Chopra uses quantum physics to "explain" the Meaning Of It All, much to the wonder and chagrin of physicists specializing in quantum theory. Fractal mathematics and chaos theory are perfectly legitimate fields of inquiry; it's when they are seized up by enthusiasts as evidence for pet theories of aesthetics or of "metaphysics" that they become ill-used and suspect.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> Just about everyone here has heard or is familiar with 4'33", but I wonder how many TC members have listened to a range of Cage works from the beautiful _In a Landscape_ and _Quartets_, to the compelling _Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano_, and on to those works many might not consider "real" music. Still he may be the most polarizing.


I especially like his String Quartet in Four Parts. But I respectfully disagree that just about everyone here has heard 4'33". And the longer this thread continues, the more I'm convinced that my idea of a separate forum for 4'33" jokes is a good one.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> I especially like his String Quartet in Four Parts. But I respectfully disagree that just about everyone here has heard 4'33". And the longer this thread continues, the more I'm convinced that my idea of a separate forum for 4'33" jokes is a good one.


I agree that it's not true that just about everyone here has heard 4'33", but I still think just about everyone has either heard it or is familiar with the work (i.e. knows what it is).


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> I agree that it's not true that just about everyone here has heard 4'33"...


I can pretty well guarantee that _nobody _here has heard 4'33".


----------



## David OByrne

John Cage is only polarizing to boring old people and kids that only listen to pop music


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> I'd say John Cage has to be the most polarizing composer, just in terms of his compositions. The "Variations IV" and those pieces are mixes of various sound sources, and many would question whether this is "music" at all; but that's the point.
> 
> The following piece is played by David Tudor, with a contact microphone scraped on the strings of a piano. Pretty provocative.


Here is the concept behind this piece of "music"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_(Cage)

Another example of indeterminate music, this one is one of the more strange sounding ones, even for Cage. I also find it offensive as well to see this as in the same category of music as Mozart or Beethoven. But putting aside serious considerations, going with the flow and playing along, I can accept it as music as fitting a certain defintion. But if someone wants to go artsy fartsy on me, and claim it is a masterpiece, I wouldn't bother arguing.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, but I'm curious as to why you consider this offensive. I can understand many not viewing this as music, and I assume that a very small percentage of classical music listeners would enjoy this work. Personally, I don't enjoy it.
> 
> I assume the work itself is not offensive unless you mean offensive as unpleasant, but I assume you mean something different. Anyway, could you explain what is offensive?


I mean 'offensive' on a number of levels. It is offensive to the ear and it is an embarrassment when it is included under the heading of classical music. I have always been proud of classical music as being an example of music of the highest order with the heritage of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, in short, music with class. As you know, I am not a fan of atonal music, but I have no problem having it defined under the moniker of classical music. It has enough followers among professional artists and experienced listeners in general to deserve being included.

But ridiculous 'stuff' in the category of this Cage 'piece' should be excluded as in the classification of classical music. In what other category of music would listeners accept its inclusion? The fact that there are a handful of people who might actually listen to 'works' such as this does not give it credibility. For reasons unknown, there are always a few who resided on the fringes of the outlier belt.

Finally, this 'work' is offensive in that it is playing us for fools. It appears to be an exercise in seeing what the lowest common denominator is that people will stoop to to call something music/art. And no, I don't accept that Cage is simply experimenting with various combinations of sound as yet another category of classical music. I already have trouble swallowing the fact that 4'33" is actually sold as a track on iTunes.


----------



## fluteman

KenOC said:


> I can pretty well guarantee that _nobody _here has heard 4'33".


Gosh, was my joke so subtle that only you got it? You see, that proves we need a 4'33" jokes forum to avoid such misunderstandings.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> I mean 'offensive' on a number of levels. It is offensive to the ear and it is an embarrassment when it is included under the heading of classical music. I have always been proud of classical music as being an example of music of the highest order with the heritage of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, in short, music with class. As you know, I am not a fan of atonal music, but I have no problem having it defined under the moniker of classical music. It has enough followers among professional artists and experienced listeners in general to deserve being included.
> 
> But ridiculous 'stuff' in the category of this Cage 'piece' should be excluded as in the classification of classical music. In what other category of music would listeners accept its inclusion? The fact that there are a handful of people who might actually listen to 'works' such as this does not give it credibility. For reasons unknown, there are always a few who resided on the fringes of the outlier belt.
> 
> Finally, this 'work' is offensive in that it is playing us for fools. It appears to be an exercise in seeing what the lowest common denominator is that people will stoop to to call something music/art. And no, I don't accept that Cage is simply experimenting with various combinations of sound as yet another category of classical music. I already have trouble swallowing the fact that 4'33" is actually sold as a track on iTunes.


Well, a strong emotional reaction, even a negative one, is the hallmark of a successful work of art. Especially for works created 50 or even 100 years ago, after which time unsuccessful works have usually been forgotten, and certainly aren't the subject of thousands of internet posts. As others here have said, Cage himself likely anticipated such negative reactions, though no doubt that was not the only kind of reaction he was looking for.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Well, a strong emotional reaction, even a negative one, is the hallmark of a successful work of art.


Perhaps that's the belief system of those who are ready to call any creation, however incompetent, art. For me the strong emotional reaction of disgust is not an indicator of a successful work of art.


----------



## David OByrne

DaveM said:


> It appears to be an exercise in seeing what the lowest common denominator is that people will stoop to to call something music/art.


You've just lost your credibility, music/art are both not terms that mean anything other than a description of what they are. If you think Cage is ****, then you think he's **** but it is and will always be music, don't kid yourself


----------



## David OByrne

DaveM said:


> Perhaps that's the belief system of those who are ready to call any creation, however incompetent, art.


Art, IS creating things :lol:


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

True, the only piece he ever composed (to my knowledge) that actually challenges what art/music is, is predictably 4'33



Daniel


----------



## eugeneonagain

I don't know all that much about Cage, but it's clear he's as much a conceptual artist as a 'composer'.


----------



## DaveM

David OByrne said:


> You've just lost your credibility, music/art are both not terms that mean anything other than a description of what they are.


You actually talk about someone else's credibility and follow it with a meaningless circular sentence as a definition? Here are a couple of definitions of art from sources other than pulled from thin air:

'the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination...producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.'

' The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.'


----------



## David OByrne

DaveM said:


> You actually talk about someone else's credibility and follow it with a meaningless circular sentence as a definition? Here are a couple of definitions of art from sources other than pulled from thin air:
> 
> 'the expression or application of human creative *skill* and imagination...producing works to be *appreciated* primarily for their *beauty *or *emotional* power.'
> 
> ' The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as *beautiful*, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.'


Hey, I can't give you the most academic description but you've pulled way too much subjectivity into that.

Whether you like something or hate something, it will still be music. Tastes have no influence over that.


----------



## David OByrne

If music has to be objectively perceived as "beautiful", than there both: is not much music in existence, and most music is un-interesting


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> You actually talk about someone else's credibility and follow it with a meaningless circular sentence as a definition? Here are a couple of definitions of art from sources other than pulled from thin air:
> 
> 'the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination...producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.'
> 
> ' The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.'


As much as I want to agree with your conclusion of those definitions, I really can't. I also say this as someone who performs a 'craft-based' job every day; one with a tradition going back hundreds of years and virtually unchanged. And I can get a bee in my bonnet about what is and is not art/craft, but I usually stop myself after a good think and prevent myself from going all narrow-minded.

The use of 'beauty' in those definitions is going to cause problems. I think it would be pretty difficult to argue that a play like e.g. Shelagh Delaney's _A Taste of Honey_ is both beautiful (in the sense you are implying) and also not a work of art. It _is_ beautiful in it's way and a work of art, though not 'pretty'. I think if people start defining things aesthetically and projecting taste onto things calling themselves art in an attempt to make a yes/no judgement, it's likely to start getting a bit tangled.

Those definitions also reference 'emotional power'. It's pretty vague though. So much can generate emotionally powerful responses (not least indignation).


----------



## DaveM

David OByrne said:


> Hey, I can't give you the most academic description but you've pulled way too much subjectivity into that.
> 
> Whether you like something or hate something, it will still be music. Tastes have no influence over that.


a. They aren't my definitions; they are from objective sources.
b. It's not a question of taste; it's a question of rational judgement and common sense.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Perhaps that's the belief system of those who are ready to call any creation, however incompetent, art. For me the strong emotional reaction of disgust is not an indicator of a successful work of art.


Artistic incompetence is usually ignored or forgotten. It doesn't provoke anger, certainly not 50 or 100 years later. I suppose an artist would typically want to provoke more than just anger. But anger is useful if it makes one think about one's belief system, as it has in your case. Actually, I believe that is a primary purpose of art, to make one confirm or re-evaluate, but in any case, think about one's belief system and fundamental values. It's no accident despots invariably try to suppress and censor art, including modern abstract music and art in the case of Adolph Hitler, some of whose critiques are eerily similar to yours and those of some others here. For example: "works of art which cannot be understood in themselves but need some pretentious instruction book to justify their existence will never again find their way to the German people."


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> As much as I want to agree with your conclusion of those definitions, I really can't. I also say this as someone who performs a 'craft-based' job every day; one with a tradition going back hundreds of years and virtually unchanged. And I can get a bee in my bonnet about what is and is not art/craft, but I usually stop myself after a good think and prevent myself from going all narrow-minded.
> 
> The use of 'beauty' in those definitions is going to cause problems. I think it would be pretty difficult to argue that a play like e.g. Shelagh Delaney's _A Taste of Honey_ is both beautiful (in the sense you are implying) and also not a work of art. It _is_ beautiful in it's way and a work of art, though not 'pretty'. I think if people start defining things aesthetically and projecting taste onto things calling themselves art in an attempt to make a yes/no judgement, it's likely to start getting a bit tangled.
> 
> Those definitions also reference 'emotional power'. It's pretty vague though. So much can generate emotionally powerful responses (not least indignation).


It's interesting to me that you focus on the term '_beautiful_' in the definition because it fits your narrative while at the same time essentially dismissing or diminishing the '_emotional power_' part because it doesn't.

The following statement is a distinction without a difference: _"It is beautiful in it's way and a work of art, though not 'pretty'."_


----------



## eugeneonagain

Oh no...someone has been compared to Hitler. All hell will now break loose.


----------



## David OByrne

DaveM said:


> a. They aren't my definitions; they are from *objective* sources.
> b. It's *not a question of taste*; it's a question of rational judgement and common sense.


a. Those aren't objective answers, they say very little about what actually constitutes "music".

b. But it is for you, as you are letting your experience and feelings of the Cage piece, override it's very description: music.

You should know by now (assuming you're an adult), that you can accept you dislike something without completely denying it of it's very existence (music)


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Artistic incompetence is usually ignored or forgotten. It doesn't provoke anger, certainly not 50 or 100 years later. I suppose an artist would typically want to provoke more than just anger. But anger is useful if it makes one think about one's belief system, as it has in your case. Actually, I believe that is a primary purpose of art, to make one confirm or re-evaluate, but in any case, think about one's belief system and fundamental values. It's no accident despots invariably try to suppress and censor art, including modern abstract music and art in the case of Adolph Hitler, some of whose critiques are eerily similar to yours and those of some others here. For example: "works of art which cannot be understood in themselves but need some pretentious instruction book to justify their experience istence will never again find their way to the German people."


Oh, for heavens sakes, this is a classical music forum, not wartime or post-wartime Europe.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

DaveM said:


> while at the same time essentially dismissing or diminishing the '_emotional power_' part because it doesn't.[/I]


"Emotional power" and "beautiful" are a different correlation that relates directly to the perception of the listener, it's not a solidified trait permanently concealed in the music

Daniel


----------



## Bettina

eugeneonagain said:


> *Oh no...someone has been compared to Hitler*. All hell will now break loose.


It's the inevitable fate of every internet discussion. See the Wikipedia article on Godwin's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> It's interesting to me that you focus on the term '_beautiful_' in the definition because it fits your narrative while at the same time essentially dismissing or diminishing the '_emotional power_' part because it doesn't.
> 
> The following statement is a distinction without a difference: _"It is beautiful in it's way and a work of art, though not 'pretty'."_


I don't have a narrative old sport. I don't dismiss emotional power either. I distinctly said that so much can generate emotionally powerful feelings, more than just beauty or 'artistic competence'.

When I said that play is beautiful in it's way, I mean that although the subject matter is a bit depressing and it awakens some people to things that aren't really beautiful in life, there is still a sort of tragic beauty in the way it is presented.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Bettina said:


> It's the inevitable fate of every internet discussion. See the Wikipedia article on Godwin's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


On another forum I was accused of invoking this law 'in principle' and I hadn't even compared anyone to Hitler.


----------



## DaveM

David OByrne said:


> ...(assuming you're an adult)


Stooping that low raises the question of your age.


----------



## Blancrocher

Bettina said:


> It's the inevitable fate of every internet discussion. See the Wikipedia article on Godwin's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


There should be an extra section on that page about how every thread on a music forum will inevitably eventuate in a 4'33'' joke.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Blancrocher said:


> There should be an extra section on that page about how every thread on a music forum will inevitably eventuate in a 4'33'' joke.


You should claim this phenomenon and call it Blancrocher's Law. Might even get a Wikipedia entry...


----------



## David OByrne

DaveM said:


> Stooping that low raises the question of your age.


I'm 26 and not an academic (are you going to be ageist and derogatory about that too?). I have a great deal of acceptance for music I dislike (or even hate), I never deny it of it's most basic description: music

"Music" is not a badge of honor, it's far removed from whether it pleases, discomforts, inspires or angers you.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I mean 'offensive' on a number of levels. It is offensive to the ear and it is an embarrassment when it is included under the heading of classical music. I have always been proud of classical music as being an example of music of the highest order with the heritage of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, in short, music with class. As you know, I am not a fan of atonal music, but I have no problem having it defined under the moniker of classical music. It has enough followers among professional artists and experienced listeners in general to deserve being included.
> 
> But ridiculous 'stuff' in the category of this Cage 'piece' should be excluded as in the classification of classical music. In what other category of music would listeners accept its inclusion? The fact that there are a handful of people who might actually listen to 'works' such as this does not give it credibility. For reasons unknown, there are always a few who resided on the fringes of the outlier belt.
> 
> Finally, this 'work' is offensive in that it is playing us for fools. It appears to be an exercise in seeing what the lowest common denominator is that people will stoop to to call something music/art. And no, I don't accept that Cage is simply experimenting with various combinations of sound as yet another category of classical music. I already have trouble swallowing the fact that 4'33" is actually sold as a track on iTunes.


Thanks for the reply. I don't agree with everything you said (especially the part about Cage playing anyone for a fool), but I think a reasonable argument could be made for placing _some_ of Cage's works in a different category (i.e. not classical music).


----------



## DaveM

David OByrne said:


> You should know by now (*assuming you're an adult*), that you can accept you dislike something without completely denying it of it's very existence (music)





DaveM said:


> (In reference to 'assuming you're an adult): Stooping that low raises the question of your age.





David OByrne said:


> I'm 26 and not an academic (*are you going to be ageist and derogatory about that too?)*.


Absolutely incredible.


----------



## David OByrne

DaveM said:


> Absolutely incredible.


So you're going to stoop to personal attacks rather than what constitutes music?

I said "assuming you're an adult" because, I assume it is something that a grown adult can recognize; that their opinions are just opinions


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> Oh no...someone has been compared to Hitler. All hell will now break loose.


Most definitely not. Please do not misinterpret my post in that way. The motives of Hitler, Stalin, or any other such ruler behind their artistic criticism has absolutely nothing to do with anyone here. In the case of Hitler, who knew plenty about music and painting, at least for an amateur, the motive for his artistic criticism was cynical and manipulative propagandizing. I was only drawing a parallel to a long-discredited program of art criticism, and making no political point whatsoever.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.


----------



## eugeneonagain

fluteman said:


> Most definitely not. Please do not misinterpret my post in that way. The motives of Hitler, Stalin, or any other such ruler behind their artistic criticism has absolutely nothing to do with anyone here. In the case of Hitler, who knew plenty about music and painting, at least for an amateur, the motive for his artistic criticism was cynical and manipulative propagandizing. I was only drawing a parallel to a long-discredited program of art criticism, and making no political point whatsoever.
> Sorry for any misunderstanding.


It was only a bit of fun. I don't for a moment think you were actually making a moral comparison!

I'll tell you one thing that annoys me about the critique of Hitler's paintings though. The critics always choose the ones with either no, or very few, people in them or the most muted ones, to make the case for him being a 'cold' and soulless painter. Honestly I've seen some that I rather like and if no-one knew the artist they would likely say they were good.

This is off topic though.


----------



## bz3

I like Hitler's paintings too - more than I do Boulez's music at least. I'd put them about equal in the humanitarian department, maybe the edge to Boulez for killing a few million less but he did say some really mean things about classical music.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

bz3 said:


> maybe the edge to Boulez for killing a few million less but he did say some really mean things about classical music.


Do share this wonderful news to everyone, he really killed it didn't he? now classical music has no future because some Debussy-obsessed serialist composed 40 pieces

Daniel


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> This excerpt is from that Jackson Pollock link:
> 
> "Mathematicians claim that fractals are the reason so many people find Pollock's work so aesthetically pleasing. They claim that a fractal pattern, whether in a Jackson Pollock drip painting or in nature, is subconsciously pleasing to the eye. Researchers studying Jackson Pollock drip paintings are mystified and delighted at the fact that fractals are present in his work, as he was employing it decades before Benoit Mandelbrot came up with the concept in 1975 while studying fluctuations in the cotton market. It is further claimed that artists of all media, whether it is painting, literature, or music, instinctively employ fractal patterns found in nature when they create. Studies indicate that people prefer recurring patterns that are neither too random nor too regular. Of particular interest is the possibility that humanity's preoccupation with fractals may be linked to survival more than aesthetics. On an African savannah, by tuning into fractal dimensions, people could tell if the tall grass was being ruffled simply by the wind or by a predator."
> 
> 99% of the above is sheer hooey, and demonstrates just what one can assert with a straight face on the Internet with every assurance that some will believe it. The 1% that isn't claptrap is the statement that people prefer recurring patterns that are neither too random nor too regular. That is why the passage of enough time will winnow out the works of Pollock and Cage that fall into the "too random" category; as it is, only a very small (percentage-wise) group currently appreciates such works--that actually is a fact. Fractals are and have been a current craze, "explaining" many things in much the same way as Deepak Chopra uses quantum physics to "explain" the Meaning Of It All, much to the wonder and chagrin of physicists specializing in quantum theory. Fractal mathematics and chaos theory are perfectly legitimate fields of inquiry; it's when they are seized up by enthusiasts as evidence for pet theories of aesthetics or of "metaphysics" that they become ill-used and suspect.


I've looked at reproductions of most of Pollock's work in books, and I perceive a definite intelligence and aesthetic at work. Plus, I see a significance in his work which relates to the human experience.

"In zen it is said: if something bores you for two minutes, try doing it for four minutes. If it still bores you, do it for eight, sixteen, thirty-two minutes and more. Maybe you won't find it boring any more, but interesting...Boredom is born if we arouse it! When the ego withdraws, also boredom disappears." (John Cage)


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> I can pretty well guarantee that _nobody _here has heard 4'33".


That's a conceptual blunder. 4'33" consists of the sounds we experience during that time. You seem to be looking at it as an object of some sort, although "empty," and this is incorrect. The experience is totally subjective, and has nothing to do with any sort of objectively composed object.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> That's a conceptual blunder. 4'33" consists of the sounds we experience during that time. You seem to be looking at it as an object of some sort, although "empty," and this is incorrect. The experience is totally subjective, and has nothing to do with any sort of objectively composed object.


I get the the point of 4:33, but it's always going to cause problems because people expect sounds from something from a composer presented in the format of a musical work. Had it come from a conceptual artist not self-identifying as a composer I think the reaction would be similar (from the same people who don't like the idea), but the scorn would be of a different kind, it would be easier to dismiss or trivialise.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I've looked at reproductions of most of Pollock's work in books, and I perceive a definite intelligence and aesthetic at work. *Plus, I see a significance in his work which relates to the human experience*.


You have to admit that this sounds a bit pretentious though.

The idea that many things appear boring because one fails to focus long enough to perceive their charms, which are probably less surface and apparent, and then think about them is likely true. However, life is a bit too short to do this with everything.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> I've looked at reproductions of most of Pollock's work in books, and I perceive a definite intelligence and aesthetic at work. Plus, I see a significance in his work which relates to the human experience.
> 
> "In zen it is said: if something bores you for two minutes, try doing it for four minutes. If it still bores you, do it for eight, sixteen, thirty-two minutes and more. Maybe you won't find it boring any more, but interesting...Boredom is born if we arouse it! When the ego withdraws, also boredom disappears." (John Cage)


We are living in a Golden Age of insights such as these!


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> That's a conceptual blunder. 4'33" consists of the sounds we experience during that time. You seem to be looking at it as an object of some sort, although "empty," and this is incorrect. The experience is totally subjective, and has nothing to do with any sort of objectively composed object.


Yes, but I was only making a joke. I repeat, a joke. I was taught that there are three fundamentally important traits one can have, and one of them is a sense of humor.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Oh, for heavens sakes, this is a classical music forum, not wartime or post-wartime Europe.


Just to be clear, DaveM, I wasn't comparing you or anyone here to sadistic dictators or genocidal murderers. I was just citing an example of what most people would now acknowledge was a very disingenuous piece of art criticism. I actually own a painting by an artist whose work was banned and confiscated by the Nazis, and who was actually imprisoned by them. His work is pretty tame and conservative by today's standards.


----------



## bz3

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Do share this wonderful news to everyone, he really killed it didn't he? now classical music has no future because some Debussy-obsessed serialist composed 40 pieces
> 
> Daniel


Pretty sure you misread what I wrote.


----------



## Blancrocher

fluteman said:


> Yes, but I was only making a joke. I repeat, a joke. I was taught that there are three fundamentally important traits one can have, and one of them is a sense of humor.


My philosophy regarding Cage jokes: if a joke doesn't work the first time, try repeating it. If it still fails, say it three times, four, perhaps thirty-three times, or even more. Maybe nobody will laugh, but they may at last find it interesting.


----------



## ArtMusic

hpowders said:


> Yes. I agree. The music is terrific, if *that was the only thing we could concentrate on and leave the man and his times out of it.*
> 
> I attended several Rings at the Met and the music is incomparable.


Pure and simple (blue).


----------



## Gradeaundera

Being a fan of Mozart must be really socially polarizing because people will assume (and still believe) you are gay, even if you are not, aye matey?


----------



## hpowders

Gradeaundera said:


> *Being a fan of Mozar*t must be really socially polarizing because *people will assume* (and still believe) *you are gay,* even if you are not, aye matey?


I have no idea where you came up with THAT!!

And who really cares whether a music lover is gay or straight, or for that matter, what other people think, aye, matey???


----------



## Gradeaundera

I am a gay man, Hpowdwers


----------



## fluteman

Gradeaundera said:


> Being a fan of Mozart must be really socially polarizing because people will assume (and still believe) you are gay, even if you are not, aye matey?


Really? I've never heard that one before. Opera, maybe. Classical music in general, maybe. Judy Garland, maybe. Barbra Streisand, maybe. But I've always thought those stereotypes were inane. There have been gay players in the NFL and NBA. C'mon.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

bz3 said:


> Pretty sure you misread what I wrote.


Spare the Boulez bashing, he did more good than bad. As a conductor alone, he ensured the longevity of quite a lot of works and kept modern music living though one of the toughest cultural changes in history (after world war two, rise of popular music, rock etc.) If you're going to bash him because he "said some mean words", please spare us your negativity?

Daniel


----------



## Pugg

Gradeaundera said:


> I am a gay man, Hpowdwers


I am sure no-one will loses any sleep over this Gradeaundera.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I am choosing this platform to confess that I am not gay.

I feel a weight has been lifted from my shoulders.


----------



## Phil loves classical

eugeneonagain said:


> I am choosing this platform to confess that I am not gay.
> 
> I feel a weight has been lifted from my shoulders.


Good for you, that really took courage.


----------



## nature

millionrainbows said:


> I've looked at reproductions of most of Pollock's work in books, and I perceive a definite intelligence and aesthetic at work. *Plus, I see a significance in his work which relates to the human experience.*
> 
> "In zen it is said: if something bores you for two minutes, try doing it for four minutes. If it still bores you, do it for eight, sixteen, thirty-two minutes and more. Maybe you won't find it boring any more, but interesting...Boredom is born if we arouse it! When the ego withdraws, also boredom disappears." (John Cage)


That is solely your interpretation you've placed onto his paintings. I've seen them in person at the NGA. There is the novel aesthetic of large large canvases with splats and specks of color creating many different (and sometimes visually appealing) textures. But I tend to roll my eyes whenever someone tries to apply greater meaning onto abstract splats of paint. Mostly pseudo-intelligent marketing language that people began to believe.


----------



## fluteman

nature said:


> That is solely your interpretation you've placed onto his paintings.


No kidding. How else can one look at art other than in the context of one's own interpretation? Should we look the way we're told to look in some instruction book? You have your own interpretation of Pollock's work (which I have also seen in person many times, by the way), but there is a very big difference between your and million rainbows' comments, and it isn't that his opinion is more or less right than yours. He isn't just saying he likes or dislikes Pollack's dot paintings, he's trying to explain why they are meaningful or significant to him. That makes his comment at least potentially interesting, whether one agrees with it or not. You, on the other hand, and many others here, simply say over and over that abstract art like Pollack's is meaningless, usually in a condescending or even hostile way. Yes, I'm sure many feel that way, but of what possible value to anyone are such comments?

My own feeling about the dot paintings is that they force the eye and mind away from what has long been a fundamental idea in western art, especially the rectangular painted canvas: the focal point. Pollock won't let the eye settle on a focal point, but rather disperses one's attention as widely as possible. It's no accident that these dot paintings are usually so large. Seen close up and in person, the effect can be frustrating or even disturbing. But if one looks long enough, the eyes can relax and even enjoy the brilliant colors. I'm not the biggest Pollock fan, but I do think he is showing us something about the act of perception, very much as millionrainbows says. Ed.: And in this context Pollock is also building on an existing tradition that can be seen in Monet's Water Lilies studies and the pointillist Seurat.


----------



## nature

fluteman said:


> No kidding. How else can one look at art other than in the context of one's own interpretation? Should we look the way we're told to look in some instruction book? You have your own interpretation of Pollock's work (which I have also seen in person many times, by the way), but there is a very big difference between your and million rainbows' comments, and it isn't that his opinion is more or less right than yours. He isn't just saying he likes or dislikes Pollack's dot paintings, he's trying to explain why they are meaningful or significant to him. That makes his comment at least potentially interesting, whether one agrees with it or not. You, on the other hand, and many others here, simply say over and over that abstract art like Pollack's is meaningless, usually in a condescending or even hostile way. Yes, I'm sure many feel that way, but of what possible value to anyone are such comments?
> 
> My own feeling about the dot paintings is that they force the eye and mind away from what has long been a fundamental idea in western art, especially the rectangular painted canvas: the focal point. Pollock won't let the eye settle on a focal point, but rather disperses one's attention as widely as possible. It's no accident that these dot paintings are usually so large. Seen close up and in person, the effect can be frustrating or even disturbing. But if one looks long enough, the eyes can relax and even enjoy the brilliant colors. I'm not the biggest Pollock fan, but I do think he is showing us something about the act of perception, very much as millionrainbows says.


Well for one, I never said that Pollock's paintings were meaningless. I have admitted that they are pretty neat to look at for what they are. But my main issue with abstract art is that from the beginning they were always marketed by pretentious nonsense, to make them seem more important than what is self-evident through the pictures themselves.

There is something to be said about the novel painting techniques, and the sort of chaos and randomness in the pictures they create, but what actual symbolism or representation is there to be found? Just pure abstraction. Such that any claims of them being some sort of profound philosophical message being an objective quality of the work just seems disingenuous. If the paintings themselves make him feel that way, that's great. But my main criticism of modern (and now contemporary) art is that now the importance seems to be on vapid Artspeak that accompanies it rather than the art itself.

I also feel this way about a lot of contemporary atonal music - the importance is more on the concept behind the art rather than whether the music is pleasurable to hear.


----------



## arpeggio

It appears to me that the bigger problem is the polarizing consumer who believe that we should only listen to certain types of music.


----------



## JAS

arpeggio said:


> It appears to me that the bigger problem is the polarizing consumer who believe that we should only listen to certain types of music.


I have read through the entire thread without seeing a single post that would support this idea. I regularly see posts, and have made my fair share, in which it is questioned _why_ someone would want to listen to certain forms of music (but never stating that no one _should_ listen to such forms). I also regularly see posts that say that those who prefer more traditional forms of classical music (myself included) _should_ or even _need_ to give more modern forms "a chance" (as if we have not done so), or are just being "musically lazy" or "anti-intellectual" in not actively following or supporting such music. (Even there, it has not generally been suggested that no one should listen to more traditional forms, although there is often a sneer if we do so, and any composer writing today in more traditional forms is usually written off as a pastiche composer or an undesirable throwback.) There is an imbalanced scale here, and it only tips one way.


----------



## arpeggio

JAS said:


> I have read through the entire thread without seeing a single post that would support this idea.


Good. I was hoping that I was not repeating an idea.

And I want to clarify something that many of us have been saying for years. I have stated this many times myself. I can understand if a person dislikes a composer a particular work. What I do not understand is this obsession that some have to constantly attack modern music that they abhor. I have been reading this nonsense for years. Do I have to waste my precious time rummaging through 10,000 post to find examples of these encounters?

Here is just one quote from another forum: "I am now requesting a list of home addresses from those who enjoy modern music. Our work in scouring this filth from the Earth has only just begun! Please comply in order to make the process easier and more enjoyable for everyone."

This may appear to be a joke but this person was dead serious.

I can mention one post from former member of TC: http://www.talkclassical.com/11989-what-your-purpose-coming.html?highlight=attack#post135076

Anyone who dares try to defend there love of contemporary music gets accuse of being all sorts of thinks like being elitist or overly sensitive or intellectual cowards or they get fired from being a moderator.

One has to be very careful about confronting some of the more opinionated members here. The last time I aggressively confronted someone about their animas I was given a warning and put on probation.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

arpeggio said:


> Good. I was hoping that I was not repeating an idea.
> 
> And I want to clarify something that many of us have been saying for years. I have stated this many times myself. I can understand if a person dislikes a composer a particular work. What I do not understand is this obsession that some have to constantly attack modern music that they abhor. I have been reading this nonsense for years. Do I have to waste my precious time rummaging through 10,000 post to find examples of these encounters?
> 
> Here is just one quote from another forum: "I am now requesting a list of home addresses from those who enjoy modern music. Our work in scouring this filth from the Earth has only just begun! Please comply in order to make the process easier and more enjoyable for everyone."
> 
> This may appear to be a joke but this person was dead serious.
> 
> I can mention one post from former member of TC: http://www.talkclassical.com/11989-what-your-purpose-coming.html?highlight=attack#post135076
> 
> Anyone who dares try to defend there love of contemporary music gets accuse of being all sorts of thinks like being elitist or overly sensitive or intellectual cowards or they get fired from being a moderator.
> 
> One has to be very careful about confronting some of the more opinionated members here. The last time I aggressively confronted someone about their animas I was given a warning and put on probation.


You also have another member writing if you do not like modern music you are lazy or you listen to music stupidly or Americans are stupid.


----------



## JAS

Johnnie Burgess said:


> You also have another member writing if you do not like modern music you are lazy or you listen to music stupidly or Americans are stupid.


Which is itself silly and insulting, reflecting more on the person making the claim than on anyone against whom it is aimed (not to suggest that it isn't annoying, and demanding a response, which is often precisely the intent).

But it must be noted that such a claim is far less ominous than what Arpeggio has included in his post, something that he legitimately saw as an actual threat. I don't question his selection of this claim (although the link does not take me to it), although it is so extreme that I question whether or not it is made seriously. Even as a joke, it is in such poor taste that no one should have made it and no number of smiley emojis would have softened it. I consider it unacceptable, and I certainly would not defend it in any way.

As for the other questions in Arpeggio's post, I have some answers, if he really wants to hear (see) them, but I would like to give them a little more consideration. One thing I will note now is that I think these arguments have something in common with my parents when they argue (having been married for more than 60 years). Each argument is almost never just over the current thing, but an accumulation of every other argument they have ever had (which, as you can imagine, is quite a bit of baggage after so many years). People feel intensely about their music, on both sides (and also in the third group that actively seems to like both types of music). Perhaps if they did not feel intensely about it, they would not be posting at TC.


----------



## eugeneonagain

The music composed before the dreaded 'modern period' is all there for the taking and everyone can listen to it to their heart's content. For as long as they want to. In any case the "return to tonality" in art-music is something that has gradually been taking place over at least 30-40 years, to the point where composers can now go one way or the other and even combine the two approaches. There are examples of this all over the place. Being dismissed as a pastiche composer only really happens when someone just writes, say, another absolute carbon copy of a Handel Concerto Grosso or a typical Mozartian piece. The 19th century romantics wouldn't have done that or the 20th century neo-classicists. Everything that gets revived (as they do) has some sort of current spin on it.

There is a special problem in modern music in that the idea of 'music' is so bound up with an idea of the beautiful and sensuous (and of a certain kind of beauty and sensuousness) and instant comprehensibility that some listeners seem to have a hard time allowing anything else into that definition.
Yet music's development follows the same trajectory of all developments in the arts and in fact most human cultural activity. There generally comes a point when the existing structures and methods can no longer serve or contain the developing ideas and desires for expression. They either break down naturally or are are helped along. This is exactly what happened: strict tonality was slowly pushed beyond its means and then Schoenberg (and others) gave it a final push so that the barriers broke and it shattered.

Music didn't die. It gained a new dimension. From the "ruins" as-it-were, something else has risen that doesn't completely reject everything that went before and adds yet more means for expression. Lets call it musical homoeostasis.


----------



## Nereffid

arpeggio said:


> Anyone who dares try to defend there love of contemporary music gets accuse of being all sorts of thinks like being elitist or overly sensitive or intellectual cowards or they get fired from being a moderator.


_Anyone_???
There are currently two active threads on 21st-century music, and none of those things are going on there. Respect and enthusiasm are the order of the day. Why not get involved in these, it might erase some of the negativity you're feeling!


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> There is a special problem in modern music in that the idea of 'music' is so bound up with an idea of the beautiful and sensuous (and of a certain kind of beauty and sensuousness) and instant comprehensibility that some listeners seem to have a hard time allowing anything else into that definition.
> Yet music's development follows the same trajectory of all developments in the arts and in fact most human cultural activity. There generally comes a point when the existing structures and methods can no longer serve or contain the developing ideas and desires for expression. They either break down naturally or are are helped along. This is exactly what happened: strict tonality was slowly pushed beyond its means and then Schoenberg (and others) gave it a final push so that the barriers broke and it shattered.
> 
> Music didn't die. It gained a new dimension. From the "ruins" as-it-were, something else has risen that doesn't completely reject everything that went before and adds yet more means for expression. Lets call it musical homoeostasis.


I think that there's a lot of truth to that perspective and it's very well put. I understand the premise that after the 19th century, it should not be a surprise that classical music would change as it had a number of times over the previous several hundred years. I must admit that I can't come up with what should have been an alternative to atonal and other forms of contemporary music that replaced romantic-era works. However, I guess that I would have liked the replacement to involve beauty and sensuousness (using your words) as an important component.

You are correct that what developed, starting mainly with Schoenberg, was a breaking of the _perceived_ chains of the structure of _traditional_ classical music. It did gain a new dimension. However, it appears that since beauty and sensuousness was no longer a priority, that new dimension involves a construct of patterns and organized dissonance (my term ) that seems to be attractive to a relative few, but can potentially be accessible to others who both make an effort to appreciate it and/or subject themselves to repetitive listening until they 'get it'.

The problem (as I see it) is that the audience for much of the music of the 20th and 21st century is not large enough to grow interest in classical music or to even maintain a stable ongoing interest in it _without the dependence on pre-20th century music._ I don't have an answer to any of this, but I do have an unsettling feeling that classical music will never again reach its pre-20th century heights and will, increasingly, be just a relatively small niche for the indefinite future.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> However, I guess that I would have liked the replacement to involve beauty and sensuousness (using your words) as an important component..


That did happen. Listen to some Messiaen, some of the beauty may not be conventional, but Messiaen's the heir to Debussy and one of the most influential composers of the 20th century.

There's even beauty and sensuousness in some of the works of Cage and Stockhausen, but if that's what you're looking for Messiaen's probably your best bet.


----------



## Chronochromie

If Contemporary Classical is a small niche, like Classical is and has always has been in history, it doesn't matter to me, large or small niche, as long as people keep composing new music, performing and recording it I'll be alright with that.


----------



## Strange Magic

Chronochromie said:


> If Contemporary Classical is a small niche, like Classical is and has always has been in history, it doesn't matter to me, large or small niche, as long as people keep composing new music, performing and recording it I'll be alright with that.


All music, all art, is now niche music and art, and the situation will remain that way (constant small essentially random trends=The New Stasis) unless there is a revolutionary path--certainly not necessarily forward--imposed upon global society. We might all dread what that New Order would be like. I certainly prefer today's chaos(?) in the arts to its possible elimination.


----------



## JAS

It is no wonder that one side cannot understand the extent of the divide if the truly radical change in music is described merely as "adding a new dimension." The existence and advocacy of music under the "new rules" is an active, ongoing rejection of everything that came before. (I use "new rules" as a term somewhat awkwardly because, ironically, the only real rule seems to be to avoid following any of the rules that might be recognized from previous forms. The expressive distress claimed as the motivation for the revolution was felt only by a few, and they have greatly contributed to creating the cold, unfeeling, hostile world they claim to be reflecting.)

We are essentially separate entities, forced to share a space by circumstances, and at least one of the sides is particularly resentful of any perceived advantage of one over the other not in its own favor. It is a bit like being angry step-children who have nothing in common other than a single parent. The battle is emphasized by an increasing struggle for diminishing resources. I don't really begrudge anyone wishing to listen to Stockhausen or any of the other "new" composers, any more than I begrudge someone who wants to go to a Lady Gaga concert. Fortunately, I have yet to attend a classical concert with a piece by The Rolling Stones on the docket, but there is within the realm of classical music an obvious conflict that relies on a shared audience and venue, and pushes aside at least one item for what would otherwise be a pleasant evening of traditional music to make way for something new, strange, "challenging," and, to my ears, viscerally annoying. And the response to the complaint is that we are obligated to support modern music. I feel no such obligation.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> It is no wonder that one side cannot understand the extent of the divide if the truly radical change in music is described merely as "adding a new dimension." The existence and advocacy of music under the "new rules" is an active, ongoing rejection of everything that came before.


You might want to go back and read what I actually wrote because it's completely the opposite of what you claim above.



JAS said:


> (I use "new rules" as a term somewhat awkwardly because, ironically, the only real rule seems to be to avoid following any of the rules that might be recognized from previous forms. The expressive distress claimed as the motivation for the revolution was felt only by a few, and they have greatly contributed to creating the cold, unfeeling, hostile world they claim to be reflecting.)


Again, this is a refusal to see "new" music as anything but a slaughterer of a cherished past. Schoenberg wrote his early works in classic forms. I already said that those developments in music did not end the history of music, nor did it prevent it from being revived as is amply demonstrated in lots of music. Why are you ignoring this and claiming otherwise?



JAS said:


> We are essentially separate entities, forced to share a space by circumstances and at least one of the sides is particularly resentful of any perceived advantage of one over the other not in its own favor.


That's a complete exaggeration. Plenty of people who listen to 20th and 21st century music also listen to music from older eras.



JAS said:


> Fortunately, I have yet to attend a classical concert with a piece by The Rolling Stones on the docket, but there within the realm of classical music is an obvious conflict that relies on a shared audience and venue, and pushes aside at least one item for what would otherwise be a pleasant evening of traditional music to make way for something new, strange, "challenging," and, to my ears, viscerally annoying. And the response to the complaint is that we are obligated to support modern music. I feel no such obligation.


I can have little sympathy for this because it's so obviously a misreading of developing music. There's nothing at all wrong in enjoying 'traditional' music seen as such, but I see music as a continued unfolding where you can enjoy it all, not two or more camps defending personal property.


----------



## jegreenwood

With his Sinfonia Antartica the most *polar*izing composer has to be Ralph Vaughan Willaims.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> It is no wonder that one side cannot understand the extent of the divide if the truly radical change in music is described merely as "adding a new dimension." The existence and advocacy of music under the "new rules" is an active, ongoing rejection of everything that came before.


Except that isn't true, except in your mind maybe. But I find hard to engage with you if when I point out that melodies are still there in new music that you don't "hear them" as melodies.


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> Anyone who dares try to defend there love of contemporary music gets accuse of being all sorts of thinks like being elitist or overly sensitive or intellectual cowards or they get fired from being a moderator.


Plenty of members in many threads have expressed a strong love of or defended modern music without being attacked or being accused of anything. I have been a strong advocate of modern music, and I don't ever remember anyone responding to my advocacy negatively. On the other hand, I have had several comments misunderstood causing modern music advocates to attack me (even some who were friends and knew I liked modern music).

I understand why some modern music advocates react so strongly when they sense an attack on the music they love. I have posted about this a number of times. They've simply seen too many unreasonable attacks on the music, the composers, and those who enjoy both. They are conditioned to either lash out at such attacks or to read more into posts that sound somewhat like an attack. I wish they would not respond as they do, but humans are human.

I am a moderator who strongly advocates and defends modern music. I have done so for awhile without being fired. I don't remotely worry that I might be fired for that. I have strongly argued against the notion that a moderator might be or has been fired for their views on modern music.



arpeggio said:


> One has to be very careful about confronting some of the more opinionated members here. The last time I aggressively confronted someone about their animas I was given a warning and put on probation.


Well, not so careful. There have been many heated arguments on many issues without moderators feeling those posts were problematic in the least. The problems only come when people do not treat others politely (and violate our Terms of Service). If one confronts another member, one may be violating the ToS. It's always much better to confront ideas and arguments rather than people.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> It is no wonder that one side cannot understand the extent of the divide if the truly radical change in music is described merely as "adding a new dimension." The existence and advocacy of music under the "new rules" is an active, ongoing rejection of everything that came before.


_Both_ "sides" have serious problems understanding the "other side". Some modern music advocates seemingly don't understand how truly bizarre modern music can sound to many. They don't understand how people who have come to profoundly love classical music can view these bizarre changes almost as attacks on the music they love, as changing the tradition of creating beautiful music, and as replacing it with ugly sounds or nonsense thus depriving them of newly created wonderful music.

Some members who strongly dislike modern music seemingly don't understand the views of modern music lovers - that modern music can give the same joy and lead to the same appreciation as older music, that modern composers wish to create music that listeners will appreciate as they do older music, that the main difference is an unfamiliarity with the new sounds, that much modern music is not so remote from earlier music. Yes, modern music is not for everyone, but almost anyone can likely enjoy much modern music through simply listening enough with the intent to enjoy. How long is enough? It varies from person to person, and certainly not everyone wants to "work" to enjoy their music.

In many ways I'm a bit stunned that there's not more interaction between the two "sides" trying to find common ground and understand why the other side feels as they do.



JAS said:


> We are essentially separate entities, forced to share a space by circumstances, and at least one of the sides is particularly resentful of any perceived advantage of one over the other not in its own favor.


I know only a few TC members who do not appreciate pre-20th century music. I know of no one on the forum who strongly defends modern music who does not also love earlier music. So I don't see these groups as separate entities (unless you mean one group dislikes modern music while the other group likes it along with earlier music). I'm not sure I understand the last clause you wrote.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> _Both_ "sides" have serious problems understanding the "other side". Some modern music advocates seemingly don't understand how truly bizarre modern music can sound to many. They don't understand how people who have come to profoundly love classical music can view these bizarre changes almost as attacks on the music they love, as changing the tradition of creating beautiful music, and as replacing it with ugly sounds or nonsense thus depriving them of newly created wonderful music.


Not "almost."



mmsbls said:


> Some members who strongly dislike modern music seemingly don't understand the views of modern music lovers - that modern music can give the same joy and lead to the same appreciation as older music, that modern composers wish to create music that listeners will appreciate as they do older music, that the main difference is an unfamiliarity with the new sounds, that much modern music is not so remote from earlier music. Yes, modern music is not for everyone, but almost anyone can likely enjoy much modern music through simply listening enough with the intent to enjoy. How long is enough? It varies from person to person, and certainly not everyone wants to "work" to enjoy their music.


Modern composers, or rather composers of modern music, may want their offerings to be as broadly accepted as older music, but they wish to do so on their own terms, and without granting concessions, which they presumably see as compromising their vision or abdicating their right to create. Essentially, they want "the other" side to just give in.



mmsbls said:


> In many ways I'm a bit stunned that there's not more interaction between the two "sides" trying to find common ground and understand why the other side feels as they do.


There is or has been lots of interaction between the two sides trying to find common ground and understanding. There just isn't much to be found. (That, at least, is the conclusion I have reluctantly reached.) Many of those with whom I disagree are certainly not intentionally unpleasant, and a few have been gracious in taking the time to show their views without primarily lashing out defensively. Many of these discussions chiefly fail due to problems of terminology, or to an unwillingness to accept the real possibility that the fact that the music they are defending repeatedly _requires_ that defense precisely because it is such a radical thing and not merely an evolution of what came before.



mmsbls said:


> I know only a few TC members who do not appreciate pre-20th century music. I know of no one on the forum who strongly defends modern music who does not also love earlier music. So I don't see these groups as separate entities (unless you mean one group dislikes modern music while the other group likes it along with earlier music). I'm not sure I understand the last clause you wrote.


I am not limiting my comments to TC members. I think this population is hardly representative of the larger classical community, although that position is necessarily somewhat conjectural.

I suppose that the one thing we do all share is that if classical music, of any form, was currently more popular, few of us would have sought out a forum for discussing it.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> _Both_ "sides" have serious problems understanding the "other side". Some modern music advocates seemingly don't understand how truly bizarre modern music can sound to many. They don't understand how people who have come to profoundly love classical music can view these bizarre changes almost as attacks on the music they love, as changing the tradition of creating beautiful music, and as replacing it with ugly sounds or nonsense thus depriving them of newly created wonderful music.
> 
> Some members who strongly dislike modern music seemingly don't understand the views of modern music lovers - that modern music can give the same joy and lead to the same appreciation as older music, that modern composers wish to create music that listeners will appreciate as they do older music, that the main difference is an unfamiliarity with the new sounds, that much modern music is not so remote from earlier music. Yes, modern music is not for everyone, but almost anyone can likely enjoy much modern music through simply listening enough with the intent to enjoy. How long is enough? It varies from person to person, and certainly not everyone wants to "work" to enjoy their music.
> 
> In many ways I'm a bit stunned that there's not more interaction between the two "sides" trying to find common ground and understand why the other side feels as they do.
> 
> I know only a few TC members who do not appreciate pre-20th century music. I know of no one on the forum who strongly defends modern music who does not also love earlier music. So I don't see these groups as separate entities (unless you mean one group dislikes modern music while the other group likes it along with earlier music). I'm not sure I understand the last clause you wrote.


Who would want to interact with some one who writes you are lazy or do not listen to music right if you do not like modern music? And this person has done this for years on this site and will not stop. Which is why I will donate money to this site ever.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> Modern composers, or rather composers of modern music, may want their offerings to be as broadly accepted as older music, but they wish to do so on their own terms, and without granting concessions, which they presumably see as compromising their vision or abdicating their right to create. Essentially, they want "the other" side to just give in.


I know no modern composers, but I'd be a bit surprised if many felt "the other side" should just give in. Of course, I simply don't know.



JAS said:


> There is or has been lots of interaction between the two sides trying to find common ground and understanding.


I meant for both sides to better understand the others' views. The common ground would be understanding why each side believes as they do.


----------



## mmsbls

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Who would want to interact with some one who writes you are lazy or do not listen to music right if you do not like modern music? And this person has done this for years on this site and will not stop. Which is why I will donate money to this site ever.


Fair enough. Personally (as a member and not moderator) I interact with the many members I enjoy and ignore the very few others.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I know no modern composers, but I'd be a bit surprised if many felt "the other side" should just give in. Of course, I simply don't know.


What they actually compose argues otherwise, no matter what they might say (and actions speak more loudly than words). I actually do know several modern composers, admittedly only very slightly, at least one of some minor reputation. They basically want their music accepted as they write it, and on the terms they determined, with no concessions to the listener (or in some cases even to the musicians).



mmsbls said:


> I meant for both sides to better understand the others' views. The common ground would be understanding why each side believes as they do.


I fully understood what you meant. Unfortunately, that degree of understanding does not seem to be possible. It turns out that explaining ones own reaction to music is very difficult, and that reaction itself cannot really be shared. We also routinely use words with completely different personal meanings. (Just look at the debates over tonality or a host of other more or less purely technical matters. Is there any reason to assume greater success with even more esoteric concepts?) Even with very specific examples, someone says here is a recording and at 1:25 there is a lovely melody, but I listen to it and find no melody, lovely or otherwise, at 1:25 or anywhere else in the recording. Understanding in this case must be limited to understanding that the one person is having some kind of very different reaction to the music than the other person.

At least some of these interactions, however, have not been entirely a waste of time, I think, as I have gained _some_ insight into the fact that they are looking for things that are not the things I look for, and they do not require the things in music that I require. The ability to understand is halted again at the point of agreeing that their way of looking at the music would be worthwhile (for me, of course, since they think it is worthwhile for them and they get to decide that for themselves).

I am reminded somewhat of some very religious people that I have known over the years. They tend to be very evangelical, and they tell people their personal conversion story, in some cases with great narrative skill and deep conviction. What they never seem to understand is why their personal experience, as related, is rarely persuasive. It is simply because their personal experience is their personal experience, and is not really transferable.


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> That did happen. Listen to some Messiaen, some of the beauty may not be conventional, but Messiaen's the heir to Debussy and one of the most influential composers of the 20th century.
> 
> There's even beauty and sensuousness in some of the works of Cage and Stockhausen, but if that's what you're looking for Messiaen's probably your best bet.


Does he have anything that even remotely has melody like this?


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> What they actually compose argues otherwise, no matter what they might say (and actions speak more loudly than words).


I'm not sure which composers you're talking about. Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Adams, Rautavaara, Ades, Boulez, Stockhausen? They all wrote music that suggests they view their listeners differently than Mahler, Strauss, Brahms, etc.?



JAS said:


> Unfortunately, that degree of understanding does not seem to be possible. ...At least some of these interactions, however, have not been entirely a waste of time, I think, as I have gained _some_ insight into the fact that they are looking for things that are not the things I look for, and they do not require the things in music that I require.


Maybe you're talking more about believing or feeling the same things rather than understanding what another believes. I think my position 5-10 years ago was very similar to yours. I listened to others talking about modern music that they loved and saying they loved it as they did Mozart or Brahms. Many of them talked about hating the music at first, but listening repeatedly and gradually coming to find the music more and more enjoyable. I believed them and thought I could learn to do that as well. I went from viewing the Berg Violin Concerto as somewhat random sounds to one of my favorite violin concertos. I know that one can learn to enjoy music one previously found awful.

Not everyone has to be able to make that transition, but everyone should understand that many people have and that it's possible. I dislike or hate the taste of alcohol (beer, liquor, wine), but I can understand how others could grow to like it and actually enjoy the taste. I don't think they're pretending even though everyone I know who enjoys liquor tells me they had to learn to like the taste. One can accept new music (rap, country, modern classical, jazz, etc.) is likable by listening to those who enjoy it even if you will never like it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> I am reminded somewhat of some very religious people that I have known over the years. They tend to be very evangelical, and they tell people their personal conversion story, in some cases with great narrative skill and deep conviction. What they never seem to understand is why their personal experience, as related, is rarely persuasive. It is simply because their personal experience is their personal experience, and is not really transferable.


This bit is funny because it's rather ridiculous. In my short time here I haven't come across anyone - apart from Millionrainbows - who is quite so personally invested in promoting modernist music. Only listeners.

For some time in my youth I was also a fairly conservative listener, but I just decided to give things a chance. I had two piano teachers and one was more open to new music and gave me things to play other than the usual repertoire. Some of it I hated with a venom. You have to realise that until fairly recently even a large part of Debussy's work was off the table for the average consumer of classical music. He was just too 'odd' and some of this work is over a century old! 
So much of the music with arrows directed at it is old, from the '20s, the '30s. It's like for some the world of art music stopped around 1900 and was preserved in formaldehyde. Anything new has to resemble it, or it's out.

It's not unlike a generation of people up in arms about Elvis and the Beatles and their 'cacophony' as against 'proper music'. I accept that 'modernist' presentations can be a jolt and will offend some people's ears at first. I've repeated it already, but it's not like anyone has to go out and like Schoenberg's oeuvre _immediately_ or start loving all Bartok's works or risk ridicule. There must be some composer's work from the pre-modern era whose works you don't like, for whatever reasons. That's how it is with all music, some you like and some you don't. Perhaps you just like some works of a particular composer or most of his work appeals to you.

I won't shrink from asserting that some of the listening takes work. All new conditions require adjustment.


----------



## Phil loves classical

mmsbls said:


> I know no modern composers, but I'd be a bit surprised if many felt "the other side" should just give in. Of course, I simply don't know.
> 
> I meant for both sides to better understand the others' views. The common ground would be understanding why each side believes as they do.


Not trying to kiss up here (but would if there were some kind of prize for it) but I found TC very accepting since I joined, of modern music. The overall tone is one of respect. Modern, and especially post-modern, have certain ideas that were intentionally revolutionary. Going from the Classical period to Romantic can't compare with the changes in 20th Century music, which are attacks on traditional music altogether. So there should be no surprise for some kind of divide and even hostility between the two. It started with the music, and is carried onto forums. It is paradoxical, or contradictory even, to like both pre-20th and post. This divide occurs not only in music, but in other arts as well.

It may not sound politically correct, but I would actually suggest that the proponents of modern music be more understanding if their taste is not accepted. It started with the composers, their intention was to create shock. Stravinsky stated that his motivation with the pivotal Rite of Spring was to "send them all to hell". So the fans of such music shouldn't be surprised to see some backlash from more traditional music fans. Composers kept trying to up the bar in shock value till the 60's with Cage.

http://www.wqxr.org/story/290143-100-years-after-stravinskys-rite-can-classical-music-still-shock/


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> This bit is funny because it's rather ridiculous. In my short time here I haven't come across anyone - apart from Millionrainbows - who is quite so personally invested in promoting modernist music. Only listeners.


Again, I am not limiting my comments merely to the TC community. We have here a _very_ small subset, but the fact that both of us recognize at least one clear example among that subset is sufficient to make my comment _far_ from ridiculous. There are other examples, although not nearly so obvious or extreme, at least not at the moment.



eugeneonagain said:


> For some time in my youth I was also a fairly conservative listener, but I just decided to give things a chance. I had two piano teachers and one was more open to new music and gave me things to play other than the usual repertoire. Some of it I hated with a venom. You have to realise that until fairly recently even a large part of Debussy's work was off the table for the average consumer of classical music. He was just too 'odd' and some of this work is over a century old!


Advocates of more modern music keep bringing up Debussy as if he is some sort of magic wand. There are many pieces by Debussy that are, justifiably, very popular and basically have been at least nearly since he wrote them, but that does not mean that everything he wrote fits into the same category. There is a _huge_ gulf between Claire de lune and his late operas, like The Fall of the House of Usher. He is an example where I take works on a case by case example. Age does not make the "odd" examples any less "odd," except in comparison to even more extreme examples by other composers. If that really worked, the mere existence of Ferneyhough would render pretty much everything else mainstream.



eugeneonagain said:


> So much of the music with arrows directed at it is old, from the '20s, the '30s. It's like for some the world of art music stopped around 1900 and was preserved in formaldehyde. Anything new has to resemble it, or it's out.


The time in which something was composed is utterly irrelevant to me in terms of my response, and is of interest mostly as a matter of context. There is a strong, although not absolute, correspondence between when something was composed, relative to the great dividing line of Schoenberg, that does tend to put things on the other side of that line of accessibility. The date itself is not the important distinction here, but the form, which tends to correlate to that line and more and more so as we move closer to today.



eugeneonagain said:


> It's not unlike a generation of people up in arms about Elvis and the Beatles and their 'cacophony' as against 'proper music'. I accept that 'modernist' presentations can be a jolt and will offend some people's ears at first. I've repeated it already, but it's not like anyone has to go out and like Schoenberg's oeuvre _immediately_ or start loving all Bartok's works or risk ridicule. There must be some composer's work from the pre-modern era whose works you don't like, for whatever reasons. That's how it is with all music, some you like and some you don't. Perhaps you just like some works of a particular composer or most of his work appeals to you.


Most 'modernist' presentations _are_ a jolt, and will offend _most_ people's ears, at first and thereafter. It is the vast minority to whom this music has ever and, I suspect, will ever appeal. As someone who is no fan of Elvis (a performer rather than a composer) or The Beatles, there is to me no meaningful comparison, and they are essentially irrelevant anyway as their work does not generally intrude on the classical world. (I mean, of course, irrelevant to that classical world, outside of which both are much more popular and classical music is mostly irrelevant.) There have been a few orchestral (101 Strings, etc) specific concerts of adaptations of music by The Beatles, presumably at a pops concert, and Paul McCartney did make a few absurd attempts at writing "serious music," which, perhaps, was not entirely met with ridicule. Such forays are easily avoided.

No one has to go out and like any of Schoenberg's oeuvre, not immediately or ever. There is no plausible requirement for such a thing, except that there is an ever present demand (of varying degree) from some quarters that there is such a requirement. There are, of course, many earlier pieces that do not appeal to me, even by Beethoven, but hardly anything that creates the strong negative reaction of modernist music. There is a large difference between "I don't particularly care for that" and "heavens! please turn that noise off."



eugeneonagain said:


> I won't shrink from asserting that some of the listening takes work. All new conditions require adjustment.


It does take work, but may not be worth that work for many or most listeners. And even with that work made, the results may simply not be forthcoming. The adjustment required may be mostly to avoid it. To some extent, for modern classical music, that is possible as in spite of great effort, it remains a niche of a niche. It is relatively rare that I hear something really offensive on my local classical station, and when it does come on I can turn off the radio or pop in a CD for a bit. (We did have a second classical radio station that played a great deal more modern classical . . . it died within a few years and is now a talk only format.) The bigger issue comes on concerts, where there has long been a concerted (pun intended) effort to force some of this music down the throats of an audience. As a result, I have mostly stopped attending concerts.


----------



## Nereffid

JAS said:


> The bigger issue comes on concerts, where there has long been a concerted (pun intended) effort to force some of this music down the throats of an audience.


I can sympathise with, even agree with, pretty much all you wrote, but not this.

Let's take a (not randomly selected) example of an upcoming concert: one at this year's Proms featuring Mozart's Sinfonia concertante, Brahms's Symphony no.2, and a recent work for string orchestra by Erkki-Sven Tüür, _Flamma_, which you can listen to here: 




Let's say you don't like the Tüür piece, which is fine, I certainly don't insist you like it or even try to like it. But is it being _forced down your throat_ by being programmed in this concert?
As it happens, I don't care for Brahms's 2nd symphony but I love the Mozart and I'd like to hear the Tüür live. Should I complain about Brahms being _forced down my throat_?

This sort of language indicates that it's not enough simply to dislike most/all of the music of the past however-many decades; the music has to be seen as an affront, and the people who happen to like both it _and_ older music as bullies intent on offense.

Most supporters of modern music aren't activists: they just _happen to like it_. Most people who like Stockhausen and Xenakis also like Haydn and Dvorak. Sure, they're fully aware of the differences between the two sets of composers, but they don't believe those differences justify keeping the two completely separate. It's not militancy, it's just enthusiasm. And outrage in the face of enthusiasm just seems like an overreaction.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> Plenty of members in many threads have expressed a strong love of or defended modern music without being attacked or being accused of anything. I have been a strong advocate of modern music, and I don't ever remember anyone responding to my advocacy negatively. On the other hand, I have had several comments misunderstood causing modern music advocates to attack me (even some who were friends and knew I liked modern music).


Well, mmsbls, you must have accidentally set your computer to a different classical discussion forum. For example, look at post no. 298 in this thread by Strange Magic. He posts many intelligent comments I enjoy, but he and others make many posts like that one, which is a condescending and sarcastic jab at what I thought was an intelligent and worthwhile comment by million rainbows, who takes a lot of heat here, about Jackson Pollock and John Cage. Mr. Magic is more than free to disagree with millionrainbows, but of what value to anyone is his insulting putdown? I don't see anyone hurling sarcastic insults at someone explaining what interests him or her about Brahms intermezzi or the Rachmaninoff Etudes Tableaux.


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> Let's say you don't like the Tüür piece, which is fine, I certainly don't insist you like it or even try to like it. But is it being _forced down your throat_ by being programmed in this concert? As it happens, I don't care for Brahms's 2nd symphony but I love the Mozart and I'd like to hear the Tüür live. Should I complain about Brahms being _forced down my throat_?


There is actually more of a history to my position, and it was most obvious during the reign of David Zinman when he was the conductor here. And yes, he was absolutely forcing this stuff down the throats of the audience on a regular basis, with concert after concert stuffed with Rouse and Corigliano and more terrible stuff than I can actually remember. Whether declining attendance was the result of that approach to programming, or just a more general reflection in the reduced interest in Classical music overall, it is hard to say. After Zinman left, Yuri Temirkanov stopped pushing so much modern music quite so heavily, and added a number of Romantic works, not surprisingly mostly from the Russian repertoire. Marin Alsop, who came in after Temirkanov, is a big Bartok fan, but it does appear that some lessons were learned from the Zinman years, and not every concert has something in that I would pay not to hear. (I see that there is one recent concert that is nothing but the Brandenburg Concertos, for example.) On the other hand, we can still see the problem if we look at a Baltimore Symphony Orchestra concert from just a few months ago:

- Mozart: Symphony No. 29
- Haydn: Trumpet Concerto
- Detlev Glanert: Frenesia (BSO Premiere)
- Strauss: Till Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks

I am not sure that I would have mixed even the Strauss piece in with the other two. I have no problem with that selection on its own terms, but I think the juxtaposition against two classical era pieces is a bit jarring, unnecessarily and undesirably so. It is really only there because the Glanert piece was apparently written as a kind of modern answer to Strauss, and for whatever reason they wanted to put the Glanert piece on this concert, which I think is a terrible imposition. Glanert himself specifically says his work is "against romantic heroism." It is offered as a response to the Strauss piece, but in his own words, the composer says that it is intentionally a kind of anti-Strauss work because he doesn't think that Strauss's ideas work in a modern context, although, for some reason, they are playing that anyway, so it must still work on some level.

Now, we have the question as to whether this really qualifies as forcing the music down the throats of people like me, who don't like it. And I think the answer is yes. Your example of the Tüür piece is different because yours would be decidedly the minority position. Brahms enjoys, I think unquestionably, a magnitude of greater popularity in the classical world than does Tüür. It is still, technically, forcing Brahms down your throat, but since you are in the minority position, the complaint, even if valid, means very little (although I will touch on this idea again later). A more difficult question to answer would be if more people like the Glanert piece, and would be happy to hear it in the context of the concert listed above, and _my_ position is actually the minority. I cannot answer that question with certainty. In any case, I do not get to exercise that kind of control over the concert, and I did exercise the only authority I really do have --- I did not attend.

I suppose what I object to, at the heart of the matter, is the whole idea that modern classical music is really an extension of classical music at all. Admitting that this may be seen as a radical view, at least in this forum, my feeling is that modern classical music is such a dramatic departure from what came before it that it is fundamentally something else. That does not necessarily mean that one is good and the other bad (although, obviously enough, I do have my opinions on that score), but trying to mix the two is, in my opinion, an absolutely a dreadful mistake. In an ideal world, in my eyes, you should have your concert of Tüür and Schoenberg and Glanert and whoever else might fit in with that; and I would have my concert of Mozart and Haydn and Beethoven and Brahms, or Strauss and Mahler and Wagner. People who like one or the other can attend as they see fit, and people who like both can attend both.

There are, of course, two very practical problems with this idea. First, there probably isn't enough of an audience to support separate venues, especially as most orchestras continue to struggle with financial resources. (I particularly suspect that the audience for more modern music is too small to support its own venue, notwithstanding the fact that orchestra in LA has apparently had some success in doing precisely that. It would be an interesting effort to try to determine if the more traditional forms could support an audience on their own, but I think the orchestra has decided not to go down that path in any case.) Second, the distinction of preferences within a group is not as easily defined as I have presented it, and there is no way to absolutely satisfy all variations of taste in a concert setting. As the number of people increases, so increases the chance that someone will not like Shubert, or Tchaikovsky, or a particular piece by Tchaikovsky.

The closest one can get to satisfying this personal set of preferences is to stay home and listen to CDs, which has become my option of choice.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> Well, mmsbls, you must have accidentally set your computer to a different classical discussion forum. For example, look at post no. 298 in this thread by Strange Magic. He posts many intelligent comments I enjoy, but he and others make many posts like that one, which is a condescending and sarcastic jab at what I thought was an intelligent and worthwhile comment by million rainbows, who takes a lot of heat here, about Jackson Pollock and John Cage. Mr. Magic is more than free to disagree with millionrainbows, but of what value to anyone is his insulting putdown? I don't see anyone hurling sarcastic insults at someone explaining what interests him or her about Brahms intermezzi or the Rachmaninoff Etudes Tableaux.


My understanding was that Strange Magic was not commenting on millions' words but rather Cage's words.

Of course you are correct in general - people on TC occasionally do attack members who defend modern music. I think it's rare although still obviously inappropriate. As I said, I have never felt attacked for supporting or defending modern music.

I believe it's much more common for TC members to attack modern music or modern composers than to attack TC members who enjoy the music. I also think the vast majority of "complaints" by those loving modern music are focused on these attacks on the music itself. In large part their request is, "If you don't like the music, fine, but please let us discuss it without you simply bashing the music."


----------



## Chronochromie

mmsbls said:


> In large part their request is, "If you don't like the music, fine, but please let us discuss it without you simply bashing the music."


...and spouting falsehoods about it, like saying it abandoned tonality, melody or sensuality.


----------



## mmsbls

Phil loves classical said:


> It may not sound politically correct, but I would actually suggest that the proponents of modern music be more understanding if their taste is not accepted.


In general I agree. I do feel that proponents of modern music sometimes overreact to criticism (real or imagined). As I've said, I understand that tendency because of a long history of people attacking the music. People become defensive when they experience repeated attacks on things they love.

Personally, I don't think that attacking back is useful (in the sense that it accomplishes nothing positive). I feel it's better to understand the attacker and try to respond through that understanding. I don't think that works wonderfully, but maybe it sometimes has a slight effect.


----------



## fluteman

JAS said:


> Brahms enjoys, I think unquestionably, a magnitude of greater popularity in the classical world than does Tüür. It is still, technically, forcing Brahms down your throat, but since you are in the minority position, the complaint, even if valid, means very little


I find it very strange that you assign your own musical tastes to some vague, undefined group you call "the majority". If it was so fundamentally important to perform only the music "the majority" wanted, classical music would not be performed at all. And John Corigliano, a composer you see as being forced down people's throats, had a huge hit with his score to the movie The Red Violin. British modernist/minimalist Michael Nyman had an equally big if not bigger hit with his score for The Piano. So, your factual assumptions are questionable.

Also, if you study the history of concert performance, you see that music of contemporary composers has always been controversial or unpopular to varying degrees. It was true in the times of Brahms and Beethoven, in some instances to their own music. And some 19th century composers whose music was very popular in performance in their own day are seldom heard today. So a balance needs to be struck, and that is what is being attempted in the concert programs you are complaining about, some times more successfully than others.

There is an inherent risk in going (and paying) to hear or see any new work art. Inevitably there will be some duds. But many people aren't satisfied solely with the old and comfortable and seek the new and exciting, and will take that risk. Without that new and exciting element, I think classical music would quickly disappear entirely.


----------



## JAS

fluteman said:


> I find it very strange that you assign your own musical tastes to some vague, undefined group you call "the majority". If it was so fundamentally important to perform only the music "the majority" wanted, classical music would not be performed at all.


Of the latter point, I already noted that my position considers Classical Music as its own niche, and that its popularity is dwarfed by non-classical music. For the first point, are you really suggesting that Tüür has anything like the popularity of Brahms?



fluteman said:


> There is an inherent risk in going (and paying) to hear or see any new work art. Inevitably there will be some duds. But many people aren't satisfied solely with the old and comfortable and seek the new and exciting, and will take that risk. Without that new and exciting element, I think classical music would quickly disappear entirely.


There is an inherent risk, but I think you are grossly misjudging the frequency of duds (subjectivity being the admitted criteria). I have encountered the dud far too often to take the risk anymore. Will many people continue to take that risk? I suppose time will tell.


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> ...and spouting falsehoods about it, like saying it abandoned tonality, melody or sensuality.


There are a lot of people who don't hear those things in much of contemporary music and I'm one of them. When I'm commenting on that subject I try to make it clear that that is my perception so that shouldn't be insulting to anyone. No one is the boss of my brain.


----------



## Nereffid

JAS said:


> not every concert has something in that I would pay not to hear.


This is where it comes down to attitude.
There's a huge swathe of 20th/21st century music that I don't like, but if it was in concert with something I genuinely wanted to hear, then I'd go without much complaint. Some disappointment that not all the concert would be enjoyable, sure, but those are the breaks. And hey, maybe this concert will give me another crack at the music and maybe I'll dislike it less.



JAS said:


> I suppose what I object to, at the heart of the matter, is the whole idea that modern classical music is really an extension of classical music at all. Admitting that this may be seen as a radical view, at least in this forum, my feeling is that modern classical music is such a dramatic departure from what came before it that it is fundamentally something else.


The more music I hear, and the more aware I am of where things fit together chronologically, the less I believe that to be the case. Listen to music _in general_ year-by-year and it sounds more like a gradual progression, just like the gradual progression from Bach to Mozart to Brahms. Of course there are occasional shocks to the system that have a big influence (on some composers more than others), just like Beethoven. But there's no clear fault-line.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> Again, I am not limiting my comments merely to the TC community. We have here a _very_ small subset, but the fact that both of us recognize at least one clear example among that subset is sufficient to make my comment _far_ from ridiculous. There are other examples, although not nearly so obvious or extreme, at least not at the moment.


No, it is ridiculous because it is false. One example is not an indicator of some sort of fixed number of such views in any number of people.



JAS said:


> Advocates of more modern music keep bringing up Debussy as if he is some sort of magic wand. There are many pieces by Debussy that are, justifiably, very popular and basically have been at least nearly since he wrote them, but that does not mean that everything he wrote fits into the same category. There is a _huge_ gulf between Claire de lune and his late operas, like The Fall of the House of Usher. He is an example where I take works on a case by case example. Age does not make the "odd" examples any less "odd," except in comparison to even more extreme examples by other composers. If that really worked, the mere existence of Ferneyhough would render pretty much everything else mainstream.


He is not a 'magic wand' but he is a good example of someone who represented a significant break with standard tonality without being negatively categorised as 'one of that atonal bunch'. Claire de Lune is pretty ordinary for this discussion. His preludes, however, contain much that stretch the conventions of tonality. Luckily for him, in the popularity stakes though I doubt he would have cared, there are examples in there that were 'tonal' enough for the general listening public not to dismiss him entirely e.g: _Girl with the Flaxen Hair_. A good deal of his work, if played anonymously, would still turn off many conservative listeners.



JAS said:


> The time in which something was composed is utterly irrelevant to me in terms of my response, and is of interest mostly as a matter of context.


It may be irrelevant to you, but it is not irrelevant to the actual argument being made.



JAS said:


> Most 'modernist' presentations _are_ a jolt, and will offend _most_ people's ears, at first and thereafter. It is the *vast minority*(!?) to whom this music has ever and, I suspect, will ever appeal. As someone who is no fan of Elvis (a performer rather than a composer) or The Beatles, there is to me no meaningful comparison, and they are essentially irrelevant anyway as their work does not generally intrude on the classical world. (I mean, of course, irrelevant to that classical world, outside of which both are much more popular and classical music is mostly irrelevant.) There have been a few orchestral (101 Strings, etc) specific concerts of adaptations of music by The Beatles, presumably at a pops concert, and Paul McCartney did make a few absurd attempts at writing "serious music," which, perhaps, was not entirely met with ridicule. Such forays are easily avoided.


If I was Paul McCartney I suppose I'd be mildly offended, but also amused. His standing among so many musicians and composers of many genres invalidates your opinion of him. Classically-trained George Martin considered him an innate crossover musician. Remember you can have an opinion, but if it isn't congruent with reality or evidence it goes straight out of the window.



JAS said:


> No one has to go out and like any of Schoenberg's oeuvre, not immediately or ever. There is no plausible requirement for such a thing, except that there is an ever present demand (of varying degree) from some quarters that there is such a requirement. ...


That not being plausible was exactly what I implied. There is not a demand for that, you are exaggerating. Schoenberg is almost nowhere on common concert programming anyway.



JAS said:


> It does take work, but may not be worth that work for many or most listeners. And even with that work made, the results may simply not be forthcoming. The adjustment required may be mostly to avoid it. To some extent, for modern classical music, that is possible as in spite of great effort, it remains a niche of a niche. It is relatively rare that I hear something really offensive on my local classical station, and when it does come on I can turn off the radio or pop in a CD for a bit. (We did have a second classical radio station that played a great deal more modern classical . . . it died within a few years and is now a talk only format.) The bigger issue comes on concerts, where there has long been a concerted (pun intended) effort to force some of this music down the throats of an audience. As a result, I have mostly stopped attending concerts.


Let's be honest rather than hiding behind words. You don't even want to like it, or become acquainted with it, never mind trying. The lack of exposure on mainstream (in fact nearly all) "classical" music radio is an interesting question. Does it reflect the actual unpopularity of modern music or, in true, opportunistic market-forces style, do they merely give people what they are accustomed to to maintain listening figures. That is not cultural involvement or art, it's just consumption. And I'm not making a negative judgement of the classic works they _do_ play. The entire thing reeks of the sort of "narrowcasting" mindset of the internet and cable TV age where you can block out anything unfamiliar and stick with comfortable knowns. Can you imagine if TV consisted of no new programming and just endless repeats of classics? Crazy.

In that scenario there would be no work ever for any modern composers unless they bow to your demand and compose in the safe, known, comfortable style of Brahms, which ironically was less safe, known and comfortable in his day.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> Let's be honest rather than hiding behind words. You don't even want to like it, or become acquainted with it, never mind trying. The lack of exposure on mainstream (in fact nearly all) "classical" music radio is an interesting question. Does it reflect the actual unpopularity of modern music or, in true, opportunistic market-forces style, do they merely give people what they are accustomed to to maintain listening figures. That is not cultural involvement or art, it's just consumption. And I'm not making a negative judgement of the classic works they _do_ play. The entire thing reeks of the sort of "narrowcasting" mindset of the internet and cable TV age where you can block out anything unfamiliar and stick with comfortable knowns. Can you imagine if TV consisted of no new programming and just endless repeats of classics? Crazy.


This is perhaps the most bizarre comment in a post loaded with bizarre comments. It presumes, falsely, that I have not given modern music a fair try. I have, repeatedly and over a long period of years, often with intervening breaks. It also presumes that there is some kind of personal advantage I might have in not liking music that I _would_ like if I gave it a fair chance, which is truly absurd. I don't like the music I don't like because I don't like it. There is no other reason or ulterior motive involved. If it were merely a matter of a preferred reaction, I would actually prefer to like the music since there is apparently an infinite supply and that would be great. There isn't even anything approaching logic in the claim. It appears that someone just wants to pretend that there is no problem. Well, ignorance is bliss, as they say. We weren't really going to solve the problem in any case, so I suppose there is no great loss.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> Yes, but I was only making a joke. I repeat, a joke. I was taught that there are three fundamentally important traits one can have, and one of them is a sense of humor.


I was not responding to to your post.

I do not see 4'33" as a joke, but as being 'serious as Wagner.'



Strange Magic said:


> We are living in a Golden Age of insights such as these!


That's what you should do with all artists: look at the complete body of their work, and note the progression. This method always produces insight. 



eugeneonagain said:


> I get the the point of 4:33, but it's always going to cause problems because people expect sounds from something from a composer presented in the format of a musical work. Had it come from a conceptual artist not self-identifying as a composer I think the reaction would be similar (from the same people who don't like the idea), but the scorn would be of a different kind, it would be easier to dismiss or trivialise.


You can't go by what people are going to think or expect.



eugeneonagain said:


> You have to admit that this sounds a bit pretentious though.


I guess so, if I were from a really conservative area. Then, I'd really be worried about what things sound like.



eugeneonagain said:


> The idea that many things appear boring because one fails to focus long enough to perceive their charms, which are probably less surface and apparent, and then think about them is likely true. However, life is a bit too short to do this with everything.


These things take time.



nature said:


> That is solely your interpretation you've placed onto his paintings. I've seen them in person at the NGA. There is the novel aesthetic of large large canvases with splats and specks of color creating many different (and sometimes visually appealing) textures. But I tend to roll my eyes whenever someone tries to apply greater meaning onto abstract splats of paint. Mostly pseudo-intelligent marketing language that people began to believe.


I think that totally misses the understanding of what Pollock was doing. His accomplishment was monumental.

Besides, that's what one is supposed to do: derive meaning from art.

There is an "inner" meaning to Pollock's paintings, and that is why they are art, not just splatters. You have to look at his total accomplishment in the history of art: all the shows, retrospectives, praise, criticism, writings, etc.
You have to see that this is part of art history.



fluteman said:


> No kidding. How else can one look at art other than in the context of one's own interpretation? Should we look the way we're told to look in some instruction book? You have your own interpretation of Pollock's work (which I have also seen in person many times, by the way), but *there is a very big difference between your and million rainbows' comments, and it isn't that his opinion is more or less right than yours. He isn't just saying he likes or dislikes Pollack's dot paintings, he's trying to explain why they are meaningful or significant to him.* That makes his comment at least potentially interesting, whether one agrees with it or not. You, on the other hand, and many others here, simply say over and over that abstract art like Pollack's is meaningless, usually in a condescending or even hostile way. Yes, I'm sure many feel that way, but of what possible value to anyone are such comments?


I have to draw a line at that statement (bolded). nature is saying that Pollock's paintings are meaningless, and history disavows this.

My opinion is correct because it is based totally on subjective factors.

The objective fact, that Pollock is art, with meaning, is already contextually established historically.

nature can refuse this, but is obliged to recognize that this is totally subjective opinion. 
I'm interested in "Art" with a capital A, not opinion.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> This is perhaps the most bizarre comment in a post loaded with bizarre comments. It presumes, falsely, that I have not given modern music a fair try. I have, repeatedly and over a long period of years, often with intervening breaks. It also presumes that there is some kind of personal advantage I might have in not liking music that I _would_ like if I gave it a fair chance, which is truly absurd. I don't like the music I don't like because I don't like it. There is no other reason or ulterior motive involved. I would actually prefer to like the music since there is apparently an infinite supply and that would be great. There isn't even anything approaching logic in the claim. It appears that someone just wants to pretend that there is no problem. Well, ignorance is bliss, as they say.


No, you are misreading me again. It makes not a jot of difference to me if you never listen to it ever again. However, having failed to find anything of value it, while those people - performers, conductors, listeners - who have found something can't possibly all be aesthetic lunatics, you are not really in a position to give any credible judgements about it other than that you find it 'noise'. The human ear and brain has not been retrofitted with any new equipment to parse modern music, so what am I doing that you are not doing?

I will repeat again, for the umpteenth time, that 'it' is not one unified type of music. It is as diverse as Beethoven and Tchaikovsky and Elgar. Those lumping it together are clearly not hearing any difference; whose problem is that? There is as much mediocre to middling 'modernist' music as there is in older music, but would you know this? Plenty of old serial music failed to cater to the human ear and listening memory by not offering anchoring points, but then much non-serial music does as well. Ignorance is only bliss while one is still ignorant.

Speaking of ulterior motives, why would someone offer so much commentary in a thread about this music (it was obvious where such a thread title would lead) whilst claiming neither to like it nor listen to it? To what end I ask? I suggest it's because you believe it sullies the name of "classical music" and has wrongly replaced the music you like (both ideas being untrue).


----------



## millionrainbows

nature said:


> Well for one, I never said that Pollock's paintings were meaningless.


I think the "net result" is that you have.



nature said:


> I have admitted that they are pretty neat to look at for what they are. But my main issue with abstract art is that from the beginning they were always marketed by pretentious nonsense, to make them seem more important than what is self-evident through the pictures themselves.


I think Pop art might be more suited, in this case. "Gee, that's pretty neat."



nature said:


> There is something to be said about the novel painting techniques, and the sort of chaos and randomness in the pictures they create, but what actual symbolism or representation is there to be found? Just pure abstraction. Such that any claims of them being some sort of profound philosophical message being an objective quality of the work just seems disingenuous.


The progression of Pollock is in to pure abstraction, but you have to look at the entire body of work to put that into context. This body of work was an embodiment of a man's life.



nature said:


> If the paintings themselves make him feel that way, that's great. But my main criticism of modern (and now contemporary) art is that now the importance seems to be on vapid Artspeak that accompanies it rather than the art itself.


Then look at Warhol's soup cans, or pictures of Elvis, or celebrity portraits.



nature said:


> I also feel this way about a lot of contemporary atonal music - the importance is more on the concept behind the art rather than whether the music is pleasurable to hear.


Whatever concept I get is due to the art, and my understanding of it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I have to draw a line at that statement (bolded). nature is saying that Pollock's paintings are meaningless, and history disavows this.
> 
> *My opinion is correct because it is based totally on subjective factors.*
> 
> The objective fact, that Pollock is art, with meaning, is already contextually established historically.
> 
> *nature can refuse this, but is obliged to recognize that this is totally subjective opinion.*
> I'm interested in "Art" with a capital A, not opinion.


I'm bowled over. This is unreal. Subjectivity renders your opinion correct? You can be as subjective as you like about facts of nature, but it doesn't alter their objective status.

Someone not interested in opinion, shouldn't be making arguments from a subjective standpoint.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I have read through the entire thread without seeing a single post that would support this idea. I regularly see posts, and have made my fair share, in which it is questioned _why_ someone would want to listen to certain forms of music (but never stating that no one _should_ listen to such forms). I also regularly see posts that say that those who prefer more traditional forms of classical music (myself included) _should_ or even _need_ to give more modern forms "a chance" (as if we have not done so), or are just being "musically lazy" or "anti-intellectual" in not actively following or supporting such music. (Even there, it has not generally been suggested that no one should listen to more traditional forms, although there is often a sneer if we do so, and any composer writing today in more traditional forms is usually written off as a pastiche composer or an undesirable throwback.) There is an imbalanced scale here, and it only tips one way.


No, it works both ways.



arpeggio said:


> Good. I was hoping that I was not repeating an idea.
> 
> And I want to clarify something that many of us have been saying for years. I have stated this many times myself. I can understand if a person dislikes a composer a particular work. What I do not understand is this obsession that some have to constantly attack modern music that they abhor. I have been reading this nonsense for years. Do I have to waste my precious time rummaging through 10,000 post to find examples of these encounters?
> 
> Here is just one quote from another forum: "I am now requesting a list of home addresses from those who enjoy modern music. Our work in scouring this filth from the Earth has only just begun! Please comply in order to make the process easier and more enjoyable for everyone."
> 
> This may appear to be a joke but this person was dead serious.
> 
> I can mention one post from former member of TC: http://www.talkclassical.com/11989-what-your-purpose-coming.html?highlight=attack#post135076
> 
> Anyone who dares try to defend there love of contemporary music gets accuse of being all sorts of thinks like being elitist or overly sensitive or intellectual cowards or they get fired from being a moderator.
> 
> One has to be very careful about confronting some of the more opinionated members here. The last time I aggressively confronted someone about their animas I was given a warning and put on probation.


I completely agree, bassoon, and I think there is some "intent" in play as well. Bait 'em, report 'em, get rid of them.


----------



## millionrainbows

Nereffid said:


> _Anyone_???
> There are currently two active threads on 21st-century music, and none of those things are going on there. Respect and enthusiasm are the order of the day. Why not get involved in these, it might erase some of the negativity you're feeling!


I see plenty of negativity coming from the other side, as well.



JAS said:


> It is no wonder that one side cannot understand the extent of the divide if the truly radical change in music is described merely as "adding a new dimension." The existence and advocacy of music under the "new rules" is an active, ongoing rejection of everything that came before. (I use "new rules" as a term somewhat awkwardly because, ironically, the only real rule seems to be to avoid following any of the rules that might be recognized from previous forms. The expressive distress claimed as the motivation for the revolution was felt only by a few, and they have greatly contributed to creating the cold, unfeeling, hostile world they claim to be reflecting.)
> 
> We are essentially separate entities, forced to share a space by circumstances, and at least one of the sides is particularly resentful of any perceived advantage of one over the other not in its own favor. It is a bit like being angry step-children who have nothing in common other than a single parent. The battle is emphasized by an increasing struggle for diminishing resources. I don't really begrudge anyone wishing to listen to Stockhausen or any of the other "new" composers, any more than I begrudge someone who wants to go to a Lady Gaga concert. Fortunately, I have yet to attend a classical concert with a piece by The Rolling Stones on the docket, but there is within the realm of classical music an obvious conflict that relies on a shared audience and venue, and pushes aside at least one item for what would otherwise be a pleasant evening of traditional music to make way for something new, strange, "challenging," and, to my ears, viscerally annoying. And the response to the complaint is that we are obligated to support modern music. I feel no such obligation.


It sounds like you are demonizing modern music to me.



Johnnie Burgess said:


> Who would want to interact with some one who writes you are lazy or do not listen to music right if you do not like modern music? And this person has done this for years on this site and will not stop. Which is why I will donate money to this site ever.


I never said that people were "lazy" who reject modern music. It does require effort and engagement in order to validly and credibly interact with it to the point that one's opinion is informed and credible, and that stereotyping is not used in the opinion.



Phil loves classical said:


> It may not sound politically correct, but I would actually suggest that the proponents of modern music be more understanding if their taste is not accepted...the fans of such music shouldn't be surprised to see some backlash from more traditional music fans. Composers kept trying to up the bar in shock value till the 60's with Cage.


All I've tried to do is show people how I listen, by demonstrating the process. I've also been critical of simple dismissals or rejections of modernism, as stereotypical and shallow.



JAS said:


> We have here a _very_ small subset, but the fact that both of us recognize at least one clear example among that subset is sufficient to make my comment _far_ from ridiculous. There are other examples, although not nearly so obvious or extreme, at least not at the moment.


I assume that means me.



JAS said:


> Most 'modernist' presentations _are_ a jolt, and will offend _most_ people's ears, at first and thereafter. It is the vast minority to whom this music has ever and, I suspect, will ever appeal...No one has to go out and like any of Schoenberg's oeuvre, not immediately or ever. There is no plausible requirement for such a thing, except that there is an ever present demand (of varying degree) from some quarters that there is such a requirement. There are, of course, many earlier pieces that do not appeal to me, even by Beethoven, but hardly anything that creates the strong negative reaction of modernist music. There is a large difference between "I don't particularly care for that" and "heavens! please turn that noise off."


Stereotyping. What composers and works are you referring to?



JAS said:


> It does take work, but may not be worth that work for many or most listeners. And even with that work made, the results may simply not be forthcoming. The adjustment required may be mostly to avoid it. To some extent, for modern classical music, that is possible as in spite of great effort, it remains a niche of a niche. It is relatively rare that I hear something really offensive on my local classical station, and when it does come on I can turn off the radio or pop in a CD for a bit. (We did have a second classical radio station that played a great deal more modern classical . . . it died within a few years and is now a talk only format.) The bigger issue comes on concerts, where there has long been a concerted (pun intended) effort to force some of this music down the throats of an audience. As a result, I have mostly stopped attending concerts.


All I've done is demonstrate that one can listen to this music intellligently, and that seems to incense some detractors.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> No, you are misreading me again. It makes not a jot of difference to me if you never listen to it ever again. However, having failed to find anything of value it, while those people - performers, conductors, listeners - who have found something can't possibly all be aesthetic lunatics, you are not really in a position to give any credible judgements about it other than that you find it 'noise'. The human ear and brain has not been retrofitted with any new equipment to parse modern music, so what am I doing that you are not doing?


I don't know what you are doing. I don't even know what you are experiencing in hearing the music since it is apparently entirely different from what I am hearing.



eugeneonagain said:


> I will repeat again, for the umpteenth time, that 'it' is not one unified type of music. It is as diverse as Beethoven and Tchaikovsky and Elgar. Those lumping it together are clearly not hearing any difference; whose problem is that? There is as much mediocre to middling 'modernist' music as there is in older music, but would you know this? Plenty of old serial music failed to cater to the human ear and listening memory by not offering anchoring points, but then much non-serial music does as well. Ignorance is only bliss while one is still ignorant.


I would argue that it is even _more_ diverse, but that is hardly a virtue. There are far more ways to make a bad cherry pie than a good one.



eugeneonagain said:


> Speaking of ulterior motives, why would someone offer so much commentary in a thread about this music (it was obvious where such a thread title would lead) whilst claiming neither to like it nor listen to it? To what end I ask? I suggest it's because you believe it sullies the name of "classical music" and has wrongly replaced the music you like (both ideas being untrue).


Sometimes the discussions are at least interesting, but that presumes criteria that don't appear to be the case in this particular discussion.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

millionrainbows said:


> I assume that means me.
> 
> Stereotyping. What composers and works are you referring to?
> 
> All I've done is demonstrate that one can listen to this music intellligently, and that seems to incense some detractors.


No, it seems like saying if you do not agree with me you are dumb.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> My understanding was that Strange Magic was not commenting on millions' words but rather Cage's words.


When I quote Cage, it can be safely assumed that I stand behind the quote as if it were my own, and am using it to further my own personal views.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> I believe it's much more common for TC members to attack modern music or modern composers than to attack TC members who enjoy the music. I also think the vast majority of "complaints" by those loving modern music are focused on these attacks on the music itself. In large part their request is, "If you don't like the music, fine, but please let us discuss it without you simply bashing the music."


I think if you look through this thread, you will find several "nested" ad hominems obliquely referring to me in the negative.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> All I've done is demonstrate that one can listen to this music intellligently, and that seems to incense some detractors.


All you have demonstrated is that one can _claim_ that a particular way of listening to this music is intelligent, and repeat the claim infinitely.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm bowled over. This is unreal. Subjectivity renders your opinion correct? You can be as subjective as you like about facts of nature, but it doesn't alter their objective status.
> 
> Someone not interested in opinion, shouldn't be making arguments from a subjective standpoint.


My stance is historical, not subjective. Purely subjective opinion without any "back up" or expertise is not credible.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> All you have demonstrated is that one can _claim_ that a particular way of listening to this music is intelligent, and repeat the claim infinitely.


The net result is that you have to listen intelligently if you want to have an informed, credible opinion. Otherwise, I will criticize simple rejections and stereotyping.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> The net result is that you have to listen intelligently if you want to have an informed, credible opinion. Otherwise, I will criticize simple rejections and stereotyping.


Also sprach Millionrainbows . . .


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> My stance is historical, not subjective. Purely subjective opinion without any "back up" or expertise is not credible.


Then why state "subjectivity renders my opinion correct"?


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> I don't know what you are doing. I don't even know what you are experiencing in hearing the music since it is apparently entirely different from what I am hearing.


You aren't hearing anything. I am experiencing what is there, I am listening for the normal elements of music.



JAS said:


> I would argue that it is even _more_ diverse, but that is hardly a virtue. There are far more ways to make a bad cherry pie than a good one.


Really? Is there only one sort of "good" cherry pie? I think that's a fitting analogy of your view stated throughout the thread.



JAS said:


> Sometimes the discussions are at least interesting, but that presumes criteria that don't appear to be the case in this particular discussion.


What are those criteria? I'd say having at least a passable knowledge of what is going on in a piece of music is a start.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> Also sprach Millionrainbows . . .


Thankyouverymuch!


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Then why state "subjectivity renders my opinion correct"?


Because my statements about Pollock are not merely opinion...the statements are based on historical fact. Pollock was a successful artist whose paintings now sell in the millions. That's a fact, jack!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

millionrainbows said:


> Because my statements about Pollock are not merely opinion...the statements are based on historical fact. Pollock was a successful artist whose paintings now sell in the millions. That's a fact, jack!


In 1975 1.5 million people bought pet rocks that fad did not last.


----------



## millionrainbows

Johnnie Burgess said:


> In 1975 1.5 million people bought pet rocks that fad did not last.


Oh, this was not a mere fad. It's in coffee-table books!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, this was not a mere fad. It's in coffee-table books!


I am sure that is what they thought about the popularity of pet rocks at that time.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> Really? Is there only one sort of "good" cherry pie? I think that's a fitting analogy of your view stated throughout the thread.


It is the perfect analogy for what I have been saying, and all very true. Indeed, I hope to have some good cherry pie tomorrow for the fourth of July.


----------



## millionrainbows

In 1973, Number 11, 1952 (also known as Blue Poles) was purchased by the Australian Whitlam government for the National Gallery of Australia for US$2 million (A$1.3 million at the time of payment). At the time, this was the highest price ever paid for a modern painting. The painting is now one of the most popular exhibits in the gallery. It was a centerpiece of the Museum of Modern Art's 1998 retrospective in New York, the first time the painting had been shown in America since its purchase.

In November 2006, Pollock's No. 5, 1948 became the world's most expensive painting, when it was sold privately to an undisclosed buyer for the sum of $140,000,000.

Another artist record was established in 2004, when No. 12 (1949), a medium-sized drip painting that had been shown in the United States Pavilion at the 1950 Venice Biennale, fetched $11.7 million at Christie's, New York.

In 2012, Number 28, 1951, one of the artist's combinations of drip and brushwork in shades of silvery gray with red, yellow, and shots of blue and white, also sold at Christie's, New York, for $20.5 million-$23 million with fees-within its estimated range of $20 million to $30 million.

In 2013, Pollock's Number 19 (1948) was sold by Christie's for a reported $58,363,750 during an auction that ultimately reached $495 million total sales in one night which Christie's reports as a record to date as the most expensive auction of contemporary art.

In February 2016, Bloomberg News reported that Kenneth C. Griffin had purchased Jackson Pollock's 1948 painting, Number 17A, for $200 million, from David Geffen.

*HA HA HA!!!!*


----------



## millionrainbows

Johnnie Burgess said:


> I am sure that is what they thought about the popularity of pet rocks at that time.


I wish I was tuned-in to what the pet rock masses are thinking!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

millionrainbows said:


> In 1973, Number 11, 1952 (also known as Blue Poles) was purchased by the Australian Whitlam government for the National Gallery of Australia for US$2 million (A$1.3 million at the time of payment). At the time, this was the highest price ever paid for a modern painting. The painting is now one of the most popular exhibits in the gallery. It was a centerpiece of the Museum of Modern Art's 1998 retrospective in New York, the first time the painting had been shown in America since its purchase.
> 
> In November 2006, Pollock's No. 5, 1948 became the world's most expensive painting, when it was sold privately to an undisclosed buyer for the sum of $140,000,000.
> 
> Another artist record was established in 2004, when No. 12 (1949), a medium-sized drip painting that had been shown in the United States Pavilion at the 1950 Venice Biennale, fetched $11.7 million at Christie's, New York.
> 
> In 2012, Number 28, 1951, one of the artist's combinations of drip and brushwork in shades of silvery gray with red, yellow, and shots of blue and white, also sold at Christie's, New York, for $20.5 million-$23 million with fees-within its estimated range of $20 million to $30 million.
> 
> In 2013, Pollock's Number 19 (1948) was sold by Christie's for a reported $58,363,750 during an auction that ultimately reached $495 million total sales in one night which Christie's reports as a record to date as the most expensive auction of contemporary art.
> 
> In February 2016, Bloomberg News reported that Kenneth C. Griffin had purchased Jackson Pollock's 1948 painting, Number 17A, for $200 million, from David Geffen.
> 
> *HA HA HA!!!!*


And none of this money goes to Pollock's family only to an art collector wanting to make more money.


----------



## millionrainbows

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And none of this money goes to Pollock's family only to an art collector wanting to make more money.


Yes, so there must be value to it...which contradicts everything all the critics here have said.

_*$$$$$$$$*_


----------



## mmsbls

This thread has gone off topic to politics twice now. The topic is polarizing composers. Discussions of polarizing artists is a reasonable tangent, but politics is not. Also there seem to be more comments about others - always an indication that a thread is winding down and maybe should be closed. Please get back on track.

I forgot to add that several posts have been deleted.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, so there must be value to it...which contradicts everything all the critics here have said.
> 
> _*$$$$$$$$*_


So it seems you are no longer judging this on artistic merit, but amounts of money? Disappointing.


----------



## fluteman

Ahh. millionrainbows. Your comments are reasonable, and not contradicted by anything I've said. As for my joke about 4'33', it's really just an ironic comment about the endless 4'33" jokes around here, mostly from people I suspect have little knowledge or appreciation of Cage's many other contributions to western art. There are some more intelligent posts about 4'33", mostly suggesting it should be categorized as conceptual or performance art rather than music. But even that issue doesn't interest me very much. There are many works that straddle the boundary of music and conceptual art. George Crumb's Vox Balaenae (Voice of the Whale), by now an oft-performed chamber music standard, is supposed to be played by masked players and includes pantomime as well as other theatrical elements.
Ed. : As for the prices paid for Jackson Pollock paintings, they are high because he has had a significant impact on western culture. As did Bartok, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and Varese. They have now all been gone for many long years. If they were fads like the pet rock, they would all long since have been forgotten.


----------



## Strange Magic

The Pollock works and other abstract paintings that are auctioned off at amazing prices are displays (of wealth) by extraordinarily wealthy individuals and institutions, and are understood to be such among both the collector group and the general public. The brilliant facial and rump swellings of the mandrill serve an entirely analogous function. The utility of Pollockoid display is that the owner of the work can walk rapidly past it if they choose--compared to listening to a symphony or reading a book, paintings can be--I'm not saying should be--taken in at a glance. Also one can loan out such a painting, move it about. Often business tycoons will have the paintings on display in their corporate lobbies. It's all quite wonderful!


----------



## Art Rock

Strange Magic said:


> The Pollock works and other abstract paintings that are auctioned off at amazing prices are displays (of wealth) by extraordinarily wealthy individuals and institutions, and are understood to be such among both the collector group and the general public. The brilliant facial and rump swellings of the mandrill serve an entirely analogous function. The utility of Pollockoid display is that the owner of the work can walk rapidly past it if they choose--compared to listening to a symphony or reading a book, paintings can be--I'm not saying should be--taken in at a glance. Also one can loan out such a painting, move it about. Often business tycoons will have the paintings on display in their corporate lobbies. It's all quite wonderful!


I like abstract paintings a lot. Sadly, I am not one of your rich business tycoons.

The "I don't like it - therefore other people cannot like it - therefore it is crap" fallacy runs rampant in this thread.


----------



## EdwardBast

---------------------------------


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> The Pollock works and other abstract paintings that are auctioned off at amazing prices are displays (of wealth) by extraordinarily wealthy individuals and institutions, and are understood to be such among both the collector group and the general public. The brilliant facial and rump swellings of the mandrill serve an entirely analogous function. The utility of Pollockoid display is that the owner of the work can walk rapidly past it if they choose--compared to listening to a symphony or reading a book, paintings can be--I'm not saying should be--taken in at a glance. Also one can loan out such a painting, move it about. Often business tycoons will have the paintings on display in their corporate lobbies. It's all quite wonderful!


Yes, but mandrill rumps are gross, whereas Pollock paintings are easy on the eyes and fun to look at. And soulless rich people use Rembrandt the same way.



millionrainbows said:


> Yes, so there must be value to it...which contradicts everything all the critics here have said.
> 
> _*$$$$$$$$*_


Butchered logic. It would contradict what the critics said if monetary value and aesthetic value were the same thing. They're not.


----------



## JAS

Art Rock said:


> The "I don't like it - therefore other people cannot like it - therefore it is crap" fallacy runs rampant in this thread.


Where is this statement asserted in this thread? Once again we seem to be having an argument (rather than a discussion) about some absurd positions that may or may not have been said once upon a time or somewhere else.


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, but mandrill rumps are gross, whereas Pollock paintings are easy on the eyes and fun to look at. And soulless rich people use Rembrandt the same way.


Right. And the rich and powerful have always enjoyed collecting and showing off their art. Just as the rich and powerful have their boxes at the opera and symphony, with brass plaques with their names on them so they don't have to bother to show up to show off. And nowadays, even that is not enough. They get their names right in the program, or even have the whole concert hall named after them. But before his work became a fashionable toy for the rich, Jackson Pollock had to make his mark on western culture. As did Pablo Picasso before him. And Henri Matisse before him. As did Pierre Boulez. And Olivier Messiaen before him. And Igor Stravinsky before him. Etc. Etc.


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> The Pollock works and other abstract paintings that are auctioned off at amazing prices are displays (of wealth) by extraordinarily wealthy individuals and institutions, and are understood to be such among both the collector group and the general public. The brilliant facial and rump swellings of the mandrill serve an entirely analogous function. The utility of Pollockoid display is that the owner of the work can walk rapidly past it if they choose--compared to listening to a symphony or reading a book, paintings can be--I'm not saying should be--taken in at a glance. Also one can loan out such a painting, move it about. Often business tycoons will have the paintings on display in their corporate lobbies. It's all quite wonderful!


It is certainly a phenomenon, but probably not a suitable explanation for the sake of this discussion because I don't know that any composer or composition gets exchanged for this kind of money. Somewhat like the Kardashians becoming famous for being famous, in spite of an apparent lack of any real talent other than seeking and finding publicity, there is an element of attaching popularity to a name because it is a famous name. To some extent, that element is true in all forms of art and many aspects of life. Lots of people claim to admire Shakespeare who have never actually seen one of his plays enacted or read any of his works. (Maybe they saw the movie "Shakespeare in Love," which was a big hit some years ago.) It can become a kind of badge to show that you are "a member of the club" (whatever that particular "club" might be), a status symbol of intellect and taste, not necessarily requiring the more tangible show of money. But again, this happens to some degree in many aspects of life and, I think, cannot really be applied as an explanation to one side of the other of this discussion.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> But before his work became a fashionable toy for the rich, Jackson Pollock had to make his mark on western culture. As did Pablo Picasso before him. And Henri Matisse before him. As did Pierre Boulez. And Olivier Messiaen before him. And Igor Stravinsky before him. Etc. Etc.


I agree with this--the making of a mark on western culture. It may well be that, leaving matters of taste aside entirely, an overview collection of images of the Twentieth Century will show a work by Pollock, works by other abstract artists, alongside photos of Trinity ("Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."), Auschwitz, a picture of Pol Pot. Also photos of Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon. Pollock's work may thus achieve a sort of permanence over the centuries as a talisman, an archetype of the world we currently inhabit.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Pollock's work may thus achieve a sort of permanence over the centuries as a talisman, an archetype of the world we currently inhabit.


Yes. And in the end that's the fundamental, underlying purpose of serious art, as opposed to mere pleasant, entertaining diversions. That's why art encompasses ugliness as well as beauty, though one hopes that beauty prevails.


----------



## eugeneonagain

fluteman said:


> Yes. And in the end that's the fundamental, underlying purpose of serious art, as opposed to mere pleasant, entertaining diversions. That's why art encompasses ugliness as well as beauty, though one hopes that beauty prevails.


Yes. Some of the greatest art manages to capture, beauty and an air of the serious all in one package. I'd argue that a great deal of the art dismissed as useless or ugly from the usual quarters actually does encompass ugliness and beauty and meaning, but we get locked into certain ways of looking at things; especially ways that are based on tradition and habit.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Because my statements about Pollock are not merely opinion...the statements are based on historical fact. Pollock was a successful artist whose paintings now sell in the millions. That's a fact, jack!


That particular fact is not really a meaningful judgement on the quality or meaning in the art. The art market has become an investment market, like estates. A mere wealth nexus. A man like Mr. Saatchi knows this all too well.

Understand that I am not dismissing Pollock. I only have basic knowledge of him and his work, so I can't really pass judgement. I've seen one up close and it's impressive to look at, though I didn't really know why. I can't say I have your dedication to nurturing an almost complete appreciation for a particular sort of art. I just assess them as I encounter them.


----------



## JAS

fluteman said:


> Yes. And in the end that's the fundamental, underlying purpose of serious art, as opposed to mere pleasant, entertaining diversions. That's why art encompasses ugliness as well as beauty, though one hopes that beauty prevails.


There is, I think, more than a little truth in what you say here, but there are also limitations. What about art that is purely ugly, or so ugly that it overwhelms other factors? Would you go so far as to defend as art the performance artist who, some years ago, ate hamburger meat and then vomited it up on the floor roughly in the shape of a cow? (Even if someone might so defend it, surely it must be acknowledged as being controversial. Indeed, being controversial is probably the essential point of it.)

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Yes. And in the end that's the fundamental, underlying purpose of serious art, as opposed to mere pleasant, entertaining diversions.  That's why art encompasses ugliness as well as beauty, though one hopes that beauty prevails.


Here is another perspective on the relationship between ugliness and beauty--the 1935 poem _Rearmament_ by Robinson Jeffers:

These grand and fatal movements toward death: the grandeur of the mass
Makes pity a fool, the tearing pity
For the atoms of the mass, the persons, the victims, makes it seem monstrous
To admire the tragic beauty they build.
It is beautiful as a river flowing or a slowly gathering
Glacier on a high mountain rock-face,
Bound to plow down a forest, or as frost in November,
The gold and flaming death-dance for leaves,
Or a girl in the night of her spent maidenhood, bleeding and kissing.
I would burn my right hand in a slow fire
To change the future … I should do foolishly. The beauty of modern
Man is not in the persons but in the
Disastrous rhythm, the heavy and mobile masses, the dance of the
Dream-led masses down the dark mountain.


----------



## JAS

I have some questions which I hope will be seen as legitimate even in this somewhat overheated thread as there seems to be some disagreement even among those who actively advocate for more modern music. As a general inquiry, I ask this series of related questions:

1 Do you (not asking anyone in particular) feel that modern forms of music should be immediately accessible to (or subject to appreciation by) . . .

1A - a listener who has _no_ exposure to classical or orchestral music? (Thus no predisposition to a given form of such music, but let us assume also no predisposition _against_ the sound of orchestral instruments.)

1B - a listener who has _some_ exposure and favorable response to classical or orchestral music in general (but no real exposure to more modern forms)?

1C - a listener who has _considerable_ exposure and favorable response to classical orchestral music (but no real exposure to more modern forms)?

1D - a listener who has _considerable_ exposure and favorable response to classical orchestral music and at least some exposure to more modern forms?

2 Do you feel that exposure to earlier forms of classical music is a help or hindrance to appreciating more modern forms of classical music (broadly defined)?

3 Do you feel that there are varying levels of difficulty (a term used in the least judgemental sense) in approaching more modern forms of classical music? (That is to say, is Avant-garde music any more or less "accessible" than Late Schoenberg, or current Ferneyhough?)

4 Do you feel that there are significant differences, apparent at the level of listening, between older (stylistically pre-Schoenberg) more modern (stylistically post-Schoenberg) music?

5 If you do feel that there are significant differences, do you feel that these differences are comparable to differences between earlier eras of classical music or more significant (in type and/or number)?

(Clarifications can be made if necessary.)

Edit: I have added numbers for the sake of convenience in reference.


----------



## Nereffid

Leaving aside the fact that I'm unsure what exactly you mean by "modern forms of music" - given that a recent thread indicated that Poulenc was too modern for some people...

Here on TC there have been countless personal anecdotes about hearing some particular music for the first time - some are instantly captivated, others repelled despite many efforts to like it.

I would say that ultimately whether any listener can appreciate (not sure what you mean here either, though - understand or enjoy?) modern music - or any particular music - comes down not to their exposure to some other type of music but their, for want of a better word, personality.

Some people are curious about hearing completely new music, but they'll vary in how much effort they're willing to put in. For some people, just the curiousity alone will be enough - they for whatever reason are able to like completely new things quickly and easily. For others, they might have some sort of conscientiousness that makes them keep trying until eventually they "get it". Still others won't put so much effort in, and move on if they don't like the music relatively soon.
And of course some people just aren't that curious - they'll listen if the opportunity presents itself but won't seek out new music. And others deliberately avoid novelty.
Which leads on to another aspect of personality, let's call it patience or tolerance: if the person doesn't like this new music they've tried, how do they respond? A shrug, or a more negative reaction? And if they hear several duds in a row, what then - do they now look unkindly on this type of music, or do they retain hope that there's other music out there for them?


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> I have some questions which I hope will be seen as legitimate even in this somewhat overheated thread as there seems to be some disagreement even among those who actively advocate for more modern music. As a general inquiry, I ask this series of related questions:
> 
> 1 Do you (not asking anyone in particular) feel that modern forms of music should be immediately accessible to (or subject to appreciation by) . . .
> 
> 1A - a listener who has _no_ exposure to classical or orchestral music? (Thus no predisposition to a given form of such music, but let us assume also no predisposition _against_ the sound of orchestral instruments.)
> 
> 1B - a listener who has _some_ exposure and favorable response to classical or orchestral music in general (but no real exposure to more modern forms)?
> 
> 1C - a listener who has _considerable_ exposure and favorable response to classical orchestral music (but no real exposure to more modern forms)?
> 
> 1D - a listener who has _considerable_ exposure and favorable response to classical orchestral music and at least some exposure to more modern forms?


Any of those. It's impossible to have a sort of 'tabula rasa' in terms of listening so expectations will get in the way. I imagine that people who like regular orchestral music, but who are unimpressed in general by such art as, say, van Gogh (which is not that radical by today's standards) are not likely to get much out of modern music without some coaxing and discussion.



JAS said:


> 2 Do you feel that exposure to earlier forms of classical music is a help or hindrance to appreciating more modern forms of classical music (broadly defined)?


It hasn't hindered me or many others. However I understand the gist of the question, which asks whether it creates expectations. I don't think that is entirely something in the music, but also the person listening. If someone comes along and says: 'Hey listen to this brilliant piece of modern classical music' and the reply is: 'What!? that's not classical music!' There's a problem afoot.



JAS said:


> 3 Do you feel that there are varying levels of difficulty (a term used in the least judgemental sense) in approaching more modern forms of classical music? (That is to say, is Avant-garde music any more or less "accessible" than Late Schoenberg, or current Ferneyhough?)


Like any art there's going to be a learning curve that is steeper for some works. I wouldn't say it is difficult once a person becomes familiar with the 'language' as-it-were. Understanding the structures and themes. Remember that it might also be bogus or just rubbish, like any work.



JAS said:


> 4 Do you feel that there are significant differences, apparent at the level of listening, between older (stylistically pre-Schoenberg) more modern (stylistically post-Schoenberg) music?


Yes, there are differences, but also similarities (boo!) It has fragmented since Schoenberg and composers are no longer necessarily trying to be serial composers (though some are) or even specifically "atonal". The extensions to the language have settled in and composers are more flexible in using it.



JAS said:


> 5 If you do feel that there are significant differences, do you feel that these differences are comparable to differences between earlier eras of classical music or more significant (in type and/or number)?


I wouldn't like to say really. The difference between say baroque and galant/classical seems much weaker to us now having the luxury of being at the end of several centuries of acclimatisation, but at the time I'm certain it was perceived as a big difference. Of course there is the issue of "tonal collapse" (which is a huge discussion) that makes for a sharp divide.


----------



## Strange Magic

I think that only a morally repugnant deception wherein the private listening habits of a statistically valid (large enough) population of professed classical music lovers were clandestinely recorded, would give us the information sought here. There are reasons why people self-report musical (or other art) likes and dislikes other than inherent attraction/repulsion. The question is whether professed enthusiasms mirror actual listening practice as evidenced by a pattern of repeated listening to works over long periods of time. One can argue positions with great energy without actual commitment to them in one's personal behavior. I have always appreciated the declaration by philosopher Ernest Nagel, who wrote: "With Santayana, I prefer not to accept in philosophic [and in this case, aesthetic] debate what I do not believe when I am not arguing..."

The factors at play in my own case over decades of listening to music seem to have been: (A) age at time of first exposure, and (B) the passage of sufficient time over the decades listening to music such that one's personal outer boundaries can become known. I have the peculiar gift or curse of never "outgrowing" early musical enthusiasms, so I only add new ones. But having found my personal boundary, _ne plus ultra_, to be the more accessible works of Bela Bartok, Martinu, Rautavaara, others of that ilk, I do not go beyond, finding the further erosion of melody and "tonality" unacceptable to me. Others clearly go farther, or say they do. My consolation has been that Leonard Meyer's explanations of the workings of music--the balance between realized and thwarted expectation--seem to explain and vindicate my choices in my own mind, though as I've noted, Meyer does not address what he calls the purely "sensual" aspects of music. Ongoing research into the chill response and other manifestations of limbic system/autonomic nervous system reaction to aural and other stimuli continue to elucidate that sensual aspect.

The upshot of all this, in my view, is that of course people can like, or say they like, any kind of music. But in classical music, there will be a recognizable inflection point somewhere beyond, say, Bartok's _Concerto for Orchestra_, where there will be a distinct falling-away in size of audience for such music in actual, quantifiable auditing of said music--an assertion we cannot prove but only postulate. The best public attitude to maintain, in my opinion, is to express enthusiasm for the musics one likes, sharing that sense of enthusiasm with others, and to concomitantly avoid disparaging others' expressed enthusiasms. I affirm that I myself have not always followed my own advice, but I think I've avoided some of the trolling that we've all seen here on TC.


----------



## eugeneonagain

^ The position advanced by Strange Magic above is unproblematic for me. I understand and respect it. I have never tried to make people listen to the music I listen to. I have had it on the background sometimes and it elicits discussion, but other than that I don't harp on about it to my friends or other people I meet.

On the other hand I find it hard to keep quiet when someone decides to rip into it on grounds of 'degeneracy'. The only part of Strange Magic's post I will address is this:



Strange Magic said:


> But in classical music, there will be a recognizable inflection point somewhere beyond, say, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, where there will be a distinct falling-away in size of audience for such music in actual, quantifiable auditing of said music


That may be true for the mainstream-to-fairly seasoned purely _listening audience_, but among performers/composers there is an attitude much more amenable to modernist music.


----------



## mmsbls

1 Do you (not asking anyone in particular) feel that modern forms of music should be immediately accessible to (or subject to appreciation by) . . .

I'm not sure what you mean by "should be". Do you mean "ought" in the sense that composers ought to create music that is accessible? Or do you mean "generally is" in the sense that modern music certainly is accessible to someone who...?

I assume you mean ought. My answer would be that a composer ought to write what they wish. If they care about the response, they may prefer to change what they write.

2 Do you feel that exposure to earlier forms of classical music is a help or hindrance to appreciating more modern forms of classical music (broadly defined)?

The answer is rather complicated, and likely no one knows. I believe exposure to significant amounts of common practice tonality conditions the brain such that many will require significant listening to learn the new language. If one had no exposure, I'm not sure how much listening would be required.

3 Do you feel that there are varying levels of difficulty (a term used in the least judgemental sense) in approaching more modern forms of classical music? (That is to say, is Avant-garde music any more or less "accessible" than Late Schoenberg, or current Ferneyhough?)

For someone with previous experience listening to a lot of earlier music - absolutely. 

4 Do you feel that there are significant differences, apparent at the level of listening, between older (stylistically pre-Schoenberg) more modern (stylistically post-Schoenberg) music?

Yes, very significant.

5 If you do feel that there are significant differences, do you feel that these differences are comparable to differences between earlier eras of classical music or more significant (in type and/or number)?

Certainly much more significant than the Classical to Early Romantic or Early Romantic to Late Romantic. I believe they are much more significant than Baroque to Classical. I strongly suspect that earlier transitions also involved less significant changes. 

My main argument has been that before 1900 or so very few could listen to much music in their lives (i.e. there were no recordings so everything had to be live). People (probably not everyone) seemed to accept the new music within a modest time period. We now have the opportunity to listen to any particular work we wish anytime we want. Even with the ability to hear enormous amounts of modern music (and specific music), many of us required long periods to learn the new language. I have probably listened to more modern music in 5 years than most people heard in a lifetime pre-1900. Empirically (with a biased, limited sample) it would seem that the transition takes longer and requires more "effort".


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> I think that only a morally repugnant deception wherein the private listening habits of a statistically valid (large enough) population of professed classical music lovers were clandestinely recorded, would give us the information sought here. There are reasons why people self-report musical (or other art) likes and dislikes other than inherent attraction/repulsion. The question is whether professed enthusiasms mirror actual listening practice as evidenced by a pattern of repeated listening to works over long periods of time. One can argue positions with great energy without actual commitment to them in one's personal behavior. I have always appreciated the declaration by philosopher Ernest Nagel, who wrote: "With Santayana, I prefer not to accept in philosophic [and in this case, aesthetic] debate what I do not believe when I am not arguing..."


Except that I am not looking for an actual answer in terms of precise, verifiable statistical accuracy (which would certainly be unreasonable), merely the individual perception. Several people have admitting to exerting considerable time and effort into appreciating modern music while others seem to be insisting that it is no different than the shift from Classical Era to Romantic Era. This information has generally been mentioned only in passing, and I was merely trying to get a sense of the relative opinions outside of the context and distraction of the topic ostensibly being argued.


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> Leaving aside the fact that I'm unsure what exactly you mean by "modern forms of music" - given that a recent thread indicated that Poulenc was too modern for some people... I would say that ultimately whether any listener can appreciate (not sure what you mean here either, though - understand or enjoy?) modern music - or any particular music - comes down not to their exposure to some other type of music but their, for want of a better word, personality.


I was intentionally using broad terms so as not to get bogged down in specific details in merely asking the questions. (I picked "appreciate" to allow for both/either "understand" or "enjoy" or whatever other more or less favorable response might be considered.) You may interpret them as broadly or as narrowly as you like. If individuals feel that the terms need refinement, I hope that they feel free to specify the refinement in their answers.


----------



## fluteman

I think one thing missing from this discussion is an examination of what the term "classical music" really means, in the broad sense, not the 1750-1825 Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven sense. By the second half of the 20th century, the traditional symphony orchestra and its acoustic instruments (including the piano) were losing the central role in our musical culture that they had occupied unchallenged since the late 18th century. That alone has had a profound effect on all western music, including art music or serious music, if one wants to find an alternate term. Bartok's spectacular Concerto for Orchestra, tellingly cited by Strange Magic here, can be seen as a fitting valediction for a nearly 200-year old era. Even as many composers, from habit or training, continued to write music for acoustic instruments, the audience now lived in an electric and then electronic age.
Maybe that's why many contemporary composers, even when they write for acoustic instruments, imitate the sounds of the technological revolution. Philip Glass comes to mind, perhaps also tellingly not a favorite of Strange Magic. As a child of the 60s and 70s, I found a lot of electric and electronic era music more familiar and easier to understand and digest than Wagner's operas and Bruckner's symphonies. Even when I began to study classical music formally, starting on the piano with Bartok's Mikrorkosmos and Bach's Anna Magdalena Notebook, I found Bach, Mozart, Bartok, Debussy and Stravinsky (the latter two familiar from my favorite childhood movie, Disney's Fantasia) much easier to comprehend than Wagner and Bruckner, whose music I didn't study seriously until high school.
So a lot of one's attitude about "classical" music, and music generally, does depend on one's upbringing and cultural background.


----------



## hpowders

OperaChic said:


> *No one cared the first time you stated you don't care for Bruckner,* and no one cares after the 100th time. But maybe you should stop belaboring the point.
> 
> I mean, I know I know, trashing great artists who enrich people's lives immeasurably more than these frivolous discussion on TC is so hip and fun and cool. But people tend to get defensive when something that they consider meaningful and which brings them great pleasure is endlessly insulted and ridiculed.


Not true. My mother "liked" my post!!! :lol::lol:


----------



## Ethereality

*Did you know we have this data when it comes to the forum's Top 100 composers?*

Based on the data from the latest _Favorite Composer_ survey done by Art Rock and 56 members, the most polarizing composers turned out to actually be:

*Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.*

That's right. Indubitably, a survey of _top_ composers shows, that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were not included in the_ most_ members Top 20s relative to the amount of actual points each composer received.

The data was captured the accurate way by 'points skewed to the estimated degree of list inclusions for each composer,' instead of the simple 'points to inclusions,' as the point range is relative. The Big 3 were the_ least likely_ to appear on anyone's Top 20 relative to their awarded worth. They are the most polarizing composers of the Top 100.

Here are the Top polarization scores:

1. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart	9.98
2. Johann Sebastian Bach	9.85
3. Ludwig van Beethoven 9.84
4. Guillaume Dufay 9.30
5. Johannes Brahms 8.72
6. Richard Wagner 7.99
7. Gustav Mahler 7.98
8. Steve Reich 7.59
9. György Ligeti 7.43
10. Franz Schubert 7.41
11. Christoph Willibald Gluck 7.38
12. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov 7.21
13. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky 6.89
14. Josquin des Prez 6.546
15. Olivier Messiaen 6.540
16. Joseph Haydn 6.45
17. Carl Maria von Weber 6.44
18. Guillaume de Machaut 6.43
19-20. Robert Schumann 6.29
19-20. Jean Sibelius 6.29

Composers with only 3 votes were discarded for weak sampling.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Not sure if it's been mentioned but Brahms received quite a bit of flak from some composers such as Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Britten, Milhaud, and even Nietsche.


----------



## SanAntone

The first name that came to my mind was Wagner. I don't care for his music but have discontinued discussing his music with those who adore it. There does seem to be an either love him or hate him response.

I could be wrong, but that has been my experience.


----------



## Guest002

SanAntone said:


> The first name that came to my mind was Wagner. I don't care for his music but have discontinued discussing his music with those who adore it. There does seem to be an either love him or hate him response.
> 
> I could be wrong, but that has been my experience.


Hating *him* seems entirely fair, in my view! Hating his music, however, seems an altogether weirder thing. I don't think I've ever come across someone who actually hated his music. Bored by it, sure: it takes a certain stamina to stay awake for four or five hours of shrill Germanic soprano, after all. But even people who I know to have snored through much of it have never said that they hate the music as such.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

If I were to hate Wagner for anything (and I don't...I love his music), it would be taking material that would comfortably work within a 2-3 hour opera and expanding it way beyond the duration of what it needs to be, turning ecstatic moments into mediocre half-hours. The Wagnerian valleys have yet to fill in for me inside the peaks.


----------



## Enthusiast

Ethereality said:


> *Did you know we have this data when it comes to the forum's Top 100 composers?*
> 
> Based on the data from the latest _Favorite Composer_ survey done by Art Rock and 56 members, the most polarizing composers turned out to actually be:
> 
> *Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.*
> 
> That's right. Indubitably, a survey of _top_ composers shows, that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were not included in the_ most_ members Top 20s relative to the amount of actual points each composer received.
> 
> The data was captured the accurate way by 'points skewed to the estimated degree of list inclusions for each composer,' instead of the simple 'points to inclusions,' as the point range is relative. The Big 3 were the_ least likely_ to appear on anyone's Top 20 relative to their awarded worth. They are the most polarizing composers of the Top 100.
> 
> Here are the Top polarization scores:
> 
> 1. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart	9.98
> 2. Johann Sebastian Bach	9.85
> 3. Ludwig van Beethoven 9.84
> 4. Guillaume Dufay 9.30
> 5. Johannes Brahms 8.72
> 6. Richard Wagner 7.99
> 7. Gustav Mahler 7.98
> 8. Steve Reich 7.59
> 9. György Ligeti 7.43
> 10. Franz Schubert 7.41
> 11. Christoph Willibald Gluck 7.38
> 12. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov 7.21
> 13. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky 6.89
> 14. Josquin des Prez 6.546
> 15. Olivier Messiaen 6.540
> 16. Joseph Haydn 6.45
> 17. Carl Maria von Weber 6.44
> 18. Guillaume de Machaut 6.43
> 19-20. Robert Schumann 6.29
> 19-20. Jean Sibelius 6.29
> 
> Composers with only 3 votes were discarded for weak sampling.


Much of that list makes sense - partly it is just down to which composers everyone must surely get to hear (so more chance for variations in how the experience is taken) - but I am surprised to see Dufay score so highly.


----------



## Flamme

Idk, Wag(ner)?


----------



## SanAntone

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Hating *him* seems entirely fair, in my view! Hating his music, however, seems an altogether weirder thing. I don't think I've ever come across someone who actually hated his music. Bored by it, sure: it takes a certain stamina to stay awake for four or five hours of shrill Germanic soprano, after all. But even people who I know to have snored through much of it have never said that they hate the music as such.


Well, I didn't men it literally.  Just has seemed that he has some very rabid fans and then there's people like me who really don't like the music and like was just said, think it goes on and on much longer than tolerable. But, that said, I have listened to Tristan - but not in one sitting. I had to break it up. I probably won't ever feel the need to re-visit any of his operas.

There's too much other music that I am interested in exploring.


----------



## Flamme

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Hating *him* seems entirely fair, in my view! Hating his music, however, seems an altogether weirder thing. I don't think I've ever come across someone who actually hated his music. Bored by it, sure: it takes a certain stamina to stay awake for four or five hours of shrill Germanic soprano, after all. But even people who I know to have snored through much of it have never said that they hate the music as such.


I think, when u withstand the whole Wgners opera something chenges in u, deep inside, u r never the same man as b4!!!


----------



## Pat Fairlea

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Hating *him* seems entirely fair, in my view! Hating his music, however, seems an altogether weirder thing. I don't think I've ever come across someone who actually hated his music. Bored by it, sure: it takes a certain stamina to stay awake for four or five hours of shrill Germanic soprano, after all. But even people who I know to have snored through much of it have never said that they hate the music as such.


Yes, exactly.
What puzzles me about that ranking is that Rimsky-Korsakov is a fair way up the list. I get that some may find his music a bit too rich and gloopy, but what is there to hate?


----------



## Ethereality

Hate simply isn't the case for most of these. Most of the famous composers are loved. Instead, polarization manifests by the fact that there's a group of people who _overly love_ or praise a composer too_ much_. *Rimsky-Korsakov* for instance placed 49th overall, but a large degree of people said no to that, placing him much higher! So they're not that *outspoken *about loving Rimsky-Korsakov as people are about Wagner, this is not a shouting match. He is very polarizing, but his fans don't scream about it. I wouldn't ever use the word 'hate' to describe polarizing composers, because most of the time-tested famous composers were good at what they do and that's why they're still around.

Since this list only counts the _Top 100 composers_, we must conclude that most of the strong opinions represented here are not overly negative, but *overly positive*. Polarization measures which averages are the most broad, and then from there it's up to interpretation. For instance, *Holst* placed 87th and *Grieg* placed 47th, but people are the_ least_ polarized about this. Most people agree with these placements.

*Dufay* on the opposite end, placed 63rd overall, but then almost everyone who voted for him put him in their *Top 5* of all time. That's pretty crazy.

*Wagner*. Almost everyone likes him, and then there are some people who are outliers, overrating him to a large degree over the rest. Whether one group is right, or the other, is totally up to interpretation. If the Wagner fanatics are right about him being underrated, then aren't the Rimsky-Korsakov fanatics also right? That's what makes this science interesting. But this isn't a shouting match, which leads me to

The case of *Bach, Mozart, *and *Beethoven*, the exact same phenomenon as above. The difference is, the amount of fanatics outweigh the simple fans this time. The 'simple fans' undervalue these composers to a very _giant_ degree (and they generally know it and don't care.)

I hope this shed some light onto how the list works.


----------



## consuono

Wagner, no question.


----------



## SanAntone

I am mystified why Guillaume de Machaut is on the list, and also Dufay - who scored so high. I think this is a weird list.


----------



## ORigel

Cage
Schoenberg
Webern
Berg
Xenakis
Stockhausen
Bruckner
Brahms
Wagner


----------



## annaw

Ethereality said:


> Hate simply isn't the case for most of these. Most of the famous composers are loved. Instead, polarization manifests by the fact that there's a group of people who _overly love_ or praise a composer too_ much_. *Rimsky-Korsakov* for instance placed 49th overall, but a large degree of people said no to that, placing him much higher! So they're not that *outspoken *about loving Rimsky-Korsakov as people are about Wagner, this is not a shouting match. He is very polarizing, but his fans don't scream about it. I wouldn't ever use the word 'hate' to describe polarizing composers, because most of the time-tested famous composers were good at what they do and that's why they're still around.
> 
> Since this list only counts the _Top 100 composers_, we must conclude that most of the strong opinions represented here are not overly negative, but *overly positive*. Polarization measures which averages are the most broad, and then from there it's up to interpretation. For instance, *Holst* placed 87th and *Grieg* placed 47th, but people are the_ least_ polarized about this. Most people agree with these placements.
> 
> *Dufay* on the opposite end, placed 63rd overall, but then almost everyone who voted for him put him in their *Top 5* of all time. That's pretty crazy.
> 
> *Wagner*. Almost everyone likes him, and then there are some people who are outliers, overrating him to a large degree over the rest. Whether one group is right, or the other, is totally up to interpretation. If the Wagner fanatics are right about him being underrated, then aren't the Rimsky-Korsakov fanatics also right? That's what makes this science interesting. But this isn't a shouting match, which leads me to
> 
> The case of *Bach, Mozart, *and *Beethoven*, the exact same phenomenon as above. The difference is, the amount of fanatics outweigh the simple fans this time. The 'simple fans' undervalue these composers to a very _giant_ degree (and they generally know it and don't care.)
> 
> I hope this shed some light onto how the list works.


Wagner might be a special case in some aspects. Frist, I think what certainly adds to Wagner's polarising character is the mere fact that he composed mainly operatic music. He has non-operatic works as well but most of them, with a few exceptions like _Siegfried Idyll_ and _Wesendonck Lieder_, are much less-known. So people who don't like opera are just more likely to disregard him because they don't like the genre he composed in. That means that there is a group of people who cannot really like Wagner just because they don't like opera and I think this is absolutely normal and very okay but this is just one of the reasons why Wagner is more polarising than many other composers. I think that the majority of people wouldn't say that the overture of _Tristan und Isolde_ or _Parisfal_'s Transformation music are uninspired pieces of music though.

Secondly, it is worth mentioning that there are people who very literally hate Wagner and his music but that's mainly because of the man himself. Wagner as a person is very polarising and these views are easily projected onto his music. In my personal opinion one misses out a lot if he listens to Wagner's opera while separating the composer and his ideas entirely from the music. There are many aspects in Wagner's life and thoughts that affect the way his music should be interpreted and understood but I'm certainly not saying that antisemitism was one of those things. I think this was one rather small aspect of Wagner's ideas that just gets overly much attention. When that is read into his operas and music then I can very well see why some might hate his music. In short, Wagner is made more polarising through his polarising character which most other composers didn't have.


----------



## Room2201974

Ethereality said:


> *Did you know we have this data when it comes to the forum's Top 100 composers?*
> 
> Based on the data from the latest _Favorite Composer_ survey done by Art Rock and 56 members, the most polarizing composers turned out to actually be:
> 
> *Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.*
> 
> That's right. Indubitably, a survey of _top_ composers shows, that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were not included in the_ most_ members Top 20s relative to the amount of actual points each composer received.
> 
> The data was captured the accurate way by 'points skewed to the estimated degree of list inclusions for each composer,' instead of the simple 'points to inclusions,' as the point range is relative. The Big 3 were the_ least likely_ to appear on anyone's Top 20 relative to their awarded worth. They are the most polarizing composers of the Top 100.
> 
> Here are the Top polarization scores:
> 
> 1. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart	9.98
> 2. Johann Sebastian Bach	9.85
> 3. Ludwig van Beethoven 9.84
> 4. Guillaume Dufay 9.30
> 5. Johannes Brahms 8.72
> 6. Richard Wagner 7.99
> 7. Gustav Mahler 7.98
> 8. Steve Reich 7.59
> 9. György Ligeti 7.43
> 10. Franz Schubert 7.41
> 11. Christoph Willibald Gluck 7.38
> 12. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov 7.21
> 13. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky 6.89
> 14. Josquin des Prez 6.546
> 15. Olivier Messiaen 6.540
> 16. Joseph Haydn 6.45
> 17. Carl Maria von Weber 6.44
> 18. Guillaume de Machaut 6.43
> 19-20. Robert Schumann 6.29
> 19-20. Jean Sibelius 6.29
> 
> Composers with only 3 votes were discarded for weak sampling.


A couple of points that need to be made here to make sure we are on the same page:

*Art Rock's* poll that was answered by 56 TC participants was a poll of top 30 composers and not "the top 100." Of those numbers fully 1 /4 *did not rank* their list. The rank toward "greatness" derived from the list is thus not totally accurate if all the calculations are based on 56.



> The case of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, the exact same phenomenon as above. The difference is, the amount of fanatics outweigh the simple fans this time. The 'simple fans' undervalue these composers to a very giant degree (and they generally know it and don't care.)


Then there are some of us whose life study of composition indicates that the rest of the field needs to be valued more in relation to the big three. It has less to do with "liking" or indicating "greatness" and more to do with valuing compositional methods.


----------



## Ethereality

Room2201974 said:


> A couple of points that need to be made here to make sure we are on the same page:
> 
> *Art Rock's* poll that was answered by 56 TC participants was a poll of top 30 composers and not "the top 100." Of those numbers fully 1 /4 *did not rank* their list. The rank toward "greatness" derived from the list is thus not totally accurate if all the calculations are based on 56.


Very true, it was members' Top 30 compiled into a Top 100 for the whole forum. As you said, never specified that all lists were ranked. Rather, the data provided allows us to find the exact average ranking within members' lists: 2 numbers were provided, and when they're divided they give the average placement within members' Top 30.

It's best not to take this list as a complete picture of any sort however. I agree with others regarding Wagner, I must point out that because that list on the last page only surveyed members' Top 30s, in has some limitations such as not representing overly negative opinions. It does do a good job at highlighting some important data we would otherwise miss: hard numerical data from surveys gives us a lot of important revelations ie.

I didn't know there was a hardcore 'Dufay' group on this forum, as well as major fans of other composers who don't speak out. The whole participation was anonymous, so members felt much more comfortable sharing their true opinions. I mainly wanted to show the big division some forum members have regarding the Big 3. It's not necessarily about which individuals are the most loud and turned off, but about all the people who don't speak much about their least favorites, like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. It also turned out that the least polarizing popular composer was Chopin. Most people felt quite comfortable with him in the Top 20-30.

Thanks for the clarifications!


----------



## Room2201974

SanAntone said:


> I am mystified why Guillaume de Machaut is on the list, and also Dufay - who scored so high. I think this is a weird list.


Are you saying you don't understand why many of us consider Machaut important enough to be on a list of great composers or that you don't understand why he would be a "polarizing" figure in music history?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Why he, in the context of the list in question, scores so highly as a polarising composer is a bit of a mystery, isn't it? What was the controversy?


----------



## Art Rock

If I understand the list correctly, a composer like Dufay scores high in the list if the name only comes up in a relatively small amount of personal top 30's, but in those it scores near the top. Not really controversial, more a matter of different tastes.


----------



## SanAntone

Room2201974 said:


> Are you saying you don't understand why many of us consider Machaut important enough to be on a list of great composers or that you don't understand why he would be a "polarizing" figure in music history?


No, I understand why Machaut would appear on someone's Top Ten list, he is on mine. What I don't understand is the use of the word "polarizing." It implies _to me_ that there is something about the composer, or his music, over which people argue, or cause them to fall into "take him/leave him" camps, i.e. little ambivalence about him or his music.

I can't imagine anything about Machaut, or Dufay for that matter, that is controversial or problematic and which would cause arguments. I guess I find the methodology of this list to be specious.


----------



## Ethereality

SanAntone said:


> I can't imagine anything about Machaut, or Dufay for that matter, that is controversial or problematic and which would cause arguments.


I've haven't personally noticed any of the individuals who think Dufay is one of the Top 10 greats, ever argue with anyone about it.

You are right in that this list is probably posted in the wrong thread and not exactly about most polarizing. We can discontinue the topic. My final statement however is, this list reveals some interesting information about conflicting subgroups of this forum, like there being not much of a midground group for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Dufay. Most people either 'revere' one/more of them or 'don't care enough' about them. While someone like Chopin, most people are in agreement and comfortable with a middle opinion. Not sure what to call such a list, but since we all have different opinions it's not that meaningful to worry about.

The real emphasis is, since we all agree on the less controversial, is to see if one group of the more controversial is actually onto something. For example, is Dufay going unnoticed and underrated? or more importantly, is he simply just a different _genre_? Essentially, we now can categorize groups of the Classical community for beneficial reasons of creating valid genres for people within classical, ie. a 'Wagner' group. If we isolate these groups and come up with their own Top 50s, then these are _several *valid*_ Top lists that each fit a different type of listener. This is a very positive thing! as it allows us to further categorize Classical music for people into agreed taste groups.

Theoretically, we'd take Art Rock's statistics and make 6 different lists for people, and we will see how people much more prefer one of these lists, rather than the big main list.

Each of the 6 new lists are averages of every list that has one of these in their Top 10. The rest of the 56 lists discounted.
List 1. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is in all top 10s
List 2. Johann Sebastian Bach is in all top 10s
List 3. Ludwig van Beethoven is in all top 10s
List 4. Guillaume Dufay is in all top 10s
List 5. Johannes Brahms is in all top 10s
List 6. Richard Wagner is in all top 10s

This doesn't work on less controversial composers, as most people agree on ie. Chopin's rank therefore the final list will include most people, and thus look exactly the same as the main one.


----------

