# Experimental/avant-garde music is the most informed of tradition.



## Guest

Someone I know has composed a piano piece that largely draws upon the grand tradition of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation. It's so closely linked to this long history of piano playing because it pretty much extracts these ideas and makes music out of them, amplified with very close microphones that pick up the subtle sounds that are made, mostly on purpose, but sometimes unintentional sounds of a specific note being sounded by the hammer striking the string. I find it quite amazing to actually be able to hear these subtle sounds, hand movements and the real light, shade and all of the nuances of interpretation often applied to other kinds of repertoire. Hearing these nuances on their own has been actually very refreshing for me and sound really quite musical in their own right:






As with many other works like this that explore an expanded timbral palette, I have a feeling that often it is the result of a deep appreciation of the repertoire for and traditions associated with the instrument. I have mentioned Lachenmann earlier, and I feel like he is an example of a traditionally-minded musician, someone extremely conscious of Music History and uses it as a foundation for his musical explorations and expressions. There was even a Van Magazine article from a little while ago, when _Marche Fatale_ was breaking the internet (for New Music fans), that discussed his inspirations from the history of music.

Another composer who springs to mind is Ferneyhough, whose string quartets themselves grew from a huge appreciation and knowledge of the grand tradition of string quartet repertoire. Someone else who is more knowledgeable in this area might be able to give some more info about this, because I'm not really the biggest Ferneyhough expert out there.

Boulez is another obvious composer here to me, drawing upon a wide interest in music from previous generations of composers in Europe and also music from around the world.

---------------------------------------

You know, the more I think about it, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there is more and more access to information about history and all of its traditions, more people really taking an interest in it and responding to it in different ways. Perhaps it is this that makes me think about composers since the 20th century being more concerned with tradition than earlier composers who simply wrote the modern music of the day because that is simply the music that was performed and heard.

Perhaps this kind of music is actually the most conservative of all. Who knew?


----------



## Jacck

I played the video and he seemed to be exploring the timbral palette but where is the music gone? I did not hear any. In the past, musicians used instruments to produce sounds and the sounds had a goal - to create a beautiful melody, to express emotions, to tell a story. Now they just produce the sounds, but the goal of music seems to be lost to them.


----------



## Guest

I don't really know what to say to that, Jacck. For me, the music is there, for you it is not. Do you think that might be right? I'm not sure what that has to do with the stuff I wanted to talk about........


----------



## Jacck

No, I am fine with it and I will not spoilt your thread and am on my way. I personally hear no connection between this modern composition and the glorious tradition of the past, but I am only an amateur with no music education. But compare it to Bach's partitas which can be played on any instrument and sound wonderful on the all. Do you really think it is the same tradition?


----------



## Guest

Yeah absolutely. I think of Bach as a kind of proto-seralist, whose monothematic developmental compositions are a pretty obvious precursor to the kinds of things that Webern was writing centuries later, leading to post-Webern serialism you see in music by Babbitt, Stockhausen, Boulez etc.

There's also another tradition of the development of instruments, experimentation with what sounds can be made on instruments of different types and also an experimentation of technique and interpretation. Bach knew of Cristofori's early _piano_, so it's interesting to see how far composers have examined the idiomatic qualities it has and creating music out of it since that time.


----------



## norman bates

I'm struggling to see any connection with the tradition in the piece above, unless tradition means John Cage. To me this sounds basically as Onkyo music.

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


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> Someone I know has composed a piano piece that largely draws upon the grand tradition of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation. It's so closely linked to this long history of piano playing because it pretty much extracts these ideas and makes music out of them, amplified with very close microphones that pick up the subtle sounds that are made, mostly on purpose, but sometimes unintentional sounds of a specific note being sounded by the hammer striking the string. I find it quite amazing to actually be able to hear these subtle sounds, hand movements and the real light, shade and all of the nuances of interpretation often applied to other kinds of repertoire. Hearing these nuances on their own has been actually very refreshing for me and sound really quite musical in their own right:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with many other works like this that explore an expanded timbral palette, I have a feeling that often it is the result of a deep appreciation of the repertoire for and traditions associated with the instrument. I have mentioned Lachenmann earlier, and I feel like he is an example of a traditionally-minded musician, someone extremely conscious of Music History and uses it as a foundation for his musical explorations and expressions. There was even a Van Magazine article from a little while ago, when _Marche Fatale_ was breaking the internet (for New Music fans), that discussed his inspirations from the history of music.
> 
> Another composer who springs to mind is Ferneyhough, whose string quartets themselves grew from a huge appreciation and knowledge of the grand tradition of string quartet repertoire. Someone else who is more knowledgeable in this area might be able to give some more info about this, because I'm not really the biggest Ferneyhough expert out there.
> 
> Boulez is another obvious composer here to me, drawing upon a wide interest in music from previous generations of composers in Europe and also music from around the world.
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> You know, the more I think about it, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there is more and more access to information about history and all of its traditions, more people really taking an interest in it and responding to it in different ways. Perhaps it is this that makes me think about composers since the 20th century being more concerned with tradition than earlier composers who simply wrote the modern music of the day because that is simply the music that was performed and heard.
> 
> Perhaps this kind of music is actually the most conservative of all. Who knew?


You are kidding shirime surely?


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> You are kidding shirime surely?


No, but what do you think of the connection of that particular piano piece to the idea of elements of interpretation in the piano repertoire? It's just a specific example, but I got and more general as I continued........

I don't know what is to joke about.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> No, but what do you think of the connection of that particular piano piece to the idea of elements of interpretation in the piano repertoire? It's just a specific example, but I got and more general as I continued........
> 
> I don't know what is to joke about.


In what way is this a piano piece rather than someone touching keys without design?


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> In what way is this a piano piece rather than someone touching keys without design?


Could you explain the question a little more? Perhaps there's something I don't quite understand about what you are asking....


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> Could you explain the question a little more? Perhaps there's something I don't quite understand about what you are asking....


I can't explain it any clearer.


----------



## Enthusiast

There has never been doubt in my mind that the contemporary classical music that I have heard draws from the tradition that it belongs to. I'm not even sure how anyone could doubt it - where else might it have come from? I see the point that composers today have access to far more of the tradition than earlier composers did but wonder about their ability to process the sheer volume and variety of it and still have time to compose. But they can pick and choose from the past.


----------



## eugeneonagain

It's performance art using a piano. Could have been on a tea chest bass for that matter and would be a lot cheaper to perform than on a grand piano. Let's not get carried off into the realms of fantasy.


----------



## Woodduck

shirime said:


> Someone I know has composed a piano piece that largely draws upon the grand tradition of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation. It's so closely linked to this long history of piano playing because it pretty much extracts these ideas and makes music out of them, amplified with very close microphones that pick up the subtle sounds that are made, mostly on purpose, but sometimes unintentional sounds of a specific note being sounded by the hammer striking the string. I find it quite amazing to actually be able to hear these subtle sounds, hand movements and the real light, shade and all of the nuances of interpretation often applied to other kinds of repertoire. Hearing these nuances on their own has been actually very refreshing for me and sound really quite musical in their own right:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with many other works like this that explore an expanded timbral palette, I have a feeling that often it is the result of a deep appreciation of the repertoire for and traditions associated with the instrument. I have mentioned Lachenmann earlier, and I feel like he is an example of a traditionally-minded musician, someone extremely conscious of Music History and uses it as a foundation for his musical explorations and expressions. There was even a Van Magazine article from a little while ago, when _Marche Fatale_ was breaking the internet (for New Music fans), that discussed his inspirations from the history of music.
> 
> Another composer who springs to mind is Ferneyhough, whose string quartets themselves grew from a huge appreciation and knowledge of the grand tradition of string quartet repertoire. Someone else who is more knowledgeable in this area might be able to give some more info about this, because I'm not really the biggest Ferneyhough expert out there.
> 
> Boulez is another obvious composer here to me, drawing upon a wide interest in music from previous generations of composers in Europe and also music from around the world.
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> You know, the more I think about it, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there is more and more access to information about history and all of its traditions, more people really taking an interest in it and responding to it in different ways. Perhaps it is this that makes me think about composers since the 20th century being more concerned with tradition than earlier composers who simply wrote the modern music of the day because that is simply the music that was performed and heard.
> 
> Perhaps this kind of music is actually the most conservative of all. Who knew?


Listening to this without watching it, I visualize someone cleaning a dirty keyboard and accidentally striking a note now and then. I suspect that the "composer" of this was housecleaning one day and realized in a serendipitous flash of inspiration how easy it would be to join the "grand tradition" of John Cage and other practitioners of anti-music.

I note that Charlie Sdraulig is billed not as a composer but as a "collector." That's really cute and pop-arty - sort of '60s retro, like lava lamps. I guess he needs to call himself something, but it seems to me he'd do better to collect stamps or antique cars or pet rocks than whatever he's collecting presently. If he's collecting money, it's certainly from his day job.

The text of this thread, summarized in its title and in the rhetorical question which concludes it, is inexplicable. It might be a mad fantasy, a deception, a prank, or a plate of spaghetti thrown at the wall in hopes that something will stick. Periodically, someone on this forum attempts to defend "modern music" by obliterating differences, even fundamental differences, between the kinds of things offered in the name of music. But this effort takes the blue ribbon. "Grand tradition"? People who groove on stuff like this should at least make an effort to call it what it is.


----------



## Bulldog

I suppose that the playing in post #1 follows in the grand tradition in that sounds are produced. However, these are sounds I don't want to hear; more than a few minutes of this stuff and I'd feel like going on a violent rampage.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Someone I know has composed a piano piece that largely draws upon the grand tradition of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation. It's so closely linked to this long history of piano playing because it pretty much extracts these ideas and makes music out of them...


Try as I might, I see no relation to the grand tradition of piano playing. The grand tradition of piano playing developed out of someone spending years of training, learning, among many other things, to develop touch such that one could produce even the softest sounds from the keys, one of the most difficult challenges of piano playing. A part of this tradition is that if one presses the key softly and no sound is produced from the strings, then either a mistake has been made or the piano is defective.


----------



## Simon Moon

I am one of the biggest proponents of avant-garde classical on this forum. The vast majority of the classical I listen to is from the middle 20th century, to the contemporary era.

But like others, I am having a hard time finding a connection to the 'grand tradition'.

I am in no way saying that I am against experimentation, like that seen/heard in this video. Sometimes an art form has to be torn down to its basics, so it can be rebuilt in some new ways. All I am saying, is the piece in the vid does nothing for me.


----------



## starthrower

That video is so ridiculously pretentious. Is the facade of seriousness supposed to make us believe this is an important performance of a significant piece of music?


----------



## janxharris

shirime, the charge would seem to be one of _The Emperor's New Clothes_ - what would you say in response?


----------



## Enthusiast

Recognising where the music comes from, liking it and thinking it good are three different things.


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> Recognising where the music comes from, liking it and thinking it good are three different things.


And recognizing what it has become is a fourth.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> I find it quite amazing to actually be able to hear these subtle sounds, hand movements and the real light, shade and all of the nuances of interpretation often applied to other kinds of repertoire. Hearing these nuances on their own has been actually very refreshing for me and sound really quite musical in their own right.


Would you explain these subtleties please? I am wondering how pieces in this style might fail to impress you?


----------



## DaveM

This thread doesn’t do avant-garde any favors. If what this fellow is doing is, in fact, considered true avant-garde ‘music’, then it only reinforces the feelings someone like me has about the genre. Fwiw, some of the sounds he is making are simply what happens if you very slowly press a key, then let it go. Anybody can do it with no training whatsoever.


----------



## KenOC

JAS said:


> And recognizing what it has become is a fourth.


And reaching for the kill switch is a fifth.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> And reaching for the kill switch is a fifth.


Is that to kill the sounds from the piano or the guy doing whatever at the piano?


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> This thread doesn't do avant-garde any favors. If what this fellow is doing is, in fact, considered true avant-garde 'music', then it only reinforces the feelings someone like me has about the genre. Fwiw, some of the sounds he is making are simply what happens if you very slowly press a key, then let it go. Anybody can do it with no training whatsoever.


Please do not mistake what is in this video with all (or even a majority) of avant-garde classical.

There is plenty of avant-garde classical, the vast majority I would say, that is nothing like this.

No need to paint all avant-garde classical with the same broad brush, based on one sample.


----------



## EdwardBast

There's a minute I'll never get back, two if you count reading your introduction.


----------



## JAS

EdwardBast said:


> There's a minute I'll never get back, two if you count reading your introduction. Won't make that mistake again.


The full thing apparently runs 10:29 (and there are a couple of actual notes around the 7 minute mark, and several more around 9:00 and thereafter). I am wondering if he was inspired by the infamous 4'33. According to the website of the "composer":

"Charlie Sdraulig's music explores interaction that examines the roles of physicality and perception in human performance. This exploration often takes place at the threshold of audibility. The inherent ambiguity of this context may allow a particular expression of human individuality to emerge."

He teaches at Stanford: https://music.stanford.edu/people/charlie-sdraulig

I assume that his lesson plans are a little less ambiguous.


----------



## Vasks

I found the performance a bit stiff; Daniel Barenboim plays it much more smoothly and with greater panache


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> Please do not mistake what is in this video with all (or even a majority) of avant-garde classical.
> There is plenty of avant-garde classical, the vast majority I would say, that is nothing like this.
> No need to paint all avant-garde classical with the same broad brush, based on one sample.


That goes to my point. Apparently, I'm not the one applying the broad brush; 'avant-garde as the most informed of tradition' is what introduces this thread with the specific example of the video. It also begs the question as to just how far performers are going to indulge themselves with the premise that they are creating something important and profound.


----------



## aleazk

Is this really avant-garde anyway? Seems quite similar to this Lachenmann thing from 1970.

I think this kind of stuff simply falls into a Mannerism, i.e., a stylistic idea taken to utter exaggeration and iconoclastism. I don't tend to like these approaches since they tend to fall into purisms, oversimplifications and, in the worst cases, snobism.

But I do agree with the text in the OP when applied to other more 'mainstream avant-garde', or stuff that was avant-garde until recently, like Boulez, Ligeti, etc.


----------



## DeepR

When Nora the piano cat isn't so bad... 
In fact, he could learn a thing or two from our piano loving feline, like how to press the keys hard enough. :lol:

I'm sorry, I just can't take this seriously.


----------



## Bulldog

JAS said:


> "Charlie Sdraulig's music explores interaction that examines the roles of physicality and perception in human performance. This exploration often takes place at the threshold of audibility. The inherent ambiguity of this context may allow a particular expression of human individuality to emerge."


Con-job Charlie would probably make a good cult leader.


----------



## millionrainbows

shirime said:


> Someone I know has composed a piano piece that largely draws upon the grand tradition of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation. It's so closely linked to this long history of piano playing because it pretty much extracts these ideas and makes music out of them, amplified with very close microphones that pick up the subtle sounds that are made, mostly on purpose, but sometimes unintentional sounds of a specific note being sounded by the hammer striking the string. I find it quite amazing to actually be able to hear these subtle sounds, hand movements and the real light, shade and all of the nuances of interpretation often applied to other kinds of repertoire. Hearing these nuances on their own has been actually very refreshing for me and sound really quite musical in their own right.


Yes, it's as if it's a concentrated distillation of the great pianistic tradition. By isolating and focussing on just those aspects of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation, a fresh new statement has been made which bypasses the clichés of stylistic mannerisms of music (like Mozart, etc.). It connects this great tradition with composers such as Ferneyhough and John Cage, bringing us full-circle.



shirime said:


> Boulez is another obvious composer here to me, drawing upon a wide interest in music from previous generations of composers in Europe and also music from around the world.


I've always recognized and appreciated the conservative aspects of Boulez' piano sonatas. In a time when electronic music was being created, and serialism was the dominant language, Boulez' piano sonatas are still "fingers on keys." No preparation of the strings with bolts and screws, no reaching into the piano and plucking strings; no banging on the keyboard with the forearm or using rulers or yardsticks; just fingers on keys, a totally traditional approach.

---------------------------------------



shirime said:


> You know, the more I think about it, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there is more and more access to information about history and all of its traditions, more people really taking an interest in it and responding to it in different ways. Perhaps it is this that makes me think about composers since the 20th century being more concerned with tradition than earlier composers who simply wrote the modern music of the day because that is simply the music that was performed and heard.
> 
> Perhaps this kind of music is actually the most conservative of all. Who knew?


Yes, the postmodern age, with our access to all the information of history at our fingertips, in a way puts us "more in touch" with tradition than the actual practitioners were. _This_ is the way tradition should be celebrated!


----------



## eugeneonagain

There's no show without Punch.


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> Is that to kill the sounds from the piano or the guy doing whatever at the piano?


Your choice; Amazon sells both kinds. I know which one I'd choose.


----------



## Guest

Wow I didn't realise there was enough interest in this kind of thing I'm interested in for this thread to grow to three pages overnight! 

Also, I think MillionRainbows is pretty spot on with how I've come to understand Sdraulig's piano piece 'the Collector'.

Using some kind of 'tradition' as a basis of exploration in composition _is_ a rather post-modern approach, really.... being in touch with the past in order to create something new does seem to be an idea that is solidly in the minds of many composers these days, I reckon.


----------



## JAS

Everyone loves to watch a train wreck. They cannot turn away.


----------



## KenOC

shirime said:


> Wow I didn't realise there was enough interest in this kind of thing I'm interested in for this thread to grow to three pages overnight!


That's kind of like saying, "How wonderful that people are so interested in the Zika virus!"


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> Everyone loves to watch a train wreck. They cannot turn away.


Well, I haven't really had time yet to take a look through the thread and read all the comments, but I trust it hasn't been derailed quite that badly. 

It's a fascinating topic to me


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> Is this really avant-garde anyway? Seems quite similar to this Lachenmann thing from 1970.
> 
> I think this kind of stuff simply falls into a Mannerism, i.e., a stylistic idea taken to utter exaggeration and iconoclastism. I don't tend to like these approaches since they tend to fall into purisms, oversimplifications and, in the worst cases, snobism.
> 
> But I do agree with the text in the OP when applied to other more 'mainstream avant-garde', or stuff that was avant-garde until recently, like Boulez, Ligeti, etc.


Yeah it is fairly rooted in the kind of expanded timbral palette that Lachenmann was interested in, in terms of the piano piece cited, but that is just one example.

Curiously, would you consider Ferneyhough to be in that group of what you call a more 'mainstream avant-garde?'


----------



## aleazk

shirime said:


> Curiously, would you consider Ferneyhough to be in that group of what you call a more 'mainstream avant-garde?'


Yes, pretty much so. I think the visual style of his scores may be a bit mannered and that it's not going to enter into the canon practices of future composers (at least in the extreme way of his visual writing; and yes, I know all that thing about saturating the performer with information, but that's another discussion), but his actual soundworld is a good combination of old technique with new ones. I mean, keys are actually being pressed here to produce sound . On the other hand, I think that Lachenmann is, rather than being the forefront of the avant-garde, more something that kinda deviates its way at some point to its own niche. This doesn't mean that some of his ideas are not going to enter the canon of techniques of future composers, they are even already there, but I don't think that his particular take on it will survive, since it has technical problems, as the ones I mentioned in other threads (that is, I don't think you can sustain a whole piece by only playing sounds that are secondary to the instrument being used, and therefore rather weak, short and quiet; also, from the purely aesthetic point of view, to have a piano in front of you to never touch a key, so to speak, is simply too iconoclastic as to survive by itself as a mainstream, in the avant-garde, self sustaining independent style; combinations of these new sounds with the traditional ones are likely to prove more fertile for new musical styles, and this is something that I have seen in your own pieces, at least the ones you have shown to me). But this is just, of course, only my personal take, which, I claim, has nothing to do with being conservative, but rather in that I don't tend to like aesthetic or stylistic purisms, personalisms and rejection of everything else that is 'not contained in my original idea'. It's more a posmodern take.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, it's as if it's a concentrated distillation of the great pianistic tradition. By isolating and focussing on just those aspects of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation, a fresh new statement has been made which bypasses the clichés of stylistic mannerisms of music (like Mozart, etc.). It connects this great tradition with composers such as Ferneyhough and John Cage, bringing us full-circle.
> 
> I've always recognized and appreciated the conservative aspects of Boulez' piano sonatas. In a time when electronic music was being created, and serialism was the dominant language, Boulez' piano sonatas are still "fingers on keys." No preparation of the strings with bolts and screws, no reaching into the piano and plucking strings; no banging on the keyboard with the forearm or using rulers or yardsticks; just fingers on keys, a totally traditional approach.
> 
> Yes, the postmodern age, with our access to all the information of history at our fingertips, in a way puts us "more in touch" with tradition than the actual practitioners were. _This_ is the way tradition should be celebrated!


Fine satire, million. Even better than your usual. Have you been reading Tom Wolfe?


----------



## Woodduck

I find this marginally less interesting than everything else.


----------



## Guest

What makes it satire? MillionRainbows was answering the OP directly and I found his thoughts relevant and interesting.


----------



## JAS

Since avante-garde means experimental or unusual, I am still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of "mainstream avante-garde." I am also trying to wrap my mind around the idea that Ferneyhough is anywhere near the mainstream of anything, let alone actually within it. However much one might appreciate his music, surely he is about a fringe as one can get.


----------



## JAS

shirime said:


> What makes it satire? MillionRainbows was answering the OP directly and I found his thoughts relevant and interesting.


(Since humor often does not convey on the Internet, I note that Woodduck is typing with his tongue in his cheek.)

(And I presume in his last post that he means "I find this marginally less uninteresting than everything else.")


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I find this marginally less interesting than everything else.


I think Woodduck's post was very carefully phrased to mean exactly what he said.


----------



## aleazk

JAS said:


> Since avante-garde means experimental or unusual, I am still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of "mainstream avante-garde." I am also trying to wrap my mind around the idea that Ferneyhough is anywhere near the mainstream of anything, let alone actually within it. However much one might appreciate his music, surely he is about a fringe as one can get.


It's certainly a bit of an oxymoron, yes, that was intentional, but what I was referring to is that even in the avant-garde, there are some big names whose styles share certain aspects, and that these composers, and their particular experiments, usually are taken as the leaders of the movement. For a time after the 50s, this pretty much was Boulez and Stockhausen. And Ferneyhough shares some aspects of their music, but also goes into other directions too. Finally, I would say that pieces like the one from the OP are even more fringe than Ferneyhough, since it radically departs from the standard canon set by the Boulez-Stockhausen lineage.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> It's certainly a bit of an oxymoron, yes, that was intentional, but what I was referring to is that even in the avant-garde, there are some big names whose styles share certain aspects, and that these composers, and their particular experiments, usually are taken as the leaders of the movement. For a time after the 50s, this pretty much was Boulez and Stockhausen. And Ferneyhough shares some aspects of their music, but also goes into other directions too. Finally, I would say that pieces like the one from the OP are even more fringe than Ferneyhough, since it radically departs from the standard canon set by the Boulez-Stockhausen lineage.


That last point is what compelled me to use the term 'avant-garde' or 'experimental' because of what it is relative to those very significant figures.


----------



## DaveM

Attention everyone! Let’s not get caught up in the weeds here and let’s not allow ourselves to mistake the ‘performance’ in the OP. Unless I have misread every book I ever read on the piano and piano music, the idea is to make the keys cause the strings to be hit. That may be a hard concept for some to absorb, but that’s what the books say. Here, this fellow’s mannerisms seem to indicate a mistake has been made when, occasionally, the strings actually make a sound.

My primary gripe against avant-garde piano music has been the total lack of melody. Now, apparently, as some part of some obscure grand tradition, the vibrations of strings has been replaced with the plunking of keys. This stuff needs its own totally separate genre.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Attention everyone! Let's not get caught up in the weeds here and let's not allow ourselves to mistake the 'performance' in the OP. Unless I have misread every book I ever read on the piano and piano music, the idea is to make the keys cause the strings to be hit. That may be a hard concept for some to absorb, but that's what the books say. Here, this fellow's mannerisms seem to indicate a mistake has been made when, occasionally, the strings actually make a sound.
> 
> My primary gripe against avant-garde piano music has been the total lack of melody. Now, apparently, as some part of some obscure grand tradition, the vibrations of strings has been replaced with the plunking of keys. This stuff needs its own totally separate genre.


Hmmm, I always attributed the way that a pianist actually plays the _keys_ will determine the kind of sound made when (or, in the case of _Collector_, *if*) the hammer hits the strings. I am sure that touch, interpretation and general playing technique has been something of a long and evolving tradition, something that _Collector_ very much seems to be a part of by way of actually making music out of it.

There are things in this video that I find quite cool about that.........






However, I don't really want to get too hung up about the youtube video I posted as it was just one single example of the ideas on how the avant-garde/experimental trends in classical music since the 20th century are inextricably linked to the traditions they have evolved out of. Finding more _unusual_ connections, like in _Collector_, has been particularly fascinating. I am very interested in seeing what other unusual connections to some kind of tradition people have found.


----------



## Fredx2098

Is the piece you linked supposed to be the topic of this thread? It doesn't really seem like it. 

It definitely seems like the development of recording technology would cause a quicker development of very broadly different music styles. With music more immediately available to hear, it seems people would be more quickly inspired by all kinds of music. An obvious example would be musique concrete, which is the start of purely avant-garde experimental music as far as I know. 

About the video you linked, I did find it interesting and watched it all the way through. I liked it as a video, not really as a piece of music though. I never really like any music with more than a few seconds of actual silence at a time and too frequently (I did like when he made actual strange sounds, but not just silently dragging fingers over keys for minutes at a time). I did like it more than 4'33" though, for one thing!


----------



## aleazk

shirime said:


> Hmmm, I always attributed the way that a pianist actually plays the _keys_ will determine the kind of sound made when (or, in the case of _The Collector_, *if*) the hammer hits the strings. I am sure that touch, interpretation and general playing technique has been something of a long and evolving tradition, something that _The Collection_ very much seems to be a part of by way of *actually making music out of it*.


Problem is that there's no music in it! Oh please, that thing is just some sort of neo-Duchamp thing, were an utilitarian thing, in this case the mechanics of pressing a key, is presented as if it were the art itself. It may have some interest as conceptual art, but, as with most stuff in that Duchamp-like line, the impact only lasts one second and after one gets it then its potential for interest is over. You insult our intelligence and our knowledge of art history if you pretend to impress us with this shallow thing.

On the other hand, you do have a point about modern music continuing tradition in some aspects. Subtlety in touch was always an important aspect in Boulez's music (which he took from impressionism and which impressionism took from Chopin), and differences in attacks etc. were important in serial music, and in Ligeti one has those ppppp dynamics going to ffffff, etc. *That* _is actually making music out of it._

And I'm done with this, you can argue it is music, and I doubt you will convince me, as I doubt I will convince you. Fair enough, have a nice day and get out of my lawn!


----------



## Guest

Perhaps the reason why I believe it to be quite musical, to have that musical essence, is how the sounds relate to the experience of time passing. It's certainly not a complex piece, nor is it one of my personal favourite pieces, but I certainly enjoy it as a piece of music. However, I don't expect that everyone get the same level of enjoyment out of anything.

Another idea I've been thinking about more often lately is when the line is blurred between music and another artistic discipline and I'd like to start a discussion on that fairly soon as well. I gather from some responses that _The Collector_ that there are people who view it more as a performance art, and I think that's certainly an interesting way to view it. Of course, I am not as familiar with the history of performance art, but I'm aware of a few other pieces of music that move toward that area of creativity.

If I insulted anyone's intelligence because I created this thread, then I sincerely apologise. I _do_ have an interest in enjoying and exploring music like this as well as the concepts behind them, but the way I have presented myself when I write about this music evidently hasn't been very courteous or considerate and for that I am sorry.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Perhaps the reason why I believe it to be quite musical, to have that musical essence, is how the sounds relate to the experience of time passing. It's certainly not a complex piece, nor is it one of my personal favourite pieces, but I certainly enjoy it as a piece of music. However, I don't expect that everyone get the same level of enjoyment out of anything...


If you are referring to the video, it isn't music. If you insist that it is then Nora the cat is a maestro.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I thought the sound wasn't working when I skimmed throught the video  I would place it under the redefinition of music. I take that it is informed of tradition, just to avoid it in any sense imaginable.


----------



## eugeneonagain

shirime said:


> What makes it satire? MillionRainbows was answering the OP directly and I found his thoughts relevant and interesting.


Well it makes a change from the usual Eckhart Toll stuff, but still...


----------



## Enthusiast

Because so many took against the _example _posted, this has become a rather unpleasant thread where all sorts seem inspired to express their visceral hatred of some types of art/music. I don't think I have seen a thread with so little of merit (even from posters who are frequently deeply interesting)! Few have addressed the question in the OP - a question that as a non-musician I have little to say on - but many have been inventive in refining their insults of ... their own personal betes noirs.

There is probably no-one on the entire sites who likes all forms of classical music (from C14 to yesterday, from unaccompanied sonatas to full-blown pieces for large orchestra to grand opera) but many here have very interesting things to say about the music that they like. There are also interesting discussions between people who like something and those who don't but they rarely go anywhere and can become a bit repetitive. But this thread is just unpleasant IMO.


----------



## Enthusiast

shirime said:


> What makes it satire? MillionRainbows was answering the OP directly and I found his thoughts relevant and interesting.


Yeah - you were scammed shirime. He meant the opposite of what he said and was trying (with some success it seems!) to write a parody of what a typical (or even a comic book) avant gardist might think. I think taking him literally was a good counter!


----------



## Guest

*Back to the actual stuff I wrote in the OP.....please!*



Enthusiast said:


> Because so many took against the _example _posted, this has become a rather unpleasant thread where all sorts seem inspired to express their visceral hatred of some types of art/music. I don't think I have seen a thread with so little of merit (even from posters who are frequently deeply interesting)! Few have addressed the question in the OP - a question that as a non-musician I have little to say on - but many have been inventive in refining their insults of ... their own personal betes noirs.
> 
> There is probably no-one on the entire sites who likes all forms of classical music (from C14 to yesterday, from unaccompanied sonatas to full-blown pieces for large orchestra to grand opera) but many here have very interesting things to say about the music that they like. There are also interesting discussions between people who like something and those who don't but they rarely go anywhere and can become a bit repetitive. But this thread is just unpleasant IMO.


Yeah it didn't quite turn out as expected........it seems more mocking in tone than the kind of discussion I normally associate with TC.

However, I do want to ask what you think (and others, of course!) about composers associated with the avant-garde who reference traditions of the past in their compositions. What pieces do you (collectively) like of this repertoire and what connections do you all make for yourselves about avant-garde and their reactions to or embrace of older traditions of classical music?


----------



## Larkenfield

If the avant-garde had any relationship with any tradition at all, it wouldn’t be the avant-garde. It’s by nature and definition the breaking of tradition, and the video that was presented had nothing original in it at all other than perhaps the camera angle in photographing the hand positions that were playing virtually nothing. A grand tradition is something that is passed down from one generation of musicians to another to another that could cover over 100 years, and there was nothing remotely connected with that in the video that was posted. So people just make up their own personal meaning of “the grand tradition“ and call it anything they want without really thinking it through in advance and in depth. The younger generation cannot just assign meanings to certain terms and expect them to be accepted by those who may be far more acquainted with the avant-garde than they are.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> If the avant-garde had any relationship with any tradition at all, it wouldn't be the avant-garde. It's by nature and definition the breaking of tradition, and the video that was presented had nothing original in it at all other than the camera angle in photographing the hand positions that were playing virtually nothing.


So where does avant garde music come from? And isn't the expectation that the tradition will regularly be "broken" and remade included within the tradition?


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> So where does avant garde music come from? And isn't the expectation that the tradition will regularly be "broken" and remade included within the tradition?


The thing is.........I have no idea. It's an odd, but extremely fascinating paradox for sure. Breaking from tradition creates new tradition, new niches and new things to break from yet again.


----------



## Enthusiast

shirime said:


> The thing is.........I have no idea. It's an odd, but extremely fascinating paradox for sure. Breaking from tradition creates new tradition, new niches and new things to break from yet again.


Well, is tradition to be understood as a concrete thing or as something more ephemeral? The latter, I think. Also, the word comes with connotations of "fossilised" and "law-like" but, without knowing where they come from, I think connotations don't make a lot of sense. Surely a tradition must be something that lives? And if you look back at the tradition of classical music I think you will see many radical changes punctuating its timeline. As, from the late 19th century, the forms of classical music diversified from a single tradition to a considerable variety of approaches to the historical tradition there is a sense of the tradition having become chaotic. Certainly it is very broad these days.


----------



## Thomyum2

I think there's an important idea in here. It occurs to me that the very substance of music (and I mean all music, whether traditional or modern) is a tension and interplay between the familiar and the unfamiliar, the traditional and the modern, the conservative and the progressive, if you will. I think this applies at a 'macro' level, in other words across the spectrum of music and across the history of the evolution of music, as well as at a 'micro' level which is within a given composition. Every piece of music begins from a set of expectations - the first time you hear any piece, even before it starts you have some kind of expectation - whether it be the name or reputation of the composer, the ensemble that is performing it, the context, the program notes - and once the piece begins, your expectations are either fulfilled as the music either goes the way you imagine it should, or you are surprised, pleasantly or otherwise, when the piece does not. And even within that given piece a composer also creates expectations and defies them at the same time - for example in a 'theme and variations' form, you are given a theme that gives you a template of sorts which becomes the foundation (or 'tradition' in this micro sense) and then as the variations are introduced, each one deviates from that original in a new way. So all of this is an interplay between something that is familiar to an audience with something that is new. So the same on the macro level, where a composer such as Haydn will create a 'Surprise' symphony to wake up his listeners, or Beethoven plays a music joke by introducing an unexpected note or instrument or harmony, or Stravinsky sets a primitive ritual in polytonal harmony, they are defying the expectation and traditions that their audiences have acquired over time. But then, as those new ideas are introduced throughout the history which initially defy our expectations, then they may (or may not) become absorbed into our consciousness and then become part of the tradition itself, and new innovations are required to bring new surprises to the listeners to keep the music interesting. So I think all music moves back and forth across this continuum and all listeners have their own aesthetics and levels of tolerance as to what is a comfortable balance between familiarity and variety, versus what is pushing things too far to the point that the music becomes unrecognizable as music and is no longer meaningful (or conversely, not varied enough, to the point that the music is stale and predictable). 

So this particular piece introduced in the OP is seems pretty far to one end of this spectrum and we're seeing here that even for people comfortable with modern music (myself included), it's hard to find something in this to hold onto and tie back to traditions. The fact that it's someone at a piano touching the keys is a pretty tenuous thread to be able to connect this to tradition and to give a listener that 'template' or foundation from which we can follow what the composer is doing. Some of that discomfort might be alleviated it we were provided with a little better understanding of what the composer is actually composing here - a little more of a road map to the piece to give the listener something more to hold onto through the course of the piece. 

On the other hand, that might not be the composer's intention. As some have pointed out, this is 'experimental' music, and the intent may not to be to produce a piece that an audience can follow, but rather to invent new ideas or techniques which could be a form of raw material that could later be assimilated into compositional structures - sort of a product of a laboratory that is only in it's early trial stages and is being tested to see if it can evolve into something useful toward future musical innovation. If that's the case, and this is an experiment, then the reactions, whether positive or negative, are a necessary part of that experiment - as Thomas Edison famously said "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." A composer trying to create new ideas must try those ideas out in order to understand what does or does not work and why, and shouldn't be faulted or mocked for doing so!


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> (Since humor often does not convey on the Internet, I note that Woodduck is typing with his tongue in his cheek.)
> 
> (And I presume in his last post that he means "I find this marginally less uninteresting than everything else.")


Since sarcasm does not translate well over the internet, maybe you and Woodduck will cynicize yourselves into invisibility.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> Yeah - you were scammed shirime. He meant the opposite of what he said and was trying (with some success it seems!) to write a parody of what a typical (or even a comic book) avant gardist might think. I think taking him literally was a good counter!


No, I wasn't scamming shirime; I'm sincere. Believe me, I'm your friend. Again, the Boulez sonatas. They are very steeped in tradition, especially in light of what was happening all around them.

As to Enthusiast's characterization of this thread:



Enthusiast said:


> Because so many took against the example posted, this has become a rather unpleasant thread where all sorts seem inspired to express their visceral hatred of some types of art/music. I don't think I have seen a thread with so little of merit (even from posters who are frequently deeply interesting)! Few have addressed the question in the OP - a question that as a non-musician I have little to say on - but many have been inventive in refining their insults of ... their own personal betes noirs.
> 
> There is probably no-one on the entire sites who likes all forms of classical music (from C14 to yesterday, from unaccompanied sonatas to full-blown pieces for large orchestra to grand opera) but many here have very interesting things to say about the music that they like. There are also interesting discussions between people who like something and those who don't but they rarely go anywhere and can become a bit repetitive. But this thread is just unpleasant IMO.


I see no fault with the OP or with the intent. In fact, this is a beautiful thread. It's only the negativity that is a failure; a failure to be bold enough to open one's eyes to something new.


----------



## Fredx2098

The comments on the video posted seem like a big overreaction. Was it supposed to be so much the center of attention?


----------



## millionrainbows

shirime said:


> Yeah it didn't quite turn out as expected........it seems more mocking in tone than the kind of discussion I normally associate with TC.
> 
> However, I do want to ask what you think (and others, of course!) about composers associated with the avant-garde who reference traditions of the past in their compositions. What pieces do you (collectively) like of this repertoire and what connections do you all make for yourselves about avant-garde and their reactions to or embrace of older traditions of classical music?


It's well-known to Webern enthusiasts that Webern used the iso-rhythm concept which was used in medieval music as rhythmic 'formulas' or templates. This led to total serialization, not only of pitch, but of rhythm.

Another interesting piece is Stockhausen's Mikrofonie, which consists only of a gong with a microphone which amplifies the sound. The mike is held close to the gong as it sustains, and what we hear are sine-tones, the harmonics of the 'noise-wave' of the gong. I was astounded by this.
The gong itself is a traditional object, more associated with the East than the West. I like all the resonances this conjures. In fact, it takes it all the way back to ancient times.


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> The comments on the video posted seem like a big overreaction. Was it supposed to be so much the center of attention?


According to the way the OP is written, it was. Read it. The subject is tied to the video from the first sentence. So overreaction? No.


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> According to the way the OP is written, it was. Read it. The subject is tied to the video from the first sentence. So overreaction? No.


I did read and respond to all of it. It just seemed like a passing example as far as I can tell. The overreaction is only talking about the video and ignoring everything else.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> I see no fault with the OP or with the intent. In fact, this is a beautiful thread. It's only the negativity that is a failure; a failure to be bold enough to open one's eyes to something new.


There is a commercial on CNN wherein, given the current political goings on: An apple is shown and then, a banana. The voice-over says that some people will try to convince you that a banana is an apple. Over and over, a banana is an apple. But we will always call an apple an apple and a banana a banana.

Trying to designate the act of calling an apple as an apple and a banana as a banana as negativity is a failure to recognize where the true boldness lies.


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> I did read and respond to all of it. It just seemed like a passing example as far as I can tell. The overreaction is only talking about the video and ignoring everything else.


Passing example? The whole introductory paragraph is about the video and the subject matter. No matter how much you try to spin it, the video was made an integral part of the subject.


----------



## Bulldog

Fredx2098 said:


> The comments on the video posted seem like a big overreaction. Was it supposed to be so much the center of attention?


Well, the video shows up 4 times on this thread, and there are no other videos. As you well know, a video is worth a thousand words.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> There is a commercial on CNN wherein, given the current political goings on: An apple is shown and then, a banana. The voice-over says that some people will try to convince you that a banana is an apple. Over and over, a banana is an apple. But we will always call an apple an apple and a banana a banana.
> 
> Trying to designate the act of calling an apple as an apple and a banana as a banana as negativity is a failure to recognize where the true boldness lies.


Oh, you mean like the serpent in the Garden of Eden tried to convince Adam & Eve that it was OK to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge? Good analogy! Modernists represent the Devil!


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, you mean like the serpent in the Garden of Eden tried to convince Adam & Eve that it was OK to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge? Good analogy! Modernists represent the Devil!


Oh for heavens sakes, get a grip. This is about the premise of the OP and, particularly, the video used to support it.


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> Passing example? The whole introductory paragraph is about the video and the subject matter. No matter how much you try to spin it, the video was made an integral part of the subject.


All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem like the only subject. It seems like he more or less moved on after the first paragraph onto other topics.


----------



## Guest

In the OP I started with an anecdote, a personal experience of hearing a piece of music that got me thinking about the notions of how music might be linked with tradition (or not). The bulk of the OP is addressing the thread title, the opening paragraph and video example is to show what inspired me to think about avant-garde or experimental music and its links to (or deviations from) certain traditions.


----------



## Larkenfield

Enthusiast said:


> So where does avant garde music come from? And isn't the expectation that the tradition will regularly be "broken" and remade included within the tradition?


The word "traditional" is listed as an antonym for the word "avant-garde." There's no such thing as the traditional avant-garde or it wouldn't be the avant-garde by definition. The words are mutually exclusive of each other or the entire subject is turned into a complete mess. Avant-garde suggests something original, unprecedented and groundbreaking and not necessarily a continuation of something that has come before. Misusing the words suggests a misunderstanding or distortion of music's history or personal definitions made up to serve one's own purposes. There is no traditional avant-garde. Better to refer to the "elements" and "techniques" used by the avant-garde rather than its "traditions." If nothing else, the word is a complete contradiction to the spirit motivating the avant-garde, and that spirit is the spirit of discovery, including radical discovery that has no precedence.


----------



## aleazk

Larkenfield said:


> The word "traditional" is traditionally listed as an antonym for the word avant-garde. There's no such thing as the traditional avant-garde or it wouldn't be the avant-garde by definition. The words are mutually exclusive of each other or the entire subject is turned into a complete mess. Avant-garde suggests something original, unprecedented and groundbreaking and not necessarily a continuation of something that has come before. Missusing the words suggests a misunderstanding or distortion of music's history or personal definitions made up to serve one's own purposes. There is no traditional avant-garde.


That's a bit narrow. The new music, no matter how radical it may seem at surface, never breaks with absolutely all of the elements from tradition except in rare cases. When Debussy started his departure from tradition, he was seen as an extreme radical. Nevertheless, his music still used melody, chords built from thirds, and many other traditional elements. The departure was more in terms of the harmonic function of those chords, the incorporation of exotic scales and expanded colors. And the examples could go on.


----------



## millionrainbows

Larkenfield said:


> The word "traditional" is listed as an antonym for the word "avant-garde." There's no such thing as the traditional avant-garde or it wouldn't be the avant-garde by definition. The words are mutually exclusive of each other or the entire subject is turned into a complete mess. Avant-garde suggests something original, unprecedented and groundbreaking and not necessarily a continuation of something that has come before. Missusing the words suggests a misunderstanding or distortion of music's history or personal definitions made up to serve one's own purposes. There is no traditional avant-garde. Better to refer to the "elements" and "techniques" used by the avant-garde rather than its "traditions."


Yes, that's too rigid. The avant-garde has been going on since the 1950's at least, so that's what long-time afficionados tend to do; see the music as it sprang from its source and beginnings, and develop into what it is now. How long did you say you'd been listening to avant-garde music? For me it's been since about 1969, so the vinyl albums of it that I picked up in cut-out bins in K-Mart for $1.99 are what I tend to call "traditional."


----------



## eugeneonagain

Since the 1950s? Try from about 1910 young man.


----------



## DaveM

I think that if one uses Ferneyhough as a reference for avant-garde these days, Debussy will not even remotely figure in the category, even though the term may have been applied to him broadly in the past.


----------



## aleazk

DaveM said:


> I think that if one uses Ferneyhough as a reference for avant-garde these days, Debussy will not even remotely figure in the category, even though the term may have been applied to him broadly in the past.


Avant-garde is a time-dependent term, it refers to the highly experimental music of a given time, and not all times have this type of music. I maintain my example and similar things apply to the avant-garde of other times. On the other hand, Ferneyhough is not really avant-garde today, he has been composing his stuff since the 70s. I prefer to use the term modernism. Modernism started with Debussy, then it had at high phase in the 50s and then started to decay. Since the 80s, we are in post-modern times, where there isn't as much experimentation as in, e.g., the 50s, but more a desire to integrate the diverse results of those experiments in a whole, where each composer has his/her own idiosyncratic take.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Passing example? The whole introductory paragraph is about the video and the subject matter. No matter how much you try to spin it, the video was made an integral part of the subject.


Yes and no. The _example _was posted to attempt to show how performance practice, developed over centuries, can be made a subject of a piece of music. Whether it succeeds _in this _or fails in this is pertinent. The piece seemed to make many people angry, I'm not sure why. It seemed too inconsequential for that and hardly that radical. So, for the record, I can also say that the piece didn't do anything for me either but I did find the idea interesting: that a catalogue of performance techniques might be an interesting (if rather inward-looking) idea for a piece of music.

The OP then opened up to trying to trace tradition in Ferneyhough's music. I have already posted (I'm not sure in which threads) that it seems to me self-evident that his music does draw on tradition and does form a part of that tradition. I don't even see how an opposing argument is possible. I do happen to be enjoying myself with Ferneyhough at the moment (it is too new to me - a year or two - to know if it will settle down into music I value highly or whether it will go cold on me) but even if I hated it I would still find it an interesting development of the tradition and one worth taking seriously.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> The word "traditional" is listed as an antonym for the word "avant-garde." There's no such thing as the traditional avant-garde or it wouldn't be the avant-garde by definition. The words are mutually exclusive of each other or the entire subject is turned into a complete mess. Avant-garde suggests something original, unprecedented and groundbreaking and not necessarily a continuation of something that has come before. Misusing the words suggests a misunderstanding or distortion of music's history or personal definitions made up to serve one's own purposes. There is no traditional avant-garde. Better to refer to the "elements" and "techniques" used by the avant-garde rather than its "traditions." If nothing else, the word is a complete contradiction to the spirit motivating the avant-garde, and that spirit is the spirit of discovery, including radical discovery that has no precedence.


We are not talking about avant garde is traditional (that question would be for the Junior forum - max age 11) but whether it is rooted in the tradition. I'm sure you can appreciate that they are not the same thing.


----------



## Enthusiast

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, that's too rigid. The avant-garde has been going on since the 1950's at least, so that's what long-time afficionados tend to do; see the music as it sprang from its source and beginnings, and develop into what it is now. How long did you say you'd been listening to avant-garde music? For me it's been since about 1969, so the vinyl albums of it that I picked up in cut-out bins in K-Mart for $1.99 are what I tend to call "traditional."


It is an interesting question of where the avant garde starts. I take the term literally to mean the art that is pushing boundaries _now_. Music from the 50s has surely passed out of that category even if modern audiences (with their busy lives and modern need for instant gratification) have yet to catch up.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> Yes and no. The _example _was posted to attempt to show how performance practice, developed over centuries, can be made a subject of a piece of music. Whether it succeeds _in this _or fails in this is pertinent. The piece seemed to make many people angry, I'm not sure why...


You quoted me, said 'Yes and no', and then went right on to confirm what I said in the quote. The 'piece' made people upset because it is the fraternal twin (saved from being an identical twin because a few notes were actually hit) of 4' 33" and was used as an example of a hyperbolic thread title.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Since the 1950s? Try from about 1910 young man.


You can see it any way you like; but I consider serial thought to be the real beginnings of the avant-garde, since it ushered in a totally new way of structuring music, and did this in a thorough way, unlike most of the pseudo-tonality that was happening before that. I don't consider "different flavors" of tonality to be avant-garde; they may be harmonically advanced, but it's still harmonic by nature, whereas serially-created music is non-harmonic.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I won't quote you this time, DaveM, but I do not see much (well, any, actually) relationship between what you are posting and what I posted. I do wonder if you find the OP threatening in some way and am not sure why you need to post repeatedly along the lines that you find it hyperbolic - hey, we all have different styles and that's a good thing, I think - but, of course, if the forum (it is really quite broad) offers no more interesting occupations for you then that is fine. No worries - let's drop the matter.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> It is an interesting question of where the avant garde starts. I take the term literally to mean the art that is pushing boundaries _now_. Music from the 50s has surely passed out of that category even if modern audiences (with their busy lives and modern need for instant gratification) have yet to catch up.


I still think that's too rigid, and also incomplete and vague, because it only refers to a chronological element. The term has passed into other usages, used on Lp covers. Of course, only long-time listeners of avant-garde music would recall the following examples:

​​New Electronic Music From leaders Of The Avant-Garde:John Cage,Henri Pousseur,Milton Babbit

The "Avant-Garde" series of LPs on Deutsche Grammophon:


----------



## millionrainbows

The Charle Sdraulig piece, on video in the OP, can be said to be similar in spirit to Cage's 4'33", 

but it can just as easily be seen to be quite different, for those who are detail-oriented and are familiar with the true nature of 4'33". The similarities are, in my opinion, on the surface.

But, that's the nature of conceptual art; one has to think about it.

It's funny how the demand for strict definitions and "proof" of things seem to all go out the window when it's about comparisons of music works which stereotyped, and are bones of contention with many of the literal/rational thinkers out there in Mozart land.


----------



## Enthusiast

millionrainbows said:


> I still think that's too rigid, and also incomplete and vague, because it only refers to a chronological element. The term has passed into other usages, used on Lp covers. Of course, only long-time listeners of avant-garde music would recall the following examples:
> 
> ​​New Electronic Music From leaders Of The Avant-Garde:John Cage,Henri Pousseur,Milton Babbit
> 
> The "Avant-Garde" series of LPs on Deutsche Grammophon:


I see the problem but tend to view those covers as historical items! Like "oh yeah - do you remember the time when Stockhausen was in the avant garde?". No, to me, the term moves with history and if something worthwhile spends too many decades categorised as avant garde then either composers have stopped exploring or audiences are missing something. I do think that the period between being ground-breaking and being repertoire can be a long and difficult one for a work. It took mainstream audiences long enough to accept Sibelius (who was never avant-garde), Stravinsky (who briefly was) and Bartok (who also was for a while) and their jury is still out on Schoenberg. The next generation is being "processed" even more slowly and many orchestras these days seem to avoid anything that was ever avant-garde. I guess this is part of the shrinking centrality of classical music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> I see the problem but tend to view those covers as historical items! Like "oh yeah - do you remember the time when Stockhausen was in the avant garde?". No, to me, the term moves with history and if something worthwhile spends too many decades categorised as avant garde then either composers have stopped exploring or audiences are missing something.
> 
> I do think that the period between being ground-breaking and being repertoire can be a long and difficult one for a work. It took mainstream audiences long enough to accept Sibelius (who was never avant-garde), Stravinsky (who briefly was) and Bartok (who also was for a while) and their jury is still out on Schoenberg. The next generation is being "processed" even more slowly and many orchestras these days seem to avoid anything that was ever avant-garde. I guess this is part of the shrinking centrality of classical music.


I think the 'gap' or slow-down you speak of in assimilation is due to the advent of serial thinking.

Once the line between tonality and atonality was crossed, once tonality was discarded, all newly-composed tonal (harmonically-based) or quasi-tonal music was seen in the new light of atonal serialism as being just simply another form of tonality, a new flavor.
This commonality between Babbitt, Boulez, Stockhausen, Varese, aspects of Bartok, and other serial composers is still a shock to many listeners of more traditional bent.
The way I see it, "once avant-garde, always avant-garde."

The only way in which I see true differences, which could bolster your position, is in some of the newer music like Ferneyhough, where the concern is not with pitch concerns such as tonality or the lack of it. In this case, pitch has to be bypassed in favor of other aspects, such as timbre or non-pitched sounds.

But since most people consider music to be about "pitched sound," this puts them in some very uncomfortable territory.

BTW, be careful of the way in which you use the term "avant-garde." People might assume you are talking about old vinyl LPs.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I won't quote you this time, DaveM, but I do not see much (well, any, actually) relationship between what you are posting and what I posted. I do wonder if you find the OP threatening in some way and am not sure why you need to post repeatedly along the lines that you find it hyperbolic - hey, we all have different styles and that's a good thing, I think - but, of course, if the forum (it is really quite broad) offers no more interesting occupations for you then that is fine. No worries - let's drop the matter.


Pretty full of yourself aren't you. Best to keep your vocation (as mentioned elsewhere) and the personal remarks that go with it separate from forum discussions. It doesn't work well here.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> But, that's the nature of conceptual art; one has to think about it.


That depends on what you mean by "it." The actual content of conceptual "art" rarely merits much thought. Thinking is mainly required in figuring out that there's little to think about in cases where that isn't immediately obvious, or in figuring out why anyone would want us to think about it.

The Sdraulig "let's play with piano keys" thing is a perfect example.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> That depends on what you mean by "it." The actual content of conceptual "art" rarely merits much thought.


I disagree, and see this as the failing of those who do not understand Cage's 4'33". Its conceptual meaning is different than the one presented by the Sdraulig piece, although it "pays homage" to the Cage piece by its apparent lack of "musical activity." But this is precisely the intent of the piece, as a humorous comment on "intentionality." The hands are busy moving, intent seems to be there, but without the expected payoff of a Horowitz concert.

Thinking is mainly required in figuring out that there's little to think about in cases where that isn't immediately obvious, or in figuring out why anyone would want us to think about it.

Well, if you don't "get it," you don't get it. There's no shame in that.

The Sdraulig "let's play with piano keys" thing is a perfect example.

In a way, I see another connection with 4'33", and the frequent assumption that it was merely Cage playing a joke on us. This time, the joke has been reversed, and is on those who fail to see beneath the surface to the "conceptual meta-joke" that has been presented here. I see quite a bit of humor in this piece; but on a deeper conceptual level than others here, obviously.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Pretty full of yourself aren't you. Best to keep your vocation (as mentioned elsewhere) and the personal remarks that go with it separate from forum discussions. It doesn't work well here.


Um, this is a direct personal attack and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.......


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> The Charle Sdraulig piece, on video in the OP, can be said to be similar in spirit to Cage's 4'33",
> 
> but it can just as easily be seen to be quite different, for those who are detail-oriented and are familiar with the true nature of 4'33". The similarities are, in my opinion, on the surface.
> 
> But, that's the nature of conceptual art; one has to think about it.
> 
> It's funny how the demand for strict definitions and "proof" of things seem to all go out the window when it's about comparisons of music works which stereotyped, and are bones of contention with many of the literal/rational thinkers out there in Mozart land.


You now, I'd never really thought so much about its relationship to 4'33" before. To me, both pieces have different purposes , although I guess there are some shared elements more generally with Cage in the interest of an embrace of all kinds of sounds.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Um, this is a direct personal attack and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.......


Um, it was a response to a personal attack which had no place in the discussion at hand.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree, and see this as *the failing of those who do not understand Cage's 4'33"*. Its conceptual meaning is different than the one presented by the Sdraulig piece, although *it "pays homage" to the Cage piece by its apparent lack of "musical activity." But this is precisely the intent of the piece, as a humorous comment on "intentionality." *The hands are busy moving, intent seems to be there, but without the expected payoff of a Horowitz concert.
> 
> Thinking is mainly required in figuring out that there's little to think about in cases where that isn't immediately obvious, or in figuring out why anyone would want us to think about it.
> 
> Well, if you don't "get it," you don't get it. There's no shame in that.
> 
> The Sdraulig "let's play with piano keys" thing is a perfect example.
> 
> In a way, I see another connection with 4'33", and the frequent assumption that it was merely Cage playing a joke on us. This time, *the joke has been reversed, and is on those who fail to see beneath the surface to the "conceptual meta-joke" that has been presented here. *I see quite a bit of humor in this piece; but *on a deeper conceptual level than others here, obviously.*


Sorry, million, but you only further confirm my contention that there's no there there. "Paying homage," "commenting on intentionality," "conceptual meta-joke," "deeper conceptual level"... I'm afraid I've read too much artspeak in my longish life, and seen too many attempts to stuff "interpretation" into things empty of intrinsic meaning and value, to take this seriously. And the earnestness with which such tumescent cerebration is offered only makes the whole phenomenon more dispiriting.

What, concretely, are we talking about here? We're watching a bloke sitting at a piano, brushing the keys with his fingers, occasionally pressing one without sounding a note, hitting a note as if by accident, striking a key lightly with a fingernail, pulling on a key, etc., etc. We ask "Why is he doing this?," but nothing in the activity supplies an answer or even suggests that an answer exists. It's clear that he isn't silently going through the motions of playing music. We might imagine that this is just something the guy does when he's bored, but then, we wonder, why would someone make a video of it? There seems to be no explanation for it at all.

Ordinarily, when we see something that seems pointless, we go and occupy ourselves with something else. But in this case we feel a little guilty about wanting to do that, since this is a music forum and we've just been told that the thing we're looking at "draws upon the grand tradition of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation." That sounds interesting, we think, so we stay with this for a little longer, waiting for something like that to appear. But it never does. So now we have to decide whether it's we who simply don't understand the grand tradition of piano playing, or whether we're being taken for a ride. It really seems to be the latter, so we find ourselves feeling a little annoyed or resentful. And on it goes.

Now, I'm not really so naive as to put myself through the pointless process of trying to puzzle out things like this. I've been around the barn - or around the Cage - plenty of times. I know perfectly well that our human Nora the Piano Cat is being offered as a Work of Art, and I know only too well that Art isn't what it used to be. At some point a while back, a bunch of very conceptually deep folks decided to define art as "anything, especially anything with no other known purpose, use, or value, which I am told by someone called an Artist to sit respectfully in front of and contemplate, especially in conjunction with the Artist's statement of intention, which I may not understand, proving that I'm conceptually shallow, or which I'll find pretentious and absurd, proving that I'm a reactionary and a troublemaker." (Have I got that about right? I worked really hard on it.) We conceptually shallow folks can't help looking askance at this idea of art. We've never quite taken to these clever displays which look meaningless or absurd until someone tells us they're "intentional," "conceptually deep," and "homages" to something else clever and conceptually deep in a sort of infinite regress of cleverness and conceptual deepness.

No, sorry, but no. A guy sitting at a piano for 4'33," doing nothing - or a guy sitting at a piano for 10'29," paying "homage" to 4'33" and playing a "conceptual meta-joke" on us, doing something more annoying than nothing - is not in "the grand tradition of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation," or of anything else grand. If the goal of "composer" Sdraulig is to make a "humorous comment on intentionality," he should learn something about timing from a comedian and arrange to get his anti-Horowitz on and off the stage in twenty seconds. Or maybe we should all just watch Victor Borge.


----------



## JeffD

Whether its a conversation, a novel, a painting, a piece of music, it seems to me the responsibility and burden of the artist/composer/communicator to be understood. This is often accomplished by being understandable.

I have read enough and heard enough and seen enough and am educated enough to be fairly confident that if someone wants me to understand, they can make it understandable to me. I am nothing if not teachable. I am reasonably intelligent and reasonably open minded and reasonably exposed to the universe of ideas. If I don't get it, it is usually not my fault, in my experience.

Reading things like "see this as the failing of those who do not understand ..." and other such comments which blame the listener for not "getting it" does not give me confidence that there is anything substantive for me to "get". If there is something to get, than the attempt to have others understand is, deliberately or not I can't tell, ineffective.

I am willing to suspend judgement and assume there is something here to get. I will not, however, see it as an inadequacy on my part that i don't get it.


----------



## Sid James

Those with an experimental or avant-garde approach to music in the fist half of the 20th century where not so much against tradition as the following generation would be. For example, in a lecture delivered in 1936, Edgard Varese said this about what the emergence of sound made by electronics would mean for the classical tradition:

"Our new liberating medium - the electronic - is not meant to replace the old musical instruments which composers, including myself, will continue to use. Electronics is an additive, not a destructive factor in the art and science of music. It is because new instruments have been constantly added to the old ones that Western music has such a rich and varied patrimony."

This makes sense, particularly when we look at similarly big changes during the past, such as the move from harpsichords and other similar instruments to what would become modern pianos. There is no need to jettison music for one instrument in favour of another, event though the new will inevitably come to dominate the scene at some point.

Its odd that despite his radical music, Varese would be so respectful of tradition. However, for some of the generation coming later - eg. Cage, Boulez, Babbitt - tradition would become a dirty word. Their approach was more influenced by strands of modernism which where strongly anarchist and where influenced by a utopian view of technology. A strong split also emerged between those who where experimental and those who where avant-garde. The former exists entirely within the classical tradition (or within the mainstream) while the latter exists on the fringes of it and seeks to constantly challenge and subvert it.

From where we stand in the 21st century, the experimental strand of decades past would be accepted by most to be actual music (eg. Varese, or say Penderecki or Ligeti) whilst the avant-garde strand is still bogged down in philosophy (the best example being Cage's 4'33"). I think both where important, at least in allowing experiments to be made and justified and then become part of the toolbox of techniques available. This applies to all types of music. I mean last night I was listening to Michael Jackson, and even his songs like Bad and Billy Jean have so much sampling and overlaying of tracks in them that its hard to tell where music stops and the machines take over. Even the notorious 4'33" is arguably as museum piece as Beethoven, its been performed at even the most hallowed venues like the UK proms.

I found the Varese lecture here, which I think is still relevant to many issues discussed on this forum with regards to modern and contemporary music: http://www.zakros.com/mica/soundart/s04/varese_text.html


----------



## DaveM

The very act of ‘performing’ 4’33” is disturbing. We’ve talked about it here ad nauseum, but I doubt that the public would see it as any more than a joke and it would be 4’33” of their lives they couldn’t get back. Besides, since it is nothing more than silence, it may be one of the worst recorded instances of plagiarism.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Pretty full of yourself aren't you. Best to keep your vocation (as mentioned elsewhere) and the personal remarks that go with it separate from forum discussions. It doesn't work well here.


Full of myself? What does _that _mean? That like most here I have opinions and views, I suppose. Possibly you are more bland and certainly I can't remember what most of your positing has been about so I can't respond in kind. But it beats me why you have to behave like a thug on this forum. What do you get out of that? You just make an *** of yourself.

I doubt you have the first idea what my "vocation", or even my occupation, is and whatever you imagine me to be is probably something I did at one time (possibly decades ago) and mentioned to illustrate a point. But it does seem you have formed a thing about me - while I don't have the slightest idea about you and, apart from my remembering a couple of chortling negative posts that I think came from you, I have no idea what you like. Probably I have disagreed with you too many times in the past (is that what has got to you?) but, if so, it wouldn't have been personal - merely a reaction to views that seemed wrong to me.


----------



## Enthusiast

Enthusiast said:


> Full of myself? What does _that _mean? ................... blah


That whole thing has me in a bad mood now. I usually enjoy the forum but think I'll give it a miss today. I'll vote in a couple of polls and take my leave for a while. I doubt the mods would allow me to defend myself and it would spoil things for others.


----------



## Tallisman

I can't hear anything


----------



## Tallisman

shirime said:


> Wow I didn't realise there was enough interest in this kind of thing I'm interested in for this thread to grow to three pages overnight!
> 
> Also, I think MillionRainbows is pretty spot on with how I've come to understand Sdraulig's piano piece 'the Collector'.
> 
> Using some kind of 'tradition' as a basis of exploration in composition _is_ a rather post-modern approach, really.... being in touch with the past in order to create something new does seem to be an idea that is solidly in the minds of many composers these days, I reckon.


Calling it a 'piece' is generous, no? Bah, I'm turning into an old man.


----------



## aleazk

Sid James said:


> Its odd that despite his radical music, Varese would be so respectful of tradition. However, for some of the generation coming later - eg. Cage, Boulez, Babbitt - tradition would become a dirty word. Their approach was more influenced by strands of modernism which where strongly anarchist and where influenced by a utopian view of technology. A strong split also emerged between those who where experimental and those who where avant-garde. The former exists entirely within the classical tradition (or within the mainstream) while the latter exists on the fringes of it and seeks to constantly challenge and subvert it.
> 
> From where we stand in the 21st century, the experimental strand of decades past would be accepted by most to be actual music (eg. Varese, or say Penderecki or Ligeti) whilst the avant-garde strand is still bogged down in philosophy (the best example being Cage's 4'33"). I think both where important, at least in allowing experiments to be made and justified and then become part of the toolbox of techniques available. This applies to all types of music. I mean last night I was listening to Michael Jackson, and even his songs like Bad and Billy Jean have so much sampling and overlaying of tracks in them that its hard to tell where music stops and the machines take over. Even the notorious 4'33" is arguably as museum piece as Beethoven, its been performed at even the most hallowed venues like the UK proms.


I agree with the general view, but not so much with the terminology. The 50s and 60s were a period of extreme experimentation and rejection of tradition. There were different strands and directions in this experimentation. We had the Boulez-Stockhausen school of integral serialism (Babbitt did integral serialism too, but in a somewhat parallel way in relation to that school). Then we had Stockhausen and Babbitt developing electronic music, synthesized sounds, etc. Also the french musique concrète of Pierre Schaeffer. We also had Ligeti and his micropolyphonic pieces. Another important figure was Cage, with a wide range of experimentation, from altering the sounds of the piano, to chance, conceptual art and the challenge of the boundaries of what is music, all this influenced by eastern ideas, etc. One could add Xenakis to this whole group, since he experimented with electronic music, musique concrète, constructivist methods of composition, etc. I call all of this whole movement simply as the avant-garde from that period and perhaps the most relevant of the periods of experimemtation in the 20th century, i.e., it would be _the_ avant-garde. Thus, I don't agree with the distinction between moderate experiment and the avant-garde. Although, perhaps one could call minimalism as one example of moderate experimentation, since the main ideas are related to certain ways in which rhythm and form could be treated in a piece.

What did happen is that this period of high modernism started to decline (as every period in art). People stopped to experiment in extreme ways and, instead, focussed on trying to compose in aesthetic frameworks that represented some sort of synthesis of all the ideas that were developed in that previous period, and even reincorporating elements from tradition. I guess one could call this new period as post-modernism, where Ligeti's late style and even Boulez's late style can be taken as examples of it.

But, also, some ideas that were developed during the avant-garde didn't quite make it to the mainstream of post-modernism. I believe the reason for this is simply that they were not fertile enough as to sustain further developments and new pieces being composed under their narrow direction. I would include into this group strict integral serialism, challenges a la Cage of the boundaries of music, micropolyphony, and some others. On the other hand, what never disappeared since its introduction is the soundworld of free chromaticism pioneered by Schoenberg (and, I guess, this is why conservative people dislike a lot of music from the 20th century, they actually dislike this aspect, 'atonalism', that proved to be a pervasive influence on the whole spectrum of experimentation during that century, which I think is due to the fact that, as being less rigid, it allowed more easily the flexibilization of other musical aspects too). Although, the serial method behind it didn't make an influence that big; this possibility was suggested, with premonitory lucidity, by Ravel from the very early stages when he said "I am quite conscious of the fact that my Chansons madécasses are in no way Schoenbergian, but I do not know whether I ever should have been able to write them had Schoenberg never written". Another aspect with lasting influences were the rhythmic innovations introduced by Stravinsky, pretty much all music from the 20th century was informed and influenced by this (again, there seems to be some premonition about this by Ravel since he was one of the most strong supporters of Stravinsky's Rite.)

I pretty much would call strict integral serialism, challenges a la Cage of the boundaries of music, and micropolyphony as museum pieces and dead ends. This doesn't mean that they were not influential: they were hugely influential, but in more generic ways rather than in their very specific inner workings. Thus, I would be quite baffled if a contemporary composer comes today and shows me his latest piece, finished just minutes ago, but which, at close inspection of the score, reveals a perfect integral serial construction, or a crystal clear Lontano-like micropolyphony, or tacet tacet tacet tacet! And, yet, we do see this happening today. Even in the visual arts, it's still common to see new works that are simply, at the conceptual level, just minimal reworkings of Duchamp's Fountain, from 1917 (!). Let's see, 1917... Ravel was composing Le Tombeau de Couperin. Imagine the utter absurd of some contemporary composer presenting something in the style of that piece as his latest 'work in contemporary style'.

Why it happens? I think there seems to be some confusion from the fact that these ideas have been put aside (after being widely discussed for decades and the lessons from them largely absorbed; after Cage, we all think twice before judging what is music and what is not, at least the people interested in following the lessons from the high modernism period). They seem to take this abandoning as something signaling that they are still avant-garde. I have no clue why an artist, that supposedly studied art history in university, would do such a thing. I'm, of course, not going to hypothesize about what may be going on the psychology of these people. In any case, the resource to these tactics from the part of these contemporary artists just seem quite cheap and showing intellectual laziness, and the temptation to see that as the result of snobism, intellectual dishonesty and pathological endemicity in the contemporary art scene, is simply very strong.

In the case of the particular examples presented in this thread and another from the same poster, one can see a clear aesthetic premise which is remarkably similar to the challenges to the notion of what is music put forward by Cage (ambient unintentional noises, silence, chance, etc.; there's a video in youtube of Cage playing an 'amplified cacti with a feather'... write below it that it's a reflection on the tradition of quill writing, subtle-touch instrumental finger technique and it just simple becomes too similar to the example in this thread... really too similar). Of course, they are not identical to his pieces, but the root is quite clear. And people here simply noticed this, experienced the impressions mentioned in the previous paragraph and that's why they reacted disapprovingly in a quite unanimous way (i.e., both conservative and non-conservative listeners). In my case, the feeling is similar to when I see in the art galleries pieces of contemporary art which are just cheap copies of Duchamp. I feel irritated by the intellectual laziness of the artist, and this not even because I may like or don't like Duchamp's idea, but because I think "can't you just think an original way to defy my boundaries of what is art rather than repeating the most widely discussed idea on this topic in the whole library of the art university since the 1920s?". As I mentioned, the reason why these ideas were put aside (in their explicit incarnation) was becase they were not fertile enough to produce more art explicitly based on it, all of what is done tends to look just too similar to the initial work (in one interview, Ligeti said something like "I once composed a piece which was just one note and then silence during the rest of the piece; I was not familiar with the Cage piece, which was already published, and thus thank god I never published my version of it!"). On the other hand, the ideas that prove fertile, like the Schoenberg free chromatism soundscape, survive and don't go to the museum because they combine with other ideas in a flexible way to produce vastly different pieces (compare, e.g., Ferneyhough's Lemma Icon Epigram piano piece with Ligeti's Desordre piano etude). The ideas that go to the museum are the rigid, one-trick-pony ones.

I have no idea what shirime sees of interest in these pieces, but I hope I'm at least giving him some food for thought, even if he disagrees with what I say.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> Full of myself? What does _that _mean? That like most here I have opinions and views, I suppose. Possibly you are more bland and certainly I can't remember what most of your positing has been about so I can't respond in kind. But it beats me why you have to behave like a thug on this forum. What do you get out of that? You just make an *** of yourself.
> 
> I doubt you have the first idea what my "vocation", or even my occupation, is and whatever you imagine me to be is probably something I did at one time (possibly decades ago) and mentioned to illustrate a point. But it does seem you have formed a thing about me - while I don't have the slightest idea about you and, apart from my remembering a couple of chortling negative posts that I think came from you, I have no idea what you like. Probably I have disagreed with you too many times in the past (is that what has got to you?) *but, if so, it wouldn't have been personal - merely a reaction to views that seemed wrong to me.*


The following are sarcastic, personal remarks. What do they have to do with the subject matter?:



Enthusiast said:


> *I do wonder if you find the OP threatening in some way* and am not sure why you need to post repeatedly along the lines that you find it hyperbolic - hey, we all have different styles and that's a good thing, I think - *but, of course, if the forum (it is really quite broad) offers no more interesting occupations for you then that is fine.*


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from personal comments and focus posts on the subject matter.


----------



## Guest

@Aleazk, I don't disagree with you, however I do believe there are new things that can be done with the 'dead ends' of 20th century modernism, and that would be a post-modern treatment of them through reference, quotation etc in order to combine the 'dead end' with something quite different. Providing a new context in which an existing idea can be placed could potentially allow us as listeners to hear old ideas in new ways.

In the visual arts, simply copying Duchamp's idea would not be anywhere near as interesting as referencing it as part of a much more complex and interesting work, for example.


----------



## isorhythm

shirime said:


> @Aleazk, I don't disagree with you, however I do believe there are new things that can be done with the 'dead ends' of 20th century modernism, and that would be a post-modern treatment of them through reference, quotation etc in order to combine the 'dead end' with something quite different. Providing a new context in which an existing idea can be placed could potentially allow us as listeners to hear old ideas in new ways.
> 
> In the visual arts, simply copying Duchamp's idea would not be anywhere near as interesting as referencing it as part of a much more complex and interesting work, for example.


Do you think the work that kicked off this thread does this? If so, how?


----------



## janxharris

Instructions for performance:

http://www.charliesdraulig.com/collector.pdf


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> Do you think the work that kicked off this thread does this? If so, how?


Well, I haven't really thought so much about whether this piece actually does do that, but I guess it does. What I find interesting about the piece is how it explores the relationship between the fingers/hands and the keys. There physical gesture of a pianist's performance is more intricately explored, and Sdraulig mentions the importance of the audience's ability to see the pianist's hands as a primary focus of the piece:



> Place the piano in a way that enables all (or most) of the audience to see your hands. The audience should be as close to you as possible.


That's where it becomes a performance. The sounds are composed, using extended traditional notation for that matter, and this results in the music, but that's barely half the story if it weren't for the context of performance, the relationship between audience and pianist.

Whether it is a good piece or not, I haven't made up my mind entirely. However, the fact that it has made me think a lot about music and performance itself is terrific and this is the real value of experiencing music/performance like this.


----------



## Woodduck

shirime said:


> Well, I haven't really thought so much about whether this piece actually does do that, but I guess it does. What I find interesting about the piece is *how it explores the relationship between the fingers/hands and the keys. *There physical gesture of a pianist's performance is more intricately explored, and Sdraulig mentions the importance of the audience's ability to see the pianist's hands as a primary focus of the piece.
> 
> That's where it becomes a performance. The sounds are composed, using extended traditional notation for that matter, and this results in the music, but that's barely half the story if it weren't for *the context of performance, **the relationship between audience and pianist.*
> 
> *Whether it is a good piece or not, I haven't made up my mind entirely.* However, the fact that *it has made me think a lot about music and performance* itself is terrific and *this is the real value of experiencing music/performance like this.*


What does it mean to "explore the relationship between the fingers/hands and the keys"? Isn't Sdraulig actually _creating_ that relationship? Can he be said to "explore" what he himself is creating? Are we, the audience, exploring it? What are we looking for? Is anything required of us beyond simple observation? Is anything to be learned here by observing?

What is "the relationship between audience and pianist," besides the basic relationship of observer and observed? Is there something peculiar about it? How is it a "context" that makes this particular work meaningful?

How would you know whether this is a "good" piece or not? How would you judge it? What are the criteria? What's your context of comparison?

I wonder: was it a direct, unexpected, unmediated encounter with this piece that made you think a lot about music and performance, or was it some statement of the intentions behind it? And as a result of experiencing the piece, what have you learned about music and performance that you might not have learned otherwise?


----------



## licorice stick

Woodduck said:


> Sorry, million, but you only further confirm my contention that there's no there there...


I suspect that there is more artistic value in this rant's pinkie finger than the entire oeuvre of Herr Sdraulig.


----------



## KenOC

shirime said:


> Well, I haven't really thought so much about whether this piece actually does do that, but I guess it does. What I find interesting about the piece is how it explores the relationship between the fingers/hands and the keys. There physical gesture of a pianist's performance is more intricately explored, and Sdraulig mentions the importance of the audience's ability to see the pianist's hands as a primary focus of the piece:
> 
> That's where it becomes a performance. The sounds are composed, using extended traditional notation for that matter, and this results in the music, but that's barely half the story if it weren't for the context of performance, the relationship between audience and pianist.


Speaking only for myself (of course) I have zero interest in the relationship of Mr. Sdraugle's fingers and the keys, what his hands look like, and other elements of the "context of the performance." This whole thing is a championship round of pretentious artspeak. I came to hear the music, which seems to have called in sick. Likely terminally so.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I wonder: was it a direct, unexpected, unmediated encounter with this piece that made you think a lot about music and performance, or was it some statement of the intentions behind it? And as a result of experiencing the piece, what have you learned about music and performance that you might not have learned otherwise?


It was certainly unexpected when I first encountered it, and there was no written statement that really made me ask these kinds of questions, more the music itself. I haven't gained a great deal of _knowledge_ from this piece about music and performance, but I have certainly learnt a few things about where the audience and the pianist are physically placed in a performance and how that may impact our experience and engagement with what the pianist is actually doing. When I watched it, my eyes were quite strongly drawn to the hands and how they interacted with the keys. It is always interesting to watch pianists' hands, but for me it was even more interesting in this piece. I often did not know what sounds were going to be made throughout the course of the performance, or if there would be a physical gesture with no sound, so there was certainly a sense of exploration there. I'm very grateful for that experience; it was thought provoking for me and quite frankly it opened my mind up to different ways a piece of music could be experienced.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Speaking only for myself (of course) I have zero interest in the relationship of Mr. Sdraugle's fingers and the keys, what his hands look like, and other elements of the "context of the performance." This whole thing is a championship round of pretentious artspeak. I came to hear the music, which seems to have called in sick. Likely terminally so.


That's fair enough; people are interested in different things. There are lots of niches to explore in all of music history. Likewise, I have mentioned my distate for music by people like John Adams and what his generation of similar composers represent for music to me these days as well. Nothing is for everyone and no matter what is being created there'd always be people who find meaning in it for themselves and people who don't want to find a meaning or just don't like it.


----------



## licorice stick

God help us if someone whips out a Pez dispenser in the audience. Or would that be the highlight of the piece?


----------



## DaveM

It strikes me that the piece in question might have been a learning tool for pianists wanting to improve touch, but as a performance piece...


----------



## KenOC

Or the whole thread might be a subtle troll. Nah, couldn't be. Could it?


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Or the whole thread might be a subtle troll. Nah, couldn't be. Could it?


Well, honestly there was nothing subtle in my intentions of creating this thread.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> It was certainly unexpected when I first encountered it, and there was no written statement that really made me ask these kinds of questions, more the music itself. I haven't gained a great deal of _knowledge_ from this piece about music and performance, but I have certainly learnt a few things about where the audience and the pianist are physically placed in a performance and how that may impact our experience and engagement with what the pianist is actually doing. When I watched it, my eyes were quite strongly drawn to the hands and how they interacted with the keys. It is always interesting to watch pianists' hands, but for me it was even more interesting in this piece. I often did not know what sounds were going to be made throughout the course of the performance, or if there would be a physical gesture with no sound, so there was certainly a sense of exploration there. I'm very grateful for that experience; it was thought provoking for me and quite frankly it opened my mind up to different ways a piece of music could be experienced.


Is there anything in the piece that you would say clearly distinguishes it from another experience of watching an undirected pianist sitting at a piano, touching the keys in various ways and occasionally making a hammer hit a string?


----------



## KenOC

shirime said:


> Well, honestly there was nothing subtle in my intentions of creating this thread.


It's only natural that you'd say that if you were guilty. Really, is more proof needed?


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Is there anything in the piece that you would say clearly distinguishes it from another experience of watching an undirected pianist sitting at a piano, touching the keys in various ways and occasionally making a hammer hit a string?


On a more musical sense, there's an expansion in the variety of sounds and gestures over the passage of time........that, to me, is one of the more purely musical elements of the work. The linear relationship to time is typical of a lot of western music anyway. A piece like this could be easily improvised, composed on the spot, and provoke the same thoughts in me.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> It's only natural that you'd say that if you were guilty. Really, is more proof needed?


The proof is the OP and my subsequent posts in this thread that address posts that respond to what I am talking about in the OP. Our current interaction is off-topic.


----------



## licorice stick

I guarantee that there is something subtle about the intent of this thread, but there's really no need to utter it.


----------



## Guest

licorice stick said:


> I guarantee that there is something subtle about the intent of this thread, but there's really no need to utter it.


Could you be clear as to what it is?

In all honestly I would like to know if my posts are actually making anyone feel bad or causing distress. I asked the moderators for their opinion as well and I have so far only been encouraged to continue making these threads. If other members can be a bit clearer with me as to how they are feeling about my contributions to the forum, it would be very helpful.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> On a more musical sense, there's an expansion in the variety of sounds and gestures over the passage of time........that, to me, is one of the more purely musical elements of the work. The linear relationship to time is typical of a lot of western music anyway.


I'm not sure what you are saying here.



> A piece like this could be easily improvised, composed on the spot, and provoke the same thoughts in me.


I guess this is why there has been such a strong negative reaction to it. I wonder if Mr. Sdraulig is aware of this discussion?


----------



## KenOC

shirime said:


> The proof is the OP and my subsequent posts in this thread that address posts that respond to what I am talking about in the OP. Our current interaction is off-topic.


Some might suspect that this is another attempt to distract from the issue at hand. But that would hardly be surprising. Someone "caught in the act" will naturally claim the evidence, however clear it might be, is irrelevant or should otherwise be ignored.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> A piece like this could be easily improvised, composed on the spot....


And yet Sdraulig provides such specific directions. I wonder about the reaction any composer might have to such an assertion?


----------



## Fredx2098

KenOC said:


> Some might suspect that this is another attempt to distract from the issue at hand. But that would hardly be surprising. Someone "caught in the act" will naturally claim the evidence, however clear it might be, is irrelevant or should otherwise be ignored.


What kind of heinous act is being committed? It seems that he gave an example for a broader topic, and for the most part people have been bickering about the example and totally ignoring the topic.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> What kind of heinous act is being committed? It seems that he gave an example for a broader topic, and for the most part people have been bickering about the example and totally ignoring the topic.


? Nothing wrong with commenting on the example given in the OP.

I am scratching my head and wondering that if this piece is permitted to be categorized as classical then where does the boundary end?


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> I'm not sure what you are saying here.


Apologies, my wording was unclear. Music is a form of art that affects our perception of time through the regularity and variety of sound-events. In this work, the passage of time occurs (to me) in a linear fashion based on the lack of consistency in the variety of sounds and the cumulative experience of these sounds in the moment of hearing them and in my memory.



> I guess this is why there has been such a strong negative reaction to it. I wonder if Mr. Sdraulig is aware of this discussion?


Hmmm, I'm friends with him on facebook so I _could_ ask.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> ? Nothing wrong with commenting on the example given in the OP.


I didn't say there was, but I do think there's something wrong with ignoring the intended topic, and I feel like everything negative that can be said has been said, for a while now.



> I am scratching my head and wondering that if this piece is permitted to be categorized as classical then where does the boundary end?


There's a nice thread specifically about this going.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> ? Nothing wrong with commenting on the example given in the OP.
> 
> I am scratching my head and wondering that if this piece is permitted to be categorized as classical then where does the boundary end?


Captainnumber36's thread on defining Classical Music would probably have some interesting discussion on that. It's an interesting thing to start questioning, that's for sure.


----------



## Enthusiast

I suppose there is a horrible fascination reading this thread but it is also extraordinary. I recommend all to read it through from the start again.

Quite a few people are clearly very angry with the piece that was given as an example or a stimulus in the OP and, no matter what is said in response, will not let that drop. I'm not sure why as the crimes of the piece in question are hardly unique and represent a fault line that gets discussed fairly often without that much rancor. But here, and despite a near consensus (albeit an uneasy one) on the forum that taste is a subjective thing, the hatred of the piece has led quite a few who usually post respectfully and often with insight to even come close to insulting the OP's author - suggesting that he has an ulterior motive to damage the forum or that he is a fake - or in asking for such music (or whatever word you want to use - I'm not looking for a fight) to be censored from the forum as not belonging here. But it isn't the arguments so much as the passion and the personalisation that I find extraordinary. And this is especially so as most do not address the issues and questions raised in the OP but focus just on that one piece that was given as an example.

For the record I am not a fan of conceptual art. I respect the intent behind some of it but my music thing is about enjoyment and I don't get enjoyment from most conceptual art. But I never did understand why people get so exasperated by it. Was it the tabloids that started that? I don't know. But some people like it and enjoy it and I'm not sure I need to know more unless I find the concept itself to be wrong in some way. There is also something about how an object can become a cultural icon and take on collective significance and meaning that was not there originally. Is that to the credit of the artist or ... . Or who?

Emerging out of more recent posts in this thread is an idea that _seeing _the performer and what they are doing is important in some way. I do find that an interesting idea because I know very well that seeing a performance - say of a Beethoven quartet or a Rachmaninov concerto - does change my perception and enjoyment of the music. I have many times enjoyed a performance of a work while watching it on TV and then been disappointed that it was not so wonderful when hearing it later as a sound recording. I have often wondered fruitlessly why that is. Meanwhile, I have learned almost to not fully trust my perception of a performance that I can see!


----------



## IpadComposer

Vasks said:


> I found the performance a bit stiff; Daniel Barenboim plays it much more smoothly and with greater panache


Love this response Mr. Vasks! I must say there was a part I enjoyed... THE SILENCES! Very peaceful.


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> It's only natural that you'd say that if you were guilty. Really, is more proof needed?


You "know" your suspicion is true because ... you feel it in your heart? Isn't this how fake news proliferates? People reject the assurances of those they suspect (which is OK in public life but seems borderline rude on a forum of music fans) and they reject the evidence ... they trust their heart. But, as for evidence, shirime has started quite a number of threads recently and most of them have engaged quite a number of us - we have found them interesting and stimulating even where we do not agree - and led to meaningful debates. They have been among the more successful threads of late. The threads were clearly not trolling. This thread doesn't seem very different except that one of the examples given seems to have hit a nerve for many to the extent that they felt affronted by it (the example). It seems to me that the trolling - if there is any - might be somewhere else in this thread. But that is not the way I would put it because I have no doubt that everyone participating here is sincere.


----------



## Thomyum2

Enthusiast said:


> I suppose there is a horrible fascination reading this thread but it is also extraordinary. I recommend all to read it through from the start again.
> 
> Quite a few people are clearly very angry with the piece that was given as an example or a stimulus in the OP and, no matter what is said in response, will not let that drop. I'm not sure why as the crimes of the piece in question are hardly unique and represent a fault line that gets discussed fairly often without that much rancor. But here, and despite a near consensus (albeit an uneasy one) on the forum that taste is a subjective thing, the hatred of the piece has led quite a few who usually post respectfully and often with insight to even come close to insulting the OP's author - suggesting that he has an ulterior motive to damage the forum or that he is a fake - or in asking for such music (or whatever word you want to use - I'm not looking for a fight) to be censored from the forum as not belonging here. But it isn't the arguments so much as the passion and the personalisation that I find extraordinary.


I agree, it's been interesting to see these reactions. I remember years ago learning about the famous scandal that occurred at the first performance of _'The Rite of Spring_' which, at the time, seemed a hard thing to understand - disliking a piece is one thing, but what would cause people to feel that strongly about a piece of music that it could lead to a riot? Over the years I kind of dismissed it as an artifact of an earlier time when people were unaccustomed to the radical experimentation in the arts that we are so used to today. But I've been surprised to discover in some of the discussions here on this forum that those same passions may be very much alive.

In reading some of the objections to this piece (and similar objections to such things as serialism, or 4'33", and other modern forms or experiments), it seems that the primary theme of the hostility is not with the piece itself, but the idea that people feel they are being asked, or required, to take it seriously and accept it as art. So I think that is informative - perhaps it is when we feel that something lacking in merit and is undeservingly trying to insert itself into a hallowed tradition that we revere and value, we feel compelled to put up a fight to preserve and defend that which we care about? I think we are content to let artists create and audiences enjoy as they wish, but we start to put up the objections when they begin to feel like an intrusion into our own world, when it is no longer something that we can just ignore, whether it be in the concerts we attend or in the social groups we interact in, even such as this forum. Thoughts?


----------



## isorhythm

Fredx2098 said:


> What kind of heinous act is being committed? It seems that he gave an example for a broader topic, and for the most part people have been bickering about the example and totally ignoring the topic.


There have been a few attempts to engage with the topic. Unfortunately the topic has never been well defined.

The original post begins by positing that the piece "draws upon the grand tradition of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation," because it "extracts these ideas and makes music out of them." We're already in trouble here because the "grand tradition of piano playing" does not include any ideas about the sounds produced by the player's hands on the keyboard, or the other mechanical parts of the piano, or the way the player's hands look to the audience.

Reading as generously as possible, I understand this paragraph to mean that a piece like Sdraulig's is "most informed of tradition," compared to some unspecified other music, because the tradition of playing the piano is in some sense its subject. But why? It's not explained why this kind of metacommentary should be seen as more closely linked to tradition than a piece that actually uses the piano in the traditional way.

It gets more muddled from there. Suddenly Sdraulig's piece is exploring an "expanded timbral palette." That's pretty different from what we were told a moment ago, but OK - they're not mutually exclusive. The piece is compared to Lachenmann. Here's a piano piece of his, for reference: 




Like it or not (I'm lukewarm on it, personally), is Lachenmann up to the same kind of the as Sdraulig? It seems like his goals and interests are totally different, but maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, we get a link to an article in which Lachenmann is quoted saying he's interested in music history. I mean, sure. He's a composer, he went to school for this. But in what sense is his music, or other music concerned with unconventional instrumental timbres, especially informed by tradition? And compared to what?

Maybe it doesn't matter, since the next two examples we're given, with no explanation to speak of, are Ferneyhough and Boulez.

This is only the first post! These kinds of wild leaps and apparent non sequiturs have continued throughout the thread. Most recently I gather that _collector_ is about the perception of time?

If shirime or anyone else is interested in talking about the relationship between the avant-garde and tradition, a little more care in formulating and presenting ideas would be a big help for everyone!


----------



## Thomyum2

Enthusiast said:


> But, as for evidence, shirime has started quite a number of threads recently and most of them have engaged quite a number of us - we have found them interesting and stimulating even where we do not agree - and led to meaningful debates. They have been among the more successful threads of late. The threads were clearly not trolling. This thread doesn't seem very different except that one of the examples given seems to have hit a nerve for many to the extent that they felt affronted by it (the example). It seems to me that the trolling - if there is any - might be somewhere else in this thread. But that is not the way I would put it because I have no doubt that everyone participating here is sincere.


I heartily agree - shirime has been asking a lot of insightful and interesting questions about music and participating in these discussions by sharing his thoughts in a most honest and respectful way that seems to me to reflect a real curiosity about music and desire to understand it more. I, for one, learn from and enjoy these threads, and find them thought-provoking (even as they sometimes go off track).


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> Apologies, my wording was unclear. Music is a form of art that affects our perception of time through the regularity and variety of sound-events. In this work, the passage of time occurs (to me) in a linear fashion based on the lack of consistency in the variety of sounds and the cumulative experience of these sounds in the moment of hearing them and in my memory.


Must be me shirime - but I am completely failing to understand you. The only thing I can think of is that some pieces make me think that the composer is emoting in slow motion - just as a film piece might.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Must be me shirime - but I am completely failing to understand you. The only thing I can think of is that some pieces make me think that the composer is emoting in slow motion - just as a film piece might.


Hmmm, okay, I'd have to redirect you to Jonathan D. Kramer who discusses temporal perception much better than I can in his book 'The Time of Music.' It's a fascinating read.


----------



## Fredx2098

isorhythm said:


> If shirime or anyone else is interested in talking about the relationship between the avant-garde and tradition, a little more care in formulating and presenting ideas would be a big help for everyone!


The way I see it, the avant-garde relates to tradition because it consciously doesn't do anything traditional, which is different from just ignoring tradition. It expands the palette by making sounds that haven't been made before. It doesn't always hit the mark, but that's the goal I think.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> The way I see it, the avant-garde relates to tradition because it consciously doesn't do anything traditional, which is different from just ignoring tradition. It expands the palette by making sounds that haven't been made before. It doesn't always hit the mark, but that's the goal I think.


I think it does that on one level, and for some composers in the 20th century it was a kind of goal to create music completely lacking in any link to the history of western classical music. There's an irony to the fact that they became part of that very tradition themselves, but there's also a paradox that comes with the attempt to write music that attempts to reference nothing from history. The paradox is that the rejection of history is an acknowledgement of it.


----------



## Enthusiast

isorhythm said:


> There have been a few attempts to engage with the topic. Unfortunately the topic has never been well defined.
> 
> The original post begins by positing that the piece "draws upon the grand tradition of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation," because it "extracts these ideas and makes music out of them." We're already in trouble here because the "grand tradition of piano playing" does not include any ideas about the sounds produced by the player's hands on the keyboard, or the other mechanical parts of the piano, or the way the player's hands look to the audience.
> 
> Reading as generously as possible, I understand this paragraph to mean that a piece like Sdraulig's is "most informed of tradition," compared to some unspecified other music, because the tradition of playing the piano is in some sense its subject. But why? It's not explained why this kind of metacommentary should be seen as more closely linked to tradition than a piece that actually uses the piano in the traditional way.
> 
> It gets more muddled from there. Suddenly Sdraulig's piece is exploring an "expanded timbral palette." That's pretty different from what we were told a moment ago, but OK - they're not mutually exclusive. The piece is compared to Lachenmann. Here's a piano piece of his, for reference:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not (I'm lukewarm on it, personally), is Lachenmann up to the same kind of the as Sdraulig? It seems like his goals and interests are totally different, but maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, we get a link to an article in which Lachenmann is quoted saying he's interested in music history. I mean, sure. He's a composer, he went to school for this. But in what sense is his music, or other music concerned with unconventional instrumental timbres, especially informed by tradition? And compared to what?
> 
> Maybe it doesn't matter, since the next two examples we're given, with no explanation to speak of, are Ferneyhough and Boulez.
> 
> This is only the first post! These kinds of wild leaps and apparent non sequiturs have continued throughout the thread. Most recently I gather that _collector_ is about the perception of time?
> 
> If shirime or anyone else is interested in talking about the relationship between the avant-garde and tradition, a little more care in formulating and presenting ideas would be a big help for everyone!


I didn't experience those difficulties and found some of the "openness" you refer to (perhaps you would say ambiguity) to be potentially fertile. Tie a subject up too tightly and the thread dies (take a look at most of the ones I have started!)

Could it be that you got hung up on the first example, and its relationship to the title, and missed what seemed relatively easy to understand to me? I read the title as meaning little more than the obvious - because we are better able to look back than we have ever been before today's composers are better equipped and more inclined to draw on it. I won't go back and read through the OP and subsequent posts again but I think I remember this being explained quite early on in the thread.


----------



## Tallisman

shirime said:


> Could you be clear as to what it is?
> 
> In all honestly I would like to know if my posts are actually making anyone feel bad or causing distress. I asked the moderators for their opinion as well and I have so far only been encouraged to continue making these threads. If other members can be a bit clearer with me as to how they are feeling about my contributions to the forum, it would be very helpful.


Silence doesn't cause me distress :lol: I'd rather fill it with music, though.


----------



## licorice stick

Seeing this thread, I immediately assumed that it was an elaborate satire, but upon further reading remembered that, no, there is an entire academic industrial complex devoted to the promotion of what I consider fake and lazy classical music. I still prefer to read this as a Monty Pythonesque defense of the indefensible, as the serious interpretation confirms that the hardy handful of classical purists is indeed in the final whimpers of a rearguard action against both the zombified mainstream and the fifth column of moral relativists who stuff the institutions of higher culture/lower learning. Yes, I am one of those untouchables with a totally arbitrary definition of classical music that excludes most of the noise produced since World War II, including Boulez. Rational debate is no more capable of resolving the boundaries of classical music than the borders of the West Bank or Kashmir. The de facto boundaries set by people who passionately care about debating the matter seem to be that anything goes, so we purists will continue to wage guerrilla warfare when they push their view. Our desires will be roundly ignored (see my recent endorsement of longer concerts with more obscure, high-quality tonal music written long ago and very little modern atonal or film-like music), and maybe even used as a template of what not to do. I doubt that the trend is what audiences desire, but rather what the government-sponsored academic industrial complex finds necessary to minimize the amount of difficult compositional work required and maximize the politically correct brownie points that can be scored.

[I withdraw my comment on the relationship between the OP and the composer. It is irrelevant.]

So I oscillate between mirth and misery in reading this thread.


----------



## Enthusiast

licorice stick said:


> ...... but upon further reading remembered that, no, there is an entire academic industrial complex devoted to the promotion of what I consider fake and lazy classical music. ......
> ........The de facto boundaries set by people who passionately care about debating the matter seem to be that anything goes, so we purists will continue to wage guerrilla warfare when they push their view. Our desires will be roundly ignored ...... but rather what the government-sponsored academic industrial complex finds necessary to minimize the amount of difficult compositional work required and maximize the politically correct brownie points that can be scored.



:lol: A conspiracy! Now I get it. The government and the academic industrial complex. I begin to understand where the gainsayers are coming from.


----------



## licorice stick

How is it a conspiracy when it's out in the open? I am merely observing what composers produce, what musicologists study, and where a lot of their funding comes from. I'm not saying it's an elaborate scheme of George Soros.


----------



## JAS

licorice stick said:


> How is it a conspiracy when it's out in the open? I am merely observing what composers produce, what musicologists study, and where a lot of their funding comes from. I'm not saying it's an elaborate scheme of George Soros.


Be careful. They now know that you are on to them. If you hear someone knocking on the door, don't answer. It is probably Soros himself, or one of his henchmen. (Or try whistling something by Schoenberg, and perhaps they will go away.)


----------



## licorice stick

That's right, I overheard the scratching and tugging of keys and they saw me grimace. Time to batten down the hatches.


----------



## DaveM

isorhythm said:


> There have been a few attempts to engage with the topic. Unfortunately the topic has never been well defined.
> 
> The original post begins by positing that the piece "draws upon the grand tradition of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation," because it "extracts these ideas and makes music out of them." We're already in trouble here because the "grand tradition of piano playing" does not include any ideas about the sounds produced by the player's hands on the keyboard, or the other mechanical parts of the piano, or the way the player's hands look to the audience.
> 
> Reading as generously as possible, I understand this paragraph to mean that a piece like Sdraulig's is "most informed of tradition," compared to some unspecified other music, because the tradition of playing the piano is in some sense its subject. But why? It's not explained why this kind of metacommentary should be seen as more closely linked to tradition than a piece that actually uses the piano in the traditional way.
> 
> It gets more muddled from there. Suddenly Sdraulig's piece is exploring an "expanded timbral palette." That's pretty different from what we were told a moment ago, but OK - they're not mutually exclusive. The piece is compared to Lachenmann. Here's a piano piece of his, for reference:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not (I'm lukewarm on it, personally), is Lachenmann up to the same kind of the as Sdraulig? It seems like his goals and interests are totally different, but maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, we get a link to an article in which Lachenmann is quoted saying he's interested in music history. I mean, sure. He's a composer, he went to school for this. But in what sense is his music, or other music concerned with unconventional instrumental timbres, especially informed by tradition? And compared to what?
> 
> Maybe it doesn't matter, since the next two examples we're given, with no explanation to speak of, are Ferneyhough and Boulez.
> 
> This is only the first post! These kinds of wild leaps and apparent non sequiturs have continued throughout the thread. Most recently I gather that _collector_ is about the perception of time?
> 
> If shirime or anyone else is interested in talking about the relationship between the avant-garde and tradition, a little more care in formulating and presenting ideas would be a big help for everyone!


For those who still can't understand why this thread riled/roiled so many, the above is worth a second read. There is no hang up with the initial Sdraulig example; the post addresses later comments that further confused the matter and, for some, seemed like insult on injury.

If I were to sum the issue up it would be that classical music has the grand tradition of music through the 17th-19th centuries. The tradition has largely withstood the many challenges to it since the early 20th century, but for many of us the premise of someone causing sounds from a piano that ordinarily occur when a piano is defective as being music and an example of some part of the grand tradition is a bridge too far.


----------



## JAS

licorice stick said:


> That's right, I overheard the scratching and tugging of keys and they saw me grimace. Time to batten down the hatches.


Try telling them that it was just gas, which is its own kind of music and thus should be okay.


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098:

The way I see it, the *avant-garde relates to tradition because it consciously doesn't do anything traditional, which is different from just ignoring tradition.* It expands the palette by making sounds that haven't been made before. It doesn't always hit the mark, but that's the goal I think.

How is it helpful to someone experiencing a work of art to know that the artist intended to reject tradition rather than merely to ignore it? That distinction may matter to the "avant-garde" artist who relishes his image as a rebel, or to the art historian whose job it is to know, but why should I, as a listener, care?

shirime:

I think it does that on one level, and for some composers in the 20th century *it was a kind of goal to create music completely lacking in any link to the history of western classical music. There's an irony to the fact that they became part of that very tradition themselves, but there's also a paradox that comes with the attempt to write music that attempts to reference nothing from history.* The *paradox *is that *the rejection of history is an acknowledgement of it.* 

Rejecting something, anything at all, is necessarily an acknowledgement of it. That is not a "paradox"; it's simply a logical implication. Becoming a "part" of a tradition by creating something "completely lacking in any link" to it is, if not an outright contradiction, merely a matter of perspective and classification; whether or not "conceptual art," for example, is a part of any artistic tradition depends on what we think the artistic tradition consists of. Non-traditional, or anti-traditional, art only becomes part of the tradition it rejects in the minds of those who think that the relevant tradition has been enlarged by works that reject its characteristics. Does an argument to this effect recognize an "irony," or is it simply a sleight of mind, a trick, an illusion of knowing and saying something?

I'd say that, like much discussion of art in our time, these are airy rationalizations coming to the rescue of art which can't speak for itself, and that by substituting empty conceptual constructions for the direct perception of meaning they undermine our properly held, even if merely intuitive and unconscious, conceptions of what art is and is capable of doing for us. The ability to "make us think" is not necessarily an artistic virtue: good art may make us think about the nature of art, but bad art, or some piece of junk posing as art, may be even more likely to have that effect, especially if we are told that we're rubes and philistines if it doesn't. If there's an irony or paradox here, it's that the more we need to engage in these mental gymnastics in order to explain and justify art, the more we reveal the insubstantiality or impotence of the art we're talking about. Art which has to be explained is failing in its basic mission. It may even be failing to be art at all.


----------



## JAS

Johnny Carson often said that if you had to explain a joke, it failed. (And he had to say if often during the monologue for precisely that reason.)


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> What does it mean to "explore the relationship between the fingers/hands and the keys"? Isn't Sdraulig actually _creating_ that relationship? Can he be said to "explore" what he himself is creating? Are we, the audience, exploring it? What are we looking for? Is anything required of us beyond simple observation? Is anything to be learned here by observing?
> 
> What is "the relationship between audience and pianist," besides the basic relationship of observer and observed? Is there something peculiar about it? How is it a "context" that makes this particular work meaningful?
> 
> How would you know whether this is a "good" piece or not? How would you judge it? What are the criteria? What's your context of comparison?
> 
> I wonder: was it a direct, unexpected, unmediated encounter with this piece that made you think a lot about music and performance, or was it some statement of the intentions behind it? And as a result of experiencing the piece, what have you learned about music and performance that you might not have learned otherwise?


Download the score instructions from the PDF in post #115, and see if this changes anything for you. As to whether the piece is "good" or not, I don't think that's a question that needs to be answered, at least not in that simplistic way.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Fredx2098:
> 
> The way I see it, the *avant-garde relates to tradition because it consciously doesn't do anything traditional, which is different from just ignoring tradition.* It expands the palette by making sounds that haven't been made before. It doesn't always hit the mark, but that's the goal I think.
> 
> How is it helpful to someone experiencing a work of art to know that the artist intended to reject tradition rather than merely to ignore it? That distinction may matter to the "avant-garde" artist who relishes his image as a rebel, or to the art historian whose job it is to know, but why should I, as a listener, care?


One of the functions of modern art & music, since they have by necessity re-defined themselves, is to look at the history of the medium itself, and make art which comments on this history (tradition) in some way. Painters do this all the time; commenting on the history of painting. This is just part of the modernist procedure.



Woodduck said:


> Non-traditional, or anti-traditional, art only becomes part of the tradition it rejects in the minds of those who think that the relevant tradition has been enlarged by works that reject its characteristics. Does an argument to this effect recognize an "irony," or is it simply a sleight of mind, a trick, an illusion of knowing and saying something?


The art which comments on itself is a bit of an irony; but it is commenting on the tradition from which it emerged, and of which it is still a part of. Modern painting did not so much "reject" tradition insomuch as it embraced its new function, in order to stay relevant and meaningful, and have a new function. Painting in the 20th century had its functions superceded and replaced one by one. Photography took care of the realistic representational function of scenes and portraits; instant news took care of painting's function of depicting historical events. Painting was trying to redefine itself of necessity, because its traditional functions had been replaced by technology.




Woodduck said:


> I'd say that, like much discussion of art in our time, these are airy rationalizations coming to the rescue of art which can't speak for itself, and that by substituting empty conceptual constructions for the direct perception of meaning they undermine our properly held, even if merely intuitive and unconscious, conceptions of what art is and is capable of doing for us.


Those meanings, and "properly held conceptions of what art is and is capable of doing for us" might apply to the old art, but the new art has had to find new functions. Part of this new set of conceptions is conceptual, as it looks at the old tradition and redefines itself in relation to that.





Woodduck said:


> The ability to "make us think" is not necessarily an artistic virtue: good art may make us think about the nature of art, but bad art, or some piece of junk posing as art, may be even more likely to have that effect, especially if we are told that we're rubes and philistines if it doesn't.



Admittedly, this piece is highly conceptual. That doesn't make it "bad."




Woodduck said:


> If there's an irony or paradox here, it's that the more we need to engage in these mental gymnastics in order to explain and justify art, the more we reveal the insubstantiality or impotence of the art we're talking about. Art which has to be explained is failing in its basic mission. It may even be failing to be art at all.


Well, conceptual art is rather insubstantial, but it gives us insight. I do not think it fails its purpose and intent. In fact, the ability of conceptual art to transcend the physical and material constraints of art is a very metaphysical, almost spiritual quality.


----------



## licorice stick

JAS said:


> Johnny Carson often said that if you had to explain a joke, it failed. (And he had to say if often during the monologue for precisely that reason.)


I disagree with the notion that art must be self-explanatory to have value. A joke can fail upon first telling but become appreciated after explanation, just as many composers required a period of debate by critics and digestion by society to go mainstream. I maintain that it's impossible to define art except by an invisible cultural yardstick with constantly shifting tick marks that are set by an unceasing civil war.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> Johnny Carson often said that if you had to explain a joke, it failed. (And he had to say if often during the monologue for precisely that reason.)


"If you have to explain a joke, you're on the wrong show."


----------



## millionrainbows

licorice stick said:


> I disagree with the notion that art must be self-explanatory to have value. A joke can fail upon first telling but become appreciated after explanation, just as many composers required a period of debate by critics and digestion by society to go mainstream. I maintain that it's impossible to define art except by an invisible cultural yardstick with constantly shifting tick marks that are set by an unceasing civil war.


It's not that these critics "do not get the joke;" they are just uninformed. If you want to understand modern art more deeply, you have to approach it and learn about it.


----------



## licorice stick

Your position is that anything that can be studied becomes art. When enough people are convinced to mindlessly repeat this, society gravitates toward inartistic (non-classical) music because there is no peer pressure to keep it out of the gutter. Don't criticize my rap! It takes effort to produce, so it has as much merit as your classical!


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> It's not that these critics "do not get the joke;" they are just uninformed. If you want to understand modern art more deeply, you have to approach it and learn about it.


Why is it frequently assumed that there has not been attempts to understand modern art? And if, after those attempts, appreciation doesn't occur, is the answer to just persevere? Why is it that classical music, as some people define it, has become so inaccessible that it requires this kind of work? People in centuries past came to love classical music works with little opportunity to hear the works over and over to develop understanding and appreciation.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> Why is it frequently assumed that there has not been attempts to understand modern art?


Well, if they did attempt to understand it, they would not complain about it. With understanding comes acceptance. When one is informed, all the pieces fall into place.



DaveM said:


> And if, after those attempts, appreciation doesn't occur, is the answer to just persevere?


A savings account does not accrue interest instantly. It takes time. One cannot expect to get _instant_ gratification from art, as if it were a cheeseburger and fries.



DaveM said:


> Why is it that classical music, as some people define it, has become so inaccessible that it requires this kind of work?


What's inaccessible about it? People have tried over and over to explain these things. One doesn't approach _any_ art with that attitude; you approach it freshly, without any baggage of expectations. Then, and only then, will one reap the benefits.



DaveM said:


> People in centuries past came to love classical music works with little opportunity to hear the works over and over to develop understanding and appreciation.


Are we supposed to "like" art instantly? I think that's too simple.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Download the score instructions from the PDF in post #115, and see if this changes anything for you. As to whether the piece is "good" or not, I don't think that's a question that needs to be answered, at least not in that simplistic way.


I read quite enough of Mr. Sdraulig's instruction manual.

I wasn't the one who broached the question of whether the "thing" was any good, so talk to shirime about being "simplisitic."


----------



## Woodduck

One of the functions of modern art & music, since they have by necessity re-defined themselves, is to look at the history of the medium itself, and make art which comments on this history (tradition) in some way. Painters do this all the time; commenting on the history of painting. This is just part of the modernist procedure.

Yes, let "modern" artists by all means bow to the "necessity" of making art which comments on other art. Then, to stay up to date, let artists create work which comments on the art that comments on art. Perhaps we can multiply indefinitely the layers of comment. More commentary is just what a world drowning in commentary needs.

The art which comments on itself is a bit of an irony; but it is commenting on the tradition from which it emerged, and of which it is still a part of. 

It's only still "a part of the tradition" to those who redefine the tradition so as to include it. Anyone can comment on anything without being a "part" of it. That was my point, which you conspicuously missed.

Modern painting did not so much "reject" tradition insomuch as it embraced its new function, in order to stay relevant and meaningful, and have a new function. Painting in the 20th century had its functions superceded and replaced one by one. Photography took care of the realistic representational function of scenes and portraits; instant news took care of painting's function of depicting historical events. Painting was trying to redefine itself of necessity, because its traditional functions had been replaced by technology.

Why are you lecturing about modern painting? This has nothing to do with my post, to which you're supposedly responding. Generalizing about the immense field of "modern painting" and how it relates to photography or whatever proves nothing in relation to the point at issue.

Those meanings, and "properly held conceptions of what art is and is capable of doing for us" might apply to the old art, but the new art has had to find new functions. Part of this new set of conceptions is conceptual, as it looks at the old tradition and redefines itself in relation to that.

"The new art" doesn't _have_ to do _anything._ And the piece of "new art" that began this thread does nothing that anyone needs art for.

Admittedly, this piece is highly conceptual. That doesn't make it "bad."

The Sdraulig "thing" is not "highly conceptual." It contains no concepts at all. It's just a guy doing odd things to piano keys. As a specimen of that, it may be superb. But who the hell cares?

Well, conceptual art is rather insubstantial, but it gives us insight. 

How does it give insight? Incongruous or otherwise inexplicable objects and happenings tell us nothing at all except that the "artist" thought up some clever new way of combining things.

I do not think it fails its purpose and intent. In fact, the ability of conceptual art to transcend the physical and material constraints of art is a very metaphysical, almost spiritual quality.

The "intent" of traditional art is generally, and rightly, expected to be fulfilled without extraneous explanations. The "intent" of conceptual art generally requires an "artist's statement" and attracts the purveyors of pretentious artspeak as a carcass attracts flies. Witness this - and many a similar - thread.

Spiritual, schmiritual.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Well, if they did attempt to understand it, they would not complain about it. With understanding comes acceptance. When one is informed, all the pieces fall into place.
> 
> A savings account does not accrue interest instantly. It takes time. One cannot expect to get _instant_ gratification from art, as if it were a cheeseburger and fries.
> 
> What's inaccessible about it? People have tried over and over to explain these things. One doesn't approach _any_ art with that attitude; you approach it freshly, without any baggage of expectations. Then, and only then, will one reap the benefits.
> 
> Are we supposed to "like" art instantly? I think that's too simple.


My experience with traditional classical going back to an early age, in the case of works I came to enjoy the most, was not that they were instantly enjoyed, but that there was a hook or sequences of hooks that made me want to investigate more. What occurred then, with all the many symphonies and concertos, was a wonderful period of listening to these works over and over as more beauty was uncovered. With most atonal and all of what we are calling avant-garde, for me there are no hooks or anything that makes me want to investigate further. After these many years I tend to trust my instincts.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Not to mention that understanding something _does not,_ as a natural consequence, lead to its acceptance.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Modern painting did not so much "reject" tradition insomuch as it embraced its new function, in order to stay relevant and meaningful, and have a new function. Painting in the 20th century had its functions superceded and replaced one by one. Photography took care of the realistic representational function of scenes and portraits; instant news took care of painting's function of depicting historical events. Painting was trying to redefine itself of necessity, because its traditional functions had been replaced by technology.
> 
> Why are you lecturing about modern painting? This has nothing to do with my post, to which you're supposedly responding. Generalizing about the immense field of "modern painting" and how it relates to photography or whatever proves nothing in relation to the point at issue.


It would behoove all the critics here to study some modern painting, and art in general.



Woodduck said:


> I do not think it fails its purpose and intent. In fact, the ability of conceptual art to transcend the physical and material constraints of art is a very metaphysical, almost spiritual quality.
> 
> The "intent" of traditional art is generally, and rightly, expected to be fulfilled without extraneous explanations.


Yeah, but that's because traditional art was still a part of a long, slow-moving history...which has ended as we knew it and has drastically changed. So it necessarily comments on its place in that history. We are "outside" of that history now. The world has drastically changed since then. History is no longer a long narrative; we have been launched into instantaneous time of the "now." That's pretentious artspeak for "Wake Up!"


----------



## juliante

Enough already with this thread! Doh! I just bumped it up again.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Not to mention that understanding something _does not,_ as a natural consequence, lead to its acceptance.


At least it might lead to a more meaningful rejection. That makes for good discussions.


----------



## Fredx2098

It seems like people are interpreting my previous post as a defense of the piece. It isn't. I was simply explaining how avant-garde and tradition are related.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, but that's because traditional art was still a part of a long, slow-moving history...which has ended as we knew it and has drastically changed. So it necessarily comments on its place in that history. We are "outside" of that history now. The world has drastically changed since then. History is no longer a long narrative; we have been launched into instantaneous time of the "now." That's pretentious artspeak for "Wake Up!"


This is nothing but tired modernist (or is it postmodernist, or post-postmodernist) dogma. Or is it just neo-new age woo woo? "Drastically"..."necessarily"..."instantaneous time"..."the 'now'"...

Pretentious artspeak is right. It's about the only thing useless garbage masquerading as art has going for it.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> Not to mention that understanding something _does not,_ as a natural consequence, lead to its acceptance.


I noticed that one too. It's surprising to see such an obviously specious platitude here, and put forward so seriously. Suffice it to say, I can probably understand Nazi racial theory without accepting it.


----------



## mmsbls

shirime: Almost all of this thread has focused on the particular piece in the OP. Given that the vast majority of posters seem to focus on what's wrong with the Sdraulig piece, perhaps you could move the thread closer to your intention by suggesting a couple of works that might not get quite the same response. As isorhythm said:



isorhythm said:


> If shirime or anyone else is interested in talking about the relationship between the avant-garde and tradition, a little more care in formulating and presenting ideas would be a big help for everyone!


Maybe one way to do that would be to post a couple of avant-garde works and refocus the thread on how avant-garde and traditional works are similar and how different. Or even how different must an avant-garde work be to be both considered avant-garde and successful? You could post works from awhile ago (Boulez, Stockhausen) since people will more likely accept them, if not enjoy them.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> shirime: Almost all of this thread has focused on the particular piece in the OP. Given that the vast majority of posters seem to focus on what's wrong with the Sdraulig piece, perhaps you could move the thread closer to your intention by suggesting a couple of works that might not get quite the same response.
> 
> Maybe one way to do that would be to post a couple of avant-garde works and refocus the thread on how avant-garde and traditional works are similar and how different. Or even how different must an avant-garde work be to be both considered avant-garde and successful? You could post works from awhile ago (Boulez, Stockhausen) since people will more likely accept them, if not enjoy them.


Sure thing. Here's another piece, Boulez's Piano Sonata no. 2.






It's a pretty out-there kind of piece for its time, and Boulez certainly wasn't the most experienced composer at the time so he was working with more traditional structures and forms (the whole thing is a very conservative four-movement form) and a much simpler version of serialism that divides the row up into 'reservoirs' to give him three different pitch sets he treats in different ways to create melodies and harmonies.

The most interesting thing to me is that this movement is in a version of the very classical Sonata Form. Instead of exploring relationships between keys, he uses the Sonata Form to create a contrast between his two 'theme groups,' blend them together in the development and then separate them again somewhat after that.

Taking the first 'theme group' to refer to the web of rapid rising and falling gestures, trills and ornaments that last until 1:10 in the video, it seems clear to me that he contrasts that with almost entirely homophonic chords as a second 'theme group' until we begin to hear gestures from the first 'theme group' a little under two minutes through the movement, signalling something of a development section.

There's something really fascinating, even ironic about how this piece is so strongly rooted in tradition yet also being a significant example of that 'clean slate' or _tabula rasa_ approach to post-WWII 'avant-garde' composition in Europe.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I think I'm still going to reject the premise of this thread. Boulez's piano sonata still doesn't sustain the claim that experimental/avant-garde music is the _the most informed_ of tradition. No more than any other music with the same eye on the trajectory of music history.

In fact I'd say you've got it upside down; that avant-garde/experimental music simply remains shackled dominated by the tradition it claims to be breaking free from, using its structures to maintain the link to the tradition's cultural position. As Marx noted in his Louis Bonaparte essay: "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."



> And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language


I think this applies here most fittingly.


----------



## Enthusiast

I've already said that I don't enjoy conceptual art very much (while acknowledging that some of it somehow seems to _attract meaning _and to become iconic). But some posts are moving on to expressing a general dislike of a much wider swathe of contemporary art and music. Everyone commenting in this way has tried to "get it" but have found it devoid of meaning and merit. They feel they know what they are talking about (even if this means that those who feel differently must not know what they are talking about). But what does trying involve?

I'm not so young any more and "understanding" a piece of new music can take me years of occasional listening. It isn't just a matter (for me) of listening a couple of times and then being clear if I love it, hate it or something in between - as it would be for music of a more familiar composer. But I do find pleasure in the journey and I guess if you don't - and if you have preconceptions against it and its ilk you definitely will not - then you might as well put such music aside as not for you (in the same way that I did for a long time with early music). If this is you, let it go - but let your obsession with what a crime it is go, too. But if you could enjoy occasionally giving it a spin and just accepting (could you stretch to enjoying?) the weirdness of it then I suspect much of it will make sense for you one day. It is only when I have reached that stage that I am ready to say what I think of such a piece in any sort of definitive way. I reject some pieces (and composers) while finding others really quite special. Luckily, I enjoy the journey even if in the end it turns out to have been a "waste of time" and I find this activity to be ultimately a lot more rewarding than exploring the less well-known composers of a bygone age. Interestingly, most of the new music I find myself really liking by the end of this process has turned out to be music that has a reputation for challenging listeners and the music I have rejected has often turned out to be by composers who have a reputation for being accessible.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> I think I'm still going to reject the premise of this thread. Boulez's piano sonata still doesn't sustain the claim that experimental/avant-garde music is the _the most informed_ of tradition. No more than any other music with the same eye on the trajectory of music history.
> 
> In fact I'd say you've got it upside down; that avant-garde/experimental music simply remains shackled dominated by the tradition it claims to be breaking free from, using its structures to maintain the link to the tradition's cultural position. As Marx noted in his Louis Bonaparte essay: "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."
> 
> I think this applies here most fittingly.


Thanks for the response, and that is a good quote.

I see what you mean, certainly, however it appears to me that the avant-garde movements of the 20th century reacting against tradition whilst still being 'shackled dominated by the tradition' is where I'd say the reaction against earlier music is one of the primary driving forces behind its creation.

Perhaps in the 17th and 18th centuries in particular, there was less interest in having a musical reaction to a particular tradition or generation of composers like there was in the 20th century.


----------



## Enthusiast

shirime said:


> Perhaps in the 17th and 18th centuries in particular, there was less interest in having a musical reaction to a particular tradition or generation of composers like there was in the 20th century.


Wasn't the habit for audiences to forget about the earlier music and to enjoy the latest thing quite a feature of those times? Composers may have known a lot more of what had come before them and to have admired some of it - so little sense of a reaction against the past in their relentless modernism - but audiences? Did they know or care much about what had come before? I have the impression that reactions against the music of other composers was a feature of Romanticism but even then the battles were focused on other active composers rather than on the past.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> Wasn't the habit for audiences to forget about the earlier music and to enjoy the latest thing quite a feature of those times? Composers may have known a lot more of what had come before them and to have admired some of it - so little sense of a reaction against the past in their relentless modernism - but audiences? Did they know or care much about what had come before? I have the impression that reactions against the music of other composers was a feature of Romanticism but even then the battles were focused on other active composers rather than on the past.


Yes I'm quite sure it was. I agree with you on this. Since the 19th century, particularly with the advent of musicology as a field of study, a greater knowledge and appreciation of music history has informed the kind of music we write to a greater extent now than ever before. And I would argue that those who are being quite deliberate in the idea of reacting against a certain tradition are the ones for whom the tradition is influencing the most.


----------



## DavidA

Just how informed avant-gard music is I don't like it and will not listen to it


----------



## janxharris

The lack of success of modern experimental music would seem to point to a break with tradition. Modern alternative rock appears to have much more in common.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Just how informed avant-gard music is I don't like it and will not listen to it


Just enjoy listening to whatever you want, I guess.


----------



## janxharris

eugeneonagain said:


> I think I'm still going to reject the premise of this thread. Boulez's piano sonata still doesn't sustain the claim that experimental/avant-garde music is the _the most informed_ of tradition. No more than any other music with the same eye on the trajectory of music history.


Indeed, any new music will be influenced by previous traditions that are part of it's culture.


----------



## Thomyum2

DavidA said:


> Just how informed avant-gard music is I don't like it and will not listen to it


Back in the '80s when I was in college, there was a man I knew who refused to listen to any music composed after 1911, his reasoning being that Mahler had brought music to its peak and that after Mahler's death, there was nothing that could be worth listening to. He was so certain of this that if he attended a concert on which a piece written after 1911 was being performed, he would actually leave the auditorium and wait outside until it was over, and then return to his seat to hear the rest of the program.

In light of this, I've been looking at a couple thread polls that are active here on TC at the moment to identify our favorite pieces of the 1930s and 1940s, and in seeing the long lists of great works that these polls have identified, it's seems to me such a shame that he chose to take this approach and thereby deprived himself of the opportunity to hear and know these many truly wonderful compositions.

I can understand not liking some of what's been written in recent years. And I can understand not wanting to invest one's time in trying to weed out the good from the bad (like the saying goes, to find a handsome prince you have to kiss a lot of frogs, and not everybody wants to kiss frogs  ), but to simply refuse to listen to something based on a label or on a preconceived idea of what it is? It just seems to me to be self-defeating and a disservice to one's own potential.


----------



## JAS

Labels are mostly a convenient shortcut in thinking by grouping things together based on shared characteristics. That can become problematic if the characteristics are selected or applied carelessly, but incredibly useful if they are not. No one has time to give everything a chance, and it is perfectly reasonable to focus on paths that have provided desirable outcomes and to avoid those that have provided negative outcomes. (Such methods of being selective become even more important when the time demanded is significant, the outcome is particularly negative, or money becomes an issue.)


----------



## starthrower

DavidA said:


> Just how informed avant-gard music is I don't like it and will not listen to it


Well hey, that's a great way to be informed!


----------



## eugeneonagain

I wanted to react to that sentence, but it is so ungrammatical I thought I might have misconstrued it.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> I noticed that one too. It's surprising to see such an obviously specious platitude here, and put forward so seriously.


At least understanding might lead to a more meaningful rejection. That makes for good discussions.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> shirime: Almost all of this thread has focused on the particular piece in the OP. Given that the vast majority of posters seem to focus on what's wrong with the Sdraulig piece, perhaps you could move the thread closer to your intention by suggesting a couple of works that might not get quite the same response. Maybe one way to do that would be to post a couple of avant-garde works and refocus the thread on how avant-garde and traditional works are similar and how different.
> 
> Or even how different must an avant-garde work be to be both considered avant-garde and successful? You could post works from awhile ago (Boulez, Stockhausen) since people will more likely accept them, if not enjoy them.


Ok, so this modereator thinks shirime ought to be very selective and careful about what works he might post about, and put limits on the works he discusses, in order to satisfy the critics' definition of "music."

Why not just post a mod-approved, forum-accepted definition of what 'music' is, and define what is meant by 'classical' music? Then if shirime crossed that line, his posts could be deleted, or moved to a 'modernist ghetto' thread. To quote KenOC:



KenOC said:


> Suffice it to say, I can probably understand Nazi racial theory without accepting it.


 That analogy seems appropriate.

I think if any 'limits' should be in place, they should concern overly critical responses from critics which interrupt discussion of the works, and instead focus on their own mindsets and their own definitions of what music should be, which amounts to a form of trolling, especially when discussion-related posts (which KenOC characterized as "platitudes") are quoted, dissected and invalidated, sentence by sentence, verging on ad-hominem attacks.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> At least understanding might lead to a more meaningful rejection. That makes for good discussions.


I agree with that. It's certainly better to have some knowledge of what one is rejecting. Perhaps your original sentence also envisaged people learning to at least respect things through acquaintance? It does happen.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I agree with that. It's certainly better to have some knowledge of what one is rejecting. Perhaps your original sentence also envisaged people learning to at least respect things through acquaintance? It does happen.


If critics don't like the work being discussed, the rejection of it should be specific to that work. I care nothing whether it is respected or not. 
Otherwise, these discussions turn into larger, non-specific diatribes, full of generalized platitudes against modern music and art.

Of course, two can play this game.


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_Yeah, but that's because traditional art was still a part of a long, slow-moving history...which has ended as we knew it and has drastically changed. So it necessarily comments on its place in that history. We are "outside" of that history now. The world has drastically changed since then. History is no longer a long narrative; we have been launched into instantaneous time of the "now." That's pretentious artspeak for "Wake Up!"_



Woodduck said:


> This is nothing but tired modernist (or is it postmodernist, or post-postmodernist) dogma.


Yes, I suppose it could be seen as dogma by uninformed critics or "non-believers" in the processes of modern art, since art is not an exact science, but which meaning lies somewhere in the metaphysical realm of the unprovable, and non-rational.

It's funny how all this hatred of pretentious "dogma" goes out the window, and the pompous, overblown operas of Wagner ( a known anti-semite) is elevated to the status of great art.



Woodduck said:


> Or is it just neo-new age woo woo? ..."instantaneous time"..."the 'now'"...


Art is closely related to the way religion should ideally function, as an access point to the realms of the unconscious, mythical, heroic, emotional, spiritual; but I'm not supposed to use that word "spiritual," as that might offend those literal rationalists who contend that since the spiritual is not provable, it must not exist as anything. For "non-believers" in "art dogma" like this, only Wagner and music which concerns itself with, and might glorify Man and his cultural mythology, is worthy.

Forget the fact that many composers like Messiaen, Glass, Riley, Cage, Harrison, Bach, Beethoven, and Hovhanness are just as likely to fall under the label of "new agers." I call that "throwing out the baby with the bath water." At least I'm in good company, not in the cult of Wagner-worshipping nationalistic coo-coos. There's a chapter near you.



Woodduck said:


> Pretentious artspeak is right. It's about the only thing useless garbage masquerading as art has going for it.


What is _really_ pretentious garbage is the Wagnerian opera, with those unbearably long-drawn-out tonal excursions, and those ridiculous horned helmets.


----------



## JAS

I suspect that the moderator was providing what he thought would be a helpful suggestion rather than a cautionary comment.


----------



## eugeneonagain

You have a horned helmet in your avatar. I think if you at least became familiar with one you would learn to love and accept them.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I suspect that the moderator was providing what he thought would be a helpful suggestion rather than a cautionary comment.


I suspect that moderators can do anything they deem necessary, without outside interpreters providing us with the reasoning behind it.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> If critics don't like the work being discussed, the rejection of it should be specific to that work. I care nothing whether it is respected or not.


What if critics don't like a substantial number of similar works being discussed? Are you saying that no reasonable statements can be made about a group of related works? Are you saying that there are, or should be, no categorization at all? (My question is primarily for the sake of understanding your position as I suspect that no one is likely to feel bound by your preferences anymore than they would be by mine, nor should they.)


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> You have a horned helmet in your avatar. I think if you at least became familiar with one you would learn to love and accept them.


The character is also dressed as a clown, in case you didn't notice. I never liked clowns.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Ok, so this modereator thinks shirime ought to be very selective and careful about what works he might post about, and put limits on the works he discusses, in order to satisfy the critics' definition of "music."
> 
> Why not just post a mod-approved, forum-accepted definition of what 'music' is, and define what is meant by 'classical' music? Then if shirime crossed that line, his posts could be deleted, or moved to a 'modernist ghetto' thread. To quote KenOC:







Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

mmsbls was being polite. I just took the OP as painfully unsubtle rhetoric because the Sdraulig doesn't demonstrate anything about avant-garde music informed by tradition. I hear the message not as an attempt at repression by a moderator - who was not acting as a moderator in any case - but as a suggestion that if one were actually serious about making the point in the thread title, one might surely come up with an example or two easier to take seriously.

Long live the autonomous collective!


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I suspect that moderators can do anything they deem necessary, without outside interpreters providing us with the reasoning behind it.


An interesting position as that is precisely what _you_ were doing, and with much poorer reasoning.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> What is _really_ pretentious garbage is the Wagnerian opera, with those unbearably long-drawn-out tonal excursions, and those ridiculous horned helmets.




His music is a staple of the concert hall and opera house unlike practically any 20th century avant-garde classical music - to call it garbage cuts no ice.


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> His music is a staple of the concert hall and opera house unlike practically any 20th century avant-garde classical music - to call it garbage cuts no ice.


Don't worry. I am sure that Wagner doesn't much mind what millionrainbows might call him or his music. And even if there is an afterlife, I very much doubt that Wagner is spending it reading posts by millionrainbows, unless, perhaps, in being judged, Wagner did not make it into Heaven. (To be fair, I have never cared for the writings of James Joyce or of Hemmingway, and I doubt that either of them worries one little bit about my opinion either.)


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> What if critics don't like a substantial number of similar works being discussed? Are you saying that no reasonable statements can be made about a group of related works?


Not if it interrupts the discussion, and is done to create conflict, which is a form of subtle trolling.



JAS said:


> Are you saying that there are, or should be, no categorization at all? (My question is primarily for the sake of understanding your position as I suspect that no one is likely to feel bound by your preferences anymore than they would be by mine, nor should they.)


No categories is one thing; someone's preferred non-definitive definition is another (after all, this is music and art). If a work is presented (or perceived) as art, from a source or platform such as art books, legitimate recordings, Youtube clips, Wikepedia entries, or generally accepted art history, which presents the work as legitimate art or 'art statement,' we should go with that, not some guy in his underwear on the internet wearing a horned helmet. Conceptual art is an accepted, legitimate form of art. Look it up. Read a book. Watch it.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> Don't worry. I am sure that Wagner doesn't much mind what millionrainbows might call him or his music.


...or my Jewish friends.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Not if it interrupts the discussion, and is done to create conflict, which is a form of subtle trolling.


I see a perception problem here.



millionrainbows said:


> No categories is one thing; someone's preferred non-definitive definition is another (after all, this is music and art). If a work is presented (or perceived) as art, from a source or platform such as art books, legitimate recordings, Youtube clips, Wikepedia entries, or generally accepted art history, which presents the work as legitimate art or 'art statement,' we should go with that, not some guy in his underwear on the internet wearing a horned helmet. Conceptual art is an accepted, legitimate form of art. Look it up. Read a book. Watch it.


So we are forced to accept the judgement of art books or "legitimate recordings" or the vague assertion of "accepted art history" over our own responses? I render a hardy "no" to that idea. (Such sources might be worth looking at for information or guidance for things to consider, but never as something to trump own own actual experiences.)


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> His music is a staple of the concert hall and opera house unlike practically any 20th century avant-garde classical music - to call it garbage cuts no ice.


So? The art being criticized here has been seen and presented as legitimate art, and it deserves consideration as such.

At least I don't stalk other listeners on Wagner opera threads, and try to disrupt discussions.

How does it feel to have what _you_ like to be called "garbage?" Not good? Unpleasant? Leaving you with a sort of "toxic hangover" of human hatred?


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> The character is also dressed as a clown, in case you didn't notice. I never liked clowns.


Oh, I thought it was a self portrait.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> ...or my Jewish friends.


Or _any_ of your friends, regardless of their religious or ethnic connections.


----------



## KenOC

JAS said:


> So we are forced to accept the judgement of art books or "legitimate recordings" or the vague assertion of "accepted art history" over our own responses? I render a hardy "no" to that idea. (Such sources might be worth looking at for information or guidance for things to consider, but never as something to trump own own actual experiences.)


I am forced to agree with MR here. There is far too much disagreement and arguing over the merits (and demerits) of various works and even types of music. How is a newcomer supposed to approach classical music when he/she sees such a welter of conflicting opinion and disagreeing views? Where can such a person look for reliable guidance?

So yes, a true orthodoxy would be very welcome, with supporting views encouraged and other views suppressed. And of course a person who sees the situation clearly, like MR, should have a major role in defining that orthodoxy, to the benefit of classical music and, in fact, all of us.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I see a perception problem here...So we are forced to accept the judgement of art books or "legitimate recordings" or the vague assertion of "accepted art history" over our own responses? I render a hardy "no" to that idea.


When your rights begin to infringe on my rights to a civil discussion free of toxic hatred, then there is a problem with _your_ perception. I say "no" to subtle trolling like we have seen here. _(as subtle as a Mac truck in some instances)_



JAS said:


> (Such sources might be worth looking at for information or guidance for things to consider, but never as something to trump own own actual experiences.)


I never suggested that anyone suppress their impulse to express opinion in the spirit of discussion; but to spew toxic diatribes in threads which are intended for discussion of these works, it is inappropriate and juvenile. 
I certainly hope that you are a bigger man than to go around trolling into threads where your precious opinions create conflict.


----------



## JAS

KenOC said:


> I am forced to agree with MR here. There is far too much disagreement and arguing over the merits (and demerits) of various works and even types of music. How is a newcomer supposed to approach classical music when he/she sees such a welter of conflicting opinion and disagreeing views? Where can such a person look for reliable guidance?
> 
> So yes, a true orthodoxy would be very welcome, with supporting views encouraged and other views suppressed. And of course a person who sees the situation clearly, like MR, should have a major role in defining that orthodoxy, to the benefit of classical music and, in fact, all of us.


(Satire has been dead for some time, and snark tags really are advisable.)


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> So? The art being criticized here has been seen and presented as legitimate art, and it deserves consideration as such.


If the op piece is classical then so is just about anything. What's to be gained from listening to a pianist making noises whilst sitting at a piano?



> At least I don't stalk other listeners on Wagner opera threads, and try to disrupt discussions.


I guess disruptors should be reported.



> How does it feel to have what _you_ like to be called "garbage?" Not good? Unpleasant? Leaving you with a sort of "toxic hangover" of human hatred?


I don't have any problem with this - I merely pointed out that your view doesn't carry much significance.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> When your rights begin to infringe on my rights to a civil discussion free of toxic hatred, then there is a problem with _your_ perception. I say "no" to subtle trolling like we have seen here. _(as subtle as a Mac truck in some instances)_
> 
> I never suggested that anyone suppress their impulse to express opinion in the spirit of discussion; but to spew toxic diatribes in threads which are intended for discussion of these works, it is inappropriate and juvenile.
> I certainly hope that you are a bigger man than to go around trolling into threads where your precious opinions create conflict.


I _never_ troll, anywhere. (And, fortunately, I am not easily offended, especially in Internet discussions.)


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_...or my Jewish friends._



JAS said:


> Or _any_ of your friends, regardless of their religious or ethnic connections.


_Especially _my Jewish friends, because of Wagner's known views.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> I am forced to agree with MR here. There is far too much disagreement and arguing over the merits (and demerits) of various works and even types of music. How is a newcomer supposed to approach classical music when he/she sees such a welter of conflicting opinion and disagreeing views? Where can such a person look for reliable guidance?
> 
> So yes, a true orthodoxy would be very welcome, with supporting views encouraged and other views suppressed. And of course a person who sees the situation clearly, like MR, should have a major role in defining that orthodoxy, to the benefit of classical music and, in fact, all of us.


I disagee, KenOC. The problem is not of "orthodoxy" but of civil behavior and respect for other people's thoughts, which I'm sure the moderators will take care of one way or another. Probably by shutting this thread down.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I disagee, KenOC. The problem is not of "orthodoxy" but of civil behavior and respect for other people's thoughts, which I'm sure the moderators will take care of one way or another. Probably by shutting this thread down.


Ah, and now we have the expressed intent of _your_ posts, with the only real surprise being that you post it for all to see. Millionrainbows wants this thread to end. So let it be written. So let it be done. But fear not! There will always be another thread of much the same tone and substance. (The argument has been raging for a century, with no sign of burning itself out any time soon.) If one cannot tolerate even a modest degree of disagreement, the Internet is a silly place to play.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Oh, I thought it was a self portrait.


No, it's a picture of someone who takes their own opinion way to seriously. In fact, they take it so seriously that they forget what the discussion was about, and they start jabbing at other people who do remember.

...but who have been compelled by circumstances to attempt some "cleanup" of the toxic mold around here. Such a pity...


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> Ah, and now we have the expressed intent of your posts, with the only real surprise being that you post it for all to see. Millionrainbows wants this thread to end. So let it be written. So let it be done. But fear not! There will always be another thread of much the same tone and substance. (The argument has been raging for a century, with no sign of burning itself out any time soon.) If one cannot tolerate even a modest degree of disagreement, the Internet is a silly place to play.


Oh, so you mean that one can only "spew venom" when it's on-topic? Pardon me, I was just trying to clean up some of the toxic mold around here. And the clown suit in my avatar? It also doubles as a bio-hazard suit. The horns are actually hoses which pull out, for breathing.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, so you mean that one can only "spew venom" when it's on-topic?


I only see one person spewing, and I don't think that person needs to be pointed out by name.

(But for me, it is time to cut the lawn, an infinitely more productive activity that reading these particular posts. And I do not intend to contribute to the "close down the thread" attempts. You will need to seek out another player.)


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> If one cannot tolerate even a modest degree of disagreement, the Internet is a silly place to play.


Modest? ha ha haa...I'm would not characterize the toxic trolling I've seen here in that way. It's easy to see that you apparently agree with these methods of disruption.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> The character is also dressed as a clown, in case you didn't notice. I never liked clowns.


So you don't even like your own avatar - interesting.


----------



## eugeneonagain

You've rather hijacked Shirime's thread with all this bizarre talk of toxic mould (proper spelling).


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I only see one person spewing, and I don't think that person needs to be pointed out by name.


I think those other spewers have hidden themselves for the time being.



JAS said:


> (But for me, it is time to cut the lawn, an infinitely more productive activity that reading these particular posts.)


You must find it more interesting when venom is being spewed as offense, to disrupt a discussion. It's no fun for you when the sincere participants speak out against this juvenile behavior.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> You've rather hijacked Shirime's thread with all this bizarre talk of toxic mould (proper spelling).


Oh, so I'm the bad guy? As far as I'm concerned, I was a sincere contributor until the thread was disrupted by off-topic diatribes against the art that the OP presented. I'm sure that shirime understands the situation; the posts are all there to show it.

By the way, eugene, careful with that axe.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, so I'm the bad guy? As far as I'm concerned, I was a sincere contributor until the thread was disrupted by off-topic diatribes against the art that the OP presented. I'm sure that shirime understands the situation; the posts are all there to show it.


The above and claims of trolling in this particular thread are unfair. The title of the thread using the superlative that it does (Most Informed of Tradition) and the example used in the OP opened the door for controversy, provocation and frustration. If this thread had simply had a title such as Experimental/Avant-garde Music and Why I Love It's Connection to Tradition, there would have been none of what you're complaining about and if there had been, you might have some legitimate claim for trolling. From what I've seen from the mods, threads that are aimed just for supporters of a sub-genre are given special protection.


----------



## mmsbls

Clearly people disagree on what comments are appropriate in this thread. That shouldn't result in negative comments about other posters. Please refrain from posting about others.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> The above and claims of trolling in this particular thread are unfair. The title of the thread using the superlative that it does (Most Informed of Tradition) and the example used in the OP opened the door for controversy, provocation and frustration. If this thread had simply had a title such as Experimental/Avant-garde Music and Why I Love It's Connection to Tradition, there would have been none of what you're complaining about and if there had been, you might have some legitimate claim for trolling. From what I've seen from the mods, threads that are aimed just for supporters of a sub-genre are given special protection.


While I agree in general with your statements, I think the work shirime used in the OP should not be blamed for opening the door for controversy, provocation and frustration. One _could_ argue that, in hindsight, it might not have been the best example because many members would focus more on their negative view of the work rather than on the thread intent; nevertheless, the thread certainly could have progressed on a different, and less contentious, path. I think my biggest mistake on TC was to use Cage's 4'33" as an example in a thread. There were over 30 pages focusing on 4'33" and exceedingly few comments focusing on the thread question.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> It's funny how all this hatred of pretentious "dogma" goes out the window, and *the pompous, overblown operas of Wagner ( a known anti-semite) is elevated to the status of great art.*
> 
> Art is closely related to the way religion should ideally function, as an access point to the realms of the unconscious, mythical, heroic, emotional, spiritual; *but I'm not supposed to use that word "spiritual," as that might offend those literal rationalists *who contend that since the spiritual is not provable, it must not exist as anything.*For "non-believers" in "art dogma" like this, only Wagner and music which concerns itself with, and might glorify Man and his cultural mythology, is worthy. *
> 
> Forget the fact that many composers like Messiaen, Glass, Riley, Cage, Harrison, Bach, Beethoven, and Hovhanness are just as likely to fall under the label of "new agers." I call that "throwing out the baby with the bath water." At least I'm in good company, not in *the cult of Wagner-worshipping nationalistic coo-coos. There's a chapter near you.*
> 
> *What is really pretentious garbage is the Wagnerian opera, with those unbearably long-drawn-out tonal excursions, and those ridiculous horned helmets.*


How do you expect anyone to respond to this exhibition of ignorance and insult? You must know that there is no suitable vocabulary to describe it which would be acceptable under this forum's terms of service. But that's exactly what you're counting on, isn't it?

The graffiti you've here scrawled across the face of one of history's artistic giants (who - oh dear! - was a known anti-semite!) is obviously not to be taken seriously. What it looks like is yet another installment in your endless campaign to prove your superior cultural awareness, aesthetic sensitivity, and "spiritual" insight, of which you are so keen to persuade us day after tiresome day. If anyone is persuaded, it's probably only a result of feeling swamped and stupefied by the sheer relentlessness of it. It's the Trump technique: say it over and over, in tweet after tweet, until your reader's brain is as mushy as your rhetoric.

Rational minds (the kind you exult in denigrating), who know pretentious horse manure when they see it offered as serious "art," are really an intolerable challenge to your self image, and so you have to find ways of discrediting us. Devoting reams of arcane puffery to such ephemeral entertainments as "conceptual art" is only one of the blunt arrows in your quiver. Denigrating truly great art that you know we love is as blunt an arrow as can be imagined.

Unfortunately for you, real art speaks louder than artspeak. Wagner's art - with it's immense _spiritual_ power, in a sense of the term that actually means something to flesh-and-blood human beings here on planet earth - strides confidently through the ages, while the noodlings of Mr. Sdraulig and his ilk have only YouTube to thank if their lifespans exceed those of fruit flies.


----------



## licorice stick

Untouchable here. I don't care what your terms of debate are, MR, so just don't read any further if you think this will be trolling. The mods will boot me if I am crossing some line of which I am unaware.

Again, I and many others on this thread do not see any connection between the Sdraulig piece and what we consider classical music. Whatever connection exists by sitting at a piano on a stage, reading marks off a piece of paper, and carressing the ivories seems more tenuous than the substantive connection between indisputably(?) non-classical music, such as rap, and traditional notions of melody, harmony, rhythm, SOUND, etc.

I do not profess to have more or less knowledge about the substance or theoretical foundations of atonal music than anyone else here, so it's pointless for naysayers to argue that my disdain for most of this music arises from anything but my provincial interests. Just as MR's apparent disdain for Wagner's music is subjective and affected by external considerations including Wagner's antisemitism.

So here are my provincial interests:

1. I am less likely to attend concerts with music that I do not consider music, and most concertgoers that I know think the same. I would hazard a guess that postwar atonal music is orders of magnitude less popular than tonal classical: look at the viewing figures on YouTube of obscure romantic pieces that have been unearthed after 100+ years and those of seminal Boulez (e.g., Piano Sonata #2). The latter has tens of thousands of views, the former often has the same or one or two orders of magnitude more. I don't mind if you enjoy Sdraulig or Boulez, but I have every reason to try to block it from the concert hall to prevent further audience erosion.

2. This leads to my second obvious point. The focus of modern compositional efforts lies on the side of atonal and filmic music rather than "stodgy" classical (including Gershwin, Bernstein, John Adams). Considering that commissions and performances of this music are often subsidized by the public, I would prefer the promotion of rigorous classical forms over what I consider lazy virtue signaling.

3. An overly expansive definition of classical music undermines societal efforts to elevate one form of music over another. Why shouldn't schools teach rap and pop and Sdraulig if it is also admitted into the company of Bach and Beethoven and Brahms? Why should European governments subsidize classical orchestras instead of rappers? I personally would rather give the money to a rapper instead of Sdraulig, since the rapper has demonstrable skill in rhyming, keeping time, and producing sound.


----------



## Haydn70

shirime said:


> Someone I know has composed a piano piece that largely draws upon the grand tradition of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation. It's so closely linked to this long history of piano playing because it pretty much extracts these ideas and makes music out of them, amplified with very close microphones that pick up the subtle sounds that are made, mostly on purpose, but sometimes unintentional sounds of a specific note being sounded by the hammer striking the string. I find it quite amazing to actually be able to hear these subtle sounds, hand movements and the real light, shade and all of the nuances of interpretation often applied to other kinds of repertoire. Hearing these nuances on their own has been actually very refreshing for me and sound really quite musical in their own right:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with many other works like this that explore an expanded timbral palette, I have a feeling that often it is the result of a deep appreciation of the repertoire for and traditions associated with the instrument. I have mentioned Lachenmann earlier, and I feel like he is an example of a traditionally-minded musician, someone extremely conscious of Music History and uses it as a foundation for his musical explorations and expressions. There was even a Van Magazine article from a little while ago, when _Marche Fatale_ was breaking the internet (for New Music fans), that discussed his inspirations from the history of music.
> 
> Another composer who springs to mind is Ferneyhough, whose string quartets themselves grew from a huge appreciation and knowledge of the grand tradition of string quartet repertoire. Someone else who is more knowledgeable in this area might be able to give some more info about this, because I'm not really the biggest Ferneyhough expert out there.
> 
> Boulez is another obvious composer here to me, drawing upon a wide interest in music from previous generations of composers in Europe and also music from around the world.
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> You know, the more I think about it, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there is more and more access to information about history and all of its traditions, more people really taking an interest in it and responding to it in different ways. Perhaps it is this that makes me think about composers since the 20th century being more concerned with tradition than earlier composers who simply wrote the modern music of the day because that is simply the music that was performed and heard.
> 
> Perhaps this kind of music is actually the most conservative of all. Who knew?


The Emperor's clothes closet space has been growing and growing for over a century now. In fact he's had to add a couple of new large wings to his palace strictly devoted to closet space. This, this whatever it is, probably has already found a place of honor in one of those closets.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> How do you expect anyone to respond to this exhibition of ignorance and insult? You must know that there is no suitable vocabulary to describe it which would be acceptable under this forum's terms of service. But that's exactly what you're counting on, isn't it?
> 
> The graffiti you've here scrawled across the face of one of history's artistic giants (who - oh dear! - was a known anti-semite!) is obviously not to be taken seriously. What it looks like is yet another installment in your endless campaign to prove your superior cultural awareness, aesthetic sensitivity, and "spiritual" insight, of which you are so keen to persuade us day after tiresome day. If anyone is persuaded, it's probably only a result of feeling swamped and stupefied by the sheer relentlessness of it. It's the Trump technique: say it over and over, in tweet after tweet, until your reader's brain is as mushy as your rhetoric.
> 
> Rational minds (the kind you exult in denigrating), who know pretentious horse manure when they see it offered as serious "art," are really an intolerable challenge to your self image, and so you have to find ways of discrediting us. Devoting reams of arcane puffery to such ephemeral entertainments as "conceptual art" is only one of the blunt arrows in your quiver. Denigrating truly great art that you know we love is as blunt an arrow as can be imagined.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, real art speaks louder than artspeak. Wagner's art - with it's immense _spiritual_ power, in a sense of the term that actually means something to flesh-and-blood human beings here on planet earth - strides confidently through the ages, while the noodlings of Mr. Sdraulig and his ilk have only YouTube to thank if their lifespans exceed those of fruit flies.


A simply brilliant performance, Woodduck. Of course, you must have just missed the "disappearing thread" in area 51 which explains it all. Just keep doing what you're doing, it's brilliant!


----------



## eugeneonagain

ArsMusica said:


> The Emperor's clothes closet space has been growing and growing for over a century now. In fact he's had to add a couple of new large wings to his palace strictly devoted to closet space. This, this whatever it is, probably has already found a place of honor in one of those closets.


In the odd-sock drawer.


----------



## JAS

So, at the risk of derailing the supposed derailing of this thread, I ask three questions:

1) Is there some classification of music (or at least _purported_ music, using the broadest possible definition) that can be called avant-garde?

2) If there is such a classification, is there, within the examples thus categorized, something that might be called a tradition?

3) Furthermore, is there some special characteristic that might be considered a link from such a classification to other, more established forms, and of which it is particularly an exemplar?


----------



## millionrainbows

licorice stick said:


> Untouchable here. I don't care what your terms of debate are, MR, so just don't read any further if you think this will be trolling. The mods will boot me if I am crossing some line of which I am unaware.
> 
> Again, I and many others on this thread do not see any connection between the Sdraulig piece and what we consider classical music. Whatever connection exists by sitting at a piano on a stage, reading marks off a piece of paper, and carressing the ivories seems more tenuous than the substantive connection between indisputably(?) non-classical music, such as rap, and traditional notions of melody, harmony, rhythm, SOUND, etc.
> 
> I do not profess to have more or less knowledge about the substance or theoretical foundations of atonal music than anyone else here, so it's pointless for naysayers to argue that my disdain for most of this music arises from anything but my provincial interests. Just as MR's apparent disdain for Wagner's music is subjective and affected by external considerations including Wagner's antisemitism.


I was just showing Woodduck what it's like to have his discussion content trashed. But really, it's all clear to me now; I'm just playing a role which was very, very, subtly arranged by the OP, and so is everyone else who responds to this drama. It really is relieving to know the true nature of this drama, and I must say, probably to Woodduck's chagrin (if that is real chagrin) that it reinforces my feelings about the mind, the spirit, being, and how the mind can play tricks. "all the world's a stage." Maybe KenOC is vaguely aware of what I'm talking about here, since he hinted that the OP might be tongue-in-cheek, in order to produce the desired effect. So, just in case you weren't aware, we are all playing our roles perfectly!

In fact, I love Wagner's music, and there is a book out on his music which is supposed to be very, very good (by author Tuttle): but it's $500, and I don't like Wagner enough to go hungry.

Sorry I can't reveal the source of my knowledge, since the thread disappeared suddenly; but I did manage to copy one page of it into my drafts of my e-mail.



licorice stick said:


> So here are my provincial interests:
> 
> 1. I am less likely to attend concerts with music that I do not consider music, and most concertgoers that I know think the same. I would hazard a guess that postwar atonal music is orders of magnitude less popular than tonal classical: look at the viewing figures on YouTube of obscure romantic pieces that have been unearthed after 100+ years and those of seminal Boulez (e.g., Piano Sonata #2). The latter has tens of thousands of views, the former often has the same or one or two orders of magnitude more. I don't mind if you enjoy Sdraulig or Boulez, but I have every reason to try to block it from the concert hall to prevent further audience erosion.


That's perfectly understandable.



licorice stick said:


> 2. This leads to my second obvious point. The focus of modern compositional efforts lies on the side of atonal and filmic music rather than "stodgy" classical (including Gershwin, Bernstein, John Adams). Considering that commissions and performances of this music are often subsidized by the public, I would prefer the promotion of rigorous classical forms over what I consider lazy virtue signaling.


Since soundtracks make money, there's no need to subsidize that genre. Why do you lump it with atonal?



licorice stick said:


> 3. An overly expansive definition of classical music undermines societal efforts to elevate one form of music over another. Why shouldn't schools teach rap and pop and Sdraulig if it is also admitted into the company of Bach and Beethoven and Brahms? Why should European governments subsidize classical orchestras instead of rappers? I personally would rather give the money to a rapper instead of Sdraulig, since the rapper has demonstrable skill in rhyming, keeping time, and producing sound.


With Sdraulig, I think art education has that covered, since it is multi-media "conceptual" art. If anything, I think music schools should support jazz, since it is an American form.


----------



## JAS

(The idea of posting as performance art certainly explains most of the threads here at TC.)


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> So, at the risk of derailing the supposed derailing of this thread, I ask three questions:
> 
> 1) Is there some classification of music (or at least _purported_ music, using the broadest possible definition) that can be called avant-garde?
> 
> 2) If there is such a classification, is there, within the examples thus categorized, something that might be called a tradition?
> 
> 3) Furthermore, is there some special characteristic that might be considered a link from such a classification to other, more established forms, and of which it is particularly an exemplar?


I gave this post a like, but I would prefer to give it 100 likes.

Great questions for _those actually interested in this thread_.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> So, at the risk of derailing the supposed derailing of this thread, I ask three questions:
> 
> 1) Is there some classification of music (or at least _purported_ music, using the broadest possible definition) that can be called avant-garde?


Those are good questions, and they illuminate the fact that we can't answer them precisely. We know what Renaissance, Baroque, and Classical, and Twentieth Century music is, because of the eras they came from; so this is better than trying to label the music itself.



JAS said:


> 2) If there is such a classification, is there, within the examples thus categorized, something that might be called a tradition?


Yes, traditions which reflect the practices of the day.



JAS said:


> 3) Furthermore, is there some special characteristic that might be considered a link from such a classification to other, more established forms, and of which it is particularly an exemplar?


I think that's what the Sdraulig piece was attempting to show. Unfortunately, he left out the parameters of actual music, like pitch and rhythm. On the other hand, by reducing the piece's content to "gestures" and movement, it's a comment on composers like Ferneyhough who have left out the parameter of pitch. It takes it to another further extreme.

The gestures and procedures, even the score instructions themselves, might be what we would call a subtle form of "trolling" taken to a serous level. After all art is a social exchange, just like the internet, so such "institutional trolling" could happen. Still, even if it is "staged" to some degree, it's still effective enough to draw us in to a "drama" of questioning whether it is true music, and maybe, on a conceptual level, that's all the artist wanted to do, was to get us thinking about it. I must admit, I liked being fooled into believing it was music. The drama of watching it was more fun, I think, than walking out. But for those whose time is limited, those precious golden years must be spent listening to the highest-quality music, and Mahler symphonies and Wagner's operas are very lengthy, and we must question whether we have time for conceptual tidbits like this. If you're buying dinner, perhaps.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> (The idea of posting as performance art certainly explains most of the threads here at TC.)


Spoken like a true expert in that field.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> I gave this post a like, but I would prefer to give it 100 likes.
> 
> Great questions for _those actually interested in this thread_.


I know you're sincere, but I think you might have missed KenOC's boat as well. And the thread disappearance in area 51 might be evidence that the mods knew what was going on. If not, they are sure sweeping it under the carpet.

So my questions now are: _should I actually be interested in this thread? What is the real purpose of this thread?_


----------



## eugeneonagain

I just heard this on BBC radio 3's coverage of the London Ear festival of contemporary music:






Now the truth is it interests me. It has some sounds that please me and some that don't. It doesn't please me anything like as much as listening to a scherzo from a Jean Francaix divertissement and it probably doesn't need to, but then I wonder: 'is this the place of contemporary art music now? Staccato 'melody' with no memory of legato playing, enormous pauses of nothingness for no clear reason and all dissonance with not even a whiff of consonance so that you never feel any shift, just one note piled on top of another seemingly randomly?'


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *I was just showing Woodduck what it's like to have his discussion content trashed.* But really, it's all clear to me now; I'm just playing a role which was very, very, subtly arranged by the OP, and so is everyone else who responds to this drama. It really is relieving to know the true nature of this drama, and I must say, probably to Woodduck's chagrin (if that is real chagrin) that it reinforces my feelings about the mind, the spirit, being, and how the mind can play tricks. "all the world's a stage." Maybe KenOC is vaguely aware of what I'm talking about here, since he hinted that the OP might be tongue-in-cheek, in order to produce the desired effect. So, just in case you weren't aware, we are all playing our roles perfectly!
> 
> In fact, I love Wagner's music...


In other words, you are trolling people here, posturing as the "wise one" who will hold up the mirror to our chastened faces and teach us a lesson. Well, no big surprise. But what do you think you'll accomplish? What if we are not chastened?

I've gone back and read your abortive Area 51 complaint and similar ones here, and I see that you feel others are sabotaging the sort of discussions you fancy we ought to be having. There does seem to be some fairly broad disagreement about what sort that should be, but I wonder what makes you think that your favored sort ought to be agreed to by both members and moderation.

The title and opening argument of this thread, along with the musical (if that's the right word) example at the head of it, made it inevitable that the the "proper" subject of discussion would be hard to fix and controversial. As an illustration, my first response to the whole thing was:

_"Listening to this without watching it, I visualize someone cleaning a dirty keyboard and accidentally striking a note now and then. I suspect that the 'composer' of this was housecleaning one day and realized in a serendipitous flash of inspiration how easy it would be to join the 'grand tradition' of John Cage and other practitioners of anti-music...Periodically, someone on this forum attempts to defend 'modern music' by obliterating differences, even fundamental differences, between the kinds of things offered in the name of music. But this effort takes the blue ribbon. 'Grand tradition'? People who groove on stuff like this should at least make an effort to call it what it is." 
_
Your first response was:

_"it's as if it's a concentrated distillation of the great pianistic tradition. By isolating and focusing on just those aspects of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation, a fresh new statement has been made which bypasses the clichés of stylistic mannerisms of music (like Mozart, etc.). It connects this great tradition with composers such as Ferneyhough and John Cage, bringing us full-circle...Yes, the postmodern age, with our access to all the information of history at our fingertips, in a way puts us "more in touch" with tradition than the actual practitioners were. This is the way tradition should be celebrated!"_

We both seem to have definite, and incompatible, perspectives on what we've read and heard. But, to make my perspective explicit: I happen to believe that certain historically recent ideologies concerning the nature of art have justified and glorified a lot of charlatanism, trivia and trash which has been cranked out by mediocrities who truly believe they are artists. Such stuff has been accepted and dignified by the art world, thus encouraging the production of more and more of it. Consistent with my view of the art itself, I'm apt to point out the emptiness and pomposity of those who assume the priesthood of modernity and engage in the sort of quasi-philosophical cant ("artspeak") which the art itself seems to depend on - along with a fair amount of grant funding - for simple life-support. Alas, whether the priesthood likes it or not, neither its favored art nor its arcane scriptures are immune from judgment. If the lovely lawn of City Hall is now marred by a 500-pound "assemblage" of "found" scrap metal that the city acquired for $15,000 in tax money, the city council can reasonably expect to get some bad press.

In short, Father Rainbows, the laity may not be willing to accept the dogmas of post-post-post- (I've lost track) modernism as Holy Writ, so you may as well quit complaining. God is not listening. He's listening to Bach.


----------



## Sid James

aleazk said:


> I agree with the general view, but not so much with the terminology. The 50s and 60s were a period of extreme experimentation and rejection of tradition. There were different strands and directions in this experimentation. We had the Boulez-Stockhausen school of integral serialism (Babbitt did integral serialism too, but in a somewhat parallel way in relation to that school). Then we had Stockhausen and Babbitt developing electronic music, synthesized sounds, etc. Also the french musique concrète of Pierre Schaeffer. We also had Ligeti and his micropolyphonic pieces. Another important figure was Cage, with a wide range of experimentation, from altering the sounds of the piano, to chance, conceptual art and the challenge of the boundaries of what is music, all this influenced by eastern ideas, etc. One could add Xenakis to this whole group, since he experimented with electronic music, musique concrète, constructivist methods of composition, etc. I call all of this whole movement simply as the avant-garde from that period and perhaps the most relevant of the periods of experimemtation in the 20th century, i.e., it would be _the_ avant-garde. Thus, I don't agree with the distinction between moderate experiment and the avant-garde. Although, perhaps one could call minimalism as one example of moderate experimentation, since the main ideas are related to certain ways in which rhythm and form could be treated in a piece.


The distinction has been made in reference material I have consulted but its true there are no hard and fast categories. I think that the difference between avant-garde and experimental can be made with the hindsight we have now of what happened 50-100 years ago. Avant-garde is simply shorthand for the artist being against society, and this goes back to the 19th century, particularly in terms of Schumann's and Wagner's prolific writing on this issue. I think though that there is consensus that in the 20th century, avant-garde is most strongly associated with the strands represented by Cage and Boulez during the 1950's. In ideological terms, Cage resisted the mainstream right until the end while Boulez could not but help but to fully become part of it.



> ...
> What did happen is that this period of high modernism started to decline (as every period in art). People stopped to experiment in extreme ways and, instead, focussed on trying to compose in aesthetic frameworks that represented some sort of synthesis of all the ideas that were developed in that previous period, and even reincorporating elements from tradition. I guess one could call this new period as post-modernism, where Ligeti's late style and even Boulez's late style can be taken as examples of it.


Yes, and in addition to that, Cage, Boulez, Stockhausen and so on enter the academy. So the artist goes from being against society to being associated with the establishment. The same process happened with key composers of the 19th century.



> But, also, some ideas that were developed during the avant-garde didn't quite make it to the mainstream of post-modernism. I believe the reason for this is simply that they were not fertile enough as to sustain further developments and new pieces being composed under their narrow direction. I would include into this group strict integral serialism, challenges a la Cage of the boundaries of music, micropolyphony, and some others. On the other hand, what never disappeared since its introduction is the soundworld of free chromaticism pioneered by Schoenberg.....
> 
> I pretty much would call strict integral serialism, challenges a la Cage of the boundaries of music, and micropolyphony as museum pieces and dead ends. This doesn't mean that they were not influential: they were hugely influential, but in more generic ways rather than in their very specific inner workings. Thus, I would be quite baffled if a contemporary composer comes today and shows me his latest piece, finished just minutes ago, but which, at close inspection of the score, reveals a perfect integral serial construction, or a crystal clear Lontano-like micropolyphony, or tacet tacet tacet tacet! And, yet, we do see this happening today...


The German critical theorist Peter Burger mirrors what you say about dead ends, calling it "semantic atrophy." Nevertheless, as many have now come to believe, he thinks that these experiments where necessary and productive for music as a whole. Wiping the slate clean was logical when you think of what happened during World War II, and even apart from that we can set what the 1950's generation did in context. Satie was Cage's musical hero, and he was also influenced by the Italian Futurists. Goes without saying that Webern was most influential on Boulez. While Cage had reservations about his teacher Schoenberg, he admired Webern also.



> Why it happens? I think there seems to be some confusion from the fact that these ideas have been put aside (after being widely discussed for decades and the lessons from them largely absorbed; after Cage, we all think twice before judging what is music and what is not, at least the people interested in following the lessons from the high modernism period). They seem to take this abandoning as something signaling that they are still avant-garde. I have no clue why an artist, that supposedly studied art history in university, would do such a thing. I'm, of course, not going to hypothesize about what may be going on the psychology of these people. In any case, the resource to these tactics from the part of these contemporary artists just seem quite cheap and showing intellectual laziness, and the temptation to see that as the result of snobism, intellectual dishonesty and pathological endemicity in the contemporary art scene, is simply very strong.
> 
> In the case of the particular examples presented in this thread and another from the same poster, one can see a clear aesthetic premise which is remarkably similar to the challenges to the notion of what is music put forward by Cage (ambient unintentional noises, silence, chance, etc.; there's a video in youtube of Cage playing an 'amplified cacti with a feather'...In my case, the feeling is similar to when I see in the art galleries pieces of contemporary art which are just cheap copies of Duchamp. I feel irritated by the intellectual laziness of the artist, and this not even because I may like or don't like Duchamp's idea, but because I think "can't you just think an original way to defy my boundaries of what is art rather than repeating the most widely discussed idea on this topic in the whole library of the art university since the 1920s?". ... The ideas that go to the museum are the rigid, one-trick-pony ones.
> ...


I think what happens is diversity, some acceptance of all these contradictions, and a move away from dogmas or pseudo philosophies that try to solve questions in art or beyond. Since Cage's "Water Walk" on television (can easily be found on youtube) various creators of the avant-garde tradition - or more accurately perhaps, strand of modernism - have tried to draw attention to themselves with a broader public. This can of course backfire, but notoriety is better for these people than nonexistence. For good or bad, they are now part of music and the other creative arts.


----------



## James Mann

I would very much agree with the OP, although I myself am not a big avant-garde music listener. This 'tradition' (if you call it that) is at the heart of musical evolution and happens to demonstrate the most fluent mastery of musical knowledge and expression, at any given point in history. This doesn't mean that you have to like this music but it is surely worth recognizing the fact of.


----------



## DaveM

James Mann said:


> I would very much agree with the OP, although I myself am not a big avant-garde music listener. This 'tradition' (if you call it that) is at the heart of musical evolution and happens to demonstrate the most fluent mastery of musical knowledge and expression, at any given point in history. This doesn't mean that you have to like this music but it is surely worth recognizing the fact of.


If I'm interpreting your post correctly, you are saying that the 'tradition' as indicated in the work in the OP is 'at the heart of musical evolution and happens to demonstrate the most fluent mastery of musical knowledge and expression, at any given point in history' and we may not like the work, but we have to recognize the fact as stated.

I don't accept the fact, not at all. I see no tradition exemplified in the work and hear no music. I seriously doubt that if someone just heard the audio of the 'performance' they would see it as anything but someone randomly plunking piano keys. The video and pdf attempt to imbue it with gravitas, but it doesn't convince.


----------



## janxharris

James Mann said:


> I would very much agree with the OP, although I myself am not a big avant-garde music listener. This 'tradition' (if you call it that) is at the heart of musical evolution and happens to demonstrate the most fluent mastery of musical knowledge and expression, at any given point in history. This doesn't mean that you have to like this music but it is surely worth recognizing the fact of.


And yet this admission:



shirime said:


> On a more musical sense, there's an expansion in the variety of sounds and gestures over the passage of time........that, to me, is one of the more purely musical elements of the work. The linear relationship to time is typical of a lot of western music anyway. *A piece like this could be easily improvised, composed on the spot, and provoke the same thoughts in me.*


What does this say about the worth of the score or reliance on tradition?


----------



## James Mann

janxharris said:


> And yet this admission:
> 
> What does this say about the worth of the score or reliance on tradition?


Nothing, zip. Don't conflate things lad. My thoughts on that piece where never stated, let alone the idea that I stated that this piece in the OP is exemplary of the avant-garde :lol:

Nice try though


----------



## James Mann

DaveM said:


> I don't accept the fact, not at all. I see no tradition exemplified in the work and hear no music. I seriously doubt that if someone just heard the audio of the 'performance' they would see it as anything but someone randomly plunking piano keys. The video and pdf attempt to imbue it with gravitas, but it doesn't convince.


All opinions are accepted but not agreed with.


----------



## janxharris

James Mann said:


> Nothing, zip. Don't conflate things lad. My thoughts on that piece where never stated, let alone the idea that I stated that this piece in the OP is exemplary of the avant-garde :lol:
> 
> Nice try though


I didn't 'try' anything. Why the irritation JM? I wasn't having a pop, just asking a question. I reacted to your: 'I would very much agree with the OP'.


----------



## Guest

I like millionrainbows as well. He's certainly got an interesting an unusual opinion on some things, but it's always quite refreshing to read what he thinks about things in music. I don't always agree with him (especially when it comes to some issues with atonality) but his great wealth of knowledge and humour has served the site well. I don't know if he has ever been unfairly critical of other members in the way Bulldog was of him.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> What does this say about the worth of the score or reliance on tradition?


The score is worth examining as its own entity in this piece even just to see what issues have arisen with the notation of extended techniques. The history of notation is fascinatingly complex thing, for sure. Various symbols that were common in the 18th and 19th century have later faded out of use, but other symbols that never existed before have become extremely common. Centuries ago, the score would often bear little relation to what is actually performed and improvised. The improvisatory feeling of the composition in the OP is actually quite 'composed,' which I find interestingly counter-intuitive, but also interesting for the aforementioned notational issues. A piece like this _could_ be improvised, and it would be still be interesting and raise topics for discussion about the pianist's touch and technique, but there would be no score to find interesting.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> The score is worth examining as its own entity in this piece even just to see what issues have arisen with the notation of extended techniques. The history of notation is fascinatingly complex thing, for sure. Various symbols that were common in the 18th and 19th century have later faded out of use, but other symbols that never existed before have become extremely common. Centuries ago, the score would often bear little relation to what is actually performed and improvised. The improvisatory feeling of the composition in the OP is actually quite 'composed,' which I find interestingly counter-intuitive, but also interesting for the aforementioned notational issues. A piece like this _could_ be improvised, and it would be still be interesting and raise topics for discussion about the pianist's touch and technique, but there would be no score to find interesting.


How can the score be worth anything to you if you believe it could be easily improvised on the spot? Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but essentially this equates to the sentiments posted here against the work doesn't it?


----------



## janxharris

Isn't this the fundamental difference between some 21st century avant-garde and traditional music? The score of Sibelius's 5th symphony has worth does it not? Nobody's going to improvise the equivalent are they?


----------



## Enthusiast

Let's not make a member the subject of our discussion guys! That must be a no go area, surely?


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> How can the score be worth anything to you if you believe it could be easily improvised on the spot? Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but essentially this equates to the sentiments posted here against the work doesn't it?


The score is interesting because there are people in the world who find the history of notation interesting in itself, as I do. Granted, this could be because I am a composer working with expanded timbre and I have been faced with the question of how to notate unconventional techniques. The communication between composer and performer through notation does have an interesting history more generally and it's a study that plays an important part of Historically Informed Performance as well.

Here's a piece that was originally an improvisation. Perhaps the score is worthless, perhaps it is not. Personally, I've learnt a great deal about counterpoint and how to notate it from studying this just as I have learnt a great deal about pacing, time, timbre, hand movements and their notational issues from _Collector_.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> The score is interesting because there are people in the world who find the history of notation interesting in itself, as I do. Granted, this could be because I am a composer working with expanded timbre and I have been faced with the question of how to notate unconventional techniques. The communication between composer and performer through notation does have an interesting history more generally and it's a study that plays an important part of Historically Informed Performance as well.


Fair enough.



> Here's a piece that was originally an improvisation. Perhaps the score is worthless, perhaps it is not. Personally, I've learnt a great deal about counterpoint and how to notate it from studying this just as I have learnt a great deal about pacing, time, timbre, hand movements and their notational issues from _Collector_.


I tend to assume that improvisation demonstrates great skill in quick thinking using predetermined rules, but probably does not produce much that is completely original. I could be wrong.


----------



## EdwardBast

shirime said:


> The score is worth examining as its own entity in this piece even just to see what issues have arisen with the notation of extended techniques. The history of notation is fascinatingly complex thing, for sure. Various symbols that were common in the 18th and 19th century have later faded out of use[/B], but other symbols that never existed before have become extremely common. *Centuries ago, the score would often bear little relation to what is actually performed and improvised.* The improvisatory feeling of the composition in the OP is actually quite 'composed,' which I find interestingly counter-intuitive, but also interesting for the aforementioned notational issues. A piece like this _could_ be improvised, and it would be still be interesting and raise topics for discussion about the pianist's touch and technique, but there would be no score to find interesting.


To what are you referring?


----------



## Thomyum2

shirime said:


> The communication between composer and performer through notation does have an interesting history more generally and it's a study that plays an important part of Historically Informed Performance as well.


This is a really interesting point, and worth of an entire thread in and of itself. In our discussions here on TC, we often talk about the composers and their compositions as experienced by an audience as if an audience was directly experiencing what the composer has written without the intervention of a performer (even as we as the same time may discuss how we prefer certain recordings or artists). The reality of it, in the majority of the works in classical music tradition, is that a composer communicates an idea to a performer who then interprets it and presents a 'version' to the audience. The score serves only as a more or less imperfect tool for the composer to try to communicate their vision, and the spirit of it, to a performer. In a true sense, there is, and must be, improvisation in *all* performance, even as a composer may put guidelines and boundaries around it with detail in a score.

As a performer myself, I would say that a musician who sticks overly strictly to a score and doesn't try in some way to also convey that intangible 'spirit' of a piece of music that can't be captured in marks on a piece of paper, will often produce a dry and uninspired performance that doesn't inspire much appreciation for the work. The real challenge for a performer is not just to reproduce the notes, but to make the music sound fresh and new. Composing and performing is always a collaborative process, to one degree or another. One of the wonders for me is that music is in many ways like a living thing, in that this shared interaction between composer, performer, and audience can be a unique and spontaneous new experience with each and every performance.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> To what are you referring?


You know, like, a Corelli Trio Sonata for example. The notation provides the bare bones of the music. There was so much added to it through imprivsation, tempo rubato and modification that the actual music in the hands of good musicians would be quite a long way off a strict, 'faithful to the score' approach.


----------



## Guest

Thomyum2 said:


> This is a really interesting point, and worth of an entire thread in and of itself. In our discussions here on TC, we often talk about the composers and their compositions as experienced by an audience as if an audience was directly experiencing what the composer has written without the intervention of a performer (even as we as the same time may discuss how we prefer certain recordings or artists). The reality of it, in the majority of the works in classical music tradition, is that a composer communicates an idea to a performer who then interprets it and presents a 'version' to the audience. The score serves only as a more or less imperfect tool for the composer to try to communicate their vision, and the spirit of it, to a performer. In a true sense, there is improvisation is *all* performance, even as a composer may try to put boundaries around it with detail in a score.
> 
> As a performer myself, I would say that a musician who sticks overly strictly to a score and doesn't try in some way to also convey that intangible 'spirit' of a piece of music that can't be captured in marks on a piece of paper, will often produce a dry and uninspired performance that doesn't inspire much appreciation for the work. The real challenge for a performer is not just to reproduce the notes, but to make the music sound fresh and new. Composing and performing is always a collaborative process, to one degree or another. One of the wonders for me is that music is in many ways like a living thing, in that this shared interaction between composer, performer, and audience can be a unique and spontaneous new experience with each and every performance.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I disagree. There's some magnitude of difference between a performer's 'interpretation' or portraying (in Thomyum' words) the spirit of a piece and 'improvisation. The latter is more conceivable in a jazz context where the bare bones of a score, usually a lead sheet, are fleshed-out with improvisation which can stray quite a long way. Even that is largely along the lines of learned patterns and methodologies as janxharris pointed out previously.

Improvising on a Corelli trio sonata in that way is likely not really playing what Corelli intended.The 'spirit' of a work also needs to take into the account the context of the composer, unless the plan is to just treat Corelli's scores like a lead sheet?


----------



## EdwardBast

shirime said:


> You know, like, a Corelli Trio Sonata for example. The notation provides the bare bones of the music. There was so much added to it through imprivsation, tempo rubato and modification that the actual music in the hands of good musicians would be quite a long way off a strict, 'faithful to the score' approach.


This is incorrect. Realizing a figured bass is not "off a strict, 'faithful to the score' approach." It is exactly conforming to every aspect of the score the composer specified. When done competently or well, it is precisely faithful to the score. Corelli just had looser criteria for faithfulness in his scores than did most composers of later eras.


----------



## Phil loves classical

JAS said:


> So, at the risk of derailing the supposed derailing of this thread, I ask three questions:
> 
> 1) Is there some classification of music (or at least _purported_ music, using the broadest possible definition) that can be called avant-garde?
> 
> 2) If there is such a classification, is there, within the examples thus categorized, something that might be called a tradition?
> 
> 3) Furthermore, is there some special characteristic that might be considered a link from such a classification to other, more established forms, and of which it is particularly an exemplar?


I look at this way. People define the avant garde period differently. Some say it started after Webern, some say it began even with De Prez (meaning all the music since the 1600's is avant garde ). A major difference for me is that avant garde music historically was music expressed differently with new techniques, concepts as an *add-on *to tradition until Cage, but which afterwards used techniques, concepts like the piece in the OP that are *at odds* with tradition. For example, Bartok and Schoenberg paid homages pointed back to Bach in their music, while Cage criticized the music of Beethoven's narrative sense. I always classify it as postmodern deconstruction (since it helps me flick the mental switch when I listen to one type after the other). Objectivity and the grand narrative is lost, and everything is up to the interpretation of the listener. The same goes with poetry, where there are fragments of meaning, but no clear connection between the "dots" intended.

Some claim this type of avant garde is the same as before, but I say it is different, in that it redefines what music is (some essential or basic premises have changed). There is a radical revolution in perception different than before. I don't think a few hundred years from now, we would look at this change in the 50's and 60's as just the same type of revolution like Beethoven's 9th or the Rite of Spring. Even if some honestly think it is the same sort of evolution, I think they are misguided.


----------



## Haydn70

shirime said:


> The score is worth examining as its own entity in this piece even just to see what issues have arisen with the notation of extended techniques. The history of notation is fascinatingly complex thing, for sure. Various symbols that were common in the 18th and 19th century have later faded out of use, but other symbols that never existed before have become extremely common. *Centuries ago, the score would often bear little relation to what is actually performed and improvised.* The improvisatory feeling of the composition in the OP is actually quite 'composed,' which I find interestingly counter-intuitive, but also interesting for the aforementioned notational issues. A piece like this _could_ be improvised, and it would be still be interesting and raise topics for discussion about the pianist's touch and technique, but there would be no score to find interesting.


As EdwardBast has indicated to you: wrong!

Interesting how you make stuff like this up as you go along, just to justify your "contemporary" bias. Retrofitting music history, so to speak.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Here's a piece that was originally an improvisation. Perhaps the score is worthless, perhaps it is not. Personally, I've learnt a great deal about counterpoint and how to notate it from studying this just as I have learnt a great deal about pacing, time, timbre, hand movements and their notational issues from _Collector_.


This work is all the things that the 'Collector' isn't. Specifically, it was the work of a genius and the precursor of the Ricercar a 6 considered by some to be perhaps the greatest first example of a piano piece having been played, as I understand it, on one of the early fortepianos. And it was based on a theme which is different from a totally random improvisation.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> This is incorrect. Realizing a figured bass is not "off a strict, 'faithful to the score' approach." It is exactly conforming to every aspect of the score the composer specified. When done competently or well, it is precisely faithful to the score. Corelli just had looser criteria for faithfulness in his scores than did most composers of later eras.


I'm referring more to the upper part(s) than the figured bass, which were often highly ornamented and quite freely rhythmically independent at an Adagio tempo, for example. There was an understanding of how to do this correctly, even some written-out examples showing how much might be improvised over the top of what was written in the score.


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> As EdwardBast has indicated to you: wrong!
> 
> Interesting how you make stuff like this up as you go along, just to justify your "contemporary" bias. Retrofitting music history, so to speak.


Sorry, but I'm not actually making it up. Perhaps I am wrong and just got my information from some shoddy historical treatises.


----------



## Larkenfield

shirime said:


> You know, like, a Corelli Trio Sonata for example. The notation provides the bare bones of the music. There was so much added to it through improvisation, tempo rubato and modification that the actual music in the hands of good musicians would be quite a long way off a strict, 'faithful to the score' approach.


To call an interpretation an improvisation is to confuse the terms. Nor are embellishments improvisations, because they are generally written in the score. But performances will vary because of how the performer feels at the time while keeping the notes, tempo markings, and embellishments as written when interpreting and expressing the score. Improvisations are note changes or additions. Naturally, no two performances will ever exactly be the same, but that's based on interpretation and not improvisation. This is very basic stuff and you're creating a mess of confusion in the misuse of these words.

The score is more fix and devise than you think and there's very little or no improvisation in most scores, including the Bach Fugue (Musical Offering) that you say is based upon improvisation. It's not an improvisation because it's now a fixed score that's been exactly worked out by Bach. For it to be played properly, there's no room for improvisation. It would destroy the fugue. The score can only be interpreted and not improvised on.

Somewhere along the line you have developed some misconceptions in your use of terms. Maybe it's a language barrier, but you'll continue to receive great resistance if you continue misusing them. Tempo rubato is not an improvisation; it's a means of interpretation and expression. You are apparently making up your own definitions, and you should be mentioning the source of your references so they can be properly sorted out.

This is not meant to suggest that some of the great composers were not great improvisers, sometimes even in _ their_ genius live performances, Bach at the organ, and so on, or that some of their works may have started out as an improvisation, such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and others might have done. But their scores are now fixed with very little or no indications of improvisation being specifically asked for, and one should avoid making giant assumptions to read things into their scores that were not intended. It's the performer's expressive _interpretation_ that varies the performances and keeps them fresh and alive, and not their improvisations that dramatically change the written page.


----------



## KenOC

Mozart was well-known for embellishing the slow movements in his piano concertos so extensively that the music bore little relationship with the notes printed on the page. I believe he even wrote a letter with an example. Since the passages were likely extemporized, it’s hard not to call them improvisations.

Similarly, Patricia Kopatchinskaja inserts little mini-cadenzas at various places in her recording of Beethoven’s Violin Concerto. Nobody complains about that! Similarly, Beethoven himself, though insistent that others play his works exactly as written, was not above taking massive liberties with them in his own performances

I get the feeling that improvisation, even in fully-scored music, was far more common in days past than today. But I guess my question is: Where does interpretation end and improvisation begin?


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Mozart was well-known for embellishing the slow movements in his piano concertos so extensively that the music bore little relationship with the notes printed on the page. I believe he even wrote a letter with an example. Since the passages were likely extemporized, it's hard not to call them improvisations.
> 
> Similarly, Patricia Kopatchinskaja inserts little mini-cadenzas at various places in her recording of Beethoven's Violin Concerto. Nobody complains about that! Similarly, Beethoven himself, though insistent that others play his works exactly as written, was not above taking massive liberties with them in his own performances
> 
> I get the feeling that improvisation, even in fully-scored music, was far more common in days past than today. But I guess my question is: Where does interpretation end and improvisation begin?


Yes, this is what I was talking about in terms of improvisation.


----------



## Captainnumber36

KenOC said:


> Mozart was well-known for embellishing the slow movements in his piano concertos so extensively that the music bore little relationship with the notes printed on the page. I believe he even wrote a letter with an example. Since the passages were likely extemporized, it's hard not to call them improvisations.
> 
> Similarly, Patricia Kopatchinskaja inserts little mini-cadenzas at various places in her recording of Beethoven's Violin Concerto. Nobody complains about that! Similarly, Beethoven himself, though insistent that others play his works exactly as written, was not above taking massive liberties with them in his own performances
> 
> I get the feeling that improvisation, even in fully-scored music, was far more common in days past than today. But I guess my question is: Where does interpretation end and improvisation begin?


I'd say the difference between interpretation and improv is that interpretation of Classical is typically planned where any improv isn't.


----------



## JAS

KenOC said:


> I get the feeling that improvisation, even in fully-scored music, was far more common in days past than today.


It may have been somewhat more common if the composer himself was performing, but not so common for the musicians as a general approach. In a concerto, the cadenza was intended as an opportunity for the soloist to improvise, but the composer was generally obligated to provide a cadenza for performers who were not inclined to improvise, and the practice of playing the "standard" cadenza (or commissioning a new one) became the norm precisely because improvisation was increasingly outside of the performer's abilities (and perhaps somewhat because audiences came to expect a particular cadenza, although that was probably not such an issue before recordings).


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> Mozart was well-known for embellishing the slow movements in his piano concertos so extensively that the music bore little relationship with the notes printed on the page. I believe he even wrote a letter with an example. Since the passages were likely extemporized, it's hard not to call them improvisations.
> 
> Similarly, Patricia Kopatchinskaja inserts little mini-cadenzas at various places in her recording of Beethoven's Violin Concerto. Nobody complains about that! Similarly, Beethoven himself, though insistent that others play his works exactly as written, was not above taking massive liberties with them in his own performances
> 
> I get the feeling that improvisation, even in fully-scored music, was far more common in days past than today. But I guess my question is: Where does interpretation end and improvisation begin?


There are always exceptions to the rule. But it's not a common practice and it's different when a genius like Mozart or Beethoven does improvise in a work they composed. To assume that improvising on the score is common practice is simply not true, and most performers avoid it because they have no talent for improvisation, but certain embellishments, yes. That Mozart may have improvised in some of this piano concertos is common knowledge. The liberties taken by modern performers are not necessarily written into the score, but when certain embellishments are spontaneously used they can add interest.

In the meantime, it looks like the words improvise and interpret will continue to be misused with made up definitions by some of the young posters here. When improvisation is called for it's indicated in the score, so please point out where Mozart and Beethoven indicated that in their scores. Some modern players will take liberties and insert embellishments on their own. If not, everybody would be playing them because the embellishments would be written into the score.

.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> There are always exceptions to the rule. But it's not a common practice and it's different when a genius like Mozart or Beethoven does it on a work they composed. To assume that improvising on the score is common practice is simply not true, and most performers avoid it because they have no talent for improvisation, but certain embellishments, yes. That Mozart may have improvised in some of this piano concertos is common knowledge. The liberties taken by modern performers are not necessarily written into the score, but when they work it can add something special. In the meantime, it looks like the words improvise and interpret will continue to be misused.


You make a point about Mozart; the piano concertos he wrote for himsef (eg no. 20) were written with quite 'bare' solo parts that he filled in with many more notes improvised in performance. In contrast, the concertos he wrote for students often had many more notes that he would have improvised if he played it himself (he would have probably even improvised more anyway).

But going back to the Baroque period it was certainly usual and expected that soloists to improvise embellishments so intricate and detailed that it would often bear little resemblance to the original notated melody.

Using Corelli as an example again, here are different ways a passage from one of his op. 5 may have been performed, the improvised elements of the music written out:









See how wildly different each improvisation is according to different performers? They do bear some small resemblance to Corelli's original melodic line, but only when it comes to the important notes, the ones he actually wrote down.

Image taken from this article by Neal Zaslaw from _Early Music_ vol. 24 no. 1 (February, 1996) http://www.sjsu.edu/people/gordon.haramaki/courses/performance/s1/Zaslaw.pdf
(apologies for incorrect citation style)


----------



## Larkenfield

Where there’s room for genuine free improvisation in concertos or other works is in the cadenza. There’s the performer’s chance and I wish more would take advantage of it. But unfortunately, most don’t have the talent or desire to improvise on a theme by Beethoven, Mozart, or anyone else, though some have been known to try, and they may end up playing a cadenza that’s 200 years old and has been played to death. But the opportunity is still there and it’s amazing when it happens and it’s taken advantage of. Improvisation is not merely expression; it’s creative and spontaneous invention that expresses how the performer personally feels about that work. And improvisation is intended to be different in each performance, like Mozart probably did, or at least individually worked out by the performer him- or herself. Improvisation goes way beyond interpretive expression and the use of added embellishments: it’s the performer composing.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> Where there's room for genuine free improvisation in concertos is in the cadenza. There's the performer's chance and I wish more would take advantage of it. But unfortunately, most don't have the talent to improvise on a theme by Beethoven, Mozart,or anyone else, though some have been known to try. But the opportunity is there and it's amazing when it happens and it's taken advantage of. Improvisation is not merely expression; it's creative and spontaneous invention.


I agree. that musicians ought to improvise more in cadenzas I was always under the assumption that soloists improvise their candenzas in concertos until I saw on a programme note 'Mozart Piano Concerto no. 20 with Cadenza by Beethoven' and I felt as if I had been lied to for years. 

However, the article I posted does talk about Corelli's op. 5 as being composed as a basis for improvisation as well, and this is a different kind of improvisation than a passage of completely improvised music. Even a cadenza in a concerto may have some thematic relationship with the rest of the movement, but that kind of improvisation is more like 'composing in real time' like what Bach did when improvising the Ricercar a 3 for Frederick II. The kind of improvisation common in [the best] musicians from the 17th and 18th centuries (and perhaps earlier) when performing already notated music would still be a 'creative and spontaneous invention' but using a different framework.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Larkenfield said:


> Where there's room for genuine free improvisation in concertos is in the cadenza. There's the performer's chance and I wish more would take advantage of it. But unfortunately, most don't have the talent to improvise on a theme by Beethoven, Mozart, or anyone else, though some have been known to try, and they may end up playing a cadenza that's 200 years old and hasbeen played to death. But the opportunity is still there and it's amazing when it happens and it's taken advantage of. Improvisation is not merely expression; it's creative and spontaneous invention.


It doesn't bother me so much, it takes a lot of talent to improv at a very high level that I don't think many can achieve; to make the improv sound composed.


----------



## Captainnumber36

shirime said:


> I agree. I was always under the assumption that soloists improvise their candenzas in concertos until I saw on a programme note 'Mozart Piano Concerto no. 20 with Cadenza by Beethoven' and I felt as if I had been lied to for years.


Now, did Beethoven actually improvise the cadenza and then it was scored later?


----------



## Guest

Captainnumber36 said:


> Now, did Beethoven actually improvise the cadenza and then it was scored later?


I'm pretty sure that was the case.


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> As EdwardBast has indicated to you: wrong!
> 
> Interesting how you make stuff like this up as you go along, just to justify your "contemporary" bias. Retrofitting music history, so to speak.


I'm trying my best to work with what I know. I am not using this to justify any 'contemporary bias' you think I may have. Sure, I enjoy contemporary music, but I enjoy a whole lot of other music as well, so there's really nothing else that I can respond with to your argumentum ad hominem other than point out your fallacy. I posted an example of exactly what I was talking about when it comes to various improvisations over Corelli's opus 5 sonatas and provided an article from the _Early Music_ journal to back me up. Could you explain what is wrong?


----------



## Larkenfield

shirime said:


> I'm trying my best to work with what I know. I am not using this to justify any 'contemporary bias' you think I may have. Sure, I enjoy contemporary music, but I enjoy a whole lot of other music as well, so there's really nothing else that I can respond with to your argumentum ad hominem other than point out your fallacy. I posted an example of exactly what I was talking about when it comes to various improvisations over Corelli's opus 5 sonatas and provided an article from the _Early Music_ journal to back me up. Could you explain what is wrong?


Yes, there was the spirit of spontaneous improvisation in the keyboard parts uppermost in Corelli's Op. 5 Sonatas. It's indicated in his score. After all, he left only a bass line and the unadorned violin part, with no harmonies, figurations or ornamentation - Baroque performers were supposed to have a modern jazzers ability to fill in the gaps, so every performance would have an imaginative spontaneity that's missing from most modern recordings. Here he was specifically spelling it out that improvisation was a central part in the performance of these great sonatas. But the same can't be said about Bach's Musical Offering when every line, harmony and counterpoint was exactly spelled out without improvisation ever being intended. But the Corelli, of course, was a common practice, and one can see exactly what Corelli indicated in the score, and that can be viewed at the IMSLP database. Keyboard players often improvised in Baroque scores to create spontaneity and aliveness. So it's true there were definite times when improvisation was indicated, but the string parts were specifically written out and there are no indications that any part of them was supposed to be improvised upon, and that's an important consideration to keep things in perspective.


----------



## KenOC

I've always been suspicious of improvised cadenzas by Beethoven, Mozart, or anybody else. You can get in real trouble in a true improvisation, regardless of your level of talent. If I were Beethoven, I'd figure out the thing in advance. Who would know?


----------



## JAS

Again, what we are arguing about, even if a few examples may be suggested, is clearly not a standard practice of the period, and thus can hardly be considered a tradition. The whole idea of notation is to create a more or less fixed representation, which is precisely the opposite of improvisation. Prior to modern notation, music was passed on by something akin to oral tradition. The history of oral tradition is that newer generations may have adapted or expanded material, but that was more a process of evolution than improvisation. (Something of a counter-argument has been made by Benjamin Bagby, in his stage presentations of Beowulf, in which he mixes speech and singing, reciting the poem in the original form, which is to say not translated into what we would recognize as English, and which he accompanies by playing an Anglo-Saxon harp. This sort of accompaniment, which does not have a strong thematic component, may very well have been more improvised, but information is not clear and there is necessarily a great deal of speculation.)


----------



## Thomyum2

eugeneonagain said:


> There's some magnitude of difference between a performer's 'interpretation' or portraying (in Thomyum' words) the spirit of a piece and 'improvisation.





Larkenfield said:


> To call an interpretation an improvisation is to confuse the terms. Nor are embellishments improvisations, because they are generally written in the score. But performances will vary because of how the performer feels at the time while keeping the notes, tempo markings, and embellishments as written when interpreting and expressing the score. Improvisations are note changes or additions. *Naturally, no two performances will ever exactly be the same, but that's based on interpretation and not improvisation*....
> 
> Tempo rubato is not an improvisation; it's a means of interpretation and expression.
> 
> It's the performer's expressive _interpretation_ that varies the performances and keeps them fresh and alive, and not their improvisations that dramatically change the written page.





KenOC said:


> But I guess my question is: Where does interpretation end and improvisation begin?





Captainnumber36 said:


> I'd say the difference between interpretation and improv is that interpretation of Classical is typically planned where any improv isn't.





Larkenfield said:


> Improvisation is not merely expression; it's creative and spontaneous invention that expresses how the performer personally feels about that work. And improvisation is intended to be different in each performance, like Mozart probably did, or at least individually worked out by the performer him- or herself. Improvisation goes way beyond interpretive expression and the use of added embellishments: it's the performer composing.





JAS said:


> The whole idea of notation is to create a more ore less fixed representation, which is precisely the opposite of improvisation.


I think these are all fair points, and the common usage of the word 'improvisation' does suggest a spontaneous composition process by the performer at the time of the performance which is a different thing from 'interpretation', which carries more the meaning of the performer's decisions about how to handle matters that are not explicitly indicated in the score. So it may be possible to create a distinction and demarcation between these two terms - but this is a matter of semantics and definitions.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the broader question that shirime is getting at here is more about of the uses and limitations of the score as a tool for 'fixing' a composition, and this is interesting. Whether we call it improvisation or interpretation, the fact is that composers over the centuries have exerted a greater or lesser degree of control over the details of how 'their' music should be realized in performance, and have thereby relied on or allowed performers to make those interpretive or improvisatory choices and play greater or lesser role in that final product that an audience receives. And even for those composers on the end of the spectrum of trying to 'fix' their music by making the score as detailed as possible, the score is an imperfect tool. Consider the case of the second movement of Bartok's _Concerto for Orchestra_ described here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto_for_Orchestra_(Bartók) where the composer's own intentions were lost due to a misprint in the tempo marking that resulted in interpretations that were clearly different from the composer's intent. Or consider too that many composers continue to go back and revise their own compositions years later, leaving us with multiple versions, in a sense, continuing to do their own improvisation on the theme over time.

I think what makes this fascinating to me is it asks the question of what really _is_ a piece of music? Is it the score or is it the performance? If the score, which version? If the performance, which one, if no two are the same? Or is it neither, but rather the _idea_ of the piece that exists in the mind of the composer? Or in the mind of the listener? That's what has led me to feel, as I said in my previous post, that musical works are like living things that evolve and change and have personalities of their own and can continually be played and heard in new and different and surprising ways, even as they have elements that remain the same and which keep them recognizable over time.


----------



## DaveM

Based on the experience with discussions about the Cage 4’33” and Sdraulig ‘Collector’, I propose the following theory of classical piano music performance discussion: The level of discussion will be inversely proportional to the number of notes played.


----------



## eugeneonagain

In that case we have a long road ahead of us...


----------



## Thomyum2

DaveM said:


> Based on the experience with discussions about the Cage 4'33" and Sdraulig 'Collector', I propose the following theory of classical piano music discussion: The level of discussion will be inversely proportional to the number of notes in the score.


You may be onto something here! The interesting question for me would be why this is. Perhaps the more that the composer leaves up to the imagination of the listeners, the greater the diversity of things and more disagreement there will be about what is actually heard (or not heard)?

But then again, on this same premise, there should be nothing at all to discuss about a work such as, for example, Wagner's _Ring_?


----------



## JAS

DaveM said:


> Based on the experience with discussions about the Cage 4'33" and Sdraulig 'Collector', I propose the following theory of classical piano music performance discussion: The level of discussion will be inversely proportional to the number of notes played.


What about Ferneyhough?


----------



## JeffD

I would like you to hear my new composition. I am playing it now. 

To hear it you stop whatever you are doing and listen. You hear that? That is my piece.

It is likely one of the first musical compositions continuously and permanently and simultaneously available, live, to everyone in the world right now (or indeed at any time). 

Another unique aspect is the music’s asynchronousity. I play it when I want and you listen when you want. You can’t tell when I am playing and I can’t tell when you are listening. 

It is also guaranteed that my composition sounds different to every listener, throughout the world. Everyone will be hearing something different when they listen to my piece.

One of the reasons you cannot tell if I am playing it or not, is that there are no boundaries; I eschew such traditional things as beginnings, and endings, and duration. My composition is indistinguishable from what you are hearing right now, or (indeed at any time). How do you know if I am playing? I am. How do you know you are hearing my composition? You are.


----------



## DaveM

JeffD said:


> I would like you to hear my new composition. I am playing it now.
> 
> To hear it you stop whatever you are doing and listen. You hear that? That is my piece.
> 
> It is likely one of the first musical compositions continuously and permanently and simultaneously available, live, to everyone in the world right now (or indeed at any time).
> 
> Another unique aspect is the music's asynchronousity. I play it when I want and you listen when you want. You can't tell when I am playing and I can't tell when you are listening.
> 
> It is also guaranteed that my composition sounds different to every listener, throughout the world. Everyone will be hearing something different when they listen to my piece.
> 
> One of the reasons you cannot tell if I am playing it or not, is that there are no boundaries; I eschew such traditional things as beginnings, and endings, and duration. My composition is indistinguishable from what you are hearing right now, or (indeed at any time). How do you know if I am playing? I am. How do you know you are hearing my composition? You are.


It's wonderful. I'll carry it with me wherever I go. What I like most is that there is no music player, no Bluetooth and no earphones.


----------



## JAS

JeffD said:


> I would like you to hear my new composition. I am playing it now.
> 
> To hear it you stop whatever you are doing and listen. You hear that? That is my piece.


That sounds almost exactly like what I was listening to on Friday. I want something new.


----------



## licorice stick

JeffD said:


> I would like you to hear my new composition.


Encore! (If it is within the realm of possibility to encore a piece that never begins or ends.)


----------



## eugeneonagain

Silence! I'm still listening! (It's getting to the finale).


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> Silence! I'm still listening! (It's getting to the finale).


That seems very ominous.


----------



## Woodduck

JeffD said:


> I would like you to hear my new composition. I am playing it now.
> 
> To hear it you stop whatever you are doing and listen. You hear that? That is my piece.
> 
> It is likely one of the first musical compositions continuously and permanently and simultaneously available, live, to everyone in the world right now (or indeed at any time).
> 
> Another unique aspect is the music's asynchronousity. I play it when I want and you listen when you want. You can't tell when I am playing and I can't tell when you are listening.
> 
> It is also guaranteed that my composition sounds different to every listener, throughout the world. Everyone will be hearing something different when they listen to my piece.
> 
> One of the reasons you cannot tell if I am playing it or not, is that there are no boundaries; I eschew such traditional things as beginnings, and endings, and duration. My composition is indistinguishable from what you are hearing right now, or (indeed at any time). How do you know if I am playing? I am. How do you know you are hearing my composition? You are.


I find this work too rigidly traditional.


----------



## JeffD

I have entitled my piece Aurochses Coprolite.

And I will go out on a limb and claim that any piece indistinguishable from my composition, is Aurochses Coprolite.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> And yet this admission:
> 
> What does this say about the worth of the score or reliance on tradition?


I think that the fact that it does have a highly-detailed score (provided as a PDF), lends authenticity to the piece, more so than if it were improvised.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> In other words, you are trolling people here, posturing as the "wise one" who will hold up the mirror to our chastened faces and teach us a lesson. Well, no big surprise. But what do you think you'll accomplish? What if we are not chastened?


No; I simply responded in kind to you.



Woodduck said:


> I've gone back and read your abortive Area 51 complaint and similar ones here, and I see that you feel others are sabotaging the sort of discussions you fancy we ought to be having. There does seem to be some fairly broad disagreement about what sort that should be, but I wonder what makes you think that your favored sort ought to be agreed to by both members and moderation.


No, that had nothing to do with trying to control the discussion; only to plead for more civility and restraint.



Woodduck said:


> The title and opening argument of this thread, along with the musical (if that's the right word) example at the head of it, made it inevitable that the the "proper" subject of discussion would be hard to fix and controversial.


I do not accept that as an excuse for disrupting the discussion in favor of your personal dislike of me.



Woodduck said:


> As an illustration, my first response to the whole thing was:
> 
> _"Listening to this without watching it, I visualize someone cleaning a dirty keyboard and accidentally striking a note now and then. I suspect that the 'composer' of this was housecleaning one day and realized in a serendipitous flash of inspiration how easy it would be to join the 'grand tradition' of John Cage and other practitioners of anti-music...Periodically, someone on this forum attempts to defend 'modern music' by obliterating differences, even fundamental differences, between the kinds of things offered in the name of music. But this effort takes the blue ribbon. 'Grand tradition'? People who groove on stuff like this should at least make an effort to call it what it is."
> _
> Your first response was:
> 
> _"it's as if it's a concentrated distillation of the great pianistic tradition. By isolating and focusing on just those aspects of piano playing, technique, touch and interpretation, a fresh new statement has been made which bypasses the clichés of stylistic mannerisms of music (like Mozart, etc.). It connects this great tradition with composers such as Ferneyhough and John Cage, bringing us full-circle...Yes, the postmodern age, with our access to all the information of history at our fingertips, in a way puts us "more in touch" with tradition than the actual practitioners were. This is the way tradition should be celebrated!"_
> 
> We both seem to have definite, and incompatible, perspectives on what we've read and heard. But, to make my perspective explicit: I happen to believe that certain historically recent ideologies concerning the nature of art have justified and glorified a lot of charlatanism, trivia and trash which has been cranked out by mediocrities who truly believe they are artists. Such stuff has been accepted and dignified by the art world, thus encouraging the production of more and more of it. Consistent with my view of the art itself, I'm apt to point out the emptiness and pomposity of those who assume the priesthood of modernity and engage in the sort of quasi-philosophical cant ("artspeak") which the art itself seems to depend on - along with a fair amount of grant funding - for simple life-support. Alas, whether the priesthood likes it or not, neither its favored art nor its arcane scriptures are immune from judgment. If the lovely lawn of City Hall is now marred by a 500-pound "assemblage" of "found" scrap metal that the city acquired for $15,000 in tax money, the city council can reasonably expect to get some bad press.
> 
> In short, *Father Rainbows*, the laity may not be willing to accept the dogmas of post-post-post- (I've lost track) modernism as Holy Writ, so you may as well quit complaining. God is not listening. He's listening to Bach.


You're entitled to your opinion. BTW, I got an infraction for "playing" with your name like that.


----------



## licorice stick

JeffD said:


> I have entitled my piece Aurochses Coprolite.
> 
> And I will go out on a limb and claim that any piece indistinguishable from my composition, is Aurochses Coprolite.


Is a fossilized turd part of a living, breathing, most informed of tradition, or a stale relic of movements long passed? Discuss.


----------



## Thomyum2

JeffD said:


> My composition is indistinguishable from what you are hearing right now, or (indeed at any time). How do you know if I am playing? I am. How do you know you are hearing my composition? You are.





JeffD said:


> I have entitled my piece Aurochses Coprolite.
> 
> And I will go out on a limb and claim that any piece indistinguishable from my composition, is Aurochses Coprolite.


Since your composition as you describe it appears to encompass all sounds, then I would have to deduce that you are thereby claiming that all sound, and thus all music, is 'Aurochses Coprolite'...


----------



## Enthusiast

... and so it goes on. Again.

And again. 

The same jokes for 50 years. The same chortling. Right or wrong, perceptive or deaf, where does the need to keep repeating the same stuff come from? Specially after the thread had taken a turn towards becoming interesting.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> ... and so it goes on. Again.
> 
> And again.
> 
> The same jokes for 50 years. The same chortling. Right or wrong, perceptive or deaf, where does the need to keep repeating the same stuff come from? Specially after the thread had taken a turn towards becoming interesting.


I'll post another musical example today to get the thread back on track. High maintenance work, but results in very interesting discussion!


----------



## Thomyum2

shirime said:


> I'll post another musical example today to get the thread back on track. High maintenance work, but results in very interesting discussion!


You persistence and positive attitude is appreciated here!


----------



## Guest

The name John Cage has popped up a couple of times in this thread, which is very cool because he certainly has an interesting relationship with the traditions of western (and non-western) music. So here's another musical example for discussion: John Cage's _Europeras_, of which there are five. Numbers 1 and 2 are particularly difficult to stage, requiring the full use of available resources in an opera theatre, so I guess they would be very impressive to watch. Here's a trailer for the second one:






I have recordings of 3, 4 and 5..........I wish there was some way I could view a complete performance of 1 and 2!

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about them.

----------------------------------------

For discussion: in what ways is this a reaction against the operatic repertoire or operatic tradition?
In what ways could it be thought of as an _embrace_ of that tradition?
Is it important for works like Cage's _Europeras_ to exist in order to see some kind of different, fresh or unusual perspective on or in addition to 'tradition'?


----------



## arpeggio

I have not had a chance to go through every post so I have probably missed something.

The problem with discussions like this is that there are members of the classical community who just plain do not like certain forms of post-19th century music. Some of them think that there understanding of music is so considerable that if they do not like something it must be bad. I know of several members who believe that certain forms of modern music should be excluded from this or any forum on classical music. A good example of this is the late Harpsichord Concerto. So they are against any rhetoric that implies that modern music that they hate may have merit.

So the observation that a bassoonist is going to use the same techniques that he would use to perform the Mozart _Bassoon Concerto_ to perform the Persichetti _Parable for Solo Bassoon_ to them is going to be worthless.


----------



## Guest

arpeggio said:


> I have not had a chance to go through every post so I have probably missed something.
> 
> The problem with discussions like this is that there are members of the classical community who just plain do not like certain forms of post-19th century music. Some of them think that there understanding of music is so considerable that if they do not like something it must be bad. I know of several members who believe that certain forms of modern music should be excluded from this or any forum on classical music. A good example of this is the late Harpsichord Concerto. So they are against any rhetoric that implies that modern music that they hate may have merit.
> 
> So the observation that a bassoonist is going to use the same techniques that he would use to perform the Mozart _Bassoon Concerto_ to perform the Persichetti _Parable for Solo Bassoon_ to them is going to be worthless.


Oh no, what happened to HarpsichordConcerto? I really liked him; he was funny!

Btw, every now and then I have been updating the thread with a new piece or new pieces to discuss and I plan on continuing this with some more examples later. My post just above yours would be a perfectly fine starting point from reading the Wikipedia article and the questions I posted.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> *Attention everyone*! Let's not get caught up in the *weeds *here





Enthusiast said:


> Because so many took against the _example _posted, this has become a rather *unpleasant *thread


Trying to catch up with this thread, here are two quotes from early posts. I assume that much has been "moderated" since the weeds and the unpleasantness referred to are no longer visible. It makes the thread difficult to follow.

Is it worth the effort?

My own response to the example in the OP was that it does nothing for me, either musically or philosophically, but if it does something for others, let them listen. It's not for others to address the crowd and tell us all to turn away.

[add]I should add, since the kerfuffle seems to be about the example and not the theme of the OP, that I can't say that the analysis in the OP holds together. The idea that nearly playing the piano is somehow built on the great pianistic tradtition seems wide of the mark. However, quite why some have lingered here so long to diss both the ideas and the OP himself (sly accusations of trolling are quite unmerited, IMO) is a mystery.


----------



## janxharris

arpeggio said:


> the late Harpsichord Concerto


???...............................


----------



## Fredx2098

shirime said:


> The name John Cage has popped up a couple of times in this thread, which is very cool because he certainly has an interesting relationship with the traditions of western (and non-western) music. So here's another musical example for discussion: John Cage's _Europeras_, of which there are five. Numbers 1 and 2 are particularly difficult to stage, requiring the full use of available resources in an opera theatre, so I guess they would be very impressive to watch. Here's a trailer for the second one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have recordings of 3, 4 and 5..........I wish there was some way I could view a complete performance of 1 and 2!
> 
> Here's what Wikipedia has to say about them.
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> For discussion: in what ways is this a reaction against the operatic repertoire or operatic tradition?
> In what ways could it be thought of as an _embrace_ of that tradition?
> Is it important for works like Cage's _Europeras_ to exist in order to see some kind of different, fresh or unusual perspective on or in addition to 'tradition'?


That sounds nice! I hadn't heard of those pieces. I would like to hear more than 2 minutes of them though. I could just be thinking of Feldman, but didn't Cage dislike opera? Do you know how the music is formed? The wikipedia page doesn't go into it very much except that it's indeterminate and includes the I Ching in some ways. From the tiny amount in that video, I enjoy the music and it sounds quite operatic to me. If I wanted to really jump to conclusions, I might guess that it's a bit similar to Stockhausen's Licht? Would that be far off? I'm trying to think of works that would fit in this thread. Perhaps Schnittke's first symphony would be a good, maybe obvious example?


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> That sounds nice! I hadn't heard of those pieces. I would like to hear more than 2 minutes of them though. I could just be thinking of Feldman, but didn't Cage dislike opera? Do you know how the music is formed? The wikipedia page doesn't go into it very much except that it's indeterminate and includes the I Ching in some ways. From the tiny amount in that video, I enjoy the music and it sounds quite operatic to me. If I wanted to really jump to conclusions, I might guess that it's a bit similar to Stockhausen's Licht? Would that be far off? I'm trying to think of works that would fit in this thread. Perhaps Schnittke's first symphony would be a good, maybe obvious example?


More information can be found on johncage.org



> Europeras 1 & 2 derives its name from the words "Europe" and "opera," suggesting the work's content and sounding like "Your opera," alluding to the work's populist leanings. The "1 & 2" of its title denotes two, unequal parts -- one 90 minutes in length, one 45 -- which are separated by a 1'50" looping black and white film of chance-derived moments from both developed, to Cage's specifications, by Frank Scheffer. Europeras 1 & 2 is, like all of Cage's work since the early 1950s, conceived wholly of chance operations. The chance operations employed, however, are of unprecedented sophistication even for Cage, due to the use of high-speed computer technology to run "IC," a stand-alone computer (software) program specially designed by Andrew Culver to simulate the coin oracle of the I Ching. The work's musical "content" is the simultaneous presentation of arias and duets heard against and within a pulverized, decontextualized mass of 1-16 measure instrumental fragments drawn from 64 European operas of the past, all in public domain and ranging from Gluck to Puccini. Its cast of players is, by opera standards, somewhat small: 19 singers, 12 dancer/athletes, and a 24-piece orchestra, without the usual body of strings and with the unusual addition to its percussion section of "Truckera," a tape of 101 layered fragments of European operas mixed live at a 1987 broadcast at New York's WKCR. Its extra-musical elements are those commonly associated with the genre: elaborate lighting cues, costumes, and props, lively and varied stage actions, intermittent dance, and an imaginative, subtly shifting stage décor. For more information on this work and others in the Europeras series, see Stefan Beyst's August 2005 essay John Cage's Europeras: a light- and soundscape as musical manifesto (http://d-sites.net/english/cage.htm), or Laura Kuhn's comprehensive doctoral dissertation, John Cage's Europeras 1 & 2: The Musical Means of Revolution (UCLA, 1992).


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> That sounds nice! I hadn't heard of those pieces. I would like to hear more than 2 minutes of them though. I could just be thinking of Feldman, but didn't Cage dislike opera? Do you know how the music is formed? The wikipedia page doesn't go into it very much except that it's indeterminate and includes the I Ching in some ways. From the tiny amount in that video, I enjoy the music and it sounds quite operatic to me. If I wanted to really jump to conclusions, I might guess that it's a bit similar to Stockhausen's Licht? Would that be far off? I'm trying to think of works that would fit in this thread. Perhaps Schnittke's first symphony would be a good, maybe obvious example?


You can actually find recordings of some of the other _Europeras_ on youtube; 3,4 and 5 have been released by Mode records.


----------



## janxharris

In view of the fact that the example piece given in OP is permitted here (ie as classical) - is this too?





 - Ben Howard, _I Forget Where We Were_.

Which has more in common with the tradition?


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> In view of the fact that the example piece given in OP is permitted here (ie as classical) - is this too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Ben Howard, _I Forget Where We Were_.
> 
> Which has more in common with the tradition?


That seems a bit insulting. But that song might actually be a good example of what he's talking about, because it sounds like some experimental/post rock, which has an interesting connection to more "traditional" or popular/common styles of rock music because it uses the same instruments to make new, strange, uncommon sounds and makes those the focus.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> That seems a bit insulting. But that song might actually be a good example of what he's talking about, because it sounds like some experimental/post rock, which has an interesting connection to more "traditional" or popular/common styles of rock music because it uses the same instruments to make new, strange, uncommon sounds and makes those the focus.


Where was the insult?


----------



## Fredx2098

shirime said:


> More information can be found on johncage.org


Interesting, so is each person playing a random section of music from random operas? Or is everyone playing the same fragment, or what? If you know anything more.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> Where was the insult?


Saying that if an avant-garde piece/performance/whatever using a piano is allowed here, then a pure rock song should also be allowed and considered classical music?


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> Interesting, so is each person playing a random section of music from random operas? Or is everyone playing the same fragment, or what? If you know anything more.


I'm pretty sure that the musicians and singers don't actually perform the same fragments _together_. It's more likely there would be multiple arias and excerpts performed in different ways simultaneously, even against old recordings from the early 20th century that are included.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> Saying that if an avant-garde piece/performance/whatever using a piano is allowed here, then a pure rock song should also be allowed and considered classical music?


I don't see an insult but a question.


----------



## Phil loves classical

shirime said:


> The name John Cage has popped up a couple of times in this thread, which is very cool because he certainly has an interesting relationship with the traditions of western (and non-western) music. So here's another musical example for discussion: John Cage's _Europeras_, of which there are five. Numbers 1 and 2 are particularly difficult to stage, requiring the full use of available resources in an opera theatre, so I guess they would be very impressive to watch. Here's a trailer for the second one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have recordings of 3, 4 and 5..........I wish there was some way I could view a complete performance of 1 and 2!
> 
> Here's what Wikipedia has to say about them.
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> For discussion: in what ways is this a reaction against the operatic repertoire or operatic tradition?
> In what ways could it be thought of as an _embrace_ of that tradition?
> Is it important for works like Cage's _Europeras_ to exist in order to see some kind of different, fresh or unusual perspective on or in addition to 'tradition'?


Here is some more info on this performance. I dug up. I can understand the concept behind 4'33", ASLSP, and Music of Changes, but this sounds to be an idea from a guy who ran out of ideas. Coming from a science background, I used to be suspicious of the Arts, but music of Bach, Beethoven, etc. made me appreciate the craft and logic behind music. But this type of shenanigan is exactly the type of thing that confirms the doubts of the skeptics, I believe. There is no real craft, logic, or order. The idea is completely uninteresting. If there were a few notes from a Barber of Seville aria that just happened to harmonize well with a Massenet opera, I'd considered myself lucky in the 135 minutes of it.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/10/arts/music-john-cage-s-first-opera-written-by-the-numbers.html


----------



## Guest

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is some more info on this performance. I dug up. I can understand the concept behind 4'33", ASLSP, and Music of Changes, but this sounds to be an idea from a guy who ran out of ideas. Coming from a science background, I used to be suspicious of the Arts, but music of Bach, Beethoven, etc. made me appreciate the craft and logic behind music. But this type of shenanigan is exactly the type of thing that confirms the doubts of the skeptics, I believe. There is no real craft, logic, or order. The idea is completely uninteresting. If there were a few notes from a Barber of Seville aria that just happened to harmonize well with a Massenet opera, I'd considered myself lucky in the 135 minutes of it.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/10/arts/music-john-cage-s-first-opera-written-by-the-numbers.html


Thanks for the article, I hadn't read that until now. 

But what does your response have to do with the questions in my post? I'm a little confused here.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> Saying that if an avant-garde piece/performance/whatever using a piano is allowed here, then a pure rock song should also be allowed and considered classical music?


It's not a insult but a question of definition.


----------



## Phil loves classical

shirime said:


> Thanks for the article, I hadn't read that until now.
> 
> But what does your response have to do with the questions in my post? I'm a little confused here.


Oh sorry, I was going on a rant and forgot about those. It is more against operatic tradition, as in the article I posted, he wanted to leave out the idea of the conductor, staged lighting effects, orchestral accompaniment, etc. and leave it all to chance, which I feel robs it of all drama, narrative, etc. that is so important to opera. I don't see this as an addition or different perspective to tradition, but just throwing in all in a blender sort of deal. My criticism is it is less than the sum of its parts to me.


----------



## Thomyum2

shirime said:


> The name John Cage has popped up a couple of times in this thread, which is very cool because he certainly has an interesting relationship with the traditions of western (and non-western) music. So here's another musical example for discussion: John Cage's _Europeras_, of which there are five....
> 
> For discussion: in what ways is this a reaction against the operatic repertoire or operatic tradition?
> In what ways could it be thought of as an _embrace_ of that tradition?
> Is it important for works like Cage's _Europeras_ to exist in order to see some kind of different, fresh or unusual perspective on or in addition to 'tradition'?


I think this is a really good example for discussion in light of what's been talked about here so far. I mentioned in a previous post that I believe all music exists in and moves along a spectrum between what is familiar and what is new to a listener's ear and this very much fits into that, with Cage drawing from on the tradition by using familiar operatic music as the building blocks, but then constructing a formula that effectively creates a new an unpredictable musical work each and every time the work is performed. So it clearly and intentionally contains elements of the tradition that are going to be recognized by audiences, but also contains a 'reaction' or deviation from tradition by creating rules that ensure that those elements will not occur in a sequence or combination that they ever have been in before (excepting the case, of course, where they might be memorialized in a recording - but maybe that's for another discussion).

So I think one of the things that people struggle with in a work such as this is that there is, by definition, no concrete or 'fixed' piece of music here (which also ties into our discussion about interpretation as the performer's rendition of a work vs. improvisation as the spontaneous composition of something new), so one asks how can we assess or evaluate this work if the composer has not really composed anything, but rather has just set up a framework for some sounds to 'happen'. But I think that is precisely Cage's point here - he is not trying to compose something that will remain the same in performance after performance and that will enter the 'canon' for future generations to associate his name with. Rather, he is trying to create a platform on which a musical experience can be generated precisely so it will always be new and different, which is something that can't happen if you 'set it in stone' or place it in overly strict boundaries of a fixed score. I think that is also what is behind 4'33" - Cage is ridiculed for the fact that he didn't 'compose' anything in this piece, and that is missing the point. He purposely did not compose anything because he was asking the audience to listen, not to what the composer had written, but to the sounds that occurred and the experience they might have during those very 4 minutes and 33 seconds during which that performance took place. In a sense, he's pointing out that we've become so used to the heroic image of a composer as a great artist that we can't get used to the idea of listening to find music outside of the composition itself. So what he's doing is not about Cage or about his music at all - it's about listening; at least that's how I understand it.

It's often mentioned in these threads what the 'purpose' of music is, or what music is 'meant to do', such as express emotions or beauty, or give enjoyment to an audience, and this is fair. Most of us do look to music for some degree of enjoyment, and I think for the majority of us, that involves a listening experience that is rich in what is familiar - especially in the world of opera, I'd say. If you've ever attended a performance at a major opera house and watched the audience, you'd see many people who even mouth the words and know their operas note for note from beginning to end, or are sitting on the edges of their seats with excitement and eagerness to hear something that is completely familiar and that they love and have likely heard countless times before. This is the kind of experience that most people really treasure and look for in music.

But at the same time, I'd also say that to assign a 'purpose' is also arbitrary. The 'purpose' of music is really whatever purpose anyone gives it or says it should be, and it is possible for music to mean different things to different people, or to fulfill different roles in different people's lives. And for some people who maybe aren't looking a predictable experience or one that reliably produces a particular feeling, an enjoyable or interesting musical experience could be one that takes the ear and the imagination to new and unpredictable places and provides an experience of the unplanned or unexpected. For such a listener, Cage's work might just fit the bill.


----------



## isorhythm

Thomyum2 said:


> So I think one of the things that people struggle with in a work such as this is that there is, by definition, no concrete or 'fixed' piece of music here (which also ties into our discussion about interpretation as the performer's rendition of a work vs. improvisation as the spontaneous composition of something new), so one asks how can we assess or evaluate this work if the composer has not really composed anything, but rather has just set up a framework for some sounds to 'happen'.


Is that one of the things people "struggle with"? If that were the case, they would similarly struggle with jazz, or improvised cadenzas, or Indian classical music, or something like Riley's _In C_. Do the same people, in fact, struggle with those things, for the same reasons?

I think the Cage piece you're referring to here is kinda neat, personally, but I don't think it has much in common with these other forms of improvisation, or that Cage's critics necessarily want their music "set in stone." Actually I think that comes across as a little condescending.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Look at the date of it though - 1987. It's almost like it's a fossilised work itself, and one for the 'high-art' set. By that time, the late 80s, there was a shift in popular music with these sorts of ideas being put out into actual widespread popular music culture by kids who'd been to art school and many who had not. Clever pastiches and cut-n-paste jobs rendered into new works. It's something still with us in the artwork 'remix' culture.

That alleged central aim of Cage's "to get people to _listen_" gets quickly stale for me. These days people call this approach 'mindfulness' and apply it not only to listening (and not specifically to "music"), but to attune oneself to all one's surroundings. It has its place, but it's only part of the story and can get tedious when repeatedly put forward as some kind of philosophy.

These multimedia approaches with a heavy employment of recycled base material are bound to come in for criticism unless they have some seriously original result and effect from the synthesis. A lot of quasi-philosophical, zen-like claims superimposed on them as interpreted _meanings _doesn't really cut it.

They may have music incorporated into them (recognised art-music even), but that doesn't make the result of the remix equally 'artistic'. Having Wagner on the radio in the background of a dull play doesn't make the play not dull. I realise there is a constant problem of running into the 'what is art' question, but I think we can at least have some idea or the word simply becomes meaningless rather than just _broad_.


----------



## Thomyum2

isorhythm said:


> Is that one of the things people "struggle with"? If that were the case, they would similarly struggle with jazz, or improvised cadenzas, or Indian classical music, or something like Riley's _In C_. Do the same people, in fact, struggle with those things, for the same reasons?
> 
> I think the Cage piece you're referring to here is kinda neat, personally, but I don't think it has much in common with these other forms of improvisation, or that Cage's critics necessarily want their music "set in stone." Actually I think that comes across as a little condescending.


My apologies if it comes across as condescending, as it certainly was not intended to be - poor choice of words on my part, and perhaps better to have said 'one of the things people don't enjoy' which is closer what I meant. (Actually the two are somewhat interchangeable in my own experience - when I hear music that I don't enjoy but other people do, I often say or think to myself that I'm struggling to understand what they enjoy in it. I rarely actively dislike music - more the case that I either enjoy it or simply fail to enjoy it.)

But your point about the difference between this and other improvised music is well taken and worth exploring here and it makes me think and ask, if these forms that you mention are also not set in stone - what is it that really distinguishes them all and what is the measure by which we evaluate them? Isn't it really that those forms you mention are derived from a performance tradition and stay within those boundaries which are, even though unwritten, still part of their own culture and history and have their own accepted guidelines? Whereas the Cage piece creates a platform for improvisation to occur that is completely free of any existing performance standard, and thereby generates a music that is more likely to sound random. An interesting question would be whether or not any pieces such as this would, over time, evolve a performance tradition of their own.


----------



## Thomyum2

eugeneonagain said:


> Look at the date of it though - 1987. It's almost like it's a fossilised work itself, and one for the 'high-art' set. By that time, the late 80s, there was a shift in popular music with these sorts of ideas being put out into actual widespread popular music culture by kids who'd been to art school and many who had not. Clever pastiches and cut-n-paste jobs rendered into new works. It's something still with us in the artwork 'remix' culture.
> 
> That alleged central aim of Cage's "to get people to _listen_" gets quickly stale for me. These days people call this approach 'mindfulness' and apply it not only to listening (and not specifically to "music"), but to attune oneself to all one's surroundings. It has its place, but it's only part of the story and can get tedious when repeatedly put forward as some kind of philosophy.
> 
> These multimedia approaches with a heavy employment of recycled base material are bound to come in for criticism unless they have some seriously original result and effect from the synthesis. A lot of quasi-philosophical, zen-like claims superimposed on them as interpreted _meanings _doesn't really cut it.
> 
> They may have music incorporated into them (recognised art-music even), but that doesn't make the result of the remix equally 'artistic'. Having Wagner on the radio in the background of a dull play doesn't make the play not dull. I realise there is a constant problem of running into the 'what is art' question, but I think we can at least have some idea or the word simply becomes meaningless rather than just _broad_.


Believe it or not, I actually agree with you on this, in spite of what I've said in my posts. I may have a split personality or something, but I love philosophy and find it fascinating to explore how the mind works and to try to understand how art is experienced and how we make aesthetic choices. So in that realm, I do enjoy experiencing these things and stimulating that part of my personality and brain.

On the other hand, I love listening to music too and am traditional in many ways, so in that part of my mind, I want to just hear the music and not have it cluttered with a lot of thought and analysis going on - just experience the beauty of the composition and the performance. So even though I explore experimental music when I want a thought-provoking experience, works such as this, in all honesty, rarely make it into my permanent collection of things that I will enjoy returning to time and again.

Like I said, I think there a role and purposes for many different kinds of music and creativity. I like to think and hope that the world is wide enough to encompass them all.


----------



## JAS

Thomyum2 said:


> Whereas the Cage piece creates a platform for improvisation to occur that is completely free of any existing performance standard, and thereby generates a music that is more likely to sound random. An interesting question would be whether or not any pieces such as this would, over time, evolve a performance tradition of their own.


. . . or evolves to find an audience of any significance. The trick with improvisation, as has already been suggested, is that it is rarely both entirely original and meaningfully good. I may admire the ability of a performer to improvise, but it is not especially a quality I seek out. I suspect that in music, as in comedy, a good deal of what appears to be improvisation is the spontaneous use of things fully or substantially already worked out, and simply applied in the moment. This was certainly true of Robin Williams and his mentor, Jonathan Winters. If you saw their acts more than a few times, large bits would seem very familiar. And a large part of what did seem new, often wasn't actually very clever or funny.


----------



## isorhythm

Thomyum2 said:


> But your point about the difference between this and other improvised music is well taken and worth exploring here and it makes me think and ask, if these forms that you mention are also not set in stone - what is it that really distinguishes them all and what is the measure by which we evaluate them? Isn't it really that those forms you mention are derived from a performance tradition and stay within those boundaries which are, even though unwritten, still part of their own culture and history and have their own accepted guidelines?


I don't think that's it, no. If that were the case, then a European exposed to, say, West African music for the first time would react to it essentially the same way as he or she reacts to a John Cage "happening" type piece. But that's not what happens.



Thomyum2 said:


> An interesting question would be whether or not any pieces such as this would, over time, evolve a performance tradition of their own.


I think the answer is clearly yes - there is a tradition of collage, graphical scores, aleatoric music of various kinds that is at this point nearly 70 years old. The Cage piece doesn't appear unusual to anyone familiar with that tradition.


----------



## Varick

Well, after the 2nd page, I decided to skip the rest and get right down to it:

This OP "piece" (I won't even use "piece of music") is the epitome of the nihilistic trend so prevalent in the arts today. If it rings your bell, I say rock on. Enjoy, but as someone(s) put it earlier in the thread, please don't delude yourself into thinking there is any "tradition" in this sort of thing.

V


----------



## KenOC

Varick said:


> ...f it rings your bell, I say rock on. Enjoy, but as someone(s) put it earlier in the thread, please don't delude yourself into thinking there is any "tradition" in this sort of thing.


Certainly the piece falls within a tradition, though not necessarily a good one. We know that from comments like J. F. Runciman's in 1896: "It is one's duty to hate with all possible fervor the empty and ugly in art; and I hate Saint-Saëns the composer with a hate that is perfect."

Well, his aim may have been a bit off, but the idea's there!


----------



## JAS

Runciman’s comment, while certainly amusing, seems to have been the exception, even in 1896.


----------



## Larkenfield

"For two hundred years the Europeans have been sending us their operas. Now I'm sending them back." -John Cage on _Europera_.

One can look in the vain for any quotes by Cage for or against tradition, or any reference to a performance history or tradition in doing any of this works. He never talked about it. One can read long articles on him where the word tradition is never used. He wasn't interested in the past. He was interested in pure sound. He wasn't trying to further opera or develop an opera according to any tradition. It's just a made-up, misapplied word that people want to use to put him in a little box themselves. If they read more about him and what he actually said about his own work, studied his life at the bare minimum, they would realize he probably would have wondered how anyone could have thought to confuse his intent with any kind of "tradition". Tradition is carrying the weight of the past along with you, and that's completely unnecessary when living in the moment, in the now, which he did and talked about. In the meantime, this is just another tired mischaracterization of a composer's work and the intent behind it. He never used the word. Try quoting him every now and and then rather than just superimposing a bunch of personal opinions over him without going to the source. His Zen philosophy was very central in understanding the spirit behind his work.



> Cage said "What I wanted to do was to have the programs such that if twelve people were sitting in a row each one would be looking at a different opera."
> 
> There is no conductor; performers are instead guided by large projections of a digital clock according to strict time intervals. Cage even went so far as to hand out two separate sets of librettos to the audience at the premiere, themselves culled from previous operatic works. [unquote] That's some continuance of "tradition".


----------



## JeffD

Thomyum2 said:


> So I think one of the things that people struggle with in a work such as this is that there is, by definition, no concrete or 'fixed' piece of music here (which also ties into our discussion about interpretation as the performer's rendition of a work vs. improvisation as the spontaneous composition of something new), so one asks how can we assess or evaluate this work if the composer has not really composed anything, but rather has just set up a framework for some sounds to 'happen'. ...
> 
> It's often mentioned in these threads what the 'purpose' of music is, or what music is 'meant to do', ...
> 
> I'd also say that to assign a 'purpose' is also arbitrary. The 'purpose' of music is really whatever purpose anyone gives it or says it should be, and it is possible for music to mean different things to different people, or to fulfill different roles in different people's lives. And for some people who maybe aren't looking a predictable experience or one that reliably produces a particular feeling, an enjoyable or interesting musical experience could be one that takes the ear and the imagination to new and unpredictable places and provides an experience of the unplanned or unexpected...


I submit my ridiculous example, Aurochses Coprolite, for this very reason. None of what you are saying here rules out my piece.

It is hard to understand descriptive statements that apply equally and accurately to acknowledged avant gard music, and also to ... my piece of nothing at all.

If anything is music, then nothing is music. If something cannot be distinguished from nothing in some meaningful way, well I think we have a problem.


----------



## JeffD

Thomyum 2 I need you to know i am not picking on you, just using your recent post as a handy example. 

Its not that the emperor is naked, its that our discussions don't seem to distinguish the case of naked from any other case.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Certainly the piece falls within a tradition, though not necessarily a good one. We know that from comments like J. F. Runciman's in 1896: "It is one's duty to hate with all possible fervor the empty and ugly in art; and I hate Saint-Saëns the composer with a hate that is perfect."
> 
> Well, his aim may have been a bit off, but the idea's there!


Runciman? And in what way is he qualified to comment? I mean, he is as entitled to his view as we all are, but we might pay some attention if he were a Grove or a Tovey. According to Wiki, this journalist:



> his best literary work described the life of the fishermen of the North Sea


----------



## eugeneonagain

Well everyone is a critic of everything now. It's everyone's second job since the internet took off. Artists, the ones generating discussions like these anyway, seem to excel best at producing criticism with the name 'art'. Making statements and 'challenging' things. That's what cutting-edge art was always aiming for, but somewhere along the line they seem to have kept the criticism and lost the artefact.


----------



## JAS

For too many people, if it isn't controversial, it doesn't really exist.


----------



## aleazk

JAS said:


> For too many people, if it isn't controversial, it doesn't really exist.


For me, the problem with this music is not that it is controversial, is that it doesn't exist!


----------



## JAS

aleazk said:


> For me, the problem with this music is not that it is controversial, is that it doesn't exist!


If someone insists that something exists when it doesn't, that seems like a controversial position to me. (Which side of the controversy is right is a different matter, but it is certainly a controversy.)


----------



## Thomyum2

JeffD said:


> Thomyum 2 I need you to know i am not picking on you, just using your recent post as a handy example.
> 
> Its not that the emperor is naked, its that our discussions don't seem to distinguish the case of naked from any other case.


I did not take it as being picked on at all, but thank you for saying so anyway.  I am not trying to defend or prove anything really, but just enjoy following the discussion, sharing my thoughts and getting the feedback - I appreciate your keeping the spirit of the conversation going.



JeffD said:


> If anything is music, then nothing is music. If something cannot be distinguished from nothing in some meaningful way, well I think we have a problem.


I agree, I think we do have a problem (or maybe rather a 'puzzle'?) and one that has not been solved, and we aren't likely to solve it here - if I'm not mistaken, we've been trying to pin down a consensus on the definition of music, and all art for that matter, for at least a hundred years.

But I would just offer here that I'm not saying that anything _is_ music, but that anything _can be _music. As I've posted here and there in the past, I see music in many ways like a language, like a conversation. It becomes what it is by the way we use it, not by the elements that make it up. So just as a sound could become a word and thus become meaningful, that doesn't have to imply that all sounds are always intelligible conversation.


----------



## aleazk

Thomyum2 said:


> I agree, I think we do have a problem (or maybe rather a 'puzzle'?) and one that has not been solved, and we aren't likely to solve it here - if I'm not mistaken, we've been trying to pin down a consensus on the definition of music, and all art for that matter, for at least a hundred years.
> 
> But I would just offer here that I'm not saying that anything _is_ music, but that anything _can be _music. As I've posted here and there in the past, I see music in many ways like a language, like a conversation. It becomes what it is by the way we use it, not by the elements that make it up. So just as a sound could become a word and thus become meaningful, that doesn't have to imply that all sounds are always intelligible conversation.


Personally, the lesson I take from Cage (and also from the musique concrète school of Schaeffer and Henry, the electronic sounds of Stockhausen, and the orchestral effects of Lachenmann) is that one can _use_ to_ do _music pretty much anything and any type of sound. That is, the way one produces the sounds used to make music is free. But I think whatever one does with them must have some elaboration, so, in that sense, I side more with Stockhausen on this and his carefully thought out, in their structure, pieces. For example, in the past I composed a couple of electronic musique concrète pieces, and I used as sound sources quite a lot of ambient sounds and lots of other things. But for me that was only the beginning of the composition process. For the piece I tried to do some actual polyphony with that, with some global structure and changing sections and textures. I would never try to present the bare sounds and claim that that was the finished work. I'm not really interested in that, and it also has been done too many times.

Sure, call me 'conservative', but I consider that what I was doing, instead, was following a path that proved not to be a dead end, as I mentioned in a previous post here.


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> If anything is music, then nothing is music. If something cannot be distinguished from nothing in some meaningful way, well I think we have a problem.


That "meaningful way" is the fact that something like the OP work, or 4'33", is presented as art. Even if it's without pre-determined sounds, as 4'33" is, the piece still consists of sounds which are to be heard during that particular performance, and has a substantial conceptual message, although it is not stated explicitly.
The OP work is closely-miked, to pick up any incidental sound, so it's not entirely accurate to say it is "empty" as in devoid of sound. Plus, with its detailed score, it has a substantial conceptual content which is directly related to music.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> That "meaningful way" is the fact that something like the OP work, or 4'33", is presented as art. Even if it's without pre-determined sounds, as 4'33" is, the piece still consists of sounds which are to be heard during that particular performance, and has a substantial conceptual message, although it is not stated explicitly.
> The OP work is closely-miked, to pick up any incidental sound, so it's not entirely accurate to say it is "empty" as in devoid of sound. Plus, with its detailed score, it has a substantial conceptual content which is directly related to music.


I never thought I'd see the day when such limited alleged 'creations' would be imbued with this much -or any, for that matter- importance in a classical music setting. I would be embarrassed if the 'work' I was becoming most famous for involved no more than the skill of a new-born babe. Besides, 4'33" is no great new concept; it's known as mindfulness.

As for the other OP 'work', if it was played in a concert setting, the Steinway technician would be called in to fix the keys. The audience would be wondering what they paid for. The pdf is a contrivance: if I wear important looking clothes, I must be important.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> I never thought I'd see the day when such limited alleged 'creations' would be imbued with this much -or any, for that matter- importance in a classical music setting. I would be embarrassed if the 'work' I was becoming most famous for involved no more than the skill of a new-born babe. Besides, 4'33" is no great new concept; it's known as mindfulness.
> 
> As for the other OP 'work', if it was played in a concert setting, the Steinway technician would be called in to fix the keys. The audience would be wondering what they paid for. The pdf is a contrivance: if I wear important looking clothes, I must be important.


I mentioned the mindfulness thing a couple of pages back, but I don't think I can go as far as you want to in dismissing him. I don't think Cage was a fraud at all. I don't think many people in the Western world were concerned with 'mindfulness' in any sense at the time Cage was coming to the fore. I think he played his necessary role and added more to the art world than you're perhaps willing to give him credit for. For me he just ran out of ideas, or at least ones that had the same impact.


----------



## JeffD

For clarification, I don't think Cage, or any of the above mentioned, are frauds, in the sense of trying to get away with something.

In my ridiculous example I was a fraud, admittedly.

This is precisely one of the problems. It is not just difficult to distinguish and identify a fraud, it is impossible even in principle. 

There is a fair amount of deep and uncomfortable philosophy just beneath the surface of this and I DO NOT want to go there as it is a severe derailment from which there is no recovery and no benefit except to those who like to watch a train crash.

My main point, really, is that the answers are not easy, or trivial, and that not knowing the answers is not merely a matter of being stupid, or inexperienced, or under-educated. Those of you who "get it" are not in any way superior to those that don't, and any claim to superior taste or breeding is laughable. 

Truth is, being that I am reasonably educated, and have made considerable money in a profession that requires expert communication, I have to think that someone who "gets it" is either unable to explain "it" to me, or is innocently deluded, or worse, a fraud. Being charitable, I go with the first explanation. 

I do not believe the second or third explanation.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> it has a substantial conceptual content which is directly related to music.


It has substantial content, deliberate content, but is it conceptual content? Does the content have an intended meaning?

I just don't think the existence of a microphone is enough to make the sounds music. Related to music? Well perhaps that is an interesting path to go down. Its not music, its meta-music. Maybe.

I would go as far, perhaps, as saying it is performance art designed to make us think about what is music and where we are comfortable drawing the lines.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> That "meaningful way" is the fact that something like the OP work, or 4'33", is presented as art.


Everything that is presented as art, is art?

Can you identify one case where something presented as art really isn't art? And can you then tell how to distinguish what is not art, though deliberately presented as such, from art.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> I never thought I'd see the day when such limited alleged 'creations' would be imbued with this much -or any, for that matter- importance in a classical music setting. I would be embarrassed if the 'work' I was becoming most famous for involved no more than the skill of a new-born babe. Besides, 4'33" is no great new concept; it's known as mindfulness.
> 
> As for the other OP 'work', if it was played in a concert setting, the Steinway technician would be called in to fix the keys. The audience would be wondering what they paid for. The pdf is a contrivance: if I wear important looking clothes, I must be important.


I don't think these observations are worth commenting on.


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> Everything that is presented as art, is art?
> 
> Can you identify one case where something presented as art really isn't art? And can you then tell how to distinguish what is not art, though deliberately presented as such, from art.


I don't want to comment on your feelings. That's off-topic.


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> It has substantial content, deliberate content, but is it conceptual content? Does the content have an intended meaning?
> 
> I just don't think the existence of a microphone is enough to make the sounds music. Related to music? Well perhaps that is an interesting path to go down. Its not music, its meta-music. Maybe.
> 
> I would go as far, perhaps, as saying it is performance art designed to make us think about what is music and where we are comfortable drawing the lines.


I was commenting on the work, because I've already accepted it as a 'given.' I don't want to question the validity.


----------



## DaveM

What probably concerns me most about the OP ‘work’ is that if it is given attention as a serious work (as for example, it seems to be by some on this forum) it will become yet another benchmark of what is minimally sufficient to be called a classical ccomposition and the creator, a composer. 

Being a classical music composer is a long revered honorable profession requiring tremendous skill, God-given talent and a lot of work. It seems that a lot of people are calling themselves a composer where the skill, the talent and the work aren’t evident or, at least, not proven yet. I have composed a piece or two; that doesn’t make me a composer. And even if I had composed a significant number of works, if they were of little or no interest to an audience or anyone else, that still wouldn’t make me a composer; it would make me someone who dabbled in it and failed.


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> For clarification, I don't think Cage, or any of the above mentioned, are frauds, in the sense of trying to get away with something.


That goes without saying, from looking in almost any music history book.



JeffD said:


> In my ridiculous example I was a fraud, admittedly.
> 
> This is precisely one of the problems. It is not just difficult to distinguish and identify a fraud, it is impossible even in principle.
> 
> There is a fair amount of deep and uncomfortable philosophy just beneath the surface of this and I DO NOT want to go there as it is a severe derailment from which there is no recovery and no benefit except to those who like to watch a train crash.


Concept art does not produce that effect in me.



JeffD said:


> My main point, really, is that the answers are not easy, or trivial, and that not knowing the answers is not merely a matter of being stupid, or inexperienced, or under-educated. Those of you who "get it" are not in any way superior to those that don't, and any claim to superior taste or breeding is laughable.


I think that 'not knowing the answers' is partly due to being uninformed, but largely a matter of acceptance.



JeffD said:


> Truth is, being that I am reasonably educated, and have made considerable money in a profession that requires expert communication, I have to think that someone who "gets it" is either unable to explain "it" to me, or is innocently deluded, or worse, a fraud. Being charitable, I go with the first explanation. I do not believe the second or third explanation.


I think these are your own feelings on the matter, and they have nothing to do with explanations, delusions, or frauds in the work.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I mentioned the mindfulness thing a couple of pages back, but I don't think I can go as far as you want to in dismissing him. I don't think Cage was a fraud at all. I don't think many people in the Western world were concerned with 'mindfulness' in any sense at the time Cage was coming to the fore. I think he played his necessary role and added more to the art world than you're perhaps willing to give him credit for. For me he just ran out of ideas, or at least ones that had the same impact.


That's mighty generous of you. My opinion of Cage just went up.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> That's mighty generous of you. My opinion of Cage just went up.


I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone).


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I don't want to comment on your feelings. That's off-topic.


JeffD asked: "Everything that is presented as art, is art?

Can you identify one case where something presented as art really isn't art? And can you then tell how to distinguish what is not art, though deliberately presented as such, from art."

He didn't report his feelings. He asked questions about the nature of art. Can you answer his questions?


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone).


I decided to comment anyway.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> JeffD asked: "Everything that is presented as art, is art?
> 
> Can you identify one case where something presented as art really isn't art? And can you then tell how to distinguish what is not art, though deliberately presented as such, from art."
> 
> He didn't report his feelings. He asked questions about the nature of art. Can you answer his questions?










Originally Posted by *DaveM* 
_I never thought I'd see the day when such limited alleged 'creations' would be imbued with this much -or any, for that matter- importance in a classical music setting. I would be embarrassed if the 'work' I was becoming most famous for involved no more than the skill of a new-born babe. Besides, 4'33" is no great new concept...

_If someone wants to question the validity of art which is resented for discussion, I feel that's a deal-breaker. To question the validity of such art in general is off-topic.









Originally Posted by *JeffD* 
_Truth is, being that I am reasonably educated, and have made considerable money in a profession that requires expert communication, I have to think that someone who "gets it" is either unable to explain "it" to me, or is innocently deluded, or worse, a fraud. Being charitable, I go with the first explanation. I do not believe the second or third explanation._

Although I admire his restraint, the content of JeffD's other posts indicate his reticence about the work being discussed, and conceptual art in general. These are are subjective opinions and decisions to engage (or not) which I won't argue with. These are his own feelings and decisions on the matter, and they have nothing to do with validating or negating the work in an objective sense, since it's up to each individual to decide these things for themselves.

I've already accepted the idea of conceptual art, and have accepted such presentations of conceptual art as 'givens' and have chosen to engage in them seriously and intelligently. It's not my job to justify or question their validity for anyone else.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> If someone wants to question the validity of art which is presented for discussion, I feel that's a deal-breaker. To question the validity of such art in general is off-topic.
> 
> Although I admire his restraint, the content of JeffD's other posts indicate his reticence about the work being discussed, and conceptual art in general. These are are subjective opinions and decisions to engage (or not) which I won't argue with. These are his own feelings and decisions on the matter, and they have nothing to do with validating or negating the work in an objective sense, since it's up to each individual to decide these things for themselves.
> 
> I've already accepted the idea of conceptual art, and have accepted such presentations of conceptual art as 'givens' and have chosen to engage in them seriously and intelligently. It's not my job to justify or question their validity for anyone else.


JeffD's comments and questions are not "reticent," but frank and clear. Nor are they "subjective opinions and decisions to engage (or not)" or "his own feelings and decisions on the matter, [which] have nothing to do with validating or negating the work in an objective sense." JeffD has in fact offered concise, precise, _objective_ challenges to some basic premises underlying the distinctly subjective theories and interpretations which prevail here, and which you're apparently holding up as "objective" orthodoxies not legitimately open to question. Comments such as the following are certainly both sensible and germane to a thread in which rather grandiose - and highly subjective - claims are made for some questionable art productions:

"Everything that is presented as art, is art? Can you identify one case where something presented as art really isn't art? And can you then tell how to distinguish what is not art, though deliberately presented as such, from art."

"If anything is music, then nothing is music. If something cannot be distinguished from nothing in some meaningful way, well I think we have a problem. It is not just difficult to distinguish and identify a fraud, it is impossible even in principle."

"It has substantial content, deliberate content, but is it conceptual content? Does the content have an intended meaning?"

Calling such comments "subjective" and "off topic," and saying that it isn't your "job" to justify the validity of conceptual art, or anything else under discussion here, are just putdowns. Nobody has a "job" here. If there are things you don't want to talk about, fine. But others are well within their rights to talk about them.

"Conceptual art" is generally defined as "art in which the idea (or concept) behind the work is more important than the finished art object" (to which should be added, "if there even _is_ an art object"). To pretend that this doesn't raise large philosophical questions is to emulate the proverbial ostrich. I admire JeffD's straightforward, concise way of raising them, and I admire even more his superb little artwork, "Aurochses Coprolite." Experimental/avant-garde music is the most informed of tradition. (post #293) It is "conceptual" in the most admirable way: one can tell what the underlying concept is without having to read an explanatory note or caption - although, paradoxically, one will have to have read explanations of modern art of various sorts to appreciate that "Aurochses" is an "homage" to the "grand tradition."


----------



## JeffD

duplicate post not needed


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> I've already accepted the idea of conceptual art, and have accepted such presentations of conceptual art as 'givens' and have chosen to engage in them seriously and intelligently. It's not my job to justify or question their validity for anyone else.


Certainly not your job to justify or question their validity, but I think you have voluntarily taken up the task (if not the job) to explain their validity. If I am mistaken, then what is this all about? What in the heck are we doing, if we are not trying to explain and to understand?


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> I think that 'not knowing the answers' is partly due to being uninformed, but largely a matter of acceptance..


Starting to get very zen.

Or maybe very Christian, acceptance through faith not requiring understanding "lest any man should boast".


----------



## KenOC

JeffD said:


> Starting to get very zen.


Raises right hand, strikes questioner resoundingly across face. "_That's_ the sound of one hand clapping!"


----------



## JeffD

To understand one must stand under.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> and they have nothing to do with validating or negating the work in an objective sense,* since it's up to each individual to decide these things for themselves.*


Emphasis added.

If it is up to each individual to decide these things for themselves, and then that each person's decision equally valid, then one cannot negate the work in the objective sense as there is no objective sense. In which case discussion, much less argument, is made impossible.

This is the stuff that swerves into the philosophical, and not easy philosophy by any means. Wittgenstein's thoughts on private language for example.

But it is kind of nice, at last to find something here on TC that we can't, even in principle, argue about.


----------



## KenOC

JeffD said:


> If it is up to each individual to decide these things for themselves, and then that each person's decision equally valid...


Is that so? I'm reminded of Saint-Saens arguing with a student over whether a work was worthy. The student, throwing up his hands, says, "Anyway, it's all a matter of taste." Saint-Saens replies, "Yes. Good or bad."


----------



## janxharris

Why is a score needed for Sdraulig's 'Collector'? 

Anyone?


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> If someone wants to question the validity of art which is resented for discussion, I feel that's a deal-breaker. To question the validity of such art in general is off-topic.


By all means PM shirime and check what he was looking for as a response to his OP. I'd bet that he is very happy for others to question the validity of the work he had posted. In fact, I've noticed shirime has a high level of tolerance of derision too (though he might prefer that he himself is not subject to derision, and I wouldn't wish to encourage it).


----------



## janxharris

This from the score:

Edit: It's copyright - of course.......


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> Why is a score needed for Sdraulig's 'Collector'?
> 
> Anyone?


My guess would be that the keys are supposed to be pressed in a particular sequence and with a particular sense of timing, although because the result of the technique is mostly silence the point of either requirement is mostly irrelevant. Thus, I can only conclude that the purpose of a score in this case is chiefly to sustain the illusion that the stunt has some connection to music.


----------



## JAS

KenOC said:


> Is that so? I'm reminded of Saint-Saens arguing with a student over whether a work was worthy. The student, throwing up his hands, says, "Anyway, it's all a matter of taste." Saint-Saens replies, "Yes. Good or bad."


What is the alternative to the idea that each person gets to make up his or her own mind about the relative worth of a piece of music? Are we recommending enforced listening? Would we support mandatory appreciation of art designated by committee? Both ideas seem to me to be worthy of nothing but scorn (but perhaps that is because I am one of those who thinks that each person gets to make up his or her own mind and have his or her own ideas).


----------



## janxharris

JAS said:


> My guess would be that the keys are supposed to be pressed in a particular sequence and with a particular sense of timing, although because the result of the technique is mostly silence the point of either requirement is mostly irrelevant. Thus, I can only conclude that the purpose of a score in this case is chiefly to sustain the illusion that the stunt has some connection to music.


Which contrasts starkly with the import of the traditional score.


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> Which contrast starkly with the import of the traditional score.


Yes, but it is precisely the import of the traditional score that is being used to create the appearance desired by the "composer." (I really don't think that you and I are in any serious disagreement about this piece, or score.)

An actor portraying a doctor on TV or in a movie should never be allowed to perform surgery on an actual patient, but he or she will wear the white coat, carry a stethoscope and repeat the dialogue provided, laden with medical jargon. It is all part of the illusion.


----------



## aleazk

Those trying to point out that this is not music because of improvisatory elements or something in the score miss the point and are also wrong. Those elememts are quite common in the 20th century, and even earlier, and have been accepted as valid by the art music circle. The opposite view only shows a conservative position or a partial knowledge of music history.

To me, the reason this is not music is much more basic: it's mostly silence and where there are sounds, they are trivial. All of the 'power', if we concede to give any of it to this 'piece', comes from the conceptual part, as even its defenders have said in this thread. Thus, it's conceptual art, not music.


----------



## JAS

aleazk said:


> Those trying to point out that this is not music because of improvisatory elements or something in the score miss the point and are also wrong. Those elememts are quite common in the 20th century, and even earlier, and have been accepted as valid by the art music circle. The opposite view only shows a conservative position or a partial knowledge of music history.


Has anyone actually taken this position? (I may have missed it, but I would agree with you that it would not be the grounds for a good argument.)



aleazk said:


> To me, the reason this is not music is much more basic: it's mostly silence and where there are sounds, they are trivial. All of the 'power', if we concede to give any of it to this 'piece', comes from the conceptual part, as even its defenders have said in this thread. Thus, it's conceptual art, not music.


Yes, I think that is the point that most people not supporting the idea that it is music have taken.


----------



## Guest

Personally, I take a _very_ similar position to aleazk. But I would probably say it's something a little more like 'conceptual _music_' due to the specific concept being presented (a concept that comes from ideas about music, the interpretation and performance of sound).


----------



## JAS

shirime said:


> Personally, I take a _very_ similar position to aleazk. But I would probably say it's something a little more like 'conceptual _music_' due to the specific concept being presented (a concept that comes from ideas about music, the interpretation and performance of sound).


But the word "music" is precisely the point of contention.


----------



## aleazk

JAS said:


> Has anyone actually taken this position? (I may have missed it, but I would agree with you that it would not be the grounds for a good argument.)
> 
> Yes, I think that is the point that most people not supporting the idea that it is music have taken.


Okay, semantic crusader, I'm tired of this. Bye bye.


----------



## aleazk

shirime said:


> Personally, I take a _very_ similar position to aleazk. But I would probably say it's something a little more like 'conceptual _music_' due to the specific concept being presented (a concept that comes from ideas about music, the interpretation and performance of sound).


Conceptual art _inspired_ by music.


----------



## JAS

Wow. Now even basic agreement is seen as confrontational. It is a strange world, this Internet. (If _this_ is semantics, I recommend never reading Wittgenstein, nor any serious philosophy. You won't like it, not one little bit.)


----------



## Fredx2098

I would say that music is art made with sound. Simple, with no positive connotation. There's a difference between "art" and "good art" and also "popular art".


----------



## JAS

Fredx2098 said:


> I would say that music is art made with sound.


There must presumably be _some _further refinement required or speech would be music, or do you mean to extend the definition that broadly? (Eschewing the connotation strikes me as a defensible choice, although not everyone is likely to agree.)


----------



## aleazk

Fredx2098 said:


> I would say that music is art made with sound. Simple, with no positive connotation. There's a difference between "art" and "good art" and also "popular art".


And I say that to be art those sounds being 'manipulated in artful' ways must display some evident elaboration to be considered art and therefore music, as per your definition. In this example, most of the art seems to be an art of concepts rather than one of sounds.

Look at it in this way. We all agree that a Beethoven sonata is music. And we all agree that pure silence (without the sound of the public, or any sound, we are in outer space, just silence) is not music. Thus, the fact that those extremes exist means that there must be some boundary in the middle at some point. Of course, where exactly that boundary is has a lot of convention and artists like to break those conventions, and therefore to push the boundary. If we renounce to that boundary and proclaim that any manipulation of sounds is music is akin to simply state that the no-music extreme doesn't exist. But that would entail to proclaim that pure silence is music, something that not even Cage did (his famous 4'33'' is about ambient sounds in the concert hall, not about silence).


----------



## Fredx2098

JAS said:


> There must presumably be _some _further refinement required or speech would be music, or do you mean to extend the definition that broadly? (Eschewing the connotation strikes me as a defensible choice, although not everyone is likely to agree.)


If the focus is on the sound rather than the words (which would make it a speech, poetry, a play, etc.) then I'd call it music, not necessarily music I would enjoy. I do enjoy Robert Ashley's music which focuses on spoken word (as sound I think, because it seems like random babbling, though sometimes it's interesting) with instruments playing in the background.


----------



## Fredx2098

aleazk said:


> And I say that to be art those sounds being 'manipulated in artful' ways must display some evident elaboration to be considered art and therefore music, as per your definition. In this example, most of the art seems to be an art of concepts rather than one of sounds.
> 
> Look at it in this way. We all agree that a Beethoven sonata is music. And we all agree that pure silence (without the sound of the public, or any sound, we are in outer space, just silence) is not music. Thus, the fact that those extremes exist means that there must be some boundary in the middle at some point. Of course, where exactly that boundary is has a lot of convention and artists like to break those conventions, and therefore to push the boundary. If we renounce to that boundary and proclaim that any manipulation of sounds is music is akin to simply state that the no-music extreme doesn't exist. But that would entail to proclaim that pure silence is music, something that not even Cage did (his famous 4'33'' is about ambient sounds in the concert hall, not about silence).


The words "made with sound" would be key there. An artist can't make silence, and silence is something specifically without sound. Art in general I would define as a physical manifestation of ideas. A lack of physicality and lack of ideas would make something not-art to me.


----------



## JAS

Fredx2098 said:


> The words "made with sound" would be key there. An artist can't make silence, and silence is something specifically without sound. Art in general I would define as a physical manifestation of ideas. A lack of physicality and lack of ideas would make something not-art to me.


. . . an artist in a musical sense (as there are, of course, artists in a purely visual context who will insist on using that term for themselves).


----------



## aleazk

Fredx2098 said:


> The words "made with sound" would be key there. An artist can't make silence, and silence is something specifically without sound. Art in general I would define as a physical manifestation of ideas. A lack of physicality and lack of ideas would make something not-art to me.


Okay, then any sound that an artist proclaims is music would be music? Then I refer you to my previous post about dead ends if you want to put the boundary there.


----------



## Fredx2098

aleazk said:


> Okay, then any sound that an artist proclaims is music would be music? Then I refer you to my previous post about dead ends if you want to put the boundary there.


Yes, the way I see it. It doesn't mean I like it. I have more criteria for art/music that interests me, but I don't think that defines art.


----------



## Fredx2098

JAS said:


> . . . an artist in a musical sense (as there are, of course, artists in a purely visual context who will insist on using that term for themselves).


An analogy for visual art would be someone claiming that a random volume of air is their sculpture. I wouldn't consider that to be art.


----------



## JAS

Fredx2098 said:


> An analogy for visual art would be someone claiming that a random volume of air is their sculpture. I wouldn't consider that to be art.


I am betting that if that hasn't already been done, someone will shortly steal that idea from you (although it won't be me).

Edit: This may be pretty close: http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/empty-art-gallery-shows.html


----------



## wandelweisering

*Experimental tradition*

OP, thank you for bringing to attention that Charlie Sdraulig piece. The reactions to it on this thread remind me that, sadly, the rich lineages of experimental music pass, even on this forum, mostly unfamiliar to those who are adamant about the lack of importance (or "musicality") of experimental music... I am surprised that someone on the first pages mentioned Onkyo music, and I am not surprised that people seem to think there's nearly nothing in between Cage and Sdraulig.





[A 2009 performance of Alvin Lucier's "Music for Solo Performer" (1965).]

There is an independent group of composers, players and improvisers, a group that has been active for the last 20-25 years and has a small but loyal following, it's called Wandelweiser... (And, as you can tell from my username here, I admit being rather infatuated with it, although not all of my musical preferences point in the same direction; in other words, not everything I listen to is necessarily quiet and/or "conceptual", and, of course, I am not always in the right state of mind for Wandelweiser stuff.)





[Michael Pisaro's "A Mist is a Collection of Points" (2014), with score.]

Some people dismiss them for being so deeply rooted in Cage's music that they explore all his "dead ends" with no fear of being perceived as repetitive or sterile (I will address that a bit later in the post). Personally, as someone who enjoyed a lot of (but, I admit, not all) Cage recordings, I don't mind that, even though what they do is not necessarily, or not always, an expansion of Cage's body of work. (Their works were really sparse around 2000, but became more complex in some ways in the last 10-15 years, and they evolved so much that the "Wandelweiser und so weiter" 6-CD compilation released in 2012 bears few resemblances to the extremely reductionist recordings of just 10 years ago.)

What I wanted to point out is that these people have a profound connection with Cage and the rest of the New York School by way of Christian Wolff, and I guess one could qualify that as a tradition of sorts. Actually, it might be more correct to single out Alvin Lucier, David Behrman or Robert Ashley as being "traditionally experimental", while the newer generation of Wandelweiser (who have been active since the '90s) engage more conservatively with the "tradition of experiments" and, yes, also with the Western tradition up until Debussy and Satie, less so with the serialists or even the minimalists (although the composer Tom Johnson was also published on the label of the group, Edition Wandelweiser Records).

Another thing I want to say to you, who tend to complain about modern/contemporary composers who get funded by taxpayer money (idea which I find rather appalling, because my country - Romania - had a burgeoning school of spectralist composers that was supported by the communist regime, and now there is little interest in supporting anything that does not bring immediate profits), is that the Wandelweiser group is financially independent. Don't remember exactly where, but I am almost sure I read that Antoine Beuger worked in a bank or something like that and that is how they have financial stability in their small-scale endeavors -- even their music itself is meant less for concert halls and more for "white-cube" art galleries, empty halls or mundane apartments. These are the spaces in which they played most often, and if at first they often played their own compositions in between themselves and very few other peers, now there are more and more players from outside who are committed to playing their compositions, even people who don't live in Europe or NA, like Cristián Alvear.





[Antoine Beuger's "memory waves", played by a large ensemble of people from and close to Wandelweiser. Their Vimeo channel has lots of stuff one can't find elsewhere.]

As far as I know, most of them (with the occasional exception of Jürg Frey or of Michael Pisaro) don't get featured on academic circuits, they didn't have much visibility outside like-minded circles until recently (there was a recent article on them in the New York Times, and most of them - Beuger, Frey, Pisaro, Radu Malfatti, Eva-Maria Houben, Kunsu Shim, Stefan Thut, Burkhard Schlothauer, Taylan Susam, Marcus Kaiser and Manfred Werder - were discussed by Jennie Gottschalk in Experimental Music Since 1970). The difference that mattered is that they interacted and mingled a lot with the improvised music scene, and that is how they became popular on the small online forum "I Hate Music" (run by the owner of the Erstwhile label, Jon Abbey), and from there some of the fanbase spread on other sites, like the "Rate Your Music" community (that is where I found out about them, from people who were more into ambient/drone music or noise than into classical music; as of recently, Wandelweiser music is lumped in there with Onkyo as part of a larger category, "Reductionism", instead of tagged as "lowercase", a misnomer that was widely spread).

Now there may be a word to say about the all-too-coherent "white pseudo-zen" aesthetic that forms the face of Wandelweiser, but, as an outsider, I find rather too aggresive the "critical" article that Branford Bailey (an otherwise interesting blogger, I only know he's an insider who was a regular Cafe Oto attender, by the name I suspect he might be part of Derek Bailey's family, and I recall there was a confllict between Derek Bailey and the younger Taku Sugimoto) puts forth regarding Wandelweiser...





[extract from Eva-Maria Houben's "von da nach da", played by Angharad Davies (violin), Phil Durrant (electronics) and Lee Patterson (amplified objects) for the box set "Wandelweiser und so weiter".]

Not only I fail to see where is the nasty straight-white-male orthodoxy (as an aside, I also don't understand why he calls Cage "homophobic" in this and another one of his blog entries) upheld by the people in Wandelweiser, I am also not convinced by his narrative that they are perpetuating Cage's fear of losing control or, what seems to be suggested, enforcing a kind of academic monopoly over "experimental music" and its definition, and it seems to me that only a few of them (like, most notably perhaps, Malfatti) really "frame themselves as a vanguard of experimental music".

While Wandelweiser might indeed have been at least a little more democratic (as arguably affordable as they are, their sheets might be considered overpriced compared to how many notes some of them contain; as for Beuger's composer mentoring fees, I am not privileged enough to consider them reasonable, but whoever affords nowadays to compose such music instead of working until they drop might not find it so bad...), I can't say they have a highly academic mentality (their recordings are commercial, yet they also have that interesting thing called "radio wandelweiser", and snippets or full-length pieces are streamable too), and the "high art" sheen (which is a very European thing; I heard though Pisaro, although professor himself too, is very friendly and unconventional in his teaching approaches) is an inevitable outcome of their stylistic approaches; however, how could one say something like Craig Shepard's "On Foot" project has nothing to do with "everything life"? It might be an exception, but not the only one.





[five minute excerpt of video used in Beth O'Brien and Craig Shepard's 45 minute "On Foot: Brooklyn" performance; the composition is named "Canarsie, March 4, 2012".]

Also, I'm not the "anti-political correctness", "anti-SJW" type, rather the contrary, but even so I was appalled by the confrontational tone along the lines of "if you don't try to smash the hierarchy like those who strayed from Cage's orthodoxy, then you're supporting the hierarchy". I get it that Bradford Bailey is nostalgic for the highly political movements of old free jazz, but he's looking the wrong way if he is demanding revolutionary politics from a bunch of people who came together, with or without a fair share of self-interest too, out of an interest in sound and silence and their phenomenology...

Anyway, for those of you who are curious to read more, besides Pisaro's famous description of the movement and other texts which were collected by Jennie Gottschalk in her Wandelweiser resource guide on Sound Expanse, there is - if you are interested specifically in Beuger - James Saunder's interview with Antoine Beuger, apparently also included in The Ashgate Research Companion to Experimental Music... Alex Ross also has further recommendations for those getting into their music, and it might also be helpful to read most if not all reviews by Brian Olewnick and Richard Pinnell to understand better why and how this music appeals to those who find it appealing...

...For that it may also help having "grassroots" conversations. Me and most of my friends who follow Wandelweiser happen to be on the autistic spectrum, so we sometimes use, partly serious and partly as an inside joke, the term "Autistic Romanticism", I think sometime after we heard Pisaro's The Middle of Life (Die Ganze Zeit), which is quite soft and, even literally, poetic. (I am supposedly too young to enjoy it, but somehow I do!)

A good example can also be heard in the first excerpt from this teaser of


----------



## eugeneonagain

All the same arguments already tackled in this thread apply positively or negatively to the videos you have posted above.

It's performance art, particular the first: music for solo performer. No-one is 'performing' any music. You can go round the houses asking 'but what is performance really?' and I would say that is being obtuse. If it were true I could _perform_ a triple back somersault and really ought to be an Olympic gymnastic with several medals.

I've heard better musique concret coming from the old BBC Radiophonic Workshop as throwaway radio jingles. Those people just drew low-level BBC salaries and didn't put the word 'artist' on their calling cards.


----------



## licorice stick

wandelweisering said:


> Me and most of my friends who follow Wandelweiser happen to be on the autistic spectrum, so we sometimes use, partly serious and partly as an inside joke, the term "Autistic Romanticism", I think sometime after we heard Pisaro's The Middle of Life (Die Ganze Zeit), which is quite soft and, even literally, poetic.


Perhaps the boundaries of classical music are determined by where the listener lies on the autistic spectrum?


----------



## Fredx2098

JAS said:


> I am betting that if that hasn't already been done, someone will shortly steal that idea from you (although it won't be me).
> 
> Edit: This may be pretty close: http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/empty-art-gallery-shows.html


I would call those things art actually. There are ideas involved and the empty galleries sort of act as the art. What I meant was like someone going out into the open world, pointing to a random bit of air and saying the air is their artwork. It could be a bit of performance art maybe. Not my kind of thing though!


----------



## Woodduck

Post #395, and this thread as a whole, reminds me of Tom Wolfe's thesis in _The Painted Word:_ the less actual content art (or what's presented as art) has, the more it needs explanations to create an illusion of content. Great art inspires talk because it's rich in meaning. Poor art - or pseudo-art - inspires talk as a substitute for meaning.


----------



## Woodduck

aleazk said:


> To me, *the reason this is not music is much more basic: it's mostly silence and where there are sounds, they are trivial.* All of the 'power', if we concede to give any of it to this 'piece', comes from the conceptual part, as even its defenders have said in this thread. Thus, it's conceptual art, not music.
> 
> And I say that *to be art those sounds being 'manipulated in artful' ways must display some evident elaboration to be considered art and therefore music*, as per your definition. In this example, most of the art seems to be an art of concepts rather than one of sounds.


The second of these quotes accords best with my criteria for what may constitute music. At its most basic, music - like art of any sort - must be perceptibly ordered. We need to feel that the sounds chosen have been brought into some comprehensible relation to one another, some perceptible pattern according to some organizational principle embodying some purpose. Art is not accidental, it isn't a "happening," random noises are not artistic sounds, and anything that sounds accidental or random fails to attain the status of music even if it's put together by a "composer."

As for "conceptual art": artistic merit lies not merely in having an interesting "concept" but in finding formal structures that embody that concept and communicate it effectively. In my experience most "conceptual art" fails as art because the "concepts" it supposedly illustrates are not successfully communicated by the "art" itself - which may or may not have any aesthetic value - but must be explained by the artist.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> I would say that music is art made with sound. Simple, with no positive connotation. There's a difference between "art" and "good art" and also "popular art".


Someone* once said the definition of poetry is nothing more than "These words in this order". The definition of music could be "These sounds in this order". In both cases, pauses, breaths, rests, silences, punctuation are taken for granted or added to suit. I belong to the school of thought that asserts that "music" must contain purposefully organised sound - and that anything else is something else altogether (such as a philosophical exploration or examination of boundaries or possibilities). I am not of the school that says that if the artist insists, it must be so; and I am also not of the school that says that just because "famous" people before me have insisted it is so, I must accept their insistence. Like others - though not all - at TC, music is ultimately a matter for the individual consumer to authorise for herself (not for anyone else: I'm not arguing for the tyranny that what I say goes not just for me but must go for everyone else!)

(*J.M. _The Night Battle. Essays_. London: The Catholic Book Club, 1962)


----------



## philoctetes

If we consider music as an algorithmic process, steady silence punctuated by occasional sounds is no more complex than steady sound punctuated by occasional silence. There is probably some analog for how much dissonance is "optimal".I've not seen the term "mannerist" used in this context before and I like that.

Going extreme, e.g. mannerist, seems to be a modern thing, as people like to test limits nowadays It's like rap music, hard to hear nonstop but ok in tiny doses or assimilated into a broader spectrum of music. I've heard a lot of Cage recordings. You can have the ones with too much silence. I don't even attempt to go the opposite way with the concrete stuff, but I'm glad that musicians find it useful in their toolbox.

Silence v sound - I'm a little reminded of people who believe that the universe is full of darkons, not photons.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky

I still think something I posted in another similar thread is relevant here. It's an odd criteria but I think it works - would you pay money (and go through the inconvenience of getting to it) to go to a concert featuring this kind of music? It's easy to have high sounding theoretical discussions one way or the other from the comfort of one's keyboard so to speak. But what if you had to take the train downtown, rent a tux, walk to the concert hall, wait a bit for the concert to begin, etc. Would it be worth it to you to sit there and watch someone sit on a stage and basically do nothing, or hover their fingers over the keyboard, etc.? Maybe you would, maybe not. I personally wouldn't.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...JeffD has in fact offered concise, precise, _objective_ challenges to some basic premises underlying the distinctly subjective theories and interpretations which prevail here, and which you're apparently holding up as "objective" orthodoxies not legitimately open to question.


No, I'm not holding anything up as being "objective." Aesthetic questions such as "what is music" lie on a spectrum of subjectivity.



Woodduck said:


> Comments such as the following are certainly both sensible and germane to a thread in which rather grandiose - and highly subjective - claims are made for some questionable art productions:





> "Everything that is presented as art, is art? Can you identify one case where something presented as art really isn't art? And can you then tell how to distinguish what is not art, though deliberately presented as such, from art."


If an artist presents a work as art, then I can enter in to an agreement that this is art. These statements seem to assume an "objective" criteria or answer, which does not exist in aesthetics.



> "If anything is music, then nothing is music. If something cannot be distinguished from nothing in some meaningful way, well I think we have a problem. It is not just difficult to distinguish and identify a fraud, it is impossible even in principle."


If it is presented as music, then I can choose to agree that it is music. This is a meaningful agreement and exchange. The term "fraud" is a totally fabricated term the way it is used here. The "intent" of the artist and the "agreement" of an audience is what makes it an authentic experience. There is no "objective" measure of this.



> "It has substantial content, deliberate content, but is it conceptual content? Does the content have an intended meaning?"


If it's intended as art/music, then the "content" can lie on an extreme spectrum, ranging from the purely conceptual on up. If I'm reading this correctly, you seem to be saying that "content" in music must be more than conceptual, and involve some sort of "objective" criteria. It doesn't.

The premise that "music is purposefully ordered sound" implies a subjective artistic intent, and a subjective "agreement" with this purpose. It implies a kind of "built-in subjectivity" because it is intertwined with "purpose" and an "agreement" that this "sound" has "purposeful order." This definition of music is therefore permanently tied to subjective criteria. This is an admission that "there is no objective answer" to questions of this nature.

In this same way, those who encounter Sdraulig's work, or Cage's 4'33", are also engaging in a subjective "agreement" that these are valid artistic statements, and therefore, within the boundaries of what is "music."


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> Certainly not your job to justify or question their validity, but I think you have voluntarily taken up the task (if not the job) to explain their validity.


If you got that impression, it's because I attempted to respond to some *reactions* to my observations.

My observations and reactions about the art/music are not intended as explanations. They are simply my subjective opinions and reactions.



JeffD said:


> If I am mistaken, then what is this all about? What in the heck are we doing, if we are not trying to explain and to understand?


I've already accepted the idea of conceptual art, and have accepted such presentations of conceptual art as 'givens' and have chosen to engage in them seriously and intelligently. I don't feel that it's my job, or the purpose of this particular discussion, to justify or question their validity for anyone else, but simply to discuss the music as presented. The "explanations" are being discussed on another thread.

The only "it" I can explain is how I arrive at my opinions, and what criteria I use to get there. That has nothing to do with the music/art in an objective sense.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Raises right hand, strikes questioner resoundingly across face. "_That's_ the sound of one hand clapping!"


I'm not that kind of zen, KenOC. I treat people as people, not "unpersons."


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> The premise that "music is purposefully ordered sound" implies a *subjective artistic intent*, and *a subjective "agreement" with this purpose.* It implies *a kind of "built-in subjectivity"* because it is *intertwined with "purpose" and an "agreement"* that this "sound" has "purposeful order." This definition of music is therefore *permanently tied to subjective criteria.* This is an admission that "there is no objective answer" to questions of this nature.


This language is ambiguous, especially the use of "subjective." My response to it is here: https://www.talkclassical.com/57038-wheres-boundary-defines-whats-3.html#post1505591

It's good that we now have a thread that addresses directly the question of what music is.


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> Emphasis added.
> 
> If it is up to each individual to decide these things for themselves, and then that each person's decision equally valid, then one cannot negate the work in the objective sense as there is no objective sense. In which case discussion, much less argument, is made impossible.


It's possible to discuss the OP work presented, but negation or validating it as music or art is another topic, currently being discussed on another thread.



JeffD said:


> This is the stuff that swerves into the philosophical, and not easy philosophy by any means. Wittgenstein's thoughts on private language for example. But it is kind of nice, at last to find something here on TC that we can't, even in principle, argue about.


Not aimed specifically at you, JeffD, but, yes, one either accepts it, and posts their reactions and observations, or rejects it and goes around angrily confronting everyone who holds a contrary view, demanding objective answers to these philosophical dilemmas.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Is that so? I'm reminded of Saint-Saens arguing with a student over whether a work was worthy. The student, throwing up his hands, says, "Anyway, it's all a matter of taste." Saint-Saens replies, "Yes. Good or bad."


I'm reminded of Duke Ellington's comment: "Good music is music I like, and bad music is music I don't like."


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> By all means PM shirime and check what he was looking for as a response to his OP. I'd bet that he is very happy for others to question the validity of the work he had posted. In fact, I've noticed shirime has a high level of tolerance of derision too (though he might prefer that he himself is not subject to derision, and I wouldn't wish to encourage it).


shirime's intent has nothing to do with my decisions to engage, or not engage, in what I feel is an off-topic area. This was his thread idea, and he gave us his feelings on the matter, and they have nothing to do with my validating or negating the work in an objective sense, since it's up to each individual to decide these things for themselves. It's not my job to justify or question the validity of music/art for anyone else.


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> Those trying to point out that this is not music because of improvisatory elements or something in the score miss the point and are also wrong. Those elememts are quite common in the 20th century, and even earlier, and have been accepted as valid by the art music circle. The opposite view only shows a conservative position or a partial knowledge of music history.
> 
> To me, the reason this is not music is much more basic: it's mostly silence and where there are sounds, they are trivial. All of the 'power', if we concede to give any of it to this 'piece', comes from the conceptual part, as even its defenders have said in this thread. Thus, it's conceptual art, not music.


Eloquently stated, but all this reveals is that you place the Sdraulig work lower on the subjective spectrum of what you personally consider to be valid music. Apparently, this piece crossed that line for you, and lies outside the spectrum of what you consider to be music.


----------



## philoctetes

All music is bad. We just have to hear it until we're tired of it.


----------



## millionrainbows

_







Originally Posted by *aleazk* 

And I say that *to be art those sounds being 'manipulated in artful' ways must display some evident elaboration to be considered art and therefore music*, as per your definition. In this example, most of the art seems to be an art of concepts rather than one of sounds.

_




Woodduck said:


> The second of these quotes accords best with my criteria for what may constitute music. At its most basic, music - like art of any sort - must be perceptibly ordered. We need to feel that the sounds chosen have been brought into some comprehensible relation to one another, some perceptible pattern according to some organizational principle embodying some purpose. Art is not accidental, it isn't a "happening," random noises are not artistic sounds, and anything that sounds accidental or random fails to attain the status of music even if it's put together by a "composer."


Ironically, this justifies Cage's 4'33." After all, he chose the time-frame in which the sounds would be heard, and urges us not to ignore them as random sounds, but to "listen to the sounds you encounter as you would music." The fact that the sounds are not pre-determined does little to invalidate the piece. We are putting the 'art' to the sounds, by listening with mindfulness.

As for "conceptual art": artistic merit lies not merely in having an interesting "concept" but in finding formal structures that embody that concept and communicate it effectively. 
[/QUOTE]

Then I'd say that, according to those criteria, that 4'33" is a successful work, since it has a structure (a time-frame).



> *In my experience* most "conceptual art" fails as art because the "concepts" it supposedly illustrates are not successfully communicated by the "art" itself - which may or may not have any aesthetic value - but must be explained by the artist.


"In my experience" is key here. Aesthetics are subjective by nature. They're not science. These questions cannot be "proven" with rational or objective means.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> I belong to the school of thought that asserts that "music" must contain purposefully organised sound...


Then by your criteria, 4'33" is music, since Cage organized it as a performance work, and the sounds one hears fall into a specific time-frame, and are to be listened to mindfully, as music.


----------



## Larkenfield

An artist is always trying to objectify his or her ideas in the outer world. It's a very common expression that seems to have been forgotten. So not everything is subjective from the composer's point of view. Without objectifying one's ideas in a real and objectified way, there's nothing. The process of "objectifying an idea" is the ways and means of doing so and making one's inspirations and ideas tangible, and it's not all subjective guesswork just because a listener wants to project their own ideas onto the composer or work.


----------



## Woodduck

Woodduck: At its most basic, music - like art of any sort - must be perceptibly ordered. We need to feel that the sounds chosen have been brought into some comprehensible relation to one another, some perceptible pattern according to some organizational principle embodying some purpose. Art is not accidental, it isn't a "happening," random noises are not artistic sounds, and anything that sounds accidental or random fails to attain the status of music even if it's put together by a "composer."

Millionrainbows: Ironically, this justifies Cage's 4'33." After all, he chose the time-frame in which the sounds would be heard, and urges us not to ignore them as random sounds, but to "listen to the sounds you encounter as you would music." The fact that the sounds are not pre-determined does little to invalidate the piece. We are putting the 'art' to the sounds, by listening with mindfulness.

This answer tries to claim that I said exactly the opposite of what I did say. 4'33" does not bring "the sounds chosen" to a "comprehensible relation to one another, some perceptible pattern according to some organizational principle embodying some purpose." Why doesn't it? Because there are no chosen sounds in 4'33. "After all, he chose the time frame" don't cut the mustard, buster! In fact, in real music the composer chooses the sounds, and the listener, should he have the privilege, chooses the time he'll devote to listening to how the composer has organized them. Tying someone to a chair and ordering him to listen to whatever noises he can discern is not composing music.

Woodduck: As for "conceptual art": artistic merit lies not merely in having an interesting "concept" but in finding formal structures that embody that concept and communicate it effectively. In my experience most "conceptual art" fails as art because the "concepts" it supposedly illustrates are not successfully communicated by the "art" itself - which may or may not have any aesthetic value - but must be explained by the artist. 

Millionrainbows: "In my experience" is key here. Aesthetics are subjective by nature. They're not science. These questions cannot be "proven" with rational or objective means.

Well, that's not an answer, is it?


----------



## wandelweisering

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> I still think something I posted in another similar thread is relevant here. It's an odd criteria but I think it works - would you pay money (and go through the inconvenience of getting to it) to go to a concert featuring this kind of music? It's easy to have high sounding theoretical discussions one way or the other from the comfort of one's keyboard so to speak. But what if you had to take the train downtown, rent a tux, walk to the concert hall, wait a bit for the concert to begin, etc. Would it be worth it to you to sit there and watch someone sit on a stage and basically do nothing, or hover their fingers over the keyboard, etc.? Maybe you would, maybe not. I personally wouldn't.


There are no modern or contemporary music concerts in my backwater city, so I do try to go to Bucharest whenever there is a concert by the likes of Iancu Dumitrescu (leaving spectralism for whole another topic), and I did want really bad to go to a concert with Radu Malfatti and another guy which was planned two years ago, but the organizers cancelled it because the initial venue couldn't host them anymore and there was no other good venue available; it doesn't help either that Malfatti usually wants as much environmental silence as possible. If it was someone like Pisaro instead... you know, Pisaro would have adapted to any setting. It is Malfatti who is indeed too purist... Nevertheless, I wanted to meet Malfatti in person.

True, this level of sustained interest is because I was privileged enough to get to hear a lot of Wandelweiser recordings, and kept my interest alive (every now and then, there is some record or another that surprises and recaptures my interest, and sometimes I go back to records I did hear already and discover things I didn't perceive before). I know the best thing is to experience it live, but I was not privileged to be around any such concert. Money is the problem for me, not lack of time or energy.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Then by your criteria, 4'33" is music, since Cage organized it as a performance work, and the sounds one hears fall into a specific time-frame, and are to be listened to mindfully, as music.


No, it isn't. He didn't organise the sounds (purposefully or otherwise). Any sound you hear during a "performance" of 4'33" is entirely a matter of chance.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> No, it isn't. He didn't organise the sounds (purposefully or otherwise). Any sound you hear during a "performance" of 4'33" is entirely a matter of chance.


Any post attempting to connect 4'33" to "music" is nothing but pretentious artspeak. It's the sort of thing that makes classical music fans seem kind of weird to normal people, and they may just be right.


----------



## JeffD

Taking you at your word Millionrainbows, there is no objective analysis possible. Your most recent comments boil down to "I like it, I accept it, that settles it". 

I could understand this approach if we were talking about aesthetics. It would make sense to say you think it is beautiful and so it is beautiful to you, etc. But, despite your use of the word, I don't think we are having an aesthetic discussion. Or at least not entirely.

Because you have maintained that there are reasons why one might not "get it", yet if someone (lets say its me) doesn't "get it" one cannot attributable it to lack of experience or abundance of experience or ignorance or knowledge or reading that ton of music history books, or reading instead too many comic books, or just a total lack of understanding or a full detailed understanding or discernment or lack of discernment. The only path from "not getting it" to "getting it" is acceptance.

Someone who does not accept it is as correct in not accepting it as someone who accepts it is correct in accepting it. It's music to those that accept that it is music, it is art to those that accept that it is art, it is a fraud if one believes it is a fraud.

There is nothing there to "get", unless one accepts that there is something there to "get".

Your further point, if I understand this, is that it is possible to have meaningful discussions about "it", but only between and among those accept "it". 

In that way, the avant gard music, or at least the extremes that this thread is about, are akin to conspiracy theories. One group over there discuss the skin color of the martians that the government found but won't acknowledge exist, and another group over here discusses whether there were one or two gunman who shot John F Kennedy, and whether they both shot the same John F Kennedy or different John F Kennedies. In the middle are those arguing about the mission the Annunaki had in coming to earth and changing human DNA.

You can only join the discussion about the conspiracy you have accepted, and certainly if you don't accept the conspiracy, your objections are irrelevant. 


My comments are a bit extreme I admit, and I apologies for having a little fun with it, I don't do it out of meanness as much as, perhaps, lack of social skills and bad taste. 

But tell me where I am wrong? Where have I mis-characterized your argument?


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> Any post attempting to connect 4'33" to "music" is nothing but pretentious artspeak. It's the sort of thing that makes classical music fans seem kind of weird to normal people, and they may just be right.


----------



## Larkenfield

Two more by Mr. Sdraulig along the same lines as the OP. There's the intention and mental concentration of an actual performance without any substantial performance in sound. No sale. Cage's 4:33 works for those who understand it because he actually contrasted it with other compositions that had done previously with fully elaborated sound. Sdaulig has not demonstrated as of yet, at least in his three works posted here, that he has the ability to compose anything, and yet the musicians apparently buy into what he's doing as something worthwhile. If these performances were offered as an expression of Dada art, I might have gone for it. The Dadaists at least had a sense of humor to go along with the readymade urinal produced by Marcel Duchamp in 1917, signed "R.Mutt" and titled Fountain: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-duchamps-urinal-changed-art-forever


----------



## janxharris

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


----------



## janxharris

Perhaps someone would care to explain what they get out of such pieces as Cage's 4'33'' and the Sdraulig? Is this experience of getting it enough to invest money in hearing such works performed (as asked at #403)?


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Perhaps someone would care to explain what they get out of such pieces as Cage's 4'33'' and the Sdraulig? Is this experience of getting it enough to invest money in experiencing such works (as asked at #403)?


being an artist is extremely hard living because of the pressure to constanty produce new and original works. Sdrauling would do better to go flip burgers to McDonald's.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> being an artist is extremely hard living because of the pressure to constanty produce new and original works. Sdrauling would do better to go flip burgers to McDonald's.


Reminds me of Strauss on Schoenberg:
"He'd be better off shovelling snow than scribbling on manuscript paper."

I'm just quoting - not necessarily agreeing..........


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Perhaps someone would care to explain what they get out of such pieces as Cage's 4'33'' and the Sdraulig? Is this experience of getting it enough to invest money in experiencing such works (as asked at #403)?


The problem with this question is that it could equally be asked of any...shall we say "artistic proposition"?...whether traditional or avant-garde, and you could be provided with a valid answer - for the person answering. So, I get next to nothing out of the Sdraulig piece we've been invited to consider...but then I get next to nothing out of Brahms Symphony no 1 either, and I'm unlikely to part with money to hear it.

A more pertinent question might be to ask what Sdraulig himself intends by the piece, and what he hopes the audience will get out of it.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Reminds me of Strauss on Schoenberg:
> "He'd be better off shovelling snow than scribbling on manuscript paper."
> I'm just quoting - not necessarily agreeing..........


I quite like Schoenberg, he was not doubt a musical genius. But honestly, I do not like the direction he took the music. He himself had talent, but he influenced whole generations of composers of much lesser talent (Boulez etc) who then produced a lot of musical drivel. So he is responsible for the sad state of classical music in the second half of the 20th century and is no doubt in some form of musical hell, where he must listen to Justin Bieber 24 hours a day without end.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> I quite like Schoenberg, he was not doubt a musical genius. But honestly, I do not like the direction he took the music. He himself had talent, but he influenced whole generations of composers of much lesser talent (Boulez etc) who then produced a lot of musical drivel. So he is responsible for the sad state of classical music in the second half of the 20th century and is no doubt in some form of musical hell, where he must listen to Justin Bieber 24 hours a day without end.


Bieber seems to be the Aunt Sally of the Classical world. 

I'm still not quite getting Schoenberg myself...but will keep trying.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Bieber seems to be the Aunt Sally of the Classical world.
> I'm still not quite getting Schoenberg myself...but will keep trying.


listen to his tonal works to see that he was a genius of the same calibre as Strauss - Gurrelieder, Pélleas und Melisande, Transfigured Night.... but then, something happened to him.


----------



## janxharris

Cage didn't compose 4'33'' first - everyone else did too - they just didn't bother to copyright it.

Aren't we all just as fascinated by the sounds around us? The sound of birdsong, the wind in the trees, the distant strains of Beethoven's ninth.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Bieber seems to be the Aunt Sally of the Classical world.


yes, it is a little undeserved. Bieber at least can sing. At least he is not using the autotune as often as some others.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> listen to his tonal works to see that he was a genius of the same calibre as Strauss - Gurrelieder, Pélleas und Melisande, Transfigured Night.... but then, something happened to him.


I've done the Pélleas und Melisande and Transfigured Night - the first just sounds like Strauss to me and the Verklärte is somewhat interesting.


----------



## Enthusiast

We all want things explained to us! I would like to know (seriously!) why it matters that some people revere Cage's 4'33" (or 5'07" as I call it as I prefer it played slowly*) and all the other examples of conceptual art. If it matters because you fear you may be missing something good then fair enough but I don't think that is what is behind most of the questioning. Where can such questions go? Only to insulting Cage and his audience, it seems. I write this as someone who has very little interest in conceptual art and gets very little enjoyment from it. My feelings may change but I sense they will not in these cases. But I am comfortable knowing that others find conceptual art more meaningful and enjoy it. I do not feel that those people are frauds. I just feel they are wired differently to me.

* A joke is obligatory when talking about this piece, isn't it?


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> We all want things explained to us! I would like to know (seriously!) why it matters that some people revere Cage's 4'33" (or 5'07" as I call it as I prefer it played slowly*) and all the other examples of conceptual art. If it matters because you fear you may be missing something good then fair enough but I don't think that is what is behind most of the questioning. Where can such questions go? Only to insulting Cage and his audience, it seems. I write this as someone who has very little interest in conceptual art and gets very little enjoyment from it. My feelings may change but I sense they will not in these cases. But I am comfortable knowing that others find conceptual art more meaningful and enjoy it. I do not feel that those people are frauds. I just feel they are wired differently to me.
> 
> * A joke is obligatory when talking about this piece, isn't it?


I think the first reaction is pretty much as you describe.* We assume that there _might_ be something there that we did not just grasp intuitively. After the questioning, we generally find that no, there really isn't "something" there. The degree to which a very slight "something" might be there, it is that some people find the idea clever or the question it seems to raise provocative or thought provoking ideas, even if the actual ideas raised never really lead to anything concrete. That seems to form the divide of most "conceptual art."

It so often goes from questioning to derision because, to many of us, if just feels like a scam. And it would simply go away at that point, except that we keep getting new examples which garner their own discussion, and bring up the older examples as part of the discussion. (It should perhaps be admitted that it is a battle with no winners, but I think that each side feels compelled to repeat the exercise for the sake of sustaining what it sees as defending intelligence, reason and artistic integrity. In a strange way, since challenging conventional norms seems to be the chief intent, I suspect that if these ideas did not meet with a strong response, they might fade into obscurity. The real question is why the proponents of these ideas get so upset when the presentation that was specifically designed to provoke manages to get precisely that reaction.)

* Yes, a joke is obligatory, and yours gets credit for being one I had not seen before.


----------



## JAS

It is possible that a performance of a "score" that consists entirely of a sheet of paper with the word "improvise" may be music, but can the person who wrote that word, assuming that he or she is not also the performer, in any meaningful way be considered the composer?


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> We all want things explained to us! I would like to know (seriously!) why it matters that some people revere Cage's 4'33" (or 5'07" as I call it as I prefer it played slowly*) and all the other examples of conceptual art. If it matters because you fear you may be missing something good then fair enough but I don't think that is what is behind most of the questioning. Where can such questions go? Only to insulting Cage and his audience, it seems. I write this as someone who has very little interest in conceptual art and gets very little enjoyment from it. My feelings may change but I sense they will not in these cases. But I am comfortable knowing that others find conceptual art more meaningful and enjoy it. I do not feel that those people are frauds. I just feel they are wired differently to me.
> 
> * A joke is obligatory when talking about this piece, isn't it?


I don't believe anyone reveres 4'33''. Look at the orchestral performance already cited - the conductor wiping his brow - it's a party piece isn't it?


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> I don't believe anyone reveres 4'33''. Look at the orchestral performance already cited - the conductor wiping his brow - it's a party piece isn't it?


I think there clearly _are_ people whose opinion of the _idea_ of 4'33" might well be described as reverence. The vehicle is a mere vessel for the _idea_, and it is the _idea_ that attracts them. It embodies the _idea_ that literally _everything_ is or can be music, and it is the same idea that raise the ire of opponents (and it gets very personal on both sides).


----------



## janxharris

JAS said:


> I think there clearly are people whose opinion of the _idea_ of 4'33" might well be described as reverence. The vehicle is a mere vessel for the _idea_, and it is the idea that attracts them. It embodies the _idea_ that literally _everything_ is or can be music, and it is the same idea that raise the ire of opponents.


The suggestion that anyone can become part of what was once the preserve of the elite few?


----------



## arpeggio

I have mentioned this before and I have seen nothing to change my mind.

In my opinion _433_ is not music. It is a theater piece.

I do not care if others disagree with me and consider it music.


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> The suggestion that anyone can become part of what was once the preserve of the elite few?


Are you asking me _why_ the idea is so appealing to those who endorse it? I suspect that there are multiple "reasons" that might be offered (including the one you have suggested). I have my own thoughts about the matter, but it might be better to hear from someone who is sympathetic to the idea, which I am decidedly not.


----------



## aleazk

Enthusiast said:


> We all want things explained to us! I would like to know (seriously!) why it matters that some people revere Cage's 4'33" (or 5'07" as I call it as I prefer it played slowly*) and all the other examples of conceptual art. If it matters because you fear you may be missing something good then fair enough but I don't think that is what is behind most of the questioning. Where can such questions go? Only to insulting Cage and his audience, it seems. I write this as someone who has very little interest in conceptual art and gets very little enjoyment from it. My feelings may change but I sense they will not in these cases. But I am comfortable knowing that others find conceptual art more meaningful and enjoy it. I do not feel that those people are frauds. I just feel they are wired differently to me.
> 
> * A joke is obligatory when talking about this piece, isn't it?


In my case, I like and enjoy lots of Cage, including pieces that some wouldn't call music, like his late 'number pieces'. In past years, I have defended Cage, pretty much alone sometimes, in this forum. So, please, do not make such generalizations. As for conceptual art, it's not a field to which I pay much attention, to be honest. I saw some expositions in art galleries that included this type of art, and I found some of them somewhat interesting and some not that interesting.

*This was mostly a response to some of your other questionings in this thread in which I felt alluded to. I don't really care if people enjoy 4'33'', I'm more interested in the discussion about it being music or conceptual art or both.


----------



## aleazk

Jacck said:


> I quite like Schoenberg, he was not doubt a musical genius. But honestly, I do not like the direction he took the music. He himself had talent, but he influenced whole generations of composers of much lesser talent (Boulez etc) who then produced a lot of musical drivel. So he is responsible for the sad state of classical music in the second half of the 20th century and is no doubt in some form of musical hell, where he must listen to Justin Bieber 24 hours a day without end.


Boulez was one of the most talented composers and conductors of the past century, you are utterly wrong.


----------



## Thomyum2

JeffD said:


> This is precisely one of the problems. It is not just difficult to distinguish and identify a fraud, it is impossible even in principle.
> 
> There is a fair amount of deep and uncomfortable philosophy just beneath the surface of this and *I DO NOT want to go there as it is a severe derailment from which there is no recovery and no benefit except to those who like to watch a train crash*.
> 
> My main point, really, is that the answers are not easy, or trivial, and that not knowing the answers is not merely a matter of being stupid, or inexperienced, or under-educated. Those of you who "get it" are not in any way superior to those that don't, and any claim to superior taste or breeding is laughable.





JeffD said:


> If it is up to each individual to decide these things for themselves, and then that each person's decision equally valid, then one cannot negate the work in the objective sense as there is no objective sense. In which case discussion, much less argument, is made impossible.
> 
> This is the stuff that swerves into the philosophical, and not easy philosophy by any means. Wittgenstein's thoughts on private language for example.





JeffD said:


> Taking you at your word Millionrainbows, there is no objective analysis possible. Your most recent comments boil down to "I like it, I accept it, that settles it".
> 
> ...The only path from "not getting it" to "getting it" is acceptance.
> 
> Someone who does not accept it is as correct in not accepting it as someone who accepts it is correct in accepting it. It's music to those that accept that it is music, it is art to those that accept that it is art, it is a fraud if one believes it is a fraud.
> 
> There is nothing there to "get", unless one accepts that there is something there to "get".
> 
> Your further point, if I understand this, is that it is possible to have meaningful discussions about "it", but only between and among those accept "it"....
> 
> You can only join the discussion about the conspiracy you have accepted, and certainly if you don't accept the conspiracy, your objections are irrelevant.


So JeffD, I'll switch roles with you here and this time reassure you that I'm not picking on you, but will tease you a bit in it's kind of humorous that you (rightly) pointed out how this all devolves into an area of philosophy where you don't want to go, and yet here we are heading into that train wreck. 

Seriously though, I'm no philosopher but I think you're onto something here and your references to Wittgenstein and private language are right on the mark. These back-and-forth arguments illustrate more than anything that we're each operating with a different set of definitions and presuppositions, which is what breaks down the consensus. I see a lot of linguistic contradictions here - one in particular is in the use of the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' which I'd point out are about _relationship_, yet we're using them as if they are categories for the judgments or qualities of musical or artistic works. Art and music can only come into existence when a subject and object interact - they can never be one or the other, but are dependent on both.

Another circular argument here is this difficulty of 'defining' or 'accepting' what is music or art - in language, a definition is meaning that is mutually shared between two people for purposes of mutual understanding. A definition can't be subjective or objective, or right or wrong, because it requires the participation of all parties in the conversation - definition is contingent upon agreement, not the other way around. So you're correct, we have to agree on definitions first, and then proceed to conversation - if we each just 'accept' what we want independently, we have private language, or if a group of us 'accept' a meaning that isn't widely shared, then we have something akin to a conspiracy theory - a shared private language, so to speak.

If different people have different definitions of what music is, then perhaps the solution we need is to create some new words that we can all use to capture these nuances instead of continuing to try to make a conversation work when different people are using the same word to mean different things?

So, yes, language games indeed!


----------



## JAS

Thomyum2 said:


> So, yes, language games indeed!


There are often complications with language, if not exactly games. (Some people may complain about semantics, but it is precisely in the nuances that meaning may be discovered.) One of these complications is the use of phrases with built-in arguments, such as "getting it." The idea that in terms of modern music, or modern art in general, some people "get it" and others do not presupposes that the reasons that some oppose the thing not "gotten" is because they don't understand something about it. That sense often motivates such people to take the risk to ask about whatever might be the thing to "get," but it is rare that such discussion actually reveals anything (as it requires at least two people of opposing positions who are both willing and able to explore their own position and the differences, both looking for understanding rather than agreement or winning). As I have come to find, many of us who do not like "modern" music (or music in more "modern styles," broadly stated) understand the music about as well as anyone is going to, even if not necessarily in terms of every technical detail. Ultimately, the problem usually comes down to disagreements about the merit or lack of merit in the elements inherent in the music and its goals.


----------



## aleazk

Thomyum2 said:


> Another circular argument is this difficulty of 'defining' or 'accepting' what is music or art - in language, a definition is meaning that is mutually shared between two people for purposes of mutual understanding. A definition can't be subjective or objective, or right or wrong, because it requires the participation of all parties in the conversation - definition is contingent upon agreement, not the other way around. So you have agree on definitions first, and then proceed to conversation. So if people have different definitions of what music is, then perhaps we need to create some new words to capture these nuances instead of continuing to try to make a conversation work when different people are using the same word to mean different things?
> 
> So, yes, language games indeed!


This is an important point the one you bring. But I disagree with the solution you propose. I think it can be much more simpler. Now, instead of coming here to shoot how the art (or non-art) that others like is crap, a much better approach is to _clearly_ state first under which definition of art you are operating. Thus, after this, a much more interesting discussion arises, which is why, each poster, chooses that particular definition, and then we all can learn from the different points of view of others.

Unfortunately, even this simple thing seems difficult due to the fact that some come here loaded with prejudices, bitterness from past discussions with other members, and, in some cases, a patological political correctness. The later ones want to dismiss the discussion in a closed book vote, thus killing the topic without even a minimal discussion first, so as to avoid any trace of disagreement and we are all happy and love each other. Others keep questioning pieces without even realizing that they are doing it from positions about art that can actually be stated and that have been widely discussed in the past. Some others insult each other, play the victim, report each other. That's how we humans are, after all, nothing new here :lol:


----------



## aleazk

JAS said:


> There are often complications with language, if not exactly games. (Some people may complain about semantics, but it is precisely in the nuances that meaning may be discovered.) One of these complications is the use of phrases with built-in arguments, such as "getting it." The idea that in terms of modern music, or modern art in general, some people "get it" and others do not presupposes that the reasons that some oppose the thing not "gotten" is because they don't understand something about it. That sense often motives such people to take the risk to ask about whatever might be the thing to "get," but it is rare that such discussion actually reveals anything. As I have come to find, many of us who do not like "modern" music (or music in more "modern styles," broadly stated) understand the music about as well as anyone is going to, even if not necessarily in terms of every technical detail. _Ultimately, the problem usually comes down to disagreements about the merit or lack of merit in the elements inherent in the music and its goals_.


When both parties of the discussion are well informed, known the music, and are honest, we certainly can have a discussion under those terms you say. But you know this is very often not the case. I still defend the "maybe you just don't get it and should try again later" approach in those cases, since that's what happened to me, for example, and I think I came to appreciate, for example, musique concrète thanks to the insistence about it by an old member of this forum which, sadly, no longer posts here. Of course, I wouldn't tell that phrase to you or, say, Woodduck, since I know, and both have made it clear, that are familiar with the music and simply dislike it in some cases.


----------



## JAS

aleazk said:


> When both parties of the discussion are well informed, known the music, and are honest, we certainly can have a discussion under those terms you say. But you know this is very often not the case.


Indeed, which is why I said it was rare. (We do not appear to disagree on this point.)



aleazk said:


> I still defend the "maybe you just don't get it and should try again later" approach in those cases, since that's what happened to me, for example, and I think I came to appreciate, for example, musique concrète thanks to the insistence about it by an old member of this forum which, sadly, no longer posts here.


The key here is that you came to "appreciate" the music (a well-chosen word, I think), but probably not through any special enlightenment or understanding. The latter could be shared, and the former really cannot, only expressed.


----------



## JeffD

Thomyum2 said:


> So, yes, language games indeed!


I agree. I would say you don't go far enough. The discussion is impossible. There is no basis on which to agree or disagree with any statements, as they do not say anything. The statements are, in the literal sense, nonsense.

As W says: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

But this morning I had a sudden realization - a total agreement with Millionrainbows. That is this: If you don't get it, get out of the discussion.

If this were a serious theological discussion, about the finer points of Christian forgiveness, justification, salvation; and I come along with my big shoes and clumsy gate, my loud voice and ridiculous distracting hand gestures, and ask fundamental questions about the existence of God...

In this sense, I see now that the discussion I interrupted is among the faithful, not the general music appreciating public. And among the faithful my objections are inappropriate, irrelevant to the discussion, and perhaps rude.


----------



## aleazk

JAS said:


> The key here is that you came to "appreciate" the music (a well-chosen word, I think), but probably not through any special enlightenment or understanding. The latter could be shared, and the former really cannot, only expressed.


I actually came to really like it and understanding it. There are objective things that can be said. For example, I tried here. Of course, not even with that the other person will necessary like it. But one can chat, and in many cases some understanding is actually transmitted and received by the other person. Things about where is the real thing going on in this type of music, in the textures, in the gestures, etc. For someone that sees this music as impenetrable, those things can be thought provoking and can open the door for that person to suddently see some light into that impenetrable barrier. It happened to me many times when reading here what others said about music I didn't understand at that moment.

If any, I find all these discussions about art to be interesting because they require some nuanced thinking. The most un-intelligent thing one can do is to flatten out, simplify the topic, the opinions of others. If we do this, we miss the points hidden there in those small peaks that were flattened out and that were the ones that contained the relevant or interesting discussion.


----------



## Jacck

aleazk said:


> Boulez was one of the most talented composers and conductors of the past century, you are utterly wrong.


I agree that he was a great conductor, I enjoy his Mahler and Bartok and other conducting of his. I am not so sure about the composer part. His piano compositions sound as if you let a cat walk over the piano. It does nothing for me, but it is just me, I do not claim it is universal truth.


----------



## Larkenfield

It’s doubtful (impossible?) there will ever be any agreement across the board on labels and definitions, but sometimes broad categories can be helpful. The usefulness of labels is to help one find what one is looking for, and it’s doubtful that one would look for Mozart under the “avant-garde”, even if he was ahead of his time in his day, nor would one likely look for Webern under “easy listening”. But it’s doubtful that labels have anything to do with how much one enjoys a work if each work and each composer is taken one at a time rather than thinking that everything that took place within a hundred year period sounds the same and is horrible. Perhaps there’s an art in simply finding a work worth hearing.


----------



## Lisztian

Jacck said:


> I agree that he was a great conductor, I enjoy his Mahler and Bartok and other conducting of his. I am not so sure about the composer part. His piano compositions sound as if you let a cat walk over the piano. It does nothing for me, but it is just me, I do not claim it is universal truth.


I can sympathise a little as I too find, say, his second piano sonata to be very difficult. I've generally found his earliest works to be too much for me to take in. His later works, however, strike me as being much more accessible. Ones I've especially enjoyed:

Derive 1: 




Figures, Doubles, Prismes: 




Cummings ist der Dichter: 




Pli Selon Pli also, but that one is a lot longer.


----------



## millionrainbows

Thomyum2 said:


> ...I see a lot of linguistic contradictions here - one in particular is in the use of the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' which I'd point out are about _relationship_, yet we're using them as if they are categories for the judgments or qualities of musical or artistic works. Art and music can only come into existence when a subject and object interact - they can never be one or the other, but are dependent on both.


Yes, that's how it works, but the "art object" is a _medium_ for transmitting meaning; so it is symbolic to a degree, it has "subjective resonances," so it can't be said to be 'totally objective', or, for that matter, to hold to a strict definition. An art object is also "inter-subjective," i.e. it "maps" the artist's experience "onto" the audience's experience via a system of agreed-upon meanings or shared human universal experience which is "given" and needs no agreement as to its meaning. It simply resonates because we are human.



> Another circular argument here is this difficulty of 'defining' or 'accepting' what is music or art - in language, a definition is meaning that is mutually shared between two people for purposes of mutual understanding. A definition can't be subjective or objective, or right or wrong, because it requires the participation of all parties in the conversation - definition is contingent upon agreement, not the other way around.


Unless there is "acceptance" or a willingness to engage with art, then the artistic experience is not possible, because it must be entered in to by agreement. This experience is not contingent upon an agreed definition of art; it's a tacit agreement.
This agreement is not "private," as the art work has been presented in a public form of art.



> So you're correct, we have to agree on definitions first, and then proceed to conversation - if we each just 'accept' what we want independently, we have private language, or if a group of us 'accept' a meaning that isn't widely shared, then we have something akin to a conspiracy theory - a shared private language, so to speak.


This suggests that art must have a meaning that is widely-shared. That's contrary to the spirit of art. Each person must derive his own meaning; that's not "a conspiracy".

If an artist presents a work as art, then I can enter in to _an agreement_ that this is art. An "objective" criteria or answer does not exist in aesthetics.


----------



## Thomyum2

JeffD said:


> In this sense, I see now that the discussion I interrupted is among the faithful, not the general music appreciating public. And among the faithful my objections are inappropriate, irrelevant to the discussion, and perhaps rude.


Not at all rude or inappropriate! Different points of view are important and discourse is essential to our mutual growth. I know I'm not the only one here who has found value in your contributions to the discussion. ...and if you enjoy classical music, I'd say that you definitely _are_ one of the faithful!


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> artist presents a work as art, then I can enter in to _an agreement_ that this is art.


Yes. But that agreement can be temporary. I accept it to see what can I get from the work by accepting the framework in which the artist is presenting it. But after that I can cancel the agreement, ask my money back or go to court (this later case being the one of these threads and discussions).


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> 4'33" does not bring "the sounds chosen" to a "comprehensible relation to one another, some perceptible pattern according to some organizational principle embodying some purpose." Why doesn't it? Because there are no chosen sounds in 4'33.


In this case, the sounds are not chosen, as Cage has chosen to reverse the role of composer and music. He has removed his control and intent, and is giving _us_ the power to "listen to the sounds which occur as music." So, "we" are controlling the sounds we hear, if we listen as if it were music. You seem to have missed this reversal.



> As for "conceptual art": artistic merit lies not merely in having an interesting "concept" but in finding formal structures that embody that concept and communicate it effectively. In my experience most "conceptual art" fails as art because the "concepts" it supposedly illustrates are not successfully communicated by the "art" itself - which may or may not have any aesthetic value - but must be explained by the artist.


I don't find that to be the case. As to the term "conceptual," it is not always entirely clear what "concept" refers to, and it runs the risk of being confused with "intention." Thus, in describing or defining a work of art as "conceptual" it is important not to confuse what is referred to as "conceptual" with an artist's "intention."

At any rate, it is fruitless to try to make conceptual art fit in to or adhere to some little restricted definition of art.


----------



## Thomyum2

JAS said:


> It is possible that a performance of a "score" that consists entirely of a sheet of paper with the word "improvise" may be music, but can the person who wrote that word, assuming that he or she is not also the performer, in any meaningful way be considered the composer?


This is a good point, and by extension makes me ask: Is the objection to 4'33", or to other pieces of conceptual music, based on the belief that is 'isn't music', or actually due the fact that someone is claiming to be a composer of something that doesn't merit that?


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> Yes. But that agreement can be temporary. I accept it to see what can I get from the work by accepting the framework in which the artist is presenting it. But after that I can cancel the agreement, ask my money back or go to court (this later case being the one of these threads and discussions).


Or, the agreement can be cancelled by the artist and his faithful congregation of believers, and you can be "excommunicated."


----------



## millionrainbows

Thomyum2 said:


> This is a good point, and by extension makes me ask: Is the objection to 4'33", or to other pieces of conceptual music, based on the belief that is 'isn't music', or actually due the fact that someone is claiming to be a composer of something that doesn't merit that?


In the case of 4'33" and most of his other music, Cage has purposely removed his intent and control; he has relinquished the role of "composer", so the argument that the music "doesn't merit" being called composed music becomes irrelevant.


----------



## JAS

Thomyum2 said:


> This is a good point, and by extension makes me ask: Is the objection to 4'33", or to other pieces of conceptual music, based on the belief that is 'isn't music', or actually due the fact that someone is claiming to be a composer of something that doesn't merit that?


Or both. In this case, I think 4'33" may be a double offender.


----------



## Thomyum2

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, that's how it works, but the "art object" is a _medium_ for transmitting meaning; so it is symbolic to a degree, it has "subjective resonances," so it can't be said to be 'totally objective', or, for that matter, to hold to a strict definition. An art object is also "inter-subjective," i.e. it "maps" the artist's experience "onto" the audience's experience via a system of agreed-upon meanings or shared human universal experience which is "given" and needs no agreement as to its meaning. It simply resonates because we are human.
> 
> Unless there is "acceptance" or a willingness to engage with art, then the artistic experience is not possible, because it must be entered in to by agreement. This experience is not contingent upon an agreed definition of art; it's a tacit agreement.
> This agreement is not "private," as the art work has been presented in a public form of art.


This makes a lot of sense to me, and I've often said that music is very much like language in that it is a medium for communication, though what it actually does communicate is difficult to pin down and has always eluded me.

I would say though that art resonates not just simply because we are human. I believe that it resonates because we, as humans, share experiences and memories - consciously but often at just a subconscious level too - which we bring with us to any experience of art. A work of art touches on these and awakens them, and that is how we experience the meanings that art does communicate. Which is why I think art and culture are so closely related - our shared experiences are most similar to those with whom we have lived in community over time.



millionrainbows said:


> This suggests that art must have a meaning that is widely-shared. That's contrary to the spirit of art. Each person must derive his own meaning; that's not "a conspiracy".


Yes agree completely, but would just note I wasn't suggesting that this was a 'conspiracy' (which is a word that suggests a value judgment made by someone on the outside of a group) but just making an analogy to the divergence of a mutually accepted definition between different groups.


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> Or, the agreement can be cancelled by the artist and his faithful congregation of believers, and you can be "excommunicated."


Okay, Milton...

But, anyway, the artist cannot do that, the artist cannot avoid the discussion of his work. Furthermore, I don't know of any artist that doesn't like his work to be discussed, only a dogmatic person would prefer people to shut up, but those people were never good artists, maybe political tryranns. You want your cake and to eat it too all by yourself. But then what's the point of coming here and presenting it as art for an audience in a concert hall (your words) in the first place? 

You are only looking for sophisms to avoid any kind of criticism. Yawn.


----------



## Jacck

Lisztian said:


> I can sympathise a little as I too find, say, his second piano sonata to be very difficult. I've generally found his earliest works to be too much for me to take in. His later works, however, strike me as being much more accessible. Ones I've especially enjoyed:
> Derive 1:
> 
> 
> 
> Figures, Doubles, Prismes:
> 
> 
> 
> Cummings ist der Dichter:
> 
> 
> 
> Pli Selon Pli also, but that one is a lot longer.


thanks, these are better than the piano sonatas. A work of his that I kind of like is the Explosante-Fixe


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> In the case of 4'33" and most of his other music, Cage has purposely removed his intent and control; he has relinquished the role of "composer", so the argument that the music "doesn't merit" being called composed music becomes irrelevant.


False. He has a second order control, since he points out what we should pay attention to and says to the performer to not play anything. Those are evident instructions from a composer. Cage was never interested in dumb chance, in his works he's always controlling things at the second order level.


----------



## Thomyum2

millionrainbows said:


> In the case of 4'33" and most of his other music, Cage has purposely removed his intent and control; he has relinquished the role of "composer", so the argument that the music "doesn't merit" being called composed music becomes irrelevant.


Yes, true, but we still attribute the work to him and associate his name with it. So did he compose a piece of music or didn't he? If he didn't, then what is it? Something of a paradox.

Reminds of my favorite line from the recently passed Neil Simon's _Murder by Death_:

Willie Wang: _I don't get something, Pop: WAS there a murder, or WASN'T there? _
Sidney Wang: _Yes: Killed good weekend. Drive, please. _


----------



## DaveM

I like to believe that true artists and composers create something so clever and wonderful that I could never hope to come close to matching it. The closer the works get to something I think I could create, the more I tend to think that this is not an artist or a composer so much as someone dabbling in it. 

I enjoy art and music where I believe the artist or composer was trying to create something I would appreciate and enjoy. The less I see any sign of that, the more I assume the creations are the results of self-absorption and/or a wandering mind.


----------



## JAS

I think part of the problem with 4'33" is that it was supposedly created to raise a question, but it is too often proposed as the answer to that question, which it really isn't. (It may be _an_ answer, but not _the_ answer.)


----------



## endelbendel

Gregory Panaguia, La Folia Variations. Experimental and good-humored.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> In the case of 4'33" and most of his other music, Cage has purposely removed his intent and control; he has relinquished the role of "composer", so the argument that the music "doesn't merit" being called composed music becomes irrelevant.


No, it doesn't. You can't just wave your hand over this and "sleight of hand" it away.


----------



## JeffD

I have a friend who helps people write grants. He knows a lot of the ins and outs.

I am thinking of getting a grant for the performance of Aurochses Coprolite, (which I am always doing anyway, but might as well get paid for it.) 

You are all giving me great verbiage to defend my grant proposal. If they can't say i am wrong, they should be able to grant me a stipend for my performing.

Should I get a copyright? I could then grant non-exclusive rights to perform it to others, for a small one time fee.


----------



## arpeggio

*Paul Taylor-duet*

In the Washington Post there was a notice that Paul Taylor, the noted choreographer and dancer, passed away on August 29:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/paul-taylor-prolific-modern-dance-choreographer-dies-at-88/2018/08/30/fd8c5fc4-ac60-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html?utm_term=.ffed02c232c0

In the Post obituary it mentioned the work _Duet_. This is like the _433_ of modern dance. A male and female dancer sat on the stage motionless for 4 1/2 minutes. I can imagine that this had the same effect in the world of dance as _433_ had in music.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> No, it doesn't. You can't just wave your hand over this and "sleight of hand" it away.


But to criticize it on those grounds shows that the piece was not understood. Cage wished to remove his intent, and that criticism is not logical in light of that. It makes it appear that the criticism is invalid to me, from being uninformed as to the role of Cage.


----------



## eugeneonagain

If he wanted to remove his intent it's best to just not 'compose' anything because just the act shows intent. That's why despite wanting to 'relinquish control' it's still called _Cage's 4'33"._


----------



## millionrainbows

Thomyum2 said:


> Yes, true, but we still attribute the work to him and associate his name with it. So did he compose a piece of music or didn't he? If he didn't, then what is it? Something of a paradox.


Well, no, 4'33" has no "composed" sounds in it, but that's an illogical criticism. All Cage did was provide a time-frame, in which undetermined sounds will appear. We are prompted to listen to these sounds as if they were music, so "we" are composing the meaning of the sounds in our minds.
In this sense, the piece is conceptual art. If this does not fit someone's definition of music, that's obvious to most, and does not need to be rammed down our throats. All of this 'protesting' _should_ seem a little embarrassing, considering the age of the piece and its context within the art world of New York in the 1960s.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> If he wanted to remove his intent it's best to just not 'compose' anything because just the act shows intent. That's why despite wanting 'relinquish control' it's still called _Cage's 4'33"._


Well, even John Cage had to put groceries on the table. So he should have opened a grocery store, right? Ba-da-bing!


----------



## aleazk

eugeneonagain said:


> If he wanted to remove his intent it's best to just not 'compose' anything because just the act shows intent. That's why despite wanting 'relinquish control' it's still called _Cage's 4'33"._


Well put. I wonder why we have to explain the obvious.


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> Well, even John Cage had to put groceries on the table. So he should have opened a grocery store, right? Ba-da-bing!


What a silly fallacy and false analogy.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> In this sense, the piece is conceptual art. If this does not fit someone's definition of music, that's obvious to most, and does not need to be rammed down our throats.


Halleluia! It may have been obvious to most, but it was not something you were willing to allow as you previously insisted it is music. Thanks for finally accepting some validity to an alternative point of view.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Well, even John Cage had to put groceries on the table. So he should have opened a grocery store, right? Ba-da-bing!


Do you think I would want to shop at a place with empty shelves? I also have to put food on the table!


----------



## millionrainbows

_







Originally Posted by *eugeneonagain* 
If he wanted to remove his intent it's best to just not 'compose' anything because just the act shows intent. That's why despite wanting 'relinquish control' it's still called Cage's 4'33".

_



aleazk said:


> Well put. I wonder why we have to explain the obvious.


"Well put?" "Obvious?" 
To be honest, my first reaction to this exchange was, "they _still_ talk as if they don't understand this." 
Not only did Cage remove his intent, which is only half of it, he also "gave" that task to the listener, thus _reversing the roles _of composer and audience. This is a very "Eastern" way of reversing things, which has further resonances of meaning regarding the terms "subjective" and "objective."


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> Do you think I would want to shop at a place with empty shelves? I also have to put food on the table!


Empty shelves, but the best prices in town.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> To be honest, my first reaction to this exchange was, "they _still_ talk as if they don't understand this." Not only did Cage remove his intent, which is only half of it, he also "gave" that task to the listener, thus _reversing the roles _of composer and audience. This is a very "Eastern" way of reversing things, which has further resonances of meaning regarding the terms "subjective" and "objective."


Yes, we get it. It's just not music. It's something else.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> "Well put?" "Obvious?"
> To be honest, my first reaction to this exchange was, "they _still_ talk as if they don't understand this."
> Not only did Cage remove his intent, which is only half of it, he also "gave" that task to the listener, thus _reversing the roles _of composer and audience. This is a very "Eastern" way of reversing things, which has further resonances of meaning regarding the terms "subjective" and "objective."


Now you're just taking the mick (out of whom though?). There's no transference of intent, the control still rests with who or what is directing what the audience _should_ be doing according the meaning of that 'art'. So if the performance of say 4'33" starts and everyone just goes off to the bar or just goes home, has it really been _performed_? If so, who says so?

They sit in their seats and attempt their mindfulness, held there by the intent of the person who devised the idea. Cage can't divorce himself, no matter what he says he wants.

See, I managed to say that without even invoking Eastern religion. Its possible.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Not only did Cage remove his intent, which is only half of it, he also "gave" that task to the listener, thus _reversing the roles _of composer and audience. This is a very "Eastern" way of reversing things, which has further resonances of meaning regarding the terms "subjective" and "objective."


I don't know about eastern, but in English, this statement is absolute nonsense. The composer has a role. The audience has a role. Those roles are defined by the descriptors. You cannot reverse the roles without also reversing the descriptors, and even that would not make sense as a final result.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> Empty shelves, but the best prices in town.


"Empty" and "nothing"? I can't believe this basic aspect of the work is still not grasped. At least, no one has acknowledged that they grasp it in a serious way.

Just using those terms to characterize the piece reveals a misunderstanding of it, or a refusal of it on the grounds that it consists of no _predetermined_ sounds. That's an illogical argument.

It indicates a basic error in understanding the piece, because 4'33" will _always _have real sounds occurring within its time-frame.

I.e, if you argue that 4'33" "contains no sound," you are in error.


----------



## aleazk

What millions says (I only read that via McLeod, since the former is in da list) was already criticized in the philosophy of Schopenhauer, which is basically eastern thought justified in rational terms instead of mysticism (at least he thought he did that). According to him, to stop suffering, you must turn away from the ego, that is, the Will. A typical eastern idea. But, how we do that if to try to turn away from the Will is an act of Will itself? The same applies for this discussion about Cage as composer of 4'33''. I wonder if millions ever read The World as Will and Representation, considering his supposed interest in eastern thought. Well, I kinda suspect the answer to that.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I don't know about eastern, but in English, this statement is absolute nonsense. The composer has a role. The audience has a role. Those roles are defined by the descriptors. You cannot reverse the roles without also reversing the descriptors, and even that would not make sense as a final result.


This response is totally illogical. Once again, it is falling back on definitions, and positing such nonsense as "roles cannot be reversed."


----------



## Thomyum2

millionrainbows said:


> Well, no, 4'33" has no "composed" sounds in it, but that's an illogical criticism. All Cage did was provide a time-frame, in which undetermined sounds will appear. We are prompted to listen to these sounds as if they were music, so "we" are composing the meaning of the sounds in our minds.


So if we are listening to a performance of Cage's 4'33", and during that performance in the next room someone is playing, say, Schubert's 'Trout' Quintet, and it is audible through the wall, then...? Am I listening to a piece by Cage, or by Schubert, or is it now something that we composed using Schubert's music as directed by Cage? Maybe a paradox is not the right word but it is certainly hard to untangle in my head.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> "Empty" and "nothing"? I can't believe this basic aspect of the work is still not grasped. At least, no one has acknowledged that they grasp it in a serious way.
> 
> Just using those terms to characterize the piece reveals a misunderstanding of it, or a refusal of it on the grounds that it consists of no _predetermined_ sounds. That's an illogical argument.


I think you have understandably lost track of this admittedly rather fragmented discussion.



millionrainbows said:


> It indicates a basic error in understanding the piece, because 4'33" will _always _have real sounds occurring within its time-frame.
> 
> I.e, if you argue that 4'33" "contains no sound," you are in error.


Was someone arguing that there was "no sound" that occurred in the "time frame" of 4'33"? (Just out of curiosity, what happens if 4'33" is "performed" in a soundproof room and the performers are perfectly quiet?) I think the broader argument is that 4'33" contains no music. Sound alone is not enough, at least for non-Cageians.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> This response is totally illogical. Once again, it is falling back on definitions, and positing such nonsense as "roles cannot be reversed."


Heaven forbid that we should rely on definitions in using words. How silly of us.


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> What millions says (I only read that via McLeod, since the former is in da list) was already criticized in the philosophy of Schopenhauer, which is basically eastern thought justified in rational terms instead of mysticism (at least he thought he did that). According to him, to stop suffering, you must turn away from the ego, that is, the Will. A typical eastern idea. But, how we do that if to try to turn away from the Will is an act of Will itself? The same applies for this discussion about Cage as composer of 4'33''. I wonder if millions ever read The World as Will and Representation, considering his suppused interest in eastern thought. Well, I kinda suspect the answer to that.


I am well aware of Schopenhauer. His philosophy was characterized as "Buddhism without any of the joy." That seems appropriate to the tone of this discussion.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> This response is totally illogical. Once again, it is falling back on definitions, and positing such nonsense as "roles cannot be reversed."


Illogical? Or just unreasonable to you? You are also making definitions regarding the alleged meanings of works and the contents of John Cage's mind and intent. Things I don't think you or anyone is qualified to do. The use of reason is all there is and trotting out second-hand Eastern koans is not an improvement upon this.

I am much less antagonistic toward Cage and conceptual art than many people who want to contradict you, but I have a limit.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> Heaven forbid that we should rely on definitions in using words. How silly of us.


Well, if one is going to rely on definitions, this should be accompanied by logical, informed thinking.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Well, if one is going to rely on definitions, this should be accompanied by logical, informed thinking.


Some of us have been relying on that too. It doesn't lead to where you want it to. What is the logical, informed thinking that does not rely on definitions? Do you seriously think that your posts are demonstrating these features? (Remember that we can actually read them for reference.)


----------



## millionrainbows

Thomyum2 said:


> So if we are listening to a performance of Cage's 4'33", and during that performance in the next room someone is playing, say, Schubert's 'Trout' Quintet, and it is audible through the wall, then...? Am I listening to a piece by Cage, or by Schubert, or is it now something that we composed using Schubert's music as directed by Cage? Maybe a paradox is not the right word but it is certainly hard to untangle in my head.


What an imaginative hypothetical! Still, it does nothing to bolster an argument lodged against 4'33"s validity, or even a basic understanding of it. You gotta get those basic premises correct if you are to proceed credibly.


----------



## aleazk

eugeneonagain said:


> I am much less antagonistic toward Cage and conceptual art than many people who want to contradict you, but I have a limit.


In my case is rather curious. I think I like some of Cage as much as millions, and I certainly understand Cage's ideas and eastern thought. But I simply happen to think that 4'33'' is not music, but conceptual-performance art. Apparently, that's a red line for millions and he will not tolerate it. Quite an absurd comedy.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> What an imaginative hypothetical! Still, it does nothing to bolster an argument lodged against 4'33"s validity, or even a basic understanding of it. You gotta get those basic premises correct if you are to proceed credibly.


You gotta read what people wrote, and ask questions to check the accuracy of your understanding if you want to proceed credibly.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I think you have understandably lost track of this admittedly rather fragmented discussion.


What does that statement have to do with the discussion? Nothing.



> Was someone arguing that there was "no sound" that occurred in the "time frame" of 4'33"?


No, they were joking about it (post 482, etc.)



> (Just out of curiosity, what happens if 4'33" is "performed" in a soundproof room and the performers are perfectly quiet?)


There is no such thing as silence; this is a well-known scientific fact.



> I think the broader argument is that 4'33" contains no music. Sound alone is not enough, at least for non-Cageians.


It does not contain predetermined sounds. It does contain sound, and if we accept Cage's invitation to "listen to the sound as if it were music," then it's music. For non-Cageians, it's just meaningless sound, because they do not have the imagination to participate.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> Some of us have been relying on that too. It doesn't lead to where you want it to. What is the logical, informed thinking that does not rely on definitions? Do you seriously think that your posts are demonstrating these features? (Remember that we can actually read them for reference.)


What does this have to do with the discussion? Nothing.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> What does this have to do with the discussion? Nothing.


For your contributions to it, I would agree. They have nothing to do with informed, logical thinking.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Illogical? Or just unreasonable to you? You are also making definitions regarding the alleged meanings of works and the contents of John Cage's mind and intent. Things I don't think you or anyone is qualified to do. The use of reason is all there is and trotting out second-hand Eastern koans is not an improvement upon this.


This has nothing to do with the discussion.



> I am much less antagonistic toward Cage and conceptual art than many people who want to contradict you, but I have a limit.


What are you talking about? This sounds very subjective. I thought the subject was 4'33" and its possible meanings.


----------



## DaveM

4’33” is a thought piece. If Cage had been addressing stressed-out people with the message to listen to the sounds around us as ‘the music of life’, I would think that’s a pretty original thought. But as a work of art? As music? As sound? No. Because whatever sound is around us is not the work of Cage and what is operative is the thought and what it means to us. Nice thought though.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> For your contributions to it, I would agree. They have nothing to do with informed, logical thinking.


What on earth are you talking about? What happened to 4'33"? Don't you have any "counter-theories" about 4'33" which would stand up to scrutiny? Let's hear 'em.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> You gotta read what people wrote, and ask questions to check the accuracy of your understanding if you want to proceed credibly.


Oh, I've been reading every word. What's worse, I've given serious responses based on what I actually think.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> What on earth are you talking about? What happened to 4'33"? Don't you have any "counter-theories" about 4'33" which would stand up to scrutiny? Let's hear 'em.


Agree or disagree, but everything we have been saying stands up to scrutiny. It just cannot stand up to utter nonsense. What is the musical notation (which would actually have to include at least some notes) that would document one performance and carry over to another? That would seem to be the very bare minimum requirement for any reasonable definition of a musical composition, even if we do not concern ourselves with the quality of that music.


----------



## aleazk

The blind repetition of 'This has nothing to do with the discussion' is the sole and ultimate resource of a man who cannot save some of his arguments, which have suffered fatal wounds and are now lying there, losing lots of blood, crying for their father's help, while he ignores them so that his ego is not damaged by the image of we seeing him helping his unfortunate (and full of congenital malformations, must be said) thought childs.

Speaking of not learning from eastern ideas


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> In my case is rather curious. I think I like some of Cage as much as millions, and I certainly understand Cage's ideas and eastern thought. But I simply happen to think that 4'33'' is not music, but conceptual-performance art.


The reason you cannot accept 4'33" as music is because you haven't submitted to Cage's request that you "listen to the sounds as if they were music." If you prefer to stick to a rational stance, that's your decision; but the invitation still stands.



> Apparently, that's a red line for millions and he will not tolerate it. Quite an absurd comedy.


No; there is no red line. I can tolerate your decision not to participate with John Cage in this wonderful idea called 4'33". I hope you are doing so out of a complete understanding, though. Sometimes your responses leave me with doubts about this.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> Agree or disagree, but everything we have been saying stands up to scrutiny. It just cannot stand up to utter nonsense. What is the musical notation (which would actually have to include at least some notes) that would document one performance and carry over to another? That would seem to be the very bare minimum requirement for any reasonable definition of a musical composition, even if we do not concern ourselves with the quality of that music.


You can't just throw around terms like "utter nonsense" without some logical argument to back it up. The rest of your response is the same old repetition of your definition of music.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> The reason you cannot accept 4'33" as music is because you haven't submitted to Cage's request that you "listen to the sounds as if they were music."


What other composer has ever had to say the phrase "please listen to this _as if it were music_"? I trust that Cage was clever enough to avoid actually saying something that so blatantly shone the light on his farcical offering.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> This has nothing to do with the discussion.


Okay fair enough, but now go and quote all the things that have been written which _are_ relevant to the discussion, but which you have conveniently ignored. Like the business of intent I offered you two pages back.


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> The blind repetition of 'This has nothing to do with the discussion' is the sole and ultimate resource of a man who cannot save some of his arguments, which have suffered fatal wounds and are now lying there, losing lots of blood, crying for their father's help, while he ignores them so that his ego is not damaged by the image of we seeing him helping his unfortunate (and full of congenit malformations, must be said) thought childs.
> 
> Speaking of not learning from eastern ideas


What on earth is this about? It sounds like it would make a good drama. It's certainly not something I will consider as worthy of response, since it has nothing to do with the thread idea.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> You can't just throw around terms like "utter nonsense" without some logical argument to back it up. The rest of your response is the same old repetition of your definition of music.


I gave you a logical argument to back up my position. The fact that it is consistent with previous statements that I have made is not a fallacy. Perhaps you just want to have the last word here, as if that is some kind of victory. I grant you that opportunity for the evening.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> "Empty" and "nothing"? I can't believe this basic aspect of the work is still not grasped. At least, no one has acknowledged that they grasp it in a serious way.
> 
> Just using those terms to characterize the piece reveals a misunderstanding of it, or a refusal of it on the grounds that it consists of no _predetermined_ sounds. That's an illogical argument.
> 
> It indicates a basic error in understanding the piece, because 4'33" will _always _have real sounds occurring within its time-frame.
> 
> I.e, if you argue that 4'33" "contains no sound," you are in error.


Do you think that a Beethoven symphony includes all of the incidental sounds that are heard when it's performed - coughs, creaking chairs, etc? Most people would say no. You could make an argument for yes. It comes down to a question about the ontological status of a piece of music, which is not trivial.

Anyway, the same goes for 4'33". There's a perfectly good, coherent view that it contains no sounds. People who hold this view are not betraying a failure to understand anything.

In fact if you do insist that 4'33" contains sounds, you're pretty much forced to accept the counterintuitive proposition that the Beethoven symphony, or any other traditional notated piece, consists not only of the deliberate sounds made by the performers reading the score, but also of whatever other sounds are heard during any given performance.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> What other composer has ever had to say the phrase "please listen to this _as if it were music_"?


In the book "Silence," Cage put his own "koans" in there, based on different experiences. There's one about him & David Tudor going into a Denny's, and they are looking out the window at people swimming and diving into a big pool while the juke box is playing. This is the sort of listening experience that it's based on. It's very similar to the "Pink Floyd/Wizard of Oz" phenomenon some years back. If that's any help to you.


----------



## KenOC

The subject of silence as music has been addressed by the brilliant German reductionist Karlheinz Klopweisser. He speaks of "German silence, which is organic, as opposed to French silence which is ornamental." He doesn't speak of Cage, whose silence is (we may be sure) of a different sort altogether.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I gave you a logical argument to back up my position. The fact that it is consistent with previous statements that I have made is not a fallacy. Perhaps you just want to have the last word here, as if that is some kind of victory. I grant you that opportunity for the evening.


No; your last two or three posts were off-topic, and aimed at the "nature" of my statements. I don't wish to get entangled in such obviously unprofitable ventures.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I've read _Silence_ and I have to admit it did give me more insight into what is an easily dismissed area, but I think you are adding your own idiosyncratic views on top and behaving as though they are Cage's views or an extension of his views or a 'correct' communication of his views; I don't think they are.

As isorhythm wrote above you, the view that 4'33" contains no music must also be perfectly valid since you claim the interpretation and intent is no longer Cage's or anyone's in particular. Not a failure to 'understand'.

At this juncture I think you are in danger of undermining yourself, which is a shame because I don't disagree with everything you say. You are undermining yourself by trying to claim coherency with contradictory statements.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Do you think that a Beethoven symphony includes all of the incidental sounds that are heard when it's performed - coughs, creaking chairs, etc? Most people would say no. You could make an argument for yes. It comes down to a question about the ontological status of a piece of music, which is not trivial.


No, of course not. But a comparison of 4'33" to Beethoven is absurd to me, because I accept 4'33" on its own terms.



> Anyway, the same goes for 4'33". There's a perfectly good, coherent view that it contains no sounds. People who hold this view are not betraying a failure to understand anything.


I'm sorry to have to contradict you, but that's just a logical fallacy. The work consists of the sounds which are heard during its performance.



> In fact if you do insist that 4'33" contains sounds, you're pretty much forced to accept the counterintuitive proposition that the Beethoven symphony, or any other traditional notated piece, consists not only of the deliberate sounds made by the performers reading the score, but also of whatever other sounds are heard during any given performance.


Yes, that's true, but Beethoven did not request that we listen to the extraneous sounds that way. So I won't. I will enter into my agreement with Beethoven when I listen to his symphonies.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Well, no, 4'33" has no "composed" sounds in it, but that's an illogical criticism. All Cage did was provide a time-frame, in which undetermined sounds will appear. We are prompted to listen to these sounds as if they were music, so "we" are composing the meaning of the sounds in our minds.
> In this sense, the piece is conceptual art. If this does not fit someone's definition of music, that's obvious to most, and does not need to be rammed down our throats. All of this 'protesting' _should_ seem a little embarrassing, considering the age of the piece and its context within the art world of New York in the 1960s.


The only incontrovertibly true statement here is that "4'33" has no 'composed' sounds in it" (and there's no need for the quotes around "composed"). What is being criticized, and very logically, is that something with no composed sounds in it meets any rational criterion for being called music. None of your talk about Cage's "reversing the roles of composer and listener" holds any water. "We," the audience, are not composing; composition is an intentional act, whereas what "we" are doing during 4'33" is hearing things to which we may or may not pay attention, and which our minds may or may not process in any number of ways. "We" are more likely to be "composing" perplexed thoughts in brains deprived of music than to be converting rustling candy wrappers and squeaking theater chairs into musique concrete. Our brains don't process these things "as if" they are something they are not.

This is not composition, and it is not music.

"Conceptual art"? Fine - although it suffers more than ordinarily from the common failure of such stuff to make clear from its actual content what the "concept" is. Its concept might just as well be that "we" are all victims of a joke. How would we know, with nothing printed in the program to tell us? What we know about the intent behind 4'33" comes not from the thing itself but from what's been said about it.

What's "a little embarrassing" here is that, "considering the age of the piece and its context within the art world of New York in the 1960s," anyone now should accept as settled dogma a definition of music which arose from that milieu and which, not surprisingly, throws out everything which has told man throughout all the ages that he is listening to music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> "We" are more likely to be "composing" perplexed thoughts in brains deprived of music than to be converting rustling candy wrappers and squeaking theater chairs into musique concrete.


I almost choked on my digestive biscuit while reading that.:lol:


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I almost choked on my digestive biscuit while reading that.:lol:


Makes it more of an indigestive biscuit, yes?


----------



## aleazk

eugeneonagain said:


> I almost choked on my digestive biscuit while reading that.:lol:


The sound would have been interesting if you were in the public in a 4'33'' performance. Althought the motive of the choke would be uncertain to most, was the biscuit or the reading of the program notes...


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I've read _Silence_ and I have to admit it did give me more insight into what is an easily dismissed area, but I think you are adding your own idiosyncratic views on top and behaving as though they are Cage's views or an extension of his views or a 'correct' communication of his views; I don't think they are.


It's not a very credible argument to simply refute what I say with no counter-argument. Besides, art and music intend that we "add our own idiosyncratic views" to the mix. I do think that I have a good enough understanding of Cage to say that my views on 4'33" are correct and in keeping with his intentions. At least, these are my seriously considered and sincere thoughts on the matter. It's not my job to "prove my case" to you. As the accuser, I should think that the "burden of disproof" is on you.



> As isorhythm wrote above you, the view that 4'33" contains no music must also be perfectly valid since you claim the interpretation and intent is no longer Cage's or anyone's in particular. Not a failure to 'understand'.


Then you're not following my line of thought in very much detail. The work contains no "predetermined" or controlled sound on the part of the composer; the "intent" is transferred to us, the listeners, who are requested to "listen to the sounds which occur as if they were music."



> At this juncture I think you are in danger of undermining yourself, which is a shame because I don't disagree with everything you say. You are undermining yourself by trying to claim coherency with contradictory statements.


What does this characterization of my statements do to bolster any counter-argument you may have? It seems totally irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> It's not a very credible argument to simply refute what I say with no counter-argument.


To refute something means precisely that is was done by means of a counter-argument. You probably mean 'reject'.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Then you're not following my line of thought in very much detail. The work contains no "predetermined" or controlled sound on the part of the composer; the "intent" is transferred to us, the listeners, who are requested to "listen to the sounds which occur as if they were music."


That request is intent. Again, you fail.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The only incontrovertibly true statement here is that "4'33" has no 'composed' sounds in it" (and there's no need for the quotes around "composed"). What is being criticized, and very logically, is that something with no composed sounds in it meets any rational criterion for being called music. None of your talk about Cage's "reversing the roles of composer and listener" holds any water.


Okay, that's perfectly fine with me if you choose not to engage with the work.



> None of your talk about Cage's "reversing the roles of composer and listener" holds any water.


I think it does, and not for the reasons of "definition" and "prescribed roles" which you go into below.



> "We," the audience, are not composing; composition is an intentional act, whereas what "we" are doing during 4'33" is hearing things to which we may or may not pay attention, and which our minds may or may not process in any number of ways. "We" are more likely to be "composing" perplexed thoughts in brains deprived of music than to be converting rustling candy wrappers and squeaking theater chairs into musique concrete. Our brains don't process these things "as if" they are something they are not.


Well, that's obvious, if you've chosen not to engage and listen to the sounds as music. I can't argue with such a flat-out refusal.



> This is not composition, and it is not music.


If you choose to define things in such a way, I can't argue with that. It's an air-tight case. You either engage, or you do not.



> "Conceptual art"? Fine - although it suffers more than ordinarily from the common failure of such stuff to make clear from its actual content what the "concept" is. Its concept might just as well be that "we" are all victims of a joke. How would we know, with nothing printed in the program to tell us? What we know about the intent behind 4'33" comes not from the thing itself but from what's been said about it.


I don't see that much explanation is needed. If there is, there's been plenty written about it, so anyone who attends a performance of 4'33" could be prepared for it.



> What's "a little embarrassing" here is that, "considering the age of the piece and its context within the art world of New York in the 1960s," anyone now should accept as settled dogma a definition of music which arose from that milieu and which, not surprisingly, throws out everything which has told man throughout all the ages that he is listening to music.


Well, that era was burgeoning with new art ideas. I don't think it "throws out" or tries to "destroy" anyone's idea of music, unless they feel so threatened by it that they are compelled to frantically and emotionally defend the abandoned fort of what is now seen as "music history." What's been done has been done.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> That request is intent. Again, you fail.


These short, terse little responses are not doing a very good job of making your argument, and frankly, they tend to obscure what it is we were supposed to be discussing. It's like playing ping-pong.


----------



## eugeneonagain

It may be short, but the substance and intent is clear. You have no valid answer. Checkmate.


----------



## philoctetes

4'33" = Mean Time Between Yawns


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> It may be short, but the substance and intent is clear. You have no valid answer. Checkmate.


Chess? You see things that way? I always thought Chess was a rather rigid game, but it seems appropriate. Gotta GO now.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Chess is for people with a definite handle on the situation and who those who know have an idea of multiple possible scenarios. I think it would appeal to Cage and ought to appeal to your cosmic mathematics.

Sadly you made a sharp exit.


----------



## Larkenfield

Some orchestras have started their concerts with a performance of 4:33. Good! It establishes a moment of self-awareness about the importance of Silence as well as the notes. It's the perfect place for it and an audience should be able to sit still for less than 5 minutes without blowing a gasket or complaining itself to death... Silence is an integral part of music, the silence between the notes, and a composer such as Debussy spoke of its importance. Any work that has ever been written has started out on the canvas of silence and ends with it... The conductor waits for it before beginning and there's often a special moment of silence after a great performance... The problem is that the mind usually hates it because it feels like nothing is happening and seeks the stimulation of outside activity. Cage did the world of sound a tremendous favor by creating an opportunity for Silence or at least a few moments of momentary stillness. Of course, some listeners have hated him ever since because they were forced to be alone with the noise of their own minds, perhaps for the first time... Here it is being performed by the LSO, but in my view, they should have been in playing position and the conductor in conducting position to do it justice and capture its spirit.


----------



## Woodduck

Okay, that's perfectly fine with me *if you choose not to engage with the work.*

I have engaged with the work. I know what it's about. I merely refuse to characterize it as music.

I think it does, and not for the reasons of "definition" and "prescribed roles" which you go into below.

You were the one who brought up the "roles" of composer and listener, and their supposed reversal (a nonsensical idea).

Well, that's obvious, *if you've chosen not to engage and listen to the sounds as music.* I can't argue with such a flat-out refusal.

No one can listen to random environmental sounds as music without redefining music to include random environmental sounds. You're arguing in a circle.

*You either engage, or you do not.
*
...said Patrick Stewart to Jonathan Frakes.

*I don't see that much explanation is needed*. If there is, there's been plenty written about it, so anyone who attends a performance of 4'33" could be prepared for it.

I said that 4'33" can't communicate its concept without program notes or the equivalent. Did you "hear" 4'33" for the first time without preparation and think, "AHA! The fart just emitted by the guy in front of me is the music!"?

Well, that era was burgeoning with new art ideas. I don't think it "throws out" or tries to "destroy" anyone's idea of music, unless *they feel so threatened* by it that they are compelled to *frantically and emotionally* defend the abandoned fort of what is now seen as "music history." *What's been done has been done.*

Done, yes. It's a period in art history that's over and done. It has no power over any mind in the present that doesn't slavishly buy into its absurd dogmas. What painter now believes in the metaphysical necessity of flatness? Well, I'm sure there are still a few around who, like people raised Catholic, can never exorcise the ghosts.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> These short, terse little responses are not doing a very good job of making your argument, and frankly, they tend to obscure what it is we were supposed to be discussing. It's like playing ping-pong.


Large pot talking to kettle...


----------



## aleazk

Woodduck said:


> The only incontrovertibly true statement here is that "4'33" has no 'composed' sounds in it" (and there's no need for the quotes around "composed"). What is being criticized, and very logically, is that something with no composed sounds in it meets any rational criterion for being called music. None of your talk about Cage's "reversing the roles of composer and listener" holds any water. "We," the audience, are not composing; composition is an intentional act, whereas what "we" are doing during 4'33" is hearing things to which we may or may not pay attention, and which our minds may or may not process in any number of ways. "We" are more likely to be "composing" perplexed thoughts in brains deprived of music than to be converting rustling candy wrappers and squeaking theater chairs into musique concrete. Our brains don't process these things "as if" they are something they are not.
> 
> This is not composition, and it is not music.
> 
> "Conceptual art"? Fine - although it suffers more than ordinarily from the common failure of such stuff to make clear from its actual content what the "concept" is. Its concept might just as well be that "we" are all victims of a joke. How would we know, with nothing printed in the program to tell us? What we know about the intent behind 4'33" comes not from the thing itself but from what's been said about it.
> 
> What's "a little embarrassing" here is that, "considering the age of the piece and its context within the art world of New York in the 1960s," anyone now should accept as settled dogma a definition of music which arose from that milieu and which, not surprisingly, throws out everything which has told man throughout all the ages that he is listening to music.


Hey, I want a bit of that magic logic by which the mere 'invitation to see something as music' makes it music. Here, see this banana? I invite you to see it as my Phd thesis on rocket science. Now, where's my diploma, I already got my pals here for the family picture. What? No skill you say? How dare you! I even had to peel that banana, you know.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> In the case of 4'33" and most of his other music, Cage has purposely removed his intent and control; he has relinquished the role of "composer", so the argument that the music "doesn't merit" being called composed music becomes irrelevant.


I agree this logic holds, regardless of our personal definitions of music. According to this Cage never intended silence to be music.

https://www.theartstory.org/artist-cage-john.htm

Music, according to Cage, doesn't need to consist only of sounds produced at the composer's will. I feel any discussion whether or not it is music is splitting hairs. It's a half-century old idea that people should be aware of, and move on to more composed music. The idea is basically a dead-end idea. It doesn't mean more or less than what Cage intended. Just like the In Futurum piece composed only of rests is a dead-end work. Is it music? Yes, no, who cares?


----------



## Woodduck

aleazk said:


> Hey, I want a bit of that magic logic by which the mere 'invitation to see something as music' makes it music. Here, see this banana? I invite you to see it as my Phd thesis on rocket science. Now, where's my diploma, I already got my pals here for the family picture. What? No skill you say? How dare you! I even had to peel that banana, you know.


Well, at least you can't be accused of "not engaging" with the banana.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> I hope you are doing so out of a complete understanding, though. Sometimes your responses leave me with doubts about this.


Ahhh... personal feelings again. I thought personal feelings were irrelevant, or at least, an ignorable part of the discussion.

Look winning or losing a discussion is not the point, not my point.

My whole point in a nutshell, and my response to whoever just recently asked "who cares?" is:

These issues are very hard and very subtle. Equally informed educated interested people can entirely disagree on them or have trouble with them.

Not engaging, or not accepting, or disagreeing, are not indicators of a lack of breeding, a lack of reading, or a lack of understanding. Someone who does in engage , accept, and defend these ideas is not smarter, better informed, or more educated.

What i want to do is excise the bullying. I want to surgically remove the haughtiness, by showing that the position that "there is nothing here" is not an ignorant one, not an uneducated one, not an uninformed one. It is, as has been admitted, merely a decision not to accept.

And for the same reasons, the decision to accept does not impart superior wisdom, breeding, education, reading, knowledge, or experience. It is merely a decision to accept.

IF one accepts, THEN these ideas may apply and can and are fun to consider. And... IF NOT, THEN NOT.

So that is why I care. I don't like bullies, intellectual or otherwise.

How many students were discouraged out of chemistry class in the 1700s for getting an F on their paper on phlogiston. Go Schopenhauer, you rock.


----------



## arpeggio

JeffD said:


> So that is why I care. I don't like bullies, intellectual or otherwise.


I agree. But it takes a lot of work to successfully confront these self-righteous experts, either here or in orchestra board meetings. As long as they do not succeed in imposing their agenda on the forum I have learned the best strategy is to ignore them.

Actually most of my friends here are much smarter than I am and do a better job of confronting these individuals.


----------



## janxharris

John Cage - _A Flower_ for voice and closed piano - composed two years before 4'33''.






Cage described 4'33'' as his most important work.


----------



## janxharris

John Cage: Living room music (1940)


----------



## janxharris




----------



## JeffD




----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Tour De France


Am I missing something? Is this being offered as 'avant-garde' or a subtle comment on the debate that has preceded it?


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> Am I missing something? Is this being offered as 'avant-garde' or a subtle comment on the debate that has preceded it?


A comment in the Cage piece: 'This sound likes Tour de France from Kraftwerk!﻿'. I am wondering what _can't_ be posted if these Cage works are permitted?


----------



## janxharris

I present another performance of Cage's 4'33'' - in the background you can hear this:


----------



## Bulldog

The Cage pieces on posts 541 and 542 don't appeal to me, but they are certainly musical works.


----------



## DeepR

Every other discussion of this kind somehow gravitates towards the outer reaches of music where at some point you will inevitably get sucked into the void that is 4'33". I see we have arrived at that point again. :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

DeepR said:


> Every other discussion of this kind somehow gravitates towards the outer reaches of music where at some point you will inevitably get sucked into the void that is 4'33". I see we have arrived at that point again. :lol:


Where have you been? The void has been sucking for days now.


----------



## JAS

Bulldog said:


> The Cage pieces on posts 541 and 542 don't appeal to me, but they are certainly musical works.


I would agree with this statement. What I would not call them is classical music.


----------



## aleazk

Cage has a lot of interesting music. For example:


----------



## arpeggio

………………….…………………………………...


----------



## JAS

aleazk said:


> Cage has a lot of interesting music. For example:


For me, that one falls somewhere in the gap between musical and music. It has some of what I would consider musical characteristics, but it does not reach what I would consider the shores of music (and not merely because I dislike it). To me, whatever it is trying to accomplish is too abstract to be meaningful, and the means utilized are not so appealing that I would choose to listen to it merely on those terms. And in no case would I consider it classical music.


----------



## aleazk

JAS said:


> For me, that one falls somewhere in the gap between musical and music. It has some of what I would consider musical characteristics, but it does not reach what I would consider the shores of music (and not merely because I dislike it). To me, whatever it is trying to accomplish is too abstract to be meaningful, and the means utilized are not so appealing that I would choose to listen to it merely on those terms. And in no case would I consider it classical music.


What do you mean exactly when you say abstract?

Anyway, to me it shows a rather good ear for finding contrasts and combinations from all the set of avaible sounds in the prepared piano. I also think it shows a very natural and intuitive, musical way of placing the musical events, which perhaps possibly originated from improvisation as a way of generating raw material for this piece. As for the sounds, I like the very wide timbral variety he is able to get from the preparation of the piano, which in many cases get very close to the timbre of some percussion instruments (gamelan, gongs, etc.). In the aesthetics side, I like the calm atmosphere, certainly a thing ligated to his zen ideas; the sounds akin to eastern percussion reinforce this feeling. I have no problem in placing this in the 20th avant-garde of the classical tradition, since it clearly follows some of the ideas of that movement. And the movement itself is part of the classical tradition, as the OP here argued (although I happen to disagree with his first example), I mentioned at some point in this thread why I think this is the case.

I think it is one of Cage's best pieces and certainly a landmark in the whole of the mentioned movement.


----------



## aleazk

Another piece by Cage which I like:






I think there's a direct straight line from the following pieces to the one by Cage:











(Percy Grainger's orchestration of the piece)

All of the pieces display an obvious and evident inspiration from gamelan music and the incorporation of its elements into western classical orchestration techniques. The only one I think is a masterpiece is the Ravel (the whole suite), the Debussy merely nice to me, and the Cage really good and superior to the one by Debussy.


----------



## millionrainbows

> I have engaged with the work. I know what it's about. I merely refuse to characterize it as music.


If you've chosen not to engage and listen to the sounds as music, you haven't engaged with it. You're still stuck on definitions.



> You were the one who brought up the "roles" of composer and listener, and their supposed reversal (a nonsensical idea).


That's all? That's not a response. I think your response lacks any idea at all.



> No one can listen to random environmental sounds as music without redefining music to include random environmental sounds.


Yes they can. It's easy.


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> Hey, I want a bit of that magic logic by which the mere 'invitation to see something as music' makes it music. Here, see this banana? I invite you to see it as my Phd thesis on rocket science. Now, where's my diploma, I already got my pals here for the family picture. What? No skill you say? How dare you! I even had to peel that banana, you know.


You're still stuck on definitions.


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> You're still stuck on definitions.


Ya, ya, I'm an obtuse and you reached the nirvana. Congratulations. Bye.


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> Ahhh... personal feelings again. I thought personal feelings were irrelevant, or at least, an ignorable part of the discussion.


Hold that thought.



> Not engaging, or not accepting, or disagreeing, are not indicators of a lack of breeding, a lack of reading, or a lack of understanding. Someone who does in engage , accept, and defend these ideas is not smarter, better informed, or more educated.


I never said any of that. You're playing the victim. Engaging with art is a decision you make.



> What i want to do is excise the bullying. *I want to surgically remove the haughtiness,* by showing that the position that "there is nothing here" is not an ignorant one, not an uneducated one, not an uninformed one.


*Surgically?* Don't hurt anyone. You are playing the blame game. You haven't convinced me that you completely understand the Cage piece. The piece is not "nothing," silent, or empty. I will continue to maintain that.



> It is, as has been admitted, merely a decision not to accept. And for the same reasons, the decision to accept does not impart superior wisdom, breeding, education, reading, knowledge, or experience.


If you decide not to accept 4'33" as music or art, that's all the reason that is needed. That really has nothing to do with the me, the Cage piece, or any definition of music, except to you personally. You're playing a "victim" role.



> It is merely a decision to accept.


That sounds like what I'm saying.



> IF one accepts, THEN these ideas may apply and can and are fun to consider. And... IF NOT, THEN NOT.


_Then talk about music you like._ That's more fun. I'm going to do the same.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> For me, that one falls somewhere in the gap between musical and music. It has some of what I would consider musical characteristics, but it does not reach what I would consider the shores of music (and not merely because I dislike it). To me, whatever it is trying to accomplish is too abstract to be meaningful, and the means utilized are not so appealing that I would choose to listen to it merely on those terms. And in no case would I consider it classical music.


With a background in art, I don't care if it's "classical"or not, because it's from an art tradition. In other words, I take John Cage's music as seriously as I take any other classical music or art.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Erik Satie on critics (in which I include myself):

"They ask only to inculcate in us the excellent principle of obedience. He who disobeys is to be pitied, for not to obey is very sad. But one must not obey one's evil passions, even if they themselves tell us to. How can one tell whether passions are evil? Yes, how? By the pleasure one has in yielding to them, giving oneself up to them; _and because critics do not like them._ They have no evil passions. How could the fine fellows have them?

They have no passions at all - _none_. They are always calm and think only of their duty, to correct the poor world's failings...and make a decent living from it. So they can buy themselves tobacco, quite simply..."


----------



## Woodduck

If you've chosen not to engage and listen to the sounds as music, you haven't engaged with it. You're still stuck on definitions.

You haven't any idea what I've "engaged" with or how. Mind your own "engagements."

That's all? That's not a response. I think your response lacks any idea at all.

Any response of mine contains more ideas than everything you've said for the last few days.


----------



## janxharris

Perhaps any contributions to discussing Cage's 4'33'' are doomed to merely reflect the extent of the content of the piece itself.


----------



## janxharris

Alphonse Allais's _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man_ (1897) consists of 24 blank bars of music.


----------



## KenOC

janxharris said:


> Alphonse Allais's _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man_ (1897) consists of 24 blank bars of music.


Ah, but that is _French _silence, which is merely ornamental. Cage's silence is far more fundamental and meaningful. Allais never heard of Buddhism, so his silence can't be worth much.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> Ah, but that is _French _silence, which is merely ornamental. Cage's silence is far more fundamental and meaningful. Allais never heard of Buddhism, so his silence can't be worth much.


 This is, perhaps, an example of a meaningful silence - 5 seconds following the first minute of Sibelius's _Tapiola_.


----------



## Enthusiast

JeffD said:


> ............
> These issues are very hard and very subtle. Equally informed educated interested people can entirely disagree on them or have trouble with them.
> 
> Not engaging, or not accepting, or disagreeing, are not indicators of a lack of breeding, a lack of reading, or a lack of understanding. Someone who does in engage , accept, and defend these ideas is not smarter, better informed, or more educated.
> 
> *What i want to do is excise the bullying. *I want to surgically remove the haughtiness, by showing that the position that "there is nothing here" is not an ignorant one, not an uneducated one, not an uninformed one. It is, as has been admitted, merely a decision not to accept.
> 
> ....


I agree with your sentiments leading up to the paragraph on "bullying". Of course, bullying is despicable but what does bullying look like on a forum like this? Is someone who energetically defends a position against five gainsayers being bullied? He could walk away from that discussion (there are many gentler places on this forum), perhaps after making a definitive statement of his position. But I do agree it can look like bullying and many do walk away from the forum after being on the receiving end of a spate of it and many more merely look back on a history of the same "battle" being fought over and over again and generally visit to post rarely. The thing is that the hard to resolve debates carry over to our definition of "bullies" who are "haughty". Those trying to hold a minority position in these debates are often criticised in these terms by those who are objectively the "bullies" (because they are a much larger group).


----------



## Larkenfield

”John, in a moment of great wisdom about 4:33, once told me that it’s now time for the orchestra to cough and sneeze and for the audience to finally remain silent. I thought that was revolutionary and immediately took a nap.” —PDQ Bach


----------



## JAS

JeffD said:


> What i want to do is excise the bullying. I want to surgically remove the haughtiness, by showing that the position that "there is nothing here" is not an ignorant one, not an uneducated one, not an uninformed one. It is, as has been admitted, merely a decision not to accept.


I agree with this sentiment. In general, I think 4'33" is too often used as a kind of litmus test to see (or signal) if one has drunk the Kool-Aid in terms of modernism (with the suggestion, or sometimes the overt statement, that there is something wrong or backwards about you if you haven't).


----------



## Tallisman

janxharris said:


> Alphonse Allais's _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man_ (1897) consists of 24 blank bars of music.


Let's not talk about his more racist versions of the same joke...


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> If you've chosen not to engage and listen to the sounds as music, you haven't engaged with it. You're still stuck on definitions.
> 
> You haven't any idea what I've "engaged" with or how. Mind your own "engagements."
> 
> Ok, but that disqualifies your comments of any credibility concerning others' observations on the piece, and unveils them as mere invalidations without substance, directed at persons, not the work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all? That's not a response. I think your response lacks any idea at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Any response of mine contains more ideas than everything you've said for the last few days.
> 
> I don't see it. Most of your responses are just invalidations of my observations, based on your personal agenda. Totally emotional, without real substance, for the sake of conflict only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that you quit telling other people what they've done, what they believe, and what they understand or fail to understand. You've been doing it for years and everyone who's subjected to it finds it obnoxious and ridiculous. When people express ideas you disagree with the appropriate response is NOT to tell them that they and people "like" them are "listening wrong" or that they're insufficiently "metaphysical" or too "rationalistic" or some other such presumptuous poppycock. When I'm discussing music and ideas, I don't care to be informed (or have the entire forum informed) of my character flaws or my philosophical delusions or my inability to see or do this or that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are doing just that. My observations concern only the works being discussed. Your responses, like this one, are emotionally charged and concerned with personal matters.
Click to expand...


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I agree with this sentiment. In general, I think 4'33" is too often used as a kind of litmus test to see (or signal) if one has drunk the Kool-Aid in terms of modernism (with the suggestion, or sometimes the overt statement, that there is something wrong or backwards about you if you haven't).


Either you understand 4'33", or you don't. If it keeps being joked about and characterized as being a "silent" or "empty" work, I simply point out that it's not. Nothing personal.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> What is being criticized, and very logically, is that something with no composed sounds in it meets any rational criterion for being called music.


I don't think that's a good basis for not engaging with the work.



> None of your talk about Cage's "reversing the roles of composer and listener" holds any water. "We," the audience, are not composing; composition is an intentional act, whereas what "we" are doing during 4'33" is hearing things to which we may or may not pay attention, and which our minds may or may not process in any number of ways. "We" are more likely to be "composing" perplexed thoughts in brains deprived of music than to be converting rustling candy wrappers and squeaking theater chairs into musique concrete. Our brains don't process these things "as if" they are something they are not.


There's too many hypotheticals in your response:
_what "we" are doing during 4'33" is hearing things to which we may or may not pay attention, and which our minds may or may not process in any number of ways... 
_Hypothetical, and not very convincing.
_
"We" are more likely to be "composing" perplexed thoughts in brains deprived of music than to be converting rustling candy wrappers and squeaking theater chairs into musique concrete.
_Hypothetical. No one can predict with certainty how an audience will react.
_
Our brains don't process these things "as if" they are something they are not.
_Again, totally fabricated supposition.

Besides that, an important point is being overlooked: if we listen to the sounds as if they were music, this request is a self-fullfilling assurance that whatever is heard will be heard as music, with meaning. Otherwise, you are not engaging. It's perfectly fine not to engage; but don't try to tell us that "no one will hear this as music" or other empty assertions.


> This is not composition, and it is not music.


Objectively, true. But, Uhh, you forgot something: Cage has reversed the whole process. Now, composition, and the meaning of the sounds, has been given to the listener. It's no wonder that you want to call this role reversal "nonsense," since that's that's the crucial element which makes it work as music. Apparently, you have no real idea of the "subjective" aesthetic that is so treasured by the orientals.



> "Conceptual art"? Fine - although it suffers more than ordinarily from the common failure of such stuff to make clear from its actual content what the "concept" is.


Art is not supposed to be perfectly clear, like a mathematical theorum. It's supposed to make us think. If you refuse to engage, then that will never happen, because you haven't put the work in.



> Its concept might just as well be that "we" are all victims of a joke.


Besides not being true, I'm beginning to think that this "joke" theory of 4'33" is indicative of low self-esteem and hostility to or lacking in appreciation for art or culture, or having no understanding of them.


----------



## DaveM

It doesn’t take a mental giant to understand 4’33”. It is a concept, not a composition. End of story.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> It doesn't take a mental giant to understand 4'33". It is a concept, not a composition. End of story.


It's partly conceptual, but actual sounds will occur, if you are there at the performance, listening to them. You're right, it's simple. Why is everyone trying to complicate it?


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> It's partly conceptual, but actual sounds will occur, if you are there at the performance, listening to them. You're right, it's simple. Why is everyone trying to complicate it?


You are the one complicating it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> It's partly conceptual, but actual sounds will occur, if you are there at the performance, listening to them. You're right, it's simple. Why is everyone trying to complicate it?


Those actual, random sounds that might occur at different moments don't belong to the 'performance'. Really, 4,33 is a rather rubbish idea, the essence of which is lifted from an avant-garde music period of 30 years previous. It's a clever parlour game.

What you call 'complicating' and 'not getting it' is actually people calling a spade a spade and you don't get more uncomplicated than that.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Either you understand 4'33", or you don't. If it keeps being joked about and characterized as being a "silent" or "empty" work, I simply point out that it's not. Nothing personal.


You can repeat this vapid bit of nonsense as many times as you like. Repetition does not make nonsense into truth. Let us actually provide something more than mindless sophistry. Where I work, there is an amateur orchestra, that practices at lunch time one day a week. In spite of their earnestness, even their advocates must admit that they are pretty terrible, and yet, when they play a piece that one has heard and more or less committed to memory, it is possible to recognize what they are playing without anyone telling you, even if the task may require a considerable amount of effort. The reason that this phenomenon is true is because what they are playing is a musical composition, and as such has a set of discernible musical characteristics. These characteristics are somewhat malleable, able to survive a number of alterations without entirely surrendering the nature of the original piece. It may be played as excerpts or in more complete form, with variations in the tempo, various colorings or ornamentation, and even the instruments with their unique sounds. None of this is true for 4'33". Unless someone tells you, there is no way to suddenly realize that you are "hearing" it. (At best, one might make such a guess in attending a concert and finding the musicians sitting and playing nothing, but would it be conceivable that there might be a transcription of the work or that it might inspire a set of variations, other than longer or shorter "performances" of the same stunt?) 4'33" does not have such characteristics, because it is not a composition, musical or otherwise.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think that's a good basis for not engaging with the work.


I know you love definitions - what do you mean by 'engage'? I know I can't speak for everyone here, but I think you'll find that most have engaged with the work and the concept - just not in the way you want, with little cymbals, incense sticks and occasional chants of 'OM'.


----------



## Woodduck

JAS said:


> You can repeat this vapid bit of nonsense as many times as you like. Repetition does not make nonsense into truth. Let us actually provide something more than mindless sophistry. Where I work, there is an amateur orchestra, that practices at lunch time one day a week. In spite of their earnestness, even their advocates must admit that they are pretty terrible, and yet, when they play a piece that one has heard and more or less committed to memory, it is possible to recognize what they are playing without anyone telling you, even if the task may require a considerable amount of effort. The reason that this phenomenon is true is because what they are playing is a musical composition, and as such has a set of discernible musical characteristics. These characteristics are somewhat malleable, able to survive a number of alterations without entirely surrendering the nature of the original piece. It may be played as excerpts or in more complete form, with variations in the tempo, various colorings or ornamentation, and even the instruments with their unique sounds. None of this is true for 4'33". Unless someone tells you, there is no way to suddenly realize that you are "hearing" it. (At best, one might make such a guess in attending a concert and finding the musicians sitting and playing nothing, but would it be conceivable that there might be a transcription of the work or that it might inspire a set of variations, other than longer or shorter "performances" of the same stunt?) 4'33" does not have such characteristics, because it is not a composition, musical or otherwise.


Good try, JAS, but rationality will never win a fight where one's opponent despises it.

Millionrainbows can't allow himself to be persuaded by any view other than his own, which is why he can only repeat over and over that we don't "get it," that we don't know how to listen to it, or that we refuse to "engage" with it.

The "concept" of 4'33" is baby simple and most of us, I suspect, "got" it a long time ago. Millionrainbows thinks that if we really understood the thing we would _ipso facto_ share his view of its artistic value and its status as music. But it's entirely possible, and legitimate, to see what Cage was up to while holding that the piece is not an artistic achievement (or is at best "conceptual art") and that the experience of it, while it may vary from one person to another, is not an experience of _music._ Cage has used the trappings of a concert to try (successfully or not) to get people to share his own appreciation of the unstructured, nonjudgmental experience of simply hearing. Personally, there are ways of doing that that I find more attractive than sitting in an auditorium across from a pianist who moves his hands only to turn empty pages and, when four minutes and thirty-three seconds have expired, informs me that my transcendental experience is over and that it's time for some Elliott Carter. I think I'd rather have a picnic under the pine trees and listen to the rustle of needles, the scurrying of chipmunks, and the twittering of tiny birds.

But I guess that isn't artistically sophisticated enough for millionrainbows. Look at this bit of verbal hocus-pocus:

_*"If we listen to the sounds as if they were music, this request is a self-fulfilling assurance that whatever is heard will be heard as music*, with meaning. Otherwise, you are not engaging. It's perfectly fine not to engage; but don't try to tell us that 'no one will hear this as music' or other empty assertions."_

Is it really possible to miss the contradiction in that first sentence? What does it mean to listen to nonmusical sounds "as if" they were music, when it's obvious that they are not? And if we try to claim that they are, why do we have to listen "as if" they are, when we don't assume a distinction to begin with? Or does nonmusic become music by being listened to in a certain way, but only if we believe it does? How does a thing become something it is not as a result of our regarding it as if it were that thing? Is this the Jiminy Cricket theory of art? "When you wish upon ..." Well, read on:

_*"Cage has reversed the whole process. Now, **composition, and the meaning of the sounds, has been given to the listener. *It's no wonder that you want to call this role reversal 'nonsense,' since that's that's the crucial element which makes it work as music." _

Apparently nonmusical sounds become music, not only because we listen to them "as if" they were, but because Cage has pushed the composer's job off onto us in a clever "role reversal." Of course we don't actually compose anything with the sounds we hear, and it seems unlikely that Cage intended that we do so; we're unlikely to come up with anything very interesting in 4'33" in any case, or anything at all if we're not musicians. Of course, 4'33" doesn't come with instructions for how to make musical compositions out of environmental noises. But why should any of this stop us from spinning "meaning" out of pixie dust? Tinkerbell, are you there? (Sorry, I'm mixing my Disney films).

But the most wondrous thing millionrainbows tells us is not how nonmusic becomes music if we'll only listen to it as if it is and believe in the incarnation of the composer in ourselves, but how knowledgeable and sensitive musicians and music lovers can suddenly become ignorant rubes by disagreeing with him. From a single post:

_"Apparently, you have no real idea of the 'subjective' aesthetic that is so treasured by the orientals."
_
_"I'm beginning to think that this "joke" theory of 4'33" is indicative of low self-esteem and hostility to or lacking in appreciation for art or culture, or having no understanding of them."
_
Oh, man! The truth hurts, doesn't it? Clearly we all have a lot of work to do to reach millionrainbows' level of illumination. But let's waste no time getting down to work. Me, I can hardly wait till I've earned the right to announce that people have no self-esteem and no real idea, appreciation, or understanding of art and culture. Maybe, when I'm good enough to say things like that, millionrainbows will be my friend, even if everyone else is telling me what a jerk I am.


----------



## JAS

Woodduck said:


> Good try, JAS, but rationality will never win a fight where one's opponent despises it.


I do understand that millionrainbows is unreachable, but he really isn't the audience, just as we are not really the audience for _his_ posts. There is no way to pierce the mystical ether that surrounds his little island and obscures it from the gaze of the larger world, nor is there really any reason to attempt it. (That may actually be backwards, and the purpose of the ether is to prevent the island from gazing at the larger world.) I just wanted to post the thought, as an example of what an actual logical argument (in a classical sense) looks like, one that directly addresses the question raised and is not merely a blind assertion supported by nothing more than repetition. I hope at least a few others enjoyed reading it as much as I did writing it.


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> You are the one complicating it.


Yes, I suppose it would be simpler and easier to follow the herd, and dismiss the piece as "rubbish" or whatever.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Those actual, random sounds that might occur at different moments don't belong to the 'performance'. Really, 4,33 is a rather rubbish idea, the essence of which is lifted from an avant-garde music period of 30 years previous. It's a clever parlour game.


You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on the piece; but I wager that I would have a much more rewarding experience at a performance of it than you would. So there!



> What you call 'complicating' and 'not getting it' is actually people calling a spade a spade and you don't get more uncomplicated than that.


Why is that? Because you said it is? I'm beginning to get an insight into your thinking.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> You can repeat this vapid bit of nonsense as many times as you like. Repetition does not make nonsense into truth. Let us actually provide something more than mindless sophistry. Where I work, there is an amateur orchestra, that practices at lunch time one day a week. In spite of their earnestness, even their advocates must admit that they are pretty terrible, and yet, when they play a piece that one has heard and more or less committed to memory, it is possible to recognize what they are playing without anyone telling you, even if the task may require a considerable amount of effort. The reason that this phenomenon is true is because what they are playing is a musical composition, and as such has a set of discernible musical characteristics. These characteristics are somewhat malleable, able to survive a number of alterations without entirely surrendering the nature of the original piece. It may be played as excerpts or in more complete form, with variations in the tempo, various colorings or ornamentation, and even the instruments with their unique sounds. None of this is true for 4'33". Unless someone tells you, there is no way to suddenly realize that you are "hearing" it. (At best, one might make such a guess in attending a concert and finding the musicians sitting and playing nothing, but would it be conceivable that there might be a transcription of the work or that it might inspire a set of variations, other than longer or shorter "performances" of the same stunt?) 4'33" does not have such characteristics, because it is not a composition, musical or otherwise.


As far as I am concerned, what you have said is also vapid nonsense.
I think you are putting unrealistic, even absurd expectations on 4'33". And I hate to sound repetitive, but you still appear to not understand the work, from what you have said above. Nothing personal, just my impression.


----------



## millionrainbows

Context: _What is being criticized, and very logically, is that something with no composed sounds in it meets any rational criterion for being called music.

_







Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_I don't think that's a good basis for not engaging with the work._



MacLeod said:


> I know you love definitions - what do you mean by 'engage'? I know I can't speak for everyone here, but I think you'll find that most have engaged with the work and the concept - just not in the way you want, with little cymbals, incense sticks and occasional chants of 'OM'.


Oh, you can engage with it with a copy of Kant's _Critique of Pure Reason_ on your lap, if you wish, or a Baptist hymnal. Don't forget the holy water.


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I suppose it would be simpler and easier to follow the herd, and dismiss the piece as "rubbish" or whatever.


I defy you to find a single post by me in all this discussion in which I dismissed the piece as rubbish.

Spoiler: you are not going to find it. 

If I find something is rubbish, I don't even take the trouble to talk about. That's why you will never see me discussing, say, Shostakovich in much detail, since I have a low opinion of his music. I just simply leave the discussion in those cases for those interested in that music.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> I defy you to find a single post by me in all this discussion in which I dismissed the piece as rubbish.


See my similar challenge in the other thread on the similar issue about the same work!


----------



## aleazk

MacLeod said:


> See my similar challenge in the other thread on the similar issue about the same work!


Ha, didn't see it. Curious, I would say then, since, I think, this fact that at least two members have to remark this, shows who is the one derailing things to ad-hominems and strawmen.


----------



## DaveM

aleazk said:


> Ha, didn't see it. Curious, I would say then, since, I think, this fact that at least two members have to remark this, shows who is the one derailing things to ad-hominems and strawmen.


In all fairness, I haven't seen any ad-hominems. IMO, that term should be relegated to the classification of such as things like 'you're an idiot'.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> In all fairness, I haven't seen any ad-hominems. IMO, that term should be relegated to the classification such as things like 'you're an idiot'.


A narrow definition of ad-hom, IMO. MR's posts are shot though with ad homs more subtle than plain invective. Apparently, if you think 4'33" is a joke, you suffer from low self-esteem, for example.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Good try, JAS, but rationality will never win a fight where one's opponent despises it.


Rationality has its uses.



> Millionrainbows can't allow himself to be persuaded by any view other than his own, which is why he can only repeat over and over that we don't "get it," that we don't know how to listen to it, or that we refuse to "engage" with it.


Those all seem like perfectly acceptable reasons that many people here choose not to engage with it, to me. But ultimately, it's not up to me, is it? I'm just stating my opinions, based on what has been said by those same people. If they choose not to engage, and broadcast this as an invalidation of the work, then I'm entitled to respond to it. I characterize it as their own personal reaction, not an indicator of some flaw in the piece.



> The "concept" of 4'33" is baby simple and most of us, I suspect, "got" it a long time ago. Millionrainbows thinks that if we really understood the thing we would _ipso facto_ share his view of its artistic value and its status as music.


No; I simply think that people's decision not to engage with the piece is their own subjective decision, and has no bearing on the piece in an objective sense. When people here want to declare their reasons for rejecting 4'33", I am simply pointing out that this is their responsibility, and "blaming" 4'33" for this is their own misguided fallacy..



> But it's entirely possible, and legitimate, to see what Cage was up to while holding that the piece is not an artistic achievement (or is at best "conceptual art") and that the experience of it, while it may vary from one person to another, is not an experience of _music._


Again, we enter a subjective realm which is not subject to objective definition. If we listen to the sounds which occur during a performance of 4'33" as if they were music, then definitions are beside the point, and irrelevant to the intended experience.



> Cage has used the trappings of a concert to try (successfully or not) to get people to share his own appreciation of the unstructured, nonjudgmental experience of simply hearing.


I can agree with this.



> Personally, there are ways of doing that that I find more attractive than sitting in an auditorium across from a pianist who moves his hands only to turn empty pages and, when four minutes and thirty-three seconds have expired, informs me that my transcendental experience is over and that it's time for some Elliott Carter. I think I'd rather have a picnic under the pine trees and listen to the rustle of needles, the scurrying of chipmunks, and the twittering of tiny birds.


That's perfectly understandable. Personally, and out of respect for John Cage, I would engage.



> But I guess that isn't artistically sophisticated enough for millionrainbows. Look at this bit of verbal hocus-pocus:
> 
> _*"If we listen to the sounds as if they were music, this request is a self-fulfilling assurance that whatever is heard will be heard as music*, with meaning. Otherwise, you are not engaging. It's perfectly fine not to engage; but don't try to tell us that 'no one will hear this as music' or other empty assertions."_
> 
> Is it really possible to miss the contradiction in that first sentence?


The gist of my response was to counter your assertions that "you knew how most other people would respond," which is presumptive to the max.



> What does it mean to listen to nonmusical sounds "as if" they were music, when it's obvious that they are not?


I can do it; it's quite simple. It's called 'mindful listening,' and it can be as inspiring as a Wagnerian opera.



> And if we try to claim that they are, why do we have to listen "as if" they are, when we don't assume a distinction to begin with?


That's all too forced; you're missing the subtlety of it all. No one is "claiming" that you "must listen." That would be absurd to try to "claim" or control someone else's subjective experience. All 4'33" is is a suggestion, not a "claim," definition, or attempt to control.



> Or does non-music become music by being listened to in a certain way, but only if we believe it does?


That's close. We don't have to "believe" in it as a dogma, but simply listen. Then, the sounds are subject to our own experience of them as music, so distinctions like "non-music becoming music" can be dropped. Those notions are artifacts of the rational, defining mind.



> How does a thing become something it is not as a result of our regarding it as if it were that thing?


"Something it is not" is a rational distinction, and that doesn't apply to subjective experience.



> Is this the Jiminy Cricket theory of art? "When you wish upon ..."


That's a beautiful song. So is this:







> Well, read on:
> 
> _*"Cage has reversed the whole process. Now, **composition, and the meaning of the sounds, has been given to the listener. *It's no wonder that you want to call this role reversal 'nonsense,' since that's that's the crucial element which makes it work as music." _
> 
> Apparently nonmusical sounds become music, not only because we listen to them "as if" they were, but because Cage has pushed the composer's job off onto us in a clever "role reversal."


That's an unfair characterization. Cage was not forcing anyone, only proposing.



> Of course we don't actually compose anything with the sounds we hear, and it seems unlikely that Cage intended that we do so; we're unlikely to come up with anything very interesting in 4'33" in any case, or anything at all if we're not musicians.


I don't think that's true at all. Who is "we"? You got a frog in your pocket?



> Of course, 4'33" doesn't come with instructions for how to make musical compositions out of environmental noises. But why should any of this stop us from spinning "meaning" out of pixie dust? Tinkerbell, are you there? (Sorry, I'm mixing my Disney films).


You're making some incorrect conclusions. All we have to do is listen mindfully, and there is very little effort involved. This process could inspire other music which we might create, though. Brian Eno frequently incorporates sound of the landscape into his ambient compositions, such as _Lizard Point_ from the album _On Land:
_







> But the most wondrous thing millionrainbows tells us is not how nonmusic becomes music if we'll only listen to it as if it is and believe in the incarnation of the composer in ourselves, but how knowledgeable and sensitive musicians and music lovers can suddenly become ignorant rubes by disagreeing with him.


But Brian Eno is probably not your cup of tea. This is not your area of expertise, I assume, so stop embarrassing yourself like this, Woodduck. Go back to what you love.



> From a single post:
> 
> _"Apparently, you have no real idea of the 'subjective' aesthetic that is so treasured by the orientals."
> _
> _"I'm beginning to think that this "joke" theory of 4'33" is indicative of low self-esteem and hostility to or lacking in appreciation for art or culture, or having no understanding of them."
> _
> Oh, man! The truth hurts, doesn't it? Clearly we all have a lot of work to do to reach millionrainbows' level of illumination. But let's waste no time getting down to work. Me, I can hardly wait till I've earned the right to announce that people have no self-esteem and no real idea, appreciation, or understanding of art and culture. Maybe, when I'm good enough to say things like that, millionrainbows will be my friend, even if everyone else is telling me what a jerk I am.


People can react any way they want to 4'33", but if they broadcast their reactions and ideas as if this were somehow indicative of the objective worth of Cage's music, then I am compelled to comment on this, based on what they have said. In many cases, the responses have been so emotional and lacking in substance that to say they are "uninformed" and indicate a defensive opposition which is directed at the art, then my characterizations begin to look more accurate. Especially in context.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> ....if you think 4'33" is a joke...


As posted before - end of first, beginning of second movement:


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> I defy you to find a single post by me in all this discussion in which I dismissed the piece as rubbish.
> 
> Spoiler: you are not going to find it.


I didn't quote you; I was referring to eugenonagain's comment which followed. I was talking about "herd" reaction anyway, not you specifically. Is this what it's come down to, protesting alleged mis-quotes? And now you're accusing me of ad hominems! Let's keep it clean, boys.



> If I find something is rubbish, I don't even take the trouble to talk about. That's why you will never see me discussing, say, Shostakovich in much detail, since I have a low opinion of his music. I just simply leave the discussion in those cases for those interested in that music.


OK, ok, I get your point. You were saying?


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> I was talking about "herd" reaction anyway, not you specifically


Attributing others' thoughts to a "herd reaction" is quite a bit more disparaging than anything written by anyone else in this thread, FWIW.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on the piece; but I wager that I would have a much more rewarding experience at a performance of it than you would. So there!


It's not merely my free-floating opinion, it is supported by actual fact. The idea is unoriginal and pilfered from (mainly) the avant-garde music world of 20th century Paris. Fair enough JC resurrected it and ran with it.



millionrainbows said:


> Why is that? Because you said it is? I'm beginning to get an insight into your thinking.


No, I don't think you are. I don't think you have room for any conflicting views at all concerning this particular thing, It's a shame.


----------



## Logos

Cage's work is intrinsically insulting because by asking people to listen mindfully, it implies that most concert goers are mindless listeners who need a special occasion or purposeful instigation to be otherwise. In other words he's saying, "Listen, you distracted, ignorant, hectic-minded Westerner--I'm going to provide you with an opportunity to be mindful since you're a frenzied mindless idiot otherwise. Good thing I'm spoon-feeding you this second-hand, Zen voodoo exoticism so you can escape from your manic, consumerist fever-dream--even if only for a moment." I suppose all this appeals to those who are easily dazzled by vague notions of "_The Wisdom of the East_" and think that everything sounds more profound if it's said with a Chinese or Indian accent.


----------



## millionrainbows

Logos said:


> Cage's work is intrinsically insulting because by asking people to listen mindfully, it implies that most concert goers are mindless listeners who need a special occasion or purposeful instigation to be otherwise. In other words he's saying, "Listen, you distracted, ignorant, hectic-minded Westerner--I'm going to provide you with an opportunity to be mindful since you're a frenzied mindless idiot otherwise. Good thing I'm spoon-feeding you this second-hand, Zen voodoo exoticism so you can escape from your manic, consumerist fever-dream--even if only for a moment." I suppose all this appeals to those who are easily dazzled by vague notions of "_The Wisdom of the East_" and think that everything sounds more profound if it's said with a Chinese or Indian accent.


That's a perfectly reasonable response. In other words, you feel that John Cage is being condescending in creating this work. I'm glad to know that you are not taken in by such notions. Do you like Chinese food?


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> A narrow definition of ad-hom, IMO. MR's posts are shot though with ad homs more subtle than plain invective. Apparently, if you think 4'33" is a joke, you suffer from low self-esteem, for example.


'more subtle than plain invective' is pretty vague and subject to the interpretation and sensitivity of individual posters. Aren't such subtleties common here? Relegating the definition to true 'character demeaning' statements such as 'you are a moron' is more in keeping with the definition of 'ad hominem'.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> 'more subtle than plain invective' is pretty vague and subject to the interpretation and sensitivity of individual posters. Aren't such subtleties common here? Relegating the definition to true 'character demeaning' statements such as 'you are a moron' is more in keeping with the definition of 'ad hominem'.


IYO, of course....

I gave an example of what I considered to be an ad-hom. The truth is that whatever we think, it's up to the mods to decide.


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> I gave an example of what I considered to be an ad-hom. The truth is that whatever we think, it's up to the mods to decide.


That's why most of it goes wrong.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> IYO, of course....
> 
> I gave an example of what I considered to be an ad-hom. The truth is that whatever we think, it's up to the mods to decide.


But you didn't acknowledge that by your definition, these subtleties are common around here. I don't think the charge of making ad hominems should be used broadly and loosely, otherwise the term loses its importance. I'm pointing this out not just because of its use above, but because I've seen it used by a few others recently where it seemed to be an exaggeration.


----------



## Logos

millionrainbows said:


> That's a perfectly reasonable response. In other words, you feel that John Cage is being condescending in creating this work.


I would dispute that he has created anything, but I feel that his underlying assumption about the audience is insulting. Even if one is "taken in" by the philosophies and religions of the orient, a hippie like John Cage is hardly an adequate bridge towards a scholarly understanding of them. Such a person should pick an old copy of William Dwight Whitney's Sanskrit grammar and start conjugating verbs.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I have the feeling MR prefers gurus to anything so exhausting as a Sanskrit grammar. With the gurus you don't need to form, put forward and substantiate arguments and ideas, you just 'experience' everything.

I need that job. I could do with a rest.


----------



## KenOC

I think we owe John Cage a hearty vote of thanks for smoking out the pretentious artspeakers, those impressed with their own profundity, the “with it” modernists who think their tastes impress anybody aside from themselves, and other such sniffers of the clothes of emperors.

Thank you, John. Good job! :clap:


----------



## millionrainbows

Logos said:


> I would dispute that he has created anything, but I feel that his underlying assumption about the audience is insulting. Even if one is "taken in" by the philosophies and religions of the orient, a hippie like John Cage is hardly an adequate bridge towards a scholarly understanding of them. Such a person should pick an old copy of William Dwight Whitney's Sanskrit grammar and start conjugating verbs.


In other words, you're saying that he's a charlatan. Do you like Chinese food?


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I have the feeling MR prefers gurus to anything so exhausting as a Sanskrit grammar. With the gurus you don't need to form, put forward and substantiate arguments and ideas, you just 'experience' everything.
> 
> I need that job. I could do with a rest.


I like Eckhart Tolle. I'm glad you turned me on to that guy.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> ...Thank you, John. Good job! :clap:


Yes, thank you, John! We all remember you. You were the guy who was always smiling, unlike that grouch Beethoven. :trp:


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> But you didn't acknowledge that by your definition, these subtleties are common around here. I don't think the charge of making ad hominems should be used broadly and loosely, otherwise the term loses its importance. I'm pointing this out not just because of its use above, but because I've seen it used by a few others recently where it seemed to be an exaggeration.


It's not _my _definition. Oxford dictionaries makes no mention of invective in its definition. Wiki gives an example of a "hierarchy of disagreement" with name calling a separate category. And yes, these "subtleties" (and not-so-subtleties) are common around here.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> It's not _my _definition. Oxford dictionaries makes no mention of invective in its definition. Wiki gives an example of a "hierarchy of disagreement" with name calling a separate category. And yes, these "subtleties" (and not-so-subtleties) are common around here.


D: "You disagree with everything I say!"

_M: "I do not!"_


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> But you didn't acknowledge that by your definition, these subtleties are common around here. I don't think the charge of making ad hominems should be used broadly and loosely, otherwise the term loses its importance. I'm pointing this out not just because of its use above, but because I've seen it used by a few others recently where it seemed to be an exaggeration.


Wow, thanks for redeeming me, Dave, especially in light of all the ad hominems I've been subjected to lately.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I like Eckhart Tolle. I'm glad you turned me on to that guy.


Let it not be said that I don't turn people on.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> . In other words, I take John Cage's music as seriously as I take any other classical music or art.


One might ask, what is the criteria that you use to take this, or any other proposed piece seriously, as music or art.

But if I get you, the answer is, you take it seriously first, you accept it first, nothing gets ruled out, there is no criteria.

So your reasons, (perhaps) for not taking my piece, Aurochses Coprolite, seriously as music are as valid or invalid as are mine for not taking the Sdraulig piece seriously, as music.


----------



## millionrainbows

_







Originally Posted by *JAS* 
For me, that one falls somewhere in the gap between musical and music. It has some of what I would consider musical characteristics, but it does not reach what I would consider the shores of music (and not merely because I dislike it). To me, whatever it is trying to accomplish is too abstract to be meaningful, and the means utilized are not so appealing that I would choose to listen to it merely on those terms. And in no case would I consider it classical music.

_




> millionrainbows said: With a background in art, I don't care if it's "classical"or not, because it's from an art tradition. In other words, I take John Cage's music as seriously as I take any other classical music or art.





JeffD said:


> One might ask, what is the criteria that you use to take this, or any other proposed piece seriously, as music or art...But if I get you, the answer is, you take it seriously first, you accept it first, nothing gets ruled out, there is no criteria...So your reasons, (perhaps) for not taking my piece, Aurochses Coprolite, seriously as music are as valid or invalid as are mine for not taking the Sdraulig piece seriously, as music.


Well, it seems that you've already answered that question.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> Well, it seems that you've already answered that question.


Perhaps so, perhaps so.


----------



## JAS

What??!!! I see that my brilliant insight that 4'33" is a cantaloupe has not instantly won over a horde of admirers. What is wrong with you dimwits???!!! Are you all intellectual and aesthetic bumpkins???!!! You _can_ appreciate 4'33" as a cantaloupe if you will just choose to _engage_ with it as a cantaloupe. And if you _engage_ with it as a cantaloupe, you will soon _embrace_ it as a cantaloupe, and _become one_ with its sweet orangey goodness. Only then will you truly understand how succulent 4'33" really is.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Can't it be a pink grapefruit? I like those.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> Can't it be a pink grapefruit? I like those.


Hmmm. I can also count pink grapefruit, just as easily as cantaloupes. Okay, so there _might_ be a _small_ flaw in my theory.


----------



## janxharris

Erik Satie - Three pieces in the shape of a pear.


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> Erik Satie - Three pieces in the shape of a pear.


You are a real peach.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Ah... l'amour des Trois Oranges.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> What??!!! I see that my brilliant insight that 4'33" is a cantaloupe has not instantly won over a horde of admirers. What is wrong with you dimwits???!!! Are you all intellectual and aesthetic bumpkins???!!! You _can_ appreciate 4'33" as a cantaloupe if you will just choose to _engage_ with it as a cantaloupe. And if you _engage_ with it as a cantaloupe, you will soon _embrace_ it as a cantaloupe, and _become one_ with its sweet orangey goodness. Only then will you truly understand how succulent 4'33" really is.


Are you implying that John Cage was a "fruit?" Tsk, tsk, a sad case of homophobia, masquerading as jocular humor.
Since you're getting engaged, who's the lucky guy?


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Erik Satie - Three pieces in the shape of a pear.


Real thread substance duty: Funny you should mention Erik Satie. He was a big influence on John Cage.


----------



## starthrower

JAS said:


> What??!!! I see that my brilliant insight that 4'33" is a cantaloupe has not instantly won over a horde of admirers. What is wrong with you dimwits???!!! Are you all intellectual and aesthetic bumpkins???!!! You _can_ appreciate 4'33" as a cantaloupe if you will just choose to _engage_ with it as a cantaloupe. And if you _engage_ with it as a cantaloupe, you will soon _embrace_ it as a cantaloupe, and _become one_ with its sweet orangey goodness. Only then will you truly understand how succulent 4'33" really is.


I can eat half a cantaloupe in about four and a half minutes!


----------



## JAS

starthrower said:


> I can eat half a cantaloupe in about four and a half minutes!


You can probably do better if it is properly prepared first.


----------



## millionrainbows

Real thread substance duty: Pecos cantaloupes are by far the best in the world, if you can find them.

This discussion is proving to be very fruitful. Oh, I get the relevance: Schoenberg's bald head and a cantaloupe. Or am I getting my threads mixed up? There seem to be two simultaneous cantaloupe threads going on.


----------



## starthrower

JAS said:


> You can probably do better if it is properly prepared first.


Yes! And if I set up my microphones to capture the consumption of the delectable fruit, I'll have a new composition.


----------



## JAS

starthrower said:


> Yes! And if I set up my microphones to capture the consumption of the delectable fruit, I'll have a new composition.


And perhaps another, a few hours later.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> Yes! And if I set up my microphones to capture the consumption of the delectable fruit, I'll have a new composition.


We can call it SLURP. 
What happens a few hours later? the buzzing of flies? Be sure to wrap those rinds in old newspaper before disposing of them.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> This discussion is proving to be very fruitful. Oh, I get the relevance: Schoenberg's bald head and a cantaloupe. Or am I getting my threads mixed up? There seem to be two simultaneous cantaloupe threads going on.


This is an absurdist think piece. It has to be taken seriously as art. Its thread art.


----------

