# Second rate serial and avant garde contemporary works



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

For those that enjoy serial and avant garde contemporary music please post examples that you consider as second rate. What differentiates them from masterpieces of the style?

I see numerous examples of pieces that members love, but I can't remember seeing many that are considered poor.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Aavo Part, with the possible exception of Symphony 4.
Everything by Reich with the exception of the Desert Music -- and even their I have my doubts. 
Everything by Glass, including the etudes



I find Babbit's piano music totally inaccessible. I'm also have very rarely enjoyed the Stockhausen Klaviertucke or Boulez's Piano Sonata 3 apart from Constellation-Miroir -- haven't explored 1 and 2 much.

Not at all keen on Finnissy's Gershwin thingies either -- I like the Verdi thingies very much. 

I can pass over nearly everything I've heard by Ades or Adams.

Rzewski is an interesting one to think about in this thread.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2019)

Those who have seen me talk about Haas before would be familiar with my criticism that his music is just 'effects without cause;' perhaps he is the modern Meyerbeer! 










To explain it further, I believe a lot of his music lacks the kind of textural depth or counterpoint I hear in music I really love by Francesconi, Neuwirth, Saunders, Cassidy, Ferneyhough and others and instead relies on stringing together a bunch of 'interesting effects' or drawing out a series of sonorities without really giving me a sense that there is a purpose to the effects he asks the musicians to create. There's nothing really underneath the surface, it seems. He gets so many commissions and composes music so quickly that his music has almost become a bit of a parody of itself by now, the same cliches over and over again. There _are_ some works I do think are enjoyable to listen to such as _In Vain_ and _Limited Approximations,_ but most of it is just same old Haas microtones, Haas long notes and Haas flurries.

There are many other composers who use these effects in a more interesting way.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2019)

Often when a composer is commissioned to write a short orchestral piece it's likely to turn out to be one of the kind of flashy showpieces like this one by Johannes Maria Staud:






Although it's certainly not an ineffective piece, personally I think music like this is as charming as anything, it can be a bit predictable structurally for anyone who has listened to a few concert overtures or pieces like the overture to Der fliegende Holländer. It's probably not the kind of music I would say it representative of the best and most imaginative of contemporary orchestral music.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2019)

Some of Tan Dun's works, such as his Concerto for Orchestra strike me as having a missing element to the music, whose function is more likely filled with something visual or narrative. His music _can_ be very performative or theatrical, and in a live performance they do have the capacity to be rather striking. However, there's often only one thing happening at a time, all the time, making it easy to follow the orchestra visually by seeing where the sounds are coming from, but then there is no mystery or intrigue to the music as it's all laid out in plain sight. Having only one thing happen at a time, all the time in this way, once again doesn't really provide the music with much depth, does it?






In saying that, I do believe that there are some really wonderful pieces of music that are easy enough to follow on the surface by laying each gesture/sonority out clearly for the listener, but do have a great sense of textural depth, or something that makes the music interesting and intriguing by playing with our perception of time. _Silbury Air_ by Harrison Birtwistle is probably the best example of this I can give.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2019)

Yeah I think basically by now I'm just using this thread to post examples of pieces from styles I immerse myself in but haven't been overly fond of with attempts at explaining why. In order to actually identify something as second-rate I need to have some kind of criteria, which (when it comes to _any and every_ creative discipline) is largely a matter of taste. I am trying to keep things at least a little objective, though! I hope that my attempted evaluations are appreciated.

This is a great thread topic, btw, as it's good to keep us thinking critically about things we love.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think people generally differentiate between second rate and poor. I suspect that many on TC would think of Raff as second rate but (hopefully) none would consider his music poor. It may be close to impossible to hear poor Baroque, Classical, or Romantic music since such music is not recorded or played. What would be the point? I suspect it's difficult to find poor contemporary music for similar reasons though I suppose some would point to the music of many composition majors.

Maybe the difference is that poor music is constructed badly; whereas, second rate music may be constructed well but doesn't possess certain positive qualities that lift it into the first rate class. An interesting question is to what extent are those qualities objective or subjective. Overwhelmingly, when I read a post describing why a work is not good, I feel that the post is really describing why the poster subjectively does not like that work.



shirime said:


> Yeah I think basically by now I'm just using this thread to post examples of pieces from styles I immerse myself in but haven't been overly fond of with attempts at explaining why. In order to actually identify something as second-rate I need to have some kind of criteria, which (when it comes to _any and every_ creative discipline) is largely a matter of taste. I am trying to keep things at least a little objective, though! I hope that my attempted evaluations are appreciated.


shirime, you mention that your posts contain criteria for differentiating between the good and the second rate, but you also say those criteria are subjective. I think your comments are quite interesting especially since they come from someone immersed in the process of creating new music. So here's my question. How easily would a group of, say, 20 composers select good recorded contemporary works from second rate ones?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> Aavo Part, with the possible exception of Symphony 4.
> Everything by Reich with the exception of the Desert Music -- and even their I have my doubts.
> Everything by Glass, including the etudes.


I'm no expert but these composers probably aren't generally considered to be avant garde. Thoughts anyone?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

janxharris said:


> I'm no expert but these composers probably aren't generally considered to be avant garde. Thoughts anyone?


There was a time when they/their minimalist style were certainly considered innovative, especially by their adherents. On a general level, CD /LP shops have often had the habit of placing them under avantgarde too.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

> It may be close to impossible to hear poor Baroque, Classical, or Romantic music since such music is not recorded or played.


With the amount of recorded repertoire these days, a lot of obscure music and composers from those bygone times have become available, including much of less quality / interest, due to it being very conventional, or predictable.

In spite of the extraordinary low price, I decided not to invest in this 20 CD set, for example 
(has samples): https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/musik-aus-schloesser-und-residenzen/hnum/4251364


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> Aavo Part, with the possible exception of Symphony 4.
> ...


I agree with several of the points in your post, in particular regarding the minimalists, and a lot of Babbitt, and the late Boulez piano music. But have you heard the BIS recording of Paert's Symphonies 1-3, representing a very different, edgy and IMO attractive, side of him too? Also, I like the Tabula Rasa Concerto, of course, and some of the choral works with orchestra, though admittedly they can be very simple and static.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

A lot of late Boulez (_Repons_ and _...Explosante-Fixe..._ for example) I find pretty boring, overloaded as it is with trills and tremolos everywhere. And the influence of his later style on a host of younger French Spectralist composers such as Dalbavie, Hurel, Dufourt, etc. was detrimental IMO.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> I can pass over nearly everything I've heard by Ades or Adams.


I've always enjoyed Ades's Polaris - probably because of it has tonality (although it's constantly shifting).
I'm a bit nonplussed by Adams (I assume you mean John and not John Luther) too.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

There is a selection issue - alot of composers out there with only a small fraction getting recordings and performances, if you really want to hear mediocre music you have to go listen to works by the faculty of composition departments


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Maybe I'm weird but I try to seek out the good stuff. Of course I like many others am not qualified to say what is second rate. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it's a poorly constructed piece.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I have ultimately been disappointed by Adams and MacMillan and very actively dislike all the more recent Glass that I have heard. I am not much of a fan of Gorecki and there is a lot of Vasks that I think is poor. I am not really a Part fan but I do feel he has something. But these are hardly adventurous composers. There are many more obviously avant garde or atonal composers who I am unsure about but have found on more than one occasion that I suddenly find myself greatly liking a composer who I thought I didn't like. For example, I was once fairly certain that I didn't greatly like Birtwistle. So I don't want to name then: it is much easier with the new to say what I do like than what I definitely do not like. But after quite a lot of trying I still don't really feel that Holmboe has much to offer me and I feel that many of the current Scandinavian composers are overrated. 

But I do agree with mmsbls that there is a difference between not liking something and recognising that is is good but not of the top rank.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2019)

I have collected 15 000 cds of classical music and do not consider any to be poor. About 14 000 are probably second rate according to your criteria, because they do not contain masterpieces. You can only define masterpieces with the benefit of hindsight.
Regarding the composers active now you can only try to predict what will be masterpieces.
Different cultures will have different opinions (I am sure the Chinese will continue to hold Tan Dun in high regard although he is not a composer of masterpieces IMHO).
What is important to people today is the power, the emotional impact and the pleasure they get from the music. Technical criteria like proper use of counterpoint, textural and structural depth remain important but less so than in the past. The global audience is not really aware of these criteria but will somehow recognise the intrinsic quality of the music. 
I believe there are many very good composers working today. Few of them will however be top-tier composers. 
Norgard, Haas, Dusapin will (still IMHO) be recognized as masters because each of them has already more than 10 masterpieces in his catalog. Ferneyhough is a great composer but does not appeal to mass audiences, simply because his music is difficult even for insiders.
I have about 10 other great composers in mind but am not into name-dropping.
It is to be expected that all the others will be second-rate. That is how tough it is to be a master composer.
That should not prevent us from enjoying the music from the second-tier composers.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I've been listening to Bartok, the string quartets, and I like No. 1 more than no. 2. I'm beginning to think that Bartok is overrated.

The Babbitt criticisms I completely disagree with. _Robert Taub_ does a great job with the piano music; it's playful, colorful, and everything I could ask for in any music. When there are electronics involved, it's even more fun and colorful.

Adams I can take or leave; I do like _China Gates _and _Phrygian Gates _a lot, though. They are solo piano works. I like _Doctor_ _Atomic,_ too, because I like atomic bombs. I find them fascinating, and the perfect excuse for Adams to write "creepy" music.

I must disagree with the Glass criticisms as well; there is a hard-core purity to the early works, like _Dance Nos. 1-5,_ and the early ensemble works like _Music with Twelve Parts. Koyannisqatsi _still holds up well, and I periodically go back and watch the movie again. I like the Symphonies, too, especially _No. 2, _and _Kronos _doing the string quartets is good. The remastered _Glassworks _CD is fantastic. The one called _Analog _as well. I can relate to what he's doing, and the way he does it, like creating works in the studio by overdubbing (heard on _Analog_).

Roger Sessions was a fine craftsman, But I have my doubts about his isolationism.

Other doubts: Gorecki, Lutoslawski, Ferneyhough, Spectralism, Bloch, Prokofiev, Cowell, depending on my mood. I own recordings of all these, and go back on occasion to see if anything has changed.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Million, how about Berg's Lyric Suite? I too like Batok's 1st quartet the most. And most of the other non quartet works. I love Bloch's 1st quintet. Ferneyhough's quartets I do nor enjoy at all. Cowell I have yet to listen to.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

For people like myself that aren't into serialism good works are rare and the exception. 

What I find funny is people who like stuff like Lachenmann and Ferneyhough, suggesting composers such as Rzewski or the minimalists are over rated or second rate.

It seems like some people start to get stimulated by novelty and shock value and that is what they begin to perceive as good music. Anything newer composed that sounds consonant or more traditional will only get superficial attention and immediately discarded as old hat.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Aavo Part, with the possible exception of Symphony 4.
> Everything by Reich with the exception of the Desert Music -- and even their I have my doubts.
> Everything by Glass, including the etudes


Between this and the Chopin Nocturnes thread we have very different tastes my friend 

I'm not familiar with enough contemporary music to comment, all I know is what I like.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I find John Cage's, Philip Glass, Steve Reich's and Morton Feldman's music underwhelming.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I've been listening to Bartok, the string quartets, and I like No. 1 more than no. 2. I'm beginning to think that Bartok is overrated.
> 
> The Babbitt criticisms I completely disagree with. _Robert Taub_ does a great job with the piano music; it's playful, colorful, and everything I could ask for in any music. When there are electronics involved, it's even more fun and colorful.
> 
> ...


Lutosławski, Feldman, and Bartók are names that do not belong in this discussion. Unfortunately, people are allowed opinions. When I ascend to my rightful position as Dictator of the World, I shall put an end to this nonsense-hold your breath, gentlemen.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Red Terror said:


> ...When I ascend to my rightful position as Dictator of the World, I shall put an end to this nonsense-hold your breath, gentlemen.


I will attend to your application when time allows. Currently, other matters press.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

KenOC said:


> I will attend to your application when time allows. Currently, other matters press.


Ah, KenOC-I'll spare you the loneliness of international exile. However, I do hope you're not averse to manual labor in subhuman work conditions.

:tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Red Terror said:


> Ah, KenOC-I'll spare you the loneliness of international exile. However, I do hope you're not averse to manual labor in subhuman work conditions. :tiphat:


No problem, so long as it doesn't involve shoveling...but perhaps I shouldn't be specific.


----------



## stone (Dec 10, 2016)

Birtwistle's music is second rate in comparison to Ferneyhough, Finnissy, and Dillon imo. Not as interesting or creative and feels slightly watered down but he gets written about in music magazines more than the other three.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

stone said:


> Birtwistle's music is second rate in comparison to Ferneyhough, Finnissy, and Dillon imo. Not as interesting or creative and feels slightly watered down but he gets written about in music magazines more than the other three.


I think Finnissy is the best of this bunch, Dillon's _Nine Rivers_ is an impressive work as well. I've never heard a work by Ferneyhough or Birtwistle that I like.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I quite like Finnissy but find his soundworld a little crude compared to Ferneyhough and Birtwistle. I like Birtwistle a lot and do not think a criticism based essentially on his being less avant garde than the generation that followed him to be meaningful.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

i'm in no position to judge any composers, but Takemitsu's _From Me Flows_ hits me much harder than any of his other work.

A lot of Glass's work doesn't do much for me, but _Dracula_ really doesn't, while I really enjoy _Aguas da Amazonia_.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> i'm in no position to judge any composers, but Takemitsu's _From Me Flows_ hits me much harder than any of his other work.


Another of my Takemitsu favorites is _Quotation of Dream_. The dream is Debussy's _La Mer_. Takemitsu's work is both ethereal and opulent.


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

Love early Glass, Reich, and Adams, but find their later works a mixed bag. Part is also uneven, but the music is always well-crafted and I can admire it on that basis.

I have connected with some Carter pieces (Variations for Orchestra, A Mirror on Which to Dwell, Night Fantasies, Symphonia), but doubt I have enough time left on the planet to fully absorb much of his oeuvre and in any case there's other music I'd rather listen to. Congrats to those who take to Carter easily. 

Ferneyhough. Meh. 

Lachenmann in small doses is okay, but it all starts to sound the same to me after a while. 

Rihm, I like the string quartets and some of the orchestral works, such as Dis-Kontur, but I will confess much of his music gives me a headache, and I rarely find myself yearning to listen to what he has to say.

Norgard, I love some of his works quite a bit, such as the 2nd and 3rd symphonies, but then find other of his works do nada for me, such as Symphony 8.

I'm a huge Boulez fan, but some of his pieces, both early and late, are uninspired and seem like overly complicated note spinning.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

What about the ladies? Saariaho, Gubaidulina, Unsuk Chin, Adriana Holszky? Has Saariaho grown a bit stale? Her earlier works sound more interesting.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> Million, how about Berg's Lyric Suite? I too like Batok's 1st quartet the most. And most of the other non quartet works. I love Bloch's 1st quintet. Ferneyhough's quartets I do nor enjoy at all. Cowell I have yet to listen to.


I listen to the Lyric Suite on occasion, and have three different versions of it. It is well crafted, you can tell it came from a master, but I have a hard time warming up to it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Red Terror said:


> Lutosławski, Feldman, and Bartók are names that do not belong in this discussion. Unfortunately, people are allowed opinions. When I ascend to my rightful position as Dictator of the World, I shall put an end to this nonsense-hold your breath, gentlemen.


WIK defines it as:

_The avant-garde: French; from French, "advance guard" or "vanguard", literally "fore-guard") are people or works that are experimental, radical, or unorthodox with respect to art, culture, or society.

It may be characterized by nontraditional, aesthetic innovation and initial unacceptability, and it may offer a critique of the relationship between producer and consumer._
_
The avant-garde pushes the boundaries of what is accepted as the norm or the status quo, primarily in the cultural realm. The avant-garde is considered by some to be a hallmark of modernism, as distinct from postmodernism.

Many artists have aligned themselves with the avant-garde movement and still continue to do so, tracing a history from Dada through the Situationists to postmodern artists such as the Language poets around 1981._
_
The avant-garde also promotes radical social reforms. It was this meaning that was evoked by the Saint Simonian Olinde Rodrigues in his essay "L'artiste, le savant et l'industriel" ("The artist, the scientist and the industrialist", 1825), which contains the first recorded use of "avant-garde" in its now customary sense: there, Rodrigues calls on artists to "serve as [the people's] avant-garde", insisting that "the power of the arts is indeed the most immediate and fastest way" to social, political and economic reform.

_I don't see any time-constraints on this definition, and since both Lutoslawski and Feldman used aleatoric and indeterminate methods, I see them as contemporary. Bartok was a modern musical thinker, so I always make a place for modernist thought.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> I find John Cage's, Philip Glass, Steve Reich's and Morton Feldman's music underwhelming.


I don't see why Reich and Glass are included with Cage and Feldman. I guess you're taking out two distinct types of trash. Be sure to wrap them in newspaper, to discourage flies. Bunch of loose dogs in this area, too. I don't want a big mess tomorrow morning. Hey, you got another one of those beers? Oh, it's malt liquor? That's a better buzz for the money.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

stone said:


> Birtwistle's music is second rate in comparison to Ferneyhough, Finnissy, and Dillon imo. Not as interesting or creative and feels slightly watered down but he gets written about in music magazines more than the other three.


At least Birtwistle is not afraid to use pitch. All Ferneyhough does is scrape and thump. But if one is tone-deaf, then pitch is a secondary consideration. I'm referring to Ferneyhough, not you.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sometimes I don't think "how avant garde" matters as much as how well crafted something is, how well-performed, or how well it strikes me as being pleasant and beautiful. Like Feldman, He only deals with a few pitches, but the way he doles them out, and the instrumentation makes the very enjoyable to me.

Cage can really be a grab-bag, depending on who is performing it. If it's done well, it's transporting.

I'm in it for myself, so if I am entertained "by any means necessary," then it's fine with me. There is no "cheating" or "being ahead" of anything else; if I like it, I like it.

Re: Takemitsu, I like the works with the "Boulez" instrumentation, like harp, plucked guitar, violin, flute, vibraphone, maybe some percussion. It's exotic and modern at the same time.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> Aavo Part, with the possible exception of Symphony 4.
> Everything by Reich with the exception of the Desert Music -- and even their I have my doubts.
> Everything by Glass, including the etudes
> 
> ...


I was listening to Webern's Symphony which it pleasant enough (ish) and then proceeded to listen to Stockhausen's Klavierstücke. Apart from the obvious difference in arrangement, one could be forgiven for imagining they were different movements of the same piece. I've said it before, but, well, these type of works seem to express the twilight world of the mental asylum...and inexorably so.

By 'Verdi thingies' you mean 'Verdi Transcriptions'?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

That’s right, I just checked, it’s Verdi Transcriptions and Gershwin Arrangements. On the Verdi CD there’s a fabulous piece called Snowdrift. 

I intend to listen more carefully to Sabine Liebner’s Stockhausen CD later today. With some of the klavierstucke there’s a lot of discretion given to the pianist, so I live in hope!

What do you think you’re saying with twilight world? And Mental Assylum? do you want to suggest that anyone who finds them stimulating is mad or louche?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> That's right, I just checked, it's Verdi Transcriptions and Gershwin Arrangements. On the Verdi CD there's a fabulous piece called Snowdrift.


I do intend to check these works out.



> What do you think you're saying with twilight world? And Mental Assylum?* do you want to suggest that anyone who finds them stimulating is mad or louche*?


Not that, no - rather that most modern works make me imagine the world of the asylum - disjointed and discordant thoughts without logic.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2019)

Personally, I'm not at all a fan of music whose internal logic is too transparent. Music that follows processes and patterns with little or no deviations from them don't really interest me. Music that obscures its inner workings tends to sound more 'emotionally driven' to me, or at least the emphasis on irrationality over the rational, logical process/algorithmic compositions seems to sound more like there was more care and thought being put into the aesthetics of the music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

janxharris said:


> I do intend to check these works out.
> 
> Not that, no - rather that most modern works make me imagine the world of the asylum - disjointed and discordant thoughts without logic.


Oh sorry, it was me being ridiculously defensive. Anyway I've been listening again to Bk 1 of the Verdi, with great pleasure -- first time I've heard it in a couple of years I think. What's the relationship to Verdi?

Re Finnissy, has anyone got a view of his motets? The style seems slightly reactionary to me, though very pleasant music I think. Giving Finnissy a coherent aesthetic position isn't easy, maybe not possible.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

shirime said:


> Personally, I'm not at all a fan of music whose internal logic is too transparent. Music that follows processes and patterns with little or no deviations from them don't really interest me. Music that obscures its inner workings tends to sound more 'emotionally driven' to me, or at least the emphasis on irrationality over the rational, logical process/algorithmic compositions seems to sound more like there was more care and thought being put into the aesthetics of the music.


One thing I'm 100 per cent in agreement with is that, where the music becomes predictable, then it stops being interesting.

This is a big issue in early music, especially where there's lots of imitative counterpoint. My own feeling is that this is where the performer comes into the picture big time. A magnificat by Gombert may look like seamless imitation in a relatively straightforwardly codifiable way for pages and pages, it's a big challenge for singers to find the alignment of the voices, degree of blend, harmonic embellishments etc which make it into music.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2019)

listen to norgard's piano music; you are in for a surprise


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

marc bollansee said:


> listen to norgard's piano music; you are in for a surprise


The only thing I've heard is quite early, the op 20 piano sonata.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

shirime said:


> Personally, I'm not at all a fan of music whose internal logic is too transparent. Music that follows processes and patterns with little or no deviations from them don't really interest me. Music that obscures its inner workings tends to sound more 'emotionally driven' to me, or at least the emphasis on irrationality over the rational, logical process/algorithmic compositions seems to sound more like there was more care and thought being put into the aesthetics of the music.


That would seem to eliminate music prior to the 20th century. Also, music during the romantic period could be said to sound emotionally driven because the inner workings of melody and harmony are not obscure.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> *That would seem to eliminate music prior to the 20th century.* Also, music during the romantic period could be said to sound emotionally driven because the inner workings of melody and harmony are not obscure.


Not really. Music can be quite successful without giving its secrets away as we listen. A prime example in pre-20th-century music: it isn't easy to hear, or explain, the coherent effect of a Wagner opera. I've known musicians who dislike Wagner for that reason. Wagner was a master of intuitive, expressive structure; he can keep the listener riveted for long spans of continuous music, but understanding how he does it is not a job for an undergraduate theory student. Sibelius is another composer whose music is fascinating to "go along with" but whose structures can be hard to decipher at first. But we can go much farther back in time to find music in which the expressive narrative defies expectations or obscures form, yet feels logical and persuasive.

I believe the Classical period achieved maximum clarity of structure, in which a musical work is like the Transparent Man; we can see the overall shape of the body and all the bones. We're saved from boredom with the predictable by the introduction of surprises and irregularities which delight us in the moment and satisfy us in the end to the extent that the composer can make us feel that they were justified and inevitable (obviously, Haydn and Mozart epitomize this compositional ideal). Regardless of its specific expressive effect, music like this, in which we can "see" what's happening and why (at least in retrospect), affords us intellectual pleasure.

Romantic music begins to move toward a different ideal, in which form arises intuitively from the impulse to expression and serves as a vehicle for it, often disappearing from our conscious awareness as a thing in itself. At the extreme, it can be impossible to perceive and follow a formal outline even if we want to. The work may ultimately impress us as entirely successful, but we will be unable to explain why. For a composer this is brinksmanship and can be risky; even geniuses like Wagner, Mahler and Strauss don't always succeed perfectly, and late Romantic and 20th-century music is full of noble failures illustrating the difficulty of achieving satisfying form through the pursuit of expression.

In another art form, we can see pre-Romantic European painting and traditional Chinese brush painting as embodying, respectively, Classical and Romantic ideals.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Not really. Music can be quite successful without giving its secrets away as we listen. A prime example in pre-20th-century music: it isn't easy to hear, or explain, the coherent effect of a Wagner opera. I've known musicians who dislike Wagner for that reason. Wagner was a master of intuitive, expressive structure; he can keep the listener riveted for long spans of continuous music, but understanding how he does it is not a job for an undergraduate theory student. Sibelius is another composer whose music is fascinating to "go along with" but whose structures can be hard to decipher at first. But we can go much farther back in time to find music in which the expressive narrative defies expectations or obscures form, yet feels logical and persuasive.
> 
> I believe the Classical period achieved maximum clarity of structure, in which a musical work is like the Transparent Man; we can see the overall shape of the body and all the bones. We're saved from boredom with the predictable by the introduction of surprises and irregularities which delight us in the moment and satisfy us in the end to the extent that the composer can make us feel that they were justified and inevitable (obviously, Haydn and Mozart epitomize this compositional ideal). Regardless of its specific expressive effect, music like this, in which we can "see" what's happening and why (at least in retrospect), affords us intellectual pleasure.
> 
> ...


Then perhaps my opening comment should have been 'That would seem to eliminate _*most*_ music prior to the 20th century' and perhaps your opening comment should have been 'Not exactly.' because your examples would seem to be the exceptions given that, by far, the music of the 17th and 18th century followed 'processes and patterns' and did not obscure the 'inner workings' (referring to Shirime quotes).


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2019)

I agree with Woodduck here, and I think DaveM is oversimplifying pre-20th Century music, a lot of which is more complex under the surface/basic structure and does in fact have many surprising ‘hidden features’ that make the music sound good and intuitive to me.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

shirime said:


> I agree with Woodduck here, and I think DaveM is oversimplifying pre-20th Century music, a lot of which is more complex under the surface/basic structure and does in fact have many surprising 'hidden features' that make the music sound good and intuitive to me.


I'm not oversimplifying anything. I never said it wasn't complex under the surface. I am saying that it is not obscure. Your comments that I responded to would seem to apply more to modern, particularly avant-garde, works than pre-20th century music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> Then perhaps my opening comment should have been 'That would seem to eliminate _*most*_ music prior to the 20th century' and perhaps your opening comment should have been 'Not exactly.' because your examples would seem to be the exceptions given that, by far, the music of the 17th and 18th century followed 'processes and patterns' and did not obscure the 'inner workings' (referring to Shirime quotes).


I think you may be taking shirime's words - specifically, "obscures" - too strictly. I doubt very much that he's claiming to find music uninteresting unless its techniques are completely invisible. Perhaps he would like to clarify.

I definitely am not describing exceptions in pre-20th-century music. In most 18th-century music formal relationships are very much what the music is "about" and are deliberately kept in the forefront of our attention; we're supposed to be aware of the compositional process. Exceptions are toccatas and fantasias where the emphasis is on the events themselves as they occur, with the elements of surprise and immediate expression paramount. But earlier, in the 17th century, we find music of remarkable freedom such as the viol fantasias of Purcell, in which we are caught up in an intense chromatic polyphony that makes perception of form of little relevance. As the 19th-century progresses forms again loosen and things proceed more intuitively, with Classically derived templates asked to contain melodic and harmonic material that doesn't always sit easily inside them and forces their transformation and subordination to new expressive concerns. In the "progressive" music of Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner and others influenced by them (including the "impressionist" idiom of Debussy) we aren't supposed to be listening for structural markers at all, but are to be carried along on an emotional arc or conducted on a journey of scenic discovery which by the logic of its expressive content is fascinating in progress and satisfying in the end.

I'm not really trying to tell you anything new. It's just interesting to think about.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I think you may be taking shirime's words - specifically, "obscures" - too strictly. I doubt very much that he's claiming to find music uninteresting unless its techniques are completely invisible. Perhaps he would like to clarify.
> 
> I definitely am not describing exceptions in pre-20th-century music. In most 18th-century music formal relationships are very much what the music is "about" and are deliberately kept in the forefront of our attention; we're supposed to be aware of the compositional process. Exceptions are toccatas and fantasias where the emphasis is on the events themselves as they occur, with the elements of surprise and immediate expression paramount. But earlier, in the 17th century, we find music of remarkable freedom such as the viol fantasias of Purcell, in which we are caught up in an intense chromatic polyphony that makes perception of form of little relevance. As the 19th-century progresses forms again loosen and things proceed more intuitively, with Classically derived templates asked to contain melodic and harmonic material that doesn't always sit easily inside them and forces their transformation and subordination to new expressive concerns. In the "progressive" music of Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner and others influenced by them (including the "impressionist" idiom of Debussy) we aren't supposed to be listening for structural markers at all, but are to be carried along on an emotional arc or conducted on a journey of scenic discovery which by the logic of its expressive content is fascinating in progress and satisfying in the end.
> 
> I'm not really trying to tell you anything new. It's just interesting to think about.


Sorry, but I don't see much of a relationship between what you're saying and what shirime said except perhaps as relates to Debussy and that's not to say that I disagree with a good part of the above.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Sorry, but I don't see much of a relationship between what you're saying and what shirime said except perhaps as relates to Debussy and that's not to say that I disagree with a good part of the above.


That's odd because I see the relationship.

To respond to an earlier comment you made, in post #51, my original comment about transparent process and logic refers mainly to 20th Century avant-garde movements where this is a feature. Pieces like _It's Gonna Rain_, to give a specific example. 20th Century music is something this thread has a focus on.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

shirime said:


> To respond to an earlier comment you made, in post #51, my original comment about transparent process and logic refers mainly to 20th Century avant-garde movements where this is a feature. Pieces like _It's Gonna Rain_, to give a specific example. 20th Century music is something this thread has a focus on.


Well, that would have been a better response to my post #47 in the first place.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2019)

then listen to:nine friends,fragments I-IV, nine studies, grooving, turn, unendlicher empfang; the first three are part of the infinity sequence; enjoy


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

janxharris said:


> For those that enjoy serial and avant garde contemporary music please post examples that you consider as second rate. What differentiates them from masterpieces of the style?
> 
> I see numerous examples of pieces that members love, but I can't remember seeing many that are considered poor.


I listen to these types of music, and enjoy them to some extent. My favourites are by consensus first rate, as far as this area of music is concerned. A few which come to mind are Carter's first quartet, Cage's In a Landscape and Boulez's second sonata. Others like Varese, Xenakis, and Stockhausen haven't retained my interest however they are still widely considered first rate.

In terms of second rate, what's wrong with that? There are many composers from the past who are now considered second rate, at least in comparison to other composers who over time have become more significant. The best example is Telemann, who was rated above Handel and Bach during the time when all three where alive.

I would argue that at least those we call second rate - or whatever word you want to use, like second tier or second rank - at least have survived the vicissitudes of history and the often fickle tastes of music consumers to get any rating at all. I used to own a book published around 1900, and it attempted to list all the significant composers alive at the time. I did recognize some names, some considered second rate but still widely known today (for example Max Bruch) but there where dozens of others who I had never heard of. They have vanished without a trace, their music not even recorded by those labels specializing in rare repertoire (e.g. CPO).

So, getting back to serial and avant garde music, even though his or her music might not have wide dissemination a composer who fits those descriptions who gets his or her work performed at a university faculty or is recorded and published by a specialist label, well I think that's not too bad actually. This is not counting those composers who are played by big name ensembles and orchestras, or recorded by the big labels. However your music is performed or disseminated, at least its out there in the marketplace. You might not be first rate, or have much of a chance to be considered as such, but your music is there to be enjoyed, studied, critiqued and so on. It _exists_.

To answer the question directly though, I do remember conversations about music composed by theorists Theodore Adorno and Rene Leibowitz as being second rate and imitative of the Second Viennese School. Maybe there's a case for saying they are second rate or insignificant as composers, while at the same time being important in their field (Leibowitz also being a conductor of some repute). If you want to listen to their music, I've done a brief search and there are examples on youtube. I haven't listened but others might want to.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

shirime said:


> Personally, I'm not at all a fan of music whose internal logic is too transparent. Music that follows processes and patterns with little or no deviations from them don't really interest me. Music that obscures its inner workings tends to sound more 'emotionally driven' to me, or at least the emphasis on irrationality over the rational, logical process/algorithmic compositions seems to sound more like there was more care and thought being put into the aesthetics of the music.


I noticed that with the some of the music you posted like Charlie Sdraulig. The reason why I feel differently is I feel a lot of that sort of contemporary music is quackery. Especially when I hear some explanations thay sound like pie in the sky, and not grounded on "real" musical principles. Then, again, even Stockhausen seemed to feel that himself.

For me, with music more logically conceived, there is more expectation and anticipation being built, and more the composer as to prove himself or herself out.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Beat Furer is a great composer who has yet to be discussed. What do you all think of his work?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I've owned a cd with chamber music by Leibowitz but found it boring, unremarkable and easily disposed of. Adorno is somewhat more interesting.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Lindberg was my favorite modern composer until he went mainstream, and his music became a shadow of its former self... I see this mainstream taking hold in the 21st century, Beat Furrer may be part of it, I recall the piece played by the EIC at Berkeley had an obvious I-IV rock-like transition that made me shake my head...memory not sure but if it was either the Furrer or the Pinscher piece.

For me the mainstreaming isn't all bad, it's just another "second-rate" option I want to avoid. Hector Parra's work has impressed me much more, and it's obvious he is also influenced by rock and jazz, but more on a tonal than structural level.

Thirty years ago we had a different problem, sorting through pieces according to their signal-to-noise ratio. Now the signal-to-noise ratio may be too clear at times for me, too much retro structure that makes it sound too familiar. On the other hand, current skill levels among today's ensembles are very very high, so the performers can save the music from being boring (like Mandryka's comment on early music).

I invested in the Cerha Dokument box set when it was quite cheap and it wasn't bad but I would not call Cerha first-rate.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> I noticed that with the some of the music you posted like Charlie Sdraulig. The reason why I feel differently is I feel a lot of that sort of contemporary music is quackery. Especially when I hear some explanations thay sound like pie in the sky, and not grounded on "real" musical principles. Then, again, even Stockhausen seemed to feel that himself.
> 
> For me, with music more logically conceived, there is more expectation and anticipation being built, and more the composer as to prove himself or herself out.


It's a trap that some composers fall into, to make their music 'logical' or to give too much attention to the internal structure, the pre-compositional planning or all that intellectual or theoretical stuff that nobody will hear apart from themselves-that is, if they deluded themselves enough into believing they can actually hear a 12-note row or something like that. My pal Charlie, his music is based on how things actually sound, the experience we have with music and our relationship to it. His whole philosophy is centred around communication. If composers spent more time actually concerned with the way music ultimately _sounds_ then there'd be less reason to believe in any kind of 'quackery' someone might perceive. Not all music will sound like Charlie's, though; his music comes from a pretty niche approach to timbre.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

shirime said:


> It's a trap that some composers fall into, to make their music 'logical' or to give too much attention to the internal structure, the pre-compositional planning or all that intellectual or theoretical stuff that nobody will hear apart from themselves-that is, if they deluded themselves enough into believing they can actually hear a 12-note row or something like that. My pal Charlie, his music is based on how things actually sound, the experience we have with music and our relationship to it. His whole philosophy is centred around communication. If composers spent more time actually concerned with the way music ultimately _sounds_ then there'd be less reason to believe in any kind of 'quackery' someone might perceive. Not all music will sound like Charlie's, though; his music comes from a pretty niche approach to timbre.


Are you talking about contemporary music or music in general? Because I think most pre-1950 music has evident structure, and logical development. It's what I strive to look for when I listen to music, what makes the music greater the sum of all the sounds/notes. But with a lot of contemporary music, although I can hear sounds and they can be interesting in their own right (like Grisey in another thread or Pierre Henry and others), I tend to look for more of what holds them together, which if found would give me much more satisfaction. I find the sounds of a large part of contemporary music not very interesting on their own, like Charlie Sdraulig (just as an example). I click my fingernails on the keys, and make these noises when a note gets stuck, thump my pedal, etc. sometimes when playing the piano, so I know how they sound like, but can't imagine how to derive satisfaction from a piece that would be composed entirely of these sort of sounds.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> Are you talking about contemporary music or music in general? Because I think most pre-1950 music has evident structure, and logical development. It's what I strive to look for when I listen to music, what makes the music greater the sum of all the sounds/notes. But with a lot of contemporary music, although I can hear sounds and they can be interesting in their own right (like Grisey in another thread or Pierre Henry and others), I tend to look for more of what holds them together, which if found would give me much more satisfaction. I find the sounds of a large part of contemporary music not very interesting on their own, like Charlie Sdraulig (just as an example). I click my fingernails on the keys, and make these noises when a note gets stuck, thump my pedal, etc. sometimes when playing the piano, so I know how they sound like, but can't imagine how to derive satisfaction from a piece that would be composed entirely of these sort of sounds.


Music in general but it applies to all kinds of music, really. I get what you're saying about enjoying music for its own sake, but for me the end result of a composition-that is, the way the music ultimately sounds-is the most important thing. The internal structure, the processes behind making the music sound the way it does, that's all of secondary importance to me. Whether one is _satisfied_ with how the music sounds is a separate issue about personal taste.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

shirime said:


> It's a trap that some composers fall into, to make their music 'logical' or to give too much attention to the internal structure, the pre-compositional planning or all that intellectual or theoretical stuff that nobody will hear apart from themselves-that is, if they deluded themselves enough into believing they can actually hear a 12-note row or something like that. My pal Charlie, his music is based on how things actually sound, the experience we have with music and our relationship to it. His whole philosophy is centred around communication. If composers spent more time actually concerned with the way music ultimately _sounds_ then there'd be less reason to believe in any kind of 'quackery' someone might perceive. Not all music will sound like Charlie's, though; his music comes from a pretty niche approach to timbre.


Meet the music of my friend Johann who apparently fell into that 'logical music trap' with apparently too much attention to internal structure.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Meet the music of my friend Johann who apparently fell into that 'logical music trap' with apparently too much attention to internal structure.


I warned him about that. More than once! But did he listen? Noooo……


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Meet the music of my friend Johann who apparently fell into that 'logical music trap' with apparently too much attention to internal structure.


Wonderful. I love Bach's music, but this hasn't anything to do with my personal opinion of music. To me, I find music less interesting if its composer is more interested in pseudo-intellectual processes and some kind of 'mathematical beauty' whilst ignoring the end result of the composition: how it ultimately sounds.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I warned him about that. More than once! But did he listen? Noooo……


Yes, absolutely incorrigible!


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2019)

Mock all you want, I will never understand how my comment implies a criticism or a distaste of Bach.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

shirime said:


> Wonderful. I love Bach's music, but this hasn't anything to do with my personal opinion of music. To me, I find music less interesting if its composer is more interested in pseudo-intellectual processes and some kind of 'mathematical beauty' whilst ignoring the end result of the composition: how it ultimately sounds.


I think your view certainly makes sense, but how does one know if a composer is more interested in "pseudo-intellectual processes and some kind of 'mathematical beauty'" than in how the piece actually sounds?

I have been fascinated by Xenakis's method for composing a specific part of Pithoprakta. I have commented elsewhere so I'll just quote the relevant part:



mmsbls said:


> ... I have read several discussions of Xenakis' methods for creating various so called stochastic works. In general he utilizes a significant amount of formal math/science and converts these concepts into the music. I read a specific analysis which focused on an 18.5 second portion (8 measures) of _Pithoprakta_ and described how the music was created. While I found it rather fascinating, I'm not sure how many other people would share my view. I'd like to briefly describe his method and ask a question.
> 
> The kinetic theory of gases asserts that for a given temperature there is a specific distribution of velocities for the molecules in the gas. The mean velocity determines the measured temperature. Xenakis calculated this distribution and then mapped each velocity onto a glissando (faster changes in pitch equal higher velocities). He used 46 string instruments to play these glissandi (plucked) over 8 measures. The intent is that the listener will hear these glissandi (or maybe the glissandi in a given measure) as though they are essentially happening simultaneously. The idea is that the listener will respond to the glissandi in some aggregate musical sense in the same way that one's skin responds to the distribution of gas molecules (i.e. skin - a single temperature, hearing - a single auditory sense). ...


Xenakis clearly worked rather hard to create that short section from mathematical/physics principles. I assume he was satisfied with the musical outcome. I suspect many people may feel that he was more interested in the process of creating that music than in how it sounds. But how would we know?

How do you (I mean you personally) decide whether a given composer falls into the "trap" you mention?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I'm reminded that Ergma sounds like Xenakis' 'take' on Beethoven's Grosse Fuge and I wouldn't exactly consider its strident unimaginative sludgery as first-rate contemporary.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

shirime said:


> Personally, I'm not at all a fan of music whose internal logic is too transparent. Music that follows processes and patterns with little or no deviations from them don't really interest me. Music that obscures its inner workings tends to sound more 'emotionally driven' to me, or at least the emphasis on irrationality over the rational, logical process/algorithmic compositions seems to sound more like there was more care and thought being put into the aesthetics of the music.





shirime said:


> Music in general but it applies to all kinds of music, really. I get what you're saying about enjoying music for its own sake, but for me the end result of a composition-that is, the way the music ultimately sounds-is the most important thing. The internal structure, the processes behind making the music sound the way it does, that's all of secondary importance to me. Whether one is _satisfied_ with how the music sounds is a separate issue about personal taste.


I don't get this dichotomy between structure and "how it sounds"? In music we can only perceive a sound in relation to the sounds which come before and after, that being structure. Putting the two in opposition to each other seems a misapprehension to me.

Perhaps this is a difference in personal taste, but speaking for myself a drum machine doing 4/4 and almost nothing else is some of the most irrational, 'emotionally driven' music I know, precisely because the structure is so simple, regular and transparent. It almost entirely lacks intellect or artifice. Like a Tibetan monk chanting the sacred syllable 'om', that regularity isn't 'interesting' in an intellectual sense but appreciable somehow on a more mysterious and fundamental level. And I don't think e.g. Mozart's balanced phrase lengths are too far way from this.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

shirime said:


> Music in general but it applies to all kinds of music, really. I get what you're saying about enjoying music for its own sake, but for me the end result of a composition-that is, the way the music ultimately sounds-is the most important thing. The internal structure, the processes behind making the music sound the way it does, that's all of secondary importance to me. Whether one is _satisfied_ with how the music sounds is a separate issue about personal taste.


Thanks for your input. I consider your taste outside my range in the spectrum, so is good to get a sense of how it affects that type of market it's aimed for.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2019)

Gallus said:


> I don't get this dichotomy between structure and "how it sounds"? In music we can only perceive a sound in relation to the sounds which come before and after, that being structure. Putting the two in opposition to each other seems a misapprehension to me.
> 
> Perhaps this is a difference in personal taste, but speaking for myself a drum machine doing 4/4 and almost nothing else is some of the most irrational, 'emotionally driven' music I know, precisely because the structure is so simple, regular and transparent. It almost entirely lacks intellect or artifice. Like a Tibetan monk chanting the sacred syllable 'om', that regularity isn't 'interesting' in an intellectual sense but appreciable somehow on a more mysterious and fundamental level. And I don't think e.g. Mozart's balanced phrase lengths are too far way from this.


It's interesting that you perceive this as a dichotomy.... I've never thought about that before but it's refreshing to read a perspective that differs from my own. Thanks for the post.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I am not really understanding the debate going on here at the moment but suspect that different people are posting about different things. On the one hand there is shirime's insistence that how the music sounds is what is important and his rejection of .... that's one of the bits I don't get. Shirime wants to avoid music that is built through attention to intellectualism and theory? You would think that would be easy to agree to. But some others may be hearing him as a criticising what the music does over a time span (its "structure" - the arrangement of movements and climaxes; tensions and the resolution of tensions and ... er I'm not sure how we got into Bach but there seems to be a suggestion that shirime must hate Bach). I may be wrong but I don't think shirime is talking about what music does over time ... at least not in the way that he is undertood to be talking? Anyway, as I said, I am not understanding what this part of the thread is about.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

C1 -- the music is constructed from principles which are probably unhearable -- though clear from a study of the score.
C2 -- the music is constructed from principles which are hearable but probably require attention and study and intelligence.
C3 -- the music is constructed from principles which are pretty clear with very little effort.

S1 -- the music is not interesting to hear ever
S2 -- the music is interesting to hear after you've studied its construction.
S3 -- the music is interesting to hear without giving a moments thought to how it was constructed

C1 would be Josquin's _Stabat Mater_; C2 may be a Machaut motet a3; C3 would be an early Mozart symphony. Babbitt's _The Joy of More Sextets_ is I think C1S3; Glass's _Galileo Galilei_ is C3S1; Wagner's Ring is C2S3. S2 is the interesting one for instrumental music, clearly where there are words set it may help to study them a bit.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2019)

Mandryka's system makes sense to me and I think he understands my point. However, I wouldn't say that there's music that is never interesting to hear, but there's music I probably wouldn't feel the need to listen to multiple times and that I'm generally not _too_ interested in.

A lot of Steve Reich's phase music, a bunch of stuff by John Adams and Philip Glass, music that clearly outlines a process unfolding with little to no deviation from it would be C3S1 to me. However, I do think that some of my own compositions where I am 'trying to be clever on the page' (like, putting together a whole lot of constraints and structural ideals that I never deviate from) at the expense of the resulting sound would be C1S1.

BUT, these are just two extremes and there's definitely a lot of music that sounds good to me even if the overall structure is pretty clear, like an early Mozart Symphony for example. God I love number 7. Mozart's 7th Symphony is a delight.

I think what I've been trying to say in my previous posts (but probably wording poorly) is that there are times when a composer might get so caught up in all the 'academic' or 'theoretical' aspects of composition that their attention shifts from creating music with the intention of sounding good to music which is 'clever' or has a kind of bulletproof structural/mathematical beauty (like Pärt's Cantus In Memoriam Benjamin Britten). I like a bit of the human spirit of irrationality, whether that be through an unusual modulation, irregular phrase lengths or whatever...this 'irrationality' pretty much only comes about when composers are actually concerned with the way music actually ultimately sounds. It's by far the majority of compositions. I like _almost_ everything I listen to, but not everything becomes a favourite and not everything is something I like.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Yes, Mandryka's post is helpful as far as (my) understanding is concerned. Where does it come from? I feel I have seen it before, perhaps on this forum. Personally, I am not sure about C2. I'm not given to any study of what is going on in a piece unless and until I really like it. This doesn't seem to have been an obstacle to my enjoying quite a broad swathe of music. Then I think that S2 is not easy for me to recognise, either. Perhaps it happens unconsciously? There is certainly music that it takes me time to "get", to find "meaningful" and to enjoy but I am not aware of any study being involved in the process. I guess musicians would study - how could they stop themselves - but I'm in the audience, never on the platform!


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2019)

Actually I have the same issue about C2. Analysing music has never made it any more interesting _to hear_, from my experience, but it often reveals why things sound good to me.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

shirime, what do you think about Ockeghem's Missa prolationum?






To me it's one of the most astonishing and almost baffling achievements in the history of music, up there with and surpassing Bach's Art of Fugue in taking what is a purely technical exercise in a type of counterpoint and turning it into such beautiful music that the "cleverness" of the composition is dissolved (unless one listens for it).


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2019)

I really love Ockeghem, and I think that piece is moving and beautiful.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Gallus said:


> shirime, what do you think about Ockeghem's Missa prolationum?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is an immediately attractive piece of music, C1S3, more challenging for me, also a "technical exercise" is the Missa Cuiusvis Toni. I mean, am I supposed to listen to it as a cycle of cycles?

Krenek wrote a little book on Ockeghem which is very amusing because he takes comments from all sorts of professors from the romantic university musical establishment, who all said his music was C1S1, and shows that they had neither heard nor seen the music!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I'm going to propose a C1S1 candidate, Finnissy's _History of Photography_. Here's the man himself talking about it in a rather inspiring way I think


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Finnissy's a real good example of a C1 composer, he'll do things like take a bit of a Beethoven piano sonata and invert it or doctor it in some other way, and then use it as the basis of a composition.

Anyway my real reason for posting is that I found just yesterday a piano recording of his music by Philip Thomas, called _Beat Generation Ballads_, and I'm totally impressed by the quality of the music and the performance - this is the Finnissy of _English Country Tunes _and the _Verdi Transcriptions,_ maybe better even.









One of the pieces is called veränderungen, as in _Aria mit Verschieden Veränderungen "Goldberg Variations" BWV 988_. And it does indeed seem to contain a big set of variations, divide into two halfs etc. So I guess in some sense it's a hommage to Bach, but does that change how I perceive the music? Well yes, but . . .


----------

