# The dilemma in contemporary music?



## Jaime77

Hi there,

I am a composer and recently had one of my performances recorded on disc. Family and friends want to hear it but even though my music is more 'accessible' than for example some new complexity stuff. Even though my titles are catchy and the level of extended technique is minimal and even though there is usually a discernible beat, I know that none of my family or non-composer friends would know what it was or like it. I can see them trying to smile and thinking - what is all this 'out-of-tune crap' I can't follow?

It seems an obvious and I have grappled with this for years.

My question is:

Do you give the public what you perceive they want or do you ignore them and just go your own way?

Is it OK to be in an ivory tower working away just to your own ideals or ideals of art?

When I listen back to my music, one half of me thinks ' lovely chord, that section comes out well, should have doubled the flute there etc etc ' 
Whereas another part of my thinks 'I wish this was more direct the way some pop music is, more tonal, more noticeably melodic and less 'contrived', easier to follow. But then I also need to be interested in what I do. Three chords isn't enough for me on the other end of the spectrum.

My principle thought is 'I wish more people _understood_ me and the emotions I so much want to express!'

I went to a university that was fairly open to all kinds of new music but still there was the intellectual elite who were into their math formulae and their obsession with so-called originality and I felt like an outsider, an inferior composer. I don't feel that way now but I still know there is a certain amount of stylistic fascism and pseudo - intellectual snobbery in composing circles. Composers also being so defensive of their work and doing down the work of others. Tended to be my experience. 
Is there a another way to look at this? I'd love to hear what music-lovers out there have to say to this current composer.

Jai


----------



## Mirror Image

I think if a composer wants to get recognized for his/her gift, then they should be aware that there are going to be people that aren't going to like what you write regardless of how "accessible" or "tonal" it is. A composer needs to just keep doing what they love to do which is write music. Don't worry about being accepted by every one with ears. Some people couldn't tell you the different between Stravinsky and Bartok. Keep your head up and don't let it fall no matter how hurtful the criticism is to you.


----------



## Sid James

The problem with people's attitude to new music is that they lack perception. They listen superficially not only to music by the composers of today, but also by those of the past. I don't think that a composer can really do anything about this, unfortunately. As Mirror Image suggests, you just have to keep plugging away & developing your own style. Like Varese, my favourite composer, never seemed to be overly concerned about what people thought of his music. I've posted a number of his quotes on the Varese page which attest to this.

As for the tension between writing music that is tonal or not, many composers were comfortable with pushing tonality to the limits & did so successfully. I can also think of three composers who wrote atonal music, but most of the time it sounds like it's tonal (Berg, Josef Tal & Frank Martin). So I think that the really good composers have been confronting this dilemma since the end of the C19th, unlike the less effective ones who just comfortably stayed in the fully tonal language of the past. So I suppose any composer worth their salt today will continue to explore the contradictions & challenges that were presented with the crisis of tonality which started in the late C19th...


----------



## Kevin Pearson

I hate to sound like an intellectual here by quoting someone else but this quote from Shakespeare seems extremely appropriate:

"*This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man*"

Even though the majority of people will disdain atonality (and quite a lot of it I don't like either) yet you have found it is what best expresses what you want to say musically. If your relatives would like to have a copy of your CD I would sign a copy and give them one with no apologies. They will either like it or hate it but what is that to you? It's not likely to affect your relationships with them. At least they will have heard what you are up to and whether they understand your music or not is not your concern. If any request help understanding or take an interest in it further then that's an opportunity you should avail yourself of.

Kevin


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I am a composer and recently had one of my performances recorded on disc. Family and friends want to hear it but even though my music is more 'accessible' than for example some new complexity stuff. Even though my titles are catchy and the level of extended technique is minimal and even though there is usually a discernible beat, I know that none of my family or non-composer friends would know what it was or like it. I can see them trying to smile and thinking - what is all this 'out-of-tune crap' I can't follow?

It seems an obvious and I have grappled with this for years.

My question is:

Do you give the public what you perceive they want or do you ignore them and just go your own way?

Is it OK to be in an ivory tower working away just to your own ideals or ideals of art?

When I listen back to my music, one half of me thinks ' lovely chord, that section comes out well, should have doubled the flute there etc etc '
Whereas another part of my thinks 'I wish this was more direct the way some pop music is, more tonal, more noticeably melodic and less 'contrived', easier to follow. But then I also need to be interested in what I do. Three chords isn't enough for me on the other end of the spectrum.

Such has been the dilemma facing artists of all genre since the shift in patronage from the aristocracy (religious or secular) to the masses. Hermann Hesse's _Glass Bead Game_ and Thomas Mann's _Doctor Faustus_ confront the dilemma in novel form. What... they and we... ask is the role of the artist? As a visual artist this question continually nags at me. I recently has the experience in which a studio mate suddenly blurted "will you turn that crap off" while I was playing some Eric Dolphy. Dolphy was a jazz musician that admittedly pushed jazz into something so free form that it approached Abstract Expressionism. Interestingly enough, my studio mate works within the tradition of Abstract Expressionism. He was uncertain how to respond when I pointed out that certainly his reaction to Dolphy was not unlike that which many of the public feel when looking upon his paintings. Even more recently, another studio mate announced that he found the music I was listening to (Tan Dun) to be "unlistenable". He further suggested that it was experimental merely for the sake of being experimental and that it would clearly be forgotten in 10 years. Again... I pointed out that his own work was no less "experimental" and "dissonant" to the average art viewer to which he responded, naturally, that "that's different".

In the past the relationship between the artist and the public was closer. But at the same time the audience was admittedly far smaller and limited to a social/political "elite". Certainly, the worshipful may happen upon the carvings and the stained glass in the cathedrals, the masses and cantatas being performed, etc... but the artists, in no way, needed to think about them as an audience... or worry about pleasing them. The real audience was that of the patrons which paid for and supported the art. This audience was often quite educated and cultured and there was often a personal relationship between the artist and the creator. The patron made clear his or her expectations and the artist had the chance to make his or her case for "pushing the envelope"... for his innovations.

As patronage in the arts moved away from a highly educated "elite" and toward the hands of the wealthy bourgeois... and later toward the "masses" there developed something of a real divide between the artists and the audience. This audience was often limited in its education within the arts... they were often quite conservative in their tastes... and they often had difficulty dealing with innovation and challenging new ideas. As they began to reject the new and the innovative (Impressionism, Stravinsky, James Joyce, Picasso, Bartok, etc...) the artists, unexpectedly, responded by ignoring this audience... by retreating to their ivory tower. As Hesse's Glass bead Game suggests this was an ever increasing circle: as public support for art waned artist became increasing antagonistic or disdainful of the audience until art reached a point at which one might seriously question what is its merit to the larger public and why should this public continue to support it?

We are confronted with that reality at present. "Serious" composers create music that no one but a small audience of "cognoscenti" wish to listen to... they far prefer pop music... and in a few exceptions, older "serious" music. Artists create paintings that have no relevance to an audience raised on comic books, TV, and Hollywood films (and I make no value judgments here as there have been great things done in any of those genre). Thus we are presented with that dilemma... do we attempt to meets the audience half way... or is that compromising our art? Or do we accept that the audience for what we do shall remain limited to but a small group... an "elite" by choice... by elective affinity? And with this do we accept that what we do will have no relevance to the vast population?

Michelangelo obviously didn't torment himself worrying about what the peasants thought. Dante would have given little thought to the illiterate masses. We, however, struggle with the issue due to the fact that we hold with with democratic and egalitarian ideals; we believe that art should be there for everyone regardless of education, social status, or wealth. The idea that "serious" music or "serious" art is reserved for a wealthy "elite" strikes a nerve with many of us. There is also the reality to consider that as art becomes less and less relevant to the masses there is less and less support for it... in education, through museums, orchestras, etc... We are already in a situation in the US where the "fine arts" lack any real connection with the larger audience that still exists in a great many European and Asian nations. The arts are continually a target of conservative politicians out to make budget cuts... starting with "decadent elitist art".

The answer, if there is one, must be on an individual basis. Shakespeare, Dickens, Bach, even films such as _Casablanca, 2001_, or _Schindler's List_ surely prove that art can be incredibly rich, innovative, and still resonate with a larger audience. When one considers music scored for the ballet, the opera, and other incidental music one recognizes that there is nothing inherent in writing for film (for example) that is inherently a guarantee of mediocre art. Indeed... one might argue that great art is just as likely to rise from artists working in popular genre.... even in the field of popular music... as it is to arise from the realm of "serious" music... the product of the music academies. The theater in Shakespeare's day had all the level of respect afforded to television today. The novel at the time of Cervantes, Lawrence Sterne, and DeFoe was considered the lowliest of literary genre... suitable only for women. Is it not possible that Duke Ellington and Miles Davis may resonate over time far more than Philip Glass and Penderecki?

Again... one can only come to an answer as to what one should do as an artist on an individual basis. As stated above, "to thine own self be true" is great advice... even if it was the advice of Polonius. The paintings I make fall within an acceptable tradition in many ways. They are quite accessible. Yet I do not paint the way I do either because I know nothing of or dislike modern and contemporary art (quite the opposite)... nor do I work in this manner in order to appease an audience. I never even imagine any audience while working. No... I create the way I do because it is the manner through which I have found I can best give form to what I love in art and what I wish to convey.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think that the really good composers have been confronting this dilemma since the end of the C19th, unlike the less effective ones who just comfortably stayed in the fully tonal language of the past. So I suppose any composer worth their salt today will continue to explore the contradictions & challenges that were presented with the crisis of tonality which started in the late C19th...

I must disagree with the suggestion that any composer who does not confront the issue of atonality and dissonance is inherently a less effective composer. This assumes that a single direction of music developed early last century is the sole path by which any achievement of merit can be attained. The issue of atonality has its counterpart in the visual arts in abstraction. Just as many academics took a holier-than-thou attitude (Boulez?) in defending atonality and dissonance and dismissing any composer that held firm to tonality, so in the visual arts there were those critics who argued the aesthetic... even the moral superiority of abstraction. Yet today... within the field of art there are those who understand... at times even admire the achievements of their predecessors in the field of abstraction... but who also reject abstraction in their own work in seeking to come to a new language suited to the time... just as the abstractionists initially rejected figuration. Is it not possible that the tonal music of composers such as Arvo Part or Osvaldo Golijov are just as effective as any current continuation in the traditions of atonality?


----------



## Jaime77

Great responses people. This has opened things up in a big way. I agree with Mirror Image, Kevin, Shakespeare... I guess the feeling is that when I go to compose it is impossible for me not to relate my work to the tradition of Western Classical Music in the 20th Century. I fear that I am a product of composition classes which began with us being taught serialism. Even in my Phd my first tutor said, let's just put what you showed me so far aside and work on something serial. I dropped that tutor and got an American one who was far more open-minded. I still fell between two stools as to approval for the Phd and being true to me. Maybe I still can't shake the limits I believe the classical tradition has put on me. 

Interesting that someone mentioned atonality as something that needs to be addressed in their music. Maybe I should stop writing contemporary classical music and start to write just music. Maybe the labels and the history is messing me up as much as people not understanding. I believe you should go your own way, for sure. Maybe my voice is only now on the verge of coming out loud and clear.


----------



## Jaime77

Thanks for all the feedback. Seeings that classical music is my first love and I have so much time for music-lovers and long-term listeners, it seems like the right place to raise this issue.

Just read you post again StlukesguildOhio and a lot of it resonates with me - thanks for taking the time, fellow artist.


----------



## nickgray

> or non-composer friends would know what it was or like it.


That's what's troubling me in cont. music - it's written by composers for composers. I'm not against atonality, avant-garde (except when it involves helicopters), etc., but it makes me feel that the music is written for the sake of exploring the music theory, not for the music itself.


----------



## Mirror Image

nickgray said:


> That's what's troubling me in cont. music - it's written by composers for composers. I'm not against atonality, avant-garde (except when it involves helicopters), etc., but it makes me feel that the music is written for the sake of exploring the music theory, not for the music itself.


Exactly nickgray. I couldn't have said it any better. Let me add that music doesn't have to be about pushing limits or experimenting, it should be about how you feel as a human being. If you're sole intent is to please other composers and to wow and dazzle them with music theory where it becomes more about the mind, instead of the heart, I believe you're composing music for the wrong reasons. If you compose music based solely on experimentation, then you're doing it for the wrong reasons. Something can be abstract, but it should never waver or stray far from what you feel inside of you at that given moment. Feeling pain is something we all feel and if this is what you feel, then pour that feeling out in your music. Don't compose music based on ridiculous noises...that's not music. Music is a reflection of who you are and where you're at in life. It should never be about experimentation for it's own sake.

It's a lot harder to tell people how you really feel, then to masque or cloak those feelings in some absurd notions that music must be atonal or contain the latest compositional techniques. Compose music that means something and that's an honest reflection of you.


----------



## Zeniyama

I often have a difficult time sharing my compositions with people, which is strange because in class I'll always be sketching away at some abstract drawing or another and show people my work once it's completed, and I'll often recieve praise from my peers and they'll even sometimes sit there and analyze my work, which makes me feel very proud about my drawings. It's strange, because alot of what I do with my visual art is very similar to what I do with my compositions: my works flow together in a very expressive, stream of consciousness sort of fashion. Kind of a coherent incoherence, if you will.

I guess it's because people tend to be less accepting of abstract music than abstract visuals. I've noticed that many people will say Picasso's a great painter, but when they hear Stravinsky they get an earache. What's with that?


----------



## Mirror Image

Zeniyama said:


> when they hear Stravinsky they get an earache. What's with that?


The sad thing is Stravinsky isn't that radical of a composer anymore compared to the composers that would come later. "The Rite of Spring" actually sounds quite good compared to something by John Cage or Ligeti, but this is just my opinion.


----------



## Guest

nickgray said:


> That's what's troubling me in cont. music - it's written by composers for composers. I'm not against atonality, avant-garde (except when it involves helicopters), etc., but it makes me feel that the music is written for the sake of exploring the music theory, not for the music itself.


And this is what troubles me about many posts to contemporary music threads, they are written by people who simply do not understand contemporary music. Contemporary music, first of all, is not written by composers for composers. Where and how did this idea start, I wonder? Perhaps it was someone who, not understanding what he heard at first, simply concluded that the music must have been written for someone else, namely the composers' colleagues. Yeah. It's like a little exclusive club, and the guy that's being excluded is ME!!

But my own experience is sufficient to give the lie to that notion. I dinked around a bit in high school with composing, but never very seriously. But when I came to discover twentieth century music, in 1972, it was love at first hearing. And from Bela Bartok to Diamanda Galas took only ten years. Why? Because I loved the music so much. Not the theory (which I'm quite weak on, actually), but the sheer, lovely, glorious sound of the music. Schoenberg, Webern, Carter, Varese, Ligeti, Lachenmann, Cage, Stockhausen, Boulez, Karkowski, Yoshihide, Marclay, Bolleter, Tone, Oliveros, Goeringer, Bokanowski, Radigue, Groult.... You get the idea.

Whatever the music is written _for,_ and we don't always know, do we, so it's just a guess, eh?, what is the music like to listen to? For people whose ears are stuck in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries--which is most people, I'd guess--the music is painful to listen to. That means that most listeners are jumping to the conclusion that the music itself is painful.

Wrong. It's your ears dears!! My ears have never had any trouble with the most acerbic, harsh, uncompromising sounds, nor have they had much trouble (and only at the beginning) with the most isolated, unnarrative, random sounds, either. Really folks, the music is fine. Get over the idea that there's something wrong with it just because you don't get it somehow. Really. (Your ears will thank you, eventually, if you do!!)


----------



## Jaime77

I agree that writing for other composers is a bit silly. Art is communication, right? It doesn't have to be beautiful or experimental or derivative, it just has to be communicating something. I think a lot of music around these days, from my experience, is communicating only one thing ' Look at me making use of unused technique and structure, am I not wonderful? ' I think the problem is the obsession with so-called originality as I said. This is a misconception, all art is original since conceiving something that is not total plagiarism is original work. that is the meaning of that word. The word we should be using to describe something new to the ears or on paper, is 'innovative' And it is fair to say that most music ever composed was not innovative, it was derivative with strokes of genius here and there (or not at all!). 
People are not so offended by visual art that's true but make them listen to discordant music and they often get very upset. I think they want music to be entertaining. I think many people want music to be comforting too. They make such an association with music. 
Maybe music is working on a level that makes excessive dissonance (higher up the series, effect the brain or unconcious negatively). I don't know. 
Experiment fine but have something you actually want to say. 
I don't want to experiment. I used to but not anymore. I will listen to any music once but I have a lot of music on itunes that I never feel like listening to! All of it is music composed in the last 50 years. If I do listen to it, it is like a test. I get to analyse it maybe and yes afterwards I might feel it was a worthwhile experience but still, I won't be rushing to put myself through it again.


----------



## Jaime77

I think it is key to write music that you would 'enjoy' listening to if *you* were at the concert. It may involve erasing your mind of all the knowledge regarding history, fashion and technique in favour of something intuitive, from the heart, real to you.


----------



## Mirror Image

some guy said:


> For people whose ears are stuck in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries--which is most people, I'd guess--the music is painful to listen to. That means that most listeners are jumping to the conclusion that the music itself is painful.
> 
> Wrong. It's your ears dears!! My ears have never had any trouble with the most acerbic, harsh, uncompromising sounds, nor have they had much trouble (and only at the beginning) with the most isolated, unnarrative, random sounds, either. Really folks, the music is fine. Get over the idea that there's something wrong with it just because you don't get it somehow. Really. (Your ears will thank you, eventually, if you do!!)


There's nothing wrong with people who listen to Boulez, Ligeti, or Cage. If that's what you like, then that's great. I just don't relate to what they do, because it just sounds so completely random and there's really nothing substantial about their music in my opinion. You can blame it on my ears all you want to, but I think it goes much deeper than that. It has more to do with do I actually *like* the music being played and that answer would be no I don't. It just sounds like a bad sound experimentation. There's no kind of motivic development or forward motion. The music simply doesn't go anywhere. When it actually does do something and get some kind of momentum it is incredibly dissonant, which for me, dissonance is not a means unto itself. It's just a way to build tension, but these composers like Ligeti or Carter use it during the whole composition.

As I said, if this stuff is what you enjoy, then knock yourself out, but this music is definitely an acquired taste and not many people will understand it. It has nothing to do with being open-minded or more adventurous, I have plenty of friends who are open-minded to new music and not even they like this music. It all comes down to being moved and quite frankly these composer's music leaves me cold.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Mirror Image said:


> It all comes down to being moved and quite frankly these composer's music leaves me cold.


But you've only been interested in classical music for a few months, and you're still a newbie to all intents and purposes. Give it chance to wash over you a bit more and you may come to like it.


----------



## Mirror Image

Andy Loochazee said:


> But you've only been interested in classical music for a few months, and you're still a newbie to all intents and purposes. Give it chance to wash over you a bit more and you may come to like it.


I think I've digested more music in the past 9 months than most people have their entire lives. Am I still learning about classical? Yes, but aren't we all? You can't tell me that you have all the answers and aren't still learning about this music. I've been listening long enough to know what I don't like and I think that's much more than some people can say who have only been listening in a short amount of time, don't you think?

I think I'm moving along quite nicely and I've made a lot of progress along the way. Call me stubborn in my musical journey, but I'm making the steps in the right direction I think. The direction I want to go in. Not the direction veteran classical critics or listeners think I should go in. I've already disovered more composers from the Romantic and C20th periods than most people who have been listening to classical for 40 years.

It's still a trial-and-error process, but I've been really satisfied with my journey thus far. My passion runs deep. I may not know as much as this person or that person, but I assure you I've done more listening than anything else and for me it's all about the music.


----------



## Jaime77

"I assure you I've done more listening than anything else and for me it's all about the music."

I really agree with this statement. Music is about listening first and everything else second. 

As a composer who has digested a lot, I also want to say this. In spite of all my listening to all kinds of new music, there is something ultimately the same about a lot of it, Mirror you said that 'it leaves you cold'. I find myself interested even fascinated by certain newer music but I don't want it on my desert Island, I don't want to fall in love to it and I don't want it to be the last thing I hear before I die.
Cerebral involvement is all wonderful but it does not compete with the heart or for that matter, the spirit.


----------



## Kevin Pearson

To me much of the modern music is like drinking a bitter tea. I might drink the bitter tea but it sure goes down more easily of you add some honey to it. And that's what I find disturbing about many modern composers...they forget to add the honey. Thus we are supposed to drink the bitter tea and like it. I think I'll pass! I don't mind dissonance used occasionally for effect but I really do not like dissonance for dissonance sake. I find it hard to believe that a composer would write this kind of music except as an intellectual exercise. He certainly does not have his listeners in mind. If he did he would make his music more palatable. All of this is just my personal opinion of course.

Kevin


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

For people whose ears are stuck in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries--which is most people, I'd guess--the music is painful to listen to. That means that most listeners are jumping to the conclusion that the music itself is painful.

Wrong. It's your ears dears!! My ears have never had any trouble with the most acerbic, harsh, uncompromising sounds, nor have they had much trouble (and only at the beginning) with the most isolated, unnarrative, random sounds, either. Really folks, the music is fine. Get over the idea that there's something wrong with it just because you don't get it somehow. Really. (Your ears will thank you, eventually, if you do!!

Again... this exemplifies the holier-than-thou... more-sophisticated-than-thou attitude that has been employed by any number of artists in defense of the most experimental strains of art/music/poetry/film etc... In its way it is no more valid than its opposite which is the usual employment of the analogy of the _Emperor's New Clothes_. The same argument was employed by those who not only argued in the defense of abstraction in painting... but in favor of its aesthetic and even moral superiority. It remains pretentious nonsense.

It is more than possible that someone such as Alan Hovhaness or Aaron Copland or even Thelonius Monk understood music far better and with a far greater depth than any number of the professed champions of the most experimental strains of classical music. It is more than possible that the music of Alan Hovhaness, Aaron Copland, and Thelonius Monk will survive well into the future far better than Cage, Stockhausen, or Glass. It is also more than possible that every music lover and every composer who does not particularly like certain experimental strains of classical music is not immediately to be thought of as "stuck in the past". The reality is that art evolves through building upon the past... and rebelling against or rejecting the past. A great many composers and listeners are aware of the more experimental strains of the classical music of the last 100 years (or thereabout) and they have made the decision that these do not speak to them. Are we to assume that denotes an inherent incapacity or failing on their part? And yet we are assume that when Schoenberg, Cage, or Takemitsu rejected aspects of the music that went before them... that was to be seen as being daring and avant garde? I don't buy the idea at all... indeed I find it snobbish in the extreme to suggest that one approach to music is inherently superior to another. The reality is that judging contemporary art is always a crap shoot. The art that survives is that which continues to resonate with an audience over time... and especially that which continues to inspire later generations of artists. It is just as possible... no... it is far more likely, actually, that what survives of the music of our time will be be that music which continued to build upon the traditions of music of the 19th century... or music that build upon ideas even far older... such as music of the middle ages (Arvo Part)... or music that comes from various regional traditions completely removed from the Western European tradition: Jazz, Middle-Eastern Music, Asian Music, etc... than it is that the only music of any worth will remain that which met the litmus test of academia for experimentation, difficulty, and hermeticism.


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> this music is definitely an acquired taste


For some, maybe. Certainly wasn't for me. And that's just my point. If there's just one person (and there's more than just me) who does NOT have to acquire it, then I don't care how many hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands you can bring that do have to acquire it, it's definitely not an acquired taste.

And so what if it were? So is whiskey for most people, so are habanero peppers. And so on.

If you don't like something, fine. You're missing out, but so what? The problem always starts when a personal dislike is turned into some normative statements like this: "It just sounds like a bad sound experimentation. There's no kind of motivic development or forward motion. The music simply doesn't go anywhere."

Which is simply not true. Or, if it ever is, so what? does music have to have forward motion which is, (need I point out?) an illusion. It doesn't move. (Even "up" and "down" are metaphors for changes in frequency. Composers as long ago as 1830 were complaining about using up and down to describe melody.)



jaibyrne said:


> In spite of all my listening to all kinds of new music, there is something ultimately the same about a lot of it, Mirror you said that 'it leaves you cold'. I find myself interested even fascinated by certain newer music but I don't want it on my desert Island, I don't want to fall in love to it and I don't want it to be the last thing I hear before I die.
> Cerebral involvement is all wonderful but it does not compete with the heart or for that matter, the spirit.


Hasn't it occurred to you that when you listen to music, there is indeed something ultimately the same--that it's _you_ doing the listening! You are talking about music that I did fall in love with, that I would want to be the last thing I hear before I die, that does speak to my heart and my spirit. That's what so many anti-moderns just cannot credit, that someone can truly and simply just like the stuff. Well, too bad!! It's true.



Kevin Pearson said:


> To me much of the modern music is like drinking a bitter tea. I might drink the bitter tea but it sure goes down more easily of you add some honey to it. And that's what I find disturbing about many modern composers...they forget to add the honey.


Um, no. There's no forgetting about it. What you're forgetting is that you're not the only listener. What many posters to this thread have forgotten, yes. Some of us like tea without honey. Some of us like coffee without cream. Are composers supposed to neglect us because you, Kevin Pearson, like honey? No. That would be daft. (Besides, composers don't even know you, do they? Did Stockhausen ever meet you? Did you tell him not to forget the honey? Did he respond "I don't care about my listeners"?) You see how silly all that is? A composer's job is to put sounds together. If the result pleases her (or him), then it's likely that it will please someone else, too. The composer's job is not to guess what people he (or she) doesn't even know will be likely to like. Composers who do this, especially the ones who are successful at it, are called panderers and no one, not even their fans, should take them seriously.


----------



## Mirror Image

some guy said:


> For some, maybe. Certainly wasn't for me. And that's just my point. If there's just one person (and there's more than just me) who does NOT have to acquire it, then I don't care how many hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands you can bring that do have to acquire it, it's definitely not an acquired taste.
> 
> And so what if it were? So is whiskey for most people, so are habanero peppers. And so on.
> 
> If you don't like something, fine. You're missing out, but so what? The problem always starts when a personal dislike is turned into some normative statements like this: "It just sounds like a bad sound experimentation. There's no kind of motivic development or forward motion. The music simply doesn't go anywhere."
> 
> Which is simply not true. Or, if it ever is, so what? does music have to have forward motion which is, (need I point out?) an illusion. It doesn't move. (Even "up" and "down" are metaphors for changes in frequency. Composers as long ago as 1830 were complaining about using up and down to describe melody.)


Whatever you say there, Some Guy. I never said there's anything wrong with you enjoying what you like. I just gave you reasons why I didn't enjoy what you like. So spare me the lecture.

It's all a matter of taste and I believe that nobody is right or wrong, but if you insist on trying to prove a point. You failed miserably.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> this exemplifies the holier-than-thou... more-sophisticated-than-thou attitude that has been employed by any number of artists in defense of the most experimental strains of art/music/poetry/film etc...


Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that your listening experience, mirror image's listening experience, kevin pearson's listening experience, jaibyrne's listening experience are not the only possible ones. That and that listening with sympathy and understanding are likely to get you better results than listening with hostility and rejection. What is "holier-than-thou" about that? That's just logic.

Can you honestly say, looking over your own post, that your post is does not exemplify the holier-than-thou attitude of the anti-moderns? The I-myself-am-the-only-judge-of-quality-in-music attitude that has been driving new music out of the concert halls since the early 1800s. You do know about William Weber's new book, right? "In 1782, in Leipzig, the percentage [of dead composer's music in concerts] was as low as eleven. By 1830, it was around fifty, going as high as seventy-four in Vienna. By the eighteen-sixties and seventies, the figure ranged from sixty-nine to ninety-four per cent (in Paris). Matters progressed to the point where a Viennese critic complained [in 1843] that 'the public has got to stay in touch with the music of its time . . . for otherwise people will gradually come to mistrust music claimed to be the best.'" Quoted from Alex Ross's review of Weber's book.

This thread certainly exemplifies the Viennese critic's compliant!


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> I believe that nobody is right or wrong, but if you insist on trying to prove a point. You failed miserably.


Hahaha, good one, Mirror. That's why you keep responding to these threads, eh? And "You failed miserably" is a personal attack, mate. Should I inform Mr. Krummhorn?


----------



## Mirror Image

StlukesguildOhio said:


> For people whose ears are stuck in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries--which is most people, I'd guess--the music is painful to listen to. That means that most listeners are jumping to the conclusion that the music itself is painful.
> 
> Wrong. It's your ears dears!! My ears have never had any trouble with the most acerbic, harsh, uncompromising sounds, nor have they had much trouble (and only at the beginning) with the most isolated, unnarrative, random sounds, either. Really folks, the music is fine. Get over the idea that there's something wrong with it just because you don't get it somehow. Really. (Your ears will thank you, eventually, if you do!!
> 
> Again... this exemplifies the holier-than-thou... more-sophisticated-than-thou attitude that has been employed by any number of artists in defense of the most experimental strains of art/music/poetry/film etc... In its way it is no more valid than its opposite which is the usual employment of the analogy of the _Emperor's New Clothes_. The same argument was employed by those who not only argued in the defense of abstraction in painting... but in favor of its aesthetic and even moral superiority. It remains pretentious nonsense.
> 
> It is more than possible that someone such as Alan Hovhaness or Aaron Copland or even Thelonius Monk understood music far better and with a far greater depth than any number of the professed champions of the most experimental strains of classical music. It is more than possible that the music of Alan Hovhaness, Aaron Copland, and Thelonius Monk will survive well into the future far better than Cage, Stockhausen, or Glass. It is also more than possible that every music lover and every composer who does not particularly like certain experimental strains of classical music is not immediately to be thought of as "stuck in the past". The reality is that art evolves through building upon the past... and rebelling against or rejecting the past. A great many composers and listeners are aware of the more experimental strains of the classical music of the last 100 years (or thereabout) and they have made the decision that these do not speak to them. Are we to assume that denotes an inherent incapacity or failing on their part? And yet we are assume that when Schoenberg, Cage, or Takemitsu rejected aspects of the music that went before them... that was to be seen as being daring and avant garde? I don't buy the idea at all... indeed I find it snobbish in the extreme to suggest that one approach to music is inherently superior to another. The reality is that judging contemporary art is always a crap shoot. The art that survives is that which continues to resonate with an audience over time... and especially that which continues to inspire later generations of artists. It is just as possible... no... it is far more likely, actually, that what survives of the music of our time will be be that music which continued to build upon the traditions of music of the 19th century... or music that build upon ideas even far older... such as music of the middle ages (Arvo Part)... or music that comes from various regional traditions completely removed from the Western European tradition: Jazz, Middle-Eastern Music, Asian Music, etc... than it is that the only music of any worth will remain that which met the litmus test of academia for experimentation, difficulty, and hermeticism.


Very well said. I completely concur with this statement. I dislike noise. Give me some heart and soul over sound experimentation anyday. Noise is not art.


----------



## Mirror Image

some guy said:


> Hahaha, good one, Mirror. That's why you keep responding to these threads, eh? And "You failed miserably" is a personal attack, mate. Should I inform Mr. Krummhorn?


I don't care what you do Some Guy. Report me. I could careless. I didn't get personal with you at all. I just said that you failed at making a point, which you did.


----------



## Mirror Image

some guy said:


> Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that your listening experience, mirror image's listening experience, kevin pearson's listening experience, jaibyrne's listening experience are not the only possible ones. That and that listening with sympathy and understanding are likely to get you better results than listening with hostility and rejection. What is "holier-than-thou" about that? That's just logic.


So how am I supposed to sympathize with something that sounds like nails screeching on a chalkboard? Where's the sympathy in that? Give me heart and soul. Spare me the experimental nonsense.


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> Very well said. I completely concur with this statement.


But


Mirror Image said:


> I believe that nobody is right or wrong


Please stop, Mirror!! I'm laughing so hard, I'm going to choke!!

But seriously, for Krummhorn's sake if no other's--not every listener wants the same thing. Not every composer wants to please every listener. Just because you dislike something doesn't mean that that thing is "not art."


----------



## Mirror Image

some guy said:


> ButPlease stop, Mirror!! I'm laughing so hard, I'm going to choke!!
> 
> But seriously, for Krummhorn's sake if no other's--not every listener wants the same thing. Not every composer wants to please every listener. Just because you dislike something doesn't mean that that thing is "not art."


Enjoy Ligeti, Carter, Cage, etc. or as I like to call them the IMNC. Just go read StLukesGuildOhio post above and that's exactly how I feel. Do you have a response for this member? Read it twice if you have to.


----------



## Kevin Pearson

some guy said:


> Um, no. There's no forgetting about it. What you're forgetting is that you're not the only listener. What many posters to this thread have forgotten, yes. Some of us like tea without honey. Some of us like coffee without cream. Are composers supposed to neglect us because you, Kevin Pearson, like honey? No. That would be daft. (Besides, composers don't even know you, do they? Did Stockhausen ever meet you? Did you tell him not to forget the honey? Did he respond "I don't care about my listeners"?) You see how silly all that is? A composer's job is to put sounds together. If the result pleases her (or him), then it's likely that it will please someone else, too. The composer's job is not to guess what people he (or she) doesn't even know will be likely to like. Composers who do this, especially the ones who are successful at it, are called panderers and no one, not even their fans, should take them seriously.


Um, no...I am NOT forgetting I am not the only listener but I do consider myself well educated in the arts and also would consider myself a discerning listener who is open to new ideas and possibilities. However, what is being promoted as art these days hardly qualifies in my opinion. Art should reach for the highest and loftiest and best that man can offer not the lowest and much of the modern falls to the level of, what I would consider to be degenerate. It's base at it's core and (forgive me for this comparison but it's the best that comes to mind at the moment) almost "demonic". It does not transcend and ascend, but descends into the lowest pits of hell.

And I fully understand a composer's job is to put "sounds together" as you say but a good composer also considers for his audience. A composer who only thinks about his academic idealism is self-serving and ultimately his work will probably not endure.

As stated previously these are MY opinions and I do not expect others to hold them.

Kevin


----------



## Mirror Image

Kevin Pearson said:


> Um, no...I am NOT forgetting I am not the only listener but I do consider myself well educated in the arts and also would consider myself a discerning listener who is open to knew ideas and possibilities. However, what is being promoted as art these days hardly qualifies in my opinion. Art should reach for the highest and loftiest and best that man can offer not the lowest and much of the modern falls to the level of, what I would consider to be degenerate. It's base at it's core and (forgive me for this comparison but it's the best that comes to mind at the moment) almost "demonic". It does not transcend and ascend, but descends into the lowest pits of hell.
> 
> And I fully understand a composer's job is to put "sounds together" as you say but a good composer also considers for his audience. A composer who only thinks about his academic idealism is self-serving and ultimately his work will probably not endure.
> 
> As stated previously these are MY opinions and I do not expect others to hold them.
> 
> Kevin


Amen brother. Very well said.


----------



## nickgray

some guy said:


> My ears have never had any trouble with the most acerbic, harsh, uncompromising sounds, nor have they had much trouble (and only at the beginning) with the most isolated, unnarrative, random sounds, either. Really folks, the music is fine.


Well, good for you. Here, have a cookie *hands a nice chocolate chip cookie*


----------



## Mirror Image

nickgray said:


> Well, good for you. Here, have a cookie *hands a nice chocolate chip cookie*


"Mmm...good chocolate chip cookie!"









"Me love cookies!"









"Boy, Cookie Monster you sure said it!"


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Just because you dislike something doesn't mean that that thing is "not art."

Agreed... but the idea is a two-way street. Just because a composer does not embrace the innovations deemed by academia as the sole "true path" to innovation or a listener the difficult creations of the same does not make make that composer or listener inherently any less sophisticated. Art is not a linear progression. There are cycles and swings of the pendulum and there are always those isolated figures that produce works of real genius is complete opposition... even ignorance of the dominant strains of the time. WWilliam Blake, Giorgio Morandi, etc...) Personally, I listen to a great deal of post-WWII music. A good part of it would certainly be considered "experimental" and "difficult" by many and I listen to it because I like to challenge myself with a wide range of artistic possibilities and even with art which does not immediately speak to me. I don't limit myself, however, to a belief that such "difficult" or "experimental" music is the sole music in the contemporary realm of any real merit.

Again... a great many might argue for the importance of jazz in considering the employment of improvisation that greatly links it with Action Painting or Abstract Expressionism and the connection with the Japanese/Chinese notions of Zen. (It is intriguing, is it not, that the artists responsible for the great innovation in American painting, the Abstract Expressionist, as well as most o the poets and writers of the same era were deeply influenced by and sympathetic with jazz... and not with the latest esoteric trends in European music). I will say it again, I greatly doubt that Philip Glass, John Cage, Stockhausen or any number of other contemporary composers will continue to resonate as well as Miles Davis, Thelonius Monk, Duke Ellington or any number of others.

Seriously, 95% of all art is mediocre at best. A good percentage of that is pure crap. History is full of artists who were imagined as being major players during their time but whom history judged as really being nothing more than than the creators of "period pieces". I would not dismiss a great many contemporary composers as not being art... or being without merit, nor would I suggest that those who champion their causes are inherently defective of hearing... in spite of the fact that the work does not personally speak to me. There are artists/composers/poets/writers etc... from across the ages that do not speak to me, yet I would not assume that my personal biases are the final judgment or the true standard for anyone except myself. I would expect the same courtesy in return: a recognition that a composer and/or a music listener might not be simply dismissed as "reactionary" or "stuck in the 19th century" (I personally spend more time with the 18th century -Bach, Gluck, Mozart- or even the Middle Ages) and that they might indeed be quite well-informed, quite knowledgeable, and quite sophisticated and still not like certain strains of music.


----------



## Scott Good

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Again... this exemplifies the holier-than-thou... more-sophisticated-than-thou attitude that has been employed by any number of artists in defense of the most experimental strains of art/music/poetry/film etc... In its way it is no more valid than its opposite which is the usual employment of the analogy of the _Emperor's New Clothes_. The same argument was employed by those who not only argued in the defense of abstraction in painting... but in favor of its aesthetic and even moral superiority. It remains pretentious nonsense.


Yes, the moral superiority argument is weak, but, it has had some significant philosophical backing - Adorno for one. It is not healthy to just brush aside these ideas as pretentious non-sense. It is much deeper than that. But, I guess if one views art as entertainment alone, and simply to be liked or not, well, then none of this matters any ways. But, if one believes (as I do), that art connects humans to each other and portrays the values of the time, and creates culture, then perhaps these issues should be thought about.

Much of this rejecting attitude came from Germany and France after WWII - believe it or not, some artists felt that it was quite terrible, and that perhaps we need to rethink our practices (art included) to build a society that wouldn't result in WWIII. This is, in essence, an act of morality.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> It is more than possible that the music of Alan Hovhaness, Aaron Copland, and Thelonius Monk will survive well into the future far better than Cage, Stockhausen, or Glass.


I doubt it. When some people talk of Cage, they talk in terms of before and after. His ideas are so radical, yet elegantly humanistic and easy to understand, that they will most likely vault him as one of the great musical philosophers ever. He has already made huge impacts on how we create and perceive art.

But, maybe for Glass and Stockhausen. But, since their names are iterated again and again in threads such as these, I will assume they have made their mark, and aren't going away. By your defaming remarks, you support their potent position in history.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> It is also more than possible that every music lover and every composer who does not particularly like certain experimental strains of classical music is not immediately to be thought of as "stuck in the past". The reality is that art evolves through building upon the past... and rebelling against or rejecting the past. A great many composers and listeners are aware of the more experimental strains of the classical music of the last 100 years (or thereabout) and they have made the decision that these do not speak to them.


Well, I wish people would not worry soooo much about what speaks to them or not. Just decide that all art has value, and can speak about something - it just might take some effort to want to hear it. This is one of the wisdoms we can gain from Cage's writings.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Are we to assume that denotes an inherent incapacity or failing on their part? And yet we are assume that when Schoenberg, Cage, or Takemitsu rejected aspects of the music that went before them... that was to be seen as being daring and avant garde? I don't buy the idea at all... indeed I find it snobbish in the extreme to suggest that one approach to music is inherently superior to another.


Sure, ok, I guess. But these composers weren't really daring, that sounds so adolescent. They were very creative. More so than most. That is why you are discussing them. They pose to you very difficult questions of aesthetic belief, which could be wiped off with a "I don't like it", or, perhaps a healthy dose of curiosity will lead down a path of incredible discovery - to unveil as much as possible the immense creative potential of the human imagination.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> The reality is that judging contemporary art is always a crap shoot. The art that survives is that which continues to resonate with an audience over time... and especially that which continues to inspire later generations of artists. It is just as possible... no... it is far more likely, actually, that what survives of the music of our time will be be that music which continued to build upon the traditions of music of the 19th century... or music that build upon ideas even far older... such as music of the middle ages (Arvo Part)... or music that comes from various regional traditions completely removed from the Western European tradition: Jazz, Middle-Eastern Music, Asian Music, etc... than it is that the only music of any worth will remain that which met the litmus test of academia for experimentation, difficulty, and hermeticism.


Well, you are right. But if we took out academia of music, then, bye bye classical. It will be crushed by popular music forms. It will become too unwieldy, expensive, and irrelevant if it isn't taught as a great art form.

Is it wrong to think that young kids should engage in the tradition of classical music in an educational environment? Is it snobbish to think that children should engage with Mozart and Bach (and Schoenberg)? Or, should we succumb to the shinny thrills and great hair of Hanna Montana, and be done with this silly academic elitism?

Or, perhaps we think (as a society) that some things are better, and that they need to be nurtured and shared.

Like it or not, these composers you so easily show disdain for are some of the great composers of the 20th century. Enough time has passed to have a fairly accurate notion of this. I'm sorry, but to think that Schoenberg and Hovannes are of the same greatness is not honest. If you don't like it because it is "noisy", well, fine. Your loss. But don't discredit his great achievements to the evolution of music. He developed through extensive research and prolific composing some fascinating ideas for composers of the future to contemplate that connect the tradition to modern thinking.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Yes, the moral superiority argument is weak, but, it has had some significant philosophical backing - Adorno for one. It is not healthy to just brush aside these ideas as pretentious non-sense. 

Why not? Do Beethoven or Mozart survive based upon "significant philosophical backing"? The weaker... or the less accessible art has been the more voluminous its written defenses have become.

It is much deeper than that. But, I guess if one views art as entertainment alone, and simply to be liked or not, well, then none of this matters any ways. But, if one believes (as I do), that art connects humans to each other and portrays the values of the time, and creates culture, then perhaps these issues should be thought about.

Again... were Mozart and Beethoven mere entertainment? Certainly they proposed innovations that were challenging or even difficult at times... but these were not so extreme that they left vast numbers of the music-loving audience still perplexed or even hostile after nearly a century.

Much of this rejecting attitude came from Germany and France after WWII - believe it or not, some artists felt that it was quite terrible, and that perhaps we need to rethink our practices (art included) to build a society that wouldn't result in WWIII. This is, in essence, an act of morality.

Actually... the movement toward abstraction, Dada, Expressionism, and the other extremes of the _avant garde_ began after the First World War... which in many ways was more shocking due to the fact that the horrors of modern, mechanized warfare were completely unexpected. Yet certainly I can understand the notion of artists responding to the horrors of the 2 world wars with something of a rejection of what went before... but we have now moved on 60+ years. Are we still to believe that a rejection of tonality has any claim to moral superiority to say nothing of the notion that it is the only means to artistic merit?

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio View Post
It is more than possible that the music of Alan Hovhaness, Aaron Copland, and Thelonius Monk will survive well into the future far better than Cage, Stockhausen, or Glass.

I doubt it. When some people talk of Cage, they talk in terms of before and after. His ideas are so radical, yet elegantly humanistic and easy to understand, that they will most likely vault him as one of the great musical philosophers ever. He has already made huge impacts on how we create and perceive art.

"Some people?. "Some people" also talk of before and after Elvis... and one suspects he may just have wrought a greater impact upon music than Cage. For the vast majority... even many who follow classical music... John Cage is nothing but a name. How often is his work performed by major symphonic orchestras? How often is it recorded? How often does it get played on the radio? If it fails to resonate with anyone outside a small clique of academics how much chance does it have of survival?

But, maybe for Glass and Stockhausen. But, since their names are iterated again and again in threads such as these, I will assume they have made their mark, and aren't going away. By your defaming remarks, you support their potent position in history.

Hans Makart was once spoken of in every circle of the art world. His studio was once one of the centers of Viennese culture... visited by the rich and powerful, the aristocracy, and even the likes of Richard Wagner. His place is the history of art was surely assured for eternity... or so it was thought in 1880. Today he would have been completely forgotten had it not been for the fact that he was actually the teacher of an artist who has survived: Gustav Klimt.

The fact that the names of Cage, Stockhausen, and Glass get tossed about in academic circles is meaningless. For art to survive it must continue to resonate with future generations of audiences... and especially artists.

Well, I wish people would not worry soooo much about what speaks to them or not. Just decide that all art has value, and can speak about something - it just might take some effort to want to hear it. This is one of the wisdoms we can gain from Cage's writings.

All art has value. Certainly... but some works of art have far more value than others. And some works of art have far more value to us as individuals than others. If we all lived for eternity perhaps we would have no need to be discerning... but given the limited time we have to read, listen, and look we all make decisions as to what art offers us the most return upon the investment of our time. From my experience anything John Cage has written (in word or music) is largely a waste of my time.

But these composers weren't really daring, that sounds so adolescent. They were very creative. More so than most. That is why you are discussing them. They pose to you very difficult questions of aesthetic belief, which could be wiped off with a "I don't like it", or, perhaps a healthy dose of curiosity will lead down a path of incredible discovery - to unveil as much as possible the immense creative potential of the human imagination.

"Daring"... "Creative"... "Innovative"... the choice of terminology is just semantic. They were creative... but to what end? The "artist" Piero Manzoni put crap in a can and entitled it _Merda d'artista_. Very innovative! No one had done it before. Does it make it good art? Do you actually want to look at it? Does the fact that it challenges my notion of what great art is make it good? Or is that nothing more than art about art and mental ************? By your argument might I not suggest that Elvis was the greatest musical figure in the post-war era; surely his art would challenge the aesthetic beliefs of many in classical academia.

Well, you are right. But if we took out academia of music, then, bye bye classical. It will be crushed by popular music forms. It will become too unwieldy, expensive, and irrelevant if it isn't taught as a great art form.

Then the argument becomes what merit does it have? If the only audience for a form of music is some small clique of academia why should the general public be expected to continue to support an art that has no value to them? Conceivably there is a specialist in academia somewhere that champions 1970s porno films as art (I have actually seen legitimate college courses to that effect). Are we to then believe such has real merit and is deserving of recognition and financial support? The same argument gets thrown my direction as a visual artist... but the reality is that visual art is largely self-sustaining. It is supported by wealthy collectors who believe it has worth. And shouldn't all art be self-sustaining? But we are to believe that an endeavor of interest to only a minute fragment of society is deserving of support?

Is it wrong to think that young kids should engage in the tradition of classical music in an educational environment? Is it snobbish to think that children should engage with Mozart and Bach (and Schoenberg)? Or, should we succumb to the shinny thrills and great hair of Hanna Montana, and be done with this silly academic elitism?

I would argue that children should be introduced to a broad spectrum of possibilities as to what music is. In most cases they are already bombarded by the latest popular music. Education can introduce them to a world beyond this... and no, I would not limit this to the classical Western tradition. I would also include medieval music, Middle-Eastern, Asian, Celtic, South American and other traditions, jazz, folk, blues, etc... Yes... Mozart and Bach should be taught (and Stravinsky and Prokofiev, etc...). These have a clear value within their given tradition and still resonate to a sizable audience. I would probably even introduce something like Penderecki, Phillip Glass, Takemitsu, or Tan Dun to older students.

Or, perhaps we think (as a society) that some things are better, and that they need to be nurtured and shared.

As an artist and an art lover I am unashamedly "elitist" in my belief that some art is better than others. On the other hand... I recognize that when we get into a discussion of contemporary art we are rarely in agreement. To most who are educated or knowledgeable in the arts Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo are unquestionably major figures in the Western tradition. John Cage and most contemporary art is still doubtful at best.

Like it or not, these composers you so easily show disdain for are some of the great composers of the 20th century. Enough time has passed to have a fairly accurate notion of this. I'm sorry, but to think that Schoenberg and Hovannes are of the same greatness is not honest. If you don't like it because it is "noisy", well, fine. Your loss. But don't discredit his great achievements to the evolution of music. He developed through extensive research and prolific composing some fascinating ideas for composers of the future to contemplate that connect the tradition to modern thinking.

But again... you offer as proof of the "greatness" of these composers (which ones? Cage? Stockhausen?) what? Their status among academia? Is that enough to assure immortality? If a work is to have any worth at all does it not need to speak to an audience beyond a narrow clique of esoteric cognoscenti? Schoenberg is certainly a major figure. I never denied he was. Almost certainly bigger than Hovhaness. But I might "honestly" argue he is dwarfed by Richard Strauss or Shostakovitch... I might also argue that as innovative as his later works are they strike me (and many others who are well versed in music) as having gone off in the wrong direction... toward a dead end. But academia should be the last word, eh? Of course the great academic Adorno as well as Schoenberg himself later dismissed Stravinsky as lightweight. It seems even academia cannot agree. The reality is that 50 or even 100 years is not enough to assure an artist's place in history. And eventually the work needs to be absorbed and appreciated by a larger art loving public. Matisse and Picasso were once thought of as shocking... difficult... "dissonant"... but now they are beloved by a sizable audience that purchases prints and attends exhibitions. Duchamp and Joseph Kosuth and Manzoni? Their names are only kept alive in certain academic circles.


----------



## Mirror Image

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yes, the moral superiority argument is weak, but, it has had some significant philosophical backing - Adorno for one. It is not healthy to just brush aside these ideas as pretentious non-sense.
> 
> Why not? Do Beethoven or Mozart survive based upon "significant philosophical backing"? The weaker... or the less accessible art has been the more voluminous its written defenses have become.
> 
> It is much deeper than that. But, I guess if one views art as entertainment alone, and simply to be liked or not, well, then none of this matters any ways. But, if one believes (as I do), that art connects humans to each other and portrays the values of the time, and creates culture, then perhaps these issues should be thought about.
> 
> Again... were Mozart and Beethoven mere entertainment? Certainly they proposed innovations that were challenging or even difficult at times... but these were not so extreme that they left vast numbers of the music-loving audience still perplexed or even hostile after nearly a century.
> 
> Much of this rejecting attitude came from Germany and France after WWII - believe it or not, some artists felt that it was quite terrible, and that perhaps we need to rethink our practices (art included) to build a society that wouldn't result in WWIII. This is, in essence, an act of morality.
> 
> Actually... the movement toward abstraction, Dada, Expressionism, and the other extremes of the _avant garde_ began after the First World War... which in many ways was more shocking due to the fact that the horrors of modern, mechanized warfare were completely unexpected. Yet certainly I can understand the notion of artists responding to the horrors of the 2 world wars with something of a rejection of what went before... but we have now moved on 60+ years. Are we still to believe that a rejection of tonality has any claim to moral superiority to say nothing of the notion that it is the only means to artistic merit?
> 
> Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio View Post
> It is more than possible that the music of Alan Hovhaness, Aaron Copland, and Thelonius Monk will survive well into the future far better than Cage, Stockhausen, or Glass.
> 
> I doubt it. When some people talk of Cage, they talk in terms of before and after. His ideas are so radical, yet elegantly humanistic and easy to understand, that they will most likely vault him as one of the great musical philosophers ever. He has already made huge impacts on how we create and perceive art.
> 
> "Some people?. "Some people" also talk of before and after Elvis... and one suspects he may just have wrought a greater impact upon music than Cage. For the vast majority... even many who follow classical music... John Cage is nothing but a name. How often is his work performed by major symphonic orchestras? How often is it recorded? How often does it get played on the radio? If it fails to resonate with anyone outside a small clique of academics how much chance does it have of survival?
> 
> But, maybe for Glass and Stockhausen. But, since their names are iterated again and again in threads such as these, I will assume they have made their mark, and aren't going away. By your defaming remarks, you support their potent position in history.
> 
> Hans Makart was once spoken of in every circle of the art world. His studio was once one of the centers of Viennese culture... visited by the rich and powerful, the aristocracy, and even the likes of Richard Wagner. His place is the history of art was surely assured for eternity... or so it was thought in 1880. Today he would have been completely forgotten had it not been for the fact that he was actually the teacher of an artist who has survived: Gustav Klimt.
> 
> The fact that the names of Cage, Stockhausen, and Glass get tossed about in academic circles is meaningless. For art to survive it must continue to resonate with future generations of audiences... and especially artists.
> 
> Well, I wish people would not worry soooo much about what speaks to them or not. Just decide that all art has value, and can speak about something - it just might take some effort to want to hear it. This is one of the wisdoms we can gain from Cage's writings.
> 
> All art has value. Certainly... but some works of art have far more value than others. And some works of art have far more value to us as individuals than others. If we all lived for eternity perhaps we would have no need to be discerning... but given the limited time we have to read, listen, and look we all make decisions as to what art offers us the most return upon the investment of our time. From my experience anything John Cage has written (in word or music) is largely a waste of my time.
> 
> But these composers weren't really daring, that sounds so adolescent. They were very creative. More so than most. That is why you are discussing them. They pose to you very difficult questions of aesthetic belief, which could be wiped off with a "I don't like it", or, perhaps a healthy dose of curiosity will lead down a path of incredible discovery - to unveil as much as possible the immense creative potential of the human imagination.
> 
> "Daring"... "Creative"... "Innovative"... the choice of terminology is just semantic. They were creative... but to what end? The "artist" Piero Manzoni put crap in a can and entitled it _Merda d'artista_. Very innovative! No one had done it before. Does it make it good art? Do you actually want to look at it? Does the fact that it challenges my notion of what great art is make it good? Or is that nothing more than art about art and mental ************? By your argument might I not suggest that Elvis was the greatest musical figure in the post-war era; surely his art would challenge the aesthetic beliefs of many in classical academia.
> 
> Well, you are right. But if we took out academia of music, then, bye bye classical. It will be crushed by popular music forms. It will become too unwieldy, expensive, and irrelevant if it isn't taught as a great art form.
> 
> Then the argument becomes what merit does it have? If the only audience for a form of music is some small clique of academia why should the general public be expected to continue to support an art that has no value to them? Conceivably there is a specialist in academia somewhere that champions 1970s porno films as art (I have actually seen legitimate college courses to that effect). Are we to then believe such has real merit and is deserving of recognition and financial support? The same argument gets thrown my direction as a visual artist... but the reality is that visual art is largely self-sustaining. It is supported by wealthy collectors who believe it has worth. And shouldn't all art be self-sustaining? But we are to believe that an endeavor of interest to only a minute fragment of society is deserving of support?
> 
> Is it wrong to think that young kids should engage in the tradition of classical music in an educational environment? Is it snobbish to think that children should engage with Mozart and Bach (and Schoenberg)? Or, should we succumb to the shinny thrills and great hair of Hanna Montana, and be done with this silly academic elitism?
> 
> I would argue that children should be introduced to a broad spectrum of possibilities as to what music is. In most cases they are already bombarded by the latest popular music. Education can introduce them to a world beyond this... and no, I would not limit this to the classical Western tradition. I would also include medieval music, Middle-Eastern, Asian, Celtic, South American and other traditions, jazz, folk, blues, etc... Yes... Mozart and Bach should be taught (and Stravinsky and Prokofiev, etc...). These have a clear value within their given tradition and still resonate to a sizable audience. I would probably even introduce something like Penderecki, Phillip Glass, Takemitsu, or Tan Dun to older students.
> 
> Or, perhaps we think (as a society) that some things are better, and that they need to be nurtured and shared.
> 
> As an artist and an art lover I am unashamedly "elitist" in my belief that some art is better than others. On the other hand... I recognize that when we get into a discussion of contemporary art we are rarely in agreement. To most who are educated or knowledgeable in the arts Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo are unquestionably major figures in the Western tradition. John Cage and most contemporary art is still doubtful at best.
> 
> Like it or not, these composers you so easily show disdain for are some of the great composers of the 20th century. Enough time has passed to have a fairly accurate notion of this. I'm sorry, but to think that Schoenberg and Hovannes are of the same greatness is not honest. If you don't like it because it is "noisy", well, fine. Your loss. But don't discredit his great achievements to the evolution of music. He developed through extensive research and prolific composing some fascinating ideas for composers of the future to contemplate that connect the tradition to modern thinking.
> 
> But again... you offer as proof of the "greatness" of these composers (which ones? Cage? Stockhausen?) what? Their status among academia? Is that enough to assure immortality? If a work is to have any worth at all does it not need to speak to an audience beyond a narrow clique of esoteric cognoscenti? Schoenberg is certainly a major figure. I never denied he was. Almost certainly bigger than Hovhaness. But I might "honestly" argue he is dwarfed by Richard Strauss or Shostakovitch... I might also argue that as innovative as his later works are they strike me (and many others who are well versed in music) as having gone off in the wrong direction... toward a dead end. But academia should be the last word, eh? Of course the great academic Adorno as well as Schoenberg himself later dismissed Stravinsky as lightweight. It seems even academia cannot agree. The reality is that 50 or even 100 years is not enough to assure an artist's place in history. And eventually the work needs to be absorbed and appreciated by a larger art loving public. Matisse and Picasso were once thought of as shocking... difficult... "dissonant"... but now they are beloved by a sizable audience that purchases prints and attends exhibitions. Duchamp and Joseph Kosuth and Manzoni? Their names are only kept alive in certain academic circles.


Wow...I'm speechless. You're a very smart individual. I completely concur with you. Very well said.


----------



## Jaime77

_And I fully understand a composer's job is to put "sounds together" as you say but a good composer also considers for his audience. A composer who only thinks about his academic idealism is self-serving and ultimately his work will probably not endure.

_
Really agree with this. It is all fine to expect the audience to 'get' new music but when 90 percent of the Western population probably don't know that modern classical music even exists and if they heard it would not like it or 'understand' it then surely a compromise is in order rather than a hard-line view.


----------



## Sid James

How come that whenever the topic of contemporary music comes up, people (who do not like or understand it) have to be on the defensive? It's thanks to this attitude, as Some Guy suggests, we have very little of contemporary classical being performed in our concert halls. So now classical music is largely a dead medium, where composers of the past are celebrated & those of the present are ignored & rejected. This is all thanks to the negative & inflexible attitudes demonstrated above, not due to some hidden agenda in the academic world or something like that. It's just plain old conservatism, and this is what the concert programmers are feeding off. So, thanks to these people, the future does not bode well for young people today who actually want to become classical composers. They are fighting against the indifference & ignorance of the music listening public, which is where I sense the original poster was coming from...


----------



## Jaime77

There is defensiveness on both sides. 

I think the present public are for the most part ignorant and indifferent but music history shows that many composers and music-thinkers rejected various trends in music over the last 100 years. It is not just the public. I agree with trying new things and thank God for Cage and others who rethought music and organising sound. Varese too. I am just talking about now, being me, a composer, and having a shrinking audience and also feeling the weight of contemporary tradition as much as the older tradition you speak of. To favour Stockhausen over Mozart is an obscenity to some listeners and what I am saying and have found is that the reverse is true in contemporary composing circles. Composers of the more innovative or complex (such vague terms!) music out there are amoung the most defensive people on the planet and that tells its own story. 

Jai


----------



## Guest

jaibyrne said:


> It is all fine to expect the audience to 'get' new music but when 90 percent of the Western population probably don't know that modern classical music even exists and if they heard it would not like it or 'understand' it then surely a compromise is in order rather than a hard-line view.


And again, the statistics from Weber's _The Great Transformation of Musical Taste: Concert Programming from Haydn to Brahms_:
*Percentage of dead composers in concerts, by city and year*
Leipzig, 1782--11
Leipzig, 1830--50
Vienna, 1830--74
Paris, 1860s and 70s--69 to 94

And the words with which Alex Ross follows this list in his review of Weber's book: *"Anyone who believes that twentieth-century composers, with their harsh chords and rhythms, betrayed some sacred contract with the public should spend a few moments absorbing Weber's data. In fact, the composers were betrayed first."
*



jaibyrne said:


> Composers of the more innovative or complex (such vague terms!) music out there are amoung the most defensive people on the planet and that tells its own story.


Only if it were true would it tell its own story. I spend a lot of time with composers of the more innovative music out there, and none of them are defensive at all. Some of them are concerned that more people don't listen to or like their music--everyone wants to be liked--but most of them if not all of them pretty well know the reality that Weber has outlined in his book and have accepted that their audiences will be small. Because they do have audiences, all of them. Passionate, dedicated, devoted audiences who are moved by their music--in spite of Mirror's incredulity!!--just as much as ever other audiences are moved by Brahms or Tchaikovsky or Beethoven.


----------



## Jaime77

Are you in U.S. or Britain? Because if you are in Britain I am amazed you have found a number of composers who are not defensive. I can only talk about my experience in the field of academics. Composers outside of the academic sphere would in themselves be a little different too. 

Thanks for the Weber quote. I don't think that it is only the 20th Century that shows this issue, what I am saying is that, even if dead composers were more popular in 1850, or whenever does not mean that most people don't like atonal music. There is no correlation there and I have found that most people don't like atonal music. Also, my other point, Beethoven being more popular in 1900 let's say than Debussy, at least the people knew that classical music still existed and was being composed. 
This is an interesting debate, now I am wondering how many people actually knew that Debussy was part of the same tradition as let's say, Beethoven. I presume anyone who knew anything about music would. 
maybe the nature of classical music is to look back or that stuff grows with time. having said that, Schoenberg, even though he was one of the greatest figures of the 20th century composed atonal music 100 years ago that is hardly ever performed by comparison with Debussy. Why is that? Because of Arnold was atonal and many people find that difficult to digest. I really think style is fundamental to this issue.


----------



## Guest

jaibyrne said:


> Are you in U.S. or Britain?


I'm in Prague at the moment, fresh from festivals in Ostrava and Crest, on the eve of leaving for Linz for another festival. Contemporary music festivals, yes. Crawling with composers and packed with appreciative audiences. I live in Portland, OR when I'm not on the road. The composers I meet are from all over the world, including the UK.


jaibyrne said:


> ...even if dead composers were more popular in 1850, or whenever does not mean that most people don't like atonal music. There is no correlation there and I have found that most people don't like atonal music.


The conclusion to be drawn from Weber's data has nothing to do with whether people like or dislike atonal music! The conclusion is that it's not atonality (or any of the other, more recent, trends in music) that has driven people away from new music; it's something else, nostalgia, insecurity, what have you, and it started long ago, in the midst of musical styles we now revere!


----------



## Jaime77

OK yes but what I am saying is that there are levels to this. Debussy will always be more popular than Schoenberg not because of anything other than consensus of anti-atonal taste. Their are composers played who are alive more frequently than better ones, arguably, who are dead e.g. Philip Glass and John Adams do well for themselves. Is Glass better than Erik Satie or Witold Szymanowski? I don't think so. 

In all honesty though, your trip sounds great and hope you enjoy it. You sound like you have the right attitude. You don't see the cliques and the back-stabbing that actually goes on in composing circles, not to mention people talking complete nonsense. The home of new music is the university which is an institution and like many institutions it has its dark side. I know I sound bitter.

Anyway, back to my original point. I need to decide the kind of music to compose and I feel huge pressure to write atonally. I don't know if it is inside or outside the pressure is coming from.


----------



## purple99

Andre said:


> How come that whenever the topic of contemporary music comes up, people (who do not like or understand it) have to be on the defensive? It's thanks to this attitude, as Some Guy suggests, we have very little of contemporary classical being performed in our concert halls. So now classical music is largely a dead medium, where composers of the past are celebrated & those of the present are ignored & rejected. This is all thanks to the negative & inflexible attitudes demonstrated above, not due to some hidden agenda in the academic world or something like that. It's just plain old conservatism, and this is what the concert programmers are feeding off. So, thanks to these people, the future does not bode well for young people today who actually want to become classical composers. They are fighting against the indifference & ignorance of the music listening public, which is where I sense the original poster was coming from...


I agree. Something odd's happening in London in relation to the high arts. The galleries are packed, yet the concert halls, except for the Proms, are populated largely by a tired, ageing, grey-haired, wealthy, snobby clientele. There's an article about the phenomenon here.

This suggests to me that when members of that clientele claim to feel alienated from atonal or experimental music they're not representative of the public at large. Why? Because the public at large, for the most part, avoids concert halls like the plague, regardless of what's being played. They hate or ignore or laugh at the whole high art music culture. I don't blame them.

So the problem isn't that contemporary composers write music which doesn't sound like Debussy. Or that a mafia in university music departments mark down students who don't fawn on Adorno. The problem is that owing to structural problems embedded deep within the institution of Western classical music itself, the vast majority of the public is alienated from the entire edifice. That's got nothing to do with atonality. It's a structural, _institutionalised_ problem.

The concert promoters I talk to are aware of this but terrified of angering the grey-haired fuddie duddies who currently pay the bills. They look at Tate Modern audiences in London with envy, and wrack their brains for ways to demolish the inherited concert hall infrastructure - only invented towards the end of the 19th century - to attract the new audience, while maintaining their current cash flow.

Chamber music is the thing to watch. And organisations like Classical Revolution.


----------



## Jaime77

It's good to hear someone is trying to improve this situation. I agree that it doesn't only apply to contemporary music. It's just that contemporary music is in an even more fringe position. We are the elite of the elite. Having said that I still stand by the fact that most musicians and classical music-lovers I meet do not like atonal music. This is a seperate but significant issue since there is an institution, as you say, which is unshakable and it extends to all areas of classical. It is perhaps this that I have come up against in the form of extremely analytic, Adorno-influenced, mentality.
There was for example a festival at the university I was in and they had, at the end of the event, a concert of mostly premiers by living composers. Even though it was well advertised and all the musicians and composers at the music department would have known about it, only 6 people showed up. 
Now to me that is major warning bells. rather than attacking the missing students, which the head did, he should have thought why nobody wanted to go. 
When an animal feels threatened it defends itself (or runs away) and the contemporary composer is perhaps an endangered species with every man for himself, clinging to whatever they can to give their work a sense of purpose, whether it is stylistic fashion or whatever. Gould was wrong about concert halls being gone by 2000, at least it is not that bad but I sometimes get scared that it might happen in my lifetime. 

If people only knew the riches out there.


----------



## purple99

I don't want to be too hard on the fuddie duddies - I'm going to be one myself before too long.  Plus they're not all reactionary snobs who use classical music as a way to show off their tiaras. But classical music has got itself in a cultural mess. As a brander, advertiser, or marketing guru, it's a b*oody nightmare. The new London money in the pockets of the new middle class won't go anywhere near it (except the Proms - the great exception - but that's heavily subsidised and beautifully branded). I believe the same's happening wherever high art music is played.

So the question goes much deeper imo than atonality. That's just where normal people laugh the loudest. It's the _entire structure_ which is held in general contempt. Of course some snobs and elitists like it that way and will resist any change. That will include some arrogant modern composers - of the sort you describe - who feel they're doing the world a favour by permitting them to experience their music. I see the reactionary fuddie duddies and the arrogant Adorno-ists as two sides of the same coin. They're each parasiting on a failed, discredited culture.


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> How come that whenever the topic of contemporary music comes up, people (who do not like or understand it) have to be on the defensive? It's thanks to this attitude, as Some Guy suggests, we have very little of contemporary classical being performed in our concert halls. So now classical music is largely a dead medium, where composers of the past are celebrated & those of the present are ignored & rejected. This is all thanks to the negative & inflexible attitudes demonstrated above, not due to some hidden agenda in the academic world or something like that. It's just plain old conservatism, and this is what the concert programmers are feeding off. So, thanks to these people, the future does not bode well for young people today who actually want to become classical composers. They are fighting against the indifference & ignorance of the music listening public, which is where I sense the original poster was coming from...


Name one composer from our present time, who you think I would like, that writes as beautiful music as Ravel, Bruckner, Debussy, or Vaughan Williams and I might agree with your comments. Until, then, I have not heard even one contemporary composer I have enjoyed.

This has nothing to do with my attitude, this has to do with if ithe music actually good or not or is the music something that I could enjoy. Sometimes I don't want to be challenged, Andre, sometimes I just want to hear a good composer who writes beautiful music and that's the problem with comtemporary classical composers they're not thinking with their hearts, but with their minds. It's all intellectual music. Not all classical music should be intellectual. There should be a fusion between the mind and the heart. I want guts and glory or the lovely calming ocean breeze. I like music to transport to another place and I'm afraid I have not heard one contemporary composer that remotely does anything for me.


----------



## Mirror Image

purple99 said:


> I agree. Something odd's happening in London in relation to the high arts. The galleries are packed, yet the concert halls, except for the Proms, are populated largely by a tired, ageing, grey-haired, wealthy, snobby clientele. There's an article about the phenomenon here.
> 
> This suggests to me that when members of that clientele claim to feel alienated from atonal or experimental music they're not representative of the public at large. Why? Because the public at large, for the most part, avoids concert halls like the plague, regardless of what's being played. They hate or ignore or laugh at the whole high art music culture. I don't blame them.
> 
> So the problem isn't that contemporary composers write music which doesn't sound like Debussy. Or that a mafia in university music departments mark down students who don't fawn on Adorno. The problem is that owing to structural problems embedded deep within the institution of Western classical music itself, the vast majority of the public is alienated from the entire edifice. That's got nothing to do with atonality. It's a structural, _institutionalised_ problem.
> 
> The concert promoters I talk to are aware of this but terrified of angering the grey-haired fuddie duddies who currently pay the bills. They look at Tate Modern audiences in London with envy, and wrack their brains for ways to demolish the inherited concert hall infrastructure - only invented towards the end of the 19th century - to attract the new audience, while maintaining their current cash flow.
> 
> Chamber music is the thing to watch. And organisations like Classical Revolution.


I despise people who sit on orchestra boards who really are in charge of what gets played in the concert halls. When has an orchestra ever played Alwyn's "Lyra Angelica" or Britten's "Ballad of Heroes" in a concert hall recently. This is what I do not like. This is the very reason I don't go see the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. These orchestras are playing what sells, not what true classical fans want to hear. Thank God for studio recordings or I wouldn't be able to hear or discover more of the obscure composers like Langgaard or Karlowicz.


----------



## nickgray

Andre said:


> It's just plain old conservatism,


Is it? We're humans, we're meant to dislike atonality and dissonance. And I honestly fail to see the point in using those techniques as a primary tool to write music. Seriously, how far can you go? There's gotta be some line that divides between the experimentation for the sake of art and experimentation for the sake of experimentation.


----------



## Mirror Image

nickgray said:


> Is it? We're humans, we're meant to dislike atonality and dissonance. And I honestly fail to see the point in using those techniques as a primary tool to write music. Seriously, how far can you go? There's gotta be some line that divides between the experimentation for the sake of art and experimentation for the sake of experimentation.


I can deal with dissonance like that found in Bartok, Britten, or Shostakovich, because they used it as a way to build tension and then released it, but what I can't stand is dissonance for it's own sake and most of these contemporary composers I've heard just compose one piece after another of experimental and dissonant nonsense.


----------



## Guest

nickgray said:


> We're humans, we're meant to dislike atonality and dissonance.


Really? So that means that I and my fellow audience members at new music concerts are something other than human? We like atonality and dissonance. (And all the other things that no one seems to know even exist!)* And we _are_ humans. Again, no one's personal tastes should be turned into norms that are applicable to everyone.

If something can be enjoyed, by how every many or however few people, then the thing is ipso facto enjoyable. Forget how you respond personally to new music and just read those words. Logical, eh? OK, now do the bold thing and stop privileging your responses.

*In 1937, seventy-two years ago, a certain composer and thinker about music said that the "consonance/dissonance" debate was over. And claimed that the debate of the immediate future would be between "noise and so-called musical sounds." Among practitioners of the art, that debate, too, is over, replaced by other debates. It's alarming how many people are so out of the loop that they think "atonality and dissonance" are the big things, the things worth focussing on, the things that characterize twentieth century avant garde.


----------



## Very Senior Member

some guy said:


> Really? So that means that I and my fellow audience members at new music concerts are something other than human? We like atonality and dissonance. (And all the other things that no one seems to know even exist!)* And we _are_ humans. Again, no one's personal tastes should be turned into norms that are applicable to everyone.
> 
> If something can be enjoyed, by how every many or however few people, then the thing is ipso facto enjoyable. Forget how you respond personally to new music and just read those words. Logical, eh? OK, now do the bold thing and stop privileging your responses.
> 
> *In 1937, seventy-two years ago, a certain composer and thinker about music said that the "consonance/dissonance" debate was over. And claimed that the debate of the immediate future would be between "noise and so-called musical sounds." Among practitioners of the art, that debate, too, is over, replaced by other debates. It's alarming how many people are so out of the loop that they think "atonality and dissonance" are the big things, the things worth focussing on, the things that characterize twentieth century avant garde.


Do you have any interests in promoting contemporary music beyond the purely listening enjoyment you appear to obtain from it?


----------



## Very Senior Member

purple99 said:


> I agree. Something odd's happening in London in relation to the high arts. The galleries are packed, yet the concert halls, except for the Proms, are populated largely by a tired, ageing, grey-haired, wealthy, snobby clientele. There's an article about the phenomenon here.
> 
> This suggests to me that when members of that clientele claim to feel alienated from atonal or experimental music they're not representative of the public at large. Why? Because the public at large, for the most part, avoids concert halls like the plague, regardless of what's being played. They hate or ignore or laugh at the whole high art music culture. I don't blame them.
> 
> So the problem isn't that contemporary composers write music which doesn't sound like Debussy. Or that a mafia in university music departments mark down students who don't fawn on Adorno. The problem is that owing to structural problems embedded deep within the institution of Western classical music itself, the vast majority of the public is alienated from the entire edifice. That's got nothing to do with atonality. It's a structural, _institutionalised_ problem.
> 
> The concert promoters I talk to are aware of this but terrified of angering the grey-haired fuddie duddies who currently pay the bills. They look at Tate Modern audiences in London with envy, and wrack their brains for ways to demolish the inherited concert hall infrastructure - only invented towards the end of the 19th century - to attract the new audience, while maintaining their current cash flow.
> 
> Chamber music is the thing to watch. And organisations like Classical Revolution.


The argument above strikes me as very unconvincing.

What exactly is your evidence that many bright young things would love to hear lots of atonal, experimental, dissonant, contemporary "music" but are put off attending concerts in London because they're stuffed full of old, grey-haired fuddy duddies who want to hear only old-fashioned classical music? This sounds to me like a completely baseless proposition based on some left-wing student mentality about the class structure in the UK.

And if you can provide any such evidence (which I seriously doubt) then how do you explain that ordinary commercial forces appear not to work in this market whereby one would expect, if it were true that there is such a strong latent demand for new music, that the buying power of this new younger musical elite should be sufficient to displace that of the older generation which has different classical music tastes?


----------



## Kevin Pearson

Mirror Image said:


> his is the very reason I don't go see the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. These orchestras are playing what sells, not what true classical fans want to hear. Thank God for studio recordings or I wouldn't be able to hear or discover more of the obscure composers like Langgaard or Karlowicz.


Have you even taken a look at what the ASO is playing this season? I think there are some pieces even you would enjoy immensely. Rachmaninoff's third piano concerto, Sibelius 1st Symphony, Korngold's violin concerto and many other gems. Nothing compares to a live performance and I do mean nothing. I don't care how good a production a CD may have or if you have a $10,000 stereo system. Classical music was meant to be experienced live and although it's nice to have the technology so we can hear pieces at our leisure it's just not the same experience.

I personally think many people do not attend live concerts because either their lives are already too busy, they can't afford them or they are just too lazy.

Kevin


----------



## purple99

Very Senior Member said:


> What exactly is your evidence that many bright young things would love to hear lots of atonal, experimental, dissonant, contemporary "music"


I didn't make that claim. You invented it and ascribed it to me.



Very Senior Member said:


> The argument... strikes me as very unconvincing.


It's not my fault if you construct an argument, ascribe it to me, and then find it unconvincing.


----------



## Very Senior Member

purple99 said:


> I didn't make that claim. You invented it and ascribed it to me.
> 
> It's not my fault if you construct an argument, ascribe it to me, and then find it unconvincing.


I'm sorry to disagree, but my summary of your apparent viewpoint strikes me as being perfectly reasonable. It evidently makes your position look daft, devoid of any evidence to support it, and that's why you are now disowning it.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Kevin Pearson said:


> I personally think many people do not attend live concerts because either their lives are already too busy, they can't afford them or they are just too lazy.
> 
> Kevin


This just about sums up every conceivable possibility, so why make such an obvious point?


----------



## Mirror Image

Kevin Pearson said:


> Have you even taken a look at what the ASO is playing this season? I think there are some pieces even you would enjoy immensely. Rachmaninoff's third piano concerto, Sibelius 1st Symphony, Korngold's violin concerto and many other gems. Nothing compares to a live performance and I do mean nothing. I don't care how good a production a CD may have or if you have a $10,000 stereo system. Classical music was meant to be experienced live and although it's nice to have the technology so we can hear pieces at our leisure it's just not the same experience.
> 
> I personally think many people do not attend live concerts because either their lives are already too busy, they can't afford them or they are just too lazy.
> 
> Kevin


The thing I hate is the hassle involved with going to Atlanta to see the ASO. If I could just say take a taxi and be there in 12 minutes, then I'd be going to see the symphony more often, but as it turns out I live about 45 minutes from Atlanta and the traffic to get there is hell to pay. I would be more stressed by the time I took my seat more than anything, so I couldn't possibly enjoy the concert. It's just a big ordeal for me to go. It's more a headache than anything. If you've never been to Atlanta then you won't know what I'm talking about, but I think Atlanta is one of the most heavily congested cities in the United States and everyone who's been there can probably sympathize with my dilemma.


----------



## Kevin Pearson

Mirror Image said:


> If you've never been to Atlanta then you won't know what I'm talking about, but I think Atlanta is one of the most heavily congested cities in the United States and everyone who's been there can probably sympathize with my dilemma.


I have been to Atlanta but I don't recall the traffic being THAT bad in the evenings. I too live about 45 minutes from either concert hall I can attend. The Myerson in Dallas or the Bass in Ft. Worth but even though it is a drive and there is some traffic issues to deal with, but I feel it is well worth the investment of my time. There is nothing like a night at the symphony, in my opinion anyway. If traffic really is an issue why not do what my wife and I do...we leave a couple of hours before the concert so we can get parked and have a nice leisurly dinner before the concert begins. It makes for a wonderful evening.

Besides, if I lived in Atlanta there is no way I would miss James Ehnes performing the Korngold violin concerto. I just saw him last week perform Beethoven's and he was absolutely amazing! He also plays a lovely 1715 Stradivarious that has just the sweetest sound you could imagine.

Kevin


----------



## Guest

Very Senior Member said:


> Do you have any interests in promoting contemporary music....


Oh, I already very much do.


----------



## Mirror Image

Kevin Pearson said:


> I have been to Atlanta but I don't recall the traffic being THAT bad in the evenings. I too live about 45 minutes from either concert hall I can attend. The Myerson in Dallas or the Bass in Ft. Worth but even though it is a drive and there is some traffic issues to deal with, but I feel it is well worth the investment of my time. There is nothing like a night at the symphony, in my opinion anyway. If traffic really is an issue why not do what my wife and I do...we leave a couple of hours before the concert so we can get parked and have a nice leisurly dinner before the concert begins. It makes for a wonderful evening.
> 
> Besides, if I lived in Atlanta there is no way I would miss James Ehnes performing the Korngold violin concerto. I just saw him last week perform Beethoven's and he was absolutely amazing! He also plays a lovely 1715 Stradivarious that has just the sweetest sound you could imagine.
> 
> Kevin


To each their own. I gave you my reasons for not going to see the symphony. I don't like traffic and Atlanta is one of the WORST cities to drive in. I try to avoid going down there at all costs. I just really don't have any desire to see an orchestra live unless there's a way to take out the stress and hassle involved with going down there.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

How come that whenever the topic of contemporary music comes up, people (who do not like or understand it) have to be on the defensive? It's thanks to this attitude, as Some Guy suggests, we have very little of contemporary classical being performed in our concert halls. So now classical music is largely a dead medium, where composers of the past are celebrated & those of the present are ignored & rejected. This is all thanks to the negative & inflexible attitudes demonstrated above, not due to some hidden agenda in the academic world or something like that. It's just plain old conservatism...

Andre... what is the purpose of art? I would argue that perhaps the central purpose of art is to communicate. I agree that when art crosses a certain level of innovation it becomes difficult or challenging for the audience. You suggest classical music is a "dead medium". perhaps in many ways it is. But whose fault is that? You lay the whole blame upon the conservative audience. I don't buy that. There are many who are willing to meet the artist half way. Surely Beethoven's late quartets, Bach's passions, medieval chant, and even Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ can seem initially demanding. But they never become so esoteric that they shut out the audience. There are strains among contemporary music and contemporary art which are so esoteric and make virtually no effort to engage the audience... even that audience which might be open to new music if it did offer them something to latch on to. As an artist I fully support the rite of the creator to follow his or her own vision without the least concern to the audience. It must be recognized, however, that when the audience doesn't come around and swoon over what these artists have done it is perhaps not entirely the fault of a conservative close-minded audience. I say this all without suggesting that I have a solution. I don't argue for an art that placates or satiates the latest whims of taste and fashion. I say this all with a real concern over the direction the fine arts have headed which makes them increasingly irrelevant to the larger culture... to many even who are seriously passionate about the arts... and as such makes them increasingly the legitimate target of those who question why we should support such through our tax dollars. Hermann Hesse wrestled with this quandary some 60 years in his last novel, The Glass Bead Game... and came to no conclusion... but a suggestion that the two camps (that of the elite art of the ivory tower and that of popular culture) need to meet each other part way... and talk.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think the present public are for the most part ignorant and indifferent...

And doesn't this exemplify the snobbish attitude that has led us to the current situation in which the fine arts are virtually a dead issue? Do we presume the right to mock the general public and dismiss them as "ignorant" while still expecting that they should continue to fund our esoteric experimentation in little sacred world of academia? Or might we not need to rethink the relationship between artist and audience as inherently adversarial?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Anyone who believes that twentieth-century composers, with their harsh chords and rhythms, betrayed some sacred contract with the public should spend a few moments absorbing Weber's data. In fact, the composers were betrayed first.

At this point does it matter who betrayed whom first? The reality is that it has led to a spiral effect where contemporary fine art has become increasingly irrelevant to the larger public and as a result the artists have become more and more hermetic... making art that only speaks to a smaller and smaller clique which presumes itself (pretentiously) to be the saviors of "true art". The question is how to halt this trend... how to make classical music or the fine arts in general relevant. Again... in spite of the statistics... one might offer up alternative statistics such as the fact that Puccini remains one of the most performed opera composers... as does Richard Strauss. _The Rite of Spring, Carmina Burana_, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Aaron Copland, etc... all remain frequently performed. Daniel Catan's recent opera, Florencia, was the most successful ever by a living composer at the Houston Opera which commissioned the work. Osvaldo Golijov has shown composed highly successful works that embrace a broad array of styles and traditions... to say nothing of William Bolcom. Contemporary art can continue to engage an audience... but there must be an effort to do so.


----------



## Mirror Image

Kevin Pearson said:


> I have been to Atlanta but I don't recall the traffic being THAT bad in the evenings.


When was the last time you have been to Atlanta?

According to Forbes magazine, Atlanta is the 4th worst city to drive in:

1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.
2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.
3. Washington, D.C.
*4. Atlanta*
5. Houston
6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.
7. Chicago.
8. Detroit
9. Riverside, San Bernardino, Calif.
9. Orlando, Fla.
11. San Jose, Calif.
12. San Diego

Checkout this article sometime:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/06/worst-traffic-nightmares-cx_rm_0207traffic.html


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The thing I hate is the hassle involved with going to Atlanta to see the ASO. If I could just say take a taxi and be there in 12 minutes, then I'd be going to see the symphony more often, but as it turns out I live about 45 minutes from Atlanta and the traffic to get there is hell to pay. I would be more stressed by the time I took my seat more than anything, so I couldn't possibly enjoy the concert. It's just a big ordeal for me to go. It's more a headache than anything. If you've never been to Atlanta then you won't know what I'm talking about, but I think Atlanta is one of the most heavily congested cities in the United States and everyone who's been there can probably sympathize with my dilemma.

Come on, MI. Attending a concert in person is a whole experience. For me it involves dressing up, having a great meal with the wife, then arriving at the hall early enough for a drink and to enjoy the marvelous decor of a great symphonic or operatic hall. While I was in art school we were given free tickets to the opera and the symphony as a means of building an audience base and we, as young, hip art students loved the entire pomp and grandeur or the experience. For this reason I don't buy the earlier posted notion that classical music is simply being strangled by older, fuddy-duddy audiences who create the wrong sort of atmosphere to engage a younger... or perhaps less affluent audience. I am no multi-millionaire but I attend the symphony and the opera at home on a frequent enough basis and I am willing to even travel for a truly special occasion. I actually plan on a trip to New York and the Met to see _Der Rosenkavalier_ with Renee Fleming and Susan Graham among others... and I can assure you that Atlanta traffic has nothing on traffic in NYC.


----------



## purple99

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I don't buy the earlier posted notion that classical music is simply being strangled by older, fuddy-duddy audiences who create the wrong sort of atmosphere to engage a younger... or perhaps less affluent audience.


Ah, but the point is they *are* affluent and already spend some of their disposable income on high culture:



> A large group of young, educated, new-media savvy people - the product of the enlarged universities - live and work in London, have cash in their pockets, and want to spend some of it on art. They're not experts but want more, in cultural terms, than Harry Potter and a night in the pub.
> 
> You see them, in large numbers, in the London art galleries, particularly the cleverly branded Tate Modern. They join Facebook en masse and chatter about art on the internet. Many of my neighbours in the trendy district of London where I live (I went to live there before it became trendy) are very much part of this new, young, culturally-hungry, wealthy, liberal, (small L) middle class... Source


So this new, solvent, audience do expose themselves willingly to demanding paintings, sculptures, avant-garde installations etc. at Tate Modern and pay for the experience, but they won't be seen dead at a classical music concert. And they don't just hate atonal music. They hate the whole classical music culture or, worse still, are indifferent to it.


----------



## Mirror Image

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Come on, MI. Attending a concert in person is a whole experience. For me it involves dressing up, having a great meal with the wife, then arriving at the hall early enough for a drink and to enjoy the marvelous decor of a great symphonic or operatic hall. While I was in art school we were given free tickets to the opera and the symphony as a means of building an audience base and we, as young, hip art students loved the entire pomp and grandeur or the experience. For this reason I don't buy the earlier posted notion that classical music is simply being strangled by older, fuddy-duddy audiences who create the wrong sort of atmosphere to engage a younger... or perhaps less affluent audience. I am no multi-millionaire but I attend the symphony and the opera at home on a frequent enough basis and I am willing to even travel for a truly special occasion. I actually plan on a trip to New York and the Met to see _Der Rosenkavalier_ with Renee Fleming and Susan Graham among others... and I can assure you that Atlanta traffic has nothing on traffic in NYC.


If you enjoy going to the symphony or opera that is your prerogative, but don't confuse what you enjoy with what I enjoy. We are two different people and as much as I would love to see the symphony the circumstances in which I must consider overwhelm any kind of desire I have to go. Like I said, to each their own.


----------



## Air

Mirror Image said:


> When was the last time you have been to Atlanta?
> 
> According to Forbes magazine, Atlanta is the 4th worst city to drive in:
> 
> 1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.
> 2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.
> 3. Washington, D.C.
> *4. Atlanta*
> 5. Houston
> 6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.
> 7. Chicago.
> 8. Detroit
> 9. Riverside, San Bernardino, Calif.
> 9. Orlando, Fla.
> 11. San Jose, Calif.
> 12. San Diego, Calif.
> 
> Checkout this article sometime:
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/06/worst-traffic-nightmares-cx_rm_0207traffic.html


Well, I live in California.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

According to Forbes magazine, Atlanta is the 4th worst city to drive in:

1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.
2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.
3. Washington, D.C.
4. Atlanta
5. Houston
6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.
7. Chicago.
8. Detroit
9. Riverside, San Bernardino, Calif.
9. Orlando, Fla.
11. San Jose, Calif.
12. San Diego

I've driven to and into Washington DC any number of times and never found it the least comparison with New York sitting in line endlessly at the Holland Tunnel or spending an hour to just drive a few blocks once you get through the tunnel. Neither have I found Chicago as that difficult as New York... and yet New York doesn't even make the list while Detroit... a city with a minuscule population in comparison... not far less than that of my home town, Cleveland... and surely no less difficult to maneuver makes no. 8? Perhaps them Forbes folks just based rating upon how difficult it was to get a limo. Other ratings such as that undertaken by INRIX which based ratings upon speed through various routes according to feedback on GPS "probe vehicles" the worst cities to drive in are

1.Los Angeles 
2. New York.
3. Chicago.
4. Washington.
5. Dallas-Fort Worth
6. Houston
7. San Francisco-Oakland
8. Boston.
9. Seattle-Tacoma.
10. Philadelphia.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Ah, but the point is they are affluent and already spend some of their disposable income on high culture:

Quote:
A large group of young, educated, new-media savvy people - the product of the enlarged universities - live and work in London, have cash in their pockets, and want to spend some of it on art. They're not experts but want more, in cultural terms, than Harry Potter and a night in the pub.

You see them, in large numbers, in the London art galleries, particularly the cleverly branded Tate Modern. They join Facebook en masse and chatter about art on the internet. Many of my neighbours in the trendy district of London where I live (I went to live there before it became trendy) are very much part of this new, young, culturally-hungry, wealthy, liberal, (small L) middle class... Source
So this new, solvent, audience do expose themselves willingly to demanding paintings, sculptures, avant-garde installations etc. at Tate Modern and pay for the experience, but they won't be seen dead at a classical music concert. And they don't just hate atonal music. They hate the whole classical music culture or, worse still, are indifferent to it.

Obviously I can't speak to problems of the British musical scene, but after having read the article I get the distinct impression that the writer is a real twit. His solution is to create an atmosphere akin to that of the nightclub?... where the audience can come and go as it pleases, talk, drink, dine... and the music will become something of a mere background noise? And why... because this audience can't be expected to sit quietly and enjoy the performance for an hour or two? Yet they can do so in the movie theater and at the theater and other venues.

The Metropolitan Opera has begun to broadcast live performances into theaters across the US and students are often given free passes through school to attend these... thus exposing them to the world of Opera that is forbidding to many. My hometown orchestra, the Cleveland Orchestra, performs over the summer at an outdoor venue in which the stage sits amidst surrounding hills where the audience may sit on the grass or in lawn chairs, bring a picnic lunch, a bottle of wine, etc... The atmosphere is loose and relaxed and in its way it is a ideal means of introduction into the symphonic experience... perfect for people with younger children who they wish to expose to the music. The musical selections tend to be quite conservative... and populist (Mozart's _Eine Kleine Nachtmusic,_ Tchaikovsky's _1812 Overture_, Beethoven's 5th, etc...). This may be an ideal alternative... and it is but an alternative because when the Orchestra plays at Severance Hall there is all the formality that attends the usual concert... and yet there are more than a few younger people in attendance. In many case it is the younger fans that are the most passionate... bringing roses for favored performers, etc... Again... perhaps it is just the message that is conveyed by the British music institutions that puts off the audience.


----------



## Scott Good

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Do Beethoven or Mozart survive based upon "significant philosophical backing"? The weaker... or the less accessible art has been the more voluminous its written defenses have become.




Because people like you keep attacking it. Ok, silly answer. The real answer is too involved for right now. But seriously, man, there is waaayyyy more written about Beethoven than Stockhausen, and most of it, except for the odd "post modern" critique, is bathing in praise of his genius.

So yes, to a degree, Moz. + Beeth and the boys survive due to a philosophy that believes they are great. Did I read that your art school sent you to classical concerts? Why?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Actually... the movement toward abstraction, Dada, Expressionism, and the other extremes of the _avant garde_ began after the First World War... which in many ways was more shocking due to the fact that the horrors of modern, mechanized warfare were completely unexpected. Yet certainly I can understand the notion of artists responding to the horrors of the 2 world wars with something of a rejection of what went before...


Ok, better history than my short statement.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> but we have now moved on 60+ years. Are we still to believe that a rejection of tonality has any claim to moral superiority to say nothing of the notion that it is the only means to artistic merit?


But through their music we can experience a human reaction to these tragedies. Works like hymnen, de soldaten, a survivor from warsaw and many others enriches our understanding of those times.

And for the music maker, they have created tools to explore new boundaries of expression, just as the traditional cannon has. And although they reject, by doing so they acknowledge. Through their art ones can gain greater understanding of the traditional repertoire. And this can be done just with ears, but also with eyes if one is so inclined.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> "Some people" also talk of before and after Elvis... and one suspects he may just have wrought a greater impact upon music than Cage.


It would be ignorant to think there wasn't a before and after with Elvis! Man, that guy proved what has become the flagship commercial music - teenagers are the best audience ever to make lots and lots of money!



StlukesguildOhio said:


> For the vast majority... even many who follow classical music... John Cage is nothing but a name. How often is his work performed by major symphonic orchestras? How often is it recorded? How often does it get played on the radio? If it fails to resonate with anyone outside a small clique of academics how much chance does it have of survival?


The music academics that I have met for the most part, have little interest Cage. His legacy thrives in other domains - improvised music, sound art, dance, and the world of performance art has in part, something to do with Cage.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hans Makart was once spoken of in every circle of the art world. His studio was once one of the centers of Viennese culture... visited by the rich and powerful, the aristocracy, and even the likes of Richard Wagner. His place is the history of art was surely assured for eternity... or so it was thought in 1880. Today he would have been completely forgotten had it not been for the fact that he was actually the teacher of an artist who has survived: Gustav Klimt.


Klimt and Wagner eh? So, you are saying that unless someone is a household name, they are not worth knowing about? Sounds like he posed some very important positions on art, and is a major part of the art legacy, whether I've heard of him or not.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> The fact that the names of Cage, Stockhausen, and Glass get tossed about in academic circles is meaningless.


No, it isn't meaningless. New generations of musicians ARE engaging with these artists! They HAVE had an influence that is undeniable - things have changed. You like to say Academia is BS. That's many smart individuals you are wrapping into one big homogeneous ball. I have had some amazing teachers, who have devoted their time to sharing their passion, and passing on information.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> From my experience anything John Cage has written (in word or music) is largely a waste of my time.


Real subtle dig there, Mr. smarty pants.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> were creative... but to what end? The "artist" Piero Manzoni put crap in a can and entitled it _Merda d'artista_. Very innovative! No one had done it before. Does it make it good art? Do you actually want to look at it? Does the fact that it challenges my notion of what great art is make it good? Or is that nothing more than art about art and mental ************?


I am a little offended that you would compare a jar of **** to the works of Stockhausen. I don't think you understand what it takes to become a respected composer, even of atonal music.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> If the only audience for a form of music is some small clique of academia why should the general public be expected to continue to support an art that has no value to them? Conceivably there is a specialist in academia somewhere that champions 1970s porno films as art (I have actually seen legitimate college courses to that effect). Are we to then believe such has real merit and is deserving of recognition and financial support?


Now you compare these musicians, respected round the world by many, to porn films!



StlukesguildOhio said:


> The same argument gets thrown my direction as a visual artist... but the reality is that visual art is largely self-sustaining. It is supported by wealthy collectors who believe it has worth. And shouldn't all art be self-sustaining? But we are to believe that an endeavor of interest to only a minute fragment of society is deserving of support?


Well, music and visual art have some very distinct differences in terms of financial viability, especially in the digital world. Too much to get into.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I would argue that children should be introduced to a broad spectrum of possibilities as to what music is. In most cases they are already bombarded by the latest popular music. Education can introduce them to a world beyond this...


It is nice to hear you say something positive about an educational environment.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> and no, I would not limit this to the classical Western tradition. I would also include medieval music, Middle-Eastern, Asian, Celtic, South American and other traditions, jazz, folk, blues, etc... Yes... Mozart and Bach should be taught (and Stravinsky and Prokofiev, etc...).


Sounds like the earlier education I got.

But then what?...



StlukesguildOhio said:


> These have a clear value within their given tradition and still resonate to a sizable audience.


...back to basing education on what is popular, not what is interesting and educational.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I would probably even introduce something like Penderecki, Phillip Glass, Takemitsu, or Tan Dun to older students.


But again, what is next after an introduction? How would you train a composer? How would you get them from curious kid, to proficient orchestral scoring, solid understanding of counterpoint and able to compose a fugue, proficient in functional tonality, and understanding in one of the most rooted tenants of classical music, variation?

What about all of the inventiveness in the 20th century?

What exactly does Schoenberg pose with his concept of "Composing with 12 notes"? What has intrigued me the most is that it creates a thematic device that connects harmony and melody - it is both a theme of horizontal and vertical dimensions simultaneously. Each functions with each other, in unending variation. If some of the more "atonal" structures, such as octave avoidance or merely the 12 part (why not a tone row of 26 notes? or 7?) are either ignored or used sparingly, it opens up all kinds of new avenues for ways that melody and harmony can coexist between pieces, but have an individuality that connects the work together, making it whole.

This is, of course, quite vague. But it has to be - the kind of detail I would need to explain it fully goes beyond the scope of this internet forum. + I don't want to waste your time with academic babbling. However, if you wish to hear what I am talking about _(and now the selfish plug, heh heh)_, here are 5 small examples from my repertoire (about 1min each):
1. The Kiss
2. Shock Therapy Variations
3. Between the Rooms - Concerto for Trumpet
4. Cry
5. Babbitt
They are posted on my myspace page. http://www.myspace.com/scottgoodcomposer

Each are inspired by Schoenberg's methods, and also as importantly, his ancestors (Webern, Berg, Boulez, Stockhausen, Zimmerman, Cage, Lachenmann, Nono, Ligeti etc etc). There is so much to gain from studying this music. His sense of orchestral colour alone is breathtaking, and worthy of a year long course in Academia. I would argue, at least as much as 70's porn! Maybe we could have some kind of post modern way-on-the-cutting-edge course combining the two. It could be called "how big they were they really? a study of dividing rows and other perversions"



StlukesguildOhio said:


> As an artist and an art lover I am unashamedly "elitist" in my belief that some art is better than others. On the other hand... I recognize that when we get into a discussion of contemporary art we are rarely in agreement. To most who are educated or knowledgeable in the arts Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo are unquestionably major figures in the Western tradition. John Cage and most contemporary art is still doubtful at best.


_(chews gum)...You say so....(chews gum)_



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Schoenberg is certainly a major figure. I never denied he was. Almost certainly bigger than Hovhaness. But I might "honestly" argue he is dwarfed by Richard Strauss or Shostakovitch... I might also argue that as innovative as his later works are they strike me (and many others who are well versed in music) as having gone off in the wrong direction... toward a dead end. But academia should be the last word, eh?


Nope. You got free speech. Say whatever you want.

Please do - argue that Shostakovitch dwarf's Schoenberg. I adore Shostakovitch - in many ways my first love! I can play both sides - It'll be fun. Bring on the "honesty".

And do tell me, how is what Schoenberg did a dead end? In and of it's self, perhaps. Much like Mozart or Bach. Once they did their thing, something had to change.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Of course the great academic Adorno as well as Schoenberg himself later dismissed Stravinsky as lightweight. It seems even academia cannot agree.


But, see, this is good. Academia would become moot were it uniform. It needs to breath all the time, bringing in and expelling. It may breath in and out the same thing many times.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> The reality is that 50 or even 100 years is not enough to assure an artist's place in history.


Your right. It has to be at least 3476 years.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> And eventually the work needs to be absorbed and appreciated by a larger art loving public. Matisse and Picasso were once thought of as shocking... difficult... "dissonant"... but now they are beloved by a sizable audience that purchases prints and attends exhibitions. Duchamp and Joseph Kosuth and Manzoni? Their names are only kept alive in certain academic circles.


Ya, I learned about Duchamp in school (and Matisse and Picasso...). All that useless garbage they shoved down my throat. I should have been reading stock reports to know what I should be paying attention to.


----------



## Mirror Image

Like I said, contemporary classical music isn't popular, because there's not many contemporary classical composers that are writing music that means anything. It's just some kind of sound experimentation or some way for the composer to indulge themselves. There's no melody, no harmony, no rhythm, nothing of any deep felt emotion to be found in today's classical music. There's a reason why Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Sibelius, Mahler continue to get played, because these composers wrote music that meant something and that relates to the human condition. Love lost, death, heartbreak, triumph, depression, happiness, etc., these are the things that make music special. When you start dealing with the mind only and not deal with matters of the heart, then you start loosing listeners. These emotions are what compels people. If you create something that is so abstract that not even a long time classical fan can follow or enjoy, then you're writing for yourself or for your own amusement. In order for art to be appreciated, it must relate to the feelings of people or else it's just a waste of space, time, effort, etc. There's only a small group of people who are into today's classical scene anyway and that's because nobody is composing anything that hasn't either already been done or they're composing music that's so far out on left-field that it can only be appreciated by a small group of people. I say drop the intellectual mumbo jumbo and start composing music that means something.


----------



## Jaime77

Hope you don't think I am one of those composers, MI ?


----------



## Mirror Image

jaibyrne said:


> Hope you don't think I am one of those composers, MI ?


I haven't heard a note of your music, but I assure you if your being honest with yourself and share your emotions through your music, then your future will be bright.


----------



## Jaime77

Well just based on what I have said before on this thread. Yes I try to be true to myself.


----------



## Scott Good

What about me, then?

www.myspace.com/scottgoodcomposer

Go ahead - be honest (and that is one thing I can always trust you to be!).

But please, listen to a few examples - unfortunately, only short excerpts (legal issues). But they are all quite different (on purpose).

All of the works there have meaning outside of any academic mumbo jumbo as you call it. If anything strikes your fancy, I can tell you more about it. I sometimes give pre-concert talks about the music. I try to swing between the mumbo jumbo stuff and the emotional part, as the two are intricately linked for my composing process.

But so you know, and this is a fact, the last orchestral performance of my music (last May) resulted many minute long standing ovations for both nights (there was a soloist, though) - people were cheering - they were genuinely happy.

I recently read about an Unsuk Chin piece that received a 20min standing ovation at the premiere.

The New Music series I run sold out 3 of 4 concerts last year.

The Toronto S.O. New Creations festival sells out many of it's concerts.

Arguably, the most successful chamber group in the world is Kronos.

Gorecki's 3rd symphony is one of the best selling works of all time.

And on and on.

So, not all audiences hate what today composers are doing - not by a long shot. The issue for today's composers is the same as it is for the Langgaards - it will not be programmed because it doesn't draw. Many of the classical institutions have abandoned chance, and only go for security - the sure sells. They need to pay their employees.

..................

Jaibyrne, although I got ridiculously sidetracked, I was hoping to speak about your issues directly and honestly. I am guessing that I am a couple of pegs farther along the path than you, and have thought quite a bit about what your concerns are.

In a nut shell, my running take on this issue is quite simple - as a composer (or any artist for that matter), I do not need to be one thing, because I am not one thing. I have many interests in music, as I do in life. Why not explore them all? Remember that each piece is simply that - a piece - not the whole. From work to work I explore between esoteric modernist language, as it can speak to certain issues, to perhaps more traditional forms and tonalities. I explore jazz, and rock, and music of other cultures. I recently composed for a New Music ensemble, so, that work was quite edgy and modern. But I also have composed very tonal centric music, and accessible rhythms etc for other occasions.

Don't feel like you have to peg yourself - explore - try things out. The thing that has been for me, so great about this kind of mind set, is that all kinds of connections between different kinds of music begin to emerge. This is fascinating. And also, composing with this attitude is fun! Each work is like opening a new present. Nothing gets stale. I always feel like I am growing.

I thought maybe you would like to hear this. It seems like you are down about aesthetics - don't be! Just go for it. The world is huge - lots of people like modern music, so, if you want to explore it, go ahead. If you want to compose something for your mom, then write a pretty tune, but one that you love, and is personal - spend the time to craft it well. Once you embrace this idea, you will be amazed at the number of opportunities that lie ahead.


----------



## Olivier

I once gave a cassette of one of my compositions to my grandmother after months of being badgered to provide her with "some of my music." She returned it with the report that it "didn't work in her machine--only a bunch of noise came out." Sometimes its best to be forthcoming and get it over with--makes it easier in the long run.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Do Beethoven or Mozart survive based upon "significant philosophical backing"? The weaker... or the less accessible art has been the more voluminous its written defenses have become.

Because people like you keep attacking it. Ok, silly answer. The real answer is too involved for right now. But seriously, man, there is waaayyyy more written about Beethoven than Stockhausen, and most of it, except for the odd "post modern" critique, is bathing in praise of his genius.

So yes, to a degree, Moz. + Beeth and the boys survive due to a philosophy that believes they are great.

OK... we can perhaps agree that the criticism that continues to support a given artist or artistic movement may be termed a "philosophy"... but your initial argument suggested that the support of a philosophical "heavy-weight" like Adorno immediately nullified any opposition... yet the reality is that the voices of the critics are not universal. Adorno later repudiated Stravinsky. Stephan George, an intellectual "heavy weight" in early Modernist Germany dismissed Opera... and later music as a whole as nothing more than a populist art form. My point is not to suggest that my own preferences are the last word... but to suggest that when it comes to contemporary art the jury is still out.

Are we still to believe that a rejection of tonality has any claim to moral superiority to say nothing of the notion that it is the only means to artistic merit?

But through their music we can experience a human reaction to these tragedies. Works like hymnen, de soldaten, a survivor from warsaw and many others enriches our understanding of those times.

Certainly... but to suggest that Schoenberg, Berg, and later followers of the avant garde tradition (and at this point it is a "tradition" just as dated as Romanticism) are the only ones worthy of consideration is pretentious. Are we to simply accept the notion that whatever Aaron Copland, Shostakovitch, or Richard Strauss had to convey about their experiences is inherently irrelevant or inferior?

And for the music maker, they have created tools to explore new boundaries of expression, just as the traditional cannon has. And although they reject, by doing so they acknowledge. Through their art ones can gain greater understanding of the traditional repertoire. And this can be done just with ears, but also with eyes if one is so inclined.

I fully support the notion that the innovations of Modernism led to a broadening of the possibilities available to the artist/composer... including a reexamination of the artistic languages of the past. _The Rite of Spring_ is rooted in rather "ancient" Russian music... while _Pulcinella_ revisted the 18th century. Bartok drew upon folk music traditions. Bolcolm builds upon American folk music forms, blues, jazz, even bluegrass. Golijov builds upon Latin-American traditions, klezmer, Middle-Eastern music, etc... What I have questioned is the argument that a single tradition of Modernism is the sole means to artistic merit in music and a preference for some music over others. It would seem that if anyone is honest, they will admit that they also have preferences for or against certain music.

For the vast majority... even many who follow classical music... John Cage is nothing but a name. How often is his work performed by major symphonic orchestras? How often is it recorded? How often does it get played on the radio? If it fails to resonate with anyone outside a small clique of academics how much chance does it have of survival?

The music academics that I have met for the most part, have little interest Cage. His legacy thrives in other domains - improvised music, sound art, dance, and the world of performance art has in part, something to do with Cage.

Sadly... I must admit he may be more known due association with Robert Rauschenberg and his impact upon the notions of conceptual art.

Hans Makart was once spoken of in every circle of the art world. His studio was once one of the centers of Viennese culture... visited by the rich and powerful, the aristocracy, and even the likes of Richard Wagner. His place is the history of art was surely assured for eternity... or so it was thought in 1880. Today he would have been completely forgotten had it not been for the fact that he was actually the teacher of an artist who has survived: Gustav Klimt.

Klimt and Wagner eh? So, you are saying that unless someone is a household name, they are not worth knowing about? Sounds like he posed some very important positions on art, and is a major part of the art legacy, whether I've heard of him or not.

Actually Makart would be completely forgotten were it not for his connection with Klimt... not because he was a minor artist... but because he was actually quite bad... albeit, like any artist of the era he had certain admitted skills as a craftsman. Of course the anecdote was intended to convey the idea that the judgment of today is in no way assured. In a world in which the connections between art and money have become even more intertwined than ever it is quite possible that many artists in any field who are championed as the really "important" figures may not actually be so... that there might be a lot in terms of PR, the reputation of certain institutions (be they Universities, Museums, etc...) at play here.

The fact that the names of Cage, Stockhausen, and Glass get tossed about in academic circles is meaningless.

No, it isn't meaningless. New generations of musicians ARE engaging with these artists! They HAVE had an influence that is undeniable - things have changed. You like to say Academia is BS. That's many smart individuals you are wrapping into one big homogeneous ball. I have had some amazing teachers, who have devoted their time to sharing their passion, and passing on information.

OK... "meaningless" may be an exaggeration. On the other hand... it is possible that a later artist may be aware of the changes wrought by this or that artist or movement... may even respect these innovations... and still reject them in his or her own work. Aaron Copland, for example, began composing in a far more avant garde manner before rejecting such.

...were creative... but to what end? The "artist" Piero Manzoni put crap in a can and entitled it Merda d'artista. Very innovative! No one had done it before. Does it make it good art? Do you actually want to look at it? Does the fact that it challenges my notion of what great art is make it good? Or is that nothing more than art about art and mental ************?

I am a little offended that you would compare a jar of **** to the works of Stockhausen. I don't think you understand what it takes to become a respected composer, even of atonal music.

But now you are making the same prejudicial judgments about as I am making about music. Manzoni is actually included in most of the history books of Modern Art. His esoteric "art" challenges your preconceived notions (as well as those of many artists and many of the art loving public) about what art is. Yet is backed up with voluminous critical writings... including those by such philosophical "heavyweights" as Arthur C. Danto... and yet you dismiss it as nothing more than ****? I am shocked and appalled.

If the only audience for a form of music is some small clique of academia why should the general public be expected to continue to support an art that has no value to them? Conceivably there is a specialist in academia somewhere that champions 1970s porno films as art (I have actually seen legitimate college courses to that effect). Are we to then believe such has real merit and is deserving of recognition and financial support?

Now you compare these musicians, respected round the world by many, to porn films!

You avoid the thrust of the analogy and focus only upon the details. Is it not possible that many... even many well versed in music... find the extremes of the classical avant garde no more worth support just because a few "intellectuals" embrace it... than are the porno films championed by a few given academics?

The same argument gets thrown my direction as a visual artist... but the reality is that visual art is largely self-sustaining. It is supported by wealthy collectors who believe it has worth. And shouldn't all art be self-sustaining? But we are to believe that an endeavor of interest to only a minute fragment of society is deserving of support?

Well, music and visual art have some very distinct differences in terms of financial viability, especially in the digital world. Too much to get into.

Philip Glass, Arvo Part, Osvaldo Golijov... and any number of others (to say nothing of popular music) all seem to do quite well for themselves. The question which still stands is why should the public be expected to bankroll an art which is clearly not for them... which they don't particularly like... and which is often expressly antagonistic to their opinions?

I would not limit this to the classical Western tradition. I would also include medieval music, Middle-Eastern, Asian, Celtic, South American and other traditions, jazz, folk, blues, etc... Yes... Mozart and Bach should be taught (and Stravinsky and Prokofiev, etc...).

Sounds like the earlier education I got.

But then what?...

To each his or her own. I would think the role of education is to offer possibilities and not to attempt indoctrination. The worst teachers I had as an art student were those who attempted to turn the students into acolytes rather than attempting to assist them to achieve their own goals to the best of their abilities.

I would probably even introduce something like Penderecki, Phillip Glass, Takemitsu, or Tan Dun to older students.

But again, what is next after an introduction? How would you train a composer? How would you get them from curious kid, to proficient orchestral scoring, solid understanding of counterpoint and able to compose a fugue, proficient in functional tonality, and understanding in one of the most rooted tenants of classical music, variation?

What about all of the inventiveness in the 20th century?

Again... do we assume the role of the educator is to teach the student what to think... how to think... what to like...? As an art educator myself I recognize that my role is to give the student the tools... the craft skills to master drawing, composition, color harmonies, etc... but never to suppose to tell them what to think or to suggest that my own preferences are inherently the only right way to achieve artistic merit. In other words... when did it become the role of the institution to suppose itself as being part of the avant garde? By their very natures institutions are conservative. The fact that an institution is teaching this or that is virtual proof that it has become academic and dated.

Each are inspired by Schoenberg's methods, and also as importantly, his ancestors (Webern, Berg, Boulez, Stockhausen, Zimmerman, Cage, Lachenmann, Nono, Ligeti etc etc). There is so much to gain from studying this music. His sense of orchestral colour alone is breathtaking, and worthy of a year long course in Academia. I would argue, at least as much as 70's porn!

Schoenberg speaks to you. I have no problem with that. Are we to assume, however, that the only road to artistic merit is through such an in-depth study of the art of the immediate past? Is it not possible that a truly in-depth exploration of Mozart or Sephardic Chant or Middle Eastern music might prove just as fruitful? The explosive artistic innovations of Picasso were rooted in an exploration of medieval Spanish painting, "primitive" African sculpture, and the work of a then forgotten Post-Impressionist, Paul Cezanne.

As an artist and an art lover I am unashamedly "elitist" in my belief that some art is better than others. On the other hand... I recognize that when we get into a discussion of contemporary art we are rarely in agreement. To most who are educated or knowledgeable in the arts Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo are unquestionably major figures in the Western tradition. John Cage and most contemporary art is still doubtful at best.

(chews gum)...You say so....(chews gum)

And many others say so as well. That is the point. You believe John Cage's and Stockhausen's reputations are assured. There are certainly many others who are not so sure... and if we consider the reputation within the larger public... even focusing only upon those who seriously follow classical music... the prognosis is even less promising..

And do tell me, how is what Schoenberg did a dead end? In and of it's self, perhaps. Much like Mozart or Bach. Once they did their thing, something had to change.

Art is not like science. It cannot be reduced to a linear progression that is ever accumulative. For the scientist the discoveries of Newton, Darwin, or Einstein change everything. They cannot be ignored. No scientist of any worth is going to ignore the developments of Einstein and later 20th century physicists and astronomers and instead return to Copernicus with the goal of developing an independent direction. Art, however, does do such things. You speak of Schoenberg changing everything? But does he? Is it impossible for a composer to dislike his music... ignore it... and still achieve something worthy? As huge as Picasso was... and he certainly dwarves Schoenberg with regard to his impact and achievements in Modernism... it is still quite possible to actually ignore him.

Of course the great academic Adorno as well as Schoenberg himself later dismissed Stravinsky as lightweight. It seems even academia cannot agree.

But, see, this is good. Academia would become moot were it uniform. It needs to breath all the time, bringing in and expelling. It may breath in and out the same thing many times.

But is that not the point? If I or MI or anyone suggests that we don't particularly like Schoenberg or Berg or Boulez we are dismissed as barbarians at the gate... "stuck in 19th century Romanticism"... and yet even academia does not follow a uniform lock-step faith.

The reality is that 50 or even 100 years is not enough to assure an artist's place in history.

Your right. It has to be at least 3476 years.

Brilliant retort. So am I to assume that you immediately embrace whatever your good teachers and critics and the institutions and markets that support this or that artistic direction tell you is brilliant and the next Beethoven? I guess I should start paying attention to those blurbs on the back of the recent best selling novels... you know, the ones that gush, "The greatest novel I've ever read. Worthy of comparison with Shakespeare."

And eventually the work needs to be absorbed and appreciated by a larger art loving public. Matisse and Picasso were once thought of as shocking... difficult... "dissonant"... but now they are beloved by a sizable audience that purchases prints and attends exhibitions. Duchamp and Joseph Kosuth and Manzoni? Their names are only kept alive in certain academic circles.

Ya, I learned about Duchamp in school (and Matisse and Picasso...). All that useless garbage they shoved down my throat. I should have been reading stock reports to know what I should be paying attention to.

Or perhaps you should have learned to think for yourself... to develop your own preferences... rather than accepting all that you were taught hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

In a nut shell, my running take on this issue is quite simple - as a composer (or any artist for that matter), I do not need to be one thing, because I am not one thing. I have many interests in music, as I do in life. Why not explore them all? Remember that each piece is simply that - a piece - not the whole. From work to work I explore between esoteric modernist language, as it can speak to certain issues, to perhaps more traditional forms and tonalities. I explore jazz, and rock, and music of other cultures. I recently composed for a New Music ensemble, so, that work was quite edgy and modern. But I also have composed very tonal centric music, and accessible rhythms etc for other occasions.

Don't feel like you have to peg yourself - explore - try things out. The thing that has been for me, so great about this kind of mind set, is that all kinds of connections between different kinds of music begin to emerge. This is fascinating. And also, composing with this attitude is fun! Each work is like opening a new present. Nothing gets stale. I always feel like I am growing.

I thought maybe you would like to hear this. It seems like you are down about aesthetics - don't be! Just go for it. The world is huge - lots of people like modern music, so, if you want to explore it, go ahead. If you want to compose something for your mom, then write a pretty tune, but one that you love, and is personal - spend the time to craft it well. Once you embrace this idea, you will be amazed at the number of opportunities that lie ahead.

It seems we are in complete agreement here. My take is that there are many directions and traditions ("high" and "low") upon which to build as an artist, and none of these is more inherently assured than another of achieving artistic brilliance. If I have a problem with contemporary art (beyond the influences of money and the mass marketing machine... but that's another story altogether) it is with the fact that certain esoteric strains of art have come to dominate for such a long time that I fear they have led to the larger public (even many who are serious art lovers) abandoning art... feeling that it is not for them... feeling that it is antagonistic toward them and has no relevance to them. I also have a problem with the notion that any thought of the audience is inherently a sign of artistic impurity... that accessibility equals artistic weakness... that bringing a sensual pleasure or joy to an audience is somehow an unworthy aspiration.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...it is with the fact that certain esoteric strains of art have come to dominate for such a long time that I fear they have led to the larger public (even many who are serious art lovers) abandoning art... feeling that it is not for them... feeling that it is antagonistic toward them and has no relevance to them.


You people (meaning I'm not just singling StlukesguildOhio out, even though the quote's from him) just aren't dealing with the facts, are you? If you apply Weber's evidence to this statement, then "such a long time" means about two hundred years, doesn't it? So the so-called esoteric practitioners that have purportedly been alienating the public include Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Sibelius, and Mahler, for instance, as well as Chopin, Berlioz, Saint-Saens, Schumann, Grieg, Verdi, Debussy, and Ravel, for a few more famous instances.

I do wish people could abandon this idea that there's something wrong with contemporary music. It is not as popular as Britney Spears, but then neither is Beethoven. (That is, let's leave popularity out of the equation, too, shall we?) Nobody here has to like it. No one's trying to convince you to like it. (Well, I'm not, anyway.) Just stop substituting your dislike for some acute critical discovery that the music itself has "no melody, no harmony, no rhythm, nothing of any deep felt emotion," which is palpably untrue. Maybe some listeners cannot recognize these things in contemporary music, but if other listeners _can,_ then guess what, it's there! Doesn't matter if some listeners cannot.

Basically it comes down to this, doesn't it? In order to damn contemporary music you are absolutely obliged to marginalize and even deny the experiences of numerous careful and sensitive listeners who find contemporary arts beautiful and exhilarating. Odd, it's probably the same thing your non-classical listening friends are saying about you, isn't it? Now _there's_ funny!!


----------



## Jaime77

I am on the fence here to some extent because one glaring misconception in all of this is that contemporary music is described by a few here as if all of it is the same. This is not correct. It is silly. Ligeti and Cage could not be more different apart from the fact that there is generally no traditional diatonic system used. In fact cage's piano music sounds like Gamelan. I wonder if anti-Cage people are hostile to non-western music because that is a great case in point. Non-Western music is full of dissonances and structural methods that are no less weird than late 20th Century. 
Also, the wrong use of the word 'experimental'. I don't agree that just because a piece is atonal it is experimental. When there is a system in place like serialism which has been developed over decades how can we call this experimental anymore? 
The fact is that popularity doesn't really apply either, I am just saying that, as a composer, it is hard when so few people 'get' your music. I can compose with great emotion and it could be completely atonal. Why not??? Think of expressionism in the early 20th Century. That music HAD to be atonal. It was all about inner torment. There is hardly anything more expressive. 
The reason all this thread started was because I felt marginalised by the fact my music was not easier to comprehend or follow for most people I know and love. I am still left with this problem. I can go my own way sure as long as it does not become some kind of ego trip where I am fiddling away with funny sounds in a back bedroom ignorant of communication with a perspective audience. I think there is a balance here somewhere.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

You people (meaning I'm not just singling StlukesguildOhio out, even though the quote's from him) just aren't dealing with the facts, are you? If you apply Weber's evidence to this statement, then "such a long time" means about two hundred years, doesn't it? So the so-called esoteric practitioners that have purportedly been alienating the public include Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Sibelius, and Mahler, for instance, as well as Chopin, Berlioz, Saint-Saens, Schumann, Grieg, Verdi, Debussy, and Ravel, for a few more famous instances.

What are the facts you are dealing with here? Yes... almost any artist and work of art has had his/its detractors. But for how long? Did it take Beethoven 50 or 100 years until his music was appreciated by the larger audience of classical music aficionados? At what point during the eras of Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc... did classical music come to a point at which there was a very real possibility that it had become a dead art form? As much as some of us may passionately love classical music and continue to explore new and living composers it is an indisputable that there is a great antagonism toward contemporary music by even many who appreciate classical music as a whole. Orchestras focus predominantly upon the work of older artists. There is a huge and growing gap between contemporary classical music... indeed between the contemporary "fine arts" in general and audiences. Yet to call attention to this gap is to be branded a reactionary... a populist... "stuck in the 19th century"? The gap clearly exists... yet we are to put our heads in the sand and suggest that its all the public's fault. Their all just a bunch of musically illiterate idiots, right? And then we wonder why the same public might be reluctant to continue financial support of something they find has no relevance to them?

I do wish people could abandon this idea that there's something wrong with contemporary music. It is not as popular as Britney Spears, but then neither is Beethoven. (That is, let's leave popularity out of the equation, too, shall we?) Nobody here has to like it. No one's trying to convince you to like it. (Well, I'm not, anyway.) Just stop substituting your dislike for some acute critical discovery that the music itself has "no melody, no harmony, no rhythm, nothing of any deep felt emotion," which is palpably untrue. Maybe some listeners cannot recognize these things in contemporary music, but if other listeners can, then guess what, it's there! Doesn't matter if some listeners cannot.

Certainly popularity has nothing to do with merit... for or against. Yet repeatedly anyone who suggests that they find Rachmaninoff or Puccini or Copland or Vaughan-Williams to be better... or far more pleasurable to listen to than later Schoenberg, Cage, or Stockhausen is immediately branded as some sort of Philistine. After all... such composers are clearly minor figures and their popularity (even after 100 years) proves as much, right? The accusations in the dispute run both ways.

Basically it comes down to this, doesn't it? In order to damn contemporary music you are absolutely obliged to marginalize and even deny the experiences of numerous careful and sensitive listeners who find contemporary arts beautiful and exhilarating. Odd, it's probably the same thing your non-classical listening friends are saying about you, isn't it? Now there's funny!!

But can one not simply invert your equation. To marginalize the experiences of a large number of sensitive and careful listeners who admire certain forms of classical music... even contemporary classical music... while they find that certain aspects of esoteric musical experimentation leaves them cold, you must proclaim an aesthetic and intellectual superiority of this small clique... you must denigrate anything at all accessible as clearly "populist" and aesthetically inferior and irrelevant. The reality remains that when it comes to contemporary art there will always be a dispute as to what works are or are not the best products of the time. We need only look at Schoenberg's dismissal of Stravinsky as a "lightweight" or the battle between the supporters of Brahms vs Wagner. Time will be the ultimate judge and jury as to what was truly relevant.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I am on the fence here to some extent because one glaring misconception in all of this is that contemporary music is described by a few here as if all of it is the same. This is not correct. It is silly. Ligeti and Cage could not be more different...

I certainly agree... Modern and Contemporary music has an incredible breadth. The argument begins when one group makes the assumption that there is a single right direction for art and that all others are wrong. There is also a problem when the suggestion is that any music that is accessible to a larger audience or makes a concerted effort toward such is inherently inferior. The fact is that I believe great art can come from the monkish artist who has not e least concern for the audience and the showman who is ever cognizant of the public reaction. Shakespeare, it might be noted, wrote with an audience clearly in mind.

I wonder if anti-Cage people are hostile to non-western music because that is a great case in point. Non-Western music is full of dissonances and structural methods that are no less weird than late 20th Century.

Personally, my own musical tastes are quite broad. I am enamored of medieval chant, Middle-Eastern and Indian music, a vast majority of Western "classical" music, jazz, some rock and pop, and even some folk music and bluegrass. I actually quite like the Ligetti CD I own (his "mechanical music") although I find the 100 metronomes piece to be simple retarded. Innovation in art has always been the result of a merger of traditions... "high" and "low". This has been accelerated to an incredible degree during the last century until the boundaries between musical forms... between the "high" and "low" have become blurred. If there is any single thrust to what I have been arguing it is that to suggest an inherent aesthetic superiority of the artistic efforts of a minute clique of purists is perhaps worthy of being questioned.

I can compose with great emotion and it could be completely atonal. Why not??? Think of expressionism in the early 20th Century. That music HAD to be atonal. It was all about inner torment. There is hardly anything more expressive.

Yes... it HAD to be atonal for those composers to whom an expression of inner torment was the goal... to whom the previous artistic vocabularies were inadequate. That does not negate the achievements of those who followed a different path. Within either route there is art that is better or worse.

The reason all this thread started was because I felt marginalised by the fact my music was not easier to comprehend or follow for most people I know and love. I am still left with this problem. I can go my own way sure as long as it does not become some kind of ego trip where I am fiddling away with funny sounds in a back bedroom ignorant of communication with a perspective audience. I think there is a balance here somewhere.

As I suggested earlier I have felt the same marginalization myself. I went through a period in which my work was quite esoteric... abstract... difficult. I learned a great deal that applies to my current work through the earlier efforts... and in no way would I dismiss these earlier works. Currently my work is much more accessible. This was not a conscious decision to placate an audience (I haven't even begun to exhibit this work), although I question whether a conscious effort to reach an audience is inherently a weakness or a sign of artistic "sell out". Have we not read here on this forum how those who compose for films are inherently marketers of kitsch... how film itself... especially Hollywood films are nothing more that aesthetic cream puffs? As if _Casablanca_ and _Schindler's List _were mere Bon-bons? Again... I agree totally that there needs to be a sort of balance. But I do not immediately reject the isolated purist nor the showman. I do, however, reject the notion that there is only one path to true art.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> What are the facts you are dealing with here?


The statistics in William Weber's book that I have cited several times on this very thread, including the one you're responding to. Those facts. Not that "almost any artist and work of art has had...detractors," but that concert programs began playing fewer and fewer living composers around 1800 (NOT 1900), that the concerts had hardly any living composers on them long before the twentieth century even started, long before Schoenberg wrote his first atonal piece. That's in major cultural centers, London, Vienna, Paris, places like that. In 1792, concerts played about 11 percent dead composers. Can you imagine? Let's try that today. 89 percent of all concerts will feature living composers. 


StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yet to call attention to this gap is to be branded a reactionary... a populist... "stuck in the 19th century"?


Absolutely not. To account for this gap by blaming the composers might get you a little flack. But just mentioning the gap will not. (Don't muddy the debate by making up attacks that no one's making.)


StlukesguildOhio said:


> The gap clearly exists. [Are we to] suggest that its all the public's fault.


Weber's data suggests just that. Not that the audience is all a bunch of musically illiterate idiots, though. Not at all. (Why is "idiots" the only conclusion to draw about the increasingly antagonist audience? Are we even ready to draw conclusions about the audiences' motives?)


StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yet repeatedly anyone who suggests that they find Rachmaninoff or Puccini or Copland or Vaughan-Williams to be better... or far more pleasurable to listen to than later Schoenberg, Cage, or Stockhausen is immediately branded as some sort of Philistine.


Really? Anyone? Again, this just muddies the debate to make stuff up like this. And even if some people have actually branded you a Philistine, does that mean anything for the discussion? That sounds like nothing more than ad populum. Better to leave the various possible accusations that people fling about to the side, where they belong, and just talk about the issues, eh?


StlukesguildOhio said:


> To marginalize the experiences of a large number of sensitive and careful listeners who admire certain forms of classical music... even contemporary classical music... while they find that certain aspects of esoteric musical experimentation leaves them cold, you must proclaim an aesthetic and intellectual superiority of this small clique... you must denigrate anything at all accessible as clearly "populist" and aesthetically inferior and irrelevant.


Cute, but wrong. I must do nothing of the sort, neither must anyone else. The only point I have ever made (as a member of this "small clique"--there's some nice poisoning of the well, there, eh?) is that the music is fine; it's pleasurable; it's exciting; it's musically satisfying. The proof of that is simply that I and some others have found it to be so by listening to it. Listening to it without any preconceptions, or at least without any antagonism. I think that that's what gets in the way more than anything. "I'm not going to like this crap" is not a good attitude with which to approach new music. No wonder so many people find it to be crappy. It's what they were expecting, and sure enough...!!


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I do, however, reject the notion that there is only one path to true art.


Just by the way, so do I. (Indeed, who _does_ believe that there is only one path? This isn't one o' them thar straw men, is it?)


----------



## Very Senior Member

some guy said:


> Just by the way, so do I. (Indeed, who _does_ believe that there is only one path? This isn't one o' them thar straw men, is it?)


I don't know why can't just accept that your enthusiasm for contemporary classical music is shared only by a very tiny minority of the classic music population.

I can tell you quite confidently that the reason for this lack of interest in much modern material is because it sounds awful to most peoples' ears. If it sounds great to you, that's fine but it's a waste of time trying to lecture the rest of who find it worse than an earache. In fact the more you say the more you convince me that it's not worth wasting time on.

As far as I'm concerned most contemporary composers are two-a-penny, and only a tiny fraction of them will be known in 30-50 years time. Why waste time on them on them when there are historical composers who have already passed the quality test, who tower above them in stature, and who have written music that most people actually like?


----------



## Jaime77

What concerns me about the situation is I am absolutely sure that institutions teaching composers since the 1960s have greatly helped to consolidate atonal and arhythmic music. Of course not all universities or schools but there was a mainstream for sure and people writing tonal music were looked down upon. This is not a myth. It's like a reversal of the Communist regime's censorship of the so-called formalism of people like Shostakovich. 

The fact that that can still be felt in the UK (my experience of Uni there) is quite disturbing. Maybe since these institutions are the home of intellectual discourse and also research then the hang up has become to intellectualize everything.
This seems to lead to the production of 'intellectually layered' art (art than can be analyzed easily and shown to be highly complex).
As a result of the original research tenet, composers have emerged who are obsessed with so-called originality (that is, increasingly esoteric often) 

Add to this the need to be accepted in the institution in order to get further in academic circles and you have a problem, I think.

We still need to broaden the minds more and more and not have this ridiculous idea that 'modern music' means atonal and difficult.

I don't want to talk like some kind of victim of the system but I hate to think that many other composers have been inhibited by notions of contemporary art that have got in the way of their intuitive and personal responses to the world around them.


----------



## Guest

Very Senior Member said:


> I don't know why can't just accept that your enthusiasm for contemporary classical music is shared only by a very tiny minority of the classic music population.


Where did you get the idea that I don't?



Very Senior Member said:


> I can tell you quite confidently that the reason for this lack of interest in much modern material is because it sounds awful to most peoples' ears.


I can tell you quite confidently that classical music as a whole sounds awful to most people's ears. "That awful long-hair music." How often have I heard that?



Very Senior Member said:


> If it sounds great to you, that's fine but it's a waste of time trying to lecture the rest of who find it worse than an earache. In fact the more you say the more you convince me that it's not worth wasting time on.


Funny you should say this. Blame me for your prejudices. Sorry. Not guilty!!



Very Senior Member said:


> As far as I'm concerned most contemporary composers are two-a-penny, and only a tiny fraction of them will be known in 30-50 years time. Why waste time on them on them when there are historical composers who have already passed the quality test, who tower above them in stature, and who have written music that most people actually like?


Wow. Way to stack the deck there, Very. Well, it's a pity you think like this. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying a lot of very fine music. Plus, it's all by people who are still alive. People I can hang out with, have a beer with. Try doing that with your old "passed the quality test"* composers, haha!

*What IS this, really? No, really. Think about it. Seriously.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

What concerns me about the situation is I am absolutely sure that institutions teaching composers since the 1960s have greatly helped to consolidate atonal and arhythmic music. Of course not all universities or schools but there was a mainstream for sure and people writing tonal music were looked down upon. This is not a myth. It's like a reversal of the Communist regime's censorship of the so-called formalism of people like Shostakovich.

Indeed. I have read Hovhaness, Diamond, and other largely tonal composers point out that they struggled for years to be taken seriously while figures such as Pierre Boulez made it clear that such composers were nothing more than kitsch. The same academic prejudices arose in the art schools immediately following WWII. Many art departments destroyed the great collections of plaster busts that generations of artists had drawn as part of their basic training. Abstraction was proclaimed not merely as another alternative but rather as the only possible route for the serious artist... and one that had superseded and replaced figurative art... which was proclaimed "dead". Later academic artists such as Joseph Kosuth proclaimed painting itself to be dead and following generations of art students who entered art schools with a love of drawing and painting "things" were quickly indoctrinated against such and led toward conceptual art, installations, performance art, etc... The fact that the traditional visual arts are equally "dead" to many people certainly owes much to the efforts of academia. Not surprisingly, there is now a backlash of artists pushing for figuration and "realism" and establishing academies and ateliers o counter the dominance of the Post-Avant Garde.


----------



## Very Senior Member

some guy said:


> In the meantime, I'll be enjoying a lot of very fine music. Plus, it's all by people who are still alive. People I can hang out with, have a beer with. Try doing that with your old "passed the quality test"* composers, haha!


You could also be listening to a lot of stuff that future generations will have written off as complete junk. Think about that.

It doesn't bother me one tiny bit that I can't have a beer or hang out with any of my favorite composers. I probably wouldn't like many of them anyway. I prefer to gaze at their images, which I have dotted around my study, and to imagine the nicest possible things about them as I listen to their magnificent works.

Tis far better than a beery chat with some twit who reckons he's a composer just because he knows how to string a few notes together, or in the case of some of the music you like who possibly doesn't.


----------



## Guest

Jaibyrne, online I hear a lot of university students making your complaint. The university students I know, however, do not. Indeed, they have no sense that atonality is the defining -ity of the twentieth century (as indeed it is not). The university students I know are making electroacoustic music (doesn't your university have an electronic music studio?) and theatre pieces and concept music and laptop music. Little or none has anything to do with tonality, a-, 12-, or otherwise. (Many are doing instrumental music that doesn't even make tones, except occasionally and tangentially.)

I also know, as a former university teacher, that students can easily get mistaken ideas about things. One thing about an institute of learning is that you're going to get taught things. Not all the things you get taught are going to be things that you like. But the university does not exist to give you want you already know, what you already know you like. As for people writing tonal music being looked down on, well, that is of course a matter of perception, but certainly an institution of learning would encourage students to try everything. Try everything, but don't get stuck in the past. Tonality has become a kind of beacon to certain people, a bright beacon of hope in a dark and troubled world. But what if that's all just a matter of perception, too? What if the world is NOT dark or troubled? (Or not any more than it ever has been.) And what if tonality, like the modal music before it, is indeed over and done with? Who's that going to frighten? Right, the people who feel endangered, who feel insecure, who need something firm to hold onto in an increasingly bewildering world.

But what if the world is NOT bewildering? 

See?

You said awhile back to "think of expressionism in the early 20th Century. That music HAD to be atonal. It was all about inner torment. There is hardly anything more expressive." Consider the possibility that that's all my eye. Music didn't have to be atonal because people were expressing inner torment. Why, what was Sturm und Drang all about if not inner torment? And you don't hear much atonality from the Sturm und Drang composers now, do you? Nor from Schumann, nor from Wagner, nor (well maybe a wee bit here and there) from Mahler. Think about it in practical terms. Composers had been stretching the bounds of tonality practically from the moment there was such a thing. And stretching and stretching and stretching. It did not have for Mozart or Beethoven or Schubert or Berlioz or Schumann or any of the other stretchers this nostalgic, emotion-ridden sense that we imbue it with today. It was something to use, and using it meant pushing it beyond what anyone had done before. 

How long is that kind of thing going to last before someone decides, OK enough? After all, Gregorian chant is over. Renaissance music is over. Baroque is over. Classical is over. And no one got too terribly bent out of shape. But Romanticism. Now that we still want. And we're going to throw tantrums until we get it? Well, not everyone. Sure some composers still write as if it were 1870. And some as if it were still 1930. I don't understand why those composers should be praised. Why write in a mode that is not of your own time, except as a learning exercise? It can only be a pastiche. 1870 is over. 1930 is over. The thoughts and feelings and assumptions of those times are not those of these times. We're in 2009, now. And it won't be forever. Soon it will be 2010. And so on. Change, that's what's inevitable. That's what a lot of people fear. And to assuage that fear, people live, in various ways, in the past. Listening to music of the past, sitting in chairs out of antique shops, remaking old classic films (for the umpteenth time). And even, as if to prove that "I'm not afraid," doing brand new productions of operas each season. (Not doing new operas, though, of course. Too scary!!)

Oh well. There's a lot of lovely music out there. All I'm saying is, "Don't be so sure you know so much that you can write it off so soon."


----------



## Guest

Very Senior Member said:


> You could also be listening to a lot of stuff that future generations will have written off as complete junk. Think about that.


I'm alive now. I'm listening now, with the ears I now have. It's enough.


----------



## Mirror Image

some guy said:


> Where did you get the idea that I don't?
> 
> I can tell you quite confidently that classical music as a whole sounds awful to most people's ears. "That awful long-hair music." How often have I heard that?
> 
> Funny you should say this. Blame me for your prejudices. Sorry. Not guilty!!
> 
> Wow. Way to stack the deck there, Very. Well, it's a pity you think like this. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying a lot of very fine music. Plus, it's all by people who are still alive. People I can hang out with, have a beer with. Try doing that with your old "passed the quality test"* composers, haha!
> 
> *What IS this, really? No, really. Think about it. Seriously.


Sounds like to me your clutching at straws because you have failed in your arguments. I'm sure there are a few good contemporary composers out there that actually compose good music that appeals to people, but I have yet to hear of any.

Now, if you excuse me it's time for me to listen to Janacek's "Sinfonietta."


----------



## Jaime77

Well, I am talking about when I was in Uni 6 years ago so a little time has passed. I am glad to hear things changing. It is not everywhere the same in any case. I disagree with your ideas of 'progress', you imply the logic that tonal has been done, if I am getting you right, or at least that rational dictates that as time progresses so art does in a particular direction which in the case we are discussing means atonality. Of course there are other aspects. 
I am not writing off the music around now. Don't get me wrong. I am just asking questions, hoping for broader perspectives. Yes times change but that does not automatically imply a certain direction. Atonality before World War I is irrelevant now in the same way Sturm und Drang is irrelevant. On one level. On another art is never irrelevant if it is good. 
What does it feel like to be here in 2009 for me? That is the question maybe. One man could see the time as being chaotic and write chaotic music and another could find peace in their lives and write something like Arvo Part. One is not better than the other I am just saying it is highly subjective and people need to be brave to go their own way and not conform to some kind of 'trend', that narrow idea of music history as progress from modality to diatonicism to atonality. 
Another point, do you really think that in 1000 years time, there will be enough variety of sound available to humans to have continually progressed without looking back? Impossible. All kinds of tonality will continue, whether diatonic, micro-tonal or other systems of frequencies. 
I just don't like that idea of logical progress since it can create its own sense of musical autocracy. It can destroy the desire to be personal and do whatever you feel like - that this is less because it is not 'of the time' - in that linear since. 

I am confusing myself here, amigo  It's a fascinating topic though, we agree on that.


----------



## Jaime77

Mirror Image said:


> Sounds like to me your clutching at straws because you have failed in your arguments. I'm sure there are a few good contemporary composers out there that actually compose good music that appeals to people, but I have yet to hear of any.
> 
> Do you like Bill Evans, MI? My music sounds a little like freer Bill Evans because I love jazz. There are so many ways to go.


----------



## Guest

It is not surprising that this topic raised its head again, only time will tell which composers are truly great just look at the hordes of composers from Baroque to Classical and Romantic that have been forgotten, until some keen conductor decides to revive them a few CDs are sold then its back to the "never quite made it ranks" I really can't see many of today's composers making it, perhaps a handful of them that are accepted now anyway


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

How long is that kind of thing going to last before someone decides, OK enough? After all, Gregorian chant is over. Renaissance music is over. Baroque is over. Classical is over. And no one got too terribly bent out of shape. 

Who decides when and where a given style is over? Is there a distinct point at which this style ends and another begins? The way the history of the arts are taught lends itself to such an interpretation... but it has nothing to do with reality. There is no distinct point at which the Renaissance ended. Mannerism came and then the Baroque and yet there were still artists of real merit working in a style deeply indebted to the Renaissance and there were still elements of the Renaissance in the new art. Brahms would surely be a case in point. His efforts in many ways seem more firmly indebted to the late works of Beethoven and Schubert than to the Romanticism of his time. In the visual arts Impressionism continued well beyond its historical heyday during the 1880's. Monet continued to explore the possibilities into the late 1920's and and Bonnard into the 1940s... and much of what they achieved is as good or better than the efforts of Dada, Surrealism, Cubism, Expressionism, or any of the other "isms" that rapidly followed in succession.

The reality is that the continual need for something shockingly new is itself a dated tenet of Modernism. Is art to be reduced to nothing more than fashion? Only the latest spring line of evening wear to have any merit and anyone caught wearing last years gowns need be laughed out of town? You make the declaration that some composers write as if they were still living in the 1880s or the 1930s and not in the here and now... but who decides what the music of today should sound like? The leading figures in the art of the late 1700s were deeply indebted to Roman and Greek classicism to the point that the art of that period became known as Neo-Classicism. At the same time... there were opposing efforts of equal merit produced by the Romantics. If the greatest work of the time turns out to be produced in a style that is deeply indebted to the efforts of the 1880s or the 1500s well then THAT will be what the music of today will sound like to future generations.

Currently many of the leading figures in the visual arts are working in a manner that by all accounts seems reactionary in comparison to Abstract Expressionism or many of the more esoteric strains of Post-Modernism:

Painters such as Lucian Freud...










Eric Fischl...










Odd Nerdrum...










Jenny Saville...










Lu Cong...










continued...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

and Bo Bartlett...










are all among the leading artists of today. A majority of them are among the most influential upon up-and-coming artists/art students... in spite of the fact that a tied-in-the-wool abstract painter would rant and rave that they are nothing more than reactionaries and hacks.

Of course... even looking to the immediate past... to the period in which abstraction... especially under Abstract Expressionism virtually ruled the roost, we have begun to recognize that there were outsiders who did not follow the party line who may have been as interesting or more so:

Balthus...










Giorgio Morandi...










George Tucker...










and the long maligned Andrew Wyeth...










What I am suggesting is that it just may be possible that perhaps the champions of atonality... or anyone else for that matter... do not hold a copy-write or a blueprint upon what the music of the late 20th century... or today should sound like.

But Romanticism. Now that we still want. And we're going to throw tantrums until we get it?

Is tonality then the sole property of Romanticism? I don't recall Arvo Part or Phillip Glass or John Adams or Osvaldo Golijov sounding anything remotely like Romanticists.

Change, that's what's inevitable. That's what a lot of people fear. And to assuage that fear, people live, in various ways, in the past. Listening to music of the past, sitting in chairs out of antique shops, remaking old classic films (for the umpteenth time). And even, as if to prove that "I'm not afraid," doing brand new productions of operas each season. (Not doing new operas, though, of course. Too scary!!)

But is the opposing "cult of the new" inherently better? What separates the drive to continually come up with something novel from the same drive that turns the fashion industry: novelty for the sake of novelty? I am firmly of the belief that an artist cannot help but be of his or her time (unless he or she consciously makes an effort to merely mimic the style of an past art). Aaron Copland was as clearly a product of his time as was Shostakovitch, Bartok, or Kurt Weill. Their approaches to music were vastly different... but so were there experiences... none of which was less or more legitimate than the other.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Do you like Bill Evans, MI? My music sounds a little like freer Bill Evans because I love jazz. There are so many ways to go.

Perhaps leaning closer to Lennie Tristano?


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How long is that kind of thing going to last before someone decides, OK enough? After all, Gregorian chant is over. Renaissance music is over. Baroque is over. Classical is over. And no one got too terribly bent out of shape.


The Ages you mention may be past but the music lives on and is enjoyed by most of us. And in the end it is the concert goer, CD purchaser etc that will decide, it is a brave concert hall that would put a series of this Avant garde music, it just would not put bums on seats. 
Why all the paintings this is TC


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Why all the paintings this is TC

To illustrate a point. Read the post; you'll note that the quote you ascribe to me is actually me quoting an earlier posting.


----------



## Jaime77

*StlukesguildOhio*, we are on a similar wavelength as regards this topic


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Why all the paintings this is TC
> 
> To illustrate a point. Read the post; you'll note that the quote you ascribe to me is actually me quoting an earlier posting.


I still don't see the need to use so many pics, names would suffice, regarding your method of quoting, why not use the quote button? that's why its there, saves any misunderstanding and we can then refer to the original quote


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I still don't see the need to use so many pics, names would suffice, regarding your method of quoting, why not use the quote button? that's why its there, saves any misunderstanding and we can then refer to the original quote

Cutting and pasting allows me to answer one section of a comment at a time and differentiate who is speaking with the use of the color. As for the inclusion of the art works... I suppose I could have merely listed the names of artists... just they might skip posting images of the CDs in the "What are you listening to now?" and "Recent Purchases" threads... but a picture is worth... well, you know the rest. Considering that I was using the painters to make a point about contemporary painting as analogous to contemporary music I doubt that a vast majority of the members here are familiar with a good many contemporary composers any more than a great many artists and art lovers are familiar with much contemporary "classical music". Personally I'm obsessed with art, music, and literature and I'm fascinated with the connections between the arts.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Cutting and pasting allows me to answer one section of a comment at a time and differentiate who is speaking with the use of the color.


You can do that and more with the Quote and/or the multi quote button as I have done here


> As for the inclusion of the art works... I suppose I could have merely listed the names of artists... just they might skip posting images of the CDs in the "What are you listening to now?" and "Recent Purchases" threads.


 Yes that habit can be annoying as well.


> Personally I'm obsessed with art, music, and literature and I'm fascinated with the connections between the arts.


 yes I can see that


----------



## Scott Good

some guy said:


> I'm alive now. I'm listening now, with the ears I now have. It's enough.


Beauty on!

Best post of the thread IMHO.


----------



## Scott Good

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ... but your initial argument suggested that the support of a philosophical "heavy-weight" like Adorno immediately nullified any opposition...


Nope, here's what I said:

"Yes, the moral superiority argument is weak, but, it has had some significant philosophical backing - Adorno for one."

Now, here is another example where you completely fail to actually understand/recognize what I am saying.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> .... but to suggest that Schoenberg, Berg, and later followers of the avant garde tradition (and at this point it is a "tradition" just as dated as Romanticism) are the only ones worthy of consideration is pretentious. Are we to simply accept the notion that whatever Aaron Copland, Shostakovitch, or Richard Strauss had to convey about their experiences is inherently irrelevant or inferior?


Where in the world have I suggested this? But, if I were teaching, and the rep to study was up to me, I certainly would have more Schoenberg than Strauss and Copland, but I would introduce these composers. Shostakovitch has much to offer, though, And I know his music much better than Schoenberg, so would be an appropriate subject for me to teach.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I fully support the notion that the innovations of Modernism led to a broadening of the possibilities available to the artist/composer... including a reexamination of the artistic languages of the past. _The Rite of Spring_ is rooted in rather "ancient" Russian music... while _Pulcinella_ revisted the 18th century. Bartok drew upon folk music traditions. Bolcolm builds upon American folk music forms, blues, jazz, even bluegrass. Golijov builds upon Latin-American traditions, klezmer, Middle-Eastern music, etc... What I have questioned is the argument that a single tradition of Modernism is the sole means to artistic merit in music and a preference for some music over others. It would seem that if anyone is honest, they will admit that they also have preferences for or against certain music.


A strange paragraph. Nothing to do with me, even though you are responding to me..?.

Also, Stockhausen and Cage both were influenced by past musics, world musics, and other popular forms. And also indeed impacted popular music.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Sadly... I must admit he may be more known due association with Robert Rauschenberg and his impact upon the notions of conceptual art.


Why, exactly do you belittle him so much? I am curious as to what offends you so much about him.

Here are some things I admire: The idea of a work of art being not the work it self, but rather the frame is very appealing to me. Because it gives grace to such a simple, understandable and translatable meaning to the word "art". It is fully inclusive, and non prejudicial.

Is research and developments into percussion composing are some of the best up to his time.

He is very fun to perform. Some can be quite humerous, which I like.

He opened wide the immense possibility of sound. Everything had a possibility to make a beautiful sound. This included some very interesting and beautiful explorations into prepared piano, reminiscent as was suggested by Some Guy, Gamelan music.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Aaron Copland, for example, began composing in a far more avant garde manner before rejecting such.


Funny you keep mentioning Copland. I became especially interested in his work when I studied with one of his students, Samuel Adler, who remains one of the most important teachers in my life.

There are various aspects to Copland's music that was shaped by his experience with more esoteric musical forms and manners. He found his own voice. I love many of his pieces, and most of which is Appalachian Spring. I have to listen to this piece at least once a year - it makes me happy in its beauty.

The "artist" Piero Manzoni put crap in a can and entitled it Merda d'artista. 

I am a little offended that you would compare a jar of **** to the works of Stockhausen. 

But now you are making the same prejudicial judgments about as I am making about music. 

No, I am not.

The skill and knowledge one needs to produce an orchestral work such as Grupen is right in the score. The technical understanding, and depth of research to put together Hymnen, the understanding of the piano for the Klavierstuke series ect ect.

Or, some guy shat in a jar.

Come on! Do you think I am some kind of schmuck to accept this pitiful comparison? Not me, try someone else.

... but the reality is that visual art is largely self-sustaining. And shouldn't all art be self-sustaining? But we are to believe that an endeavor of interest to only a minute fragment of society is deserving of support?

Well, music and visual art have some very distinct differences in terms of financial viability, especially in the digital world. Too much to get into.

Philip Glass, Arvo Part, Osvaldo Golijov... and any number of others (to say nothing of popular music) all seem to do quite well for themselves. 

...and have worked through involved systems supported by governments at various levels, including various supports by orchestras and ensembles that gain special tax exemptions and other revenues (such as hall rentals) so that regular folks like you and I have access to theirs and others (like Beethoven and Copland etc etc) art.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Art is not like science. It cannot be reduced to a linear progression that is ever accumulative. For the scientist the discoveries of Newton, Darwin, or Einstein change everything. They cannot be ignored. No scientist of any worth is going to ignore the developments of Einstein and later 20th century physicists and astronomers and instead return to Copernicus with the goal of developing an independent direction. Art, however, does do such things.


Yes, artists do visit the past, and redirect. But to think it is without influence from the previous taken direction is disingenuous - not real. It is not possible for anyone to stop at Beethoven and say, ok, now I'm here, I'm going to wipe my memory clean of every shred of anything that has come after, and start writing music. Ok, maybe we could isolate some baby in a 19th century german mark up, kinda like...that Jim Carrey movie...whatever it was.

Art and science have lots of overlaps. Come on, you say you like the connections between arts - what about the connections between art and other disciplines?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> You speak of Schoenberg changing everything? But does he? Is it impossible for a composer to dislike his music... ignore it... and still achieve something worthy?


Simply that a future/now composer will have to make a choice to ignore him, and his tremendous legacy, shows his undeniable impact. It is inescapable. The legacy is far too deep rooted.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> As huge as Picasso was... and he certainly dwarves Schoenberg with regard to his impact and achievements in Modernism... it is still quite possible to actually ignore him.


No it isn't - you would have to be very isolated. My art history is weak, but the work he and Braque did changed the perspective of the artist. No, it isn't exactly science, but art practice shares qualities in that knowledge is accumulated - it just is. When certain kinds of information enter, and are so power they influence enough others, and that perspective becomes embedded through it's influence. That is how society evolves. We don't turn back into apes. You can't cool a cake and get sugar and flour.

All of your plates are examples of this.

Of course the great academic Adorno as well as Schoenberg himself later dismissed Stravinsky as lightweight. It seems even academia cannot agree.

But, see, this is good. Academia would become moot were it uniform. It needs to breath all the time, bringing in and expelling. It may breath in and out the same thing many times.

But is that not the point? If I or MI or anyone suggests that we don't particularly like Schoenberg or Berg or Boulez we are dismissed as barbarians at the gate... "stuck in 19th century Romanticism"... 

Not by me. I am not dismissing you, but debating you. And you, my friend are doing the dismissing, not I.

The reality is that 50 or even 100 years is not enough to assure an artist's place in history.

Your right. It has to be at least 3476 years.

Brilliant retort. 

Thanks. I thought it was cute.

So am I to assume that you immediately embrace whatever your good teachers and critics and the institutions and markets that support this or that artistic direction tell you is brilliant and the next Beethoven? I guess I should start paying attention to those blurbs on the back of the recent best selling novels... you know, the ones that gush, "The greatest novel I've ever read. Worthy of comparison with Shakespeare."

I don't believe in next Beethovens...he was one of a kind, he lived hard in his time. I don't believe the dead rise again.

But yes, it is true. I did trust my teachers to point me towards music that I was unfamiliar with, and they felt I should hear. And lo and behold, I actually enjoyed some of it, including some of the Beethoven! Did I like every piece of music that was ever presented to me in all of my education? No. But many for sure. And I am grateful for the opportunity to have gotten to know such a vast array of music.

And eventually the work needs to be absorbed and appreciated by a larger art loving public. Matisse and Picasso were once thought of as shocking... difficult... "dissonant"... but now they are beloved by a sizable audience that purchases prints and attends exhibitions. Duchamp and Joseph Kosuth and Manzoni? Their names are only kept alive in certain academic circles.

Ya, I learned about Duchamp in school (and Matisse and Picasso...). All that useless garbage they shoved down my throat. I should have been reading stock reports to know what I should be paying attention to.

Or perhaps you should have learned to think for yourself... to develop your own preferences... rather than accepting all that you were taught hook, line, and sinker.

:angry:

Jerk.


----------



## Very Senior Member

I'd like to be able to follow it but I'm afraid that I find the above post as clear as mud. Why can't you attempt to summarise the arguments you are criticising and then be as straightforward as possible in explaining what you disagree with. All this quoting of bits and pieces (especially when it's not done properly in the first place) makes for huge confusion.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Some Guy- Here are some things I admire: The idea of a work of art being not the work it self, but rather the frame is very appealing to me. Because it gives grace to such a simple, understandable and translatable meaning to the word "art". It is fully inclusive, and non prejudicial.


SLG (quoted)- The "artist" Piero Manzoni put crap in a can and entitled it Merda d'artista.

I am a little offended that you would compare a jar of **** to the works of Stockhausen.

But now you are making the same prejudicial judgments about as I am making about music.

No, I am not.

Then you are simply contradicting yourself. You like the idea of a work of art being not the work itself... all of which came out of Duchamp... the notion that the Art exist in the idea and not in the actual realization (of course this may have been true for Duchamp because of the fact he was not all that great at realizing... at painting). The "art" in Manzoni (and here I am playing the devil's advocate because I quite despise such mental ************ in art as well as music) existed in the idea. Manzoni was struck with the idea that once an artist was known the public would pay for everything... value everything as if it were a holy relic. Museums house and proudly display mediocre and even bad paintings by great or important artists, while great paintings by a lesser artist lies in storage. Manzoni theorized that as a result of this "cult of personality" even a famous artist's (shall we say Picasso) **** would be revered. He thus canned his own **** and priced it at the going rate per ounce for gold.

The skill and knowledge one needs to produce an orchestral work such as Grupen is right in the score. The technical understanding, and depth of research to put together Hymnen, the understanding of the piano for the Klavierstuke series ect ect.


And is the skill level the measure of art? How much skill was needed to compose the opening movement of the _Moonlight Sonata_ or one of Satie's _Gymnopédies_ as opposed to something as complex as a Paganini Caprice or an opera? Does that make the Paganini or the opera inherently better art?

Philip Glass, Arvo Part, Osvaldo Golijov... and any number of others (to say nothing of popular music) all seem to do quite well for themselves.

...and have worked through involved systems supported by governments at various levels, including various supports by orchestras and ensembles that gain special tax exemptions and other revenues (such as hall rentals) so that regular folks like you and I have access to theirs and others (like Beethoven and Copland etc etc) art.

Hmmm... Schubert never needed the support of public tax dollars. Most painters continue to paint without any thought of public support (indeed, under current NEA rules artists are ineligible for independent grants thanks to the Robert Mapplethorpe debacle back in the 1980s). Yet we are to assume that composers of esoteric music that has no relevance to the public... that is often antagonistic toward the same... is also entitled to their tax dollars. And should we not question the worth of an art form if it cannot survive without such?

Art is not like science. It cannot be reduced to a linear progression that is ever accumulative. For the scientist the discoveries of Newton, Darwin, or Einstein change everything. They cannot be ignored. No scientist of any worth is going to ignore the developments of Einstein and later 20th century physicists and astronomers and instead return to Copernicus with the goal of developing an independent direction. Art, however, does do such things.

Yes, artists do visit the past, and redirect. But to think it is without influence from the previous taken direction is disingenuous - not real. It is not possible for anyone to stop at Beethoven and say, ok, now I'm here, I'm going to wipe my memory clean of every shred of anything that has come after, and start writing music. Ok, maybe we could isolate some baby in a 19th century german mark up, kinda like...that Jim Carrey movie...whatever it was.

And certainly, as I said elsewhere, no artist can help but be a product of his or her time. Arvo Part may be influenced by medieval music... but his music could in no way be confused with that of the 14th century. A composer continuing to explore ideas rooted in Romanticism or the Classical or the Baroque will still be influenced by the time in which he or she lives... unless he or she makes a concerted effort to merely mimic the music of the past... and I don't think that any contemporary composer of an merit that is rooted in Romanticism or Impressionism, etc... is so inclined.

You speak of Schoenberg changing everything? But does he? Is it impossible for a composer to dislike his music... ignore it... and still achieve something worthy?
Simply that a future/now composer will have to make a choice to ignore him, and his tremendous legacy, shows his undeniable impact. It is inescapable. The legacy is far too deep rooted.

As huge as Picasso was... and he certainly dwarves Schoenberg with regard to his impact and achievements in Modernism... it is still quite possible to actually ignore him.

No it isn't - you would have to be very isolated.

OK... let me reword that. It may be impossible to ignore him and be at all literate in art, however it is clearly possible to reject him. Obviously we are not ignoring Cage or Schoenberg... nor, I would assume, are many composers... even those who reject what he brought to the table. However... artistic development involves a rejection of the past as often as it involves building upon the past. The Baroque resulted from a rejection of the art of the immediate predecessors (Mannerism) and a return to the ideas of the Renaissance. But of course there was something new. The Baroque utilized elements that would not be found in Renaissance art.

My art history is weak, but the work he and Braque did changed the perspective of the artist. No, it isn't exactly science, but art practice shares qualities in that knowledge is accumulated - it just is. When certain kinds of information enter, and are so power they influence enough others, and that perspective becomes embedded through it's influence. That is how society evolves. We don't turn back into apes. You can't cool a cake and get sugar and flour.

All of your plates are examples of this.

Certainly the paintings I presented in no way look like 19th or 18th century painting. They are clearly of their time. But they certainly have built more upon the art of the 19th century and earlier than upon anything that Modernism and Abstraction brought to the table. It is quite possible for a contemporary composer to be of his or her time... and yet reject much of the music of the immediate past while drawing upon the examples of older music.

So am I to assume that you immediately embrace whatever your good teachers and critics and the institutions and markets that support this or that artistic direction tell you is brilliant and the next Beethoven? I guess I should start paying attention to those blurbs on the back of the recent best selling novels... you know, the ones that gush, "The greatest novel I've ever read. Worthy of comparison with Shakespeare."

I don't believe in next Beethovens...he was one of a kind, he lived hard in his time. I don't believe the dead rise again.

OK. There will be no new Beethoven. But I don't believe that this means there might not ever be another composer of his stature.

But yes, it is true. I did trust my teachers to point me towards music that I was unfamiliar with, and they felt I should hear. And lo and behold, I actually enjoyed some of it, including some of the Beethoven! Did I like every piece of music that was ever presented to me in all of my education? No. But many for sure. And I am grateful for the opportunity to have gotten to know such a vast array of music.

It depends how it was presented. The art historians introduced me to a vast array of artists... many of whom I had never heard of. They helped to understand what the intentions of these artists were. There were other faculty... professors of painting... who were more likely to push for this or that artist/style at the expense of others. This is to be expected, I suppose. If my career has been built upon abstraction (or upon atonality) a student who rejects this in favor of figuration (tonality) is a threat to what I value most. But each student/artist must find his or her own voice and looking elsewhere than the immediate past does not immediately make someone a reactionary.

Or perhaps you should have learned to think for yourself... to develop your own preferences... rather than accepting all that you were taught hook, line, and sinker.


Jerk.

Just a little tit for tat:

Do Beethoven or Mozart survive based upon "significant philosophical backing"? 

Because people like you keep attacking it.


----------



## Jaime77

Pity this thread got personal. I was enjoying it. People take a position and fight tooth and nail as though it was deeply personal to them. You guys should read some Zen philosophy


----------



## Scott Good

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Then you are simply contradicting yourself. You like the idea of a work of art being not the work itself... all of which came out of Duchamp...


I think Duchamp is fantastic. Duchamp challenges the notion of representation - "Ce N'est Pas Une Pipe" he tells us - combining humor and wit with art. Cage expanded on his ideas, but goes in a slightly different direction - that art it self is nothing but what we choose it to be. This simple idea helps to nullify notions of cultural exoticism and imperialism. Poop jar guy rides on their legacy, but adds nothing to it - it is sensationalism. Yawn.

And I could come up with lots more examples, like the guy who took his grant money, and gave it all away in $10 bills randomly in one afternoon. Or the AIDS victim, who cuts himself on stage, waving his bloodied shirt threateningly at the audience, or the danger art, where large slabs of solid steel are leaned against each other, and the audience walks through, always in danger that they will be crushed, or the composer who submitted the score and parts of Symphony Fantastique, but retitled, and with his own signature, claiming that the work will be heard differently in this light, thus an original piece.

Sure, there is garbage. Craft-less, political art that offers no new insights.

I believe, and I guess you don't, that Stockhausen offers much to contemplate and much fodder for study through his immense output of works. Gruppen alone is worth an afternoon at least - maybe even a week or more. Entirely new avenues of expression (such as Spectralism) came in part from methods researched and exercised in his pieces. There is far more to it than a jar of poop. That is all I am saying.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> And is the skill level the measure of art? How much skill was needed to compose the opening movement of the _Moonlight Sonata_


This was a bad example to make your point. Beethoven slaved over this piece - this is known because the sketches still survive. What he fussed and fussed over is the voice leading - the way that the inner voices express the form at it's most immediate levels, and background levels.

Beethoven is the consummate crafts person. That is why he is so vigorously studied.

I have no problem with music that demonstrates little craft, anyways. For instance, I quite enjoy "Good Night" by Gorecki, which shows very little craft (and yes, I do love Satie as well) I love folk music, such as "Waltzing Mattilda" - it brings me to tears every time, but only has about 3 chords. BUT, if I am going to teach music, I am going to tend my choices towards examples that have depth for contemplation. There is not much to teach in Satie and Gorecki - not nothing, but not as much as Palestrina, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Shostakovitch etc etc. Leaders of ideas, not followers.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hmmm... Schubert never needed the support of public tax dollars.


Different time, different place, different economic structure.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Most painters continue to paint without any thought of public support (indeed, under current NEA rules artists are ineligible for independent grants thanks to the Robert Mapplethorpe debacle back in the 1980s). Yet we are to assume that composers of esoteric music that has no relevance to the public... that is often antagonistic toward the same... is also entitled to their tax dollars. And should we not question the worth of an art form if it cannot survive without such?


The history of art funding is complex. But listen, my point was that at the present moment, all professional musicians do, in some part or another, and embedded on many levels, gain support from public funding, including all of the composers you cited, including methods of taxation as is in the US. This si a fact. Of course music would survive without funding, but how accessible would a live orchestra be to all people? When arts funding began in the 1950's there was an explosion of activity, and vast numbers more of the general public had immediate and affordable access to a wide variety of art forms. Arts funding is not solely to pay artists, but also to provide wide distribution, so folks in smaller communities can have their own orchestra.

Visual art is very different in that it is much less expensive to create and display. This is a huge difference. Opera, for instance, in large productions, costs tens of thousands a day just to light! The NYPhil costs around $800 per minute of rehearsal.

Man, the subject is very tricky to navigate, and is clouding the present topic at hand. Leave it be.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> And certainly, as I said elsewhere, no artist can help but be a product of his or her time. Arvo Part may be influenced by medieval music... but his music could in no way be confused with that of the 14th century.


Exactly!



StlukesguildOhio said:


> A composer continuing to explore ideas rooted in Romanticism or the Classical or the Baroque will still be influenced by the time in which he or she lives... unless he or she makes a concerted effort to merely mimic the music of the past... and I don't think that any contemporary composer of an merit that is rooted in Romanticism or Impressionism, etc... is so inclined.


I agree.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Obviously we are not ignoring Cage or Schoenberg... nor, I would assume, are many composers... even those who reject what he brought to the table. However... artistic development involves a rejection of the past as often as it involves building upon the past.


I agree. But this is up to the individual. I prefer to not reject the past, especially an entire genre, but embrace history it in it's vast wonderfulness. I guess I'm weird that way.

It's that pesky Cage who opened me up to the possibility of endless pleasure in music. Now, when I go to concerts, I enjoy almost everything! To bad for me.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Certainly the paintings I presented in no way look like 19th or 18th century painting. They are clearly of their time. But they certainly have built more upon the art of the 19th century and earlier than upon anything that Modernism and Abstraction brought to the table. It is quite possible for a contemporary composer to be of his or her time... and yet reject much of the music of the immediate past while drawing upon the examples of older music.


More...less...doesn't matter. My point is that it has made an impact that is undeniable. So, why do you deny it? This is an act of politics, not of artistic insight.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> It depends how it was presented. The art historians introduced me to a vast array of artists... many of whom I had never heard of. They helped to understand what the intentions of these artists were. There were other faculty... professors of painting... who were more likely to push for this or that artist/style at the expense of others. This is to be expected, I suppose. If my career has been built upon abstraction (or upon atonality) a student who rejects this in favor of figuration (tonality) is a threat to what I value most. But each student/artist must find his or her own voice and looking elsewhere than the immediate past does not immediately make someone a reactionary.


So, sounds like school/academia did you well, and ultimately that it is up to a student to do their part - they must not believe what the teachers teach is some kind of dogma, but a collection of ideas and concepts to use a tools to become better at what they do.

Really, Beethoven is ultimately the teacher, not the professor.

The teacher who "pushes" a particular brand is only doing what they should - teach what they are more expert in, as you are suggesting you do. That is why it is up to the student to select their schools very carefully. That is why it is important for a student to always keep an open mind.

And like all things, some teachers are not so good at their job. But can we wrap up the entirety of academia because of a few rotten apples? This seems a grotesque exaggeration. (a rhetorical comment, btw, and not directed at you)



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Or perhaps you should have learned to think for yourself... to develop your own preferences... rather than accepting all that you were taught hook, line, and sinker.


This is not tit for tat as I did not personally insult you, I only challenged your ideas.

Don't think for myself? How can you say this to someone who has created as many original art works as I have? In fact, who does indeed, like Glass and Adams, make their entire living off of their artwork (well, I have one student). I support my family with my music, and work like a dog to do so. I can do so because people like my music, and think I have something to offer. I have 2 years solid of commissioned work ahead, including a multi-media show children I am co-composing with a song writer, large symphonic works and composing modern classical music for a jazz band.

I am also a concert curator (which is a creative act). It is a wonderful opportunity, as I am programming a series of 3 "New Music" concerts, but geared towards an orchestral audience, not a new music one.

Here is what is planned for the upcoming year _(more promotion)_. What I hope is for an interesting and evocative journey through the world of contemporary music art. Last year, 3 of 4 shows sold out...I'm very hopeful to do the same this year, as many of the audience appreciated the programs - even those who had previously not enjoyed modern music. I work very hard to group the works appropriately, such that each show reveals some connections between different composers, yet also highlighting their special originality, and emotional potential.

I like to talk about some of the pieces before we play them, but not all - one must keep a flow in a concert. Sometimes I have dissected pieces, having the ensemble play excerpts or reduced orchestrations to highlight particular qualities.

I know there are a few folks from northern Washington State here - come on up! It a great excuse to visit Vancouver - these musicians are worth hearing, as the Vancouver SO is a very strong orchestra (just won a Grammy!).

*Maximal Minimalism*

Monday, Oct 19, 2009 8pm, Roundhouse Community Centre

Steve Reich Clapping Music
Richard Mascall Grunge
Ingram Marshall Fog Tropes
Henryk Gorecki Kleines Requiem für eine Polka 
Steve Reich 8 Lines

*Solos*

Saturday, Apr 24, 2010 8pm, Roundhouse Community Centre

John Oliver La Abuela
Scott Good Anguished Grief
Piotr Grella-Mozejko Momentum
Giancinto Scelsi Anahit

*Shock and Catharsis*

Saturday, May 22, 2010 8pm, Roundhouse Community Centre

Scott Good Trombone

Unsuk Chin Xi
Erik Ross Catharsis
Andrew Staniland - De-evolution - a love story
Scott Good Shock Therapy Variations for trombone and chamber ensemble

Next year I am planning some Earl Brown and John Cage - a concert exploring improvisation, and it's various manifestations in the classical music tradition. Sorry.


----------



## Scott Good

Very Senior Member said:


> I'd like to be able to follow it but I'm afraid that I find the above post as clear as mud. Why can't you attempt to summarise the arguments you are criticising and then be as straightforward as possible in explaining what you disagree with. All this quoting of bits and pieces (especially when it's not done properly in the first place) makes for huge confusion.


Yes, it is muddy. I hope it is a bit clearer in my last post.

These are difficult, and emotionally charged subjects - difficult to discuss. But, your point is taken, and I will try to be more concise - please let me know if I have, and/or if you would care for me to elaborate on any points - I would be happy to do so!


----------



## Guest

Too much Blah Blah from some, verbal diarrhea, if a message can't be concise the obvious conclusions will be drawn......


----------



## Scott Good

Andante said:


> Too much Blah Blah from some, verbal diarrhea, if a message can't be concise the obvious conclusions will be drawn......


I'm not sure who this is directed at. Perhaps everyone. Perhaps just me... But really, these points are difficult to answer with simple points - with soundbytes.

In fact, most issues are. That is why I never watch TV anymore. It almost always delivers information in small bytes, not significant chunks.

I don't understand a comment like this - what is your point, except to antagonize?


----------



## Guest

I was just expressing my frustration at the drawn out arguments and the inability of some to quote with the tools provided , perhaps I should not have posted. sorry!


----------



## Scott Good

Andante said:


> I was just expressing my frustration at the drawn out arguments and the inability of some to quote with the tools provided , perhaps I should not have posted. sorry!


No. Please post! Even if it is antagonistic, it is still participation. I was just prodding to get to what you meant. Now I more clearly understand.

You are right about the quoting - it can get muddy, and difficult to follow. And I for one will confess to a horrible tendency to tangent.

I guess we are drawing it out. Both StLukes, SomeGuy and I (and others to varying degrees) are interested in discussing these issues. And even if I seem very argumentative to StLukes, it is only because his comments stimulate me. I think, though, that we agree on far more than what appears. And for the record, I very much respect his knowledge + the introductions to some artists I was formerly unaware of.

But I'm enjoying the discussion. Yep, the sign of a lonely guy! I don't get out much these days (lots of composing lately! it is lonely work), + caring for 2 very young kids + living in a new city...I crave adult conversation.


----------



## Guest

I'm enjoying it, too, though I have to confess that I only had time to respond so frequently because I was on a little break between festivals. (I'm in Europe right now, attending new music festivals. Tonight was Elisabeth Schimana and Christian Fennesz, among others. Yow!!) And now no more breaks for a week and a half. 

But I've enjoyed your posts, Scott. And they're not too long, nor are they difficult to follow. I suspect other motives have led people to question their length and their difficulty. But it's only a suspicion. 

The composer you mentioned at the end of your list, by the way, was Paul Ignace, who to be fair called his piece "Symphonie Fantastique No. 2," so everything was all above board with that one!! His point was that audiences weren't really reacting to the actual sounds when they protested new music, but the the ideas. This piece illustrated the truth of his idea.

Otherwise, since you're in Vancouver, you must have run across Barry Truax from time to time, no? A good friend and composer and teacher.


----------



## Mirror Image

Speaking of contemporary classical music, I just purchased one of my first post-WWII classical composer recordings Michael Gandolfi's "Garden of Cosmic Speculation" with Spano and the Atlanta Symphony Orch. I got it cheap ($5) and a hybrid SACD no less! Anyway, I've heard good things about it and I listened to the sound samples and was quite impressed. Can't wait to hear it. Have any of you heard this piece?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Scott Good- I think Duchamp is fantastic. Duchamp challenges the notion of representation - "Ce N'est Pas Une Pipe" he tells us - combining humor and wit with art. Cage expanded on his ideas, but goes in a slightly different direction - that art it self is nothing but what we choose it to be. This simple idea helps to nullify notions of cultural exoticism and imperialism. Poop jar guy rides on their legacy, but adds nothing to it - it is sensationalism. Yawn.

And I could come up with lots more examples, like the guy who took his grant money, and gave it all away in $10 bills randomly in one afternoon. Or the AIDS victim, who cuts himself on stage, waving his bloodied shirt threateningly at the audience, or the danger art, where large slabs of solid steel are leaned against each other, and the audience walks through, always in danger that they will be crushed, or the composer who submitted the score and parts of Symphony Fantastique, but retitled, and with his own signature, claiming that the work will be heard differently in this light, thus an original piece.

Sure, there is garbage. Craft-less, political art that offers no new insights.

I believe, and I guess you don't, that Stockhausen offers much to contemplate and much fodder for study through his immense output of works. Gruppen alone is worth an afternoon at least - maybe even a week or more. Entirely new avenues of expression (such as Spectralism) came in part from methods researched and exercised in his pieces. There is far more to it than a jar of poop. That is all I am saying.

What you are saying is that you find the mental ************ of Stockhausen or Cage to be worthy of contemplation, while that of Manzoni or other extreme examples of visual art is not. What I'm saying is that they are all equally asinine. By the way... _Ceci n'est pas une pipe_ is actually a painting by Rene Magritte. Duchamp is the one who placed a signed urinal in the gallery with the intention of challenging the notion of "what is art?" and "is anything made by a self-proclaimed artist art?"

SLG (quote)-And is the skill level the measure of art? How much skill was needed to compose the opening movement of the Moonlight Sonata

This was a bad example to make your point. Beethoven slaved over this piece - this is known because the sketches still survive. What he fussed and fussed over is the voice leading - the way that the inner voices express the form at it's most immediate levels, and background levels.

Beethoven is the consummate crafts person. That is why he is so vigorously studied.

Certainly what appears simple may be the product of protracted labor. Matisse spent endless sessions attempting to make a painting appear effortless. But really... is there any complexity in the Moonlight Sonata that would make it impossible for someone to have composed it rapidly had they not been so self-critical as Beethoven? Next time I'll use Mozart as the example of effortlessness.

I have no problem with music that demonstrates little craft, anyways. For instance, I quite enjoy "Good Night" by Gorecki, which shows very little craft (and yes, I do love Satie as well) I love folk music, such as "Waltzing Mattilda" - it brings me to tears every time, but only has about 3 chords. BUT, if I am going to teach music, I am going to tend my choices towards examples that have depth for contemplation. There is not much to teach in Satie and Gorecki - not nothing, but not as much as Palestrina, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Shostakovitch etc etc. Leaders of ideas, not followers.

Trust me... no one embraces craft and skill as much as I. Most of my own paintings are the product of months of labor. I think I completed 5 paintings last year. Yet I understand that craft... or perhaps I should say that the expenditure in no way assures you of artistic brilliance. It is quite possible for a masterpiece to be the product of but a few hours. Van Gogh often spent far less time upon a single masterful painting than Manzoni did upon his can o' ****.

Hmmm... Schubert never needed the support of public tax dollars.

Different time, different place, different economic structure.

But still the question arrises why the public should be expected to fund something that has no relevance to them.

Most painters continue to paint without any thought of public support (indeed, under current NEA rules artists are ineligible for independent grants thanks to the Robert Mapplethorpe debacle back in the 1980s). Yet we are to assume that composers of esoteric music that has no relevance to the public... that is often antagonistic toward the same... is also entitled to their tax dollars. And should we not question the worth of an art form if it cannot survive without such?

The history of art funding is complex. But listen, my point was that at the present moment, all professional musicians do, in some part or another, and embedded on many levels, gain support from public funding, including all of the composers you cited, including methods of taxation as is in the US. This is a fact. Of course music would survive without funding, but how accessible would a live orchestra be to all people? When arts funding began in the 1950's there was an explosion of activity, and vast numbers more of the general public had immediate and affordable access to a wide variety of art forms. Arts funding is not solely to pay artists, but also to provide wide distribution, so folks in smaller communities can have their own orchestra.

All musicians gain support from public funding? This would include Miles Davis, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Britney Spears, etc...? I will agree that the large orchestras and opera houses receive public money... as do the museums. Perhaps this is part of the reason for the predominance of older music... music that has unquestionable merit and relevance to the audience. Perhaps it is recognized that Mozart is worthy of preservation... but the jury is still out on Cage or Golijov. Again... the question stands... why should the public be expected to support a musical style that they don't like... that is often antagonistic toward them and dismissive of them... that is almost certainly made without the least consideration of their wants/needs/desires? This is the question that resounds throughout all the political disputes related to funding of the arts.

Visual art is very different in that it is much less expensive to create and display. This is a huge difference. Opera, for instance, in large productions, costs tens of thousands a day just to light! The NYPhil costs around $800 per minute of rehearsal.


Give me a break. How much capital is needed to compose an a opera? You need a room, a desk, a paper and pen or a computer, and perhaps a keyboard. Schubert wrote 9 symphonies without so much as a nickle in public funding. The costs associated only come once the work is found worthy of performance.

The visual artists' expenses are far greater right from the start. Unless you plan on frying your brain on the smells of damar varnish and turpentine... to say nothing of the mess... a studio space is a necessity. The required tools include not merely brushed and palette knives but also power drills, saws, etc... to build your own stretchers (far cheaper than buying them), etc... The materials are astronomically expensive. A few ounces of cadmium red or lapis lazuli blue can cost $50 or $100. And lets not even go into framing. All of these costs must be eaten by the artist before any thought of exhibition... to say nothing of sales. Easily thousands of dollars per year. The exhibition of the art is another story... much like the exhibition of staging of a work of music. The costs are quite high for either and so it should not come as a surprise that those that bankroll a gallery or an opera chose to stage work they imagine will make a profit. Few galleries are underwritten by tax dollars (outside of non-for-profit venues) that will support art that is difficult and will probably not make a profit. The same is true in the publication world... so why should music that lacks an audience able to sustain it be any different?
Man, the subject is very tricky to navigate, and is clouding the present topic at hand. Leave it be.

And certainly, as I said elsewhere, no artist can help but be a product of his or her time. Arvo Part may be influenced by medieval music... but his music could in no way be confused with that of the 14th century.

Exactly!

A composer continuing to explore ideas rooted in Romanticism or the Classical or the Baroque will still be influenced by the time in which he or she lives... unless he or she makes a concerted effort to merely mimic the music of the past... and I don't think that any contemporary composer of an merit that is rooted in Romanticism or Impressionism, etc... is so inclined.

I agree.

Obviously we are not ignoring Cage or Schoenberg... nor, I would assume, are many composers... even those who reject what he brought to the table. However... artistic development involves a rejection of the past as often as it involves building upon the past.

I agree. But this is up to the individual. I prefer to not reject the past, especially an entire genre, but embrace history it in it's vast wonderfulness. I guess I'm weird that way.

We seem in agreement here. Where the problems began (and these statements may not have been by you... but I've had a few too many beers and I'm not up to going back and rereading everything... but where the problem began is with the suggestions that: 1. Any composer or music fan that could not accept atonality and acknowledge the brilliance of Cage, Schoenberg, etc... was "stuck in the 19th century" (an accusation which actually irked me considering that until recently I'd actually far more likely to be listening to Bach... or even medieval music... than late Romanticism). 2. We should not follow our personal preferences (??) with regard to tonal or atonal music. 3. That sophisticated and experienced music lovers appreciate Cage and Schoenberg (which I have no problem with... but the tone in which this was stated leant toward an insinuation that anyone who could not appreciate of admire Cage, Schoenberg, Ligetti... or any composer for that matter... was somehow less than sophisticated or educated in their taste. Indeed... if I recall correctly... someone actually suggested that personal preferences should play no part in what we listen to.

It's that pesky Cage who opened me up to the possibility of endless pleasure in music. Now, when I go to concerts, I enjoy almost everything! To bad for me.

I was bombarded with too much of his mental ************ in conjunction with Robert Rauschenberg and Merce Cunningham. Does that leave me stuck in the 19th century? Actually I quite like Shostakovitch (I've got his opera _The Nose_ on order), Prokofiev, Richard Strauss, Hindemith, Kurt Weill, Aaron Copland, some of Ligetti, Penderecki (to an extent), Messiaen, Zemlinski, Szymanowsky, Stravinsky, Bartok, Rachmaninoff, early Schoenberg, Ravel, Franz Schreker, Korngold, Benjamin Britten, Ned Rorem, David Diamond, Hans Werner Henze, Tōru Takemitsu (some), Henryk Górecki, Phillip Glass, John Adams, Daniel Catan, Osvaldo Golijov, Thomas Adès and quite a few others... not to mention all of those composers/musicians that we might include if we break outside of the strict limit of "classical music".

Perhaps a question to ask is just "what is _*classical music*_" Is there something in the form that makes it inherently superior to the best works of jazz, folk, pop, etc...? If this is true how do we account for counting the jazz-based music of Shostakovitch, Bernstein, Weill, etc... as "classical music"? How do we accept the folk music based works of Bartok (and others) as serious music while ignoring the music from which it sprang?

Certainly the paintings I presented in no way look like 19th or 18th century painting. They are clearly of their time. But they certainly have built more upon the art of the 19th century and earlier than upon anything that Modernism and Abstraction brought to the table. It is quite possible for a contemporary composer to be of his or her time... and yet reject much of the music of the immediate past while drawing upon the examples of older music.

More...less...doesn't matter. My point is that it has made an impact that is undeniable. So, why do you deny it? This is an act of politics, not of artistic insight.

Again... I'm not up to checking whether it was your comment, but I believe someone questioned my assertion that it jt might be possible that Thelonius Monk, Miles Davis, or Duke Ellington have had a larger impact upon music than John Cage... and may continue in such a manner. Phillip Glass and John Adams have both admitted to having been influenced by rock music. I would assume that the average student entering music school has heard more pop music than music of Cage or Ligeti and as such... may be more influenced by rock music than Cage and Ligeti. I'll personally admit that I have listened to Miles, Monk, Ellington... even Lennie Tristano far more than I have Cage or Ligetti... in spite of the fact that I am quite a lover of classical music and seek out contemporary composers. Why is it OK to dismiss Monk or Davis from serious discussions of music... but not Cage?

It depends how it was presented. The art historians introduced me to a vast array of artists... many of whom I had never heard of. They helped to understand what the intentions of these artists were. There were other faculty... professors of painting... who were more likely to push for this or that artist/style at the expense of others. This is to be expected, I suppose. If my career has been built upon abstraction (or upon atonality) a student who rejects this in favor of figuration (tonality) is a threat to what I value most. But each student/artist must find his or her own voice and looking elsewhere than the immediate past does not immediately make someone a reactionary.

So, sounds like school/academia did you well, and ultimately that it is up to a student to do their part - they must not believe what the teachers teach is some kind of dogma, but a collection of ideas and concepts to use a tools to become better at what they do.

Yes... unfortunately the student/artist who rebels against the teacher has the more difficult road... but perhaps he or she will be the better prepared for the difficult reality once school is over. Of course what you argue... questioning the dogma of academia... is this not what I have been advocating? A recognition that it is possible that the dogmas of academia may not be right... or rather that they might not be the only road to artistic merit.

The teacher who "pushes" a particular brand is only doing what they should - teach what they are more expert in, as you are suggesting you do. That is why it is up to the student to select their schools very carefully. That is why it is important for a student to always keep an open mind.

This makes for a real problem when there is a predominance of a single "party line". Students entering art schools in the US in the 1950s, 60s, 70s... even 80s would have found that abstraction ruled the roost and it was difficult for the student who was interested in figurative art to not give in under the pressure... to say nothing of receiving the appropriate training that was necessary to their goals. This has led to a very adversarial relationship. At the University of Pennsylvania, for example, the artist Neil Welliver struggled against the predominance of abstract formalist painting while he was landscape painter rooted clearly in Impressionism. When Welliver was hired as a professor at UPenn he struggled against the powers-that-be and was the continual butt of jkes by the same. When Welliver eventually attained the position of directorship of the painting department he immediately made life hell for all of those who had once mocked him... eventually driving them all out of their positions. The politics of art and education is something that many students have not the least inkling of. I may have had the advantage in that I had worked in the "real world" for some 5 years before returning to college and I was paying for my education so I was quick to recognize BS when I saw it and I was willing to research what others had to say on a given issue and to stand my ground for what I believed... even when it went against the professor's express beliefs. This is not true of the average student.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> But I've enjoyed your posts, Scott. And they're not too long, nor are they difficult to follow. I suspect other motives have led people to question their length and their difficulty. But it's only a suspicion. .


I was going to leave this as was, but I will say that my only motive was as stated the length (they must be just about the longest on TC) sure, they are interesting but I still think they could be trimmed quite a bit, but then I am a minimalist,  *Scot *your quoting is not questioned, but trying to follow the quoting method of 'StlukesguildOhio' it is not easy 3 different colours instead of using the quote button. As you will know *some guy* I support the views of ' StlukesguildOhio' and not Scots I was not trying to be antagonistic.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Again... don't put me down as some reactionary. I have more than a few post-WWII composers who far within the rubric of "classical music" Yesterday and Today I spent listening to John Corigliano's _Circus Maximus_ (2004) which I found to be quite an intriguing work.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I guess I'll need to follow the standard quoting practices to make things easier. I just find it far eaier for myself to copy the entire post then cut and paste the comments I wish to respond to with the use of color to differentiate the speaker... but I can agree that as these posts are quite long it may be necessary to make it clear who is speaking. Sorry.


----------



## Mirror Image

StLukes...I've got to say I'm impressed with your arguments, but as much as I agree with you I have to disagree with the way you're going about this whole topic.

I don't think anybody is right or wrong. As much as I dislike Ligeti or Stockhausen, there are some good contemporary composers out there right now making good music. These composers today are in constant war with the public, the record companies, and the conductors. There are some great composers out there that aren't composing experimental music like one I found tonight named Michael Gandolfi. I'm also going to be looking into Arvo Part, John Adams, Steve Reich (whose music I already own a lot of), Tavener, Gorecki, among others.

While I don't go for the more experimental music a la Ligeti or Boulez, I'm definitely going to be a bit more open-minded in my search for tonal contemporary classical music.


----------



## Sid James

Wow, this has become quite an involved & complicated discussion.

I'd only like to add that it's important for listeners to have an open mind when approaching contemporary classical music. I think that the best of this music actually challenges the listener to take their blinkers off & experience the music as it is. Some of the best composers of the past 50 years have been asking the question 'what is music?' Ultimately, there isn't a set answer to this, just a variety of different approaches.

Arguments about public funding are relevant, but without such music getting exposure in the concert halls, on radio & on cd's, what future is there for classical music? Obviously, not everyone will like what a composer does, but music isn't a popularity contest. Of course, the much maligned classical canon has a big place in today's music world, but it should not be the only thing on offer. I agree with what some chamber ensembles are doing (at least here in Australia, anyway), playing not only the established repertoire but also works by established & emerging composers. I think there should be a healthy mix offered at concerts, rather than what the big symphony orchestras seem to be doing, which is just playing works from the canon. I think that's negating the richness which exists in classical music today...


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I will agree that the large orchestras and opera houses receive public money... as do the museums. Perhaps this is part of the reason for the predominance of older music... music that has unquestionable merit and relevance to the audience.


Oh, nice way to ignore all the other possibilities. Especially with the hedging! 


StlukesguildOhio said:


> Give me a break. How much capital is needed to compose an a opera?


Oh, nice way to leave off the costs associated with _producing_ the opera!!


StlukesguildOhio said:


> where the problem began is with the suggestions that: 1. Any composer or music fan that could not accept atonality and acknowledge the brilliance of Cage, Schoenberg, etc... was "stuck in the 19th century"


I've never heard a real new music fan make this accusation. I've heard dozens of anti-moderns CLAIM that new music fans make this accusation. (And, if I recall, it was you who brought this accusation up on this thread, which, if I'm remembering correctly, means you irked yourself!!


StlukesguildOhio said:


> 2. We should not follow our personal preferences (??) with regard to tonal or atonal music.


Another made up accusation. For why should we not follow our personal preferences. Again, no one actually makes this accusation, though some people have been accused of making it.


StlukesguildOhio said:


> 3. That sophisticated and experienced music lovers appreciate Cage and Schoenberg (which I have no problem with... but the tone in which this was stated leant toward an insinuation that anyone who could not appreciate of admire Cage, Schoenberg, Ligetti... or any composer for that matter... was somehow less than sophisticated or educated in their taste. Indeed... if I recall correctly... someone actually suggested that personal preferences should play no part in what we listen to.


Again, you're confusing yourself. People have repeated accused the pro-moderns for making all sorts of insinuations that guess what, no one has actually made! If there have been any insinuations on this thread, it's been the one that says the sophisticated and experienced music lovers who appreciate Cage and Schoenberg are just fooling themselves. (Which doesn't irk or confuse any of us, because it's so obviously silly.)


StlukesguildOhio said:


> I was bombarded with too much of his mental ************ in conjunction with Robert Rauschenberg and Merce Cunningham.


Repeating something does not make it true. You accuse Cage and Co. with "mental ************" and then you just keep repeating it. You've left off the most important part, arguing rationally. How did you arrive at the conclusion you keep repeating? What are the facts that led you to it?


StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...the strict limit of "classical music".


Big surprise there. Classical music has a strict limit??? When did that happen?


StlukesguildOhio said:


> I believe someone questioned my assertion that it jt might be possible that Thelonius Monk, Miles Davis, or Duke Ellington have had a larger impact upon music than John Cage


If you didn't support your assertion, then I certainly HOPE that someone questioned it. And even if you did.... (Are you suggesting that no one should question your assertions?)


StlukesguildOhio said:


> Why is it OK to dismiss Monk or Davis from serious discussions of music... but not Cage?


Who does this? (Why is it OK for you to keep making up straw men?)

Looking over this exchange (with the handy "Preview Post" option), I'm struck with a pattern. You repeatedly focus on behavior. How are your opponents behaving? They dismiss Monk or Davis, or so you claim. They question your assertions. They suggest this or that or the other thing, which either irks or confuses you. So even if your opponents were behaving as you claim (and I claim that they're not), this would still be an unsatisfactory discussion, as it's not focused on the arguments presented but on the pathology and motives of the presenters. Let's get back on track, shall we, and focus on the arguments made, the real ones for preference!


----------



## purple99

LOL @ this discussion. Massive posts, inability to use the quote feature, red herrings, ad hominems, straw men.... One point seems to be that a modern composer, when playing his music to his granny, might get an adverse reaction. The old dear looks confused, adjusts her hearing aid, rustle her Daily Telegraph, listens in vain for a tune she can hum. So what? Gently explain to her that you're doing something new, in the same way artists try new forms of the novel, or poetry, or throwing pots. Art's got to move or it ceases to be art and becomes cultural history. If she still wails: 'But it's not in sonata form!' you make her a nice cup of tea and give her an Andrew Lloyd Webber CD for her birthday.


----------



## Guest

purple99 said:


> One point seems to be that a modern composer, when playing his music to his granny, might get an adverse reaction.


But only _might,_ I hasten to emphasize!! I know grannies who go to their kids' and grandkids' concerts, and enjoy them. Why, I know grannies who write the stuff themselves. (Y'all didn't really think that modern composers couldn't have grandkids, did you?)

Still, that cup of tea does sound tasty. Put me in for one!


----------



## purple99

some guy said:


> But only _might,_ I hasten to emphasize!! I know grannies who go to their kids' and grandkids' concerts, and enjoy them. Why, I know grannies who write the stuff themselves. (Y'all didn't really think that modern composers couldn't have grandkids, did you?)
> 
> Still, that cup of tea does sound tasty. Put me in for one!


Indian or Chinese? 

A second point seems to be that because some modern music doesn't have Tunes the People can Hum there must be something wrong with it. Stalin said something similar.

A third point is that music must be connected to market forces. If audiences are not prepared to pay to hear it there must be something wrong with it. That's the Rupert Murdoch school of Culture.

A fourth point is there's a mafia, in hock to the Frankfurt school of philosophy, who dominate music departments in Western universities. That's an interesting claim, and may have some truth in it. I'm sure there are bullies on both sides: snobs in tiaras, on the one hand, who squat like toads in modern concert halls, believe music stopped with Bruckner but, unfortunately, pay the bills. On the other hand, there are some arrogant composer/academics who feel contempt for modern high art culture and believe they're owed a living (and a hearing). Often they're cultural relativists who believe the Beatles are as good as Mozart. I'd like to hear more about them. They're as pernicious imv as the toads in tiaras.


----------



## Artemis

purple99 said:


> Indian or Chinese?
> 
> A second point seems to be that because some modern music doesn't have Tunes the People can Hum there must be something wrong with it. Stalin said something similar.
> 
> A third point is that music must be connected to market forces. If audiences are not prepared to pay to hear it there must be something wrong with it. That's the Rupert Murdoch school of Culture.
> 
> A fourth point is there's a mafia, in hock to the Frankfurt school of philosophy, who dominate music departments in Western universities. That's an interesting claim, and may have some truth in it. I'm sure there are bullies on both sides: snobs in tiaras, on the one hand, who squat like toads in modern concert halls, believe music stopped with Bruckner but, unfortunately, pay the bills. On the other hand, there are some arrogant composer/academics who feel contempt for modern high art culture and believe they're owed a living (and a hearing). Often they're cultural relativists who believe the Beatles are as good as Mozart. I'd like to hear more about them. They're as pernicious imv as the toads in tiaras.


I agree that there has been a lot of verbal diarrhoea in this thread peppered with a ghastly layer of toe-curling "_I-know-more-about-the arts-than-you-do_" type of comment.

The underlying subject matter of this thread is hardly rocket-science. The thread started out with a simple request for advice on whether a budding new composer should concentrate on producing music in a style he feels happy with and is good at, or whether to pitch his style more in line with what it is assumed his audience will appreciate.

If a new composer is to have any hope of becoming successful (i.e. gain recognition and stand out from the crowd) he/she should concentrate on what he is good at and trust that the audience will like his output, or at least some of it. There is clearly no guaranty that audiences will like the results, and in all probability they will not since classical music audiences are conservative by nature. However that's the way the world is and there's no use complaining about this fact it or believing it can be changed significantly by any kind of campaign (publicly funded or otherwise) to persuade people of the virtues of contemporary music. Any changes in the public's perception will be slow and uncertain.

On the other hand if a new composer tried to follow the route of trying to second-guess the market, whilst compromising their own artistic skills, this will likely fail because there is already a vast amount of very good material that meets that requirement which has already been written by other composers, both historical and current. New classical music composers are in competition not just with their current contemporaries but also with an entire history of previous composers, out of which an awful lot of chaff has already been winnowed to produce only the finest grades of music.

You will note that this answer makes no judgement about the purely aesthetic qualities of the newly composed works in question, whether or not Rupert Murdoch would approve of it, or whether fine ladies in tiaras attending concerts are anything but an irrelevance in the grand scheme of things affecting the classical music market.


----------



## Guest

My toes are quite content with Artemis' comment.


----------



## purple99

Artemis said:


> ... classical music audiences are conservative by nature. However that's the way the world is and there's no use complaining about this fact it or believing it can be changed significantly by any kind of campaign (publicly funded or otherwise) to persuade people of the virtues of contemporary music. Any changes in the public's perception will be slow and uncertain.


I went to Kings Place yesterday, the first public concert hall to have been built in central London for 25 years. They're clearly chasing the 'new audience' mentioned here [link removed]http://www.brightcecilia.com/features/classical-music-new-middle-class.html. They've constructed, with £97 million of private money, a type of Tate Modern for classical music. We'll see if it works. I hope it does and in ten years I'll bump this thread and prove you wrong.


----------



## Jaime77

I think I have created a monster


----------



## purple99

jaibyrne said:


> I think I have created a monster


No you haven't. You've taught StlukesguildOhio to use the quote facility.


----------



## Artemis

purple99 said:


> I went to Kings Place yesterday, the first public concert hall to have been built in central London for 25 years. They're clearly chasing the 'new audience' mentioned here [link removed]. They've constructed, with £97 million of private money, a type of Tate Modern for classical music. We'll see if it works. I hope it does and in ten years I'll bump this thread and prove you wrong.


Don't worry about the link that was removed. I got it. I thought it was highly amusing that the venue to which you refer is featuring works by Haydn this month. How very avante garde! I hope this experience helps the "new audience" to get themselves sorted out, musically speaking that is. With a bit of luck they'll be onto Mozart next, and in about 50 years time they might be up to Sibelius.


----------



## purple99

Artemis said:


> I thought it was highly amusing that the venue to which you refer is featuring works by Haydn this month. How very avante garde! I hope this experience helps the "new audience" to get themselves sorted out, musically speaking that is. With a bit of luck they'll be onto Mozart next, and in about 50 years time they might be up to Sibelius.


Give them a chance. The paint's hardly dry on the wall. They've spent £100m of private cash on the development so perhaps are starting off cautiously. If I was in their shoes I'd have wall-to-wall spotty Kennedy playing Vivaldi. 



Artemis said:


> Don't worry about the link that was removed. I got it.












* LOOK INTO MY EYES... FORGET THE LINK... *


----------



## Artemis

purple99 said:


> * LOOK INTO MY EYES... FORGET THE LINK... *


I can't. It's permanently fixed on my mind. To tell you the truth, I had already seen it. I don't miss much. That's the advantage of hopping around varous forums.


----------



## Artemis

purple99 said:


> Give them a chance. The paint's hardly dry on the wall. They've spent £100m of private cash on the development so perhaps are starting off cautiously. If I was in their shoes I'd have wall-to-wall spotty Kennedy playing Vivaldi.


Poor excuse.

Do your reckon your trendy friends will soon be queuing up to see this new film about Beethoven that's being promoted on another thread?

I assume they have heard of Beethoven, have they? Tell me they have, only one can't be too sure these days among the Lamborghini set.


----------



## purple99

Artemis said:


> Do your reckon your trendy friends will soon be queuing up to see this new film about Beethoven that's being promoted on another thread?


Probably not. They don't like the grey-haired, fuddie duddie, hurrumping retired colonel image which now afflicts classical music. And who can blame them? You only have to read 'The Rest is Noise' by Alex Ross to know that this sad state of affairs is a relatively recent event. I'm sure you've seen Ross's New Yorker article from last year?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Some Guy (SG)- Oh, nice way to leave off the costs associated with _producing_ the opera!!

Stlukesguild (SLG)- Are the costs associated with staging an opera generally absorbed by the composer? Again we have the examples of Schubert and numerous other composers who wrote operas and symphonies which were never staged during their life time. I understand your point. It is undoubtedly quite expensive to stage a symphony or an opera. For this reason the large opera houses and symphonies focus upon work they are reasonable sure will sell tickets. Thus if something more experimental is to be performed it needs the support of public dollars. Still I ask why should the public be expected to pony up such money for something they are not interested in or even dislike. There are no public dollars for exhibiting experimental paintings or sculpture. The artist can make whatever he or she desires... but this in no way assures him or her of getting any exposure. The same is true of literature. The poet can write the most esoteric poetry and read it in coffee shops and post it on the web... but the big publishers are in it for the money and are not about to invest money in a losing proposition. Of course I'm playing something of the devil's advocate here. I understand that tax dollars for the arts amount to less than the merest fraction of a percentage point of what is spent on military spending... but it is still a valid to question why the public should be expected to support something they don't particularly like... and I haven't even touched upon the nepotism involved in the system of grants, etc...

SG- I've never heard a real new music fan make this accusation. I've heard dozens of anti-moderns CLAIM that new music fans make this accusation. (And, if I recall, it was you who brought this accusation up on this thread, which, if I'm remembering correctly, means you irked yourself!!

SLG... And I quote:

_Some Guy- *For people whose ears are stuck in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries--which is most people*, I'd guess--the music is painful to listen to.

Wrong. *It's your ears dears*!! ...Really folks, the music is fine. Get over the idea that there's something wrong with it just because you don't get it somehow._

_Andre- *It's just plain old conservatism*, and this is what the concert programmers are feeding off. So, thanks to these people, the future does not bode well for young people today who actually want to become classical composers. They are fighting against the indifference & *ignorance of the music listening public*..._

_Andre- *The problem with people's attitude to new music is that they lack perception. They listen superficially* not only to music by the composers of today, but also by those of the past._

_Andre- I think that the really good composers have been confronting this dilemma (atonalism) since the end of the C19th, unlike the less effective ones who just comfortably stayed in the fully tonal language of the past. _

SG-You accuse Cage and Co. with "mental ************" and then you just keep repeating it. You've left off the most important part, arguing rationally. How did you arrive at the conclusion you keep repeating? What are the facts that led you to it?

SLG-Where is the artistic brilliance that raises something like Stockhausen's _Helicopter String Quartet_, Cage's _4'33_, or Ligeti's _Symphonic Poem for 100 Metronomes_ so far above the same sort of inane mental mind games such as Duchamp's urinal or Manzoni's can of ****?

You might notice that my initial posting here responded to the OP with a suggestion that the dilemna facing the contemporary composer is something that almost all artists across the spectrum and genre face and have been facing since at least early Modernism. I noted that Michelangelo and Dante were no less "elitist" than any artist today... yet I suggested that it is our belief in Egalitarianism and Democracy (at least in political terms) that leads many of us to ponder whether we can or should continue to turn out an art that is reserved for a small elite. I stated specifically... and I quote: *The answer, if there is one, must be on an individual basis.* I then proceeded to offer some examples of art that succeeded on both a popular and aesthetic level, including Shakespeare, the novel, etc... This debate really began with the comments to the effect that those of us who may not embrace Modernism (and again... there are any number of Modernists and later composers who I quite like myself) are "stuck in the 19th century", "ignorant", "lack perception", or "listen superficially". Again... I state that it is quite possible that someone may prefer Miles Davis or Thelonius Monk or Osvaldo Golijov to Stockhausen or Cage or Schoenberg... or even Brahms or Wagner for that matter... and yet actually be quite experienced, perceptive, and knowledgeable when it comes to music. I remember one of the books I read on music in which the writer admitted that Telemann was undoubtedly a major figure in the history of music... and yet he could not help but wonder about anyone who would actually prefer listening to Telemann over Copland. I can't say much myself. I've only begun to explore Telemann recently... and I quite liked the choral piece (_Heilig, Heilig, Heilig ist Gott_)

The whole of what I have been arguing comes down to a few major points:

1. We all have personal preferences and the preference for or against a given style, era, genre, etc... cannot be immediately taken as proof of artistic ignorance or conservatism. There are those who hate opera. I myself am enamored of medieval music... including Spanish Sephardic chant and other somewhat "esoteric" forms. There are those who love Rachmaninoff and cannot stomach Penderecki or Stockhausen and vis-versa... and both may be equally sensitive and knowledgeable about music.

2. There are strains of later Modernism that are quite esoteric and challenging to even the experienced listener. Many of these works remain unpopular if not outright hated by the larger public... again including many who are quite educated about music.

3. My final point is to reiterate the questions I have been asking all along: what is the viability of the survival of "classical" or shall we say "serious" music if it is unable to reach a larger public... if it is imagined as irrelevant by the larger public? Are we to blame only the "ignorant" audience for the unpopularity of many works of contemporary music? Why should the public be expected to support those forms of "serious" music that the find incomprehensible, irrelevant noise?


----------



## Guest

All this blah blah, it doesn't change the fact that most composers to day are rubbish, now where did I put my knitting


----------



## Mirror Image

Andante said:


> All this blah blah, it doesn't change the fact that most composers to day are rubbish, now where did I put my knitting


That's right. We all can argue until we're blue in the face. Composers today face the greatest challenge of all: actually making good music that will resonate with people. I don't think "Concerto for Noise and Chamber Orchestra" is going to resonate with anybody.


----------



## Sid James

I think if people have a dismissive attitude, & they are going to prejudge contemporary music before even hearing it, then their resulting reaction is not going to be very surprising. In fact, this negative attitude to contemporary classical by some people on this forum has become very predictable & boring indeed. At least there are a handful of contributors who do not share this negative attitude...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> I think if people have a dismissive attitude, & they are going to prejudge contemporary music before even hearing it, then their resulting reaction is not going to be very surprising. In fact, this negative attitude to contemporary classical by some people on this forum has become very predictable & boring indeed. At least there are a handful of contributors who do not share this negative attitude...


Well, I'm giving contemporary classical music a chance. You have to dig and dig at the weeds to find a flower, but when you find that flower, it's a very joyous thing indeed. I'm happy to be telling you that I will be listening to more Gorecki, Part, Adams, etc. very soon, but like I said, I had to dig pretty deep to find contemporary music that appealed to me. I might not be the most open listener on this forum, but I certainly know what I like when I hear it and my own tastes speak for themselves. I am going to give it more of a chance though.

The interesting thing I find about Gorecki and Part is they both share a good bit in common: they both came into their style almost by accident almost. Gorecki especially, because before the massive success of "Symphony No. 3 - Symphony Of Sorrowful Songs," he was very much an experimental composer still trying to find his compositional voice. I think he finally found it. Some composers never find it, some have it immediately, but for many they struggle to find. I can certainly relate to their struggles. In a way, I'm still very much trying to find my own musical style.


----------



## Sid James

Well I think that being flexible and actually digging, as you say, to find something you like in the contemporary repertoire pays off later. It actually opens up many avenues that one can explore freely, if one is willing to let go of some of their preconceptions of what music should be like. This is why I think people should give contemporary classical music a chance. Once one stops having a defensive attitude, one is able to at least listen to and get something out of the wealth of music on offer. I myself was not always as receptive of post WW2 music. It took me 6 years to come around & appreciate the music of Varese, initially I thought his music was just noise, but now he's become one of my favourite composers. Others like Messiaen, Berg, & Gorecki who you mention, made a deep impression on me immediately. So basically, I think it boils down to whether one can form an open attitude to music of all kinds...


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> Composers today face the greatest challenge of all: actually making good music that will resonate with people. I don't think "Concerto for Noise and Chamber Orchestra" is going to resonate with anybody.


Whenever I hear this argument, and it comes up pretty frequently, I think "Someone's been avoiding their math homework!"

Classical music generally comes in at around 2% of all money spent annually on music. (In 2001 it dropped to 1.8%.) That's a whopping 2% for all of classical music, the contemporary, the warhorses, the crossover stuff, everything. 2%. So Bach and Beethoven and Tchaikovsky have apparently failed the challenge to make good music that resonates with people. It resonates with a whopping less than 2% of "people."

Whenever someone starts talking about "the audience," one should also note that there are many audiences. An audience for opera, an audience for symphonic music, an audience for chamber, an audience for early music, an audience for recent music. Some people are in more than one audience. Not very many, though. Contemporary composers are not ignoring their "audience." I certainly don't feel ignored!! To make this kind of claim, you have first to deny my existence. And so what if the audience for contemporary classical is small? The audience for _all _classical is small. (See 2%, above.)

Actually, Mirror, there was a concert this past spring in Wroclaw that included a piece called "Two strings and noise." The two string players came out, played some soft music for awhile, there was a loud electronic pop, then the strings played softly for awhile. That was a real crowd-pleaser. (These new music crowds, by the way, generally cover an age range of about nine to ninety.) So your made up piece for noise and chamber orchestra that's not going to resonate with anybody, well, it's been done, and it resonated.


----------



## Mirror Image

some guy said:


> Whenever I hear this argument, and it comes up pretty frequently, I think "Someone's been avoiding their math homework!"
> 
> Classical music generally comes in at around 2% of all money spent annually on music. (In 2001 it dropped to 1.8%.) That's a whopping 2% for all of classical music, the contemporary, the warhorses, the crossover stuff, everything. 2%. So Bach and Beethoven and Tchaikovsky have apparently failed the challenge to make good music that resonates with people. It resonates with a whopping less than 2% of "people."
> 
> Whenever someone starts talking about "the audience," one should also note that there are many audiences. An audience for opera, an audience for symphonic music, an audience for chamber, an audience for early music, an audience for recent music. Some people are in more than one audience. Not very many, though. Contemporary composers are not ignoring their "audience." I certainly don't feel ignored!! To make this kind of claim, you have first to deny my existence. And so what if the audience for contemporary classical is small? The audience for _all _classical is small. (See 2%, above.)
> 
> Actually, Mirror, there was a concert this past spring in Wroclaw that included a piece called "Two strings and noise." The two string players came out, played some soft music for awhile, there was a loud electronic pop, then the strings played softly for awhile. That was a real crowd-pleaser. (These new music crowds, by the way, generally cover an age range of about nine to ninety.) So your made up piece for noise and chamber orchestra that's not going to resonate with anybody, well, it's been done, and it resonated.


You don't have to tell me, Some Guy, I know we're in the minority! The same could be said for jazz listeners as well, which I definitely am a hardcore jazz fan for many, many years now. The audience continues to shrink, but I'm thankful for people, like you, Andre, StLukes, Tapkaara, Andante, etc. who have looked past popular music to try and find something more meaningful.


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Well I think that being flexible and actually digging, as you say, to find something you like in the contemporary repertoire pays off later. It actually opens up many avenues that one can explore freely, if one is willing to let go of some of their preconceptions of what music should be like. This is why I think people should give contemporary classical music a chance. Once one stops having a defensive attitude, one is able to at least listen to and get something out of the wealth of music on offer. I myself was not always as receptive of post WW2 music. It took me 6 years to come around & appreciate the music of Varese, initially I thought his music was just noise, but now he's become one of my favourite composers. Others like Messiaen, Berg, & Gorecki who you mention, made a deep impression on me immediately. So basically, I think it boils down to whether one can form an open attitude to music of all kinds...


But I should say that I'm not going to compromise my music principles either. I don't have much tolerance for "musical nonsense." I respect who you listen to Andre and I'm glad you enjoy music as much I do, but, being an educated musician, I have certain standards that were taught to me that I try to uphold. I'm flexible, but I'm very observant in the way I listen to music and if there's nothing about a piece that I like, then I move onto to something else.

I had a teacher that was very much into contemporary music of all kinds, but mainly composers like Ligeti, Carter, Cage, among others. I remember him telling me I was one of the most stubborn students he ever had. I'm stubborn, because I stand by my principles of what I believe that constitutes music. Something can be experimental all it wants to, but it must have direction and purpose, but above all else, it must be musical and not chaotic. This is why I can't listen to Varese, Ligeti, etc. They don't make sense to me musically.


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> But I should say that I'm not going to compromise my music principles either. I don't have much tolerance for "musical nonsense."
> 
> ...
> 
> I can't listen to Varese, Ligeti, etc. They don't make sense to me musically.


Some day, maybe, you will realize that your "principles" are not the only ones possible. There may be other principles than your own, just as musically valid as your own. The musical principles I have, for instance.


----------



## Elgarian

some guy said:


> And so what if the audience for contemporary classical is small? The audience for _all _classical is small. (See 2%, above.)


Seems like a significant observation, this. Stepping outside commercial considerations and issues of 'fame' (which beyond a certain degree of smallness of audience, become relatively unimportant), the number of art lovers hardly matters. It's the _quality_ of response that counts. Sales of contemporary poetry books are terrifyingly small for all but the tiny handful of best-known poets, for example. 500 copies sold would be a successful book: imagine 500 people in a concert hall or opera house.

I suggest that the success of an artist (composer, poet, painter, or what-have-you) is determined not by how _many_ people he succeeds in communicating with, but the depth of communication achieved with those that he does. (I'm speaking here of success as an artist, not as a celebrity, nor as a gold-getter.)


----------



## Mirror Image

some guy said:


> Some day, maybe, you will realize that your "principles" are not the only ones possible. There may be other principles than your own, just as musically valid as your own. The musical principles I have, for instance.


I realize that there are other principles other than my own. You're not telling me anything I don't already know, but what is important to me musically will always remain intact. I'm open to new sounds, but as long as they are something that makes sense to me and that move me emotionally and intellectually. Other than that, I'm wasting my time on something that I don't enjoy.

What I enjoy isn't going to be what you enjoy and I'm sure there are some things we both enjoy listening to, but I certainly don't have to dumb down my high standards for someone else.


----------



## Artemis

Elgarian said:


> I suggest that the success of an artist (composer, poet, painter, or what-have-you) is determined not by how _many_ people he succeeds in communicating with, but the depth of communication achieved with those that he does. (I'm speaking here of success as an artist, not as a celebrity, nor as a gold-getter.)


Seems like a very good point. I would only qualify it by suggesting that both quantity and quality of contact are relevant in establishing the true impact of an artistic work. It may be that we classical music fans typically have a much deeper attachment to our music than is typical for most other genres, so that the miserable 2% figure referred to by _someguy_ is actually a significant under-estimate of the real value we attach to the kind of music we enjoy. I don't know for sure whether this is the case but if it then I believe that economist language for this phenomenon is that we enjoy an "economic rent" from out listening activites, since we still pay broadly the same price for our entertainment as do others but derive deeper pleasure from it.


----------



## Elgarian

Artemis said:


> Seems like a very good point. I would only qualify it by suggesting that both quantity and quality of contact are relevant in establishing the true impact of an artistic work.


I understand that temptation, but I'm still reluctant to admit 'quantity' as an appropriate measure. There are too many variables involved, swings of fashion, and so on. I suggest that as long as there's _one_ person engaging with the art in a meaningful way, then the artist is succeeding and his art is alive. The only qualification here is that this success can't be verified by an objective observer. The listener/looker/reader is the only one who actually knows what kind of communication is taking place, and whether it's meaningful.


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> I understand that temptation, but I'm still reluctant to admit 'quantity' as an appropriate measure. There are too many variables involved, swings of fashion, and so on. I suggest that as long as there's _one_ person engaging with the art in a meaningful way, then the artist is succeeding and his art is alive. The only qualification here is that this success can't be verified by an objective observer. The listener/looker/reader is the only one who actually knows what kind of communication is taking place, and whether it's meaningful.


Well said, Elgarian. I agree completely.


----------



## Artemis

Elgarian said:


> I understand that temptation, but I'm still reluctant to admit 'quantity' as an appropriate measure. There are too many variables involved, swings of fashion, and so on. I suggest that as long as there's _one_ person engaging with the art in a meaningful way, then the artist is succeeding and his art is alive.


Fair enough. I guess I'm picking up a rather different point, based on your helpful comment about quality of contact with the recipient, that the 2% market share accounted for by classical music does not take account of the possibility that classical listeners may, on average, derive greater enjoyment (per $ spent) from their music than is typical of other genres (some at least). Thus, if it were possible to measure the total enjoyment ("utility") derived from listening to music, then classical might account for more than 2%. As I said, this comment is entirely speculative, and is intended only to try to make us feel slightly less of a minority group than might otherwise appear to be the case.


----------



## Scott Good

Artemis said:


> Fair enough. I guess I'm picking up a rather different point, based on your helpful comment about quality of contact with the recipient, that the 2% market share accounted for by classical music does not take account of the possibility that classical listeners may, on average, derive greater enjoyment (per $ spent) from their music than is typical of other genres (some at least). Thus, if it were possible to measure the total enjoyment ("utility") derived from listening to music, then classical might account for more than 2%. As I said, this comment is entirely speculative, and is intended only to try to make us feel slightly less of a minority group than might otherwise appear to be the case.


In terms of dollars, this figure only represents recording sales (if I am not mistaken).

I am wondering about music libraries, or just regular public libraries that have classical recordings accessible to any one for free. They will have all the Beethovens and Mozarts.

I am wondering about live music ticket sales. Perhaps many classical fans prefer live to recording (I sure do). I am also wondering about music lessons, and music schools with classical musicians - a form of financial support to the industry. I went to a school that raised millions each year to support their classical music program. I also am wondering about private financial support to ensembles. I remember reading about a $200 million fundraiser to support the Chicago S O back in the late 90's. They got it.

What about the hundreds of millions Torontonians got together to build a new opera hall?

How does all of this figure in?


----------



## nickgray

Artemis said:


> Thus, if it were possible to measure the total enjoyment ("utility") derived from listening to music, then classical might account for more than 2%.


I disagree. If you don't count the "No.40, Fur Elise, Ode to Joy, etc." listeners it's probably even less than one percent. That being said, a real music lover is already a minority, because most people don't really bother themselves with music. A real classical music lover is akin to Bengal Tiger or something similar. Hopefully we won't become Amur Leopards, or even Dodos.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Some Guy- Classical music generally comes in at around 2% of all money spent annually on music. (In 2001 it dropped to 1.8%.) That's a whopping 2% for all of classical music, the contemporary, the warhorses, the crossover stuff, everything. 2%. So Bach and Beethoven and Tchaikovsky have apparently failed the challenge to make good music that resonates with people. It resonates with a whopping less than 2% of "people."

Whenever someone starts talking about "the audience," one should also note that there are many audiences. An audience for opera, an audience for symphonic music, an audience for chamber, an audience for early music, an audience for recent music. Some people are in more than one audience. Not very many, though.

SLG- OK... if we are to be honest we must admit that those who take any art seriously are but a small minority across the board. The vast majority of people are not interested enough to invest the time or effort into learning about an art that can be admittedly challenging at times... that is not, perhaps, a source of immediate gratification. The Harry Potter and Dan Brown novels sell far more than the best of contemporary fiction or poetry. The summer blockbusters commonly outsell the quiet art film by huge margins. Thomas Kinkade paintings are sold in numbers that humiliate the best in contemporary painting... and yes, Britney Spears far outsells not only Philip Glass and Arvo Part but Beethoven and Bach as well. As small as the audience for Beethoven or Mozart may be, it is still sizable and often consists of the most educated (and often the most affluent) segments of society. This "elite"... an "elite" by elective affinity... by choice (not birth or social rank) is what keeps most serious art alive. It has never been the masses which supported Dante, Flaubert, or Joyce. It wasn't the masses that supported Michelangelo, Degas, or Jackson Pollack... and it wasn't the masses that supported Mozart or Wagner and who continue to support them... and Arvo Part or Philip Glass as well. What is obvious, however, is that the percentage of this elite audience who actively support contemporary music is an even smaller fragment of the already tiny percentage... and it would seem there is a point at which the support for an art form becomes so negligible that it becomes irrelevant and unsustainable. At what point does an art form reach this point? Do we assume that if only one or two academics are in support of Inuit blues played on the jew's harp that we should continue to finance it? As artists do we continue to bury our heads in the sand and pretend we do not recognize the potential problems inherent in an ever-declining audience or simply take the ivory tower position and assume that we are somehow deserving of public support... while completely ignoring or rejecting any expectations or desires of the audience?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I suggest that the success of an artist (composer, poet, painter, or what-have-you) is determined not by how many people he succeeds in communicating with, but the depth of communication achieved with those that he does.

Especially if the depth we are talking about is the depth of their pockets.


----------



## Sid James

It's probably obvious, but as far as contemporary classical music is concerned, there seem to be three types of people: the ones who accept it as art, the ones who dismiss it as rubbish, and finally the undecided ones, who are in between. I suppose any artist doesn't want to only preach to the converted, so to speak. They want to reach out to the undecided masses. I don't think this happens too regularly, the only time I can think of this happening with a contemporary classical piece is when Gorecki's _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs_ became popular in the '90's. Another similar phenomenon, although different, was when the 3 tenors Rome concert recording broke the charts in 1990. Even they did not expect this to happen, they had signed away their royalties to get a one-off payment for the concert only. I bet they were kicking themselves afterwards...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Throwing a curve-ball into the discussion I just thought I'd call attention to a great quote by John Ciardi... long considered as THE translator of Dante's _Divine Comedy_:

_Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea._

A bit flippant... undoubtedly... but there is an element of truth to it... especially for visual artists. I remember that part of the seduction of art was the notion of spending the day painting any number of attractive nude female models in some garret... in Paris, no doubt... and getting paid for it. Then I went to art school and everyone was dribbling and spattering paint or painting hard-edged geometric shapes in designer colors... and I must admit... I felt incredible cheated!


----------



## Scott Good

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Throwing a curve-ball into the discussion I just thought I'd call attention to a great quote by John Ciardi... long considered as THE translator of Dante's _Divine Comedy_:
> 
> _Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea._
> 
> A bit flippant... undoubtedly... but there is an element of truth to it... especially for visual artists. I remember that part of the seduction of art was the notion of spending the day painting any number of attractive nude female models in some garret... in Paris, no doubt... and getting paid for it. Then I went to art school and everyone was dribbling and spattering paint or painting hard-edged geometric shapes in designer colors... and I must admit... I felt incredible cheated!


Funny!  I recently composed an ode to Rodin (whom I just absolutely love - changed my life when I saw an exhibit about 10 years ago). At any rate, I did a fair amount of research, and starting thinking about all of those women who would be posing for him. Obviously from works like The Kiss, Eve, Kneeling Faun, Danaid, The Eternal Idol etc etc, he was having a good time.

I wonder...did de kooning have models? For some reason, when i see his representation of women, I suspect he didn't like his mother too much.

But Picasso...ummmm...The Dream...is anything more seductive and sexual? both subtle and overt simultaneously- what a genius.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Yes Rodin... I don't look at him enough. After all... who was it said that sculpture was something we back into while trying to get a better look at a painting? But yes... a fantasy, indeed... as well as Klimt and Modigliani. Modigliani died far too young... and his tuberculosis so weakened him that he was forced to give up sculpture... where he was an unsung genius. I've always found his few paintings of the nude... even his portraits... to be the most sensuous of Modern paintings. And Bonnard! How can I forget Bonnard!? I actually went through my own period of some five+ years of abstract minimalism before returning to figurative painting... largely nudes....


----------



## Guest

Elgarian said:


> I suggest that as long as there's _one_ person engaging with the art in a meaningful way, then the artist is succeeding and his art is alive. The only qualification here is that this success can't be verified by an objective observer. The listener/looker/reader is the only one who actually knows what kind of communication is taking place, and whether it's meaningful.


Would this qualify as genuine art in you view?

Rubish art?


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> Would this qualify as genuine art in you view?
> Rubish art?


I don't know, Andante. I wasn't really proposing a way of judging art; I was just talking about the insignificance of the _numbers_ of people involved, giving as an example the fact that very few people are interested enough in contemporary poetry to want to buy it.

As far as this particular work is concerned (which I haven't seen), I think the only way of finding out about it is by giving it the benefit of the doubt in the first instance (and maybe a second and a third instance too) and see what kind of experience it offers. (It doesn't sound like the kind of experience I'd be interested in myself, so I probably wouldn't be willing to make the necessary effort to find out.)


----------



## danae

Andante said:


> Would this qualify as genuine art in you view?
> 
> Rubish art?


This is a really interesting subject, one that has been largely on my mind for many years now. I can't quite explain myself fully, 'cause that would require a more than a simple post, but I'll try to summarize.

In my view, anything can qualify as "art", if at a given moment one perceives it as such. Meaning that I don't believe in the technique anymore, but in the idea. There are works of art which are so simple to construct, there is no special or difficult technique in them, but still, they are important.

Take Marcel Duchamp for instance: he displayed a toilet seat in an exhibition. How can you judge its technique? It doesn't have any: you're simply looking at the idea itself. It's pure content. I like it very much, but I think that whoever would pay 15.000 dollars for it would simply be an idiot.

I hope you get my meaning.


----------



## Artemis

I think that the main point Andante is making is that this "rubish art" (sic) - where he presumably meant "rubbish art" - had no direct artistic involement by its creator, who merely wrote to the art gallery staff instructing them to collect the discarded wrapping of other entries and tip it on the floor. 

This pile of rubbish won a prize of NZ $15,000 NZ, but it could have taken any shape or form resulting from the manner in which the constituent parts were collected, shuffled, and dumped. 

Ignore for the moment whether or not the end result happened to be better "art" than that of the other competitors in the opinion of the judges. The real question is whether or not the winning "art" can be called art in the first place if it has no clear artist but was the result of random processes in which the artist played no creative part except one of an extremely tenuous nature. 

It would rather like a "poet" instructing the organisers of a poetry competition to take the first two words of the next 100 threads on T-C, jumble them up, and stick them down on paper and call that his entry. I reckon there would a lot of "well" s in there (which might be difficult to handle) but no matter, it illustrates my point that it's hardly worth calling poetry.


----------



## Jaime77

Is it relevant whether it can be called art in the first place? What is art? 

Can it not just be an idea realized creatively? 

Competitions regarding art are silly in how they tend towards being so subjective as regards the judges opinion. A masterpiece in someone elses' eyes could come last in such a competition. So these competitions are meaningless? Maybe it is politics as to who gets to win. 

Price tags on new art are only a commodity for the market like stocks and can bare no relation whatsoever to objective 'artistic value'. I don't think they are meant to. 

We live in an age of doubt as regards religion, traditional beliefs and so forth so why not doubt in art too. Maybe doubting art is just another expression of the times.


----------



## purple99

jaibyrne said:


> We live in an age of doubt as regards religion, traditional beliefs and so forth so why not doubt in art too. Maybe doubting art is just another expression of the times.


Exactly. The three great value areas - religion, morality, aesthetics (Is there a God? What is right? What is beautiful?) - had the ground whipped out from under them by atheism and democracy. In the past it was easy. God, mediated by alleged holy texts and a priesthood, told people what was Godly, right and beautiful. Kings and aristocrats reinforced the message.

It's precisely because those two disciplines have largely vanished, subverted by the Enlightenment, that some people get so upset and angry about modern art. They _long_ to be told what to think by a priest or a king.

It's so _hard _having to make up your own mind.  Falling back on a subjective hedonism - 'It's art because it gives me pleasure' - doesn't really cut the mustard.


----------



## Jaime77

'_If it is not a beautiful it is not art._' That is another one that I find really curious.

I thought art was allowed to honestly reflect the world??

_All we like sheep have gone astray_  gone astray into unsound sounds


----------



## danae

Artemis said:


> I think that the main point Andante is making is that this "rubish art" (sic) - where he presumably meant "rubbish art" - had no direct artistic involement by its creator, who merely wrote to the art gallery staff instructing them to collect the discarded wrapping of other entries and tip it on the floor.
> 
> This pile of rubbish won a prize of NZ $15,000 NZ, but it could have taken any shape or form resulting from the manner in which the constituent parts were collected, shuffled, and dumped.
> 
> Ignore for the moment whether or not the end result happened to be better "art" than that of the other competitors in the opinion of the judges. The real question is whether or not the winning "art" can be called art in the first place if it has no clear artist but was the result of random processes in which the artist played no creative part except one of an extremely tenuous nature.
> 
> It would rather like a "poet" instructing the organisers of a poetry competition to take the first two words of the next 100 threads on T-C, jumble them up, and stick them down on paper and call that his entry. I reckon there would a lot of "well" s in there (which might be difficult to handle) but no matter, it illustrates my point that it's hardly worth calling poetry.


As I said before, it's the idea that matters more now. And the idea of collecting pieces of rubbish from wherever _*is*_ the artist's involvement. Whether or not it's good or bad, or interesting or completely stupid is another matter. What I'm simply saying is that you can't dismiss it before you see it or feel it or interact with it in some way. The example I mentioned before, Duchamp's urinator, could easily be done without his "direct involvement". It's just a toilet seat for god's sake! But it's ... it's ... I don't know what it is that makes it impressive but it's something rather than complete rubbish.

I really don't care about defining art. I've given up on that one years ago.


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> I certainly don't have to dumb down my high standards for someone else.


One, no one's asking you to. Two, it wouldn't be "dumbing down" for you to appreciate contemporary music. Three, a corollary to "two," other people's high standards are not lower than your high standards.


----------



## Elgarian

Just a general comment, really. It's always possible - indeed, _has_ always been possible, for the history of art is littered with examples - to stand 'outside' a work of art and dismiss it as nonsense, rubbish, or what-have-you. Literally _anything_ can be made to seem ridiculous in such a way, and indeed almost everything _has_ been. Rembrandt was trashed by Ruskin (usually one of the most sensitive of critics), Cezanne was trashed by almost everybody for many years. People still trash poetry if they don't 'understand' it straight away; people still trash even the greatest abstract paintings on the grounds that they think 'anyone can do that'.

Music is no different. As long as we remain 'outside' it, we can't know whether it's any good, ourselves; all we can do is listen to what others say (if we're really interested), or just pass by. I know lots of people whose opinions I greatly respect, who spend a great deal of time listening to music that sounds like cacophony to me. If they're spending large chunks of their time listening to it, it seems likely that they're getting _something_ of value from the experience, however much I fail to see what it is. And those composers and musicians who are making this experience possible are _succeeding_, not failing. That's the point. What _I _might think about it isn't important. I'm not 'in the know'.


----------



## Jaime77

Another great example of art that was rubbished is Beethoven's late quartets which many thought were not only unplayable but a sign of madness, now where would music history be without these treasures?


----------



## purple99

jaibyrne said:


> Another great example of art that was rubbished is Beethoven's late quartets which many thought were not only unplayable but a sign of madness, now where would music history be without these treasures?


Funny you should say that. On today's date in 1825 in The Wild Man tavern ("Zum Wilden Mann") in Vienna at twelve noon, the Schuppanzigh Quartet premiered Beethoven's String Quartet in A minor, Op. 132, before a private audience of fourteen. Beethoven directed the performers and at one point seized a violin to show how a staccato passage should be played. Unfortunately he was stone deaf and played it a quarter tone flat.


----------



## danae

Elgarian said:


> Just a general comment, really. It's always possible - indeed, _has_ always been possible, for the history of art is littered with examples - to stand 'outside' a work of art and dismiss it as nonsense, rubbish, or what-have-you. Literally _anything_ can be made to seem ridiculous in such a way, and indeed almost everything _has_ been. Rembrandt was trashed by Ruskin (usually one of the most sensitive of critics), Cezanne was trashed by almost everybody for many years. People still trash poetry if they don't 'understand' it straight away; people still trash even the greatest abstract paintings on the grounds that they think 'anyone can do that'.
> 
> Music is no different. As long as we remain 'outside' it, we can't know whether it's any good, ourselves; all we can do is listen to what others say (if we're really interested), or just pass by. I know lots of people whose opinions I greatly respect, who spend a great deal of time listening to music that sounds like cacophony to me. If they're spending large chunks of their time listening to it, it seems likely that they're getting _something_ of value from the experience, however much I fail to see what it is. And those composers and musicians who are making this experience possible are _succeeding_, not failing. That's the point. What _I _might think about it isn't important. I'm not 'in the know'.


Well said. I've never agreed with you more.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

In my view, anything can qualify as "art", if at a given moment one perceives it as such. Meaning that *I don't believe in the technique anymore, but in the idea*.

This was a concept put forth by a great many artistic theorists during the last century and seized upon by artists. The idea is quite popular because coming up with an idea is easy. We all have ideas. Ideas are not art. The art involves giving the idea a concrete form. What many ignore is that what is denigrated as mere technique or craft involves as much or far more "thinking" than the first initial impetus.

Take Marcel Duchamp for instance: he displayed a toilet seat in an exhibition. How can you judge its technique? It doesn't have any: you're simply looking at the idea itself. It's pure content.

The problem with using Duchamp's urinal (or _Fountain_, as the work is properly titled) is that most people... even a vast majority of art historians and critics have misguided notions of how this work came about. Duchamp was fairly well-known as a result of the exhibition of his painting, _Nude Descending a Staircase_ at the Armory Show in New York. He was asked a couple years later to act as a part of the committee overseeing an independent exhibition in New York. It was announced that this exhibition would accept all artistic entrees... there would be no censorship... nothing would be rejected.

Duchamp was knowledgeable of the French tradition of the "studio joke". One example dating back to the 19th century was that of a blank canvas entered into the yearly salon. To be hung along side of this canvas was a placard in which the artist noted that he did not wish to impose his vision and so limit the audience participation. He thus invited them to imagine their own ideal imagery. Building upon this tradition of studio jokes, Duchamp decided to test just whether "nothing would be rejected" from the show at hand. He entered a common porcelain urinal which he had signed with the made up name, R. Mutt. When the piece was summarily rejected, Duchamp protested. The curators all argued that the work was NOT ART. Duchamp asked whether or not something becomes art if an artist makes it and calls it art. He then resigned in mock disgust and then proceeded to write several articles about the event and letters to the editors... again, all under pseudonyms.

Duchamp's intention was to once again ask the eternal question "What is Art?" At the same time... he himself was never of the mind that "everything is art or can be art" and he recognized that any exhibition which declared itself to be without standards... where everything would be admitted... was open to criticism... and open to some smart-*** who would test just how open things really are. Comically, Duchamp's urinal was never intended as a work of art... it was merely a prop for the performance (his pretended outrage, resignation, and letters of protest). It was these, if anything, that were the ART... although they are better described as part of a brilliant artistic hoax and a marvelous bit of artistic criticism. Many other works were unquestionably Art in spite of challenging traditional Art media (_The Large Glass_ or _The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even_). To think of the urinal as an art object misinterprets the intention almost to the point as if one mistook a costume show used in the performance of _Hamlet _ as the art work... and not the play.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

_*If it is not a beautiful it is not art.*' That is another one that I find really curious._

I personally agree with the sentiment. Certainly art may confront and portray ugliness and horror or even just the mundane... but if it is not transformed into something of aesthetic merit... something which exudes a certain "beauty" (although that may not be of the sort of common beauty we associate with terms like "pretty" and "cute")... to me it fails as art. Cormac McCarthy's novel, _Blood Meridian_ is one of the most violent and harrowing novels of the 20th century. Spielberg's film, _Schindler's List_ can only be described in the same terms... as might Penderecki's _Threnody..._ but they all are also magnificently "beautiful" in their way. All use art to transform real life experience.


----------



## danae

All this is very nice, but it doesn't change my point. As I said in a post you probably read, I don't care about defining art. I think it's beyond definition. I also said that there are people who would pay thousands of dollars to have Duchamp's toilet seat (for instance) in their art collection. I'm not one of them. 

And yes, many people have ideas, but not so many know how to present them effectively. 

Example: I'm into photography, ok? So, recently I went for a field trip to the pine forests that burned down this August near Athens. I found a pile of garbage, grey from the fire, ashes all around... It was rubbish that had burned and melted in the fire. On top of these were some fresh rubbish, untouched by the fire, which of course meant they had been left there after the fire. So I took that picture: the melted and burned rubbish, and on top of them the fresh ones. I didn't have to do anything. I just took the picture. And that's an idea. I don't know if it's art or journalism or a souvenir, but it states, it shows something which most people in Athens can relate to.


----------



## Guest

Elgarian said:


> I don't know, Andante. I wasn't really proposing a way of judging art; I was just talking about the insignificance of the _numbers_ of people involved, giving as an example the fact that very few people are interested enough in contemporary poetry to want to buy it.
> 
> As far as this particular work is concerned (which I haven't seen), I think the only way of finding out about it is by giving it the benefit of the doubt in the first instance (and maybe a second and a third instance too) and see what kind of experience it offers. (It doesn't sound like the kind of experience I'd be interested in myself, so I probably wouldn't be willing to make the necessary effort to find out.)


I did not intend for you to judge it, I just wondered, as I respect your knowledge of art, if you considered it so? 
As one who is a mere layman in the world of Paintings and Sculpture I draw the conclusion that if this "unseen by the Artist" random collection of bits and pieces is considered art [the Artist was paid NZ$15000 so obviously the Curator thought so] then any thing at all can be called art and therefore if extended to the world of music then any bunch of random notes in random order and value and intervals etc can be called music! Indeed some Avant Garde music sounds like this to these old ears. 
I suppose those intellectuals in the Art world will argue in its favour.


----------



## Sid James

I remember in a high school art class, the teacher posed the question "What is art?" We basically came to the conclusion that anything can be art, if it is considered to be that by the artist.

But as with the pile of rubbish piece, I think that it is hard to distinguish whether some art nowadays is really art, or just an idea. I mean, it might be a fine line, but there is a difference between the two, right?


----------



## Scott Good

Andre said:


> But as with the pile of rubbish piece, I think that it is hard to distinguish whether some art nowadays is really art, or just an idea. I mean, it might be a fine line, but there is a difference between the two, right?


Well, I would say that an idea isn't enough, but that the idea needs action - an effort. A "frame" = intention to display as art.

But after that, it's wide open IMHO. But, doesn't mean it is quality, just that it is art.


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> I did not intend for you to judge it, I just wondered, as I respect your knowledge of art, if you considered it so?


That's a very kind comment and thanks, and I wish I could say something that might be more helpful - but honestly Andante, all I can say is 'I don't know'. Sometimes not knowing makes me want to delve further but, like you, I don't really have any interest in this particular item. I doubt that it would reward my time very well, if you like. So all I can do is shrug my shoulders and move on.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Jaime, there's no answer. But here's my view.

Think about it as communication. If A is attempting to communicate to B, whose ability to understand messages is less than is needed to understand all possible messages, then A has either to communicate something clever in a simple way (extremely difficult) or something crass in a simple way. Think Karl Jenkins. Now B does not realise his/her capacity to understand messages is restricted so he/she thinks that messages which are more complicated than crass are meaningless. It's like someone who's managed basic school algebra being confronted with quantum physics. They'll notice there are letters used as variables, equations and so on, but they won't have enough experience to decode it.

If A is happy to dumbdown his own communication skills to match the receptivity of B, that's fine. If he/she is unhappy about this, he/she can rest assured that not all potential listeners have B's skill level and there will be others - call them C - who will get a more sophisticated message.

But that doesn't license A to indulge in complexity just to show off. There is still a message to be communicated to C. The content of the message may be deep and complex, and the grammar and syntax might be hard, but it still behoves A, if he/she is going to write with integrity and authenticity, to communicate as clearly as they can.

_"I always had a music in my head, it never corresponded to the music that I played". He doesn't though concern himself with an audience: "I wouldn't know how to do that, I don't know who it is. I speak directly to myself".'_

This is Colin Anderson quoting Sir Harrison Birtwistle. Apart from the fact that I don't believe Sir HB - whose work I admire - I would say that attitude of "I speak directly to myself" (if it _were _true) isn't good enough.

[There's more on this here]


----------



## Guest

The communication model applied to music is highly questionable. As are all references to grammar and syntax and meaning. Even in its most simplified version, sender--message--receiver, there are insuperable difficulties.

Music doesn't really work like language, so all these metaphorical terms aren't going to get us very far in understanding what composers do and what listeners do.

With language, you do have grammar and syntax and meaning. And for the humans who use it, a grammatical sense seems to be built in, as is the assigning of meanings to various sounds, a relationship that seems to be almost entirely arbitrary and yet is perfectly comprehensible.

With music, on the other hand, you have vibrations and patterns, both vertical and horizontal. There is no meaning, in a linguistic sense, though one can easily assign meanings or verbal descriptions to the sounds. Look at any discussion of music anywhere, and you will see this happening. Question is, are those verbal descriptions, are those assignments, any more than translations that attempt to capture non-verbal responses to non-verbal realities in words? We certainly feel that there are "meanings," even if we can't express them, even if we recognize that verbal descriptions (mournful) are no match for the notes (e, f#, g, e).

But whereas "mournful" is always going to mean pretty much the same thing to all English speakers, no matter what syntactic construction it appears in (though it may have ironic implications in some of those), the sequence e, f#, g, e is not going to "mean" the same thing in every musical "phrase" it appears in.

What does all that mean for composer A and listeners B and C? First of all, it means that composer A cannot assume that B and C have anything in common. _Writer_ A, on the other hand, can assume that whatever else is true about readers B and C, they both know what "mournful" means. The more original (in its most strictly descriptive meaning) composer A is, the less can A assume that B or C (or G or R) will "get" everything that A is doing, right at first. The only thing B, C, G, and R can do is listen--to other music by A, to other music by other composers, to the new piece that so far only composer A has heard. Listening to that over and over again will reveal whatever there is in that piece to "understand."

So you see right away that receptivity, that willingness to encounter, experience, embrace the new, the unfamiliar, is perhaps basic to listening to music. And no composer can predict how much receptivity will be in any group of people (an audience) or even in one person ("the last Birtwistle piece I heard I really liked, but this one baffles me" is always a possibility).

For this reason, Birtwistle's "I speak directly to myself" is indeed "good enough." In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's essential, and probably even the only thing any self-respecting composer _could_ do. Harrison only really knows Harrison. If he writes something Harrison likes, then odds are that there will be other people who will also like it. If he tries to guess what other people will like and then composes to that, who knows what will happen? Perhaps there will be even more people that like that piece. But perhaps not. And what about Harrison's artistic integrity, if that means anything? At least the first way, he's true to himself, to his own artistic vision.

I don't recall if it was Jon Nelson or Barry Truax who told me the only way he can be assured that he'll please anyone is if he first pleases himself. I think it was Nelson. Whatever, I think it's true.


----------



## starry

Generally a composer of any type of music does write for an audience though. Of course the first audience they write for is themselves, that's unavoidable. Some composers are more critical of their work than others, some throw a lot of their music away. But beyond that composers are often interested in the reception their music gets. In the past this was about concert performance, now it's probably more about who buys the cd and in the future possibly about who downloads it off the internet. Looking at the audience in general though it isn't B and C, it's more like B to Z as there are many different audiences out there for music and quite a few different styles for any creator of music to use. Generally audiences attach the perceived style of a piece of music to be a factor in whether they are interested in it or not. This is quite superficial in a way but it seems to be how people think, most people prefer to have a relatively narrow taste. From the composers viewpoint a work of art does indeed exist in its own right but they are always concerned (to varying degrees of course) with how the music sells. A work relates not just to themselves but also to a developing tradition of music and this links them to the audience with that perspective. It is hard to be completely original, completely a hermit..creation comes from influences from the past (within the international tradition) as well as the individual.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

some guy said:


> But whereas "mournful" is always going to mean pretty much the same thing to all English speakers, no matter what syntactic construction it appears in (though it may have ironic implications in some of those), the sequence e, f#, g, e is not going to "mean" the same thing in every musical "phrase" it appears in.


Where did I say it did? It is careless to set up your own straw men, claim that they are mine, which they are not, just so you can knock them down.

I happen to agree with you - your point is not my point. Nevertheless, Deryck Cooke, in his _The language of music _makes a compelling contrary case


----------



## Guest

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Where did I say it did? It is careless to set up your own straw men, claim that they are mine, which they are not, just so you can knock them down.
> 
> I happen to agree with you - your point is not my point. Nevertheless, Deryck Cooke, in his _The language of music _makes a compelling contrary case


Jeremy, I think you'll find that I never made any such claim. I was taking on an idea, that of communication, much larger than anything in your focussed post. And I was doing a lot more than knocking things down. (Questioning an idea is not the same thing as "knocking things down.") So "straw man" doesn't really apply to anything I did.

Were I to make a focussed response to your post, I would say that this "There is still a message to be communicated to C" is just wrong. There is no message to be communicated. Composer A does not know C any more than she knows B--and there is no commonly understood "grammar" of music that composer A can rely on like writer A can rely on the grammar of language.

I was more using your post as a jumping off point to make a post of my own. And a dandy little post it is, to be sure; I'm glad you agree!! (As a side note, I've not been terribly impressed with Deryck Cooke's argument. I think he loads the dice from the get-go, so of course every roll for every example comes up in his favor. But a detailed examination of that is far beyond what an internet thread can bear, I'm sure, plus I simply do not have the time to do such a thing. I take too much time away from my real job--writing about new music--to write about new music on internet forums as it is!!)


----------

