# The Chamber Music Journal view on 'atonal music'



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

First of all, I have to say (as I've said) that atonal music, that is music with an absence of key, need not be unbeautiful even conventionally so. The music I've dared to write would hardly be said to be conventionally tonal, and is liberal with dissonance, but still I aimed (when writing or attempting to write) at beauty. Bartok can be both harshly dissonant yet beautiful, ditto even Prokofiev and Schnittke. Some of this opinion may seem amateurish and I don't wish to provoke for the sake of provoking but there is _some_ truth in this opinion in that the general view of experimental music seems pretty rock solid. Any responses?



> As with my other guides, this Guide will not deal with atonal and
> experimental music. The listening public has now been exposed
> to it for more than a century and for those who wish to know the
> truth, the verdict is in. Despite many fervent supporters and committed
> ...


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

most of the atonal music is neither beautiful nor memorable, nor is it able to convey much emotions or narrative. Look at Bulldog's game for music from the 1950's. Almost all the selections are tonal memorable music, and Boulez and the likes will fade into obscurity. What sheer arrogance on the part of Boulez to deride the music of Shostakovich. Shostakovich's music will live centuries from now and he will be remembered as the 20th century greatest composers, and no one will remember any Boulez or Carter and the likes


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Jacck said:


> most of the atonal music is neither beautiful nor memorable, nor is it able to convey much emotions or narrative. Look at Bulldog's game for music from the 1950's. Almost all the selections are tonal memorable music, and Boulez and the likes will fade into obscurity. What sheer arrogance on the part of Boulez to deride the music of Shostakovich. Shostakovich's music will live centuries from now and he will be remembered as the 20th century greatest composers, and no one will remember any Boulez or Carter and the likes


I know what you mean. I find Boulez more interesting than Carter. Boulez does have an ear for interesting sonorities. Boulez's arrogance reflects the mood of his time, in which serialism was triumphant (at least in academe) and neo-romantic composers were virtual outcasts from performing schedules etc. Expect some blowback from fans of modern music of the 'barbed wire school'. Atonal music is not one entity, it is a multifarious thing. But I won't give a lot of time to sounds which seem to be an assault on ears (and sometimes even, eyes)


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Eusebius12 said:


> I know what you mean. I find Boulez more interesting than Carter. Boulez does have an ear for interesting sonorities. Boulez's arrogance reflects the mood of his time, in which serialism was triumphant (at least in academe) and neo-romantic composers were virtual outcasts from performing schedules etc. Expect some blowback from fans of modern music of the 'barbed wire school'. Atonal music is not one entity, it is a multifarious thing. But I won't give a lot of time to sounds which seem to be an assault on ears (and sometimes even, eyes)


I like some atonal music and avant-garde music - Lutoslawski, Henze, Isang Yun, Toru Takemitsu, Schoenberg, Berg etc, but most of it is simply not memorable. But some of it (the best compositions in the genre) can be memorable. Like with any genre, there is good and there is bad. But I find this genre severely limited in its ability to express emotions (which is the prime goal of music). How can an atonal composition express joy or calm etc?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

and I agree with you, that the most interesting music combines tonal and atonal, beautiful with ugly etc to create tension. That is why I like most the music from the breaking of the epochs (romantic/modern), because the compositions of this time still have the beauty of the romantic melodies, but have also elements of atonality/chaos to make it interesting - examples are Prokofiev, Bartok, Shotakovich etc. Pure romantic music can be a little bland, and pure atonal music as well. The most interesting is the combination of the two.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Eusebius12 said:


> First of all, I have to say (as I've said) that atonal music, that is music with an absence of key, need not be unbeautiful even conventionally so. The music I've dared to write would hardly be said to be conventionally tonal, and is liberal with dissonance, but still I aimed (when writing or attempting to write) at beauty. Bartok can be both harshly dissonant yet beautiful, ditto even Prokofiev and Schnittke. Some of this opinion may seem amateurish and I don't wish to provoke for the sake of provoking but there is _some_ truth in this opinion in that the general view of experimental music seems pretty rock solid. Any responses?


Could you give the exact source for the quotation in #1?

*EDIT: *
OK, I found it, it is from 2013, btw.

http://chambermusicjournal.org/pdf/Vol24-no2.pdf


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Jacck said:


> and I agree with you, that the most interesting music combines tonal and atonal, beautiful with ugly etc to create tension. That is why I like most the music from the breaking of the epochs (romantic/modern), because the compositions of this time still have the beauty of the romantic melodies, but have also elements of atonality/chaos to make it interesting - examples are Prokofiev, Bartok, Shotakovich etc. Pure romantic music can be a little bland, and pure atonal music as well. The most interesting is the combination of the two.


This observation immediately reminded me of the ecological concept of the ecotone, the rich meeting ground between two ecological environments. Humans have an interest in ecotones, due to the biological diversity found there. Here is Wikipedia:

"An ecotone is a transition area between two biomes. It is where two communities meet and integrate. It may be narrow or wide, and it may be local (the zone between a field and forest) or regional (the transition between forest and grassland ecosystems). An ecotone may appear on the ground as a gradual blending of the two communities across a broad area, or it may manifest itself as a sharp boundary line.

The word ecotone was coined from a combination of eco(logy) plus -tone, from the Greek tonos or tension - in other words, a place where ecologies are in tension."


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The quote in the OP just makes me want to avoid the guide that is being introduced! It is OK to say "I won't cover that because I don't know/like it". But I personally find the attempt to justify the position with dodgy and superficial argument suggests that the guide in question will suffer from having too many poorly thought through assertions. I suppose you expect personal opinions in a critical guide but you also expect some rigour, a sense that the writer knows enough to recognise the import of what he (I am sure it is a man somehow) is saying and a sense that the opinions are more than mere prejudice.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Jacck said:


> Look at Bulldog's game for music from the 1950's. Almost all the selections are tonal memorable music, and Boulez and the likes will fade into obscurity. What sheer arrogance on the part of Boulez to deride the music of Shostakovich. Shostakovich's music will live centuries from now and he will be remembered as the 20th century greatest composers, and no one will remember any Boulez or Carter and the likes


I have three responses to these three views! Firstly, a game on this forum (rarely more than 8 players) is not a sample of anything. I have stopped playing them because I often do not feel among my peers (as far as the question is concerned) and there are probably many others who feel the same way. Secondly, not a great headline "composer and conductor expresses himself arrogantly shock!" By which I mean, so what! And, lastly, history teaches us that we do not and cannot know which music will live for centuries and which won't. Personally, I suspect that some Shostakovich will survive but that lots will not. But I don't know, either.


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2018)

To me, this excerpt reads like a response to a group of readers who are interested in 'atonal' and 'experimental' music by addressing that it is not the focus of the journal. Whilst acknowledging the strong history of professional performance and history of the audience that is interested in this music, this journal strongly implies that they are not interested in the _audience_ rather than the music itself. From my experience, I cannot ever make claims on behalf of an audience like this journal does. I'd rather celebrate the collective knowledge and diverse interests of the wider audience rather than focus on splitting them into groups based on whether they like certain things or not (based on their own views on what music is worthy of discussion).

EDIT: also, I think there's considerable interest in more experimental music if we take YouTube views on stuff like Xenakis's Metastasis as an example, or even (for a non-classical example) Merzbow.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

The Chamber Music Journal is actually trying to make money, and will presumably cater to whatever audience is sufficient to provide subscribers. It seems to me that the author of the paragraph quoted in the first post is being very polite in saying that there isn't enough audience for such music, and they don't want to alienate their current audience by straying too far afield. 

And no, in general YouTube views are not a useful measure of interest.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> And, lastly, history teaches us that we do not and cannot know which music will live for centuries and which won't. Personally, I suspect that some Shostakovich will survive but that lots will not. But I don't know, either.


History teaches us, that 5-10 composers of each century survive and their music is remembered a played. For the 19th century you have Beethoven, Brahms, Liszt, Chopin, Dvořák, Mozart etc. For 20th century, my guess is that it will be Prokofiev, Shostakovich (which to me are the 2 greatest and most memorable 20th century composers) and then it is open - Bartok? Stravinsky? etc. Of course the music experts will always know more than 5 composers, but the general public interested in classical music knows only the most famous. 
The atonal/serial/12-tone etc movement alienated a large fraction of classical music listeners. The quote in the OP is incontroversial and merely observes a fact: the majority of people simply do not want to hear this kind of music. The vacuum was filled by film music. Look at youtube, how many views get movie soundtracks (which is mostly orchestral music) - it goes in the millions, classical music gets thousands, and serial music gets hundreds. 
There is absolutely nothing wrong about the avant-garde and the serial/12-tone techniques. It is a niche music that will find its listeners. But what was very wrong is that this kind of music started dominated the academia to the point of supressing all other music and deriding tonal compositions as "backwards". These people suffer from a very severe delusion, namely they believe that there is a progress in music. The fact is that there are only different fashions/styles like in clothing. And there is no progress in fashions, certainly not a linear one meaning that the later compositions are somehow better than all the preceding music.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A piece of music either "works" or it doesn't -- regardless of what means was used to compose it --and most often the best way to find out is to hear it performed live, where you are not distracted by the dog, the dishwasher, making (and eating) lunch, or just having the option of stopping listening. Everything deserves a chance, and if, afterwards, you've determined something wasn't worth it, that's fine. 95% of all music isn't "for the ages," after all. But prejudging based on something arbitrary isn't the way to do it. (Unless it's something like "Jingle Bells" performed by barking dogs. )


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

MarkW said:


> A piece of music either "works" or it doesn't -- regardless of what means was used to compose it --and most often the best way to find out is to hear it performed live, where you are not distracted by the dog, the dishwasher, making (and eating) lunch, or just having the option of stopping listening. Everything deserves a chance, and if, afterwards, you've determined something wasn't worth it, that's fine. 95% of all music isn't "for the ages," after all. *But prejudging based on something arbitrary isn't the way to do it.* (*Unless it's something like "Jingle Bells" performed by barking dogs.* )


Well, now you made me want to listen to some music again. Almost anything that is not like that example .


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

What's wrong with dogs barking "Jingle Bells"? (There is evidently a presumption that people are guilty of prejudging music based on something arbitrary. I don't think that is what is actually happening.)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Jacck said:


> History teaches us, that 5-10 composers of each century survive and their music is remembered a played. For the 19th century you have Beethoven, Brahms, Liszt, Chopin, Dvořák, Mozart etc. For 20th century, my guess is that it will be Prokofiev, Shostakovich (which to me are the 2 greatest and most memorable 20th century composers) and then it is open - Bartok? Stravinsky? etc. Of course the music experts will always know more than 5 composers, but the general public interested in classical music knows only the most famous.


I'm not sure that history has taught us that five or six from the 19th century are remembered. Even with my fairly elitist views I thought it was many more than that! But what happened in the past is more complex than merely "which ones rose to the top". Tastes reflect changes in society - who listens to what, when and how ... and why - and it is not easy to guess how things will pan out. Personally, I think Prokofiev will survive partly because of his facility to write gorgeous tunes. I suspect that Bartok will survive but that's just an opinion. And I would like to think that Stravinsky would but have noted that interest in most of his music is waning. As far as I can see Schoenberg is becoming more mainstream than he was and Webern is almost venerated by many.

I won't respond to the rest of your post because it seems to be a discussion I have been in a few times before over the last few months and I don't think I have anything to add to what I have said in the past. But I do remind you that classical music is in itself a niche interest.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

JAS said:


> What's wrong with dogs barking "Jingle Bells"? (There is evidently a presumption that people are guilty of prejudging music based on something arbitrary. I don't think that is what is actually happening.)


I´ve actually already heard it, it's a typical old-school entertainment radio intermezzo too. 
But I much prefer Globokar´s _Les Otages_. So time for that one.


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2018)

Another one for Globokar here


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I'm not familiar with the Chamber Music Journal, but the author of that paragraph is obviously not qualified to be writing about any kind of music.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> I'm not familiar with the Chamber Music Journal, but the author of that paragraph is obviously not qualified to be writing about any kind of music.


I presume that you were planning to provide some semblance of explanation for this statement, and got distracted by other threads or things outside of TC. It is by no means obvious to me that the person writing that paragraph is not qualified to be writing about any kind of music. It is probably best if I don't fill in the absence of what you did not say with my own imagination.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Jacck said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong about the avant-garde and the serial/12-tone techniques. It is a niche music that will find its listeners. But what was very wrong is that this kind of music started dominated the academia to the point of supressing all other music and deriding tonal compositions as "backwards". These people suffer from a very severe delusion, namely they believe that there is a progress in music. The fact is that there are only different fashions/styles like in clothing. And there is no progress in fashions, certainly not a linear one meaning that the later compositions are somehow better than all the preceding music.


Those here with long memories will recall the TC thread on Herbert Pauls' thesis that while academia and its literature was obsessed with avant-garde music--atonal, aleatoric etc.--the majority of composers, works, and listeners continued on with evolved forms of musical romanticism throughout the 20th century. Pauls wrote that this phenomenon was obscured by the fact that the texts and histories of the time were written almost exclusively by strong advocates of avant-garde music who felt that such music was the inevitable result of unstoppable evolutionary forces. But Pauls presents evidence to support his thesis; the curious will find his thesis here:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/books/Pauls_two_centuries_in_one.pdf


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

JAS said:


> I presume that you were planning to provide some semblance of explanation for this statement, and got distracted by other threads or things outside of TC. It is by no means obvious to me that the person writing that paragraph is not qualified to be writing about any kind of music. It is probably best if I don't fill in the absence of what you did not say with my own imagination.


I mean that the author couldn't have anything worthwhile to say about tonal music either, due to the extremely poor understanding and lack of insight displayed in the short text.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> I mean that the author couldn't have anything worthwhile to say about tonal music either, due to the extremely poor understanding and lack of insight displayed in the short text.


Meaning that you do not agree with the view expressed in the short text (even though one really can hardly make a meaningful judgement about qualifications regarding music from one extracted paragraph). That is fine as an expression of your personal preferences, but it seems that the author simply doesn't share your tastes, which is also fine. (Whether or not it is a good idea for the author to make broad statements of the kind presented, may be open to debate, but perhaps one should read the full article before deciding. A citation of the full source might be in order. I will search for a portion of the text provided.) Back when I read Fanfare, there were numerous reviewers who recommended works that, upon my actual hearing, showed me that these reviewers did not share my tastes and should be taken with a large dose of salt when considering future purchases. At no point did I suggest that they were unqualified to write about any kind of music simply because I did not agree with their conclusions. That seems rather presumptuous.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Those here with long memories will recall the TC thread on Herbert Pauls' thesis that while academia and its literature was obsessed with avant-garde music--atonal, aleatoric etc.--the majority of composers, works, and listeners continued on with evolved forms of musical romanticism throughout the 20th century. Pauls wrote that this phenomenon was obscured by the fact that the texts and histories of the time were written almost exclusively by strong advocates of avant-garde music who felt that such music was the inevitable result of unstoppable evolutionary forces. But Pauls presents evidence to support his thesis; the curious will find his thesis here:
> http://www.musicweb-international.com/books/Pauls_two_centuries_in_one.pdf


a thesis of 500 pages? 
I am not going to read the whole thesis, so I read just the abstract. I have nothing against atonal/avantgarde music etc. But the problem were the almost messianic delusions of some of its proponents. Schoenberg stating that his music will ensure the dominance of the German speaking music for the next 100 years. Boulez had similar delusions of grandeur and obviously thought very higly of his own music. At the root of it is this wrong idea, that there is progress in music and that the atonal composers were the front of this new evolution. There might be progress in some techniques (like the development of new instruments), but there is no progress in the art itself. Music has been around for thousands of years and its purpose has always been the same - to entertain, to bring people together. And musical fashions and styles have come and gone.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Here is another paragraph from the same author:

_It is unfortunate that today's concert-goer is presented with the
same works over and over again. As far as chamber music concerts
go, most of them are by string quartets or piano trios and
only very occasionally is a piano quartet or quintet presented.
One can go to a piano trio concert in Vienna, Amsterdam, London,
Tokyo or Chicago and often find the same works on the
program. Nowadays, Piano Quartets are almost never given an
airing. And when one is presented, it is invariably a piano quartet
by either Mozart, Schumann or Brahms. The argument in support
of this is that, given the fact that piano quartets are almost never
performed in concert, you might as well program the most famous.
Still, it is a shame that most chamber music lovers will
never hear a piano quartet performed live that is not by either
Schumann, Brahms of Mozart. Until recently, their only recourse
has been to obtain recordings._

Perhaps you will find less to disagree with in that assessment. (I have certainly read basically the same view repeated at TC many times, and by various posters.) I see that these guides are all "published" by someone named Raymond Silvertrust, who appears to be a lawyer in Illinois. The brief background on the website where these guides may be downloaded for free does not mention formal musical training. That is not necessarily disqualifying in my opinion, and I would have to judge by reading some of the actual recommendations and trying them against my own experiences.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

It's not because I disagree with him, it's because he appears not to know what he's talking about.

I'm sure the Fanfare reviewers you're referring to didn't blithely talk invoke the "average listener," or conflate atonal and "experimental" music, or suggest that such music is to be appreciated "on paper."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> It's not because I disagree with him, it's because he appears not to know what he's talking about.
> 
> I'm sure the Fanfare reviewers you're referring to didn't blithely talk invoke the "average listener," or conflate atonal and "experimental" music, or suggest that such music is to be appreciated "on paper."


Yes, it's worthless rubbish.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

For those interested, here's the Pauls TC thread

An Interesting and Useful Treatise on Twentieth Century Music

Amazingly, there were conflicting opinions......


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> It's not because I disagree with him, it's because he appears not to know what he's talking about.
> 
> I'm sure the Fanfare reviewers you're referring to didn't blithely talk invoke the "average listener," or conflate atonal and "experimental" music, or suggest that such music is to be appreciated "on paper."


No, they made the exact equivalent of such comments, just in the opposite direction.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The tonal/atonal debate is old hat. This author agrees, and gives overviews of all sorts of new ways.



Let's get a larger, less dichotomous perspective. Atonal and pure serialism will probably occupy a niche, but that's not because it's inherently bad. It was just too rigorous in its methods, and unconcerned with entertaining. But it was a valuable experimental period, which paved the way for much to come, and it's certainly not "museum" or historical music.

Serial thought represents a small segment of the "new thinking" about music. I think what happened, is that serialism was a temporary symptom of growing-pains in musical thought, in order to escape from diatonicism, which was entrenched in academia. It was only temporary, and now, going into the 21st century, there are new ways of thinking about & creating music, such as neo-Rienmann theory, geometrics, and lots of possibilities. These are ways that deal with the entire chromatic, not just diatonicism.

I think the problem with serialism was "harmony," or the lack of it. These new ways include harmony and chords. Messiaen thought like this, and his music doesn't present as big an obstacle to most listeners. There are bits of it in Stravinsky, and in the freedom of Debussy.

The new music of the 21st century will be harmonic, or not; it will be "ear" music, and it will also explore new ways of creating harmony which is more chromatic than diatonic. I'm not worried at all about the future of music.

We already have some "greats" who lay completely outside the bounds of traditional harmony, and even pitch, such as Varese. I've heard Vinko Globokar, and his percussion music is wonderful. Electronic music is still going strong. The guys who are using "noise" of violins, like Rihm and Fenessy, are doing experimental work at the front, so let's give them a break. That music is there for whomever wants it, and it is needed.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Reasons why I find the quote in the OP credible, contrary to the criticism of it by a few:
_
"The listening public has now been exposed
to it for more than a century and for those who wish to know the
truth, the verdict is in. Despite many fervent supporters and committed
performances by professional groups, the music of these
composers, great as it may be on paper to a musicologist or the
student of music theory, are not an experience the average listener
generally wishes to repeat"_

This is a true statement. Let those who rail against it prove otherwise. The niches that have developed in classical music remain niches because they don't resonate with the mainstream. The advocates of these niches are passionate and motivated, but remain a part of relatively small groups.

"_Experimental music, as it has come
to be regarded, may be an extraordinary experience both visually
and aurally, but ultimately it is not music which someone turns
on a radio to hear."_

There is a reason this music isn't heard on the radio; a significant number of people will turn it off, something not commensurate with the survival of a classical music radio station.

_"It is not my purpose to pass judgment on or
write a polemic against atonal or experimental music, some of
which is extraordinarily interesting. Nor do I wish to attack composers
who write for the violin as if it were a kind of percussion
instrument. I put forward these thoughts to explain why the reader
will not find detailed analysis of atonal or experimental music
which does not seem to recognize that violins, violas and cellos
are stringed instruments."_

The author, on the one hand, does not want to disparage the music in question, but, on the other hand, is simply pointing out that music that uses violins as percussion instruments is not, I assume, of interest to the demographic of the guide's readership. We have heard the use of stringed instruments in this manner in recent threads on this forum: screeching violins, random percussive sounds.

Classical music instruments have been perfected over centuries. This is particularly true of the violin where the attempt has been to provide the sweetest, deepest tone possible. It's hard to understand the value of the use of the violin to produce sounds for which it was never intended. IMO, this is true of other instruments: plucked piano strings and the like.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> ...The niches that have developed in classical music remain niches because they don't resonate with the mainstream. The advocates of these niches are passionate and motivated, but remain a part of relatively small groups....There is a reason this music isn't heard on the radio; a significant number of people will turn it off, something not commensurate with the survival of a classical music radio station...The author, on the one hand, does not want to disparage the music in question, but, on the other hand, is simply pointing out that music that uses violins as percussion instruments is not, I assume, of interest to the demographic of the guide's readership.


Okay, it's niche music. What's wrong with that? I'm glad it exists, but I see no need to rail against it. As far as radio...the only radio I listen to is a classical station (which plays more adventurous stuff late at night), NPR, and non-profit KOOP, and the KUT college station, where young inexperienced DJs play whatever they want. What ruined radio was when Reagan de-regulated the FCC, and conglomerates bought all the stations. It became "marketing" after that.



> We have heard the use of stringed instruments in this manner in recent threads on this forum: screeching violins, random percussive sounds...Classical music instruments have been perfected over centuries. This is particularly true of the violin where the attempt has been to provide the sweetest tone possible. It's hard to understand the value of the use of the violin to produce sounds for which it was never intended. IMO, this is true of other instruments: plucked piano strings and the like.


Oh, don't get so offended. They're not out to destroy Classical music. Be tolerant, and less defensive. Listen to what you want to, and let others do the same.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I can only imagine what the Journal for Percussive Violin has to say about this.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

What about "The Journal for the Subversion of Classical Music"?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> What about "The Journal for the Subversion of Classical Music"?


(Shhh. You aren't supposed to talk about that in public.)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I don't think anybody is "railing" against new music, old music, or whatever, except perhaps the perceived misuse of strings. In the New Stasis, every musical thirst is quenched, every hunger satiated. There is music for all, every kind you can think of and so many more that you can't think of. All niches are filled. The fate of music is as secure as the fate of our modern technological culture (though I keep my didgeridoo in tip-top shape).


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> I don't think anybody is "railing" against new music, old music, or whatever, except perhaps the perceived misuse of strings.


I don't mind the misuse of strings (_musique concrète instrumentale_) and find some of the compositions that Shirime presented here quite enjoyable (Lachenmann, Liza Lim - How forests think etc), certainly more palatable than the music from the 1950's. It is a niche music. 
The only problem that I perceive is when a musical subgenre such as this one starts to dominate academia to the point that all other approaches are considered inferior, omitted from textbooks etc. But something similar happens in other disciplines too. For example, string theory has dominated physics for several decades now. Most of research money, grants has been allocated there and other approaches neglected etc. I think that diversity is important and one approach should not be allowed to dominate all others. How many composers were negleted because their music was deemed insufficiently modern? Hovhaness, Respighi, Braga Santos etc etc


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Jacck said:


> most of the atonal music is neither beautiful nor memorable, nor is it able to convey much emotions or narrative. Look at Bulldog's game for music from the 1950's. Almost all the selections are tonal memorable music, and Boulez and the likes will fade into obscurity.


I'll have to disagree. Quite a few selections are not in the tonal arena.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, don't get so offended. They're not out to destroy Classical music. Be tolerant, and less defensive. Listen to what you want to, and let others do the same.


Offended? Defensive? On the contrary, my post was in response to people who were apparently _offended_ by the OP quote and were _defensive_ about the implications of it. For instance this post early on in the thread:



> The quote in the OP just makes me want to avoid the guide that is being introduced! It is OK to say "I won't cover that because I don't know/like it". But I personally find the attempt to justify the position with dodgy and superficial argument suggests that the guide in question will suffer from having too many poorly thought through assertions. I suppose you expect personal opinions in a critical guide but you also expect some rigour, a sense that the writer knows enough to recognise the import of what he (I am sure it is a man somehow) is saying and a sense that the opinions are more than mere prejudice.


And this:



> I'm not familiar with the Chamber Music Journal, but the author of that paragraph is obviously not qualified to be writing about any kind of music.


And what's with the 'be tolerant' and related comments? I didn't write the quote in the OP or bring this subject up. I posted simply because others were questioning the credibility of said quote's author and I decided to point out the parts of the quote that ring true to me. Shoot the messenger.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Well, I'm not them.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The one composer he mentions by name is Schoenberg -- he's the example of the person who writes chamber music which average people don't like because there aren't melodies -- I think this is what he says, correct me if I'm wrong. 

But this is rubbish, and it makes me think he's probably lying when he says he doesn't like it, or maybe he's deaf or stupid or has never listened to the music. Just to take one example, Schoenberg's 4th quartet is jam packed of melodies. 

Years ago I used to work with someone who used to often say that he didn't like C20 music much, but somehow he found himself at one of Solti's performances of Strauss's Frau Ohne Schatten at Covent Garden. When he came back I asked him what he thought and basically he said he hated it because there weren't any tunes. 

But it's chock-a-block with tunes from the start to finish -- he just couldn't hear them, or pretended that he couldn't hear them. 

Anyway at least he wan't strutting about making himself out to be an authority of any kind.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Mandryka: "But this is rubbish, and it makes me think he's probably lying when he says he doesn't like it, or maybe he's deaf or stupid or has never listened to the music."


Indeed, when it comes to an opinion about music, who are we to believe these days?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

So now we have come to the point where people are being accused of just pretending not to like "modern" music. Really?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

JAS said:


> So now we have come to the point where people are being accused of just pretending not to like "modern" music. Really?


Well, we already have some folks who believe that people only pretend to like modern music. We must be entering the age of the pretender; honesty has been kicked to the curb.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

This is reminding me a bit of an occasion when my mother said that my father wasn't really happy about something, he just thought he was happy about it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> The one composer he mentions by name is Schoenberg -- he's the example of the person who writes chamber music which average people don't like because there aren't melodies -- I think this is what he says, correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> But this is rubbish, and it makes me think he's probably lying when he says he doesn't like it, or maybe he's deaf or stupid or has never listened to the music. Just to take one example, Schoenberg's 4th quartet is jam packed of melodies.
> 
> ...


Wow, that's a lot of accusations. It's not a stretch to say that Schoenberg was not known for his melodies during his atonal period, although it's interesting that you picked out one of his more accessible works, particularly the Largo, to use as an example. An exception that proves the rule?

As for the 'strutting about' comment, the author of the quote in question is apparently in a position to decide what is published in a Chamber Music Journal. Maybe he is an authority. Do you know any different?


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Jacck said:


> I don't mind the misuse of strings (_musique concrète instrumentale_) and find some of the compositions that Shirime presented here quite enjoyable (Lachenmann, Liza Lim - How forests think etc), certainly more palatable than the music from the 1950's. It is a niche music.
> The only problem that I perceive is when a musical subgenre such as this one starts to dominate academia to the point that all other approaches are considered inferior, omitted from textbooks etc. But something similar happens in other disciplines too. For example, string theory has dominated physics for several decades now. Most of research money, grants has been allocated there and other approaches neglected etc. I think that diversity is important and one approach should not be allowed to dominate all others. How many composers were negleted because their music was deemed insufficiently modern? Hovhaness, Respighi, Braga Santos etc etc


As far as I know, most people working on String Theory are Mathematicians who often barely care about the actual physics. It's largely fallen off the radar of actual Physicists (I speak from a Canadian perspective, it may be in Europe or something it gets all the funding).

As for classical music, it seems that the serious classical composer (who has a non-negligible following) is a dying breed. The only currently composing composer I see in the Classical Music section in CD stores is Max Richter and he could easily be classified as something else. The Pulitzer Prize went to a Hip-Hop artist. The reality is no one has written a work universally considered to be a masterpiece since Stravinsky wrote the Rite of Spring over 100 years ago. Society has moved on from high art.

I don't believe that the great composers' music will die out in any time period we will see, and truth be told, I don't think it will ever die. The music of Bach and Beethoven will be played in concert halls, likely longer than any of us will live. But new compositions of Western Art Music (ie. Classical music) are listened to by a tiny minority of classical music listeners who, in general, are a small minority of the population.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Wow, that's a lot of accusations. It's not a stretch to say that Schoenberg was not known for his melodies during his atonal period, although it's interesting that you picked out one of his more accessible works, particularly the Largo, to use as an example. An exception that proves the rule?


The third quartet has plenty of memorable melodies. I mention Schoenberg because the author of the article does. And what he says makes me have my doubts about him. Can you make sense of why he included late Beethoven quartets but no Schoenberg quartets?



DaveM said:


> As for the 'strutting about' comment, the author of the quote in question is apparently in a position to decide what is published in a Chamber Music Journal. Maybe he is an authority. Do you know any different?


He says somewhere what gives him the authority to write the journal - he's an amateur musician.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2018)

Jacck said:


> I don't mind the misuse of strings (_musique concrète instrumentale_) and find some of the compositions that Shirime presented here quite enjoyable (Lachenmann, Liza Lim - How forests think etc), certainly more palatable than the music from the 1950's. It is a niche music.
> The only problem that I perceive is when a musical subgenre such as this one starts to dominate academia to the point that all other approaches are considered inferior, omitted from textbooks etc. But something similar happens in other disciplines too. For example, string theory has dominated physics for several decades now. Most of research money, grants has been allocated there and other approaches neglected etc. I think that diversity is important and one approach should not be allowed to dominate all others. How many composers were negleted because their music was deemed insufficiently modern? Hovhaness, Respighi, Braga Santos etc etc


I agree with you, certainly. I do have a personal preference for compositions that use extended timbre creatively (used _well_, mind you, and I think Lachenmann and Adamek are two composers who have done it better than anyone). In some parts of the world, I do notice that the neo-romantic (neo-tonal?) styles are becoming the more dominant style in academia and I notice that in coservatories in the country where I live as well as in more prestigious schools, like the Curtis Institute. It irks me when the entire composition department of a school like that pushes a single kind of style rather than support a diversity of styles as represented in the staff.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

BachIsBest said:


> The reality is no one has written a work universally considered to be a masterpiece since Stravinsky wrote the Rite of Spring over 100 years ago. Society has moved on from high art.


Sibelius, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, Bartok - I'm sure there are others.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

janxharris said:


> Sibelius, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, Bartok - I'm sure there are others.


And Prokofiev, surely? Perhaps we're just wondering where the Germans/Austrians went despite Schoenberg's "hundred-year dominance."


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> And Prokofiev, surely? Perhaps we're just wondering where the Germans/Austrians went despite Schoenberg's "hundred-year dominance."


I'm not that familiar with Prokofiev.

...I forgot Edward Elgar...


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2018)

Why is it important for a piece of music to be universally considered a masterpiece?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

BachIsBest said:


> As far as I know, most people working on String Theory are Mathematicians who often barely care about the actual physics. It's largely fallen off the radar of actual Physicists (I speak from a Canadian perspective, it may be in Europe or something it gets all the funding).


It's still a thing in the community of hardcore particle physicists (which includes many Nobel winners and other personalities). In the US in particular, there are still important string centers like Stanford and Harvard (speaking of influential...). So yes, there are still lots of physicists... that barely care about the physics and invent things like the multiverse to explain the failure of their theory. Actually, the mathematicians are the only ones that did manage to obtain some new insights from the ideas of the theory. Fortunately, in Europe there are many people working on alternatives that have a much more solid basis (Connes in the unification of the forces and Rovelli and colleagues in quantum gravity).


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I'm not that familiar with Prokofiev.
> ...I forgot Edward Elgar...


Elgar is relatively English thing. He is not that much known outside of England. I did not know him before coming to this forum. But of course I like him now (his two symphonies, cello and violin concertos and Gerontius). But Prokofiev is in a different league imo. I would liken Prokofiev to Mozart. He was very prolific and melodies came almost naturally and without effort to him. Concerning symphonies, I would call it a tie with Shostakovich.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

shirime said:


> Why is it important for a piece of music to be universally considered a masterpiece?


I would assume that composers that never achieve regularly performances of their works will never feel certain of their worth.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

janxharris said:


> I would assume that composers that never achieve regularly performances of their works will never feel certain of their worth.


That is right, and composers claiming not to care are probably stretching it. But there's international, region-wide, national and local fame with accompanying accolades, and quite a lot of composers experience the last two.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> History teaches us, that 5-10 composers of each century survive and their music is remembered a played. For the 19th century you have Beethoven, Brahms, Liszt, Chopin, Dvořák, Mozart etc. For 20th century, my guess is that it will be Prokofiev, Shostakovich (which to me are the 2 greatest and most memorable 20th century composers) and then it is open - Bartok? Stravinsky? etc. Of course the music experts will always know more than 5 composers, but the general public interested in classical music knows only the most famous.
> The atonal/serial/12-tone etc movement alienated a large fraction of classical music listeners. The quote in the OP is incontroversial and merely observes a fact: the majority of people simply do not want to hear this kind of music. The vacuum was filled by film music. Look at youtube, how many views get movie soundtracks (which is mostly orchestral music) - it goes in the millions, classical music gets thousands, and serial music gets hundreds.
> There is absolutely nothing wrong about the avant-garde and the serial/12-tone techniques. It is a niche music that will find its listeners. *But what was very wrong is that this kind of music started dominated the academia to the point of supressing all other music* and deriding tonal compositions as "backwards". These people suffer from a very severe delusion, namely they believe that there is a progress in music. The fact is that there are only different fashions/styles like in clothing. And there is no progress in fashions, certainly not a linear one meaning that the later compositions are somehow better than all the preceding music.


This from Wikipedia:

Joseph N. Straus (1999):

_"conducted a research study that considered six questions about American compositional activity from the 1950s and 1960s: (1) who controlled the academy? (2) whose music got published? (3) whose music got performed? (4) whose music got recorded? (5) who got the prizes, awards, and fellowships? (6) whose music got reviewed? From this evidence the author concluded, "As the period drew to a close, the American academy was dominated, as it had been throughout the 1950s and 1960s, by tonally oriented composers" _


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Why not quote the larger context:

_"In 1997, K. Robert Schwarz equated serialism with the "advanced" music Babbitt described in his article, and added, "By the 1960s, the Serialists commanded intellectual prestige and held influential academic posts. All they lacked was a public. In fact, mainstream audiences disliked their work, preferring the music of traditionalists who retained links with tonality: Copland, Barber, Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Britten. In academic circles, those composers were sneered at, viewed as expendable fossils from a bygone age" (Schwarz 1997). Nine years later, Walter Simmons echoed Schwarz's belief, and named in addition to Barber, Nicolas Flagello, Ernest Bloch, Howard Hanson, Paul Creston, and Vittorio Giannini as victims of "a de facto blacklisting of composers who failed to conform to the approved [i.e., pro-modernist] version of music history", and cites Babbit's article as epitomizing "the contemptuous attitude of Modernist composers" (Simmons 2006, 5-6). In a review of Simmons's book, however, David Nicholls disagreed, referring to Simmons's contention as a "conspiracy theory" and attributing the disregard of the composers he cites to their "artistic limitations" (Nicholls 2007, 704 and 706). Another interpretation was proposed by Joseph N. Straus (1999). Straus conducted a research study that considered six questions about American compositional activity from the 1950s and 1960s: (1) who controlled the academy? (2) whose music got published? (3) whose music got performed? (4) whose music got recorded? (5) who got the prizes, awards, and fellowships? (6) whose music got reviewed? From this evidence the author concluded, "As the period drew to a close, the American academy was dominated, as it had been throughout the 1950s and 1960s, by tonally oriented composers" (Straus 1999, 307)." _

Otherwise, it suggests that Straus was stating an unchallenged truth, when it just seems to be his interpretation. I would be interested in seeing the details that back up the claim. And, of course, tonality itself is not the entirety of the issue. (Also, why limit the "study" to an American context, as if the US role in any form of classical music has ever been all that substantial?)


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The general feeling here in Europe I think is that there are currently more conservative or traditionalist, classical composers on the US than here, also because of the ruling market forces and general taste there. Should I think of very conservative, living composers here in DK, I'd have a hard time, but I guess Thomas Koppel, Bo Holten and Magle have some of those characteristica.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I agree with the blurb in the OP. Much of true atonal music is just picking up the scraps outside of tonal music.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

JAS said:


> Why not quote the larger context:
> 
> _"In 1997, K. Robert Schwarz equated serialism with the "advanced" music Babbitt described in his article, and added, "By the 1960s, the Serialists commanded intellectual prestige and held influential academic posts. All they lacked was a public. In fact, mainstream audiences disliked their work, preferring the music of traditionalists who retained links with tonality: Copland, Barber, Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Britten. In academic circles, those composers were sneered at, viewed as expendable fossils from a bygone age" (Schwarz 1997). Nine years later, Walter Simmons echoed Schwarz's belief, and named in addition to Barber, Nicolas Flagello, Ernest Bloch, Howard Hanson, Paul Creston, and Vittorio Giannini as victims of "a de facto blacklisting of composers who failed to conform to the approved [i.e., pro-modernist] version of music history", and cites Babbit's article as epitomizing "the contemptuous attitude of Modernist composers" (Simmons 2006, 5-6). In a review of Simmons's book, however, David Nicholls disagreed, referring to Simmons's contention as a "conspiracy theory" and attributing the disregard of the composers he cites to their "artistic limitations" (Nicholls 2007, 704 and 706). Another interpretation was proposed by Joseph N. Straus (1999). Straus conducted a research study that considered six questions about American compositional activity from the 1950s and 1960s: (1) who controlled the academy? (2) whose music got published? (3) whose music got performed? (4) whose music got recorded? (5) who got the prizes, awards, and fellowships? (6) whose music got reviewed? From this evidence the author concluded, "As the period drew to a close, the American academy was dominated, as it had been throughout the 1950s and 1960s, by tonally oriented composers" (Straus 1999, 307)." _
> 
> Otherwise, it suggests that Straus was stating an unchallenged truth, when it just seems to be his interpretation. I would be interested in seeing the details that back up the claim. And, of course, tonality itself is not the entirety of the issue. (Also, why limit the "study" to an American context, as if the US role in any form of classical music has ever been all that substantial?)


I didn't and don't see it as Straus refuting a contrary position - commanding 'intellectual prestige' and holding 'influential academic posts' doesn't explicitly counter Straus's assertion.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

janxharris said:


> I didn't and don't see it as Straus refuting a contrary position - commanding 'intellectual prestige' and holding 'influential academic posts' doesn't explicitly counter Straus's assertion.


I understand that, and strongly disagree with the position. If Straus isn't trying to contradict those statements (or statements along those lines), I don't know what he was trying to accomplish, or why he would be doing it. The only way it seems to me that it isn't a contradiction is if he is saying that tonality based composers/teachers dominated the academies and awarded the prizes but did so in a way that still favored non-tonality. (I suppose that is possible, but it seems rather odd.)


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

JAS said:


> I understand that, and strongly disagree with the position. If Straus isn't trying to contradict those statements (or statements along those lines), I don't know what he was trying to accomplish, or why he would be doing it. The only way it seems to me that it isn't a contradiction is if he is saying that tonality based composers/teachers dominated the academies and awarded the prizes but did so in a way that still favored non-tonality. (I suppose that is possible, but it seems rather odd.)


I guess you do have a point - K. Robert Schwarz's "In academic circles, those composers were sneered at, viewed as expendable fossils from a bygone age" would seem to be contrary to Straus's assertion, though it isn't explicit since it can be a reference to a rather vocal minority.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> The quote in the OP just makes me want to avoid the guide that is being introduced! It is OK to say "I won't cover that because I don't know/like it". But I personally find the attempt to justify the position with dodgy and superficial argument suggests that the guide in question will suffer from having too many poorly thought through assertions. I suppose you expect personal opinions in a critical guide but you also expect some rigour, a sense that the writer knows enough to recognise the import of what he (I am sure it is a man somehow) is saying and a sense that the opinions are more than mere prejudice.


The above nails it for me. The guy should have just said "I'm not going to cover atonal/experimental music because it's outside my areas of expertise and interest." I'm sure his readership would have been fine with that - and trying to cover ones shortcomings by abuse and bullying just makes one look weak and narrow-minded.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> 'and trying to cover ones shortcomings by abuse and bullying just makes one look weak and narrow-minded.'


Not seeing the abuse and bullying part.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Not seeing the abuse and bullying part.


At least not from Raymond Silvertrust.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Not seeing the abuse and bullying part.


I think it's called passive aggressive


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I think it's called passive aggressive


Or imaginary aggressive. Like beauty, offense is often in the eye of the beholder. (Also, offense is generally found wherever it is sought.)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JAS said:


> Or imaginary aggressive.


Well you think that if you really want. I'm sure the average person would not agree with you, but I can't stop anyone from forming their own personal opinion. It takes all sorts, good luck to you.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Herbert Pauls in his thesis supports much of what Straus contends, that the American academy--and certainly the listening and recording-buying public-- was, in balance, leaning toward ("dominated" is much too strong and charged a term for the academy; for the CM-listening public, it's a fine term) tonally oriented composition. But Pauls' point is that the major musical history texts of the time, and many writers in journals, gave the strong impression that the serialists and other composers of "advanced" music had swept the field and were the wave of both the present and the future.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Not seeing the abuse and bullying part.


As with my other guides, this Guide will not deal with atonal and
experimental music. The listening public has now been exposed
to it for more than a century and for those who wish to know *the
truth, the verdict is in*. Despite many fervent supporters and committed
performances by professional groups, the music of these
composers,* great as it may be on paper* to a musicologist or the
student of music theory, are not an experience the average listener
generally wishes to repeat. Experimental music, as it has come
to be regarded, may be an extraordinary experience both visually
and aurally, but *ultimately it is not music which someone turns
on a radio to hear*. It is not my purpose to pass judgment on or
write a polemic against atonal or experimental music, some of
which is extraordinarily interesting. Nor do I wish to attack composers
who write for the violin as if it were a kind of percussion
instrument. I put forward these thoughts to explain why the reader
will not find detailed analysis of atonal or experimental music
which *does not seem to recognize that violins, violas and cellos
are stringed instruments*.

Pretty much states no one wants to hear it and its composers don't have a basic understanding of the instruments for which they are writing. By saying it's great on paper he is stating that it isn't worth hearing.

He claims "It is not my purpose to pass judgment" after telling us "the truth" in the form of a verdict.  What a tool.



Strange Magic said:


> Those here with long memories will recall the TC thread on Herbert Pauls' thesis that while academia and its literature was obsessed with avant-garde music--atonal, aleatoric etc.--the majority of composers, works, and listeners continued on with evolved forms of musical romanticism throughout the 20th century. Pauls wrote that this phenomenon was obscured by the fact that the texts and histories of the time were written almost exclusively by strong advocates of avant-garde music who felt that such music was the inevitable result of unstoppable evolutionary forces. But Pauls presents evidence to support his thesis; the curious will find his thesis here:
> 
> http://www.musicweb-international.com/books/Pauls_two_centuries_in_one.pdf


Pauls' thesis was spot on. Twentieth century music history texts did give extremely light and condescending coverage to figures, like Prokofiev, Shostakovich, etc., whose music is among the most performed and recorded of the century, while devoting many pages to other composers who have "forked no lightning," to quote Dylan Thomas.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> As with my other guides, this Guide will not deal with atonal and
> experimental music. The listening public has now been exposed
> to it for more than a century and for those who wish to know *the
> truth, the verdict is in*. Despite many fervent supporters and committed
> ...


Well, in the last sentence he's being facetious isn't he. The last 2/3 of the quoted paragraph is obviously about experimental music and, in fact, I believe that's his main concern. Also, personally, when it comes to some experimental music (think Ferneyhough), the term 'abuse' fits the use of stringed instruments that really are used more as percussive instruments than what they were meant to be used as.

I assume that he edits this Journal. I assume he has the right to decide what's in it. He is stating his disdain for experimental music. 'Abuse and 'bullying' have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Let's call it what it is - the man is clearly dumping all over atonal and experimental music.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I am relieved that I am not the only one who saw the OP as a lot of doubletalk.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

EdwardBast nailed it precisely with regard to what that author was up to. It's called 'damning with faint praise' and even that's being generous.It's not even an original position to take, it's a tired, old one that has been flogged to death. However when you start with fake certainties like; 'the verdict is in...' it gives it the gloss of authority.

His entire argument is based on the 'no-one listens to it' thesis, with his 'no-one' being the joe public who haven't listened to classical music en-masse since about 1920, if that. The general listening public dines on either whatever the critical consensus says is fantastic and elevates to a position or bits and pieces of music that get a forced hearing like e,g, Pavarotti singing Nessun Dorma during the World Cup.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> The above nails it for me...





eugeneonagain said:


> EdwardBast nailed it precisely with regard to what that author was up to...


When you have a hammer, everything is a nail.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> When you have a hammer, everything is a nail.


Or, in the opinion of the journal editor: "When you have a hammer, everything is a violin."  On that point, there are string players who keep a crappy second instrument on hand to play works requiring rapping on the back of the instrument and other nontraditional playing techniques.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I've just read through that entire journal (it's only 29pp) and it has a slant towards a certain sort of music. The long review of the string trio literature is littered with comments like this (I have put the composers the author is referencing into parentheses):



> "What melodies it has are on the austere side." (Feodor Akimenko)
> 
> "It is tonal but mostly not in the traditional sense with many long episodes of dissonance." (Hans Melchior Brugk)
> 
> ...


I could go on, but lastly here's the entry on Schoenberg:



> " Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1950) was an Austrian composer and founder of the so-called Second Vienna School which practiced 12 tone and atonal music. His Op.45 String Trio falls into this category. It is beyond amateur players and though it has been recorded more than once, it is generally not a particularly enjoyable work to listen to."


Clearly there is a bias here. Everything identified as being firmly 'tonal' is described rapturously; anything with a clearly post-romantic approach is described as 'angular' and lacking in beauty or 'difficult'. The emphasis is on 'identifiable melodies', by which is clearly meant: melodies that sound like the melodies of the bulk of pre-1900 music and preferably romantic. Complaints are: too much dissonance (especially when they are unresolved). Tonality for this author seems to mean largely consonant tonality.

I don't know if the journal is aimed at professional chamber musicians, but it seems to be a review for amateurs who don't want any challenges at all. Its mission statement:



> The mission of the Chamber Music Journal is to disseminate information about non-standard, rare or unknown chamber music of merit.


Doesn't really belie their generally one-sided view of what is meant by rare, unknown and meritorious chamber music. So I conclude that with regard to the quote in the OP of this thread they are not approaching the question with any sort of balance at all.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> EdwardBast nailed it precisely with regard to what that author was up to. It's called 'damning with faint praise' and even that's being generous.It's not even an original position to take, it's a tired, old one that has been flogged to death. However when you start with fake certainties like; 'the verdict is in...' it gives it the gloss of authority.
> 
> His entire argument is based on the 'no-one listens to it' thesis, with his 'no-one' being the joe public who haven't listened to classical music en-masse since about 1920, if that. The general listening public dines on either whatever the critical consensus says is fantastic and elevates to a position or bits and pieces of music that get a forced hearing like e,g, Pavarotti singing Nessun Dorma during the World Cup.


What are the statistics such that one can determine the popularity of "avant-garde" music among the CM audience? How is the audience for classical music defined? What constitutes "avant-grade music? All of these questions need to be stringently defined in order to arrive at an answer that all can agree upon about how popular--let's say--"trans-Bartókian" music is. But I think the OP is correct, and the critics of the OP are secretly afraid that he is correct, and attempt to move heaven and earth to prove to themselves and others that there really is a huge audience for such music. My own passion, among others, is for cante flamenco. I love it, yet I am absolutely secure in my knowledge that I share that _afición_ with a vanishingly small group of fellow enthusiasts. I feel no need to clamor that there is really a huge Silent Majority (or even Minority) out there for traditional sung flamenco. I do not tremble with the indignation that grips those unprepared to accept that music they love--and the love is truly legitimate, just as is mine for cante--is not as widely shared as they think it either is or it ought to be.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

There is no such thing as pure objectivity in a review or in the analysis of any art object or entertainment performance. There is no such thing as pure objectivity in anyone posting at this website, or writing about music or art anywhere. (Some measure of consistency from a given reviewer is really my only demand.) The best one can do is to admit the bias, but in doing so, one becomes a target of criticism for having a bias that does not agree with the bias of those who do not like it. Such is life.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

That's true, but when reading someone's opinion on something it is best to know from what position they are making their argument; especially when they are putting it forward not as opinion, but as a sort of 'common sense' truism.

There are plenty of people with a personal preference at odds with something they are discussing (like e.g. Bernstein's discussion of Schoenberg in his TV lectures), but that doesn't have to - and really shouldn't - entirely colour their discussion of it. When the latter happens the person's opinion loses value at an alarming rate.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> That's true, but when reading someone's opinion on something it is best to know from what position they are making their argument; especially when they are putting it forward not as opinion, but as a sort of 'common sense' truism.


I think that Raymond Silvertrust (who appears to be the author of the material under discussion) has made his position evident. Are any of us confused by what his position is? The irony is that he is being criticized precisely for doing so. And that is fine, since no one is obligated to agree with anyone else, but charges of "bullying" and "abuse" are simply absurd.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> What are the statistics such that one can determine the popularity of "avant-garde" music among the CM audience? How is the audience for classical music defined? What constitutes "avant-grade music? All of these questions need to be stringently defined in order to arrive at an answer that all can agree upon about how popular--let's say--"trans-Bartókian" music is.


You know I really don't think they need to be 'stringently defined' at all. If you don't know what constitutes 'avant-garde' music, then you wouldn't really be able make suppositions and arguments about it like in the quotation below. Or expect anyone to be able to engage with them. Lets stop pretending that there is a mathematical/statistical/philosophical exercise required; we all know what we are referring to.

The classical music audience is no-doubt stratified, but we know what is meant by the 'general audience'.



Strange Magic said:


> But I think the OP is correct, and the critics of the OP are secretly afraid that he is correct, and attempt to move heaven and earth to prove to themselves and others that there really is a huge audience for such music. My own passion, among others, is for cante flamenco. I love it, yet I am absolutely secure in my knowledge that I share that _afición_ with a vanishingly small group of fellow enthusiasts. I feel no need to clamor that there is really a huge Silent Majority (or even Minority) out there for traditional sung flamenco. I do not tremble with the indignation that grips those unprepared to accept that music they love--and the love is truly legitimate, just as is mine for cante--is not as widely shared as they think it either is or it ought to be.


You're barking up the wrong tree entirely. I am not an avant-gardist trembling with rage, but a listener with ears that aren't prejudiced by reading titles and labels. Only ignorance turned into opinion offends me.

Who is dismissing cante flamenco as a failed project? Modernist/12-tone/avant-garde/etc music is not a homogenised lump to be referred to, so the comparison is not applicable.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

JAS said:


> I think that Raymond Silvertrust (who appears to be the author of the material under discussion) has made his position evident. Are any of us confused by what his position is? The irony is that he is being criticized precisely for doing so. And that is fine, since no one is obligated to agree with anyone else, but charges of "bullying" and "abuse" are simply absurd.


I'm not saying he has abused or bullied anyone (maybe someone else said that?). He doesn't even have the ammunition to do so because he is not equipped to tackle the issue he is dismissing. Anyone who writes: "It is for all practical purposes an atonal work written in a 12 tone style." Doesn't know what they are talking about.

Maybe Raymond Silvertrust could change his mission statement to reflect his actual view instead of pretending to publish a journal that covers: "information about non-standard, rare or unknown chamber music of merit." Since views differ about what that is.
He certainly shouldn't be wading into a matter he can't discuss without chronic bias, or about which he has anything to say.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm not saying he has abused or bullied anyone (maybe someone else said that?). He doesn't even have the ammunition to do so because he is not equipped to tackle the issue he is dismissing. Anyone who writes: "It is for all practical purposes an atonal work written in a 12 tone style." Doesn't know what they are talking about.


Yes, it was someone else. (My reference is to the broader discussion, which is always a complication when part of the post is directed more specifically and part is not.)



eugeneonagain said:


> Maybe Raymond Silvertrust could change his mission statement to reflect his actual view instead of pretending to publish a journal that covers: "information about non-standard, rare or unknown chamber music of merit." Since views differ about what that is.


Does his journal not include non-standard, rare or (relatively) unknown chamber music of merit? That criteria does not require him to include what he is calling "experimental" music, and I credit him with clearly stating so in the paragraph which seems to be the target of scorn here. (One may certainly quibble with the style in which he has done so.)



eugeneonagain said:


> He certainly shouldn't be wading into a matter he can't discuss without chronic bias, or about which he has anything to say.


I make no such demands on Mr. Silvertrust. And I don't think he is really discussing them, merely setting the boundaries of what he is discussing. What he has done is to touch the third-rail, at least at TC, which is to state that a block of music that is deeply loved by some in this forum is not "popular." My feeling is that if adherents really felt that there was not truth in the charge, it would not sting so much or generate such a backlash.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

JAS said:


> I think that Raymond Silvertrust (who appears to be the author of the material under discussion) has made his position evident. Are any of us confused by what his position is? The irony is that he is being criticized precisely for doing so. And that is fine, since no one is obligated to agree with anyone else, but charges of "bullying" and "abuse" are simply absurd.


Making his position evident is perfectly reasonable and I, at least, was not objecting to him doing so. I was just suggesting it can and should be done without sounding like an insulting tool.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

JAS said:


> My feeling is that if adherents really felt that there was not truth in the charge, it would not sting so much or generate such a backlash.


The 'backlash' is not because there is truth in the claim (it doesn't have substance enough to warrant being called a charge), but because it is a tiresome stereotypical trope.

Everyone already knows it doesn't enjoy wide popularity. That is not at issue. I agree entirely that Silvertrust is free to set his boundaries where he wants to, but then why does he waste his and our time including string trios in his review which he considers unplayable, ugly and below par? Could it be to take pot shots and push an agenda? I think it is exactly that.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> The 'backlash' is not because there is truth in the claim (it doesn't have substance enough to warrant being called a charge), but because it is a tiresome stereotypical trope.
> 
> Everyone already knows it doesn't enjoy wide popularity. That is not at issue. I agree entirely that Silvertrust is free to set his boundaries where he wants to, but then why does he waste his and our time including string trios in his review which he considers unplayable, ugly and below par? Could it be to take pot shots and push an agenda? I think it is exactly that.


So it "doesn't have enough substance" and "everyone already knows it doesn't enjoy wide popularity," but it is an "agenda" to say so, even though everyone seems to know that it is true. Hmmmmm.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

JAS said:


> So it "doesn't have enough substance" and "everyone already knows it doesn't enjoy wide popularity," but it is an "agenda" to say so, even though everyone seems to know that it is true. Hmmmmm.


I said Silvertrust's opinion doesn't have enough substance, not modern/post-1900 music. It certainly is an agenda to run a publication claiming to cover lesser-known chamber music, then to deliberately slight and marginalise music that doesn't fit one author's romantic music tastes. He could easily have called his one-man-band journal 'Traditional Chamber Music', but that won't happen because he doesn't want to be seen as biased and more likely he thinks he rightly knows what is and isn't 'proper' music.

Everyone doesn't think what Silvertone's opines about it true. There would be no questioning of that opinion if it were self-evidently true.

From the other debates I know what your position is regarding modern music and that's okay, but it's not helpful to just attempt to run a battering ram through things you don't particularly like.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> . . . it's not helpful to just attempt to run a battering ram through things you don't particularly like.


A fair warning, but one that should apply to all sides.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

JAS said:


> A fair warning, but one that should apply to all sides.


That would be fair too, but the majority of people who listen to modern music also listen to the pre-modern output and have a favourable opinion of it. I know I do.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> That would be fair too, but the majority of people who listen to modern music also listen to the pre-modern output and have a favourable opinion of it. I know I do.


Which is not a matter of concern in the current discussion. Did someone suggest that anyone might not like both?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

JAS said:


> Which is not a matter of concern in the current discussion. Did someone suggest that anyone might not like both?


You are being very nigglingly argumentative. Yes, you implied above that somehow people are on sides rubbishing music over the divide. 
The actual issue is a lot of conservative listeners who have never developed any taste for music past the romantic era sound and make never-ending references to how bad that music is (or is supposed to be, or they would be listening to it). Whenever some article or view comes along it is seized upon as a vehicle for confirming a prejudice.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> You are being very nigglingly argumentative. Yes, you implied above that somehow people are on sides rubbishing music over the divide.


To the extent that I can understand what you are saying here, I neither stated nor implied (by any reasonable interpretation) that there could not be people who enjoyed both the kind of music that Mr. Silvertrust is including in his guide and the kind that he is not. One side of the debate in this forum, and really I speak only for my own posts, has been fairly consistent and precise, and the other has been mostly spitting nonsense and irrelevant points in an attempt to negate what Mr. Silvertrust wrote in his guide (which, I might add, he did not post here unless he is hiding behind the ID of the person who did).



eugeneonagain said:


> The actual issue is a lot of conservative listeners who have never developed any taste for music past the romantic era sound and make never-ending references to how bad that music is (or is supposed to be, or they would be listening to it). Whenever some article or view comes along it is seized upon as a vehicle for confirming a prejudice.


Taste can find agreement, but never confirmation.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

JAS said:


> To the extent that I can understand what you are saying here, I neither stated nor implied (by any reasonable interpretation) that there could not be people who enjoyed both the kind of music that Mr. Silvertrust is including in his guide and the kind that he is not. One side of the debate in this forum, and really I speak only for my own posts, has been fairly consistent and precise, and the other has been mostly spitting nonsense and irrelevant points in an attempt to negate what Mr. Silvertrust wrote in his guide (which, I might add, he did not post here unless he is hiding behind the ID of the person who did).


Is it not odd to claim 'by any reasonable interpretation' and then go on to refer to 'one side of the debate'? There has been nonsense in other threads (I think I know which discussions you refer to), but those are rather particular examples.

"Mr Silvertrust" is pushing outside of his remit. He clearly runs a chamber music journal that caters to romantic tastes, but uses it to take shots at music he doesn't like. No reputable journal does this unless they are particularly narrow and have a name which conveys this bias: e.g. 'The Strictly Tonal Music Quarterly' (not a real organ AFAIK). Even then they are likely to stick to their area.



JAS said:


> Taste can find agreement, but never confirmation.


I did write 'confirming a prejudice'. I don't think taste differences can ever find agreement, or even have to.

You are coming from a position which states: 'the unpalatable _truth_ is that serial music (and others we lump in with it) are ugly and unpopular.'

It is neither true nor unpalatable.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I reply only to note that I have no time or interest in refuting arguments against statements that I did not make (and possibly that no one has made). While we may disagree about some forms of music, I generally think more highly of you, and cannot see why you are simply making things up.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

So much to to take issue with here, in eugeneonagain's approach to this subject, but we'll start with this gem:



> eugeneonagain: "Who is dismissing cante flamenco as a failed project? Modernist/12-tone/avant-garde/etc music is not a homogenised lump to be referred to, so the comparison is not applicable."


I ask: Who Indeed? The OP's argument is purely a popularity argument, as, in my reading, all arguments about art are. The OP opines that he won't cover advanced music because not enough people like it to justify his effort. The not-liking-it-enough public can be denounced as mean or stupid, but the simple fact (popularity argument!) is that there isn't an audience for it to equal that for other, more tonal music. It's as simple as that, it really is. Same with cante flamenco. No tears, no hand-wringing (actually, there are tears and hand-wringing in cante ). As an easy concession to eugene, I'll renounce any call for rigor in defining anything, and instead wink and say we all know what we're talking about; we're among friends here. I liked my term _trans-Bartokian_, but will embrace any term e says we all already intuitively understand.

Then there is the irrelevant comment that (most) people who like avant-grade music also like earlier/tonal music. To again quote Lyndon Johnson: Therefore, What?! What does this have to do with anything under discussion?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I repeat that Silvertrust's issue is primarily with experimental or avant-garde (as we seem to use the term here) music. You can tell from some of the quotes from reviews (posted earlier) that some atonal and music with more dissonance is being reviewed. With that in mind, if I was subscribing to a Chamber Music Journal and they were reviewing works such as this (from 1925) that is tonal, but with a 'modernist' sound that became common in the early 20th century, I'd be perfectly fine with it:






But if they started reviewing this as a classical music string quartet, I'd start questioning their judgement:


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

I have found _The Chamber Music Journal_ useful in the past, mainly for discovering obscure Romantics. The opinions expressed in the OP are certainly disgusting, but there are already plenty of resources specifically for contemporary music, so the strong bias towards dissonance doesn't bother me too much. What bothers me is how prevalent these biases are in the music world.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> So much to to take issue with here, in eugeneonagain's approach to this subject, but we'll start with this gem:
> 
> I ask: Who Indeed? The OP's argument is purely a popularity argument, as, in my reading, all arguments about art are. The OP opines that he won't cover advanced music because not enough people like it to justify his effort. The not-liking-it-enough public can be denounced as mean or stupid, but the simple fact (popularity argument!) is that there isn't an audience for it to equal that for other, more tonal music. It's as simple as that, it really is. Same with cante flamenco. No tears, no hand-wringing (actually, there are tears and hand-wringing in cante ). As an easy concession to eugene, I'll renounce any call for rigor in defining anything, and instead wink and say we all know what we're talking about; we're among friends here. I liked my term _trans-Bartokian_, but will embrace any term e says we all already intuitively understand.
> 
> Then there is the irrelevant comment that (most) people who like avant-grade music also like earlier/tonal music. To again quote Lyndon Johnson: Therefore, What?! What does this have to do with anything under discussion?


I in turn ask: are you feeling put-out or something? The heavy tone of sarcasm (and it's simply evaporating when wasted on your non-arguments) in your post seems to indicate it.

The relevance of the comment about people having a wide listening repertoire was in response to posts much further down the line from the OP. Do try to keep up old boy. It was addressing the idea that somehow there are sides taken on the modernist/traditionalist side and that this motivates listeners of modernist music to push a modernist agenda against other music - or to immediately feel aggrieved when it is trashed by those who launch an attack upon it.

I know perfectly well that the audience for modernist music is smaller than for tonal. My post way up there is about the obvious bias of that fellow's "journal", which clearly impacts his view. We know THAT the audience is smaller as a fact, but the reasons WHY the audience smaller is much more debatable and is also what leads to nasty quarrels on here.

Silvertrust's approach is basically that it has no proper melodies and the dissonances aren't resolved to his liking. So his truism about the audience numbers is pretty much old-hat which can join the long queue of other empty observations.

You really are losing your touch SM.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

What if someone published a Chamber Music Journal and the publisher stated that it would be dedicated to atonal and otherwise modern works because classical chamber music had become stale and formulaic and the new music was a breath of fresh air and should have a wider audience. Would the same people who have used all this hyperbolic criticism of the OP quote speak up likewise? I very much doubt it. 

And the fact is, someone saying something like this in their own publication wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. It’s really none of my business. Same goes for a monthly Ferneyhough’s Greatest Works pamphlet.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> What if someone published a Chamber Music Journal and the publisher stated that it would be dedicated to atonal and otherwise modern works because classical chamber music had become stale and formulaic and the new music was a breath of fresh air and should have a wider audience.


I might subscribe if it looked to be written in properly pretentious artspeak. And certainly if it promised centerfolds of naked atonalist composers.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The Chamber Music Journal looks primarily devoted to some of the forgotten composers from the 18th and 19th century who wrote chamber works that the Journal feels are worth hearing. I see nothing wrong with that. If they don't care for the way string quartets or chamber music were written for strings in the 20th century, I see nothing wrong with that. No one is prevented from reading about, listening to, studying and playing any of the modernist composers of chamber music. Surely, there are chamber music journals that discuss the new music, the avant-garde, and it would be out of place expecting them to discuss Beethoven's or Mozart's string quartets. One particular Chiara String Quartet, among others that are doing the same in searching out a new audience for the new music that they want to play, started playing gigs in bars! I'm all for it. Take the music to where the audience is. I believe this is a reflection of the changing face and venues for chamber music.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/arts/music/24midg.html

Chamber Music America: [video]https://www.chamber-music.org/programs[/video]


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DaveM said:


> What if someone published a Chamber Music Journal and the publisher stated that it would be dedicated to atonal and otherwise modern works because classical chamber music had become stale and formulaic and the new music was a breath of fresh air and should have a wider audience. Would the same people who have used all this hyperbolic criticism of the OP quote speak up likewise? I very much doubt it.
> 
> And the fact is, someone saying something like this in their own publication wouldn't bother me in the slightest. It's really none of my business. Same goes for a monthly Ferneyhough's Greatest Works pamphlet.


If it was a publication as you describe it, with that exact publisher statement of intent (that classical chamber music has become stale and formulaic), I would surely expect them to show bias. Not that I would likely agree with it.

The thing is Silverback's journal doesn't overtly set any limit on eras. It claims to be a journal dedicated to: *disseminating information about non-standard, rare or unknown chamber music of merit. *Yet it is actually a one-man band journal from someone who prefers the romantic repertoire and resorts to lukewarm commentary in dismissive language to what he clearly doesn't regard as fittingly meritorious chamber music.

You are pounding on that trad vs new drum again. It's noisy and mistaken. I don't think tonal music is worn out, but it's also not my fault that you have a cut-off point for what you can listen to.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> If it was a publication as you describe it, with that exact publisher statement of intent (that classical chamber music has become stale and formulaic), I would surely expect them to show bias. Not that I would likely agree with it.
> 
> The thing is Silverback's journal doesn't overtly set any limit on eras. It claims to be a journal dedicated to: *disseminating information about non-standard, rare or unknown chamber music of merit. *Yet it is actually a one-man band journal from someone who prefers the romantic repertoire and resorts to lukewarm commentary in dismissive language to what he clearly doesn't regard as fittingly meritorious chamber music.


So you don't like what he says and how he says it. Just not sure why you're so offended by it.



> You are pounding on that trad vs new drum again. It's noisy and mistaken. I don't think tonal music is worn out, but it's also not my fault that you have a cut-off point for what you can listen to.


Well I had to blame someone.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DaveM said:


> So you don't like what he says and how he says it. Just not sure why you're so offended by it.


Well I don't know what your obstacle is then because I've stated it plainly more than once. He's a person pretending to not have an opinion about something, whilst having that opinion with a heavy bias. Also his opinion is not a sufficiently good argument for his views (which of course he isn't bothering to state...)



DaveM said:


> Well I had to blame someone.


Did you?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> eugeneonagain: "You really are losing your touch SM."


Opinions differ. Your method is to grind your arguments to a fine powder, seeking some elusive yet tiny nugget of "truth" within. I prefer, with Alexander, cutting through Gordian knots with a few bold strokes to get at the key issues. People are angry and upset when it is pointed out that there is a diminished audience for certain musics, for which there is a reason: Fewer People Like It! So the reaction of the angry is shoot the messenger, rip up the message, and denounce the audience for being ill-informed, lazy, stupid, or vicious. But it really is just a popularity contest--_de gustibus non disputandum est_ (I just thought that up!)

I retain my touch, and My Aim is True.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Yes, okay.

It's true popularity contests prevail and it's sad for art really. It's the reason Turner didn't and couldn't show the paintings that meant most to him during his lifetime; they would have upset the guardians and confused the bulk of the general audience. The questions of _how_ and _why_ are most interesting and not - I think - to be dismissed for the sake of stating an unanswered truism.

The popular success of pieces of art doesn't just rest upon their innate aesthetic value which shines out and captures the audience. Can it really be that the great popularity of Picasso's _Guernica _is because the general audience is finely tuned into Picasso's aesthetic and ideas? Very doubtful. So what is it?

Firstly it has been promoted and secondly it has a 'story' which can help with the 'meaning'. Popular culture does a great deal of the work of defining these meanings, and familiarity, for the mass audience and only a few items from outside popular culture (I think I should call some of it mass-consumer culture) make it into the heavy promotion arena. Examples are Van Gogh (and his dramatic life of turmoil and the posthumous enormous prices for paintings), Frida Kahlo; Piet Mondriaan whose work is a model for aesthetic design of the post-war world (he's heavily promoted here in NL, but I doubt the majority actually like his paintings). So 'big audiences' may not be what they appear to be.

Schoenberg's 'mistake' if you will, wasn't being ignorant of the audience's pleasure, but his optimism that the aesthetic climate would allow audiences to broaden their aesthetic palette enough to accept music like his. He wasn't looking to be some academic musician playing only to peers. Culture is much more conservative than people like to believe which is why anything different is referred to as 'the fringe' with its tiny audiences.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Atonal music never got the audiences it’s creators hoped for or, at least, would have liked to see over time. But, at least, it passes the smell test for classical music. But experimental, avant-garde ‘music’ in the realm of a a Ferneyhough or some self-absorbed individual fondling piano keys does not. 

Finding ways of extracting as much dissonance as possible from stringed instruments or ways of producing sounds from instruments that they weren’t designed for may be a way of expressing the cacophony of a wandering mind, but isn’t exactly in keeping with the legacy from classical music’s great composers. Perhaps it is an art form I don’t understand or appreciate deserving it’s own genre, but I know, without any doubt, what it isn’t. I wouldn’t blame the editor of any classical music publication for refusing to review ‘music’ that doesn’t meet any semblance of the definition of classical music.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

That reviewer is very far away from anything avant-garde. His distaste already begins with 'too much dissonance' within largely tonal works.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

My distaste also begins with "too much dissonance." Be sure to pick a good title when you launch your own journal for more inclusive reviews. (I recommend against The Journal for Untainted Tonal Music.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> My distaste also begins with "too much dissonance." Be sure to pick a good title when you launch your own journal for more inclusive reviews. (I recommend against The Journal for Untainted Tonal Music.)


Well, we just threw out Charles Ives with the bathwater.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> eugeneonagain: "The popular success of pieces of art doesn't just rest upon their innate aesthetic value which shines out and captures the audience."


But what if there is no such thing as "innate aesthetic value"? We've all posted ad nauseum on this, on innumerable threads. My position, always, is that aesthetics is a fancy way of saying that the stuff some defined individual or group likes is good. My preferred defined group is me. There are also groups such as professional aesthetes/critics/arbiters of taste for in-groups; fellow artists; the artistically literate Middle Class; people posting on TC. And the vast General Public. What typifies all of these is a failure to agree, often, on the specifics of what's good and what's not. What we're left with is what's popular with whom.

But, you say: "It's true popularity contests prevail and it's sad for art really." Would it be better for art if a Board of Aesthetes overruled popularity and imposed compulsory enjoyment of approved art? That's if you believe in an innate aesthetic value, something that overrides and supersedes anyone's individual taste, even your own. I do not. As Humpty Dumpty says to Alice, "The question is, which is to be master-that's all." I recognize an individual's aesthetic sense as paramount. It may become widely shared with others, perhaps in rare instances nearly universal, but it does not radiate outward from some intrinsic, innate property or properties within the artwork. And nowadays, with everything in art available to everyone, anytime, The System seems to be working with maximum efficacy.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In this digital age, we have too much information being thrown at us. Therefore, the "status quo" or majority "common sense" view of music is highly suspicious. Just like Adorno felt, we should mistrust the "system" because it is a tool of marketing and industry. We must make sure that all music, no matter how marginalized or unpopular, gets a chance to be experienced. That means being tolerant, and not suppressing _any_ music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> In this digital age, we have too much information being thrown at us. Therefore, the "status quo" or majority "common sense" view of music is highly suspicious. Just like Adorno felt, we should mistrust the "system" because it is a tool of marketing and industry. We must make sure that all music, no matter how marginalized or unpopular, gets a chance to be experienced. That means being tolerant, and not suppressing _any_ music.


Is saying you dislike some music count as suppressing it? Is saying you like some music count as giving it unfair advantage? I will agree with you (if you agree with me) that it is better to share one's enthusiasms than to share--loudly and obtrusively--one's dislikes--all that does is p!ss people off.


----------



## Euler (Dec 3, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Finding ways of extracting as much dissonance as possible from stringed instruments or ways of producing sounds from instruments that they weren't designed for may be a way of expressing the cacophony of a wandering mind, but isn't exactly in keeping with the legacy from classical music's great composers.


Col legno battuto (hitting the strings with the wood of the bow) is used by Haydn, Mozart, Chopin and Shostakovich in their orchestral music.

In string quartets Beethoven uses sul ponticello (squeaky bowing by the bridge) and Bartok uses nail pizzicato (scratchy plucking with fingernails) and snap pizzicato (plucking strings so hard they rebound off the fingerboard).

You hear artificial harmonics in Saint-Saens' cello concertos, harmonic glissandi in Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe (running a finger lightly along the string while bowing), and also in Shostakovich's cello sonata and Stravinsky's Firebird. I could go on....

In modern music the prominence of extended techniques has grown gradually, within a tradition that has always valued imagination, originality and restless broadening of expressive materials. A lot of "avant-garde" music is vacuous nonsense, and the arts will always be a magnet for charlatans, but to me Ferneyhough's wonderful string quartets are more closely related to Western art music than any other tradition.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Euler said:


> Col legno battuto (hitting the strings with the wood of the bow) is used by Haydn, Mozart, Chopin and Shostakovich in their orchestral music.
> 
> In string quartets Beethoven uses sul ponticello (squeaky bowing by the bridge) and Bartok uses nail pizzicato (scratchy plucking with fingernails) and snap pizzicato (plucking strings so hard they rebound off the fingerboard).
> 
> You hear artificial harmonics in Saint-Saens' cello concertos, harmonic glissandi in Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe (running a finger lightly along the string while bowing), and also in Shostakovich's cello sonata and Stravinsky's Firebird. I could go on....


Don't kid a kidder. The fact that the violin (an instrument that I played) in the above works produces the sounds you mentioned is totally irrelevant to the issue of what Ferneyhough is creating compared to those works.



> In modern music the prominence of extended techniques has grown gradually, within a tradition that has always valued imagination, originality and restless broadening of expressive materials. A lot of "avant-garde" music is vacuous nonsense, and the arts will always be a magnet for charlatans, but to me Ferneyhough's wonderful string quartets are more closely related to Western art music than any other tradition.


Perhaps that's due to the fact that there is no other tradition they can possibly be compared to and unfortunately for classical music, they happen to have in common the use of stringed instruments.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> But what if there is no such thing as "innate aesthetic value"?


That was precisely the point I was making.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> That was precisely the point I was making.


Wonderful! We are in full agreement.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> Is saying you dislike some music count as suppressing it? Is saying you like some music count as giving it unfair advantage? I will agree with you (if you agree with me) that it is better to share one's enthusiasms than to share--loudly and obtrusively--one's dislikes--all that does is p!ss people off.


What's even more effective is to share--loudly and obtrusively--one's likes that you *know* the other person dislikes. That'll p!ss 'em off every time.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, we just threw out Charles Ives with the bathwater.


You say that as if it is a bad thing.

The question would simply be does Ives' music have "too much dissonance"? If the answer is no, then there is no fear in mistaking him as bathwater. If the answer is yes, then he may go.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Wonderful! We are in full agreement.


Hold the phone...no such thing as innate aesthetic value? Glad I'm not one of those suckers that puts their heart and soul into creating original tonal or atonal artworks that have little commercial appeal. Pretty sad if in the end they don't get a sort of moral victory.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> Hold the phone...no such thing as innate aesthetic value? Glad I'm not one of those suckers that puts their heart and soul into creating original tonal or atonal artworks that have little commercial appeal. Pretty sad if in the end they don't get a sort of moral victory.


Yes, there is innate aesthetic value in a work if more people believe that. It becomes a 'meme' and gains power and influence.
A meme is a term referring to a unit of cultural information transferable from one mind to another.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Would it be better for art if a Board of Aesthetes overruled popularity and imposed compulsory enjoyment of approved art? That's if you believe in an innate aesthetic value, something that overrides and supersedes anyone's individual taste, even your own.


If you are going to define it as you have, then no, there is no innate aesthetic value. One might define it in other ways.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

JAS said:


> If you are going to define it as you have, then no, there is no innate aesthetic value. One might define it in other ways.


I like millionrainbow's "memes" formulation .

Again, the _Bandar-log_ from Kipling's Mowgli tales: "We all say so, so it must be true!"


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I like millionrainbow's "memes" formulation .
> 
> Again, the _Bandar-log_ from Kipling's Mowgli tales: "We all say so, so it must be true!"


Although that strikes me as requiring an external influence for the aesthetic to be appreciated, which to me would not seem, consequently, to be innate in the thing itself. I think it is a bit silly if someone is suggesting that enough chatter or praise bestows value on the thing or grants a status greater than the thing itself might accomplish. (Certainly no discussion at TC is going to accomplish such a feat.) It might be fair to say that enough repeated chatter or praise tends to keep a thing in public view and memory, which increases its chance of accumulating favorable responses.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, there is innate aesthetic value in a work if more people believe that. It becomes a 'meme' and gains power and influence.
> A meme is a term referring to a unit of cultural information transferable from one mind to another.


A meme may be a "unit" that does not change in accordance with the mind that perceives it. The aesthetic value of an artwork, though, may not be a simple consequence of number of minds who share a belief in it. For example, both you and I may share an esteem for various atonal works of Schoenberg, but insofar as you are yourself a musician and have experience composing, whereas I am just an amateur enthusiast, I'd hope that people would take your opinion more seriously than mine.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> A meme may be a "unit" that does not change in accordance with the mind that perceives it. The aesthetic value of an artwork, though, may not be a simple consequence of number of minds who share a belief in it. For example, both you and I may share an esteem for various atonal works of Schoenberg, but insofar as you are yourself a musician and have experience composing, whereas I am just an amateur enthusiast, I'd hope that people would take your opinion more seriously than mine.


And I would prefer that no one take either opinion as being more valuable than his or her own response, valuing other opinions mostly just as suggestions of what to try or to avoid.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

JAS said:


> And I would prefer that no one take either opinion as being more valuable than his or her own response, valuing other opinions mostly just as suggestions of what to try or to avoid.


I don't really disagree with what you've said...that's mostly how I take opinions on the forum and elsewhere. My own listening interests are eclectic and subject to change. But every now and again I'll read something about a composer-I'm thinking of a post in the Music Theory subforum about Prokofiev at the moment-that gives me a new excitement about a composition and appreciation for the composer. Maybe that piece of knowledge could circulate and generally augment appreciation for the composer, but I don't think the value of the work is dependent upon it; I'm inclined to think that the post revealed something new (to me) about the inherent value of the work.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

The argument against atonal music that 'people don't like it' is completely bizarre coming from classical music fans considering the relative unpopularity of the genre as a whole with the general public. By the exact same logic composers should be writing pop and concerts should be programming Ed Sheeran instead of Beethoven.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Gallus said:


> The argument against atonal music that 'people don't like it' is completely bizarre coming from classical music fans considering the relative unpopularity of the genre as a whole with the general public. By the exact same logic composers should be writing pop and concerts should be programming Ed Sheeran instead of Beethoven.


Comparisons that jump across the major music genres make no sense. Classical music audiences are far more likely to go to a concert featuring all Beethoven music than one featuring Ed Sheeran. I really like Ed Sheeran, but, silly me, I prefer classical music at classical music concerts I attend.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Comparisons that jump across the major music genres make no sense.


Nice dodge.



DaveM said:


> Classical music audiences are far more likely to go to a concert featuring all Beethoven music than one featuring Ed Sheeran.


Classical music audiences are far more likely to go to a concert featuring all Beethoven music than one featuring Monteverdi. Or Haydn. Or Mahler. Or virtually any composer in history. Does that mean these composers should be performed less in favour of all-Beethoven concerts because that's what the people want? Such an idea would be universally perceived as utterly absurd, yet some people (like the journal in the OP) put forward the exact same argument when they say that since atonal composers are less popular that means they should be excluded from the repertoire. It's complete nonsense.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Gallus said:


> Classical music audiences are far more likely to go to a concert featuring all Beethoven music than one featuring Monteverdi. Or Haydn. Or Mahler. Or virtually any composer in history. Does that mean these composers should be performed less in favour of all-Beethoven concerts because that's what the people want?


Sure, why not? Heaven forbid that audiences should get what they want.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

JAS said:


> Sure, why not? Heaven forbid that audiences should get what they want.


Because I believe there is such a thing as artistic merit which is not defined solely by audience popularity.

Last month I went to the Proms to see Andras Schiff perform the Well-Tempered Clavier Book II, and the Royal Albert Hall was about 1/2 full. I find ridiculous the argument that the BBC should have programmed a John Williams Star Wars film score instead because that would have filled the venue.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

JAS said:


> Sure, why not? Heaven forbid that audiences should get what they want.


You get good art when artists follow their convictions, not through focus groups. Come on.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Gallus said:


> Because I believe there is such a thing as artistic merit which is not defined solely by audience popularity.


Good luck with that.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_<<Any responses: The listening public has now been exposed to (atonal and experimental music) for more than a century and for those who wish to know the truth, the verdict is in. Despite many fervent supporters and committed performances by professional groups, the music of these composers, great as it may be on paper to a musicologist or the student of music theory, are not an experience the average listener generally wishes to repeat.>>_

This is what I've been saying for many years. None of the stuff shows up in concert, mainly because people won't pay to hear it.

I attended the Ravinia Festival in Chicago during the bicentennial summer of 1976, a period when experimental and 12 tone music was in vogue, and the audience there booed a 12 tone piece. Perhaps in other megamarkets like New York, London and Tokyo, where there are potentially millions of prospects, it's possible a few hundred to a thousand may attend such a concert.

But it won't play in Sacramento, Des Moines, Tallahassee or even St. Louis. And it isn't played on NPR anywhere. It was, to borrow a baseball phrase, a swing and a miss with the listening public.

There are atonal pieces I enjoy, none more than *Berg's Chamber Concerto for Piano, Violin and 13 Instruments*. I have never seen this piece played in concert but I finally found a recording that gave it some life and humanism and linked it with some of the atonal composers' miniaturized waltzes from the Strausses. But I agree it can't compete with better tonal music or anything that riles the emotions.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Gallus: ".....yet some people (like the journal in the OP) put forward the exact same argument when they say that since atonal composers are less popular that means they should be excluded from the repertoire. It's complete nonsense.


Yes, it would be complete nonsense if that is what the journal man said. But he didn't. No, he said he wasn't going to include such in his journal, not that atonal composers "should be excluded from the repertoire.". Nonsense all around.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> You get good art when artists follow their convictions, not through focus groups. Come on.


You get _passionate_ art when artists follow their convictions. Whether or not it is _good_ art is a matter of reception (over time), and often personal taste. The artist _never_ gets to impose reception, a very important detail all too often neglected.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

JAS said:


> Good luck with that.


Again, if you disagree that artistic merit exists and isn't solely defined by audience popularity, then Ed Sheeran is a greater artist than Beethoven.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Gallus said:


> Again, if you disagree that artistic merit exists and isn't solely defined by audience popularity, then Ed Sheeran is a greater artist than Beethoven.


There is no such thing as artistic merit in a vacuum, or as objective truth in regard to taste. For those who really like Ed Sheeran, he probably is a greater artist than Beethoven. That opinion may not stand the test of time, and it certainly would not be me, but no one gets to assert absolute authority on artistic merit. I would argue that any music that has enough of an audience to support it deserves to be played, but trying to force an audience to accept something that it doesn't like is almost never going to be a good idea. Trying to do so under the flag of artistic merit isn't going to make it any better.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

JAS said:


> You get _passionate_ art when artists follow their convictions. Whether or not it is _good_ art is a matter of reception (over time), and often personal taste. The artist _never_ gets to impose reception, a very important detail all too often neglected.


I meant it's a necessary precondition for good art for the artists to have convictions in what they're doing. Of course they won't always succeed in making good art.

The point is that's why we don't get all Beethoven all the time, why big city symphony orchestras and opera companies have the most boring programs compared to chamber, early music and new music groups, and why the core works of musical modernism are part of the repertoire whether you like them or not.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> I meant it's a necessary precondition for good art for the artists to have convictions in what they're doing. Of course they won't always succeed in making good art.


That is a much more reasonable statement than what you actually said.



isorhythm said:


> The point is that's why we don't get all Beethoven all the time, why big city symphony orchestras and opera companies have the most boring programs compared to chamber, early music and new music groups, and why the core works of musical modernism are part of the repertoire whether you like them or not.


No, we don't get all Beethoven all the time because there are lots of very fine composers and plenty of quite decent ones, and some variety is desirable. Smaller ensembles can afford to play music with a small audience. I don't know what you consider the core works of musical modernism, and we might find a great deal of disagreement in trying to assign them or determine their place in the repertoire.

And yes, whether or not I personally like them is of no great importance, just as whether or not you like them is of no great importance. We each get to assign our own relative value, and if enough other people agree with us, then we can have a concert.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Gallus said:


> Classical music audiences are far more likely to go to a concert featuring all Beethoven music than one featuring Monteverdi. Or Haydn. Or Mahler. Or virtually any composer in history. Does that mean these composers should be performed less in favour of all-Beethoven concerts because that's what the people want? Such an idea would be universally perceived as utterly absurd, yet some people (like the journal in the OP) put forward the exact same argument when they say that since atonal composers are less popular that means they should be excluded from the repertoire. It's complete nonsense.


The repeated use of apples and oranges comparisons is not going to prove your point. There is a marked difference between the music of the composers you mention -concerts have programmed it for years- and atonal music which has often required scheduling within programs to avoid a reduced audience either overall or during the atonal work. And btw, you're the one who brought up the subject of Beethoven.

That said, it's obvious that the OP quote is directed more at experimental music. Atonal music is not ordinarily associated with stringed instruments used as percussion instruments, so your mentioning only atonal music above misses an important part of the point.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

larold said:


> _<<Any responses: The listening public has now been exposed to (atonal and experimental music) for more than a century and for those who wish to know the truth, the verdict is in. Despite many fervent supporters and committed performances by professional groups, the music of these composers, great as it may be on paper to a musicologist or the student of music theory, are not an experience the average listener generally wishes to repeat.>>_
> 
> This is what I've been saying for many years. None of the stuff shows up in concert, mainly because people won't pay to hear it.
> 
> ...


In the past I have submitted over a dozen posts about concerts I have attended which programed serial works and the audience liked the performance. I will repeat one. In 2005 I attended a performance at the Music Shed in Tanglewood which featured the "Adagio tenbroso" from Carter's _Symphonia_. The Music Shed houses 5100 and there are also ground seats available. The concert was sold out and there were over a thousand sitting on the ground. After the performance the Carter received a standing ovation. Of course the people of Massachusetts may be messed up because of the drinking water.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> The repeated use of apples and oranges comparisons is not going to prove your point. There is a marked difference between the music of the composers you mention -concerts have programmed it for years- and atonal music which has often required scheduling within programs to avoid a reduced audience either overall or during the atonal work. And btw, you're the one who brought up the subject of Beethoven.
> 
> That said, it's obvious that the OP quote is directed more at experimental music. Atonal music is not ordinarily associated with stringed instruments used as percussion instruments, so your mentioning only atonal music above misses an important part of the point.


Schoenberg's string quartets contain some "experimenting" in the use of harmonics, bow-bouncing, plucking, and the like.

All that these experimental composers like Ferneyhough and Rihm are doing, is making sustained pitch a smaller consideration, and playing up the non-pitched aspects. If you look at it logically, all they are doing is exploring the lesser-used aspects of music.

If you like pitched-music only, then Varese's "Ionisation" for percussion only is not for you. You're talking like your opinion of what music is supposed to be is larger and more powerful than it really is. It's just your opinion. These experimental areas of music have already been explored, composed, published, and performed. It exists. No, it is not traditional. What's the point of this whole discussion?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Schoenberg's string quartets contain some "experimenting" in the use of harmonics, bow-bouncing, plucking, and the like.


I understand that, but you would agree that using stringed instruments as percussion instruments is not 'ordinarily' associated with atonal music -which is what I said- wouldn't you?



> All that these experimental composers like Ferneyhough and Rihm are doing, is making sustained pitch a smaller consideration, and playing up the non-pitched aspects. If you look at it logically, all they are doing is exploring the lesser-used aspects of music.


It is my position that what they are doing has narrowed the result to such a point that it no longer qualifies as anything close to what, by far, most people associate with classical music. Let experimental be its own genre instead of hanging on the coattails of music it bears no relationship to. Then, people like you can enjoy it all you want at concerts dedicated totally to it. What's the problem with that?



> If you like pitched-music only, then Varese's "Ionisation" for percussion only is not for you. You're talking like your opinion of what music is supposed to be is larger and more powerful than it really is. It's just your opinion. These experimental areas of music have already been explored, composed, published, and performed. It exists. No, it is not traditional. What's the point of this whole discussion?


I've given my opinion above which presents a solution for those who enjoy it. I admit that I have trouble accepting a lot of experimental music as music as I understand the term to mean. So, I'll defer to you who listens to a lot of it. But I have a long and wide experience with classical music and have, what I consider to be, an informed opinion as to what it is and isn't.

The point of this whole discussion is the import -or not- of the quote in the OP. This is at least the second time that you have responded to my post as if I'm the one who brought this subject up and/or I should keep my opinion to myself.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

> Let experimental be its own genre instead of hanging on the coattails of music it bears no relationship to.


The whole history of classical music is a long series of continued experiments with forms, genres, expression and instrumental means. Setting up an artificial barrier defined by say the Year 1910 doesn´t change that. You´d even have to exclude Henry Cowell's or Langgaard´s piano music, by your criteria.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> The whole history of classical music is a long series of continued experiments with forms, genres, expression and instrumental means. Setting up an artificial barrier defined by say the Year 1910 doesn´t change that. You´d even have to exclude Henry Cowell's or Langgaard´s piano music, by your criteria.


No one, I think, is setting a year as the criteria, although there is some rough correlation to when a piece was composed and what characteristics it likely embodies. (If it were, we could easily assign the titles pre-1910 and post-1910 music.) The problem with the argument you have presented is that it presumes that all, or at least most, experiments are successful. (In reality, most experiments are failures.) There has certainly been tinkering and stretching in the history of classical music, but that was never its defining characteristic. Far more music simply relished whatever developments were currently in vogue, with no real experimenting at all. More importantly, not all such developments are necessarily progress. If you are driving from New York to Iowa, proceeding on to California can no longer be reasonably considered progress.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

JAS said:


> No one, I think, is setting a year as the criteria, although there is some rough correlation to when a piece was composed and what characteristics it likely embodies. (If it were, we could easily assign the titles pre-1910 and post-1910 music.) The problem with the argument you have presented is that it presume that all, or at least most, experiments are successful. (In reality, most experiments are failures.) There has certainly been tinkering and stretching in the history of classical music, but that was never its defining characteristic. Far more music simply relished whatever developments were currently in vogue, with no real experimenting at all. More importantly, not all such developments are necessarily progress. If you are driving from New York to Iowa, proceeding on to California can no longer be reasonably considered progress.


In your post there is no pointing to the development / progress that actually took place in classical music, which is obvious and which makes Bach different from Wagner, or Stravinsky, or Penderecki. The development happened because of a long series of continued experiments with forms, genres, expression and instrumental means. Cowell and Langgaard for example used various instrumental effects on the piano, and I think it is fair to say that they are generally accepted composers today, also by the general public, in spite of the strangeness of the ideas in their own time. The same applies to Penderecki (though the Threnody of course can be unpleasant to some). But their music would be outside the generally acceptable, as defined by DaveM.

Your post seem to suggest allowing artists some experiments that strangely aren´t actually experiments anyway, just old, non-experimental experiments.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> Your post seem to suggest allowing artists some experiments that strangely aren´t actually experiments anyway, just old, non-experimental experiments.


I don't know where you would get this suggestion, certainly not from what I posted. What my post actually implies is that there was some evolutionary development, but mostly slow and full of long periods where there was little or no perceptible change going on. I don't consider this experimenting, which is too harsh an idea. Only in the modern era do the new developments form a fundamental rejection of older forms. To me, that is the defining difference.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

DaveM said:


> The repeated use of apples and oranges comparisons is not going to prove your point. There is a marked difference between the music of the composers you mention -concerts have programmed it for years- and atonal music which has often required scheduling within programs to avoid a reduced audience either overall or during the atonal work.


Concerts have programmed atonal music for over a century now. Webern is just as permanent a fixture in the repertoire as any of those other names, in fact an older and more established one than Monteverdi, who was only revived recently. This is not an "apples and oranges comparison" between music out of the repertory and in, but an argument about what is currently in and should be kicked out.

At the Proms concert of Schiff's WTC I mentioned a couple next to me left halfway through. The logic you're advancing says that since Baroque keyboard music can be too difficult for the average concertgoer it should be programmed less in favour of Romantic orchestral pieces which more people would want to see. I guarantee that Byrd's, Tye's and Gibbons' viol fantasias, brilliant works, are all both less popular and less performed than the Second Viennese School's string compositions, so what is the argument based on popularity and place in the repertoire for excluding the latter and not the former?



DaveM said:


> That said, it's obvious that the OP quote is directed more at experimental music. Atonal music is not ordinarily associated with stringed instruments used as percussion instruments, so your mentioning only atonal music above misses an important part of the point.


The quote itself says "atonal and experimental music". It is directed at both. "Stringed instruments used as percussion instruments" is a polemical conflation and exaggeration to advance the writer's point.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

JAS said:


> There is no such thing as artistic merit in a vacuum, or as objective truth in regard to taste. For those who really like Ed Sheeran, he probably is a greater artist than Beethoven. That opinion may not stand the test of time, and it certainly would not be me, but no one gets to assert absolute authority on artistic merit. I would argue that any music that has enough of an audience to support it deserves to be played, but trying to force an audience to accept something that it doesn't like is almost never going to be a good idea. Trying to do so under the flag of artistic merit isn't going to make it any better.


This post is incoherent. First you argue there is no objective criteria for artistic merit. Okay, fine. Then you argue that popularity, an objective criterion, should decide what music gets performed. I'm confused. 

Also, never mind that the orchestras playing 19th century tonal music all depend on donations and public funding to survive rather than audience tickets. By your own criterion the groups playing Beethoven and Mahler should be wiped out...


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Gallus said:


> This post is incoherent. First you argue there is no objective criteria for artistic merit. Okay, fine. Then you argue that popularity, an objective criterion, should decide what music gets performed. I'm confused.


Yes, you are confused. These are separate issues, and the only reason that my post may seen incoherent is that you insist on twisting them together, in the hope that they will come out looking more like your preferred position. The first is a question of objective artistic merit, which as should be obvious enough is a pseudo-intellectual fantasy (unless you would like to provide a very fine argument demonstrating the opposite). The second is purely a matter of pragmatism, and a reasonable response to the standard artist and audience relationship. They are not directly related as points, other than the fact that they are being discussed, at least in part, in the context of classical music. Artists are forever saying that they should be free to produce the art that they want, which is perfectly valid, but what the artist never gets to do is to dictate the reception of that work.



Gallus said:


> Also, never mind that the orchestras playing 19th century tonal music all depend on donations and public funding to survive rather than audience tickets. By your own criterion the groups playing Beethoven and Mahler should be wiped out...


And they are not ditching 19th century tonal music, at least not entirely, and finding their coffers filled by turning to more modern fare. If orchestras are unable to provide a sufficient audience, they will indeed die (as many have). I like 19th century tonal music, and would regret the loss, but what is one to do? Adding more modern works has been tried, with no great improvement in attendance or support. In fact, it tends to have the opposite effect. A few orchestras have claimed some success, but the fact that other orchestras are not all rushing to do the same is certainly not a factor of reluctance of the musicians, but of the audience.

I would not recommend that pop concerts begin to add Beethoven to their selections, nor that classical concerts should add pop music, as these are incompatible. Similarly, I feel that most "modern" classical music is also incompatible, even if there are some people who like both. I like a long hot shower and I like reading old books. I would not suggest mixing the two.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

JAS said:


> A few orchestras have claimed some success, but the fact that other orchestras are not all rushing to do the same is certainly not a factor of reluctance of the musicians, but of the audience.


That's a good point that I've never heard mentioned. The fact that many musicians seem to like playing modern music and yet, that is not reflected in programming is significant.



> like a long hot shower and I like reading old books. I would not suggest mixing the two.


The latest Kindle is waterproof so if you turn down the temperature a bit, you can do both (unless the joy is turning those old musty pages). Well, maybe not, the screen is likely to fog up.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> The latest Kindle is waterproof so if you turn down the temperature a bit, you can do both (unless the joy is turning those old musty pages). Well, maybe not, the screen is likely to fog up.


I do like the feel of actually turning the pages, and reading from one page to the opposing one, and letting my eyes wander back again to reread a particularly good paragraph. Kindle may be fine for disposable beach fiction (and it has certain advantages in increasing font size for aging eyes or for reading in dark places), but it cannot compete with the well-planned layout of a beautifully produced book.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> That's a good point that I've never heard mentioned. The fact that many musicians seem to like playing modern music and yet, that is not reflected in programming is significant.


I think it is reflected in the programming, and they would do more in a heartbeat if they could get away with it. The fact that they apparently are limited in this way is what I suspect is significant.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

JAS said:


> I think it is reflected in the programming, and they would do more in a heartbeat if they could get away with it. The fact that they apparently are limited in this way is what I suspect is significant.


Come to think of it, that must be true. The LA Phil keeps commissioning what turn out often to be IMO bizarre works never to be heard or seen again. If it's not musicians and the conductor recommending them, who would it be?


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

JAS said:


> No one, I think, is setting a year as the criteria, although there is some rough correlation to when a piece was composed and what characteristics it likely embodies. (If it were, we could easily assign the titles pre-1910 and post-1910 music.) The problem with the argument you have presented is that it presumes that all, or at least most, experiments are successful. (In reality, most experiments are failures.) There has certainly been tinkering and stretching in the history of classical music, but that was never its defining characteristic. Far more music simply relished whatever developments were currently in vogue, with no real experimenting at all. More importantly, not all such developments are necessarily progress. If you are driving from New York to Iowa, proceeding on to California can no longer be reasonably considered progress.


While I agree most experiments are failures, when a composer (i.e. Ferneyhough) has spent their whole career obsessively perfection their craft it ceases to be one. Your driving analogy doesn't seem to make sense either (in the context of classical music at least). Just because you like your home in Iowa doesn't mean others can't drive on to California; noone's telling you to tag along. Clearly, most are already in (and never leaving) Iowa.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

JAS said:


> I don't know where you would get this suggestion, certainly not from what I posted. *What my post actually implies is that there was some evolutionary development, but mostly slow and full of long periods where there was little or no perceptible change going on.* I don't consider this experimenting, which is too harsh an idea. Only in the modern era do the new developments form a fundamental rejection of older forms. To me, that is the defining difference.


"Innovation" has been an appreciated artistic phenomenon at least since the Italian Renaissance. Monteverdi and Frescobaldi are a couple of examples of composers creating unusually original and influential works in important genres, back around 1600. Developments in the symphonic form from 1750 - 1830 is another, obvious example of accelerated changes. Or the piano sonata, say from 1800 to 1860. Or the concerto say from 1725 - 1800.

None of this complies with the suggestion of "long periods where there was little or no perceptible change going on".


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Portamento said:


> While I agree most experiments are failures, when a composer (i.e. Ferneyhough) has spent their whole career obsessively perfection their craft it ceases to be one. Your driving analogy doesn't seem to make sense either (in the context of classical music at least). Just because you like your home in Iowa doesn't mean others can't drive on to California; noone's telling you to tag along.


You are free to drive on to California, I am not going with you, or paying for your gas. And I hope you have your own car. My more usual metaphor is that dissonance is a bit like salt. A little touch of salt can enhance other flavors. Too much salt overwhelms those flavors, is bad for you and makes the food inedible. (There are limits to every metaphor.)

Whether or not Ferneyhough has wasted his life is a matter for future generations to decide. If what he has achieved is perfection of something worthwhile, or perhaps a perfect failure is subject to personal opinion. My guess is that he will largely if not entirely be forgotten, but then most of us will be entirely forgotten, so he is no worse off.



Portamento said:


> Clearly, most are already in (and never leaving) Iowa.


Yes, it is clear, and yet we are constantly having to defend the position. And various people get upset when we merely point out what we already know to be true. It is very strange.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> "Innovation" has been an appreciated artistic phenomenon at least since the Italian Renaissance. Monteverdi and Frescobaldi are a couple of examples of composers creating unusually original and influential works in important genres, back around 1600. Developments in the symphonic form from 1750 - 1830 is another, obvious example of accelerated changes. Or the piano sonata, say from 1800 to 1860. Or the concerto say from 1725 - 1800.
> 
> None of this complies with the suggestion of "long periods where there was little or no perceptible change going on".


It is absurd to suggest that most pieces or even a near majority of pieces are significantly innovative. What you are suggesting is a chaotic state of flux that is certainly not valid from an historical perspective. The whole reason that we can characterize a large block of pieces as Baroque or Classical or Romantic is because they share various attributes. (Some pieces may be transitional, but they are generally demonstrating characteristics of two camps, not dozens of camps.) The plethora of "isms" is a very modern phenomenon. A piece being innovative is never a prime consideration for me. It is true that people I know who like more "modern" music seem to value innovation highly. It is no doubt one of the differences that divides us and our interests.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

joen_cph is clearly talking about those who spearhead change, not the much larger body of composers who simply work in the existing conditions.
There is a lot of forgettable music for every era; pleasant or even better, but also forgettable because it is like so much other music in the same vein.

In the past, in all the arts, experimentation had far less of an outlet than it does now. Cultural historians are always turning up the private, unpublished work of writers, composers, painters who either couldn't get it published or just didn't publish for reasons of public acceptability.

That is what creates the false impression of large-scale agreement and imperceptible change.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

What are the statistics such that one can determine the popularity of "avant-garde" music among the CM audience?

Look at the third screen "Most Performed Composers" and try to find anyone avant-garde or serial.

https://bachtrack.com/files/60-infographic_5.pdf


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Again, if you disagree that artistic merit exists and isn't solely defined by audience popularity, then Ed Sheeran is a greater artist than Beethoven._

I doubt that. Who is Ed Sheeran? Ask that question 100 years from now as well. We'll see if he is as popular as Beethoven. Beethoven died 1770 and is still relevant.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

larold said:


> _Again, if you disagree that artistic merit exists and isn't solely defined by audience popularity, then Ed Sheeran is a greater artist than Beethoven._
> 
> I doubt that. Who is Ed Sheeran? Ask that question 100 years from now as well. We'll see if he is as popular as Beethoven. Beethoven died 1770 and is still relevant.


Popular with whom? The little classical music audience?



larold said:


> What are the statistics such that one can determine the popularity of "avant-garde" music among the CM audience?
> 
> Look at the third screen "Most Performed Composers" and try to find anyone avant-garde or serial.
> 
> https://bachtrack.com/files/60-infographic_5.pdf


You're falling into the same trap again. The majority of concerts are put on to make money. They want to sell the maximum of seats and they know that the majority of classical music listeners are largely unadventurous and resistant to anything unfamiliar.

Plus in the graphic you posted contemporary and 20th century outperformed both classical and romantic in percentages of performances; even though the top 15 most-performed composer slots are occupied by the usual all pre-dating the 20th century.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Frequency of performance does not necessarily correlate to popularity. First, there is the question of audience size for said performances. Second, short works may frequently get put on programs with larger works as filler and not really as the main course, which also throws off the counts. One reason that Mahler doesn't get a lot more play is the demand on the forces needed to perform much of his music, so there can be factors other than popularity to consider.


----------

