# The Second Viennese School in the 21st Century: Still New?



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Last week, I attended a public lecture at Sydney Conservatorium of Music given by composer, musicologist and broadcaster *Andrew Ford*. It preceded a performance of the music of Schoenberg and Berg, and discussed their work as well as that of Webern (the three making up the 'Second Viennese School'). The following is a condensed version of his lecture, some of it in my own words, some of it using quotes from him. I have tried not to comment here on what he said, simply relate it.

The main issue was whether what these guys did is of any importance to the composers of today. In other words, do the young composers of today think their work is relevant to what they are doing, and do they look for "inspiration, example or guidance" in the works of these composers?

Ford started by discussing how these three composers have had an aesthetic and intellectual "aura" around their work, which has (mainly) not been a helpful one. It was a "destructive attitude" which lead to much "terrible music" being composed by others who had a "rudimentary grasp of the concepts" established by the big three. It was damaging to the relationship between composers and their audience.

Ford discussed the time around 1975 when he first became aware of the works of the Second Viennese School as a music student in London. In the 1970's there were many LP recordings made of these composers works, particularly Schoenberg (1974 being the anniversary of his birth) and Berg (with the premiere of his opera _Lulu_ in it's completed form in 1979). So these were "auspicious days" for these three composer's music.

In the music schools of England, there was an ideology of "regression versus stagnation" which had been exemplified by Pierre Boulez's comments to the effect that unless composers worked to "advance the language of music" then their works would be "useless." For Ford at 18, being at the vanguard of music was an "attractive, Romantic notion," and the Second Viennese School "clearly lead the way."

What attracted Ford and others to this music was it's completely different harmonies and the unique sounds that atonality could render. Schoenberg's (apparent) comment to friend Joseph Wolfe that his discovery of serialism would ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years was also read by Ford to mean (in his teens) that "this was the future of music."

The first serial pieces were composed in the mid-1920's. Since 1945, Webern's music in particular appealed to some composers (but not audiences). Webern's music was analysed and studied, and used as an example as to how to compose serial music. Ford said that with Webern's music "every note mattered" and in adopting this technique, composers were "slowed down a bit" and "made accountable" for everything they did.

There was a "purity" in Webern's music, and it was easy for young composers to "jump from that idea of purity to believe that we were coming up with something new." This attitude made them "dismiss and question music that didn't fit the bill" like Britten, Copland, Vaughan Williams, Sibelius. Ford said that he even got rid of his pop music collection at that time, only to buy it back again later. They also dismissed minimalism which was seen as "so simple, so missing the point of what music could be." Now, of course, it is seen as an important style.

As a young man, the "dogma" of serialism took hold of Ford's mind as a composer. The problem was not the music of the big three but the "dogma" of the establishment. Today, however, he says he has tried to rid himself of the dogma. Composers like Harrison Birtwistle show that Schoenberg's music doesn't have to be understood by the composers of today for them to be good composers. "Schoenberg never actually was the future of music, neither was Berg or Webern." We have come to "think of composers as composers and simply listen to their music, not necessarily think that it's the future (or not), just hear it as music."

Ford then discussed the music of each of the big three in more detail.

*Webern* was "poorly served by his admirers and proselatisers." Ford said that it was easy to analyse Webern's music as a student - "there are not many notes." "After an hour you could account for every note in the piece - see how it was all put together - yet you understood nothing of the music." The same with "row hunting" which "at the end said nothing about the rhythm or dynamics of a piece." & you "cant hear a 12 tone row, it's not meant to be heard like a theme." So analysis tended to "concentrate on something you couldn't hear" and wasn't "getting close to the music." But what strikes Ford now about Webern's music is it's beauty, the "radiant surfaces" and the "holes or gaps between the notes are just as important as the notes themselves." & the listener hears (say) the "three octave jumps" between the notes, not what the notes themselves are.

With Webern, "there isn't much there" in terms of content and it is "highly transparent" - "what you hear is what you get." The predicters of the future post-war "simply missed the point of what the composer was doing." Webern was "a very human composer" and his hobbies of mountain climbing and collecting crystals is perhaps connected to the angularity and feeling of refracted light in his music. The man "loved nature" and you can clearly hear this in his music.

*Berg* was seen as the "acceptable" face of the Second Viennese School. To the post-war theorists he was seen as somewhat of a "Romantic backslider and not as serious as the other two or a softie." Today, we can more clearly see the "complexity and multi-layered nature" of his music. Ford said that of the three, he most enjoys listening to the music of Berg, as it seems to offer something new with repeated listening.

& *Schoenberg* has been the most controversial one. "Claims have been made for and against him." In terms of the post war theorists like Boulez and Adorno, he was seen as being past his use by date because "he hadn't gone the whole hog - discovered serialism and retreated to a neo-classical world." But again, Ford says that today we are more able to "simply listen to the music" without making these judgements. In fact, a work that the two critics above targeted as being soft, the Serenade, is full of humour and references to the past - in an old as well as in a (perhaps) a post-modern kind of way. Keeping an ear out for these things, "the composer seems suddenly human."

Composers and listeners today are "coming to reject all of the dogma that surrounded these composers and just like or admire the_ music _much more greatly." "The fierce ideological battles that went on in the Twentieth Century to do with how modern you were and what that meant have now more or less gone." Composers today just "listen to the sounds in their heads" and listeners are "unencumbered by feelings that they should or should not have." People don't care about what's too simplistic or more complex, they just listen to the music that they like.

To conclude, Ford commented that the Second Viennese School "didn't ensure the future of German or other music" but they were "great individualists and great original thinkers and that was enough."

*So what are people's thoughts and responses to what Andrew Ford said?*. Feel free to discuss, I will join in later...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Andre said:


> ...To conclude, Ford commented that the Second Viennese School "didn't ensure the future of German or other music" but they were "great individualists and great original thinkers and that was enough."


"Great original thinkers" above should have been "great original innovators." I just thought I'd correct that, but it doesn't seem that anyone here wants to take the time to read Ford's thoughts, which I thought were quite interesting and stimulating(?)...


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

So the moral is: don't analyze serial music, since it won't lead to an any more of a meaningful understanding of the piece? 

This is the point I was trying to make in that other topic... if it doesn't please audiences and it doesn't please the theorists either, what's the point of the music? :lol: 

And it doesn't surprise me that they prefer Berg, who actually composed music that DOESN'T sound like skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Schoenberg did not "discover" serialim.He invented it. Those who accuse Schoenberg of "ruining" music in the 20th centruy are merely being very silly. They claim that only tonality is valid,and that Schoenberg set music back for decades,which is ridiculous. 
He was not trying to "replace" tonality with atonilty,and he never claimed that his was the only way to write music,unlike the arrogant and dogmatic Boulez,who once dismissed all composers who did not adopt rigorous serialism as "worthless" and "useless". 
The atonality and 12 tone system which Schonberg created was merely an ALTERNATIVE to tonality,not something which he wanted to "replace" tonality,and many composers of the 20th centruy never abandoned it.
Of course,other composers who came into the Schonebergian sphere of influence adapted and altered Schonberg's techniques in their own way.


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

superhorn said:


> the 12 tone system which Schonberg created was merely an ALTERNATIVE to tonality,not something which he wanted to "replace" tonality,and many composers of the 20th centruy never abandoned it. Of course,other composers who came into the Schonebergian sphere of influence adapted and altered Schonberg's techniques in their own way.


It was the next logical step harmonically, and someone had to do what needed to be done ... if you follow that line all the way back to Wagner's harmonically restless/ambiguous music which was really the starting pt. for the highly influential approaches of Debussy & Schoenberg in dissolving traditional tonality & playing with psychological time. What guys like Boulez, Stockhausen & Nono did for a very-brief time in their younger days was apply & exhaust the technique to 'all' musical parameters not just pitch, but to rhythm, color, dynamics etc. They all rapidly tired of that approach & it's results and each headed down their own idiosyncratic paths of musical creativity but not without intimate creative knowledge of the doors opened ..


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> So the moral is: don't analyze serial music, since it won't lead to an any more of a meaningful understanding of the piece?
> 
> This is the point I was trying to make in that other topic... if it doesn't please audiences and it doesn't please the theorists either, what's the point of the music? :lol:
> 
> And it doesn't surprise me that they prefer Berg, who actually composed music that DOESN'T sound like skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof!


What audience are you referring to? It please me, as well as a number of other frequent posters on this forum. Do we not constitute an audience?


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2010)

I'm afraid we have to conclude that Ravellian is one of those people who privileges the audience he happens to be in. Sad, but true.

And I know I'd like to see less of the adjectival arguing (which is not really argument, more like carping). Whenever someone starts relying on adjectives (arrogant and dogmatic) to carry to force of whatever point they're trying to make, you know you're in trouble. (Boulez' position, as he stated it, was quite different, too: "[A]ny musician who has not experienced - I do not say understood, but truly experienced - the necessity of dodecaphonic music is USELESS. For his whole work is irrelevant to the needs of his epoch.")


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

JMJ said:


> It was the next logical step harmonically, and someone had to do what needed to be done ...


In what way was it the next logical step? Atonality, maybe, but dodecaphony and serialism were more like a sidestep.

OP: tl;dr :trp:


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Actually, by audience, I'm referring to 99% of people that listen to music, most of which have never heard of serialism, let alone enjoyed it. But if you seriously want to kid yourself into thinking that this "music" has any worth to anyone, be my guest.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2010)

Actually, 99% of people who listen to music have never heard any but the tiniest fraction of what we talk about on this board, much less enjoyed it.

If you seriously want to think that the tens of thousands of people who pack the auditoriums for Lady Gaga or Garth Brooks or even Kenny Loggins confer some sort of artistic value on those musicians simply by their numbers, then you are also welcome to be a guest, too. _My_ guest.

Really Ravellian, what is the point of marginalizing the valid and honest experiences of your fellow travelers? Are you really so insecure about your own experiences that you have to build them up by tearing others' experiences down?

There are people who enjoy serial music. Enjoy it. Not study, not analyze, just enjoy. Why that should be so threatening, I can't imagine. But really, let it go. What would you gain by convincing anyone that they SHOULDN'T enjoy serialism?


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Argus said:


> In what way was it the next logical step? Atonality, maybe, but dodecaphony and serialism were more like a sidestep.
> 
> OP: tl;dr :trp:


There is not such thing as atonality ... it's a common misname. It's rather more harmonic modulation note-by-note in the horizontal & vertical subverting tonal hierarchy, and playing with expectations creating a more unstable and restless musical world. The 12-tone technique (aka serialism) was a more disciplined structural principle applied to that, so it was just an extension & evolution of what the 2nd Viennese School were doing prior, not a side step. And outside of that stream there were several musicians who did similar things with dissolving or subverting traditional harmonic principles in more-or-less their own way.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Actually, by audience, I'm referring to 99% of people that listen to music, most of which have never heard of serialism, let alone enjoyed it.


You could say the same about Ravel.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

JMJ said:


> There is not such thing as atonality ... it's a common misname. It's rather more harmonic modulation note-by-note in the horizontal & vertical subverting tonal hierarchy, and playing with expectations creating a more unstable and restless musical world. The 12-tone technique (aka serialism) was a more disciplined structural principle applied to that, so it was just an extension & evolution of what the 2nd Viennese School were doing prior, not a side step. And outside of that stream there were several musicians who did similar things with dissolving or subverting traditional harmonic principles in more-or-less their own way.


It may be a misnomer but the term atonality is generally accepted as a correct word to imply that a piece of music lacks a tonal centre. The harmonic trend over the past 100 years prior to Schoenberg had been of freeing the music from the strict tonal rules and traditions that had built up over the centuries and towards a 'freer' form of pitch regulation. In Mozart the tonal centre is often clearly defined by the treatment of other tones in relation to it and modulations somewhat limited to maintain these relationships. The fashion for this dissolves over the century after Mozart's passing until the point of Debussy, Strauss, Scriabin, Stravinsky etc. This is a clear movement from a rigid system to a more flexible system, and surely the next logical step is either no system or an even more flexible system. But instead the 12-tone method just replaces the old rigid system with a shiny new one.

For me the next logical step would have been to expand the compass of pitch and thus harmony. Percy Grainger's 'Free music' was a very radical example of this, with other composers like Varese, Partch, Cowell, then later carried on by Xenakis, Stockhausen, Scelsi, Lucier, Grisey, Tenney and many, many more. To treat the move away from firm tonality and increased acceptability of more distant cononances to the ear, and to both expand upon these by creating new forms of tonality and to implement more former 'noise' elements into the compositions. An evolution rather than a revolution. It took musicians and music theorists hundreds of years to accept thirds as harmonic consonances in medieval times and many more to accept the seventh. Cowell pushed it further by accepting seconds as consonant and Partch also entering new intervals of higher ratios into consideration. Dodecaphony kept the old dissonance but did not bring any knew harmonic relationships to the table, it just used more of the old dissonances and for longer periods of time.

To my ears, harmonic serialism (12-tone) was not the best step forward at the time and has eclipsed other composers from that era who made, what I consider valuable contributions to musical development. Just my opinion.

Plus, jazz kept the old harmonic system and managed to sound fresh in other ways. It seems Western ears were much hung up on harmony at the expense of neglecting other aspects of the music that could be developed and have been greatly explored since (timbre, space etc).


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Argus said:


> To my ears, harmonic serialism (12-tone) was not the best step forward at the time and has eclipsed other composers from that era who made, what I consider valuable contributions to musical development. Just my opinion.


for the 2nd Vienesse School it was just a technique that organically developed & arose on what came before, it had great implications, purpose and meaning. It wasn't the only thing, no one said that, but it certainly opened doors and created some profound musical results.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

"The fierce ideological battles that went on in the Twentieth Century to do with how modern you were and what that meant have now more or less gone." Composers today just "listen to the sounds in their heads."

I hope that's true. I understand Germaine Tailleferre couldn't get a decent position because of Pierre Boulez's slavish demands of adherence to serialism. That's said and unnecessary for composers with talent.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

JMJ said:


> It wasn't the only thing, no one said that, but it certainly opened doors and created some profound musical results.


It definitely opened doors. I remember in college writing out a jazz tune of Oliver Nelson's and discovering it was a tone row. Then I heard Phil Woods improvise in a tone row to the bridge of Honeysuckle Rose.

The technique was not an end in itself, but like Roger Sessions said, "Just remember, the music is God, and the 12-tone technique is just a parish priest."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> So the moral is: don't analyze serial music, since it won't lead to an any more of a meaningful understanding of the piece?


No, I think if you read more closely, Ford was saying don't only analyse the notes themselves (i.e. the "rows" on the page), but just listen and hear the silences between the notes, the changes in rhythm and dynamics, and just the atmosphere or mood of the piece. You can analyse a piece of music in different ways, not only in the reductionist way of the post war theorists.



> This is the point I was trying to make in that other topic... if it doesn't please audiences and it doesn't please the theorists either, what's the point of the music? :lol:


It's not a matter of the music "pleasing" anyone. The reality is (& Ford pointed this out, but I ended up editing it out of my report) that serial music has not gained a foothold amongst the general repertoire "and maybe it never will" (Ford). But as some guy suggests, this is a two-way street. People can hardly form an educated and informed opinion about music which they have never heard.



> And it doesn't surprise me that they prefer Berg, who actually composed music that DOESN'T sound like skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof!


They played Schoenberg's Serenade at the concert after the lecture, and honestly I think this is a very approachable work. It was one of the first serial pieces, and (as Ford also talked about, but I edited this as well), it is a light piece full of dance forms (minuets, gavottes) and was actually criticised by the post war mob for being too neoclassical. Have a listen and tell me that it's still "skeletons copulating." I think not.

& you are just continuing the post war theoreticians' view of Berg as soft and mushy. He also had challenging works. I have been grappling with the Lyric Suite for string quartet for 15 years. & the Chamber Concerto (also played at the concert following Ford's recital) is not a walk in the park upon first hearing.

It's very easy to stereotype these composer's music without actually having heard a great deal. This, I think, is part of the problem for the general classical music audience. We need more listening and less stereotyping/supposition, imo...


----------



## Listener (Sep 20, 2010)

The Second Viennese School was basically the end of classical music's connection/relevance to larger society. It's also about where mainstream repertoire basically stops. Any music from then onward is still new in the classical world.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Listener said:


> The Second Viennese School was basically the end of classical music's connection/relevance to larger society.


What kind of connection was this?


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Listener said:


> The Second Viennese School was basically the end of classical music's connection/relevance to larger society. It's also about where mainstream repertoire basically stops. Any music from then onward is still new in the classical world.


Lots else was happening concurrent to that, _enfant terrible_ trailblazing modernist icon Stravinsky for instance was HUGE in his day, very famous, popular & successful. In fact, his reputation became quite big to the point where that each new work was guaranteed several performances & a recording no matter how prickly its musical language .... in the last decade of his life he achieved a degree of celebrity unmatched by any composer since Mozart, being feted by Pope John XXIII, by the Kennedys and, in a triumphant visit to Russia in 1962, by Nikita Khrushchev. He himself turned to 12-tone techniques with characteristic inventiveness & vigour after being particularly taken with the crystalline scores of Anton Webern, declaring "the serial composers are the only ones with a discipline I respect." But of course, there was lots else happening in music ... and several worthy 20th century additions to the concert repertoire ... and concert repertoire isn't the be-all & end-all either in terms of connection or relevance to society.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

JMJ said:


> He himself turned to 12-tone techniques with characteristic inventiveness & vigour after being particularly taken with the crystalline scores of Anton Webern, declaring "the serial composers are the only ones with a discipline I respect." But of course, there was lots else happening in music ... and several worthy 20th century additions to the concert repertoire ... and concert repertoire isn't the be-all & end-all either in terms of connection or relevance to society.


STRAVINSKY! Then his bitterness _had _consumed him! I don't think I've ever seen such a case... WOW.

But I think Music has stopped progressing. People think it is still changing, but honestly anyone who composes in a serialist or minimalist fashion today are simply copying older composers, it's nothing new. After the 2nd Viennese School, contemporary music has become stuck in post-Modernism, and will never leave, and no one _can _leave it, the critics have way too much power. Those who try are branded old-fashioned or copycats, because they just want to make something traditionally beautiful. What's wrong with Tradition?? Apparently, we aren't in the age of Beauty at all, but the age of "Change"! What shall now come after Pre-modernism, Modernism, and Post-modernism?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Listener said:


> The Second Viennese School was basically the end of classical music's connection/relevance to larger society. It's also about where mainstream repertoire basically stops. Any music from then onward is still new in the classical world.


Whether that's actually true, I think that's the general perception, and it's kind of sad. As far as relevance, pop music, the movie industry, and sports are the influences on today's culture, at least in America.

It's strange, because in the 30s and 40s, when Toscannini was in New York, tons of Americans listened to his concerts on the radio, along with those of Mitroupoulos and others, even when they programmed modern pieces. Then there was Leonard Bernstein and even the old Boston Pops concerts, which I heard when I was a kid. I remember as a kid my family watching a telecast of Stravinsky's The Flood and Bernstein's Mass. I'm not sure the average listener "got" it back then, but they were trying. Look at Life Magazine during that time period, and there are opera singers and conductors in ads and there are articles about classical music, musicians, and conductors.

In fact, during that time, beyond just the academics in the classical world, the Second Viennese School and other composers after them did have an impact on a lot of people. Jazz saxophonist Steve Lacy cites Webern as blowing him away, as with others he associated with. When Jazz trombonist JJ Johnson died, they found in his travel case a CD of Hindemith's Mathis Der Mahler. Ravel and Debussy were influences on jazz. George Russell's hugely influential Lydian Concept of Tonal Organization cites Maurice Ravel's tritone approach to harmony.

Of course, everybody knows pieces like Fanfare for the Common Man, Rodeo, Appalchian Spring, the Adagio for Strings, whether they realize it or not.

Maybe we can blame Schoenberg for the disconnect, but I think it came from others who politicized this music after the Second World War and turned it from aesthetics into dogma.


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> But I think Music has stopped progressing. People think it is still changing, but honestly anyone who composes in a serialist or minimalist fashion today are simply copying older composers, it's nothing new. After the 2nd Viennese School, contemporary music has become stuck in post-Modernism, and will never leave, and no one _can _leave it, the critics have way too much power. Those who try are branded old-fashioned or copycats, because they just want to make something traditionally beautiful. What's wrong with Tradition?? Apparently, we aren't in the age of Beauty at all, but the age of "Change"! What shall now come after Pre-modernism, Modernism, and Post-modernism?


That's a tunnel vision view of the situation to say the least ... no musician in his or her right mind really thinks in the terms of "post-modernism" "modernism" "pre-modernism" etc they simply create the music they want to and all serious musicians are indebted deeply to the tradition. Things don't just happen in a vacuum!


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> Whether that's actually true, I think that's the general perception, and it's kind of sad. As far as relevance, pop music, the movie industry, and sports are the influences on today's culture, at least in America.
> 
> It's strange, because in the 30s and 40s, when Toscannini was in New York, tons of Americans listened to his concerts on the radio, along with those of Mitroupoulos and others, even when they programmed modern pieces. Then there was Leonard Bernstein and even the old Boston Pops concerts, which I heard when I was a kid. I remember as a kid my family watching a telecast of Stravinsky's The Flood and Bernstein's Mass. I'm not sure the average listener "got" it back then, but they were trying. Look at Life Magazine during that time period, and there are opera singers and conductors in ads and there are articles about classical music, musicians, and conductors.
> 
> ...


Few points elaborating on what you said ..

Increasingly people have had many more options to consume music in the 20th/21st centuries compared to before ... and art music has been relegated to a specialized interest more than ever before with the rise of commercialized music & product (pop, rock, jazz) And it also has to compete with lots else that has come about ...

Serious musicians (jazz oriented or otherwise) have always been (and will continue to be) greatly influenced & inspired by western art music (older & newer)

And Schoenberg was dogmatic even before the 50s, in 1921 claiming that his system would ensure dominance for the next 100 years or something stupid like that ... but again, a lot was happening during & after him - classical/art music's dwindling appeal to the masses isn't because of him at all, it's more other larger factors imo. The world has changed a lot and things are much different and a lot more complicated. But access to art music has increased considerably for those who want it... and who knows the full extent of who's downloading and buying what these days on a global scale ... it's no doubt being less consumed than commercial music but it's still very much relevant & connected to the music loving world and will continue to be in a variety of ways ...


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2010)

I suppose people who need to demonize serialism specifically and "modern" music generally will continue to say these things, but the historical fact is that the disconnect happened in _18_10, not 1910, and peaked around 1870--when the amount of dead composers' music in concerts (in Paris, anyway) reached 94%--and hence had nothing to do with atonality or dodecaphony or serialism. Or dogmatism, for that matter, except that critics, who had _much_ more power in the nineteenth century than they do today, were pretty dogmatically preaching the doctrine that music could improve you, an idea new with that century.

Everyone who insists that composers turned their backs on audiences in the early twentieth century should read William Weber's _The Great Transformation of Musical Taste._ And if that's too much to ask, then at least ponder this _mot_ from Alex Ross' review of same: "Anyone who believes that twentieth-century composers, with their harsh chords and rhythms, betrayed some sacred contract with the public should spend a few moments absorbing Weber's data. In fact, the composers were betrayed first."


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I believe it is the right of any person, no matter how old, to copulate.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Someguy, you really swear by Weber's book. I don't suppose there are any dissenting or alternative views?

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

Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. "Those damn Bourgeois stopped listening first, so screw 'em!"? That strikes me as a rather juvenile attitude ("He hit me first...") and unlikely to lead to any solutions.

I would guess that the "abandonment" of contemporary music was simply part of the entire development of cultural history... the serious considered contemplation of the artistic achievements of the past... which occurred in the 19th century. This is same period in which publication of literature of the past... including much that was long forgotten... and the development of the great art museums preserving the history of the culture as found in visual form all came into fruition. As we move into the 20th century and are presented with radio, television, and recorded sound we have an audience that now has access to much of the whole of music history. Anything new must compete for attention with the old, as T.S. Eliot recognized was always the case with the truly new literary work.

Things get even more complex as popular culture... popular art begins to supersede the "fine arts"... for the simple reason that the money lies in audience size now, and not in the wealth of the educated aristocratic individuals... although the traditional visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc...) still function (for better and worse) under such a system for the simple reason that they cannot be mass produced. Admittedly, the fine arts... be it literature, painting, or music... was always something of an elitist endeavor... created for a limited audience. The change now, it would seem, is that many within the audience for "classical music" are not interested in the latest musical experimentations. They find the work ugly, incomprehensible... or simply not to their liking... and having access to literally the whole of musical history... to Bach, Beethoven, Monteverdi, Gesualdo, etc... And should this be surprising? How many prefer Don Delilo, Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill, Yves Bonnefoy... or even James Joyce to Shakespeare, Keats, Dickens, or Dostoevsky? How many prefer Robert Rauschenberg, Sean Scully, Anselm Kiefer, or even Mark Rothko to Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Vermeer, or Monet?

So the audience for contemporary "classical" music is but a small fragment of the already limited audience for classical music in general. And then we have the great divides here... disputes between critics, composers, and the audience as to which direction classical music SHOULD be headed... which contemporary classical music is truly good and what is less than good. We have "Serialism vs Minimalism" here... with fans of either genre often dismissing the other genre. We have the audience who admires Xenakis and Stockhausen turning up their noses at any hint of tonality... let alone Neo-Romanticism, and we have Neo-Romantics who have no problem dismissing the whole of Ligeti, Cage, and Scelsi without ever really giving them a chance. And in some ways isn't this as it always was? Plato famously berates Homer in _The Republic_, while I know within the visual arts that we had Vasari (theart historian... who one would presume would be objective) and artists as respected as Michelangelo dismissing the whole of medieval art, the art of the Netherlands, and even the paintings of Titian, Giorgione, and the other Venetians. We had William Blake dismiss Gainsborough and the whole of the British Academy... as well as Rembrandt and Rubens. We've had Hemingway and Faulkner dismissing each other and Nabokov dismiss Dostoevsky.

Ultimately, we can only support that in which we find pleasure and believe in. I've long admired Andre's postings of what he is listening to because he takes the time to offer a description of the music and tell us what he likes or doesn't like... and why. Even if we don't agree with his taste (and he is famously wrong when it comes to Bach) he offers some food for thought... for considering, at times, music one might not otherwise consider. I will admit that over on brightcecilia.com, the member Herzeleide (a sworn advocate of Modernism and contemporary music... and former [banned] participant here) introduced me to Tristan Murail, Giacinto Scelsi, and Jonathan Harvey... all of who I now love. In spite of our often differing tastes, he was able to intrigue me with critical comments as to what he found entrancing as well as links to YouTube (or other sites) videos of portions of the music.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

some guy said:


> I suppose people who need to demonize serialism specifically and "modern" music generally will continue to say these things, but the historical fact is that the disconnect happened in _18_10, not 1910, and peaked around 1870--when the amount of dead composers' music in concerts (in Paris, anyway) reached 94%--and hence had nothing to do with atonality or dodecaphony or serialism. Or dogmatism, for that matter, except that critics, who had _much_ more power in the nineteenth century than they do today, were pretty dogmatically preaching the doctrine that music could improve you, an idea new with that century.
> 
> Everyone who insists that composers turned their backs on audiences in the early twentieth century should read William Weber's _The Great Transformation of Musical Taste._ And if that's too much to ask, then at least ponder this _mot_ from Alex Ross' review of same: "Anyone who believes that twentieth-century composers, with their harsh chords and rhythms, betrayed some sacred contract with the public should spend a few moments absorbing Weber's data. In fact, the composers were betrayed first."


Whoah. Deja vu.

About that 94% figure, you have to remember the only way to hear music in those days was to hear it played live.(Industrial printing presses might have also played a part by allowing the reproduction of more scores by the dead composers to be circulated). Nowadays, you can just listen to a recording of any piece by a dead composer on the Internet or buying one of the many recordings. The concert halls, in my mind, should feel it is their duty to present contemporary and vanguard pieces, especially if they haven't been recorded before.

The availability of recordings really should have altered the concert hall model and shifted it towards both new and improvised musical forms. I'm not saying totally replace the oldies as after all some people won't have heard Beethoven's 5th live and the demand for it is there, but they should be de-prioritised to allow for living composers/musicians to get a look in.



emiellucifuge said:


> I believe it is the right of any person, no matter how old, to copulate.


I'd actually be interested in hearing what two skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof sounds like. Physical impossibility aside, it couldn't be worse than some Boulez. Well, depends on the rhythm really.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2010)

St,

Weber's book is a history book. To the extent that he draws conclusions from the record, there will be the possibility of dissenting opinions. But I only brought him up (and have only ever otherwise brought him up) to point to the historical record, which suggests a rather different view of the relationship between audience and composer than the one so frequently presented by anti-modern posters.

The record itself is just that. A record. It's not a view. It's the record. You want there to be dissent about the record itself?

As for Alex's remark, that is an opinion, yes. And there will of course be dissenting opinions. In fact, as you have chosen me as your special project--a distinction I could really do without, I'll tell you--I am sure that whatever I ever bring up will call forth your dissenting voice. Why I should be taken to task for not presenting ideas I don't agree with is a bit puzzling, though.

sg


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Argus said:


> I'd actually be interested in hearing what two skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof sounds like. Physical impossibility aside, it couldn't be worse than some Boulez. Well, depends on the rhythm really.


It would probably include a lot of xylophones!

On topic:
I think the influence of Schoenberg et al, is no longer in serialism. There are not many composers who still practise this and have adopted it as thrir mode of expression. However, i believe that their lasting vontribution was taking that last step from tonality into total freedom from limits. Both in terms of harmony but also using motivic material and thematic material in less rigorous ways.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Weber's book is a history book. To the extent that he draws conclusions from the record, there will be the possibility of dissenting opinions. But I only brought him up (and have only ever otherwise brought him up) to point to the historical record, which suggests a rather different view of the relationship between audience and composer than the one so frequently presented by anti-modern posters.

The record itself is just that. A record. It's not a view. It's the record. You want there to be dissent about the record itself?

And you know as well as any that history is narrative in which facts are often open to dispute and alternative interpretations.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

That should be spelled "Mathis Der Maler",not Mahler. Maler means painter in German, and I believe Mahler means a mill grinder. Or was that a Freudian slip?


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...history is narrative in which facts are often open to dispute and alternative interpretations.


I also know that it is more seemly to know the facts _before_ disputing and interpreting.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> Everyone who insists that composers turned their backs on audiences in the early twentieth century should read William Weber's _The Great Transformation of Musical Taste._ And if that's too much to ask, then at least ponder this _mot_ from Alex Ross' review of same: "*Anyone who believes that twentieth-century composers, with their harsh chords and rhythms, betrayed some sacred contract with the public should spend a few moments absorbing Weber's data.* *In fact, the composers were betrayed first*."


I was choosing which operas to subscribe for the 2011 _Opera Australia_ season. Year after year, the success of most/all of its productions are overwhelmingly on works that don't belong to the "electronic fart" genre that you love. Why is that? Audiences today still find non-electronic fart music as relevant today as these works ever did (even if some of these works were deemed as failed operas with their first audiences).

Yes, I'm sure all the audience in the opera theatre have betrayed Iannis Xenakis. But only his music would have been all the more beautiful than the man's face, I would think you are qualified to comment on the tastes of hundreds of ticket paying audiences per evening, versus the odd fringe who found a free home on the www.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

superhorn said:


> That should be spelled "Mathis Der Maler",not Mahler. Maler means painter in German, and I believe Mahler means a mill grinder.


You're absolutely right. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that the good thing about being around at this time, as some posters have pointed out, is the _plurality_ of music available. But I think that innovative classical music groups are trying to offer us the best of both worlds (old and new), so to speak. Here in Sydney, the Australia Ensemble (attached to the University of New South Wales) ALWAYS combines on it's programs older works with newer works (often world premieres of pieces composed specifically for this performance and broadcast). There are some other similar ensembles that I can think of here that do similar things. It's just like a (small?) trend you see in the couplings of works on cd, eg. Hilary Hahn, Anne Sophie Mutter and Janine Jensen have all brought out cd's coupling old classical warhorses with newer material from (sometimes) living composers. I don't think that the old/new paradigm is really functioning any more. There are probably scores of classical listeners out there (like many of us here) who like to listen to a whole spectrum of music, be it composed last week or five centuries ago. So I don't think there has necessarily been a "betrayal" of anything or anyone, there are just trends, things come and go in and out of fashion.

& I think that there are many composers who are "modern" and have grabbed the public's attention quite vigorously, like the late Astor Piazzolla. Even people who thought they hated classical music can't help but like (or even love) his work. There's been quite a bit of his stuff performed live even here in Sydney, and internationally scores of cd's issued of his music (indeed, every man and his dog seem to be making a Piazzolla arrangement of some sort - for anything from electronic instruments to orchestra!).

& actually, HC, you are not really correct in implying that opera companies in Australia don't perform new operas to audience acclaim. In the past year or so, Australian composer Brett Dean's opera _Bliss_ was pretty successfully staged here (from what I can gather) and is currently being performed overseas in some of the top opera houses (I think in Germany, who are no dilettantes when it comes to opera). I think that you are making many assumptions about these kinds of issues. & it's not a recent thing - the first fully Australian made opera was the late Richard Meale's _Voss _(in the 1980's) and that probably had a modicum of success as well, making it to cd (which I have heard, and you'd probably like it with a bit of flexibility, as it doesn't sound too "atonal" to me at all).

& yes, I think Xenakis' music to be "beautiful"


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Andre said:


> I
> 
> & actually, HC, you are not really correct in implying that opera companies in Australia don't perform new operas to audience acclaim. In the past year or so, Australian composer Brett Dean's opera _Bliss_ was pretty successfully staged here (from what I can gather) and is currently being performed overseas in some of the top opera houses (I think in Germany, who are no dilettantes when it comes to opera). I think that you are making many assumptions about these kinds of issues. & it's not a recent thing - the first fully Australian made opera was the late Richard Meale's _Voss _(in the 1980's) and that probably had a modicum of success as well, making it to cd (which I have heard, and you'd probably like it with a bit of flexibility, as it doesn't sound too "atonal" to me at all).
> 
> & yes, I think Xenakis' music to be "beautiful"


Larry Sitsky's _The Golem_ (premiered 1993) was poorly received. So it's a mixed bag, though often favouring patriotism too. Sitsky was professor of music (I think with that title) at the Australian National University at some stage.

Anyway, they are putting on Handel's _Partenope_ next March! First production.

http://www.ebooks.geongroup.com/opera/2011Sydney/Index.aspx


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Nobody's denying that Xenakis is less popular than Beethoven. The point is that there is very little evidence for the notion that loss of audience interest in contempory music began with the advent of modernism.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2010)

Exactly!

Though I should add about the Xenakis/Beethoven thing that that depends entirely on whose house you're in. If you're in my house, Xenakis is much more popular than Beethoven.

Doesn't mean Beethoven is unpopular, either, because he is, even in my house. Xenakis is just more, that's all.


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

there is zero question that schoenberg is incredibly influential. you go to any college campus teaching music and you'll hear these things constantly. so many composers since then have taken this new way into account and have worked to progress it.

perhaps the time of "pure atonality" is over. it may return in new ways. but for what it is, it is the best. it opens up incredible new possibilities in melody itself, new feelings, new ways to express existence, etc etc.

maybe you don't have a taste for it. personally for me and many others, for other artists especially, this music is an undeniably essential part of "the future of music."


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Though I should add about the Xenakis/Beethoven thing that that depends entirely on whose house you're in. If you're in my house, Xenakis is much more popular than Beethoven.


You live alone, don't you?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Webernite said:


> You live alone, don't you?


If I lived alone, then I would play Beethoven's music more when I invite the girlfriend over, such as the romantic piano sonatas, rather than the weird electronic farts of Xenakis, which might be considered rather weird for a romantic evening of music. Funny that.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> If I lived alone, then I would play Beethoven's music more when I invite the girlfriend over, such as the romantic piano sonatas, rather than the weird electronic farts of Xenakis, which might be considered rather weird for a romantic evening of music. Funny that.


Actually, I have weekly classical listening sessions with a (male) friend (it's not a romantic relationship) & last week, we listened to Beethoven's 7th symphony and Xenakis' Theraps for double bass solo, along with some Schubert and Gounod. As I was saying above, the "classics" & more contemporary stuff are not mutually exclusive, appreciation and understanding of one eventually leads (or may lead?) to the same of the other. In effect, they are two sides of the same coin. Ford's lecture about the ending of an era of "dogma" can be extended to the ending of an era where listeners or fans where in one camp or the other. I think that the distinctions are becoming increasingly blurry, imo...


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

i'm proud to say i'm capable of enjoying anything (no exceptions) under the right circumstances.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2010)

vamos has got it.

He is where every listener should be.

Otherwise, to answer Webernite's rather personal question (...still no sign of land...), yes, at the moment the only other occupant of my apartment is my cat (who could give a rat's *** about music--a literal rat), but my life has been occupied by plenty of women and children, and in those houses Xenakis was always more popular than Beethoven. Why, my last girl friend (who is proving to be very hard to replace!!) was a composer and a professor of music at university.

In her apartment, Lutoslawski was the most popular.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

vamos said:


> i'm proud to say i'm capable of enjoying anything (no exceptions) under the right circumstances.


I'm ashamed to say I'm capable of enjoying anything (no exceptions) when I'm off my ****.


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> He is where every listener should be.


Speak for yourself. If I get to the point where I'm prone to like _anything_ under the all to vague 'right circumstances' ... i'll fear that alzheimer's is setting in.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

JMJ said:


> But access to art music has increased considerably for those who want it... and who knows the full extent of who's downloading and buying what these days on a global scale ... it's no doubt being less consumed than commercial music but it's still very much relevant & connected to the music loving world and will continue to be in a variety of ways ...


Just considering the size of the world's population, I don't think it's a stretch to say that numerically, at least, more people are listening to classical music now than at any other time in history. It may not be driving the culture, but I don't think it's dying off.


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> Just considering the size of the world's population, I don't think it's a stretch to say that numerically, at least, more people are listening to classical music now than at any other time in history. It may not be driving the culture, but I don't think it's dying off.


You're probably right. Speaking for myself, I've been checking out & accessing more than ever before (and a lot easier) since the advent of the internet. Not to mention it's easier to advocate & pass down knowledge of it to others who are curious about it.

The western 'art music' legacy has simply been around for too long to just vanish, it's deeply ingrained into musical culture & history. And serious writing & playing will never die off. What a small handful of big classical auditoriums are playing on their concert programs is almost insignificant in the larger picture in terms of what music is being consumed & how.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2010)

JMJ said:


> ...knowledge....


Well. Make a nice change, anyway.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*what do you think of*

- Egon Wellesz?
- Luigi Dallapiccola?

I love their music, don't you?

Martin Pitchon


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2010)

As a matter of fact, yes.

And Gerhard and Skalkottas, too, for that matter, not to mention.

(Oh, OK. I'll mention: Searles and Sessions.)


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I just bought this...

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B000XHEGLY/ref=oss_product

Martin Pitchon who loves Egon Wellesz


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

Sorry, the only thing I can't forgive it the brevity of art.



A sincere artist has more to say.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Wellesz?*

Wellesz has more than 105 opus....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Wellesz

Matin


----------

