# Greatest work of the 20th century



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'll cast a vote for Shostakovich's 1st Violin Concerto, ca 1948. Right in mid-century. Anybody else?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Mahler - Das Lied von der Erde.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I'll cast a vote for Shostakovich's 1st Violin Concerto, ca 1948. Right in mid-century. Anybody else?


Greatness Meter must be working again!


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Stravinsky-- The Rite of Spring


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Greatness Meter must be working again!


I changed the batteries.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Shostakovich - Symphony no. 10


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Britney Spears - ...Baby One More Time [1998]


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Sibelius's Seventh Symphony but I would also mention:

Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time, Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony, Sibelius's Fifth Symphony and also his Tapiola Tone Poem.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Britney Spears - Hit Me Baby One More Time (String Quartet)


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Britney Spears - ...Baby One More Time [1998]


Is that classical ??????


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

Aqua - Barbie Girl in a Barbie World


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

My vote:






If I picked my favourite single piece or movement, probably this:


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1875-1899 Gen. - Le Sacre (1913)
1900-1924 Gen. - Gayane (1939 rev. 1957)
1925-1949 Gen. - ESB (1980)


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Britten War Requiem for me...well for today at least.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I don't think there can be a "greatest" work of the 20th Century. That century went too many different directions. But this is topic interesting anyway.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Agree the century went too many directions -- and had too many masterpieces -- to name one chief among all. Here are some I'd call legends:

Mahler Symphony 9 (1908-09)
Berg Chamber Concerto for for Piano and Violin with 13 Wind Instruments (1923-25)
Sibelius Symphony 7 (1924)
Howard Hanson Symphony No. 2 "Romantic" (1930)
Barber Violin Concerto (1939)
Shostakovich Symphony 8 (1943)
Robert Simpson Symphony 1 (1951)
William Schuman Violin Concerto (1959)
Rautavaara Angel of Dusk Concerto for Double Bass and Orchestra (1980)

There are many more.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Bartok: Music for Strings, or the String Quartets, or the Concerto for Orchestra.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The voting on Bach's WTC and Beethoven's Ninth left the idea of a greatest work of other centuries up in the air also.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

A tie: *Ellington* - _Black, Brown & Beige_ and *Cage* - _4'33"_


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> A tie: *Ellington* - _Black, Brown & Beige_ and *Cage* - _4'33"_


Your 2nd choice could suggest you didn't think too highly of the music that century. Hehe.


----------



## Dirge (Apr 10, 2012)

I reflexively think “Bartók’s Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta” whenever this question comes up, but when I consider it more thoroughly, I end up thinking “Bartók’s Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta,” so I’m going to go with Bartók’s Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta … that’s my final answer, Regis.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden (Jul 15, 2020)

larold said:


> Agree the century went too many directions -- and had too many masterpieces -- to name one chief among all. Here are some I'd call legends:
> 
> Mahler Symphony 9 (1908-09)
> Berg Chamber Concerto for for Piano and Violin with 13 Wind Instruments (1923-25)
> ...


I do love seeing Hanson's Numero Duo among your excellent list! Considering how many times it's been ripped-off at the cinema (_Alien_, _E.T., Boss Baby_, it suggests you are correct.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> I do love seeing Hanson's Numero Duo among your excellent list! Considering how many times it's been ripped-off at the cinema (_Alien_, _E.T., Boss Baby_, it suggests you are correct.


FYI, Hanson's Second wasn't 'ripped off' for the end credits of Alien, it was licensed, i.e legally used....
Williams was certainly partially influenced by the Hanson in ET as you say (I wouldn't call it ripping off though), especially the last cue.


----------



## Joachim Raff (Jan 31, 2020)

Adagio for Strings, orchestra arrangement of the second movement of American composer Samuel Barber’s String Quartet (1936).

or

Khachaturian composed Spartacus (1954) 

or 

Symphony No. 4 (Nielsen) (1916)

or

Symphony No. 5 (Prokofiev) (1944)


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> FYI, Hanson's Second wasn't 'ripped off' for the end credits of Alien, it was licensed, i.e legally used....


I didn't know that the concept of "ripping off" can be applied to directors, who are not even composers...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

"A Day in the Life" or "I Am the Walrus"


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Vaughan Williams' Symphony No. 5 (or 4, or 3).

Britten's 3rd String Quartet, too.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> Your 2nd choice could suggest you didn't think too highly of the music that century. Hehe.


No, 20th century classical music is the period I listen to the most (this can be confirmed by looking at my list of favorite composers).

I just think that 4'33" had a huge impact on music, actually, the culture in general, of the 20th century, and is why I suggested it. I was also being a little facetious since I don't place any importance on the idea of "great" works or composers. I also happen to think Ellington was just as important as the other composers mentioned, and is often not considered a serious composer.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I would have said either Mahler 12 or 15, but he died before he was able to begin work on them.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> No, 20th century classical music is the period I listen to the most (this can be confirmed by looking at my list of favorite composers).
> 
> I just think that 4'33" had a huge impact on music, actually, the culture in general, of the 20th century, and is why I suggested it. I was also being a little facetious since I don't place any importance on the idea of "great" works or composers. I also happen to think Ellington was just as important as the other composers mentioned, and is often not considered a serious composer.


I have always assumed that 4'33" has had no impact, but I could be wrong - so I'm curious to know what you think that impact is.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Its impact on threads here on TC has been.....incalculable.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Too many choices to even begin to narrow down. Was perhaps the most extraordinary century in the history of art music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

janxharris said:


> I have always assumed that 4'33" has had no impact, but I could be wrong - so I'm curious to know what you think that impact is.


Considering the amount of "ink" spent on debating it, I think it is hard to deny the impact of 4'33" - I come not to debate Cage.

As far as what influence it has had, it brought out into the open a serious questioning of the nature of music and the act of listening. Ambient music, field recordings, performance art, sonic landscape, all forms of sound art can be seen as the children of John Cage's work, and that work specifically.

IMO, the most important musicians of the 20th century were John Cage, Louis Armstrong and Bob Dylan.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> Considering the amount of "ink" spent on debating it, I think it is hard to deny the impact of 4'33" - I come not to debate Cage.
> 
> As far as what influence it has had, it brought out into the open a serious questioning of the nature of music and the act of listening. Ambient music, field recordings, performance art, sonic landscape, all forms of sound art can be seen as the children of John Cage's work, and that work specifically.
> 
> IMO, the most important musicians of the 20th century were John Cage, Louis Armstrong and Bob Dylan.


According to Wikipedia:

_Erwin Schulhoff's 1919 "In futurum", a movement from the Fünf Pittoresken for piano. The Czech composer's meticulously notated composition is made up entirely of rests._

I think silence in music has always been important..the pause near the beginning of Tapiola is very appropritate and extremely terrifying.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

aioriacont said:


> Aqua - Barbie Girl in a Barbie World


No song glorifying The Butcher of Lyon should be in the running here......:devil:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

janxharris said:


> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> _Erwin Schulhoff's 1919 "In futurum", a movement from the Fünf Pittoresken for piano. The Czech composer's meticulously notated composition is made up entirely of rests._
> 
> I think silence in music has always been important..the pause near the beginning of Tapiola is very appropritate and extremely terrifying.


Sure, there were a handful of "silent" works but they were not done with the same intention and had hardly any impact, and are hardly known (and as far I know were never performed).

Cage's point is that although his work is called silent, one of his points was that there is no such thing as silence. Even in an sensory deprivation tank, you can still hear blood rushing through your brain.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> Sure, there were a handful of "silent" works but they were not done with the same intention and had hardly any impact, and are hardly known. Cage's point is that although his work is called silent, one of his points was that there is no such thing as silence. Even in an sensory deprivation tank, you can still hear blood rushing through your brain.


Nevertheless, Cage appears to be pointing out what we each have always known.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Depends on mood. Sibelius 7 or Strauss Metamorphosen.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Martinů's First Symphony vies with Prokofiev's Third Symphony (and the Bartóks previously mentioned) for contemplation. Enjoyment Meter registers high numbers though Greatness Meter had a dead mouse inside and was giving out a bad odor.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

_In Search of Lost Time_ or _Ulysses_.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden (Jul 15, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> FYI, Hanson's Second wasn't 'ripped off' for the end credits of Alien, it was licensed, i.e legally used....
> Williams was certainly partially influenced by the Hanson in ET as you say (I wouldn't call it ripping off though), especially the last cue.


Thanks for your comment, mikeh375 - I always understood its inclusion at the end of _Alien_ to have induced Hanson to consider litigation. Then changed his mind with the late in life notoriety it got him. Why would he ponder that if its use was appropriately licensed? Jerry Goldsmith reportedly was also unhappy with its inclusion. Would be glad to be set straight on this! :tiphat:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Mahler 9th for me, though I could accept DLVDE.

Honorable mentions: 

Rite of spring
Shostakovich 5th
Bartok Concerto for Orchestra
Sibelius Violin concerto
Mahler 5th
Rachmaninoff 3rd Piano Concerto
Rhapsody in Blue
Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden (Jul 15, 2020)

Anyway you look at it, the 20th Century was a most remarkable one for music of all kinds, Classical music in particular not only because of the sweep and variety of its innovations, but also because it was _the_ century in which Classical music fully embraced its past both performance-wise and the excellence of musicological research. National Public Radio years ago asked the same question as the OP and put forward: Stravinsky's _Symphony of Psalms_. I thought it a good choice.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Max Steiner: score for Gone with the Wind


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> _In Search of Lost Time_ or _Ulysses_.


if we are talking literature, then Master and Margarita.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

But the question is even more difficult than such questions usually are. The century includes the end of the Romantic, the multiple strands of modernism and all the huge and rich variety that followed. A choice seems to involve choosing one of those very many pigeon holes as well as choosing a work. How do you choose between Stravinsky's great neoclassical works, Bartok's quartets and a Schoenberg masterpiece? How do you compare Le Marteau sans Maitre with Das Lied von der Erde? But you can have a different one every day so today I will choose Le Marteau sans Maitre.

The same problem exists for choosing literature but I will select 2666 by Roberto Bolano today.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> Thanks for your comment, mikeh375 - I always understood its inclusion at the end of _Alien_ to have induced Hanson to consider litigation. Then changed his mind with the late in life notoriety it got him. Why would he ponder that if its use was appropriately licensed? Jerry Goldsmith reportedly was also unhappy with its inclusion. Would be glad to be set straight on this! :tiphat:


According to the liner notes for the official release of Goldsmith's score for _Alien_, Hanson's music had been used for the temp track. Terry Rawlings, the music editor, is quoted as saying "I don't think he [Goldsmith] ever forgave me for using Howard Hanson for the end of the film . . . and keeping the music that he wrote for _Freud_ . . . . though that was Fox's decision . . . " It does not address the issue of licenses, but I find it hard to imagine that professionals on an expensive music did not have that covered.

Edit: In the notes for the end title, it says that "The 1967 recording of Hanson's work that was licensed for use in the film featured Charles Gerhardt conducting the RCA Radio Symphony Orchestra, which soon became the National Philharmonic. It is therefore likely that some of the players in that recording also performed in the _Aliens_ sessions."

(I can note that the Gerhardt performance of the Hanson symphony is excellent.)


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> if we are talking literature, then Master and Margarita.


Really? I gave up after about 30 pages.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Really? I gave up after about 30 pages.


why? It is not a difficult read compared to for example Ulysses. You can read it on so many levels, as an entertaining comedy, as magical realism, but what it really is is an allegory. Allegory that had to be so veiled that the stupid Stalin NKVD thugs and censor could not decipher it


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

For piano solo, maybe Vingt Regards or the Concord Sonata 

For everything else there is too much to choose from


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> Thanks for your comment, mikeh375 - I always understood its inclusion at the end of _Alien_ to have induced Hanson to consider litigation. Then changed his mind with the late in life notoriety it got him. Why would he ponder that if its use was appropriately licensed? Jerry Goldsmith reportedly was also unhappy with its inclusion. Would be glad to be set straight on this! :tiphat:


aaahh, thanks for that info Ich muss Cw. I may have got myself confused there. Perhaps I got mixed up with the licensing of the actual recording and not the right to use the composition. A great anecdote about Hanson deciding to not sue though - very wise indeed as that's how this composer got to know Hanson's work along with many other folk no doubt. 
Scott's temp tracks are often culled from the great canon.


----------



## Ravn (Jan 6, 2020)

Stravinsky - Rite of Spring

Not far ahead of Mahler’s 9th.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden (Jul 15, 2020)

JAS said:


> According to the liner notes for the official release of Goldsmith's score for _Alien_, Hanson's music had been used for the temp track. Terry Rawlings, the music editor, is quoted as saying "I don't think he [Goldsmith] ever forgave me for using Howard Hanson for the end of the film . . . and keeping the music that he wrote for _Freud_ . . . . though that was Fox's decision . . . " It does not address the issue of licenses, but I find it hard to imagine that professionals on an expensive music did not have that covered.
> 
> Edit: In the notes for the end title, it says that "The 1967 recording of Hanson's work that was licensed for use in the film featured Charles Gerhardt conducting the RCA Radio Symphony Orchestra, which soon became the National Philharmonic. It is therefore likely that some of the players in that recording also performed in the _Aliens_ sessions."
> 
> (I can note that the Gerhardt performance of the Hanson symphony is excellent.)


Thanks, JAS, agree that it does boggle the mind Hollywood pros would not have crossed their legal t's and dotted their legal i's. You and mikeh375 have given me much food for thought; perhaps the Sibley Music Library at the Eastman School can straighten us out! Will report back. (And yes, Gerhardt was great with movie music - love his Korngold).


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> why? It is not a difficult read compared to for example Ulysses. You can read it on so many levels, as an entertaining comedy, as magical realism, but what it really is is an allegory. Allegory that had to be so veiled that the stupid Stalin NKVD thugs and censor could not decipher it


I thought it was very poorly written, but I respect that you value it...and it's esteemed by the critics. Maybe I will revist it in the future.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Will a top 5 suffice?

Mahler 9 
Rite of Spring
Berg Violin Concerto
Sibelius 7
Messiaen Quatuor

...with legions of honorable mentions.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I thought it was very poorly written, but I respect that you value it...and it's esteemed by the critics. Maybe I will revist it in the future.


it is not poorly written, more likely the English translation is poor. Russian and English are dissimilar languages and sometimes the English translators struggle to get the finer nuances of the Slavic lanaguages.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> it is not poorly written, more likely the English translation is poor. Russian and English are dissimilar languages and sometimes the English translators struggle to get the finer nuances of the Slavic lanaguages.


I did wonder whether that was the case...so many recommending it and yet it was reading like a children's book.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I did wonder whether that was the case...so many recommending it and yet it was reading like a children's book.


the book is so brilliant, because on the surface it reads like a children book, but is in fact incredibly deep with multiple layers of depth. With Ulysses, as far as I can tell, there is no depth. It is a complex book that is primarily about games with language, but there are no hidden meanings, no hidden messages, no hidden allegories (at least as far as I can tell). But Master and Margarita goes very deep. It is Dostoyevsky level deep. It is an allegory for Stalinist Russia (the director of the Variety theater is Stalin himself), but it goes even deeper. It is about good and evil and morality. The book was accused that it is atheist. I actually understood the opposite, it is deeply Christian. The whole story arch about Pilate and Christ is there for a good reason.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

For me, there's no question that in music it's John Cage's _4'33"_, and I say that it all sincerity, without being the least bit facetious but on the contrary entirely earnest. A lot of people think the piece was a joke. It was not. A little people think it was because Cage was flipping off the audience. He was not. Still others think it was a pretentious bit of tosh, conceived without thinking. Also untrue.

In fact, _4'33"_ emerged from Cage's very thoughtful and devout engagement with Zen Buddhism, and he delayed releasing the piece because of fear it would be treated as a joke. 


> The basic doctrines of early Buddhism, which remain common to all Buddhism, include the "four noble truths": existence is suffering (_dukhka_); suffering has a cause, namely craving and attachment (_trishna_); there is a cessation of suffering, which is _nirvana_; and there is a path to the cessation of suffering, the "eightfold path" of right views, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. Buddhism characteristically describes reality in terms of process and relation rather than entity or substance.
> 
> Experience is analyzed into five aggregates (_skandhas_). The first, form (_rupa_), refers to material existence; the following four, sensations (_vedana_), perceptions (_samjna_), psychic constructs (_samskara_), and consciousness (_vijnana_), refer to psychological processes. The central Buddhist teaching of non-self (_anatman_) asserts that in the five aggregates no independently existent, immutable self, or soul, can be found.


Consider these texts, the second paragraph especially, and what it means for a composer, one who studied with Arnold Schoenberg, no less. John Cage sought for an answer to that question for his entire life, after discovering Buddhism for himself. _4'33"_ was a product of that very sincere search, as was his use of the _I ching_ and other chance procedures as critical components of his compositional process. In fact, this was the germ of what ultimately became _4'33"_: the chance procedures he was using were coming up all rests.

The implications of _4'33"_ are more profound than what appears at the first encounter, much more than just the banal observation that there is no silence. It begins with the realization that the perception of music, and all emotional reaction involved with it, is born of the listener, and that this can be applied to any sounds at all. Then think on how the Buddhist concepts of the five aggregates of experience, especially the psychological processes of sensation and perception, are in play when listening, and finally how this relates to a musical experience. What we bring ourselves to listening is at the exclusive source of whether we experience music, and therefore pleasure, or noise, and therefore suffering. Our attitudes, our prejudices, our selfish desires, are all there, determining whether we experience pleasure or suffering. _4'33"_ is an invitation to suspend our selfish expectations in listening, and to find music where we didn't expect it.


----------



## Ravn (Jan 6, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Will a top 5 suffice?
> 
> Mahler 9
> Rite of Spring
> ...


Great list. Wouldn't disagree with any of your choices.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> the book is so brilliant, because on the surface it reads like a children book, but is in fact incredibly deep with multiple layers of depth. With Ulysses, as far as I can tell, there is no depth. It is a complex book that is primarily about games with language, but there are no hidden meanings, no hidden messages, no hidden allegories (at least as far as I can tell). But Master and Margarita goes very deep. It is Dostoyevsky level deep. It is an allegory for Stalinist Russia (the director of the Variety theater is Stalin himself), but it goes even deeper. It is about good and evil and morality. The book was accused that it is atheist. I actually understood the opposite, it is deeply Christian. The whole story arch about Pilate and Christ is there for a good reason.


I havwn't read _Ulysses_, so I can't really respond. I very much enjoyed _Crime and Punishment_ though.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I havwn't read _Ulysses_, so I can't really respond. I very much enjoyed _Crime and Punishment_ though.


I've been trying to read Ulysses, but found it to be punishment. Got like 1/3 through. There were times it felt inventive with different perspectives, but I found it tedious, and the main story unbearably slow. The book is about all the asides the characters are thinking.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> Considering the amount of "ink" spent on debating it, I think it is hard to deny the impact of 4'33" - I come not to debate Cage.
> 
> As far as what influence it has had, it brought out into the open a serious questioning of the nature of music and the act of listening. Ambient music, field recordings, performance art, sonic landscape, all forms of sound art can be seen as the children of John Cage's work, and that work specifically.
> 
> IMO, the most important musicians of the 20th century were John Cage, Louis Armstrong and Bob Dylan.


I can definitely get behind that top 3 though I'd pick a different trumpeter: Miles Davis. (No disrespect to Louis.)

I'll have to think about the thread topic some more and write back. More likely I won't be able to come up with anything.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Cage was an interesting character but as far a musician possessing greatness and impact on the 20th century I'd go with Leonard Bernstein and Duke Ellington. And greatest work? There isn't one greatest work.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Maybe the greatest work of the 20th century was just making it to the 21rst.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

KenOC said:


> I'll cast a vote for Shostakovich's 1st Violin Concerto, ca 1948. Right in mid-century. Anybody else?


I love that work! I think it is Shostakovich's best work. I'm glad to see someone else feels similarly.

But, I would have to go with *Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.* It set the tone for the whole century. A bold, daring, exciting, sensuous, work. A once in a century type of work.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

^^^ "If that's a bassoon, then I'm a baboon!"


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Knorf said:


> For me, there's no question that in music it's John Cage's _4'33"_, and I say that it all sincerity, without being the least bit facetious but on the contrary entirely earnest. ...


That may be earnest but it's still silly. That's the greatest "work" of the 20th century simply because it has something to do with Buddhism? Come on.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Knorf said:


> For me, there's no question that in music it's John Cage's _4'33"_, and I say that it all sincerity, without being the least bit facetious but on the contrary entirely earnest. A lot of people think the piece was a joke. It was not. A little people think it was because Cage was flipping off the audience. He was not. Still others think it was a pretentious bit of tosh, conceived without thinking. Also untrue.
> 
> In fact, _4'33"_ emerged from Cage's very thoughtful and devout engagement with Zen Buddhism, and he delayed releasing the piece because of fear it would be treated as a joke.
> 
> ...


Sounds fascinating Knorf, but I confess I didn't really understand.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2020)

Jacck said:


> With Ulysses, as far as I can tell, there is no depth. It is a complex book that is primarily about games with language, but there are no hidden meanings, no hidden messages, no hidden allegories (at least as far as I can tell).


I can't speak about the Bulgakov, but I can wonder about the term 'deep' - as elusive in meaning (and application) as 'greatest'. I read _Ulysses _about 40 years ago, so only recall that yes, it was hard work, and no, it didn't make a strong enough impression in comparison to other books I read around the same time (_The White Hotel, Siddhartha, Watership Down_...).

Having said that, anyone who begins to make any kind of study of the book will know that it has the kind of layers that contribute to the idea of 'deep'. Not least, the paralleling of Homer's classic itself!



KenOC said:


> I'll cast a vote for Shostakovich's 1st Violin Concerto, ca 1948. Right in mid-century. Anybody else?


I note the lack of precision in your OP, Ken, has invited some leg-pulling, so I might offer _Eleanor Rigby _to counter _Barbie Girl_! Meanwhile, back at the classical music front, it's hard to disagree with _Rite of Spring_. The fact that it has been accommodated by Disney somewhat undermines it's claim to be quite as radical and shocking as it thinks it is, but it certainly shook up musical society at the time.

I get the reasoning behind the suggestion of _4'33" _but if you wanted a composition symbolic of the other 'seismic shift' of the 20th C (the move towards a complete disruption of form, content, 'meaning', of music) it ought to be something by Schoenberg, surely. Didn't he begin the whole 'paradigm shift' ? (I hate that expression, but it works here I think.)

What we're missing is something later than all of the usual suspects, that has something to say about the latter years of the 20th C. There's too much from the first half (even the first half of the first half). For example, the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of computerised music technology all had an impact in the second half of the 20th...But I'm no music historian, so I couldn't match that with a leading composer from, say, 1960-2000.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Knorf said:


> For me, there's no question that in music it's John Cage's _4'33"_, and I say that it all sincerity, without being the least bit facetious but on the contrary entirely earnest. A lot of people think the piece was a joke. It was not. A little people think it was because Cage was flipping off the audience. He was not. Still others think it was a pretentious bit of tosh, conceived without thinking. Also untrue.
> .


I will say this that 4'33" is a lot more pleasant to listen to than most ofCage's music! And a lot of other music of the avant-garde


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I can't speak about the Bulgakov, but I can wonder about the term 'deep' - as elusive in meaning (and application) as 'greatest'. I read _Ulysses _about 40 years ago, so only recall that yes, it was hard work, and no, it didn't make a strong enough impression in comparison to other books I read around the same time (_The White Hotel, Siddhartha, Watership Down_...). Having said that, anyone who begins to make any kind of study of the book will know that it has the kind of layers that contribute to the idea of 'deep'. Not least, the paralleling of Homer's classic itself!.


Ulysses is style over substance, ie the focus is on language and form, not on the actual content. Yes, Bloom's wanderings across Dublin are supposed to correspond to Homers Odessey, but beyond the names of the chapters, the parallels are pretty vague. I still do like the book and thought it was great when I read it. But I like it for different reasons than philosophical depth.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Jacck said:


> Ulysses is style over substance, ie the focus is on language and form, not on the actual content. Yes, Bloom's wanderings across Dublin are supposed to correspond to Homers Odessey, but beyond the names of the chapters, the parallels are pretty vague. I still do like the book and thought it was great when I read it. But I like it for different reasons than philosophical depth.


I am sure that this is is totally wrong, Ulysses is essentially about a father in need of a son finding a son in need of a father, they meet by chance and then - and this is the magical thing - they go on separate paths. I think there is no English prose more profound than Part III of the book: the meeting in the all night cafe and the catechism in Bloom's house while Molly sleeps.

It is a study of isolation, of need and transcending need. And in the last chapter, a study of love and reconciliation.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I am sure that this is is totally wrong, Ulysses is essentially about a father in need of a son finding a son in need of a father, they meet by chance and then - and this is the magical thing - they go on separate paths. I think there is no English prose more profound than Part III of the book: the meeting in the all night cafe and the catechism in Bloom's house while Molly sleeps.
> 
> It is a study of isolation, of need and transcending need. And in the last chapter, a study of love and reconciliation.


and I thought the last chapter was about Molly's menstruation


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I am sure that this is is totally wrong, Ulysses is essentially about a father in need of a son finding a son in need of a father, they meet by chance and then - and this is the magical thing - they go on separate paths. I think there is no English prose more profound than Part III of the book: the meeting in the all night cafe and the catechism in Bloom's house while Molly sleeps.
> 
> It is a study of isolation, of need and transcending need. And in the last chapter, a study of love and reconciliation.


And 'style' _is_ the substance as well as the content.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> And 'style' _is_ the substance as well as the content.


That, IMO, is what poetry is -- poetry is the matching of style and idea.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> That, IMO, is what poetry is -- poetry is the matching of style and idea.


and that was exactly my impression of Ulysses. I thought it was poetry in prose. Some kind of impressionism, where Joyce tried to capture in detail the poetics of an ordinary day. And he did a great job at that. Many chapters were memorable, for example the chapter at the sea, which was like a poem about a walk on the beach etc., or the chapter about music in the restaurant etc. That is how I view and understand the book - as a book of poetry. And you can also read it as a book of poetry. Once you read it once and know the overall "story", you can just pick individual chapters at random. No need to actually read it in order.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Whatever work is chosen, it would seem that some sort of metaphorical reference (even vague) to World Wars I & II (and the atomic age) would be appropriate. This could include Penderecki's Threnody, Stravinsky's Rite (Man tapping into his unconscious), 4'33" (the silence of a post-nuclear attack), Shostakovich's 8th String Quartet (dedicated to the victims of fascism), Varese's Deserts, or any of Stockhausen or Boulez' post war serial works.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

The more I've aged the more I think the 20th century was the greatest century for classical music. It doesn't have the immediate appeal of the romantic 19th century but it has more composers that wrote more masterpieces in more dizzying styles. 

The one form that probably didn't flourish was opera; I suppose that is in part because the second half of the century was dominated by cinema and television which is some ways probably replaced opera as an entertainment art form.

I think more composers wrote more great symphonies in the 20th century than any century before it. I agree they weren't all the qaulity of Eroica or Tchaikovsky but there are far more of them. And the music that was created via sound worlds a la Stockhauzen, Boulez and the Second Viennese School moved classical music to places it had never been.

This was a great boon to another musical form that flourished in that century and continues to do so in our century: film music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Knorf said:


> For me, there's no question that in music it's John Cage's _4'33"_, and I say that it all sincerity, without being the least bit facetious but on the contrary entirely earnest. A lot of people think the piece was a joke. It was not. A little people think it was because Cage was flipping off the audience. He was not. Still others think it was a pretentious bit of tosh, conceived without thinking. Also untrue.
> 
> In fact, _4'33"_ emerged from Cage's very thoughtful and devout engagement with Zen Buddhism, and he delayed releasing the piece because of fear it would be treated as a joke.
> 
> ...


I was exposed to the concepts behind 4'33" through other means previously like in post-modern poetry, where we connect the dots between the words, and just through reading on some philosophies. My reaction to 4'33", even after reading all about it, is "So what?" How are we better off with that knowledge? For me, it's a one-use disposable. The journey to that knowledge is indispensable, but not repeatable (I'm sure Cage would disagree, since he believes as others, that every work of music is different every time you hear it, even from the same recording, or the chair you sat on a minute ago is not the same chair). Unfortunately for me the journey was made prior to 4'33", so it never worked even once.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

larold said:


> The more I've aged the more I think the 20th century was the greatest century for classical music. It doesn't have the immediate appeal of the romantic 19th century but it has more composers that wrote more masterpieces in more dizzying styles.
> 
> The one form that probably didn't flourish was opera; I suppose that is in part because the second half of the century was dominated by cinema and television which is some ways probably replaced opera as an entertainment art form.
> 
> ...


I agree with much of this but has opera really dwindled to the extent you suggest in the 20th century? We start with Puccini (from Tosca onward) and Strauss. Most of the major composers of the first half of the century had a bash at writing operas - with many notable successes - Bartok (Bluebeard's Castle), Stravinsky (Oedipus Rex and The Rake's Progress), Shostakovich, Schoenberg (Moses and Aaron) and, of course, Berg. Prokofiev was a major opera composer and Britten was, by any measure, one of the greatest. And I'm not much more than halfway through the century but it does seem that the century was not so lacking in major operatic masterpieces.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> I agree with much of this but has opera really dwindled to the extent you suggest in the 20th century? We start with Puccini (from Tosca onward) and Strauss. Most of the major composers of the first half of the century had a bash at writing operas - with many notable successes - Bartok (Bluebeard's Castle), Stravinsky (Oedipus Rex and The Rake's Progress), Shostakovich, Schoenberg (Moses and Aaron) and, of course, Berg. Prokofiev was a major opera composer and Britten was, by any measure, one of the greatest. And I'm not much more than halfway through the century but it does seem that the century was not so lacking in major operatic masterpieces.


I think what he meant was that _as a form of entertainment,_ opera has been surpassed in popularity by cinema & television; _not _that there are fewer operas being written.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

It seems absurd to me that people suggest 4'33" as the greatest piece of MUSIC from the 20th century. It is not MUSIC. It is the absence of music by any practical definition. 

I'm not diminishing the importance of the philosophical statement that Cage presents. It is valuable to ask "What is the essence of music?" or "what is valuable in the so-called silence?" but to say that the greatest piece of music itself is actually non-music is a slap to the face of every 20th century composer including John Cage. IMHO.


Let's imagine every great painter from the 20th century coming to a competition for the best painting. They all submit their best works - Picasso's Guernica, Van Gogh's Starry Night, Dali's The Persistence of Memory are among the dozens and dozens of works, considered masterpieces, that are submitted. 

At the prize ceremony, with everyone in anticipation - a drum roll.... they give the prize to a blank canvas. That would be like giving them each the middle finger and farting.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

20centrfuge said:


> It seems absurd to me that people suggest 4'33" as the greatest piece of MUSIC from the 20th century....That would be like giving them each the middle finger and farting.


If you read what I actually wrote, *20centrfuge*, I think it's clear I did rather more and better than merely "giving the middle finger and farting."

In fact, that wording more accurately describes other posts in reaction to what I wrote, apparently none of whom noting what the first two words of my post were. What were they, again? Hmm.

For me, it is not absurd, and I am not being absurd. Nor was I being silly. Even if you don't agree, I think I deserve at minimum a modicum of respect for what I _actually wrote_, and not have it compared to "giving the middle finger and farting" or claiming that I suggested _4'33"_ for no other reason than "simply because it has something to do with Buddhism." If you read what I wrote-_and aren't a total jerk_-it should be clear I put far more thought into than that.

Of course, a lot people seem to react as though religious devotion only applies to Abrahamic religions.... Bach's response to his faith in music is profound and spiritual, but Cage's is "just silly."


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2020)

20centrfuge said:


> It seems absurd to me that people suggest 4'33" as the greatest piece of MUSIC from the 20th century. It is not MUSIC. It is the absence of music by any practical definition.
> 
> I'm not diminishing the importance of the philosophical statement that Cage presents. It is valuable to ask "What is the essence of music?" or "what is valuable in the so-called silence?" but to say that the greatest piece of music itself is actually non-music is a slap to the face of every 20th century composer including John Cage. IMHO.
> 
> ...


Empty canvas is not equivalent to what happens in a performance of 4' 33".


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Knorf said:


> If you read what I actually wrote, *20centrfuge*, I think it's clear I did rather more and better than merely "giving the middle finger and farting."
> 
> In fact, that wording more accurately describes other posts in reaction to what I wrote, apparently none of whom noting what the first two words of my post were. What were they, again? Hmm.
> 
> ...


Hi Knorf! It is true that I didn't give a careful reading to your post and so I apologize for that. I have now read your words and they are thoughtful and insightful, so I accept them and I publicly validate your post and say that I regret writing my not-so-sensitive post.

I will, however, maintain that 4'33" is philosophy and not music.

Peace, my friend!


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Rhapsody in Blue, Rodeo (ballet), West Side Story, Sweet Psalmist of Israel, Requiem Ebraico, Das Wunder der Heliane, etc... The 20th century is full with true masterpieces. I can write until tomorrow.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Knorf said:


> ...
> Of course, a lot people seem to react as though religious devotion only applies to Abrahamic religions.... Bach's response to his faith in music is profound and spiritual, but Cage's is "just silly."


I haven't seen anyone praise Bach's music simply because it's an expression of his religious faith. On the contrary, in our "enlightened" "postmodern" age such a thing is more likely to be condemned with a remark like "it's great music but he was a religious fanatic".

Zoltán Göncz argued persuasively (I think) that Bach "embedded" a lot of Christian theological content in the six-part ricercar from the Musical Offering. Does Göncz imply that that's what makes the work great? Of course not.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Mahler 9th for me, though I could accept DLVDE.
> 
> Honorable mentions:
> 
> ...





starthrower said:


> Cage was an interesting character but as far a musician possessing greatness and impact on the 20th century I'd go with Leonard Bernstein and Duke Ellington. And greatest work? There isn't one greatest work.


These two posts are what I would have written. (Though, I wouldn't choose DLVDE, because I don't dig vocal music as much, but it is a great piece too)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

20centrfuge said:


> It seems absurd to me that people suggest 4'33" as the greatest piece of MUSIC from the 20th century. It is not MUSIC. It is the absence of music by any practical definition.


You say it is not music according to "any practical definition". John Cage says the ambient sounds are music. Part of what Cage is doing is asking us to question the existing definitions of music, as possibly being too limiting.

And I agree with the idea that Cage was also concerned with removing his ego from the process of composition, a Zen idea.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> ...
> And I agree with the idea that Cage was also concerned with removing his ego from the process of composition, a Zen idea.


Really. Well then Cage should've done nothing at all and the ego wouldn't have appeared in any way.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> Really. Well then Cage should've done nothing at all and the ego wouldn't have appeared in any way.


You can't compose music by doing nothing.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> You can't compose music by doing nothing.


There you go defining music too narrowly again.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> You can't compose music by doing nothing.


Way I see it is the by not doing anything, then there is no music, versus removing the composer, etc. from the music are either equivalent, or else the difference is just a technicality, and not all that profound.

Before I'm accused of being an unenlightened narrow-minded barbarian, I'd say it's because I never put that much emphasis on human perception which I think is very limited in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> ...
> Before I'm accused of being an unenlightened narrow-minded barbarian, I'd say it's because I never put that much emphasis on human perception which I think is very limited in the grand scheme of things.


So why be concerned if you're accused of being an unenlightened narrow-minded barbarian?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

consuono said:


> So why be concerned if you're accused of being an unenlightened narrow-minded barbarian?


I'm not, I was saying that for others benefit. But I agree it can be perceived as if I was. Haha.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> Way I see it is the by not doing anything, then there is no music, versus removing the composer, etc. from the music are either equivalent, or else the difference is just a technicality, and not all that profound.
> 
> Before I'm accused of being an unenlightened narrow-minded barbarian, I'd say it's because I never put that much emphasis on human perception which I think is very limited in the grand scheme of things.


By conceiving of and staging a performance of _4'33"_ Cage caused a ripple in the history of music, which has had an immeasurable effect on the course of music history. Had Cage done nothing, there would have been no ripple. Cage used the _I Ching_, coin tosses, and other kinds of indeterminacy in order to remove his intention and taste when creating musical compositions. This was how he attempted to remove himself from the act of composing. He was arranging occasions for sound to emerge which he called his composition and which caused us to appreciate them as such (or at least some of us).

_4'33"_ is one example of this, i.e. allowing the music to appear from the environment where the concert occurred and not from actions by John Cage. Cage was calling our attention to something most people never thought about doing, i.e. hearing the sounds around us with the same appreciation as we do when we attend a concert of, say, Beethoven.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> By conceiving of and staging a performance of 4'33" Cage caused a ripple in the history of music, which has had an immeasurable effect on the course of music history. Had Cage done nothing, there would have been no ripple. ...


 That's an overstatement to say the least. I'd say the effect has been minimal, if not negative. It's just more of that "postmodern" blob. The thing is self-contradictory anyway:


> In _The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works_, Lydia Goehr took a different tack on the radical nature of the ego in Cage. She argued that Cage did not succeed in abdicating control of, and hence distance from, the musical performance and attributed this 'failure' to a split between his theory (his ideas and aspirations) and his actual musical practice. Goehr avoided the terms "postmodern" or "modern", but posited that a chance-inspired musical work like the celebrated "4'33", premiered by David Tudor in 1952, still operated within the protocols of the concert hall. The concert setting conveyed a message to the audience about when to applaud and how to behave during the performance. The fixed duration told the audience to follow this behavior during an allotted time period. Cage intended to relinquish control over the performance, so that the sounds of audience and space would produce the contents of the piece. In Goehr's view, however, theory and practice went their separate ways, since specific performance instructions circumscribed the range of random sounds and events. (Goehr, 1992, pp. 261-264) Whereas Rainer and Adorno believed that a stronger ego would articulate a critique of social conditions, Goehr asserted that Cage's performances were the result of a powerful ego, which imposed choices that inadvertently strengthened, rather than undermined, the work-concept.


http://www.ubu.com/papers/perloff_nancy.html


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> That's an overstatement to say the least. I'd say the effect has been minimal, if not negative. It's just more of that "postmodern" blob. The thing is self-contradictory anyway:
> 
> http://www.ubu.com/papers/perloff_nancy.html


As I said at the outset I do not wish to debate John Cage. It would seem his place in music history is a fact, and secure. Whether his work is valued is up to each individual, not something worth debating, IMO. All of music appreciation is subjective - there is nothing to prove or disprove when we describe the music we value, and nothing anyone can cite to dissuade someone from their favored works or composers.

Why do you persist?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man (1897)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> As I said at the outset I do not wish to debate John Cage. It would seem his place in music history is a fact, and secure. Whether his work is valued is up to each individual, not something worth debating, IMO. All of music appreciation is subjective - there is nothing to prove or disprove when we describe the music we value, and nothing anyone can cite to dissuade someone from their favored works or composers.
> 
> Why do you persist?


Giving my opinion like everyone else. By the way,


> This was how he attempted to remove himself from the act of composing.


"Look how brilliantly and profoundly I'm removing my ego from the compositional process" isn't...really removing the ego.

Cage's place is secure I guess with a tiny faction that follow that kind of thing. And that's fine.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man (1897)


The Greatest Work of the Nineteenth Century.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> By conceiving of and staging a performance of _4'33"_ Cage caused a ripple in the history of music, which has had an immeasurable effect on the course of music history. Had Cage done nothing, there would have been no ripple. Cage used the _I Ching_, coin tosses, and other kinds of indeterminacy in order to remove his intention and taste when creating musical compositions. This was how he attempted to remove himself from the act of composing. He was arranging occasions for sound to emerge which he called his composition and which caused us to appreciate them as such (or at least some of us).
> 
> _4'33"_ is one example of this, i.e. allowing the music to appear from the environment where the concert occurred and not from actions by John Cage. Cage was calling our attention to something most people never thought about doing, i.e. hearing the sounds around us with the same appreciation as we do when we attend a concert of, say, Beethoven.


When Cage used I Ching for say Music of Changes, he was way more involved than in 4'33". The register, dynamics, pitches, etc. were determined by Cage, even if he used a lot of randomness. He actually presented something, and was in control. I see it similar to Pierre Schaeffer's Etude aux Chemins de Fer, where he processed train sounds. He was in control how it was presented, even though he didn't spell out the pitches and rhythms. But with 4'33", there is no composition or processing. In fact, I see it as a failure in a way, since it didn't get the point across clearly enough, that it was not the performer's silence, but the audience who were producing the music. How is the audience supposed to get that they suddenly became the performers? Just because Cage explained it afterwards? I'd say great Art shouldn't need to be explained, but be self-evident on the perceiver/listener.

Whether or not that had any impact on music's history doesn't make it a great piece of Art. There was no expression. I feel Cage left too much on the part of receiver to guess what he meant, and see how great it is, he could have meant the piece to be about the stopwatch, among other possibilities.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> When Cage used I Ching for say Music of Changes, he was way more involved than in 4'33". The register, dynamics, pitches, etc. were determined by Cage, even if he used a lot of randomness. He actually presented something, and was in control. I see it similar to Pierre Schaeffer's Etude aux Chemins de Fer, where he processed train sounds. He was in control how it was presented, even though he didn't spell out the pitches and rhythms. But with 4'33", there is no composition or processing. In fact, I see it as a failure in a way, since it didn't get the point across clearly enough, that it was not the performer's silence, but the audience who were producing the music. How is the audience supposed to get that they suddenly became the performers? Just because Cage explained it afterwards? I'd say great Art shouldn't need to be explained, but be self-evident on the perceiver/listener.
> 
> Whether or not that had any impact on music's history doesn't make it a great piece of Art. There was no expression. I feel Cage left too much on the part of receiver to guess what he meant, and see how great it is, he could have meant the piece to be about the stopwatch, among other possibilities.


4'33" was premiered within a context. Robert Rauschenberg's White Paintings (1951) were a catalyst for Cage to present the work in 1952, although he had "written" it at least two years prior. The idea of nothingness in art was already out there. I would agree that 4'33" could be more important as an idea, or performance art, than as musical work - but since Cage contextualized it as a musical work, we are bound by Cage's intention in that regard.

The ideas raised by Rauschenberg's White Paintings and 4'33" were and remain impactful, otherwise we would not be debating it today.

But Cage regretted ever doing it, precisely because of this kind of discussion. His late number pieces I think are more representative of him as a composer.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> _4'33"_ is one example of this, i.e. allowing the music to appear from the environment where the concert occurred and not from actions by John Cage. Cage was calling our attention to something most people never thought about doing, i.e. hearing the sounds around us with the same appreciation as we do when we attend a concert of, say, Beethoven.


You know that 'most people' never appreciate everyday sounds around us and it took Cage to change that?


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> What we're missing is something later than all of the usual suspects, that has something to say about the latter years of the 20th C. [...] For example, the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of computerised music technology





millionrainbows said:


> Whatever work is chosen, it would seem that some sort of metaphorical reference (even vague) to World Wars I & II (and the atomic age) would be appropriate.


An alternative approach to selecting the greatest work would be to consider only the issue of musical development, and not include context or reference as a criteria.

And then, do you choose something that represents the genesis or apotheosis of an idea or form?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Knorf said:


> If you read what I actually wrote, *20centrfuge*, I think it's clear I did rather more and better than merely "giving the middle finger and farting."
> 
> In fact, that wording more accurately describes other posts in reaction to what I wrote, apparently none of whom noting what the first two words of my post were. What were they, again? Hmm.
> 
> ...


I have re-read your previous post but remain unclear what exactly 4'33'' does for you. I know Schopenhauer took much from Buddhism in developing his ideas regarding the ego - but what did Cage say that was new?

I can't imagine many of us don't find pleasure in the music of non-music.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

4'33'' is way overrated. I don't think I have ever listened to it in its entirety, despite that fact that it has just 4 minutes. I don't know why it is considered such a musical masterpiece


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Probably because it can still generate pages of discussion in a forum which discusses it often.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> 4'33" was premiered within a context. Robert Rauschenberg's White Paintings (1951) were a catalyst for Cage to present the work in 1952, although he had "written" it at least two years prior. The idea of nothingness in art was already out there. I would agree that 4'33" could be more important as an idea, or performance art, than as musical work - but since Cage contextualized it as a musical work, we are bound by Cage's intention in that regard.
> 
> The ideas raised by Rauschenberg's White Paintings and 4'33" were and remain impactful, otherwise we would not be debating it today.
> 
> But Cage regretted ever doing it, precisely because of this kind of discussion. His late number pieces I think are more representative of him as a composer.


I would say the original 4'33" is overrated, as he had since fixed what i see as the problems in his 2nd version 0'00". He already achieved notoriety with his original, so the 2nd version can never make the same impact even if it is way better thought out in my opinion. I found his comment on 4'33" kind of revealing by the time of the 3rd version. "I said, I don't want to do the silent piece, because I thought that silence had changed from what it was, and I wanted to indicate that."






Maybe it's just me, but this one makes an impact, where the original falls flat.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Probably because it can still generate pages of discussion in a forum which discusses it often.


if Beethoven presented such a piece of music to his patrons for their money, they would have him whipped


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Keep going. Every time you continue the discussion the work becomes more important. BTW, it is not a piece that interests me but I am not bothered that Cage did it - someone had to.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Keep going. Every time you continue the discussion the work becomes more important. BTW, it is not a piece that interests me but I am not bothered that Cage did it - someone had to.


how is the work important? Does it sell a lot of recordings? Has it inspired other composers to compose in a similar style? It is just a musical meme, that people like to argue about, because people like to argue. The work itself is just a pretext for the arguing. Personally, I think that Cage did himself disservice by composing it. Now he will be remembered as the man who composed the meaningless 4:33, and no one will pay attention to his more serious attempts at composition.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> ...
> Maybe it's just me, but this one makes an impact, where the original falls flat.


It's interesting as recorded noise, but noise in itself really isn't music. Regardless of all the high-falutin' talk I look at stuff like this as just another facet of deconstructionism and the modern tendency to try to be original by turning things on their heads.

That isn't to say though that things like sound collages can't be interesting (like The Caretaker's albums). But I don't regard _An Empty Bliss Beyond This World_ to be a "musical composition". It is haunting and interesting though.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Jacck said:


> how is the work important? Does it sell a lot of recordings? Has it inspired other composers to compose in a similar style? It is just a musical meme, that people like to argue about, because people like to argue. The work itself is just a pretext for the arguing. Personally, I think that Cage did himself disservice by composing it. Now he will be remembered as the man who composed the meaningless 4:33, and no one will pay attention to his more serious attempts at composition.


Am I not being clear? It is important because it stimulates a lot of discussion and concern. You are one of those who make it important. I am not.

Also, for what it is worth, selling records would demonstrate that it is popular ... a very different thing to important. And, as for whether it has influenced others, I am not the one to ask. While I can respect conceptual artworks - especially the early Dada works - they do not really engage me. But they don't bother me either. Those who follow such things and those who become distraught that some do (this includes you) - they are the ones who make this work an important statement.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

John Cage's 4'33": Much Ado About Nothing.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

consuono said:


> It's interesting as recorded noise,* but noise in itself really isn't music.* Regardless of all the high-falutin' talk I look at stuff like this as just another facet of deconstructionism and the modern tendency to try to be original by turning things on their heads.
> 
> That isn't to say though that things like sound collages can't be interesting (like The Caretaker's albums). But I don't regard _An Empty Bliss Beyond This World_ to be a "musical composition". It is haunting and interesting though.


That's debatable. I feel Cage's 0'00" is really quite Zen-like similar to some more abstract Japanese Classical, which sometimes borders on noise, but to my mind is very much music. But I'm sure everyone has their own considerations where the boundary is.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> That's debatable. I feel Cage's 0'00" is really quite Zen-like similar to some more abstract Japanese Classical, which sometimes borders on noise, but to my mind is very much music. But I'm sure everyone has their own considerations where the boundary is.


If you have to debate on whether something is or isn't actually music, odds are it probably isn't...Zen notwithstanding.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Mahler wrote 7 symphonies in the 20th century, take your pick but the best work is in there. 

Richard Strauss' last works for mid century.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> Am I not being clear? It is important because it stimulates a lot of discussion and concern. You are one of those who make it important. I am not.
> 
> Also, for what it is worth, selling records would demonstrate that it is popular ... a very different thing to important. And, as for whether it has influenced others, I am not the one to ask. While I can respect conceptual artworks - especially the early Dada works - they do not really engage me. But they don't bother me either. Those who follow such things and those who become distraught that some do (this includes you) - they are the ones who make this work an important statement.


Well that as they say, is a croc. The people who keep this ridiculous thing alive and kicking are the one's who keep bringing it up as having some kind of profound importance, not the one's who react to the silliness.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I could suggest a variety of works - and I did name a seminal Boulez work pages ago - and if anyone reads them they usually just pass on to their own suggestion (whether it be Mahler, Shostakovich or Lachenmann) and so the thread goes. But whenever someone mentions 4'33" the consternation takes over the thread. I don't know (I really don't) why this work matters that much (either way) to anyone but it does seem to. All the other works mentioned in this thread get buried while tens of posts tell us that it is a travesty.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

It always amuses me when someone, in this case Cage, does something utterly outrageous, and with the intention of being outrageous, and then people get all upset that others are outraged by it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

And I laugh when I see people rising again and again to the bait of a mild joke as if it were a matter of huge import.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> And I laugh when I see people rising again and again to the bait of a mild joke as if it were a matter of huge import.


It's not a joke to some:



Knorf said:


> For me, there's no question that in music it's John Cage's _4'33"......._


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ And it matters, how? Cage made a point. It wasn't very deep or meaningful. He had the right to make it. It did no harm. Why not move on? I think I must be the one person who doesn't get this work as I cannot for the life of me understand why it matters so much to many people?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ And it matters, how? Cage made a point. It wasn't very deep or meaningful. He had the right to make it. It did no harm. Why not move on? I think I must be the one person who doesn't get this work as I cannot for the life of me understand why it matters so much to many people?


I don't understand it's importance either. I have asked.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I remember some 45 years ago an artwork that comprised a number of ordinary bricks laid out on the floor of one of our major galleries caused the right wing press to melt down that such a thing could be considered art. There was what some called a "public outcry" against it. But to many of my friends of the time it seemed like it was being attacked by crusty suburban retired Majors and their ilk and that therefore we had to be on the other side. At the time I had no interest in art and neither did my friends so our decision was tribal rather than aesthetic. And so the work became celebrated because of the fuss. 

At least in that case the work was being displayed using public money so there would have been something to complain about but this was before the advent of the right wing mantra against using "our money" for things that only a minority like.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

In the Time of the New Stasis in the Arts, 4'33" and any and all similar (and dissimilar) works and pieces disappear into the White Noise hiss of innumerable individual voices and expressions.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ And it matters, how? Cage made a point. It wasn't very deep or meaningful. He had the right to make it. It did no harm. Why not move on? I think I must be the one person who doesn't get this work as I cannot for the life of me understand why it matters so much to many people?


I suspect that Cage might be upset if we really did move on, even if he has, so to speak. And, of course, there are still a few who insist that 4'33" is something more than a low philosophical stunt.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

janxharris said:


> I don't understand it's importance either. I have asked.


The reason you and others don't understand its importance is because you have always lived in a world after 4'33". At the time it caused a ripple in the river of music, which caused that river to change course. Now, after living among all the communities that have grown up along its banks, for almost 70 years, you and others say, "what's the big deal." And, no, I won't articulate the major musical movements for which, I think, 4'33" was a catalyst. You can find that out by conducting an intellectually honest read through the literature about Cage and the work.

I don't care if you or others don't understand 4'33" and I sincerely wish we would move on, since this is a tedious discussion in which no one is going to change their mind and it just keeps going 'round like a hamster wheel.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Candidates:


Enescu: Oedipe
Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring
Nielsen: Fifth Symphony


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

"Greatest work of the 20th century?"

Sometimes it's hard for me to think of Sibelius, Mahler, Richard Strauss as really belonging to the 20th Century because they always seem to have one foot (or both feet) still in the 19th Century. They were born and spent their formative years in the 19th Century being raised on European Romanticism and they never seem to get far away from it.

I also enjoy a lot of things by Barber. Along with Beethoven's _Symphony #6 "Pastorale"_ and Wagner's _Siegfried Idyll_, Barber's _Knoxville: Summer of 1915_ are my three favorite pieces of classical music; but _Knoxville_, or the other wonderful works by Barber such as _Dover Beach _and the _Violin Concerto_ don't seem to break any new ground either as a "20th Century" pieces or as an "American" pieces, because it's musical language to me sounds as if it belongs more-or-less to European Romanticism.

Britten also composed a lot of beautiful things, and though Britten is more prolific and innovative than Barber, I see Britten as another extension of European Romanticism.

Composers such as Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Messiaen, Varese, Berio, Boulez, Xanakis, and Cage; all brought things to 20th Century music that was new and different; but how much of it is beautiful?

Shostakovich and Copland brought a new kind of language to classical music while still remaining tonal (excluding Copland's early experimental works and his late-stage serial works from when he jumped on the Schoenberg band-wagon); and while Shostakovich created a style that was deeply personal, it can also be sarcastic and edgy. In this sense, who can doubt Shostakovich as the greatest symphonist of the 20th century? Copland, on the other hand, created something that sounds definitively "American", optimistic, and home-spun.

And what about Philip Glass and other "Minimalist" composers? Whether you consider his music a refreshing new way approach, or snooze-fest, or a cheap gimmick, Glass did help bridge a widening gap that had existed with contemporary composers and the lay classical music listener, in that Glass was able to reach the public in a musical language that could be understood (I remember Glass even being the musical guest on _Saturday Night Live_, back in the 1980s).


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

1996D said:


> Mahler wrote 7 symphonies in the 20th century, take your pick but the best work is in there.
> 
> Richard Strauss' last works for mid century.


I think that's a good point. Strauss' Four Last Songs and Metamorphosen are good candidates.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Coach G said:


> Composers such as Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Messiaen, Varese, Berio, Boulez, Xanakis, and Cage; all brought things to 20th Century music that was new and different; but how much of it is beautiful?


A lot,a huge amount. In particular:

- Stravinsky's neoclassical works - the bulk of his music - is sometimes a little austere but is always filled with beauty. 
- Beauty is what Boulez is all about.
- Xenakis is perhaps unusual among them through being quite strident but there is a sort of beauty in his stridency. 
- Berg? You've heard his violin concerto, his Alternberg Lieder etc?

I could go on. Beauty was probably the key characteristic of much of the century's music.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> A lot,a huge amount. In particular:
> 
> - Stravinsky's neoclassical works - the bulk of his music - is sometimes a little austere but is always filled with beauty.
> - Beauty is what Boulez is all about.
> ...


I enjoy the craftsmanship and balance especially in Stravinsky's Neo-Classical works, which is interesting because after being completely taken with Rite of Spring as a teenager, I found myself mystified and bored by most of the rest of Stravinsky.

Yes, the Berg _Violin Concerto_ is very beautiful, _sad and beautiful_ which is very difficult to bring forth and in a serial work to boot!

I'm still working on finding the beauty in Xanakis and Boulez.

I find many works by many Ultra-Modern 20th Century composers (Schoenberg's _Survivor from Warsaw_ and _Moses Und Aron_ to name two) to be powerful works of great originality, that are also interesting, and I enjoy the challenge of trying to understand the craftsmanship; but I guess my idea of "beauty in music" is still more-or-less stuck in a tonal, Classical and Romantic, type of musical language.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> I could go on. Beauty was probably the key characteristic of much of the century's music.


I'm not so sure. It seems rebelling against traditional aesthetic notions of "beauty" is what much of that century's music was about.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I'm not so sure. It seems rebelling against traditional aesthetic notions of "beauty" is what much of that century's music was about.


It's deconstructionist music, it goes along with postmodern philosophy. It really did have its purpose.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ain't no such thing.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

consuono said:


> I'm not so sure. It seems rebelling against traditional aesthetic notions of "beauty" is what much of that century's music was about.


Well, the 20th was a very destructive time, with World War I, World War II, and people being killed off by the millions in the Holocaust, in the Soviet Union and in Communist China, just to name some of the ones that top the list. This is not to say that people weren't doing awful things to one another prior to the year 1900, but with technology the 20th century brought forth a kind of "mechanized death" (_Mechanized Death_ was the name of an old reel-to-reel film that one of my high school teachers got a big kick of showing to us students back in the 1980s where it showed people being hurt in car crashes so as to scare off teens from reckless driving). In prior centuries people died from disease, famine, hand-to-hand combat; but in the twentieth century machines did the work, it became impersonal, and as Stalin said the "Death of a million is a statistic."

This is why I think of Richard Strauss' _Four Last Songs_, composed in 1948 as one final burst of Romanticism, a kind of beauty in music that harkens back to Schubert and Schumann even in the wake of the Holocaust and Hiroshima. Not just out-of-place, but it almost seems inappropriate that such a beautiful thing could even be created at such a time.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Coach G said:


> This is why I think of Richard Strauss' _Four Last Songs_, composed in 1948 as one final burst of Romanticism, a kind of beauty in music that harkens back to Schubert and Schumann even in the wake of the Holocaust and Hiroshima. Not just out-of-place, but it almost seems inappropriate that such a beautiful thing could even be created at such a time.


His oboe concerto is also great and the duet-concertino. He didn't give a damn about politics, he was on his own journey.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Jacck said:


> and that was exactly my impression of Ulysses. I thought it was poetry in prose. Some kind of impressionism, where Joyce tried to capture in detail the poetics of an ordinary day. And he did a great job at that. Many chapters were memorable, for example the chapter at the sea, which was like a poem about a walk on the beach etc., or the chapter about music in the restaurant etc. That is how I view and understand the book - as a book of poetry. And you can also read it as a book of poetry. Once you read it once and know the overall "story", you can just pick individual chapters at random. No need to actually read it in order.


For poetry in prose I'd go with Andrei Bely's _Petersburg_. _Master and Margarita_ is one of my favorite novels. I'm rereading it now. Do you know any good sources in English on its interpretation?

My favorite novel is probably _The Recognitions_ by William Gaddis. But I don't tend to pick greatest anythings. I'm certainly not going to pick the best musical work of the 20thc.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Well that as they say, is a croc. The people who keep this ridiculous thing alive and kicking are the one's who keep bringing it up as having some kind of profound importance, not the one's who react to the silliness.


No, those two would be easily ignored. It's those who can't restrain themselves from taking the bait that perpetuate the discussion.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

1996D said:


> [Strauss'] oboe concerto is also great and the duet-concertino. He didn't give a damn about politics, he was on his own journey.


Strauss appears to have been more-or-less apolitical, but towards the late 1800s/early 20th century, he seems to have embraced the role of a modernist. His tone-poems displayed dissonances that were considered modern enough at the time that the music was hailed as "Music of the Future"; take for example, _Also Sprach Zarathustra_, even the subject matter is de-constructionist, with Nietzsche's "God-is-dead-or-has-left-us-on-our-own" theme. It's doubly fascinating that Strauss would, at the end, with the _Four Last Songs_ create something so much in the spirit of the High Romanticism of Schubert and Schumann.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Coach G said:


> Strauss appears to have been more-or-less apolitical, but towards the late 1800s/early 20th century, he seems to have embraced the role of a modernist. His tone-poems displayed dissonances that were considered modern enough at the time that the music was hailed as "Music of the Future"; take for example, _Also Sprach Zarathustra_, even the subject matter is de-constructionist, with Nietzsche's "God-is-dead-or-has-left-us-on-our-own" theme. It's doubly fascinating that Strauss would, at the end, with the _Four Last Songs_ create something so much in the spirit of the High Romanticism of Schubert and Schumann.


Strauss pulled back from his "modernism" much earlier. Even _Salome_ and _Elektra_ contain diatonic waltz tunes redolent of the other Strauss. With _Elektra_ he was done being a musical bad boy. At the end he allowed himself fully to be what he essentially was.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> For poetry in prose I'd go with Andrei Bely's _Petersburg_. _Master and Margarita_ is one of my favorite novels. I'm rereading it now. Do you know any good sources in English on its interpretation?
> 
> My favorite novel is probably _The Recognitions_ by William Gaddis. But I don't tend to pick greatest anythings. I'm certainly not going to pick the best musical work of the 20thc.


I don't know about any analysis in English. From what I remember, I found the interpretation not that difficult. The Satan (Wolland) is not evil, but is a force of justice and good, that came to Moscow to punish the actual evil doers, and so the director of the theater (in my opinion Stalin himself) is brought into mental asylum, the building of the Massolit is burned. It helps if you know something about the realities of that time. Central is the story of Christ and Pilate. Pilate is depicted as a basically good man, but a coward, thanks to whose covardice the Christ (the good, the innocent) is crucified (no doubt alluding to the crucifiction of good in Stalinist Russian). The master writes his novel about it (tells the story of the Pilate), but it is censored and he is put into mental asylum for telling the truth. If I remember there are also many symbols in the book. One such symbol is the moon.

I havent read the other two books you mention, but they sound interesting


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Coach G said:


> Strauss appears to have been more-or-less apolitical, but towards the late 1800s/early 20th century, he seems to have embraced the role of a modernist. His tone-poems displayed dissonances that were considered modern enough at the time that the music was hailed as "Music of the Future"; take for example, _Also Sprach Zarathustra_, even the subject matter is de-constructionist, with Nietzsche's "God-is-dead-or-has-left-us-on-our-own" theme. It's doubly fascinating that Strauss would, at the end, with the _Four Last Songs_ create something so much in the spirit of the High Romanticism of Schubert and Schumann.


He matured, his inspiration became the divine Mozart and stopped being the antichrist Nietzsche.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I don’t know about the greatest but my favourite work of the 20th century is Rachmaninof’s third piano concerto. Fantastic piece which never fails to set an audience cheering.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Greatest = whatever. 
I'll just pick two personal favorites: Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy and Sibelius Symphony No. 7
While they tap into vastly different musical worlds, I think these pieces have something in common. Both pieces are very rich and detailed, yet concise symphonic works of about an ideal length (to me). In both pieces the composers took their art to a higher level and expressed a truly unique voice. Last but not least, both works have an absolutely transcendent ending that adds to their lasting power. I could listen to them a few times a week and never get bored.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

To me, Mahler 9, although it doesn't say I almost equally appreciate many other works from the remaining 90 years of the 20th century. I think the composers of the 20th century have left us the most varied music of all previous centuries.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

consuono said:


> I'm not so sure. It seems rebelling against traditional aesthetic notions of "beauty" is what much of that century's music was about.


I think the ideas of melody and narrative might have been changed or dropped but, for many composers, the emphasis on beauty was increased. Stravinsky's major mature works are nearly all strikingly beautiful. Bartok's sound world is certainly attractive. Boulez's music is even more beautiful than Debussy's. I can get that composers like Nono, Xenakis and Schoenberg seemed to turn their backs on traditional ideas of beauty but the sounds they conjure do have a beauty for those who can hear it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I don't know about the greatest but my favourite work of the 20th century is Rachmaninof's third piano concerto. Fantastic piece *which never fails to set an audience cheering*.


Is that a measure of worth? Because I know pieces of "music" that cause even more cheering.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

1996D said:


> It's deconstructionist music, it goes along with postmodern philosophy. It really did have its purpose.


That is evident nonsense. Where do you get them from?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> I think the ideas of melody and narrative might have been changed or dropped but, for many composers, the emphasis on beauty was increased. Stravinsky's major mature works are nearly all strikingly beautiful. Bartok's sound world is certainly attractive. *Boulez's music is even more beautiful than Debussy's.* I can get that composers like Nono, Xenakis and Schoenberg seemed to turn their backs on traditional ideas of beauty but the sounds they conjure do have a beauty for those who can hear it.


I agree with some of what you say, but as for the part in bold, I don't think so, and I suspect the majority of classical music listeners would disagree with you. Debussy is popular with casual and serious listeners alike. Boulez is rarely if ever played on any classical music stations I listen to. If his music was universally considered as beautiful as you say, this wouldn't be so. His Piano Sonata No. 2 is in my view one of the more ugly pieces of the 20th century. But I think he felt he needed to compose a piece such as this because most of his other music is not that avant-garde. He is not a composer of the stature of Debussy.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

tdc said:


> I agree with some of what you say, but as for the part in bold, I don't think so, and I suspect the majority of classical music listeners would disagree with you. Debussy is popular with casual and serious listeners alike. Boulez is rarely if ever played on any classical music stations I listen to. If his music was universally considered as beautiful as you say, this wouldn't be so. His Piano Sonata No. 2 is in my view one of the more ugly pieces of the 20th century. But I think he felt he needed to compose a piece such as this because most of his other music is not that avant-garde. He is not a composer of the stature of Debussy.


I'm not sure that "the majority of classical music listeners" are qualified to judge. I would consult those who are well acquainted with the music of both composers. The 2nd piano sonata is well-known as spiky (master)piece but was a very early work and hardly typical of his music. Even in this piece, though, there is space - air to breathe - that ensures that the music is not IMO ugly. Perhaps it is a work that is _about_ something that we could call ugliness but beauty of a sort is sublimated out of the apparent ugliness of the music.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

The problem with saying, in a kind of easy shorthand, that Debussy is popular, or I like Debussy, is that people usually mean things like Clair de Lune, and not his opera of The Fall of the House of Usher.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

JAS said:


> The problem with saying, in a kind of easy shorthand, that Debussy is popular, or I like Debussy, is that people usually mean things like Clair de Lune, and not his opera of The Fall of the House of Usher.


Conversely, "I don't like Debussy" could mean "Clair de lune is OK, but the other thing by him I heard just sounded awful".


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> Stravinsky's major mature works are nearly all strikingly beautiful. Bartok's sound world is certainly attractive. Boulez's music is even more beautiful than Debussy's.


I guess it comes down to the definition of "beauty". Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms or Oedipus Rex don't strike me as being particularly "beautiful" in the way that Mozart (speculatively) would've understood it, although I can imagine Mozart approving of them for other reasons. (Well on second thought the fugal middle section of the Symphony does have a certain beauty to it.) I haven't heard enough of Boulez to have an opinion.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> That is evident nonsense. Where do you get them from?


I wouldn't say it's total nonsense; I don't think it applies to Stravinsky or Bartók or Copland at all though. However I think it certainly can apply to any number of works after about 1950.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ What and why? You think that most/many works post-1950 are "deconstructionist music" that "goes along with postmodern philosophy"? I am not sure that applies to all that much from the last 70 years.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

consuono said:


> I guess it comes down to the definition of "beauty". Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms or Oedipus Rex don't strike me as being particularly "beautiful" in the way that Mozart (speculatively) would've understood it, although I can imagine Mozart approving of them for other reasons. (Well on second thought the fugal middle section of the Symphony does have a certain beauty to it.) I haven't heard enough of Boulez to have an opinion.


I guess we'll have to disagree on that. Stravinsky can often be austere but I find great and rare beauty in the Mass, Symphony of Psalms, Apollo, Oedipus Rex, Persephone ... and you can hear the same beauty in the Symphony in C, the Symphony in 3 Movements, the Violin Concerto etc. That beauty is for me central to enjoyment of that music ...

Of course, we can argue about what beauty in music is. We would probably agree on which Classical and Romantic works are particularly beautiful and even that the distinctive qualities of that beauty varies between eras and even works ... . But I do get a little tired when post-Romantic music is described as being all about angst and war. That may be true of certain works by Shostakovich and Prokofiev and even Nielsen but it is not something I hear as a dominant feature of most music of the period. I think that often the angst that people experience is the angst of getting inside something that is alien and unfamiliar.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I think the ideas of melody and narrative might have been changed or dropped but, for many composers, the emphasis on beauty was increased. Stravinsky's major mature works are nearly all strikingly beautiful. Bartok's sound world is certainly attractive. Boulez's music is even more beautiful than Debussy's. I can get that composers like Nono, Xenakis and Schoenberg seemed to turn their backs on traditional ideas of beauty but the sounds they conjure do have a beauty for those who can hear it.


I tend to avoid the use of the word 'beauty' with a lot of 20th Century music. Prokofiev and Bartok are my top 2 fave composers, but I don't consider almost all of their works/pieces beautiful. 'Stimulating' is what I would call it. I think Stravinsky and Boulez also have something that more than just sounds 'right' and draws me to it (Symphony in 3 movements, Symphony of Psalms and Repons do have a very sumptuous sound), but it's not beautiful, ravishing sounds but rather like interesting sounds to me, mostly because what they do with it. Ravel is the 20th C composer I feel is most beautiful, and maybe Vaughan Williams next, even though I listen to more Stockhausen than VW now (whose music I feel is far from beautiful). I would agree if you said "Boulez's music could be heard as more beautiful than Debussy", even though I personally don't feel it.

I think I know how you feel though. I feel a very strong attraction to the sound world of Varese (who influenced Boulez), but I view it as intrigue rather than beauty. I make that distinction because of Ravel's (and Mozart's) music, which I find so beautiful that I could cry  Curious: could you cry listening to Boulez?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> I wouldn't say it's total nonsense; I don't think it applies to Stravinsky or Bartók or Copland at all though. However I think it certainly can apply to any number of works after about 1950.


You either don't listen to anything written after 1950, or you don't know what "deconstructionist" means.

To call Rochberg, Gorecki, Adams, Reich's works "deconstructionist" in a sweeping blanket claim only goes to show that you are deeply entrenched in ideological thinking. A bit of "deconstruction" would actually do you a big favor for appreciating more "traditional" music written by geniuses of the West.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I tend to avoid the use of the word 'beauty' with a lot of 20th Century music. Prokofiev and Bartok are my top 2 fave composers, but I don't consider almost all of their works/pieces beautiful. 'Stimulating' is what I would call it. I think Stravinsky and Boulez also have something that more than just sounds 'right' and draws me to it (Symphony in 3 movements, Symphony of Psalms and Repons do have a very sumptuous sound), but it's not beautiful, ravishing sounds but rather like interesting sounds to me, mostly because what they do with it. Ravel is the 20th C composer I feel is most beautiful, and maybe Vaughan Williams next, even though I listen to more Stockhausen than VW now (whose music I feel is far from beautiful). I would agree if you said "Boulez's music could be heard as more beautiful than Debussy", even though I personally don't feel it.
> 
> I think I know how you feel though. I feel a very strong attraction to the sound world of Varese (who influenced Boulez), but I view it as intrigue rather than beauty. I make that distinction because of Ravel's (and Mozart's) music, which I find so beautiful that I could cry  Curious: could you cry listening to Boulez?


Of course, "beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder" so my advancing any argument that I find X's music beautiful may seem unwise. I guess, though, that half my point is that the sound is often the first thing I respond to in a lot of modern music and that I suspect that many modern composers pay more attention to sounds (as the choice is now so open) than composers of the Romantic (who knew what the rules were and broke them very carefully).


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You either don't listen to anything written after 1950, or you don't know what "deconstructionist" means.
> 
> To call Rochberg, Gorecki, Adams, Reich's works "deconstructionist" in a sweeping blanket claim only goes to show that you are deeply entrenched in ideological thinking. A bit of "deconstruction" would actually do you a big favor for appreciating more "traditional" music written by geniuses of the West.


I think you need to examine the modern outlook a little more yourself. I didn't say "every work" or every composer. Penderecki shows some of the tendencies, but overall I wouldn't say so. Reich, yes. Rochberg and Adams, ditto.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> Is that a measure of worth? Because I know pieces of "music" that cause even more cheering.


I wish you would read what I actually say. I didn't say it was a measure of worth but surely a measure of how much a display concerto is appreciated is how much cheering there is at the end, Or are you one of these purist who doesn't approve?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I feel I responded reasonably to what you wrote and was not very far out even now you have clarified that. I think the amount, volume and enthusiasm of audience cheering depends mostly on whether the later parts of the work have whipped up that response from the audience. 

I don't get your last sentence, I'm afraid. I do get that some sort of insult is intended but I'm not sure whether it is a true or a fake one. I am not sure I am "under" anyone and did not know that there was anyone who didn't approve of audience applause and cheering (except, often, between movements).


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> Oh come off it with that condescending garbage. You've shown you're not familiar with the texts associated with the philosophy, so read up before you try to lecture me, mmmmkay?


I know well enough about "postmodernist philosophy" and critical theory to tell if someone is abusing the term "deconstructionist". In fact, anyone who spends an afternoon reading and understanding Wikipedia entries could tell that you are abusing it to a hyperbolic degree.

Whether or not I am familiar with whatever phantom text in your head is irrelevant. What is "the text"? What is "the philosophy"? I understand Derrida's core ideas to know that why he was reluctant to use the term "deconstruction" for his philosophy, it's a method for his literary analysis. There is no well-defined "deconstrutionist" so your usage can't be right no matter how many pages of Derrida you have read.

In fact, you are the one using the term and it is your job to be responsible for the term. But I don't expect you to do more than a good old ad hom attack. But allow me to commit to my "condescending garbage" all the way to the end, and help you clarify a bit.

What you meant has nothing to do with philosophy, what you meant is perhaps "de-constructionist", which means "destructionist", as in "destructionists destroyed my precious tonality, compositional skills, and eternal beauty". For that I have good news for you, there is plenty of tonalities, complexity, and formal beauties in contemporary music post-1950 so there are "constructionist" too.

So why the doom and gloom, be happy, and maybe you will be so happy that you care to lecture me about your analysis of Bach's fugue, I am all ears and don't mind you being condescending at all, that is, if you have anything.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> I feel I responded reasonably to what you wrote and was not very far out even now you have clarified that. I think the amount, volume and enthusiasm of audience cheering depends mostly on whether the later parts of the work have whipped up that response from the audience.
> 
> I don't get your last sentence, I'm afraid. I do get that some sort of insult is intended but I'm not sure whether it is a true or a fake one. I am not sure I am "under" anyone and did not know that there was anyone who didn't approve of audience applause and cheering (except, often, between movements).


No insult intended at all but I'm sorry that the predictive text gave the wrong impression. I meant to say 'are you one of these purists who doesn't believe in cheering'? I know there are some people who don't believe in that sort of thing in classical music. Apologies if it gave the wrong impression. 
I just believe that the Rachmaninov third does want any great concerto will do and as it is one of the most played works of the 20th century among pianists and most appreciated by audiences, that might be taken into account. That is of course unless we take the wisdom of Schoenberg that an artist should not be popular.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm not sure that Schoenberg wanted to be unpopular, did he? But he might have wished that his muse took him to more popular places. But he had integrity and honesty and is rightly celebrated by many for the astounding work he did produce. Personally, I do think he wrote quite a number of works that surpass anything Rachmaninov wrote (if we _have _to compare the two). I like Rachmaninov's 3rd concerto - and love its opening tune! I don't think we learn anything much by knowing which works current audiences prefer (or that attract larger audiences) except about popularity which only tells us about ..., well, their popularity.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure that "the majority of classical music listeners" are qualified to judge. I would consult those who are well acquainted with the music of both composers. The 2nd piano sonata is well-known as spiky (master)piece but was a very early work and hardly typical of his music. Even in this piece, though, there is space - air to breathe - that ensures that the music is not IMO ugly. Perhaps it is a work that is about something that we could call ugliness but beauty of a sort is sublimated out of the apparent ugliness of the music.


Are you qualified to judge? As I've said before, it's not the "ugliness" of the music that I have issues with. I think the common practice masters could just as effectively express a variety of feelings ranging from beauty to ugliness with their depth of part-writing, without falling into a habit of making mere "special sound effects". Why should certain music require special qualification to judge? A lot of avant-garde music enthusiasts believe in this sort of thing. It baffles me. If you think you're alone in appreciating certain music or composers, you should just talk about what you think are their merits, without resorting to the convenient argument "it's because people like you don't understand the stuff."


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Sorry but I can't see how what you have written is in any way a reply to what I wrote. You have a thing about "avant garde music enthusiasts" and you presumably think I am included in that group ... but why not just stick to what I wrote?

I am not sure what qualification you are asking me about.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Why should certain music require special qualification to judge?


It's because when the music is different from what you're used to, what you know, you need to give it time and energy to appreciate it, especially if the music is not simple. That's why it took so long for Beethoven's last quartets to be appreciated.

Mostly everyone who has been brought up on a diet of Mozart and Brahms feels bewildered when they hear, for example, a string quartet by Milton Babbitt - it is so different from what they are used to that they are presented with too rich and varied a stream of new ideas, too much for them to either notice at the time of listening or remember afterwards. But in time, with repeated exposure to the music, more becomes accessible, and the wonders of Babbitt's art become evident. Not everyone is willing or indeed able to put the work in, as it were.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure that Schoenberg wanted to be unpopular, did he? But he might have wished that his muse took him to more popular places. But he had integrity and honesty and is rightly celebrated by many for the astounding work he did produce. Personally, I do think he wrote quite a number of works that surpass anything Rachmaninov wrote (if we _have _to compare the two). I like Rachmaninov's 3rd concerto - and love its opening tune! I don't think we learn anything much by knowing which works current audiences prefer (or that attract larger audiences) except about popularity which only tells us about ..., well, their popularity.


But if the purpose of music is to give pleasure to people, then what has given,ore pleasure to more peopke? Rachmaninov 3 piano concerto or Pierro Lunierre?


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ What and why? You think that most/many works post-1950 are "deconstructionist music" that "goes along with postmodern philosophy"? I am not sure that applies to all that much from the last 70 years.


There is plenty of music that is pleasant and beautiful that has been composed in the 20th century. Mahler, Slibelius, Richard Strauss, and Rachmaninoff, I see as basically holdovers from the 1800s. Barber and Britten composed using a musical language that was what some might call Neo-Romantic, very lyrical and personal. Stravinsky and Prokofiev, Neo-Classical, seeking a sense of balance that goes back to Mozart and Haydn. Copland's "Americana" works are optimistic and home-spun, very enjoyable. There are many others, though, whose music seems to reflect 20th century angst and despair (Shostakovich and Bernstein's _Symphony #2 "Age of Anxiety"_). The Ultra-Modernists, the Avant-Garde, those that used electronics, serial technique, indeterminacy, all seemed to seek a new kind of expression that challenged common notions of what is beautiful, what is art.

Great art is all about contrasts, so you need some pathos and ugliness to create something beautiful, because beauty must also appeal to the human condition, which is complex. The universal appeal of the Bible is in its humanity, and for we classical music enthusiasts, explains why so much great music has been rooted in Christian narratives: the Requiems, _The Creation_, _Symphony of the Psalms_, _St. Matthew Passion_, and so forth. Fundamentalist Christians scorn "humanism" but it's the "humanity" in the Bible that has spoken to people of all cultures all over the world. If we re-wrote the Bible and took out the violence, famine, disease, doubting, brother-against-brother family disfunctions, and so forth; and just left in the "Love thy neighbor" parts then the Bible would lose all it's humanity and all it's ability to speak to people.

Great composers who created beautiful music, such as Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, and Wagner; who created beautiful music didn't just create pretty sounds. Telemann and Boyce and many other very fine and talented composers could create pretty sounds, but it takes a master bring the human element to the fore, and still make the music a thing of beauty.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I know well enough about "postmodernist philosophy" and critical theory to tell if someone is abusing the term "deconstructionist". In fact, anyone who spends an afternoon reading and understanding Wikipedia entries could tell that you are abusing it to a hyperbolic degree.
> 
> Whether or not I am familiar with whatever phantom text in your head is irrelevant. What is "the text"? What is "the philosophy"? I understand Derrida's core ideas to know that why he was reluctant to use the term "deconstruction" for his philosophy, it's a method for his literary analysis. There is no well-defined "deconstrutionist" so your usage can't be right no matter how many pages of Derrida you have read.
> 
> ...


Hogwash. I don't think Schoenberg was a "postmodern" composer, something which I believe you have hinted doesn't exist anyway. And deconstructionism is more an attitude than following Derrida to the letter (who was often vague and ambiguous anyway). Nor does "postmodern" or whatever term you want to use necessarily equate to atonality by any means. That's your strawman. And yes Reich, Rochberg and Adams have all been described as "postmodern" composers. As for Penderecki:


> MG: Could you be called a postmodern composer?
> 
> KP: You could call me that. But I don't even know, it's all the same to me…





> So why the doom and gloom, be happy, and maybe you will be so happy that you care to lecture me about your analysis of Bach's fugue, I am all ears and don't mind you being condescending at all, that is, if you have anything.


Oh I could go on and on about that...how about fugue 5 from WTC II in which there isn't a "wasted" note? Could you tell me if Fugue 22 from the same has a "real answer" or a tonal one? Do you know the difference? We can discuss it as much as you like.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> But if the purpose of music is to give pleasure to people, then what has given,ore pleasure to more peopke? Rachmaninov 3 piano concerto or Pierro Lunierre?


(Sadly) Britney Spears.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> (Sadly) Britney Spears.


It's not necessarily sad - I would have assumed that most of her audience were teenagers. Doesn't classical music tend to be more suited to those that have grown up a bit?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> I wouldn't say it's total nonsense; I don't think it applies to Stravinsky or Bartók or Copland at all though. However I think it (deconstructionist) certainly can apply to any number of works after about 1950.





consuono said:


> Hogwash. I don't think Schoenberg was a "postmodern" composer, something which I believe you have hinted doesn't exist anyway.





consuono said:


> That's your strawman.


I have hinted nothing but your problematic statement referring music produced post-1950 all being "deconstructionist", yet somehow in your head I "equate atonality with post-modernism", Mr. "that's your strawman".



consuono said:


> And yes Reich, Rochberg and Adams have all been described as "postmodern" composers.


What a wonderful argument! Now I call you a radical post-modernist, then you must be a radical post-modernist because you have just "been described as a radical postmodernist".



consuono said:


> MG: Could you be called a postmodern composer?
> 
> KP: You could call me that. But I don't even know, it's all the same to me…


Penderecki said explicitly "I don't even know", so he doesn't care about being labelling by people such as you.

Even if Penderecki claim that he is a post-modernist, he might not be in fact be the "deconstructionist" as in your blanket statement, he could be a Horkheimerian, Post-structuralist, Psychoanalyst, a Queer etc.

Even if Penderecki claim that he is a "deconstructionist composer" as in your statement, his music might not be "deconstructionist".

Even if Penderecki wrote "deconstructionist" music (which doesn't exist unless you invent the notion), it doesn't mean the term "can apply to any number of works after about 1950" as in your statement.



consuono said:


> And deconstructionism is more an attitude than following Derrida to the letter (who was often vague and ambiguous anyway).


Then what do you mean by using that term? I am sorry, but you are the post-modernist here evading a precise definition, even if you don't understand the reasoning why it's "vague and ambiguous".



consuono said:


> Oh I could go on and on about that...how about fugue 5 from WTC II in which there isn't a "wasted" note?


Please go on then. Enlighten me what is a "wasted" note? Why is that important for 20th century music? And show me how "wasteful" are the contemporary composers.



consuono said:


> Could you tell me if Fugue 22 from the same has a "real answer" or a tonal one? Do you know the difference? We can discuss it as much as you like.


I will play the good student here, it takes 5 minutes Internet reading to see that the subject of the B flat minor fugue starts at the tonic, and answer is in the dominant, so it must be real. But dear teacher, what does this has anything to do with "Bach is best"? How is this better constructed than Shostakovich's B flat minor fugue or even Stockhausen's Klavierstuck which follows different sets of rules and logic?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> I will play the good student here, it takes 5 minutes Internet reading to see that the subject of the B flat minor fugue starts at the tonic, and answer is in the dominant, so it must be real.


That's the danger of being an Internet student. Not entirely.


> But dear teacher, what does this has anything to do with "Bach is best"? How is this better constructed than Shostakovich's B flat minor fugue or even Stockhausen's Klavierstuck which follows different sets of rules and logic?


How is Bach no better than Taylor Swift? If we can't make a value judgement on Bach vs Stockhausen, what gives us the right to make one between Bach vs Swift, or the Sex Pistols, or me or you?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> It's because when the music is different from what you're used to, what you know, you need to give it time and energy to appreciate it, especially if the music is not simple. That's why it took so long for Beethoven's last quartets to be appreciated.
> 
> Mostly everyone who has been brought up on a diet of Mozart and Brahms feels bewildered when they hear, for example, a string quartet by Milton Babbitt - it is so different from what they are used to that they are presented with too rich and varied a stream of new ideas, too much for them to either notice at the time of listening or remember afterwards. But in time, with repeated exposure to the music, more becomes accessible, and the wonders of Babbitt's art become evident. Not everyone is willing or indeed able to put the work in, as it were.


I would suggest, and I think history bears me out, that no such effort is required to appreciate most of the works by Beethoven, Mozart and Brahms (and many others). The fact that Babbitt demands such extraordinary effort is a big part of the problem. No artist offering a product has the right to make such a demand, or in making it to expect that it will happen.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

JAS said:


> I would suggest, and I think history bears me out, that no such effort is required to appreciate most of the works by Beethoven, Mozart and Brahms (and many others). The fact that Babbitt demands such extraordinary effort is a big part of the problem. No artist offering a product has the right to make such a demand, or in making it to expect that it will happen.


I think it's time and exposure rather than conscious effort to appreciate Babbitt at least for me. It doesn't matter how hard I tried, it just didn't do anything for a time which led me to think it never would, but I was wrong. I find it rewarding in the end. I don't find it essential listening, but it's like a chocolate treat to add variety.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> It's because when the music is different from what you're used to, what you know, you need to give it time and energy to appreciate it, especially if the music is not simple.


This is the same thing dubstep enthusiasts also say in defense of their music.
https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-dubstep-really-music



Mandryka said:


> That's why it took so long for Beethoven's last quartets to be appreciated.


Beethoven's last quartets were appreciated by Schubert, who was contemporary with Beethoven for 30 years. Schubert wanted to hear Beethoven's Op.131 in his deathbed, saying "After this, what is left for us to write?" - this was 1828, one year after Beethoven's own death.
Berlioz, who was contemporary with Beethoven for 24 years, also held Beethoven's late quartets in high regard.
Schumann appreciated Beethoven's quartets before he did Haydn's quartets. 
https://books.google.ca/books?id=B5SlCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28

This is because Beethoven was a classical music composer, his personal ideas of passions and struggles manifested in the classical music language he expressed. Grosse Fuge could probably be his one last statement that combines and expands on elements of his music: the form of the 9th symphony scherzo and aggressive qualities of the serioso quartet first movement. This is why other great classical music composers also appreciated his music. Beethoven is simply not comparable to a modern electronic music composer.

(In fact, the kind of argument you made about Beethoven's last quartets can be made about classical music composers as well. Consider:
"The puzzling chromaticism of the opening of the 'Dissonance' quartet K.465 prompted vigorous discussion in the scholarly musical literature of the late 1820s and early 1830s. Fétis, in particular, devoted much attention to the Adagio in his journal La Revue musicale, believing that Mozart could not have intended such dissonance. In July 1829 he produced a study of these bars in which he printed a revision of his own, to stand comparison with the alleged misprint of Mozart's intentions in all available editions."
< Mozart: The 'Haydn' Quartets , By John Irving , Page 76 >

"if Mozart wrote it he must have meant it." -J. Haydn

"K. 421 did not meet with unanimous praise. One critic wrote in Cramer's Magazin der Musik in 1787 of Mozart's compositional aspirations in his 'Haydn' Quartets: "His aim is too high…his new quartets may well be called too highly seasoned - and whose palate can endure this for long". Nor did it escape the critical gaze of Italian opera composer Giuseppe Sarti. Sarti criticized Mozart's harmonic writing,
suggesting that Mozart did not adhere to the established principles of Pythagorean tuning and
intervals."

So Mozart was appreciated since his time, but it took someone like Wagner (who considered Mozart a "grosser Chromatiker", according to Cosima) to "understand" the full implications of his work.)



Mandryka said:


> Mostly everyone who has been brought up on a diet of Mozart and Brahms feels bewildered when they hear, for example, a string quartet by Milton Babbitt - it is so different from what they are used to that they are presented with too rich and varied a stream of new ideas, too much for them to either notice at the time of listening or remember afterwards. But in time, with repeated exposure to the music, more becomes accessible, and the wonders of Babbitt's art become evident. Not everyone is willing or indeed able to put the work in, as it were.


But Babbitt was an "electronic music composer" inspired by some classical music elements. (That doesn't really make him a "classical music composer" in my view. The same way Frank Zappa is not a classical music composer). And I know not everyone here likes heavy metal, for example.
People these days are actually regularly exposed to contemporary music through media contents such as horror films, mystery documentaries. I think that contemporary music has to be used in certain context of media (as soundtrack) to be accessible to the public. Nobody complains "the soundtrack is too difficult to understand" when they watch horror films. This is because the feelings the music creates are "grotesque", but are also largely "situational".






I've said a number of times previously how this reminds me of Stockhausen's Gesang der junglinge:
*[ 18:00 ]*
*[ 18:30 ]*





This Feldman piano and string quartet piece instills in me a feeling of "having an endless series of questions" and it is suitable as soundtrack for documentaries or films dealing with mysteries. I'm reminded of those eerie, silent scenes of the horror films I've watched where a zombie or a ghost might be hiding somewhere, waiting to ambush the protagonist:


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> This is the same thing dubstep enthusiasts also say in defense of their music.
> https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-dubstep-really-music


Firstly, I never really saw this argument brought up. Secondly, what's your point?



hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven's last quartets were appreciated by Schubert, who was contemporary with Beethoven for 30 years. Schubert wanted to hear Beethoven's Op.131 in his deathbed, saying "After this, what is left for us to write?" - this was 1828, one year after Beethoven's own death.
> Berlioz, who was contemporary with Beethoven for 24 years, also held Beethoven's late quartets in high regard.
> Schumann appreciated Beethoven's quartets before he did Haydn's quartets.
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=B5SlCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28
> ...


I definitely think it is comparable to certain electronic music composers. Stockhausen, for example, inherited the tradition of classical composers like Messiaen and Webern -as well as the interest in the possibilities of electronics in music- and, like Beethoven, wrote personal and original music. Great 'classical' composers also appreciated his music: just looking at the wiki page, composers listed as having appreciated/been influenced by Stockhausen include Stravinsky, Birtwistle, Ferneyhough, Richard Barrett, Boulez, Eloy, Rihm, Louis Andriessen, Per Nørgård, and a few others I'm not familiar with.



hammeredklavier said:


> But Babbitt was an "electronic music composer" inspired by some classical music elements. (That doesn't really make him a "classical music composer" in my view. The same way Frank Zappa is not a classical music composer). And I know not everyone here likes heavy metal, for example.


Babbitt an electronic music composer? The majority of his output does not use electronics, and most of the works that do combine them with 'traditional' instruments. Besides, what's wrong with being an electronic composer? Why should we not expect composers to make the most of the resources that are available to them? Should 19th century composers not have taken advantage of the industrial revolution and the new/improved instruments that were now at their disposal? Should Beethoven have written his 'Appassionata' sonata for a clavichord?



hammeredklavier said:


> People these days are actually regularly exposed to contemporary music through media contents such as horror films, mystery documentaries. I think that contemporary music has to be used in certain context of media (as soundtrack) to be accessible to the public. Nobody complains "the soundtrack is too difficult to understand" when they watch horror films. This is because the feelings the music creates are "grotesque", but are also largely "situational".
> 
> I've said a number of times previously how this reminds me of Stockhausen's Gesang der junglinge:
> *[ 18:00 ]*
> *[ 18:30 ]*


Indeed, contemporary 'classical' composers have influenced composers who write for different purposes. That example you give of the music reminding you of Stockhausen does show his influence, but it's presented in a completely different way: instead of creating a stand-alone piece of music, this show is merely decorating the scene on display with surface level 'Stockhausen-isms' over some 'beats' (which Stockhausen would pretty much never use). As for Luzifers Abschied, this is basically a cherry-picked example of Stockhausen's most 'horror like' (and accessible) segment of music, but similarities to be found in horror movies are still only surface level.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Lisztian said:


> Firstly, I never really saw this argument brought up. Secondly, what's your point?


"What's your point?" This is the kind of question I should be asking Mandryka and Enthusiast who bring up weird arguments to argue people need special qualification to judge certain music.



Lisztian said:


> I definitely think it is comparable to certain electronic music composers. Stockhausen, for example, inherited the tradition of classical composers like Messiaen and Webern -as well as the interest in the possibilities of electronics in music- and, like Beethoven, wrote personal and original music. Great 'classical' composers also appreciated his music: just looking at the wiki page, composers listed as having appreciated/been influenced by Stockhausen include Stravinsky, Birtwistle, Ferneyhough, Richard Barrett, Boulez, Eloy, Rihm, Louis Andriessen, Per Nørgård, and a few others I'm not familiar with.


I consider more than half of the composers you've listed as "contemporary", and not "classical" (I consider Stravinsky classical), but Ravel also derived elements from jazz. Heck, jazz originated from late 19th century ragtime composers like Joplin who composed operas and concertos themselves. (Also using folk-music elements is an inherent part of classical music) With all other genres of music, you can trace their roots back to classical music. Is Yiruma classical?

Yiruma, 이루마 - Nocturne No.3 in A minor
Romancing Time - Yuhki Kuramoto
Yuhki Kuramoto - Suite: Romance/Virgin Road/Tears For You/Lake Louise
Waltz For Chopin - Yuhki Kuramoto



Lisztian said:


> Babbitt an electronic music composer? The majority of his output does not use electronics, and most of the works that do combine them with 'traditional' instruments. Besides, what's wrong with being an electronic composer? Why should we not expect composers to make the most of the resources that are available to them? Should 19th century composers not have taken advantage of the industrial revolution and the new/improved instruments that were now at their disposal? Should Beethoven have written his 'Appassionata' sonata for a clavichord?


There's nothing wrong with that, I do not consider their principles and methods as objectively inferior to classical music. It's just that I feel that a lot of their followers' ideals and philosophies deviate 180 degrees from "classical music". Look at the thread <Perfect form?> for example. In threads like that, there are always two sides that can't understand each other: classical music vs contemporary music. I'm starting to seriously think _"maybe we don't really speak the same language"_.
"'If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same,' he (Cage) claimed. 'But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different'"

Sure, everything gets called "classical music" nowadays. I've seen followers of progressive rock and heavy metal claiming that they're modern practitioners of "classical music" (in places like youtube).



Lisztian said:


> Indeed, contemporary 'classical' composers have influenced composers who write for different purposes. That example you give of the music reminding you of Stockhausen does show his influence, but it's presented in a completely different way: instead of creating a stand-alone piece of music, this show is merely decorating the scene on display with surface level 'Stockhausen-isms' over some 'beats' (which Stockhausen would pretty much never use). As for Luzifers Abschied, this is basically a cherry-picked example of Stockhausen's most 'horror like' (and accessible) segment of music, but similarities to be found in horror movies are still only surface level.


An argument can be made the film-music-like qualities of John Williams is only a surface of his actual musical depth. And I remember some instances of Enthusiast pigeonholing him as a film score composer, not classical. Maybe I should ask him for plausible reasons why J. Williams doesn't count as a classical music composer. 
In visual arts and literature, classical stuff and contemporary stuff are categorized separately. Why don't people do the same in music?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> It's because when the music is different from what you're used to, what you know, you need to give it time and energy to appreciate it, especially if the music is not simple. That's why it took so long for Beethoven's last quartets to be appreciated.
> 
> Mostly everyone who has been brought up on a diet of Mozart and Brahms feels bewildered when they hear, for example, a string quartet by Milton Babbitt - it is so different from what they are used to that they are presented with too rich and varied a stream of new ideas, too much for them to either notice at the time of listening or remember afterwards. But in time, with repeated exposure to the music, more becomes accessible, and the wonders of Babbitt's art become evident. Not everyone is willing or indeed able to put the work in, as it were.


Yes but of course you miss out the point that Beethoven had already prepared the ground for himself by writing quartets such as the Rasamovsky quartets and theDiabelli Variations which prepared people for the radical nature of the late quartets. He didn't just plough into music which completely alienate it is audience like a lot of modern composers do and then wonder why they're not appreciated. Beethoven had already established his genius with everyone. Hence although the late quartets came as a shock, people were willing to accept them as they came from the greatest musical genius of the age, even if they didn't understand them. With people like Babbit there are no such credentials.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> It's not necessarily sad - I would have assumed that most of her audience were teenagers. Doesn't classical music tend to be more suited to those that have grown up a bit?


Pick any age group and try to tell me that their ranked preferences would reflect the value of the music. They are entitled to their tastes but I do not think those tastes will correlate with music quality. You probably have a problem with the idea of quality but I can't see a way of escaping it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Yes but of course you miss out the point that Beethoven had already prepared the ground for himself by writing quartets such as the Rasamovsky quartets and theDiabelli Variations which prepared people for the radical nature of the late quartets. He didn't just plough into music which completely alienate it is audience like a lot of modern composers do and then wonder why they're not appreciated. Beethoven had already established his genius with everyone. Hence although the late quartets came as a shock, people were willing to accept them as they came from the greatest musical genius of the age, even if they didn't understand them. With people like Babbit there are no such credentials.


Come on, David. That's a feeble argument. Beethoven established his genius with genial works so he had paid his dues before writing more difficult stuff? And, because he did, everyone else must? You can earn the right to compose like Babbit by producing pastiches for 10 years first? Or maybe he should have gone through his Shostakovich period before writing anything challenging?

Of course, in his time Beethoven was at the cutting edge of the time's modernity from the start. He didn't establish himself by writing music that was beneath him until he had sufficient a reputation to write something difficult. It helped that he had an audience - mostly among the elite - some of whom recognised his worth. As time progressed (and especially after his death) his audience expanded. This is the way it tends to be. Just imagine if you were around in Beethoven's day - would you be one of those who recognised his greatness? I wonder.

Just because you feel alienated by the music of some composers doesn't mean that everyone must or does. You don't like their music? Simple - don't listen to it. What is it in you that makes you want to stop anyone else from listening to it as well?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

People who inherit a tradition are not necessarily practitioners of it.

And while people are certainly entitled to take what they have inherited, and use it or move in an entirely new direction, what they don't necessarily get to do is demand that the established audience follow them on their journey.

The problem that I see with "modern classical music" is that it wants to be seen as something entirely new, and yet it wants the luster of credibility from the tradition that its very insistence on innovation rejects.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> Come on, David. That's a feeble argument. Beethoven established his genius with genial works so he had paid his dues before writing more difficult stuff? And, because he did, everyone else must? You can earn the right to compose like Babbit by producing pastiches for 10 years first? Or maybe he should have gone through his Shostakovich period, first?
> 
> Just because you feel alienated by the music of some composers doesn't mean that everyone must or does. You don't like their music? Simple - don't listen to it. What is it in you that makes you want to stop anyone else from listening to it as well?


Not feeble at all. Perfectly reasonable. So Beethoven established his genius with 'genial' works like the Eroica symphony? Just what history do you read? Because Babbit makes some noise like a piano being pushed downstairs that most people find incomprehensible we're supposed to regard him in the same light? Come off at yours is the feeble argument on behalf of someone whose tuneless racket will soon be forgotten by most people. I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to it. I'm not saying you shouldn't lie on a bed of nails. If you get pleasure from doing that fine!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Not feeble at all. Perfectly reasonable. So Beethoven established his genius with 'genial' works like the Eroica symphony? Just what history do you read? Because Babbit makes some noise like a piano being pushed downstairs that most people find incomprehensible we're supposed to regard him in the same light? Come off at yours is the feeble argument on behalf of someone whose tuneless racket will soon be forgotten by most people. I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to it. I'm not saying you shouldn't lie on a bed of nails. If you get pleasure from doing that fine!


I didn't see your reply and have just edited my post to add an additional (if obvious) argument. The points you ridicule above were what I found in _*your *_argument. :lol:

For the rest I get that you hate Babbit's music - I'm not sure I like it much, either - but not why you need everyone else to hate it, too. He seems a cheap target when there is quite a lot of poor quality classical music in our history that is popular enough to often be foisted upon us.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Not feeble at all. Perfectly reasonable. So Beethoven established his genius with 'genial' works like the Eroica symphony? Just what history do you read? Because Babbit makes some noise like a piano being pushed downstairs that most people find incomprehensible we're supposed to regard him in the same light? Come off at yours is the feeble argument on behalf of someone whose tuneless racket will soon be forgotten by most people. I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to it. I'm not saying you shouldn't lie on a bed of nails. If you get pleasure from doing that fine!


I think that if you can't hear the genius of, for example, Babbitt's last three quartets, and you've tried, you've given the music time, then that's just a reflection of a limitation in you, in your ability to appreciate music.

In exactly the same way there's someone who posts a lot here, allegrobrio or something like that, who can't see the genius in Beethoven op 131. And others feel the same way about things by Bach. This is a reflection of their development.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I think that if you can't hear the genius of, for example, Babbitt's last three quartets, and you've tried, you've given the music time, then that's just a reflection of a limitation in you, in your ability to appreciate music.
> 
> In exactly the same way there's someone who posts a lot here, allegrobrio or something like that, who can't see the genius in Beethoven op 131. And others feel the same way about things by Bach. This is a reflection of their development.


And this insistence that the rejection of this kind of music is entirely the fault of the audience is why the argument comes up over and over again, and cannot just be ignored.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JAS said:


> And this insistence that the rejection of this kind of music is entirely the fault of the audience is why *the argument* comes up over and over again, and cannot just be ignored.


Which argument?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Which argument?


The one that you just made (and I quoted in my post). Perhaps I give it too much credit by granting it the status of an argument (in the classical sense).


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> I think that if you can't hear the genius of, for example, Babbitt's last three quartets, and you've tried, you've given the music time, then that's just a reflection of a limitation in you, in your ability to appreciate music.
> 
> In exactly the same way there's someone who posts a lot here, allegrobrio or something like that, who can't see the genius in Beethoven op 131. And others feel the same way about things by Bach. This is a reflection of their development.


What exactly is the limitation and what does it say about their development?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I think that if you can't hear the genius of, for example, Babbitt's last three quartets, and you've tried, you've given the music time, then that's just a reflection of a limitation in you, in your ability to appreciate music.
> 
> In exactly the same way there's someone who posts a lot here, allegrobrio or something like that, who can't see the genius in Beethoven op 131. And others feel the same way about things by Bach. This is a reflection of their development.


I don't think well of DavidA's extreme positions on modernist music, but I also don't care for your playing of the blame game; if someone dislikes a work you consider of genius level, there's something wrong with that person.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> I think that if you can't hear the genius of, for example, Babbitt's last three quartets, and you've tried, you've given the music time, then that's just a reflection of a limitation in you, in your ability to appreciate music.
> 
> In exactly the same way there's someone who posts a lot here, allegrobrio or something like that, who can't see the genius in Beethoven op 131. And others feel the same way about things by Bach. This is a reflection of their development.


I am quite prepared to gratefully accept that limitation as time is precious and I want to give myself to stuff that is worth hearing and not what appears to be a series of unpleasant unrelated scrapings. I will stick to real genius like Beethoven's Op 131.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

janxharris said:


> What exactly is the limitation and what does it say about their development?


It's a limitation of perception and memory. It says that they are not yet in a position to appreciate the music. So with op 131, I remember someone was getting his knickers in a twist listening to the variations, which he thought were somehow random (even though they were variations!)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

slalsvslvdxslvdsxlvjhdx


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I don't think well of DavidA's extreme positions on modernist music, but I also don't care for your playing of the blame game; if someone dislikes a work you consider of genius level, there's something wrong with that person.


I really don't care about whether anyone likes it or not, and that's not what I was talking about. Your intervention is a _non sequitur_.

Speaking personally, whether I like something or not depends as much as what I've had for lunch as anything else. And there are many pieces of music which I really don't like at all at the moment -- for example, Beethoven's Hammerklavier -- indeed most things by Beethoven. But I can still appreciate that they're major important works of art. Similarly in literature, right now I can't stand Keats, and I can't abide Dickens. But I wouldn't use that as an argument to show anything about their writing -- I can see that _Bleak House_ is a very well made, important, novel . . .

What I was talking about was David's rejection of Babbitt's quartets as music of genius, when I can hear that they are very fine because I can hear it every time I listen. I'm talking about something I perceive, not about my affective reaction when I listen.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

what we have here is a fundamental disagreement, not a non sequitur.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JAS said:


> what we have here is a fundamental disagreement, not a non sequitur.


Errr, no. I mean, not unless more is said.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

What more needs to be said? Is merely pointing out the already obvious now a problem? You like (or appreciate or whatever term you prefer) the compositions of Milton Babbitt. DavidA does not, and I would certainly tend to fall into his camp based on what I have heard. There is no middle ground where these two positions can compromise. The fact that there is a continued effort to force both groups to coexist in the same general world is why there is a continued conflict. It is never resolved, because it cannot be resolved. This is a case where the only option is a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, but one party, the modernists, wants to keep the house, the kids, and the family car.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JAS said:


> What more needs to be said? Is merely pointing out the already obvious now a problem?


Well, he needs to spell out the relation between his liking something and perceiving its quality as a work of art. I am arguing that the former is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for the latter.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> You're sad.
> 
> slalsvslvdxslvdsxlvjhdx


Fortunately my friend I can disagree about tastes in music without resorting to personal insults! It's called maturity! :tiphat:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Fortunately my friend I can disagree about tastes in music without resorting to personal insults! It's called maturity! :tiphat:


I just came back to delete that. But too late. I shouldn't have posted it. I'm sorry.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> It's a limitation of perception and memory. It says that they are not yet in a position to appreciate the music. So with op 131, I remember someone was getting his knickers in a twist listening to the variations, which he thought were somehow random (even though they were variations!)


No it's a limitation where you cannot perceive people to have tastes that differ from your own. I I am surrounded by people who do not share my tastes in music, literature, etc, but I do not call them 'sad' or think any the less of them. We just joke about it. It's called having a sense of humour and not taking yourself too seriously.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

There's too much "blame the listener" here on TC. It's a feeble position to take.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> It's a limitation of perception and memory. It says that they are not yet in a position to appreciate the music. So with op 131, I remember someone was getting his knickers in a twist listening to the variations, which he thought were somehow random (even though they were variations!)


It does obviously help to to be aware of such things - but, nevertheless, that a music work does include variations on a theme does not necessarily say anything about the quality of the piece.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> I just came back to delete that. But too late. I shouldn't have posted it. I'm sorry.


OK mate. You're forgiven. We love music - that's important!


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I don't think well of DavidA's extreme positions on modernist music, but I also don't care for your playing of the blame game; if someone dislikes a work you consider of genius level, there's something wrong with that person.


It might be a different matter if DavidA were expressing a position that was well out of the norm, but I think it is fair to say that he is not (especially if we think in terms beyond the limits of the TC forums, which are certainly not representative of the world of classical music at large). The number of people who do appreciate more modernist fare is a tiny fraction compared to those who appreciate Beethoven and more traditional compositions. (Perhaps even that is a statement where the two camps cannot agree.)

As it so happens, I hate chocolate. I do not merely not appreciate it, but I really hate it, and that hatred only grows with the constant shoving of chocolate in my direction. I am not wrong in my opinion of chocolate, but I fully understand that it is the minority position, indeed a very distinct minority. If I am part of a group that orders some desert item, the chances of it including chocolate are very great, and that is just the burden I must bear. I express my dislike of chocolate mostly to explain why I am not partaking in the desert.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> What more needs to be said? Is merely pointing out the already obvious now a problem? You like (or appreciate or whatever term you prefer) the compositions of Milton Babbitt. DavidA does not, and I would certainly tend to fall into his camp based on what I have heard. There is no middle ground where these two positions can compromise. The fact that there is a continued effort to force both groups to coexist in the same general world is why there is a continued conflict. It is never resolved, because it cannot be resolved. This is a case where the only option is a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, but one party, the modernists, wants to keep the house, the kids, and the family car.


I think there is a middle position. My position is that so far Babbit's music has not attracted me but I don't rule out that it might do one day. I was once undecided (or even against) many composers that I love now so if I cam to like Babbit's music that would fit with my pattern. It is also possible that I will come firmly to disliking it. But, for now, I hold a middle position.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I think there is a middle position. My position is that so far Babbit's music has not attracted me but I don't rule out that it might do one day. I was once undecided (or even against) many composers that I love now so if I cam to like Babbit's music that would fit with my pattern. It is also possible that I will come firmly to disliking it. But, for now, I hold a middle position.


That is a healthy way to think about music imv. Keeping the ears open and willing, is a much more rewarding stance than any other I think and one that can, with patience, reveal new and amazing musical vistas.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I think there is a middle position. My position is that so far Babbit's music has not attracted me but I don't rule out that it might do one day. I was once undecided (or even against) many composers that I love now so if I cam to like Babbit's music that would fit with my pattern. It is also possible that I will come firmly to disliking it. But, for now, I hold a middle position.


I agree that there's a middle position - take Babbit. About a year ago, I ran a game of atonal works. There were a few Babbit works on the list. I did like 2 or them, the others not. I think that having an open mind is essential; having an axe to grind just takes one down the rabbit hole.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> OK mate. You're forgiven. We love music - that's important!


Cheers. When I first started to post on internet forums about music I was amazed at the passion, the intensity, about music. I thought it was a really inspiring thing.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I think there is a middle position. My position is that so far Babbit's music has not attracted me but I don't rule out that it might do one day. I was once undecided (or even against) many composers that I love now so if I cam to like Babbit's music that would fit with my pattern. It is also possible that I will come firmly to disliking it. But, for now, I hold a middle position.


Yes. What gets my goat is the link that people make between "I don't like it" and "it is no good." Or indeed vice versa.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> I also don't care for the blame game; if someone dislikes a work you consider of genius level, there's something wrong with that person.


If music has a following and I am not part of that I can blame the music (_I'm right, the music's wrong_) or myself (_it doesn't work for me_). Surely, only the second position makes sense? The first position is arrogant and potentially insulting to people who do like the music. We all do it, of course - like I held up Britney Spears as an example of terrible music a bit earlier - but if we are being serious we can only say "not for me" and move on. Ideally. I would add the word "yet" to the second position - _it hasn't worked for me, yet_.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Yes. What gets my goat is the link that people make between "I don't like it" and "it is no good." Or indeed vice versa.


Yes, that is a problem, I see that too. One only needs to look at a well known composer's musical provenance to see how silly, disrespectful or just plain rude that conclusion can be at times. One should at least acknowledge that the intent of a hated piece is undoubtedly genuine and has more than likely been expertly done.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Yes. What gets my goat is the link that people make between "I don't like it" and "it is no good." Or indeed vice versa.


The problem is that you don't see that it doesn't start with that. If you look back I make a perfectly reasonable argument (185) which is then attacked for being 'feeble' so I come back with something stronger. The problem is that people do not accept other people's point of view.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Not only "attacked" as feeble but - unless I misunderstood your words - demonstrated as such.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> Not only "attacked" as feeble but - unless I misunderstood your words - demonstrated as such.


Oh come off it, your reply was nonsense. 'Beethoven was at the cutting edge of modernity from the start'. Of course he wasn't! :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mostly I suspect your posts of trolling, David. It was clear that I was saying that Beethoven was at the forefront of the music for his time.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> Mostly I suspect your posts of trolling, David. It was clear that I was saying that Beethoven was at the forefront of the music for his time.


Sorry mate, that is a pathetic accusation made by someone with a failed argument. Beethoven's early compositions were absolutely in line with the current fashion of Mozart / Haydn etc.. He was not 'at the cutting edge of modernity of his time' at the beginning. You need to get your facts right before you accuse someone of trolling.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ It seems as if you have yet to listen to Beethoven's early works. Broadly, the langauage was Mozartian but the music was also distinctively Beethoven's and in ways that shocked at the time. And he never stopped pushing the boundary. 

There was BTW nothing pathetic about my "accusation" (meaning my finding that your argument was feeble). I could have gone a lot further because your idea (that Beethoven prepared his audience for his shocking later works and that is why they were acceptable) is as bizarre as I have ever heard in these discussions about the poverty of modern music. It never struck me that you would be proud of that argument which is why I was relatively restrained.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Yes but of course you miss out the point that Beethoven had already prepared the ground for himself by writing quartets such as the Rasamovsky quartets and theDiabelli Variations which prepared people for the radical nature of the late quartets. He didn't just plough into music which completely alienate it is audience like a lot of modern composers do and then wonder why they're not appreciated. Beethoven had already established his genius with everyone. Hence although the late quartets came as a shock, people were willing to accept them as they came from the greatest musical genius of the age, even if they didn't understand them. With people like Babbit there are no such credentials.


Beethoven's late quartets are appreciated now for important pieces of music not because of Beethoven's earlier style, but because of what they are in themselves. In the same way, those who are capable and willing hear the value of the Babbitt late quartets, not because of any honours he may have gained before writing them, but simply because of what they are _per se_.

The work creates its own posterity, not the author.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Cheers. When I first started to post on internet forums about music I was amazed at the passion, the intensity, about music. I thought it was a really inspiring thing.


Agreed. In particular I get a kick out of how vitriolic these "modernist" vs "anti-modernist" debates get to be, with both sides nastily condescending upon one another and insults flung in all directions. I guess that's the internet for you! 

@Enthusiast, just wanted to post to share that I found your thoughts about beauty in 20thC music to be much in line with my own thoughts, since it seemed so few were following your ideas. I find it unusual that so few hear the same purity of sensuous (indeed, Debussyian) beauty in Boulez's music that I hear-then I realize that the majority of people have not heard anything of his besides the youthful Piano Sonata No.2. I guess that now that modern music "makes sense" to me now, it's hard to put myself back in the mindset that I once found the language of post-tonality to be challenging. It's not something I had to work at, either. One day, it just "clicked".

In any case, it would seem that many listeners equate "beauty" to tonic-dominant-tonic cadences and diatonic melodies. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it seems to betray a limited viewpoint.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Beethoven's late quartets are appreciated now for important pieces of music not because of Beethoven's earlier style, but because of what they are in themselves. In the same way, those who are capable and willing hear the value of the Babbitt late quartets, not because of any honours he may have gained before writing them, but simply because of what they are _per se_.
> 
> The work creates its own posterity, not the author.


. . . perhaps by those who do appreciate them, but that number is much smaller than those who appreciate the other quartets, and that much smaller than those who appreciate other works by Beethoven. Beyond that, this is a meaningless assertion, which cannot be proven one way or another.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ It seems as if you have yet to listen to Beethoven's early works. Broadly, the langauage was Mozartian but the music was also distinctively Beethoven's and in ways that shocked at the time. And he never stopped pushing the boundary.
> 
> There was BTW nothing pathetic about my "accusation" (meaning my finding that your argument was feeble). I could have gone a lot further because your idea (that Beethoven prepared his audience for his shocking later works and that is why they were acceptable) is as bizarre as I have ever heard in these discussions about the poverty of modern music. It never struck me that you would be proud of that argument which is why I was relatively restrained.


I don't know why you keep this up when your argument is completely wrong. First you misquote me. I didn't say 'Beethoven prepared his audience for his shocking later works' as if it was some conscious decision he made. No it was his evolution from his earlier towards the later style that allowed him to take at least some of his audience with him. Secondly you are wrong when you say that Beethoven's early music 'shocked' - his early works at least didn't. They were Mozartean in style. In fact he was annoyed that the friendly Septet Op 20 continued to be so popular to the detriment of his more radical works. You are the one making bizarre statements my friend. I would be grateful if you did not project your own feeling in this way.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> *Beethoven's late quartets are appreciated now for important pieces of music not because of Beethoven's earlier style, but because of what they are in themselves.* In the same way, those who are capable and willing hear the value of the Babbitt late quartets, not because of any honours he may have gained before writing them, but simply because of what they are _per se_.
> 
> The work creates its own posterity, not the author.


Of course, in that we are in complete agreement. My point was that Beethoven didn't start off with that style. Actually Schoenberg did not start off with 12 note music either! And as I say, if people want to subject themselves to Brabbitt's late quartets they have every right to do so as long as I don't have to listen. 
Incidentally not everyone appreciated Beethoven's late quartets. "Beethoven's last quartets were written by a deaf man and should only be listened to by a deaf man." - Sir Thomas Beecham


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JAS said:


> . . . perhaps by those who do appreciate them, but that number is much smaller than those who appreciate the other quartets, and that much smaller than those who appreciate other works by Beethoven. Beyond that, this is a meaningless assertion, which cannot be proven one way or another.


And I would imagine the people who appreciate the Babbitt quartets is decidedly smaller than those who appreciate the Bartok quartets.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I don't know why you keep this up when your argument is completely wrong. First you misquote me. I didn't say 'Beethoven prepared his audience for his shocking later works' as if it was some conscious decision he made. No it was his evolution from his earlier towards the later style that allowed him to take at least some of his audience with him. Secondly you are wrong when you say that Beethoven's early music 'shocked' - his early works at least didn't. They were Mozartean in style. In fact he was annoyed that the friendly Septet Op 20 continued to be so popular to the detriment of his more radical works. You are the one making bizarre statements my friend. I would be grateful if you did not project your own feeling in this way.


You would mistake an early Beethoven quartet or sonata or symphony or piano concerto for Mozart? I am sure you wouldn't. There is a gruffness there that was quite new to music. But I am out of this discussion from now. I cannot be doing with your style of claiming huge misrepresentation when there has been none or with your selective quoting. In general, I prefer genial discussions when it comes to music.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> You would mistake an early Beethoven quartet or sonata or symphony or piano concerto for Mozart? I am sure you wouldn't. There is a gruffness there that was quite new to music. But I am out of this discussion from now. I cannot be doing with your style of claiming huge misrepresentation when there has been none or with your selective quoting. In general, I prefer genial discussions when it comes to music.


I remember the first time I bought the second piano concerto as a lad the notes n the back said of it, "The style is sunny, Mozartean." The early string quartets were not written down until he was 30, belying the opus numbers. But they wouldn't have held many challenges for his audience. You are actually the one who is doing the selective coaching. And yes I prefer genial discussions which does not include people calling other people trolls


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Thick as a Brick of course.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> And I would imagine the people who appreciate the Babbitt quartets is decidedly smaller than those who appreciate the Bartok quartets.


Without actually doing a poll, I suspect so as well.

I see these kinds of statements about some much older work with elements that seem to foreshadow more modern works as if it somehow eclipses the actual reaction that people have when they hear the modern work.

I suspect that you will agree with me that the idea that:

-Beethoven is a popular composer

- Beethoven wrote some works with very modern sounding elements

- other works with modern sounding elements, including Babbitt's, should also be popular

is just totally illogical.

Edit: Also the variation of the last one, that it isn't the modern elements that are the problem of it not being more popular.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> Agreed. In particular I get a kick out of how vitriolic these "modernist" vs "anti-modernist" debates get to be, with both sides nastily condescending upon one another and insults flung in all directions. I guess that's the internet for you!
> 
> In any case, it would seem that many listeners equate "beauty" to tonic-dominant-tonic cadences and diatonic melodies. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, *but it seems to betray a limited viewpoint.*


Thank you for giving an example of a 'condescending remark! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JAS said:


> Without actually doing a poll, I suspect so as well.
> 
> I see these kinds of statements about some much older work with elements that seem to foreshadow more modern works as if it somehow eclipses the actual reaction that people have when they hear the modern work.
> 
> ...


Beethoven's late quartets could have ben written 100 years later and still would have sounded modern. They are completely extraordinary. But he did have great genius which is why they connect with us. The silences are as notable almost as the notes. It is inexplicable. The problem for me with the avant-garde is that they have gone places where it is not recognisable as music any more - just a variety of sounds. Now if some people like it fair enough. But I remember the conductor Hans Vonk saying (about 40 or so years ago I would think) that there never had been a time when modern music had so lost touch with its audience.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Thank you for giving an example of a 'condescending remark! :lol:


Touché, but I only meant it in a strictly literal sense. Ie. that for some folks, beauty in music is _limited_ to music written in a tonal idiom, ie. with major triads, cadences, melodies based on diatonic scales. There's nothing wrong with that. People have every right to listen to whatever music they want to. But it's only one way of looking at things; for others, beauty is _not limited_ to music that fits within these criteria but can encompass music that exists totally outside of tonality. Hope that clears things up a bit; I did not mean to condescend upon anyone.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I suspect that if you played a Babbitt quartet and told people that it was Beethoven, the response would not be very different, although perhaps more surprised and a tad less immediately hostile.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Touché, but I only meant it in a strictly literal sense. Ie. that for some folks, beauty in music is _limited_ to music written in a tonal idiom, ie. with major triads, cadences, melodies based on diatonic scales. There's nothing wrong with that. People have every right to listen to whatever music they want to. But it's only one way of looking at things; for others, beauty is _not limited_ to music that fits within these criteria but can encompass music that exists totally outside of tonality. Hope that clears things up a bit; I did not mean to condescend upon anyone.


As long as those who do think that it is not limited to this do so knowing that the vast majority do not think like they do, nor should be expected to.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

JAS said:


> As long as those who do think that it is not limited to this do so knowing that the vast majority do not think like they do, nor should be expected to.


Yeah, I don't really care what the other people think. Just an observation. It's mildly upsetting that people are missing out on so much great, beautiful music, and that great artists are going unappreciated, but what can you do.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's a post I made on Cage which I'm rather proud of, and I think it's relevant.



Mandryka said:


> To appreciate Cage you have to first learn how to listen to Cage. You have to forget listening waiting for the music to move you emotionally, and you have to forget listening with an ear to analysis, structure. That's not what he's about and if you approach it like that it will be very boring, very disappointing.
> 
> Fortunately there is a third way, which maybe Cage discovered. You can listen to the music with the same sense of _fascination _that you might have watching the night sky in the desert, or the patterns of sunlight on the ocean. And with the same _alertness_. Not all performances will work, some will.


It's this ability to listen to music like you may watch the night sky which has to be acquired, and which some people have enormous difficulty in acquiring.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I am quite prepared to gratefully accept that limitation as time is precious and I want to give myself to stuff that is worth hearing and not what appears to be a series of unpleasant unrelated scrapings. I will stick to real genius like Beethoven's Op 131.


I've just chosen this post of yours fairly randomly not because I think I'm responding to anything directly in it, but because I want to say something about how I see your thinking on this subject.

I feel that you are exaggerating the differences between maistream contemporary music and the sort of "classical" music you like -- Mozart, Beethoven etc.

In particular, the question of how music today should stand in relation to music of the past is THE central postmodern question. It is the question which has very much engaged, for example, Wolfgang Rihm and I think, Pascal Dusapin too. And of course Lachenmann in a different way and Finnissy in yet a different way.

Just bear with me, and see what you make of these songs by Rihm -- I can't find more on youtube very easily.






The other thing I want to share with you is Dusapin's quartet called "Open Time" -- his seventh quartet. But I can't see it on youtube.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I've just chosen this post of yours fairly randomly not because I think I'm responding to anything directly in it, but because I want to say something about how I see your thinking on this subject.
> 
> I feel that you are exaggerating the differences between maistream contemporary music and the sort of "classical" music you like -- Mozart, Beethoven etc.
> 
> ...


That *Rihm* song is wonderful, and I agree with you about the *Dusapin* quartet. His entire cycle is very good, IMO.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> Touché, but I only meant it in a strictly literal sense. Ie. that for some folks, beauty in music is _limited_ to music written in a tonal idiom, ie. with major triads, cadences, melodies based on diatonic scales. There's nothing wrong with that. People have every right to listen to whatever music they want to. But it's only one way of looking at things; for others, beauty is _not limited_ to music that fits within these criteria but can encompass music that exists totally outside of tonality. Hope that clears things up a bit; I did not mean to condescend upon anyone.


Yeah always difficult when you put in print. Don't get me wrong - I don't dismiss all modern music although I suppose Bartok etc hardly comes into that category now. Beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder and what can appear beautiful to one can be ugly to another. Just I find discordant scrapings unbeautiful.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Here's a post I made on Cage which I'm rather proud of, and I think it's relevant.
> 
> It's this ability to listen to music like you may watch the night sky which has to be acquired, and which some people have enormous difficulty in acquiring.


But you see music is my servant. I do not regard myself as subservient to someone like Cage. I'm not prepared to put in time to analyse his music when I could be enjoying stuff that I really like. I mean, when there is so much really fine music out there, who wants to listen to Cage and his prepared pianos outside of a select group of devotees?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> I've just chosen this post of yours fairly randomly not because I think I'm responding to anything directly in it, but because I want to say something about how I see your thinking on this subject.
> 
> I feel that you are exaggerating the differences between maistream contemporary music and the sort of "classical" music you like -- Mozart, Beethoven etc.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I did listen all the way through but didn't really do anything for me. Sounded like Schubert having a bad hair day. But I grant you I didn't have an urge to switch it off!


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Yeah, I don't really care what the other people think. Just an observation. It's mildly upsetting that people are missing out on so much great, beautiful music, and that great artists are going unappreciated, but what can you do.


I'm with you on this.

I can understand, to a certain extent, why some people don't appreciate modern and contemporary music.

My problem is, that so many anti-modernists on TC, seem to think their opinions are objective fact. And in addition, the fact that those of us that like modern music are in the minority, does not provide one iota of evidence, that their opinions are objective fact.

Music does not have to be obviously beautiful, to actually be beautiful. The beauty can be implied. Or it can come from the feelings it instills within us, as we listen (to music that may _seem_ ugly on the surface), as it creates feelings of catharsis.

When I listen to the music that most anti-modernists claim is superior (Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Shostakovitch, Bach, et al.) I get bored to tears.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Simon Moon said:


> When I listen to the music that most anti-modernists claim is superior (Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Shostakovitch, Bach, et al.) I get bored to tears.


I can't at all echo this sentiment, as I love all of those composers. But I do appreciate that someone can see where I'm coming from w/r/t the snobbish attitudes of some of the anti-moderns around here. I wonder if it's an internet thing...? Most of the classical music people I know in real life tend to have a more balanced outlook toward both Modern and "common practice" classical music, and listen to, play, and find things to appreciate in all of it.

@Mandryka, that Rihm song was really good. Reminds me of some of the songs from Schubert's _Schwanengesang_.

@David, there are things like Lachenmann's _Gran Partita_ that could fairly be described as "discordant scraping". I don't consider that work beautiful, either. But all Modernist music is not like that, far from it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> I'm with you on this.
> 
> I can understand, to a certain extent, why some people don't appreciate modern and contemporary music.
> 
> ...


My problem is that so many modernists seem to think their opinions are objective fact. Or at least express them as if they are!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> I can't at all echo this sentiment, as I love all of those composers. *But I do appreciate that someone can see where I'm coming from w/r/t the snobbish attitudes of some of the anti-moderns around here*. I wonder if it's an internet thing...? Most of the classical music people I know in real life tend to have a more balanced outlook toward both Modern and "common practice" classical music, and listen to, play, and find things to appreciate in all of it.
> 
> @Mandryka, that Rihm song was really good. Reminds me of some of the songs from Schubert's _Schwanengesang_.
> 
> @David, there are things like Lachenmann's _Gran Partita_ that could fairly be described as "discordant scraping". I don't consider that work beautiful, either. But all Modernist music is not like that, far from it.


Snobbish? I'm not a snob because I don't like modern music. I just don't care for it in the same way I don't care for cold baths in the morning. OK?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Snobbish? I'm not a snob because I don't like modern music. I just don't care for it in the same way I don't care for cold baths in the morning. OK?


Granted you have expressed, in a variety of ways, that you do not enjoy what you call modernist music. Why do you think it is important for you to say this over and over? In my listening, I don't slice music up into categories like modernist and non-modernist, or common practice and post-common practice.

There is music I enjoy and music that doesn't interest me, and the music I enjoy comes from all periods, as does the other kind. Further I am not interested in convincing anyone to like what I like or vice versa. But I guess if more people felt like I do, Internet music discussion forums would be less active.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Snobbish? I'm not a snob because I don't like modern music. I just don't care for it in the same way I don't care for cold baths in the morning. OK?


This was the post which made me react in a way which I regretted.



DavidA said:


> I am quite prepared to gratefully accept that limitation as time is precious and I want to give myself to stuff that is worth hearing and not what appears to be a series of unpleasant unrelated scrapings. I will stick to real genius like Beethoven's Op 131.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> When I listen to the music that most anti-modernists claim is superior (Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Shostakovitch, Bach, et al.) I get bored to tears.


That's a shame - centuries of music down the drain.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Just bear with me, and see what you make of these songs by Rihm -- I can't find more on youtube very easily.


I enjoyed the first two minutes, then it all fell apart for me (Rihm gone wild).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> That's a shame - centuries of music down the drain.


Yes of course, but I know what he means! What I've noticed happens to me is that if I listen to a lot of recent music and then play some old fashioned music, it sounds tame in so many ways - timbres, harmonies, rhythms etc. After a while I can normally get back in the swing of it, but increasingly less so (I'm listening to some Royer now and I'm thinking - nice but what's the point?!)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I enjoyed the first two minutes, then it all fell apart for me (Rihm gone wild).


I think it's interesting precisely because of the way the wild part calls into question any sense of tonal harmony created by the first half. It would be good to have the text, I believe the poems are about mental instability. But my main point was that Rihm's life's work has been about exploring ways of responding in his compositions to existing classical music, and this is an example of one of his experiments.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I think it's interesting precisely because of the way the wild part calls into question any sense of tonal harmony created by the first half. It would be good to have the text, I believe the poems are about mental instability. But my main point was that Rihm's life's work has been about exploring ways of responding in his compositions to existing classical music, and this is an example of one of his experiments.


Yes, I can see how the composer was exhibiting his lack of mental stability.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> That's a shame - centuries of music down the drain.


Yes, I know.

And believe me, I am not exactly happy about it.

I would LOVE to enjoy classical from pre 20th century periods. Nothing ever wrong with more music 

And it's not for lack of trying. I have a pretty large collection of: Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Etc, etc. And over the years, I have somewhat frequently spun various selections, to see if any of them will click. So far, no go.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Most of the classical music people I know in real life tend to have a more balanced outlook toward both Modern and "common practice" classical music, and listen to, play, and find things to appreciate in all of it.


True.

And as I said above, I wish I liked more pre 20th century and common practice music. I really wish I was one of those people that had a more balanced outlook toward classical music of all eras.

That being said, I do like a lot of 20th century music that is not atonal. Bartok, Britten, Barber, Tower, Sibelius, and plenty more.

And it's not like I have any real lack of composers and pieces to keep me plenty busy. It is actually hard to keep up with discovering new composers and pieces that astonish me. And lucky for me, I have a good friend (a Berklee grad and top LA studio musician) who's taste pretty much parallels mine, so he is constantly feeding me new stuff to listen to.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DavidA said:


> They were Mozartean in style. In fact he was annoyed that the friendly Septet Op 20 continued to be so popular to the detriment of his more radical works. You are the one making bizarre statements my friend. I would be grateful if you did not project your own feeling in this way.


There are sections that remind of Mozart in Beethoven Op.18 No.4, Op.18 No.5, Op.59 No.2, No.3, but on the whole, Beethoven was distinctively Beethovenian early on.

"Stylistically Spohr's and Beethoven's development as composers took them in diametrically opposite directions. The op. 18 quartets are the point at which they were closest, but from there their paths diverged.* Beethoven moved away from the chromaticism of late Mozart towards a broader harmonic style*; it is significant that his only preserved comment about Spohr's music should have been 'He is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music marred by his chromatic melody.'"
< Louis Spohr: A Critical Biography , By Clive Brown , Page 99 >

I don't hear stuff like these in early Beethoven:

*[ 25:00 ]*





*[ 7:30 ]*


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> ...My problem is, that so many anti-modernists on TC, seem to think their opinions are objective fact. And in addition, the fact that those of us that like modern music are in the minority, does not provide one iota of evidence, that their opinions are objective fact.





flamencosketches said:


> ...But I do appreciate that someone can see where I'm coming from w/r/t the snobbish attitudes of some of the anti-moderns around here. I wonder if it's an internet thing...?


Those who live in glass houses..


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Granted you have expressed, in a variety of ways, that you do not enjoy what you call modernist music. Why do you think it is important for you to say this over and over? In my listening, I don't slice music up into categories like modernist and non-modernist, or common practice and post-common practice.
> 
> There is music I enjoy and music that doesn't interest me, and the music I enjoy comes from all periods, as does the other kind. Further I am not interested in convincing anyone to like what I like or vice versa. But I guess if more people felt like I do, Internet music discussion forums would be less active.


I don't know why are you think it's important to say that you think that people who do not enjoy modernist music or snobbish? I wouldn't of posted if you hadn't have said that. Your problem is that you think you have the right to say anything you like about other people and then get rather touchy if they say something back to you


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> This was the post which made me react in a way which I regretted.


So please point out help me believing that Beethoven's Opus 131 is real genius defines a working class boy like me as a snob?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> Yes, I know.
> 
> And believe me, I am not exactly happy about it.
> 
> ...


So now it's okay for you to say that you don't like composers like Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, but not OK for others to say they do not like the modern stuff?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> There are sections that remind of Mozart in Beethoven Op.18 No.5, Op.59 No.2, No.3, but on the whole, Beethoven was distinctively Beethovenian early on.
> 
> "Stylistically Spohr's and Beethoven's development as composers took them in diametrically opposite directions. The op. 18 quartets are the point at which they were closest, but from there their paths diverged.* Beethoven moved away from the chromaticism of late Mozart towards a broader harmonic style*; it is significant that his only preserved comment about Spohr's music should have been 'He is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music marred by his chromatic melody.'"
> < Louis Spohr: A Critical Biography , By Clive Brown , Page 99 >
> ...


But as I have already explained the Op 18 quartets were written when Beethoven was 30 and were not that early.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> True.
> 
> And as I said above, I wish I liked more pre 20th century and common practice music. I really wish I was one of those people that had a more balanced outlook toward classical music of all eras.
> 
> ...


My dear friend it's great if you want to listen to a lot of this modern stuff as these people need people to listen to their music. Please enjoy yourself as much as you can


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Simon Moon said:


> I'm with you on this.
> 
> I can understand, to a certain extent, why some people don't appreciate modern and contemporary music.
> 
> ...


Is your bordem due to your finding such music predictable?


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> That's a shame - centuries of music down the drain.


The same could be said for people who only listen to stuff written between 1600 and 1914. It might be only one century "down the drain", but it's the richest and most diverse of them all.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Kilgore Trout said:


> The same could be said for people who only listen to stuff written between 1600 and 1914. It might be only one century "down the drain", but it's the richest and most diverse of them all.


Who says we don't listen to stuff post 1914? I don't notice anyone saying that


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Who says we don't listen to stuff post 1914? I don't notice anyone saying that


I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, and it can be 1914 or 1939 or whatever. You guys never define or precise what you dislike so much anyway (it's music that is "series of unpleasant unrelated scrapings", good), so who gives a f***.
Gosh, I don't want to enter a discussion with you or any of the anti-modernists. We know what you think. It's useless.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Kilgore Trout said:


> I wasn't talking about anyone in particular.
> Gosh, I don't want to enter a discussion with you or any of the anti-modernists. We know what you think. It's useless.


I'm not anti-modernist at all. I just don't care for unpleasant noises. Nor unpleasant posts either!


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

A lot of focus here on the 20th century aspect of the request. I would just take that as a fairly mundane detail: when was the piece composed? And if a piece was composed mainly in 1899 or 1999, but published in 1901 or 2001 respectively, then who cares about splitting hairs?

The more interesting aspect is "greatest".
Firstly, I would say that being great is not purely a matter of polling (- such as count how many times a work is listed by people on TC as in their top 10 and use such a count as a measure of greatness).

On the other hand, it seems wrong to ignore popularity entirely: a work which is only highly regarded by 2 people (the composer and their mum) is probably not great. So how widespread does regard for a work have to be for it to be likely to be accepted as great? I really don't care in terms of specifying a number (which would be silly) - but I would say that it probably has to extend beyond being favoured by people working in music departments of universities and beyond professional musicians and composers. A great work seems to me to have to have appeal extending beyond a small niche of specialists.

I would be interested if people could include, when they claim that a work is the greatest (or even just very great), a more specific definition of what they mean by great in relation to that work. When thinking about this and my own choices I started to realise that perhaps the only thing that really matters to me in terms of "greatness" is how strongly I connect to it emotionally: how much does it move me. I mean by this that it feels like it moves me deeply, rather than superficially, although I wouldn't attempt to define what that distinction means.

To explain, a piece of music might be very innovative or original, but so what? I might find that interesting musicologically, although only if it sparked a new approach: eg foundational works of serialism, or incorporating influences such as folk music into a "classical" framework. And I am not convinced that makes it "great" although it might make it influential.

Equally, a piece might be staggeringly complex, but that leaves me cold in itself, unless it connects emotionally, and in the end it's the emotional connection which is the important part. I think you need to answer the question "to what end", and for me that is ultimately "to communicate emotion and move people".

What I find least interesting of all is the idea that a piece of music has some sort of philosophical point to make. That always ends up sounding a bit "bright 6th former trying to show off because they've started thinking about one of the big questions for the first time", and not very grown up.

Having expressed my preferences about what greatness relates to you do not, of course, have to agree, and when saying a work is the greatest of the 20th century you could well say "most influential" or "most satisfyingly complex" or whatever. I will stick with my "most emotionally connecting".

That takes me to (drum roll): Metamorphosen by Strauss


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Shouldn't follow up on one's own posts, I know, but anyway.

I thought it was worth noting that I'm not arguing against complexity per se.

It seems to me that complexity in music is a way of causing you to lose yourself and be "in the moment". If a piece is too simple it may struggle to do that. However, you can lose yourself that way when doing a puzzle (say), and I think music offers more than that, because it also speaks to the emotions.

If all a piece of music is is an intellectually challenging exercise in finding and unravelling patterns then it's just a puzzle. If it can be complex and moving then it's heading towards greatness. (Mind you, I think if it can be simple and moving then perhaps that's even better.)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Eclectic Al said:


> It seems to me that complexity in music is a way of causing you to lose yourself and be "in the moment". If a piece is too simple it may struggle to do that. However, you can lose yourself that way when doing a puzzle (say), and I think music offers more than that, because it also speaks to the emotions.


There's a famous thing that Wolfgang Rihm wrote in a programme note to his 1973 piece _Morphonie sektor IV_ for orchestra and string quartet -- " Music must be full of emotion, and the emotion full of complexity" Rihm and some other composers were interested in exploring how emotional and structural complexity can be entangled. _Morphonie _is not on youtube but his 3rd quartet "Im Innersten" is, and that exemplifies what he was up to at the time just as well I think






Simplicity is very much the subject of exploration by composers at the moment, see what you think of Laurence Crane's _Sparling_


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

The year itself does not prevent anyone from writing music that I would find appealing. There are certainly works written throughout the last century that I like very much, and others that I at least enjoy or appreciate to some degree that makes me want to hear them more than once. (I mention Aaron Copland and Howard Hanson as just two examples from the 20th century.) The distinction is almost always a matter of how much, or how little, that music embodies more modern concepts of what music should be (particularly the degree of dissonance and the degree to which the players seem to be playing different pieces at the same time), and how far they move toward or away from what is broadly considered traditional approaches. There is music that I find appealing, and music that I don't especially dislike even if it might not specifically appeal to me. (There is also a growing body of music that I find utterly revolting.) There is a very rough chronological line where such concepts began to diverge, and it is useful only as an approximation of when music. Unless I already know a composer by a number of works, the fact that he or she wrote music after about 1914 implies a hesitation. That hesitation tends to increase as we move further and further into the period of modernity. None of this should be interpreted as suggesting that my reaction to a work is in any way formed merely by knowledge of when it was written, at least not once I have actually heard the piece.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

JAS said:


> The year itself does not prevent anyone from writing music that I would find appealing. There are certainly works written throughout the last century that I like very much, and others that I at least enjoy or appreciate to some degree that makes me want to hear them more than once. The distinction is almost always a matter of how much that music embodies more modern concepts of what music should be, and how far they move toward or away from what is broadly considered traditional approaches. There is music that I find appealing, and music that I don't especially dislike even if it might not specifically appeal to me. (There is also a growing body of music that I find utterly revolting.) There is a very rough chronological line where such concepts began to diverge, and it is useful only as an approximation of when music. Unless I already know a composer by a number of works, the fact that he or she wrote music after about 1914 implies a hesitation. That hesitation tends to increase as we move further and further into the period of modernity. None of this should be interpreted as suggesting the my reaction to a work is in any way formed merely by knowledge of when it was written, at least not once I have actually heard the piece.


Needs a musicologically informed answer, but going back in time, it's now 2020 and if I look back over the past 50 years there is not much music I am aware of which has pulled off the dual trick of (1) coming to my attention and (2) giving me enjoyment comparable to music written much earlier. So why is that?

One possibility is that marketing is not putting such works into my line of sight - ie it is a problem with (1). I don't think that can be all the answer, because (assuming I am not too unusual) marketing people usually just want to make sales and if there was demand I think they would have found it. So it's probably that it doesn't give me (and large numbers like me) enough ready enjoyment for the marketing people to persist. I emphasise "ready" because I am not willing to exert a lot of effort to get to understand a style of music, as I am only in it for enjoyment and time is short - I can get plenty of enjoyment without that investment of effort.

Now suppose it was 1920, if I looked back over the music of the 50 years prior to that would I be in the same position? I can't know, but I doubt it. I think that the success rate among pieces written from 1870-1920 would be high for the hypothetical 1920-me, and way higher than the hit rate from 1970-2020 for the actual 2020-me. I suspect that might also be true for 1870-me. Why is that?

I'm genuinely interested in answers. My speculation is that it is in part about how practising composers earn a living. If you depend on work being commissioned by amateur (in the positive sense of lovers of something) enthusiasts or you need subscriptions from those people then you are likely to root your newness in something which appeals to amateurs; if your work is commissioned by musical professionals then you might leap to more radical newness - and potentially lose the amateurs on the way. Is part of the problem that the drivers of demand for new "classical" music push away from conservative styles towards more avant-garde tastes (apart from the critically maligned field of film music, where demand pulls in more of a conservative direction)?

Could someone explain how a composer of "classical" music who doesn't get involved in music for films or television makes a living these days?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

My understanding is that very few composers today make a living off of composing. Most teach, or perhaps have other jobs, and compose on the side. (Commissions are few and far between, and most modern compositions are lucky to get one performance, let alone repeated ones. If they can get that performance recorded, youtube at least gives them some opportunity for being heard.) One of the problems, I think, with much modern music is precisely because it does not need to meet the market, and tends to come far too much from an academic perspective.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

JAS said:


> My understanding is that very few composers today make a living off of composing. Most teach, or perhaps have other jobs, and compose on the side. (Commissions are few and far between, and most modern compositions are lucky to get one performance, let alone repeated ones. If they can get that performance recorded, youtube at least gives them some opportunity for being heard.) One of the problems, I think, with much modern music is precisely because it does not need to meet the market, and tends to come far to much from an academic perspective.


Mozart didn't make a living off composing, either.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Mozart didn't make a living off composing, either.


Which, true or not, does not alter my statement in any way. There was at least pretty much always a substantial market for what Mozart composed. I don't know of a comparable market for any modern composer. (I suppose snippets of music used in advertising might be lucrative, and certainly get a broad hearing.)


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

JAS said:


> Which, true or not, does not alter my statement in any way. There was at least pretty much always a substantial market for what Mozart composed. I don't know of a comparable market for any modern composer.


You may not know of it, but it's there.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> You may not know of it, but it's there.


I have heard several composers express the precise statement I have already made about the relative absence of a market. Good for you if you are a composer who has found otherwise.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> True.
> 
> And as I said above, I wish I liked more pre 20th century and common practice music. I really wish I was one of those people that had a more balanced outlook toward classical music of all eras.
> 
> ...


I guess that listening to only relatively modern music without knowing or liking what it came out of must be a different experience. What I wondered is whether you do have a body of work that you have found yourself playing regularly .. or whether (I guess) it is all about exploration and the new for you?


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Linked to the above, are the trends in classical music driven largely by what's happened in popular music (meant generally, and not at all pejoratively)?

Is the situation partly explained by the huge growth in popular music, so that many middle-aged people who might in previous times have been a natural audience for classical music (including new classical music) have their musical demand satisfied by popular music? That could cause the demand for new classical music to be low and largely driven by those with a specialist interest in it - thereby leading it to serve that group, who in turn may have avant-garde preferences.

Also, I guess in very recent times technology may enable music of fairly niche interest to be circulated among those interested at very low cost. Some enthusiasts (say within the music faculty at a university) perform and record a new string quartet, and it can be put online and reach interested people around the globe. This can lead that to thrive via a sort of "pull" effect from enthusiasts, whereas people with more of a casual interest will not have any "push" directing new music towards them.

All speculations.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> Mozart didn't make a living off composing, either.


How did he? I understand he was not great with money, but where did he get it from?

Quick google search comes up with information like this: "Mozart hardly ever composed or played music 'for the sheer joy of it'; he was constantly looking for well-paid commissions" from something called mozart.com.

I guess many here are very familiar with Mozart's financial situation, but it would appear to me that he was indeed seeking to support his family from his musical activities (and hand outs from friends and family when he had squandered it). It looks like he would therefore be driven to provide what amateur music supporters would like.

Some experts out there must have all the in-depth knowledge of all this.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Eclectic Al said:


> Linked to the above, are the trends in classical music driven largely by what's happened in popular music (meant generally, and not at all pejoratively)?
> 
> Is the situation partly explained by the huge growth in popular music, so that many middle-aged people who might in previous times have been a natural audience for classical music (including new classical music) have their musical demand satisfied by popular music? That could cause the demand for new classical music to be low and largely driven by those with a specialist interest in it - thereby leading it to serve that group, who in turn may have avant-garde preferences.
> 
> ...


There is also a huge body of recorded music, mostly of earlier times, which is how I generally satisfy my interests. I have zero need for modern music. It fills no void in my life.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

JAS said:


> There is also a huge body of recorded music, mostly of earlier times, which is how I generally satisfy my interests. I have zero need for modern music. It fills no void in my life.


Yes. The legacy is so great that it must be difficult to have any confidence that you could meaningfully add to it. The idea that Brahms was daunted by Beethoven's example is widely circulated, but as of now, if you start working on a new piece and look back at all the towering figures of the past (whose work can be so readily accessed) it must be tremendously humbling.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Eclectic Al said:


> How did he? I understand he was not great with money, but where did he get it from?
> 
> Quick google search comes up with information like this: "Mozart hardly ever composed or played music 'for the sheer joy of it'; he was constantly looking for well-paid commissions" from something called mozart.com.
> 
> ...


It would seem that the bulk of his money came from recitals (hence why he wrote so many piano concertos) and lessons (which he hated) rather that strict cash-for-commission gigs.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Although it certainly might be argued that those opportunities came to him in part due to his composing, rather than the other way around.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Eclectic Al said:


> Yes. The legacy is so great that it must be difficult to have any confidence that you could meaningfully add to it. The idea that Brahms was daunted by Beethoven's example is widely circulated, but as of now, if you start working on a new piece and look back at all the towering figures of the past (whose work can be so readily accessed) it must be tremendously humbling.


I suspect, but cannot prove, that this is precisely part of why the great break with tradition began. If you cannot compete, change the rules.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

JAS said:


> I suspect, but cannot prove, that this is precisely part of why the great break with tradition began. If you cannot compete, change the rules.


Yes, I think you're onto something.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> It would seem that the bulk of his money came from recitals (hence why he wrote so many piano concertos) and lessons (which he hated) rather that strict cash-for-commission gigs.


I stayed in a historic monument last weekend, called Beckford's Tower near Bath in England. This is one of a collection of historic buildings which are maintained by a charity and let out for short breaks.

Anyway, William Beckford was a very wealthy man (and indeed plantation-owner, so at some point there may be a campaign to pull down his tower). In the book provided at the property it said that at age 5 he had music lessons from Mozart - who it said was 9 at the time. Poor old Mozart, giving lessons at 9 to the children of the wealthy.

Anyway, from what you're saying his main income was from recitals, but a key element of those was that he performed his own works (- hence the piano concertos), so I guess that creates the demand for him to produce new work which is accessible to amateur audiences.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> There is also a huge body of recorded music, mostly of earlier times, which is how I generally satisfy my interests. I have zero need for modern music. It fills no void in my life.


Fair enough. But for me the desire (need?) to explore contemporary music came from the increasingly poor returns I found in exploring the byroads of earlier music. And once I had started I found myself having experiences that were really quite different to those I had got from music before 1945 ... but equally rewarding.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

JAS said:


> I suspect, but cannot prove, that this is precisely part of why the great break with tradition began. *If you cannot compete, change the rules.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> Your implication is wrong JAS. The change was evolutionary. The men who instigated it where as musically gifted as their predecessors. This on the face of it seems like another example of what Mandryka called out in post 216 and me subsequently in post 218 and is not helpful imv as it tends to polarise music lovers...sorry JAS.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Eclectic Al said:


> I stayed in a historic monument last weekend, called Beckford's Tower near Bath in England. This is one of a collection of historic buildings which are maintained by a charity and let out for short breaks.
> 
> Anyway, William Beckford was a very wealthy man (and indeed plantation-owner, so at some point there may be a campaign to pull down his tower). In the book provided at the property it said that at age 5 he had music lessons from Mozart - who it said was 9 at the time. Poor old Mozart, giving lessons at 9 to the children of the wealthy.
> 
> Anyway, from what you're saying his main income was from recitals, but a key element of those was that he performed his own works (- hence the piano concertos), so I guess that creates the demand for him to produce new work which is accessible to amateur audiences.


looking online, that tower is nice digs


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> Your implication is wrong JAS. The change was evolutionary. The men who instigated it where as musically gifted as their predecessors.


My experience with what they produced says otherwise, which is to say whatever musical gifts they might have possessed, it does not show in their actual output as does that of other composers, but to each his own.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

JAS said:


> My experience with what they produced says otherwise, which is to say whatever musical gifts they might have possessed, it does not show in their actual output as does that of other composers, but to each his own.


...see my edited post above.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> ...see my edited post above.


Seen. I see what they produced, and continue to produce, as polarizing, not responses to it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eclectic Al said:


> Linked to the above, are the trends in classical music driven largely by what's happened in popular music (meant generally, and not at all pejoratively)?
> 
> Is the situation partly explained by the huge growth in popular music, so that many middle-aged people who might in previous times have been a natural audience for classical music (including new classical music) have their musical demand satisfied by popular music? That could cause the demand for new classical music to be low and largely driven by those with a specialist interest in it - thereby leading it to serve that group, who in turn may have avant-garde preferences.
> 
> ...


Another advantage of being able to put music out there digitally is that this also allows the listener to take time and repeated playings to get to know a piece that on first hearing they found incomprehensible or ugly. Certainly there is a lot of music that I love but would never have persevered with if all I had was the occasional live performance. Similarly, I have learned that much of the more approachable contemporary music - music that I might have responded to in concert - becomes uninspired and tedious when played repeatedly. So, I guess I am saying is that the technology can open up the contemporary for those who might otherwise not get it.

I think you may also have left out the importance of social changes in you analysis. Some opera reached fairly wide audiences quite early on but much classical music was listened to and enjoyed only by an elite and musically educated class. These days it is for all of us - anyone who wants it.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

JAS..well ok then I wont try and argue the point. I just wish that even a grudging recognition that although one may dislike the music of a composer, there is an acknowledgement of the skill and intent at the very least, in their work. 
Rather than disparaging and insulting remarks that reflect not only on their ability, remarks which are unfounded, and remarks which, by association or implication, question their artistic character and integrity, why not just say you don't like it and leave it at that....oh...I seem to have argued the point a bit. You can have the last word JAS.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> JAS..well ok then I wont try and argue the point. I just wish that even a grudging recognition that although one may dislike the music of a composer, there is an acknowledgement of the skill and intent at the very least, in their work.
> Rather than disparaging and insulting remarks that reflect not only on their ability which are unfounded, and by association or implication, their artistic character too, why not just say you don't like it and leave it at that....oh...I seem to have argued the point a bit. You can have the last word JAS.


I cannot actually acknowledge what I genuinely do not think is the case. There are many things that do not appeal to me where I can see the skill, precision and planning, but not in much of this modern music. Assuming that an artist has the means to survive and produce, he or she can do as they please, but they have no right to dictate how it is received.

Part of my problem with modern music is that the usual implication seems to be the idea that the failure is on the part of the listener who does not respond favorably to it. (A similar argument is made for other more modern forms of art in general.) From time to time, I actively push back on such notions. (I think I was also entirely fair in making my statement as an impression, and not as a fact. I realize that as a composer, you may feel otherwise. It is hard to imagine such a strong negative reaction to my post since nothing I could possibly say would have the slightest impact on how the actual music is received, well or badly. If it is just a matter of taking the opportunity to attack a critic, an amateur one, that is fine by me as it is merely the cost of participating on an open forum. Your view may well be that it is fine if I don't like modern music, as long as I don't come out and say so. If I don't like something, I should be silent about it.) I have little expectation that this is really a last word on the subject, but this is my last say on the matter for the moment.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Greatest = whatever.
> I'll just pick two personal favorites: Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy and Sibelius Symphony No. 7
> While they tap into vastly different musical worlds, I think these pieces have something in common. Both pieces are very rich and detailed, yet concise symphonic works of about an ideal length (to me). In both pieces the composers took their art to a higher level and expressed a truly unique voice. Last but not least, both works have an absolutely transcendent ending that adds to their lasting power. I could listen to them a few times a week and never get bored.


Seems like I'm not the only one who likes these two works so much. Funny!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

DeepR said:


> Seems like I'm not the only one who likes these two works so much. Funny!


'...incredible sound world...incredibel indivual voice....' Micheal Stern.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mozart might not have made much money out of composing in his lifetime but he would have sure been a multi-millionaire if royalties had been paid on his works since! .


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

DavidA said:


> So now it's okay for you to say that you don't like composers like Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, but not OK for others to say they do not like the modern stuff?


I don't think I ever said it is not OK for others to say they don't like modern stuff. If I ever did, it was a mistake, or misunderstanding. Of course, it is fine with me for anyone to like anything they want.

But it's you anti-modernists that always seem to make your opinions and feelings known, with as much derision as you can muster, on threads about modern, atonal, serial, etc, music. I have never posted on a thread about Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc, stating how boring and predictable they are. And even if I ever did, I would post as my opinion, not as an objective fact, as so many of you do with regard to modern classical.

My problems with the anti-modernists on TC, is not that you don't like modern classical. I couldn't care less about that.

It's that:

1. they tend to state their opinion as if it is objective fact.
2. they tend to chime in threads concerning 20th century and modern music with snarky comments, uninformative comments, cliche comments ("modern music, 4:33, seriously?. Ha, ha!") .
3. act as if they wish modern classical music didn't even exist.

*Anytime* (and I do mean anytime, and every time) someone creates a thread asking for modern recommendations, or list of best/favorite post 1950 pieces, or favorite 12 tone pieces, or favorite 20th century composers, etc, it usually does not take more than a page or two for an anti-modernist to chime in something completely uninformative and sarcastic.

One example I can think of off the top of my head, was a thread where someone asked for a list of recommended 12 tone pieces, and almost immediately, anti-modernists chimed in with comments like, "The shortest one". Here we had someone starting a thread with a sincere request for recommendations, and you guys could not just leave the thread alone. And of course, this possibly informative thread was completely derailed for many pages.

Please try to find a single post on a Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Mahler, etc thread, by any lover of modern music, stating how boring, predictable, obvious, and in many cases, cloying, it all sounds to us.

So please, don't try to equate how us lovers of modern music act on TC, with how you guys act.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> I
> 
> Please try to find a single post on a Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Mahler, etc thread, by any lover of modern music, stating how boring, predictable, obvious, and in many cases, cloying, it all sounds to us.
> .


We'll actually . . .



Mandryka said:


> What I've noticed happens to me is that if I listen to a lot of recent music and then play some old fashioned music, it sounds tame in so many ways - timbres, harmonies, rhythms etc. After a while I can normally get back in the swing of it, but increasingly less so (I'm listening to some Royer now and I'm thinking - nice but what's the point?!)


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> We'll actually . . .
> 
> "What I've noticed happens to me is that if I listen to a lot of recent music and then play some old fashioned music, it sounds tame in so many ways - timbres, harmonies, rhythms etc. After a while I can normally get back in the swing of it, but increasingly less so (I'm listening to some Royer now and I'm thinking - nice but what's the point?!)"


What thread did you post this on?

Was it a thread about "old fashioned" music?

And even if it was, I don't see the kind of derision that the anti-modernists use.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> *Anytime* (and I do mean anytime, and every time) someone creates a thread asking for modern recommendations, or list of best/favorite post 1950 pieces, or favorite 12 tone pieces, or favorite 20th century composers, etc, it usually does not take more than a page or two for an anti-modernist to chime in something completely uninformative and sarcastic.


FWIW, I ran a game of atonal works about a year ago without any negative comments from traditionalists.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

I certainly haven't said anything specifically negative about modernist music. It's not really a term I would use, to be honest.

However, this thread is about music of the 20th century, not modernist or non-modernist music.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> We'll actually . . .





Bulldog said:


> FWIW, I ran a game of atonal works about a year ago without any negative comments from traditionalists.


From my experience, that may be the exception.

But maybe it was because it was a game thread, and not a recommendation thread?

Let me change my previous statement then, to the vast majority of threads about modern music, instead of every thread.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> I don't think I ever said it is not OK for others to say they don't like modern stuff. If I ever did, it was a mistake, or misunderstanding. Of course, it is fine with me for anyone to like anything they want.
> 
> But it's you anti-modernists that always seem to make your opinions and feelings known, with as much derision as you can muster, on threads about modern, atonal, serial, etc, music. I have never posted on a thread about Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc, stating how boring and predictable they are. And even if I ever did, I would post as my opinion, not as an objective fact, as so many of you do with regard to modern classical.
> 
> ...


Guys like you do crack me up! You say we post our opinion as if it is objective fact? Why do you do exactly the same then? :lol:
Why do you chime in with your snarky comments about us expressing our opinions? the problem with people like you is you like to be able to express your opinion frankly but don't like it when someone else does the same.
Why do you make unfounded accusations when you know nothing about people? 
There are many threads where people have said they don't like Bach, Mozart, etc.. OK we take it in good part and return in kind. Why? Because this is an open forum and some of us at least are mature enough to realise when people given their opinions on music they are not giving their opinions on us. I couldn't care less whether people don't like Mozart - they can say all manner of things about him as I know it's not directed at me personally.
If you look there are plenty of threads in which people criticise and say they don't like the great masters. I've just read one who says Bach doesn't do it for him. OK no skin off my nose. Why should it be? If I hate modern music, what is it to you? You are no doubt a fine fellow. Just I don't share your taste in music.
When my younger friends pull my leg and call me an 'old square' for liking classical music rather than metal do I fall out with them? Not a bit! Just laugh along with them!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Anyone mentioned this one? Made a splash by upsetting a certain Joe Stalin! I believe he wrote the denunciation in Pravda himself


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> View attachment 141395
> 
> 
> Anyone mentioned this one? Made a splash by upsetting a certain Joe Stalin! I believe he wrote the denunciation in Pravda himself


I saw it in Covent Garden, there aren't many laughs in it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> I saw it in Covent Garden, there aren't many laughs in it.


A bit short on gags I believe! :lol:


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

<3 The greatest work of the 20th century is Nocturnal by Benjamin Britten <3


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Guys like you do crack me up! You say we post our opinion as if it is objective fact? Why do you do exactly the same then? :lol:


I don't believe I do. I try to remember to insert modifiers, like: IMO, "for me [opinion]", etc.



> Why do you chime in with your snarky comments about us expressing our opinions? the problem with people like you is you like to be able to express your opinion frankly but don't like it when someone else does the same.


I am chiming on a thread about your comments on this thread about 20th century music. I am not chiming in on a thread about the best version of Beethoven's 5th, to deride it for boring _me_.

But unlike the anti-modernists, I don't chime in on threads about earlier eras of music with snarky comments about music I do not find appealing.



> Why do you make unfounded accusations when you know nothing about people?
> There are many threads where people have said they don't like Bach, Mozart, etc.. OK we take it in good part and return in kind. Why? Because this is an open forum and some of us at least are mature enough to realise when people given their opinions on music they are not giving their opinions on us. I couldn't care less whether people don't like Mozart - they can say all manner of things about him as I know it's not directed at me personally.
> If you look there are plenty of threads in which people criticise and say they don't like the great masters. I've just read one who says Bach doesn't do it for him. OK no skin off my nose. Why should it be? If I hate modern music, what is it to you? You are no doubt a fine fellow. Just I don't share your taste in music.
> When my younger friends pull my leg and call me an 'old square' for liking classical music rather than metal do I fall out with them? Not a bit! Just laugh along with them!


But I am almost certain, that the person that said "Bach doesn't do it for them", probably likes other composers from the same era. The anti-modernists on TC deride an entire era (post 1950, or so) with snark.

Once again, very few modern classical fans chime in on threads about Beethoven to post snarky comments.

And again, I have no problem that people do not like modern music, it's the posting on threads specifically concerning modern music, with anti-modern comments where the problem lies.

OK, I am done with this thread about this subject.

I am sure I won't have to wait too long for another thread about recommendations of, 20th century, modern and contemporary classical music and/or composers to show up, for an anti-modernist to post
how much they dislike the music that is the subject of the thread.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Damn you guys talk alot! It’s Nocturnal by Britten.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

No it’s the Rachmaninoff 2nd and 3rd piano concertos. (Just made the cut.)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> Please try to find a single post on a Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Mahler, etc thread, by any lover of modern music, stating how boring, predictable, obvious, and in many cases, cloying, it all sounds to us.


Mozart vs. Modernism


neoshredder said:


> we know Modern Composers are way more enjoyable than Mozart.


There was a time "Mozart vs modern music" used to be a hot topic at TC. There was also a thread started by a modern music enthusiast with a malicious intent; "What are bad pieces by Mozart? He must have written them, right?" (I can't remember the exact words), and then the OP later showed his true colors by saying "composers these days create better music than Mozart". LOL


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> I don't believe I do. I try to remember to insert modifiers, like: IMO, "for me [opinion]", etc.
> 
> I am chiming on a thread about your comments on this thread about 20th century music. I am not chiming in on a thread about the best version of Beethoven's 5th, to deride it for boring _me_.
> 
> ...


If you look at the OP it says greatest work of the 20th century? It does not say that this is about avant-garde music post 1950.
People are not chiming in a thread generally about 20th century music they are generally saying they do not like a certain type of avant-garde music which sounds to them horribly discordant and it's completely out of touch with what most music listeners like.
As I believe I said, years ago the conductor HansVonk said in a seminar that modern composers were never more out of touch with their audiences.
If a thread is about the greatest work of the 20th century then if someone posts at work which appears to someone else to be a lot of discordant noise, then there is someone else has a right to chime in and say what they think about the piece. And I would've thought that it is taken for granted on TC that everyone who post is giving their opinion. I don't think you have to be an intellectual giant to work that out. So to accuse people of stating their opinion objectively isa false accusation. 
So when I say a piece of music sounds to me as though people are pushing a piano down the stairs, that is a subjective statement. That is what it sounds like to me. And what he's obviously sounds like a whole load of other people. Now if it sounds good to you, then fine! Maybe it's some kind of failing in me that I don't appreciate the beauty of discord. But to me I've got enough music to listen to without trying to appreciate the beauty of discord
I don't know whether you know the affect this sort of stuff has on people who are searching for classical music. I remember some years ago a guy I knew took a young man he employed to a Prom concert in London where they were working at the time to introduce him to classical music. It was an absolute last minute job but unfortunately the concert was all avant-garde music. The fact that half the audience walked out by the end and the totally discordant sounds coming from the front made the young man say that if this was classical music you could keep it! I'm not giving my opinion here because this was something that actually happened
As I say this is about comparing works of the 20th century which run from Ravel and Rachmaninov to the avant-garde. You are welcome to give your opinion and I will give mine and I'm not going to be offended at your opinion as I am mature and realise that your opinion doesn't affect me in the slightest


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart vs. Modernism
> There was a time "Mozart vs modern music" used to be a hot topic at TC. There was also a thread started by a modern music enthusiast with a malicious intent; "What are bad pieces by Mozart? He must have written them, right?" (I can't remember the exact words), and then the OP later showed his true colors by saying "composers these days create better music than Mozart". LOL


And what offence is taken? None whatever! Because we know that any guy who cannot appreciate Mozart is more to be pitited than blamed! :lol:


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Manxfeeder said:


> I don't think there can be a "greatest" work of the 20th Century. That century went too many different directions. But this is topic interesting anyway.


I agree with you. Symphony? String Quartet? Opera? Solo/duo? Tone poem?, etc...

So many masterpieces were created in the past century.


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

At least most of the music in the film is by Goldsmith. Alex North wrote a full score for 2001 only for the entire temp track of Strauss , Ligeti etc to be used instead.

Is it something about sci-fi films?


----------



## Doctor Fuse (Feb 3, 2021)

Le Sacre du Printemps is notable for both ending the old world (along with WWI), and ushering in our New WOrld Order (as did WWI).

The greatest piece of this New WOrld Order of the 20th century, would probably have to be Cage's 4'33". You can't throw a brick at a university composition class without hitting a post modernist composer, nowadays.


----------

