# Ceaseless appeals to innovation in the classical music discussions (are annoying)



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

It has been my observation, that classical music fans & critics consider music to be just a contest of innovation. Who can out-new and/or out-influence others.

In a way, once a new fashionable revolution is underway, any effort put into older or more established forms is considered reduntant, and the works become inessential. If some composer doesn't run with the newest wave, their works become worthless like a stockpile of old currency.

This way a mindset rather content within a given idiom, no matter how great it works with it or which century is being discussed, becomes unfortunately an implied sign of weakness.

As a result of this, over time, in a sort of evolutionary selection, experimental composers have sprung everywhere like mushrooms after a rainfall, whereas perfectionism has been discouraged or even thrown out (to paraphrase an especially egregious sentiment I've read somewhere: "composing even a great symphony in the style of Beeethoven 200 years after Beethoven doesn't take skill and is anyway _pointless _")

This is just such a ridiculous way to look at a luxurious, borderline frivolous part of culture that is music. Instead of aiming to produce as great sounding works as possible, no matter how "old" a style, instrument set-up or any other element is, it becomes a race to become a Thomas Edison of "interesting" wave patterns. Like maths, only with no value for science, engineering, philosophy, running the society, or even making kids smile.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I understand people loving older music and preferring to listen to Baroque, Classical, or Romantic works. Those periods contain my favorite music and composers. But when I think of piano concertos, for example, there are so many wonderful concertos from Mozart, Beethoven, Hummel, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Saint-Saëns, Grieg, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Rachmaninoff, etc. that I often go years before hearing each one again. I love them, yes, but I'm not sure I want to hear even more in those styles. How many great common practice tonality piano concertos do I really wish to hear? 

After hearing all those piano concertos, I moved on to the modern period where I fell in love with Ravel, Shostakovich, Bartok, Debussy, and others. And more recently, I have loved exploring Lutoslawski, Schoenberg, Furrer, Schnittke, Bodorova, Chin, and others. The contemporary concertos are certainly different, but they provide a change to the older style that's engaging, interesting, exciting, and even at times beautiful. 

I guess I feel I don't need more of the styles I've heard for years. There is an enormous amount of gorgeous Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and early Modern music. I've learned to find much later Modern and Contemporary engaging and satisfying, and I eagerly look forward to exploring those new works hoping to find more that I will adore.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

This same strawman laden argument gets made over and over by people who don’t seem to understand that you can’t write Renaissance polyphony or baroque chamber sonatas today anymore than you can write plays in Elizabethan English. There is also a general lack of Swing tunes in the top 40 today. Styles change


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

There is a vast array of styles by today's contemporary Art music composers. Many are far from a "contest of innovation". Many are quite conservative harmonically. So please drop that false narrative. 

On the other hand, "composing even a great symphony in the style of Beeethoven 200 years after Beethoven doesn't take skill and is anyway pointless" is spot on. I attend New Music Festivals every year and orchestra concerts too. I have yet to hear serious performers and conductors take on new music that sounds just like Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, etc. There's no need to copy the past. Composers need to offer the world their own way of expressing themselves. And they are doing so. Just look around. 

Art is about expressing yourself, not duplicating others.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

The older we get, the more resistant to change we become, whether it's Classical music, or pop or rock, or fine art, or dance.

I don't usually get much of a thrill from Classical music that embraces innovation at the sacrifice of enjoyment/listenability.

But I'll listen to old stuff that ruffled feathers when it premiered (Classical) or was released (rock 'n' roll). See?


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

Fabulin said:


> (to paraphrase an especially egregious sentiment I've read somewhere: "composing even a great symphony in the style of Beeethoven 200 years after Beethoven doesn't take skill and is anyway _pointless _")
> 
> This is just such a ridiculous way to look at a luxurious, borderline frivolous part of culture that is music. Instead of aiming to produce as great sounding works as possible, no matter how "old" a style, instrument set-up or any other element is, it becomes a race to become a Thomas Edison of "interesting" wave patterns. Like maths, only with no value for science, engineering, philosophy, running the society, or even making kids smile.


Well, I have to agree with that quote about writing in the style of Beethoven, and disagree with you that music is a "...luxurious, borderline frivolous part of culture..."

There is good reason no one composes in the style of Beethoven, or writes in the style of James Joyce, or paints in the style of Leonardo Da Vinci. Cultures evolve and that includes music, literature, art, and all those other frivolous things. For someone to step outside of the cultural influences they were born into and produce art that fits in a time centuries past would be remarkable, and curious and, yes, pointless.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Bwv 1080 said:


> *(1)*This same strawman laden argument gets made over and over by people who don't seem to understand that you can't write Renaissance polyphony or baroque chamber sonatas today anymore than you can write plays in Elizabethan English. *(**2**)*There is also a general lack of Swing tunes in the top 40 today. Styles change


1) Music doesn't rely on semantic understanding the way language does. Who makes strawman arguments here?

2) Big Bands were killed by the end of prohibition, which made smaller drinking & partying establishments more viable again, then wartime economy, which conscripted most of the great performers, and finally by longer recordings made accessible by developing technology, which ended up destroying the discipline such music once had, and inviting more long-winded, abstract, and self-important jazz. The change was caused by economy and auxillary technologies, not tastes.

Modern pop music being in a decades-long variety & quality decline has had scientific papers written on it. It's not about changing tastes anymore than the mass death on the battlefields of the 20th century was about a "change in spirit" of soldiers. There are some very, very powerful manipulating factors at play in the modern civilization. Top 40, Oscars, etc. cannot be viewed as representing much more than spin and marketing investments being made. Again, economy and technology, only of different varietes.

Where there is no money-pumping from the biggest corporations, genres like Electro-Swing are doing just fine, and end up as useful party music. I've witnessed it with surprise quite a few times on parties hosted by people I would never associate with digging fossils.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Vasks said:


> There is a vast array of styles by today's contemporary Art music composers. Many are far from a "contest of innovation". Many are quite conservative harmonically. So please drop that false narrative.
> 
> On the other hand, "composing even a great symphony in the style of Beeethoven 200 years after Beethoven doesn't take skill and is anyway pointless" is spot on. I attend New Music Festivals every year and orchestra concerts too. I have yet to hear serious performers and conductors take on new music that sounds just like Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, etc. There's no need to copy the past. Composers need to offer the world their own way of expressing themselves. And they are doing so. Just look around.
> 
> Art is about expressing yourself, not duplicating others.


Your post is a wonderful piece of proof for the validity of this "narrative". Not only do you immediately exclude expression by means "taken" by someone else, but after saying that there is a large variety of music composed, you admit that there is a selection process going on that excludes works that sound like those of the past, even if quality itself is not a factor.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I like old music. I especially like classical and romantic period music from, say, 1780-1900. It appeals to me aesthetically. It makes me feel better than before I put it on.

But on the other hand, I'm not worried about running out of it any time soon. So I'm fine with the atonal, seemingly random stuff being produced by modern "innovators."

To each their own. Viva la difference!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Innovation and influence are among the virtues that a work of art can have. Of course they're not the only ones... but they are among them.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I say live and let live. But personally to me, the father of contemporary classical music is Ligeti. I feel the ones that came after are somewhat imitators, even if they took things further technically, and the music became less fresh and relevant to me. This is all I need to hear from a more contemporary string quartet, especially from 11:00 to 13:00.






Check out this video on ranking contemporary violin techniques.






But if you must:






An interesting article:

https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentar...oes-contemporary-classical-music-spurn-melody


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Fabulin said:


> 1) Music doesn't rely on semantic understanding the way language does.


Hmmmm..... "Semantic" may not be the issue....

Actually, the similarities between our intuitive, unconscious understanding of musical conventions (not the kind of "music theory" that you study in music theory courses but the stuff that it tries to represent) and our intuitive, unconscious understanding of grammar (not the kind of grammar that you study in language class but the stuff that it supposedly tries to represent) are so strong that they might be built on more or less the same neurological structures.

For example, you cannot hear _Rite of Spring_ the way its original audience did. You just can't. All the rock and roll, hip hop, blues, jazz, and subsequent classical music that you've heard has conditioned your brain very differently than the audience who'd heard none (or very, very little) of that. Our sense of what sounds "right" and "wrong" in music differs completely from what they would've thought. (Of course we also disagree with each other sometimes, and they disagreed with each other sometimes, but the sum of my musical experiences and the sum of yours are much closer to each other than the sum of the experiences that anyone in 1913 could've had.)

The same thing is going on with language. We can't feel the language of _O Pioneers!_ in quite the same way that its original readers would have because our brains - all the semantic connections, the neurology encoding all the grammatical intuitions - have been formed by almost completely different experiences of language.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

science said:


> Innovation and influence are among the virtues that a work of art can have. Of course they're not the only ones... but they are among them.


That's true, but the way these factors get not infrequently weighted against composers who didn't go with Beethoven by the time of the maturity of his works, or later with Wagner & Liszt, or with Debussy, with Schoenberg, with early Stravinsky, aforementioned Ligeti even...

The way it can be seen in assessments in various generations of composers led me to the OP. So who gets hit? Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Saint-Saens... even Mozart (all too frequently considered the low one in the top 3, or even _out of it_), not to mention many composers of more modest resumees, who are basically invisible because of not belonging to the newest group in town. I wonder what is the role of the way "history of music" is being taught... next innovator, next status quo, next chapter...

And don't read me wrong, to me modern situation is just an advanced consequence of this whole cult of theoretical innovations. I am just as interested in the standing of more distant historical figures among each other.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

science said:


> Hmmmm..... "Semantic" may not be the issue....
> 
> Actually, the similarities between our intuitive, unconscious understanding of musical conventions (not the kind of "music theory" that you study in music theory courses but the stuff that it tries to represent) and our intuitive, unconscious understanding of grammar (not the kind of grammar that you study in language class but the stuff that it supposedly tries to represent) are so strong that they might be built on more or less the same neurological structures.
> 
> ...


Old books get read if they 1) have something to offer 2) can be understood.

Considering how much sciences, including psychology, and general discussion within films, books, etc, have developed, quite a lot of casual daily literary philosophizing from bygone times is very outdated, even before we account for differences in lifestyles that also could serve as a hook for some learning. This is what causes old books to be "boring" to readers.

Innovations in language make virtually zero difference in what actually gets read. The only thing that matters is whether it can be understood.

Besides, reading books is mostly because of their content (stories as a way of passing observations and skills), which is not very compatible with what people tend to "do" with music, unless we are talking their local rap/rock music.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> 1) Music doesn't rely on semantic understanding the way language does. Who makes strawman arguments here?
> 
> 2) Big Bands were killed by the end of prohibition, which made smaller drinking & partying establishments more viable again, then wartime economy, which conscripted most of the great performers, and finally by longer recordings made accessible by developing technology, which ended up destroying the discipline such music once had, and inviting more long-winded, abstract, and self-important jazz. The change was caused by economy and auxillary technologies, not tastes.
> 
> ...


Unless you are solely a fan of Gregorian chant and folk music, this idea of experimentation and innovation that you deride is reponsible for whatever music you are fixated on as the standard against which everything that came after falls short.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> It has been my observation, that classical music fans & critics consider music to be just a contest of innovation. Who can out-new and/or out-influence others.
> 
> In a way, once a new fashionable revolution is underway, any effort put into older or more established forms is considered reduntant, and the works become inessential. If some composer doesn't run with the newest wave, their works become worthless like a stockpile of old currency.
> 
> ...


There certainly was a negationist trend after the second world war, Lachenmann and Stockhausen and to a much lesser extent Boulez were all influenced by it. The thought was that just as the old cities of Europe had been razed to the ground, providing the opportunity for architects and planners to let loose their creativity, so it could be with music.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Vasks said:


> There is a vast array of styles by today's contemporary Art music composers. Many are far from a "contest of innovation". Many are quite conservative harmonically. So please drop that false narrative.
> 
> On the other hand, "composing even a great symphony in the style of Beeethoven 200 years after Beethoven doesn't take skill and is anyway pointless" is spot on. I attend New Music Festivals every year and orchestra concerts too. I have yet to hear serious performers and conductors take on new music that sounds just like Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, etc. There's no need to copy the past. Composers need to offer the world their own way of expressing themselves. And they are doing so. Just look around.
> 
> Art is about expressing yourself, not duplicating others.


Please point me towards the piles of composers able to compose great symphonies in the style of Beethoven today. I also believe that if art has no higher ideal than expressing yourself it ends up being bad art. If you just want to express how you feel go talk to a psychologist don't write a symphony, a poem, or a novel.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2020)

An artist by definition wants to create, not to mimic. A composer may want to capture the aesthetic of Beethoven, but can’t pretend he or she hasn’t heard 200 years worth of music that Beethoven didn’t hear. That’s why we have neoclassical or neobaroque composers who breath new life into the norms of an earlier time.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

BachIsBest said:


> Please point me towards the piles of composers able to compose great symphonies in the style of Beethoven today. I also believe that if art has no higher ideal than expressing yourself it ends up being bad art. If you just want to express how you feel go talk to a psychologist don't write a symphony, a poem, or a novel.


During formative years, composers may have to learn CP and some stylistic traits. Upon graduation they will be expected to be able to work out exercises in pastiche to a reasonably competent level. Some will absorb the theory well and be able to write fluently in CP. You might be surprised at how many students (not just composition students btw), graduate each year who will have been expected to learn this stuff to a decent level.

Given the infinite possibilities in sound and music today, I can actually sympathise with the quote's meaning as one who has gone through a musical education, but would have to leave out the adjective 'great' - that really requires Beethoven and not just the target of a benchmark pass in an exam. I'd also say for similar reasoning, that it is pointless to try and outdo Beethoven or any other master. Writing in a style can be easier as many creative decisions are already apparent, it is much harder to work from a blank ms so to speak.
Someone once write a poem called 'Step to the Music You Hear' and if I'm reading the sentiment right in that title, surely that's what we need more of to prevent stagnation and regression in the art.


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

[citation needed]
Who are the people making the "ceaseless appeals to innovation"? I like "experimental music" because it sounds good.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Regardless of style, a piece of music either "works" or it doesn't; it's either "good" or somewhat less than.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

The modernists did this because they didn't have the competence to produce good music, or at least the majority of them didn't, so they began discrediting any music that didn't follow their lack of structure. If you look at the best (and most recent) of them, Takemitsu, his best works are when he draws the most from Debussy and puts his inner modernist to rest.

All pieces that are actually commercially viable or in any way accessible take quite a bit from the past, and they expand on a feature or add their own complexities and taste. You can be as creative as you want but taste always comes first, and the masters of the past will always have a lot you can learn from.


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

1996D said:


> The modernists did this because they didn't have the competence to produce good music, or at least the majority of them didn't, so they began discrediting any music that didn't follow their lack of structure. If you look at the best (and most recent) of them, Takemitsu, his best works are when he draws the most from Debussy and puts his inner modernist to rest.
> 
> All pieces that are actually commercially viable or in any way accessible take quite a bit from the past, and they expand on a feature or add their own complexities and taste. You can be as creative as you want but taste always comes first, and the masters of the past will always have a lot you can learn from.


In your opinion. In my opinion you're wrong


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2020)

1996D said:


> The modernists did this because they didn't have the competence to produce good music, or at least the majority of them didn't, so they began discrediting any music that didn't follow their lack of structure. If you look at the best (and most recent) of them, Takemitsu, his best works are when he draws the most from Debussy and puts his inner modernist to rest.
> 
> All pieces that are actually commercially viable or in any way accessible take quite a bit from the past, and they expand on a feature or add their own complexities and taste. You can be as creative as you want but taste always comes first, and the masters of the past will always have a lot you can learn from.


A dubious claim, Schoenberg and Webern both wrote works using common practice harmony that are generally considered masterpieces, before embracing new techniques. The same for Messiaen and Ligeti.

Looking at the 20th century, I see a lot of composers who found something new in common practice harmony, and a lot that strived for something completely different. The variety is wonderful.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

1996D said:


> The modernists did this because they didn't have the competence to produce good music, or at least the majority of them didn't, so they began discrediting any music that didn't follow their lack of structure


You forgot to mention the part about the modernists taking over the music schools and ruthlessly oppressing anyone who wanted to write in a traditional style.



> If you look at the best (and most recent) of them, Takemitsu, his best works are when he draws the most from Debussy and puts his inner modernist to rest.


Then why listen to Takemitsu at all? Just listen to more Debussy



> All pieces that are actually commercially viable or in any way accessible take quite a bit from the past, and they expand on a feature or add their own complexities and taste. You can be as creative as you want but taste always comes first, and the masters of the past will always have a lot you can learn from.


Correct, you can learn a lot from past masters like Schoenberg, Stravinsky or Carter


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

soni said:


> In your opinion. In my opinion you're wrong


That's okay, I've also written experimental music, it's a good way to grow because you see what works that you can then add to a serious piece. It probably won't have much of an audience though so I'll probably never release it or just destroy it.

You may like experimental music but the rest don't.


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

1996D said:


> That's okay, I've also written experimental music, it's a good way to grow because you see what works that you can then add to a serious piece. It probably won't have much of an audience though so I'll probably never release it or just destroy it.
> 
> You may like experimental music but the rest don't.


This is fair enough. As long as you're not claiming it's not music, I think we can both appreciate each others' viewpoints


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2020)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Then why listen to Takemitsu at all? Just listen to more Debussy


Well, obviously Debussy was negligent in not writing more music than he did.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Bwv 1080 said:


> You forgot to mention the part about the modernists taking over the music schools and ruthlessly oppressing anyone who wanted to write in a traditional style.


Indeed.



> Then why listen to Takemitsu at all? Just listen to more Debussy


Takemitsu has some originality and something to learn from as well, and the fact that he was not an academic makes me happy. I really despise modern academia.



> Correct, you can learn a lot from past masters like Schoenberg, Stravinsky or Carter


All of them have something you can take, or not take, but just knowing that that's what happens when you go there, to that emotion and frame of mind. It's very helpful to know what not to do because someone already did it; it saves precious time.


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

Well music has already changed so much. There must now be almost as much or as much modern music as there is "older" music out there, no? New instruments need to be invented as well. With new instruments comes a whole set of new tones. We're restricted by C-C! There are a lot of frequencies and vibrations that the human ear can hear and a lot of new sounds waiting to be discovered.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Bwv 1080 said:


> This same strawman laden argument gets made over and over by people who don't seem to understand that you can't write Renaissance polyphony or baroque chamber sonatas today anymore than you can write plays in Elizabethan English.


Yes but you can write with what ever constraints you want, and if you want to write in the constraints of a Mozart or Hayden, or mostly within their constraints, you can, and it can be wonderful. I am thinking of Prokofiev's Classical Symphony, which is a really wonderful piece regardless of its being in homage to any style or composer.

A composer can look at the past as providing a bunch of interesting options, or ideas that can't find full fruit without some modern constructs.

It is not true that the past can no longer inspire present art, or that artists must only stand on their immediate predecessors.



pianozach said:


> I don't usually get much of a thrill from Classical music that embraces innovation at the sacrifice of enjoyment/listenability.


Exactly. I think that enjoyment and listenability need not ever go out of style.


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

And why was Beethoven great? He BUILT on tradition. Chopin, Wagner BUILT on tradition. Schoenberg built on tradition. Music has been kind of the same for hundreds of years, and only in the last century is it sounding drastically different. And working from a blank ms is easy. I can jumble sounds together, and who are you to say it's not music? What IS music? What is music meant to do? Who decides that? Why do we love the old masters?


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

Swosh said:


> And why was Beethoven great? He BUILT on tradition. Chopin, Wagner BUILT on tradition. Schoenberg built on tradition. Music has been kind of the same for hundreds of years, and only in the last century is it sounding drastically different. And working from a blank ms is easy. I can jumble sounds together, and who are you to say it's not music? What IS music? What is music meant to do? Who decides that? Why do we love the old masters?


Modern composers built on the tradition of Webern and Varese.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Swosh said:


> And why was Beethoven great? He BUILT on tradition. Chopin, Wagner BUILT on tradition. Schoenberg built on tradition. Music has been kind of the same for hundreds of years, and only in the last century is it sounding drastically different. And working from a blank ms is easy. I can jumble sounds together, and who are you to say it's not music? What IS music? What is music meant to do? Who decides that? Why do we love the old masters?


Which 20th century composers lack a tradition from which they drew inspiration from? This is new to me.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Swosh said:


> And why was Beethoven great? He BUILT on tradition. Chopin, Wagner BUILT on tradition. Schoenberg built on tradition. Music has been kind of the same for hundreds of years, and only in the last century is it sounding drastically different. *And working from a blank ms is easy. I can jumble sounds together, and who are you to say it's not music? *What IS music? What is music meant to do? Who decides that? Why do we love the old masters?


Sad to say that this is majorly responsible for the downfall of modernity with the majority of listeners imv. It's true that free, untamed dissonance can be played by anybody and indeed who is to say it is _not_ a personal expression.
Surely what can mitigate against incomprehensibility in communications with atonality and beyond has to be the rigour behind the freedom, otherwise there is no human (composer that is), emotional response to the material used, no sense of travel and no imposition of order for clarity.

Give the listener a sense of control being exerted in this bewildering language and there is more chance of reaching them because they may then sense the composer. It may also allay fears over the worth of the music for some if they can at least hear or feel musical process, no matter how buried.

Schoenberg new this of course, which was partly why he reverted form-wise for a while, but would he have foreseen the cynical side of what is unlimited choice I wonder.

"What distinguishes dissonances from consonances is not a greater or lesser degree of beauty, but a greater or lesser degree of comprehensibility"....Schoenberg.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> You may like experimental music but the rest don't.


This line of "argumentation ad populem" is one of the most ironic ones I see people use on this forum to bash modern classical.

Who is it that you refer to as "the rest"? You can use that line about anything, absolutely anything. You may like Country, but the rest don't. You may like David Lynch films but "the rest" don't. You might like the color red, but "the rest" don't.

The irony is you are making this on a classical music forum. Last I checked out there in the real world, "the rest" of people don't really care for classical music at all.

This sort of language you use, where you separate people who like modernist music into some "other" group of people, like we're some weird subhuman species, is really insulting actually.

In the real world, my taste in classical music in general already makes me feel isolated enough, so I come here to feel like I have a space where I'm welcome to share my interests and viewpoint with others.

I have expressed my dislike for certain composers, or certain genres on a personal level, but I will NEVER EVER use language that makes the people who like those composers or genres feel like they don't belong or are some sort of abnormal underclass of people...I wish I could expect the same respect from others, but I know that's asking a lot.


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

I tried to mean everyone builds off the old traditions shoulders.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Swosh said:


> I tried to mean everyone builds off the old traditions shoulders.


The context of your post made it sound like you thought composers no longer build off old traditions and I was disagreeing with that sentiment. Sorry if I misunderstood your intention.


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

Indeed, music can be compared to spoken language, even if music is meant to go beyond words. One can invent forms of speech unknown to anyone, but it can be translated if we live in the same universe. Is music similar? If someone constantly changes meanings of their invented language, no translation can ever be achieved. Schoenberg's language was 12 tone, and it was built off earlier languages and could therefore be "translated" and "understood" because it had structure. Not sure if this makes any sense... I think music can go TOO far sometimes.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Swosh said:


> Indeed, music can be compared to spoken language, even if music is meant to go beyond words. One can invent forms of speech unknown to anyone, but it can be translated if we live in the same universe. Is music similar? If someone constantly changes meanings of their invented language, no translation can ever be achieved. Schoenberg's language was 12 tone, and it was built off earlier languages and could therefore be "translated" and "understood" because it had structure. Not sure if this makes any sense... I think music can go TOO far sometimes.


Well, this is sort of where the comparison to language breaks down. When we speak words, we speak with the intention that each word can be translated as having a direct meaning, referring to either tangible objects or definite ideas that anyone can understand. This isn't quite the same as music, what matters in music is if it carries expressive meaning, which isn't the same as the kind of meaning we expect language to carry.

To use an analogy, it's like this: If my dog poops on the floor, and I look at my dog, point at the poop and yell "dkaloka flakbluka tirgaliba!" None of my words have any commonly understood meaning, none of them can be translated directly into an object or idea that we all can understand BUT the tone with which I say those words, and my body language, can carry expressive meaning and from there you can translate it in a general, as opposed to a specific, way, if that makes sense.

It's the same for music, if I listen to a piece like this: 




I don't need to comprehend or make sense of every sentence or word, the same way I would for language, in order to translate from it a more general expressive meaning, which is going to be a little bit different for everybody but for me contains expressions of unrest building to cathartic moments of energetic release. Music doesn't need to, although it can, carry with it any more meaning than that in order to be valuable imo.

But also, another point I can make is this. It doesn't matter if a piece of music is based on tradition or to what degree it's supposedly based in tradition because when you listen to it, you are listening to it with reference to your own personal sense of tradition anyway and that is the basis on which we all "translate" any piece of music, ultimately.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I'd also add that music actually has _inherent_ expressive meaning regardless of the tonal/atonal language and this will in part account for the wide diversity of reaction to any given piece. It feels as though it should be saying something specific given its linearity in time and syntactic like processes but it really only refers to itself. For instrumental (absolute) music individual aesthetics and compositional context will be the main determinants of the efficacy of expression but not its meaning.

Adding external lyrical or literal context - one possible raison d'etre for a work - will guide the listener (and composer) of course, but as we all know, it is still not a guarantee of general acceptance. Music per se, regardless of having proven its worth with literary aims and ideals, actually does not need external influence to be effective and expressive as is evidenced by the canon.

Back to part of Fabulin's premise, I like to think that the need for innovation is essential and even inevitable given the uniqueness of every one of us. It is a healthy time to be a composer with so much acceptable choice available to be explored.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> The way it can be seen in assessments in various generations of composers led me to the OP. So who gets hit? Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Saint-Saens... even Mozart (all too frequently considered the low one in the top 3, or even _out of it_),


Good point. If you look closely, Mozart and Mendelssohn are also phenomenally interesting as "innovators", not just as "conservatives". The creeping dissonances at 3:55 and 6:00 are striking, and the B major ending - a bizzare way to end tragedy - like the C major ending of Maurerische Trauermusik.


















"There is something Tristanesque avant la lettre about the opening vertical sonority of the Adagio; and in fact, three of its four notes (E-sharp, B, G-sharp) are enharmonically identical to the so-called Tristan chord, even in their register. As in Tristan und Isolde, the dissonance of this initial descends here rather than rising, as in Wagner's opera. The composer of Tristan greatly admired Mozart, particularly his works in the minor, and regarded him as "der große Chromatiker"- a quality that undoubtedly inspired Wagner."
( https://books.google.ca/books?id=LM9qHc9c4C4C&pg=PR35 )










I think the chromaticism starting at 15:00 anticipates Wagner.










Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550
"The first movement begins darkly, not with its first theme but with the accompaniment, played by the lower strings with divided violas. The technique of beginning a work with an accompaniment figure was later used by Mozart in his last piano concerto (KV. 595) and later became a favorite of the Romantics (examples include the openings of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto and Sergei Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto)."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

violadude said:


> Which 20th century composers lack a tradition from which they drew inspiration from? This is new to me.


Cage is the obvious thought, with his completely random music like the etudes - at least I think completely random is the right way to describe it. And Cornelius Cardew, with his « democratic » graphic scores like The Great Learning. Indeed some of the Fluxus experiments too, like Lamonte Young's 1960 No. 7.


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

violadude said:


> Well, this is sort of where the comparison to language breaks down. When we speak words, we speak with the intention that each word can be translated as having a direct meaning, referring to either tangible objects or definite ideas that anyone can understand. This isn't quite the same as music, what matters in music is if it carries expressive meaning, which isn't the same as the kind of meaning we expect language to carry.
> 
> To use an analogy, it's like this: If my dog poops on the floor, and I look at my dog, point at the poop and yell "dkaloka flakbluka tirgaliba!" None of my words have any commonly understood meaning, none of them can be translated directly into an object or idea that we all can understand BUT the tone with which I say those words, and my body language, can carry expressive meaning and from there you can translate it in a general, as opposed to a specific, way, if that makes sense.
> 
> ...


You are so right. These conversations are always fascinating and satisfying to me, even if some people are tired of it. (I do think music is a form of language, though.) Sounds generate emotion just as language does, we assign them meaning. Without meaning and understanding, we would not be human. People playing an instrument can play angrily, softly, etc, and because we're the same species, we feel what they feel, and what the composer wanted to say. This is ONLY because from birth we experience music in these systems. Long from now, when music has changed even more, will they feel the same things we do?

And what is your opinion on major and minor in music? Do you think it's unimportant these days? I think music offering clear emotional intent in terms of happy, sad, angry, etc. is healthy.

It's frustrating to know that in the end this is all subjective!!!


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> I'd also add that music actually has _inherent_ expressive meaning regardless of the tonal/atonal language and this will in part account for the wide diversity of reaction to any given piece. It feels as though it should be saying something specific given its linearity in time and syntactic like processes but it really only refers to itself. For instrumental (absolute) music individual aesthetics and compositional context will be the main determinants of the efficacy of expression but not its meaning.
> 
> Adding external lyrical or literal context - one possible raison d'etre for a work - will guide the listener (and composer) of course, but as we all know, it is still not a guarantee of general acceptance. Music per se, regardless of having proven its worth with literary aims and ideals, actually does not need external influence to be effective and expressive as is evidenced by the canon.
> 
> Back to part of Fabulin's premise, I like to think that the need for innovation is essential and even inevitable given the uniqueness of every one of us. It is a healthy time to be a composer with so much acceptable choice available to be explored.


Are we really all extraordinarily unique? I can't help but think it's the opposite, of course depending on where you live and your culture growing up.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Swosh said:


> And what is your opinion on major and minor in music? Do you think it's unimportant these days? I think music offering clear emotional intent in terms of happy, sad, angry, etc. is healthy.


To me, things like major and minor scales/keys are tools that composers can use however they want. In general, my issue with composers writing music in "old styles" is only an issue if they are clearly just replicating older styles as such. It's fine if they choose to do but I find it uninspiring/uninteresting. If a composer has an original voice (or at least a distinctive/expressively powerful voice, if not totally original) it doesn't matter if they are using major and minor scales or tone rows I will generally find it enjoyable.


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

violadude said:


> To me, things like major and minor scales/keys are tools that composers can use however they want. In general, my issue with composers writing music in "old styles" is only an issue if they are clearly just replicating older styles as such. It's fine if they choose to do but I find it uninspiring/uninteresting. If a composer has an original voice (or at least a distinctive/expressively powerful voice, if not totally original) it doesn't matter if they are using major and minor scales or tone rows I will generally find it enjoyable.


Is it uninteresting if you discover a piece of music written in that time that you didn't know before? That's what I can equate writing in the old style to. Why does it matter if it was simply written in a different year on the calendar?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Swosh said:


> Are we really all extraordinarily unique? I can't help but think it's the opposite, of course depending on where you live and your culture growing up.


Good point. Of course we have much in common when it comes to music perception, our feet will stomp and we'll clap hands. We may even cry or be deeply moved as one. The fact that we do however perceive music differently will undoubtedly be mainly cultural, even educational, especially for the 'specialist', i.e the composer. But putting that aside and assuming a classical/art music concert audience for a moment. One can sensibly reason that there are many similarities in the way all brains (composers and listeners) solve problems and perceive and grasp logical thought. This shared physiology and mentality can aid the lay listener even when listening to "difficult" music if the composer has stayed within certain parameters.

However when it comes to solving the problems inherent when creating something sensible out of nothing onto an manuscript, the unique approach of the good composer will be more in evidence imv, assuming there is no intended pastiche involved. It will reflect a great deal of his provenance and individuality and although influence and similarity is sometimes inevitable, uniqueness can and does manifest itself via choices made on the manuscript I'd say. So, creatively speaking, yes more unique, but depending on ability.

I believe Fabulin does have a point about this uniqueness being sort out seemingly at all costs, especially in cases where all of the elements of music are subjected to extremism, but then again uniqueness _is_ highly prized - its the alienation that is bothersome to the modern composer.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Swosh said:


> Is it uninteresting if you discover a piece of music written in that time that you didn't know before? That's what I can equate writing in the old style to. Why does it matter if it was simply written in a different year on the calendar?


It depends. First of all, when we begin to listen to a piece of music, we bring our expectations with us to the listening experience. This happens even in non-classical music. So many times there have been artists or bands that put out an album that is very different from what they had done before, and the response a lot of the time is "The music isn't bad, but it's not what I go to X band to hear" or something like that. When I listen to Chopin, I expect Chopin. When I listen to a modern era piano composer, I expect something modernish sounding.

So there's that. But more importantly, if someone is imitating an old style, it's likely not just the style they are imitating, but a specific composer or group of composers that represent that style. Going back to the Chopin example, if someone were to write a piano piece in the style of Chopin today, to me it seems that the only thing that piece could ever be is second rate Chopin, because Chopin is already first rate Chopin.

That brings me to my third point, and that's why *would* a composer want to write music that just imitates other composers? The main point about all of this is that Chopin and Swosh live in two completely different time periods with completely different cultural influences, completely different perspectives and completely different ideas about what music is, what sounds are possible etc. So the real question becomes, if Swosh was really expressing him or herself artistically, why would the music end up sounding like Chopin in the first place? Sure Swosh might admire Chopin, but I think any artist who has an innate drive to dig deep and express "themselves" as a culmination of their experience (which again, was very different from Chopin's) through an artistic lens couldn't help but not sound like Chopin if they developed their own voice organically.

Also, as I listener, I would much rather hear first rate Swosh than second rate Chopin.


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

Man, you always have the right answers... Yes, all that matters is who did it first, for art at least. I'm still trying to find a voice, yea. Composers who do something new inherently get more recognition. Even if I feel like I'm expressing myself and get immense satisfaction by writing in older styles, I suppose the general audience won't perceive it that way. (I just love the older music so much. I want to connect with it, breathe it, experience the process, try to think and feel what the masters thought and felt as they wrote their masterpieces.) Though I doubt I ever can...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Swosh said:


> Man, you always have the right answers... Yes, all that matters is who did it first, for art at least. I'm still trying to find a voice, yea. Composers who do something new inherently get more recognition. Even if I feel like I'm expressing myself and get immense satisfaction by writing in older styles, I suppose the general audience won't perceive it that way. (I just love the older music so much. I want to connect with it, breathe it, experience the process, try to think and feel what the masters thought and felt as they wrote their masterpieces.) Though I doubt I ever can...


I don't mean to be speaking for violadude, who might disagree with what I'm saying, but I think that it's actually really, really good to connect with the tradition in a very deep, meaningful, intimate way if you hope to be creative.

That even applies to the idea of creativity itself. Even "conservative" composers like Brahms weren't just trying to replicate earlier music. No matter how innovative/progressive or conservative, pretty much all great composers had, or even actively tried to find, their own unique expressions. The same is true in other arts.

That's just the beginning, and a very superficial one, but if you really hope to compose music I'm sure you'll find a lot more inspiration and stimulation in getting to know the tradition very, very well.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> This line of "argumentation ad populem" is one of the most ironic ones I see people use on this forum to bash modern classical.
> 
> Who is it that you refer to as "the rest"? You can use that line about anything, absolutely anything.* You may like Country, but the rest don't. You may like David Lynch films but "the rest" don't. *You might like the color red, but "the rest" don't.
> 
> ...


Hold on a minute, Country music is self sufficient, and David Lynch has brought in a hundred million at the box office.

Contemporary music depends on government and donations; it's too anti-democratic (people won't pay attention) to succeed in this society or in the coming one, and is therefore a fringe movement; on the outer edges.

It has to be said like it is.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

1996D said:


> Hold on a minute, Country music is self sufficient, and David Lynch has brought in a hundred million at the box office.
> 
> Contemporary music depends on government and donations; it's too anti-democratic (people won't pay attention) to succeed in this society or in the coming one, and is therefore a fringe movement; on the outer edges.
> 
> It has to be said like it is.


Are authoritarian governments funding classical music? I'd figure it'd be more likely to be democratic ones, but I haven't looked into it.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

> In the real world, my taste in classical music in general already makes me feel isolated enough, so I come here to feel like I have a space where I'm welcome to share my interests and viewpoint with others.


You are welcome, but you also have to accept reality.

Classical as a whole is not that isolating, it's still widely used in film to this day, and people buy it. Concert halls might be filled with quasi-vegetables and snobs, but they are filled nonetheless.

I think music is very rewarding, the young people you'll meet will have quite a bit in common with you, and there are not many so it's a nice feeling. You also have to learn to understand other types of people and be comfortable around them too, it's nice to take a break from self-absorption and let others show you what they are. You have to learn to love the people, especially now.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

science said:


> Are authoritarian governments funding classical music? I'd figure it'd be more likely to be democratic ones, but I haven't looked into it.


It's used as a platform to promote their agenda, they don't care about the music as much as how many women are in the orchestra, how many non-Whites, etc.

It's a sort of diplomatic move so they can continue making money, the same strategy used by big corporations. The two are one and the same really, you can read Joseph Nye's 'Power and Interdependence' if you want to know more about it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't really get what the OP is about. It seems a very strange argument ... or perhaps I have misunderstood it. 

I like the new but that doesn't mean I dislike the old. I'm in heaven listening to Adam Fisher's Beethoven symphonies and Zehetmair's Brahms and part of the thrill of these is that they tell me something new about the music. But that doesn't mean that Furtwangler can't transport me any more. One thing I know, though, is that I will always be thrilled with Furtwangler - I've lived with him long enough to know that - but that I don't know if Fischer and Zehetmair will move in my affections from "excitingly new" to "great". But I do love the way that new performing styles can tell me new and deeply affecting things about Beethoven and Brahms.

I can also be critical of the new if it jettisons too much of the older virtues. I never really took to Gardiner's Beethoven because he didn't convince me he loved the music. It seemed to be just about being revolutionary. He recorded some Beethoven live many years after his ground breaking set. The interpretations seem quite similar (even if the revolution was old by then) but by this point he was able to let the music breathe and I enjoyed the results a lot more.

And when it comes to new music, it is the same. I love listening to some avant garde composers, composers who are writing for us now. There is little point in my trying to work out if their works will live on into posterity - who can know that? - but I feel fairly sure that some of them at least will do. But this doesn't mean I'm turning my back on the greats of the past. Far from it, I listen to them a lot. It does mean, though, that I have less time than some for the lesser composers of the past. The newest to me (and probably the most challenging) music that I listen to is pre-Baroque music. This is more or less a new area for me, too, and my certainty about its greatness is based on its having lasted for centuries. As a subjective listening experience this early music lives in the similar part of my mind to avant garde music - I'm enjoying a lot of it but can't yet say how important the various works and composers will become for me and which ones will be indispensable to me.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JeffD said:


> Yes but you can write with what ever constraints you want, and if you want to write in the constraints of a Mozart or Hayden, or mostly within their constraints, you can, and it can be wonderful. I am thinking of Prokofiev's Classical Symphony, which is a really wonderful piece regardless of its being in homage to any style or composer.
> 
> A composer can look at the past as providing a bunch of interesting options, or ideas that can't find full fruit without some modern constructs.
> 
> It is not true that the past can no longer inspire present art, or that artists must only stand on their immediate predecessors.


No. Prokofiev's "Classical" is very much a 20th Century work. It would have shocked audiences in Mozart's time. The past does live on in new and avant garde music just as Bach lives on in Mahler. But simply trying to compose a new Mozart symphony seems to me to be a very dry exercise. I don't think anyone has ever succeeded in producing an inspired piece in that way. There are some composers who produce music that could have been written 50 or even 100 years earlier - I suppose John Williams does something like that - but the resulting "clones" seem infertile and dull to me. At best they arrive at 3rd rate versions of their models. It makes me sad that some composers of talent do this and I can't for the life of me understand why they do ... unless it is to make big money.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> No. Prokofiev's "Classical" is very much a 20th Century work. It would have shocked audiences in Mozart's time. The past does live on in new and avant garde music just as Bach lives on in Mahler. But simply trying to compose a new Mozart symphony seems to me to be a very dry exercise. I don't think anyone has ever succeeded in producing an inspired piece in that way. There are some composers who produce music that could have been written 50 or even 100 years earlier - *I suppose John Williams does something like that - but the resulting "clones" seem infertile and dull to me. At best they arrive at 3rd rate versions of their models. It makes me sad that some composers of talent do this and I can't for the life of me understand why they do ... unless it is to make big money.*


Oi! How ignorant of you to say that...

To quote:


> Even when interviewed by Previn, Williams said that he used "a 19th century orchestra" in Star Wars, that the music he wrote was an anchor for old-fashioned melodies speaking to feelings etc.
> 
> But then one hears a minute after a minute of these scores of his, and if they sound inspired by something, if they sound like a next step further from something, it's clearly ffrom 20th century music of the type that was rather fresh when he was a child and a student. In other words: he sounds like a composer from his generation would logically be expected to sound, building on the blocks of composers mostly from the two immediate generations before him.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> but the resulting "clones" seem infertile and dull to me. At best they arrive at 3rd rate versions of their models. It makes me sad that some composers of talent do this and I can't for the life of me understand why they do ... unless it is to make big money.


Of course I invite you to share some examples of where do you think that is the case.

But even the "to make big money" statement is false. Williams could have financially retired in 1976, and every score he has composed since has been out of personal interest.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

1996D said:


> It's used as a platform to promote their agenda, they don't care about the music as much as how many women are in the orchestra, how many non-Whites, etc.
> 
> It's a sort of diplomatic move so they can continue making money, the same strategy used by big corporations. The two are one and the same really, you can read Joseph Nye's 'Power and Interdependence' if you want to know more about it.


I looked up that book but it doesn't seem to be about authoritarian countries funding classical music.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

science said:


> I looked up that book but it doesn't seem to be about authoritarian countries funding classical music.


That wasn't what the comment was about, it was about our Western countries. The book is about how governments, corporations, and NGOs work together.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> .. There are some composers who produce music that could have been written 50 or even 100 years earlier - I suppose John Williams does something like that - but the resulting "clones" seem infertile and dull to me. At best they arrive at 3rd rate versions of their models. It makes me sad that some composers of talent do this and I can't for the life of me understand why they do ... unless it is to make big money.
> 
> ...The past does live on in new and avant garde music just as Bach lives on in Mahler.


They may seem 'infertile and dull' to you, but if the composers are making 'big money' from them, then apparently, a lot of people want to hear them, contrary to the avant-garde music that you think is some natural progression of CM, but which bears little relationship to CM and practically no one wants to pay to hear it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Fabulin said:


> Oi! How ignorant of you to say that...


You might say elitist but ignorant? Ignorant of what?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DaveM said:


> They may seem 'infertile and dull' to you, but if the composers are making 'big money' from them, then apparently, a lot of people want to hear them, contrary to the avant-garde music that you think is some natural progression of CM, but which bears little relationship to CM and practically no one wants to pay to hear it.


You know what I'm going to say! I'll say it anyway. Beyonce makes a lot more money ... so she must be the best of the lot?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> They may seem 'infertile and dull' to you, but if the composers are making 'big money' from them, then apparently, a lot of people want to hear them, contrary to the avant-garde music that you think is some natural progression of CM, but which bears little relationship to CM and practically no one wants to pay to hear it.


There are plenty of TC members who pay to hear it, rendering your comment untrue.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Fabulin said:


> Of course I invite you to share some examples of where do you think that is the case.
> 
> But even the "to make big money" statement is false. Williams could have financially retired in 1976, and every score he has composed since has been out of personal interest.


I suppose it comes down to taste so there is probably little point in discussing it further. I gave an example - a composer who I find mostly grimly in poor taste and have never gained a gram of enjoyment from (I'll grant you that his film music is effective as film music but I really couldn't come close to enjoying listening to it rather than letting it accompany a popular film) - and I'm sure there are others. I personally do not get why people who love great music think they are dealing with something similar but I know many do. In the same way they must know that there are many who feel as I do. Is there any way of resolving that? You dislike innovation, I dislike an absence of inspiration! Do feel free to go for the last word.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> You know what I'm going to say! I'll say it anyway. Beyonce makes a lot more money ... so she must be the best of the lot?


This is the same nonsensical argument that is trotted out when comparisons of audience interest in various classical music genres is discussed. For some inscrutable reason, the thinking apparently is that comparisons with music totally outside the realm of classical music is relevant.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Both Beyonce and Williams are totally outside the realm of classical music. Also, the usual argument against my argument is that classical music has been around a lot longer and that trumps popularity now. That argument doesn't apply in this case. But tell me what reasons do you have for thinking that popularity is a good gauge of quality in contemporary music? It seems counter-intuitive to me.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> There are plenty of TC members who pay to hear it, rendering your comment untrue.


And the plenty of TC members that pay for it represents an overall significant audience? Forums for classical music such as TC are a refuge for the relative few who like avant-garde music. Since avant-garde bears little relationship to most classical music, it would seem more appropriate that it have its own forums. But afaik, there is no such thing because there aren't enough people to support them.

Also, the fact is that, by far, the public performance of avant-garde music is in small venues and often free or at nominal cost. The income from the sale of avant-garde recordings is a pittance compared to traditional CM or even non-avant-garde modern music. I wouldn't be surprised if most avant-garde listeners resort to YouTube.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> And the plenty of TC members that pay for it represents an overall significant audience? Forums for classical music such as TC are a refuge for the relative few who like avant-garde music. Since avant-garde bears little relationship to most classical music, it would seem more appropriate that it have its own forums. But afaik, there is no such thing because there aren't enough people to support them.
> 
> Also, the fact is that, by far, the public performance of avant-garde music is in small venues and often free or at nominal cost. The income from the sale of avant-garde recordings is a pittance compared to traditional CM or even non-avant-garde modern music. I wouldn't be surprised if most avant-garde listeners resort to YouTube.


You're in denial, but that's okay.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> You're in denial, but that's okay.


That is non-responsive which isn't okay, but understandable because you can't refute the premise of my post.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ But I have. And his argument certainly weakens your argument significantly.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I suppose it comes down to taste so there is probably little point in discussing it further. I gave an example - *a composer who I find mostly grimly in poor taste** and have never gained a gram of enjoyment from* (I'll grant you that his film music is effective as film music but I really couldn't come close to enjoying listening to it rather than letting it accompany a popular film) - and I'm sure there are others. I personally do not get why people who love great music think they are dealing with something similar but I know many do. In the same way they must know that there are many who feel as I do. Is there any way of resolving that? You dislike innovation, *I dislike an absence of inspiration! *Do feel free to go for the last word.


If there is something that sounds grim, it is a statement that you have never gained a gram of enjoyment from Williams' work. You might want to try the live recording of his music from the Musikverein, due spring on DG, to witness an orchestra and society that does.

On a claimed absence of inspiration in his music, or on comparisons to Beyonce, I won't waste my fingers commenting, sorry.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> Both Beyonce and Williams are totally outside the realm of classical music. Also, the usual argument against my argument is that classical music has been around a lot longer and that trumps popularity now. That argument doesn't apply in this case. But tell me what reasons do you have for thinking that popularity is a good gauge of quality in contemporary music? It seems counter-intuitive to me.


Counter-intuitive? While popularity is not the only gauge of quality within a genre of classical music, it is perhaps the final and most important gauge of the success of that genre over time since it is a measure of the ability of the composers of that music to reach a significant segment of listeners. If they're not doing so then something is likely missing.

There is no evidence that avant-garde is attracting a significant segment of the classical music audience and there is no evidence that that has improved over time. Why? Because there is a correlation between the popularity of composers of traditional CM and their ability to compose music with melody, harmony and structure that resonates with the listening audience and which has been characteristic of CM for 300-400 years.

The dismissal of the importance of popularity in the sub-genre of avant-garde by some here -some of whom suddenly become Latin-speakers to add gravitas- is convenient since avant-garde appeals to so few and the composers of avant-garde going forward will likely have to be sure not to quit their day job.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ But I have. And his argument certainly weakens your argument significantly.


What argument might that be?


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

I'm not a participator in this argument, but I'd like to ask a question. Why does this matter to you? I don't understand what you have to gain from arguing against experimental music other than upsetting its fans.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2020)

soni said:


> I'm not a participator in this argument, but I'd like to ask a question. Why does this matter to you? I don't understand what you have to gain from arguing against experimental music other than upsetting its fans.


I have the same thought. There is an impulse to dismiss art which is not appreciated as somehow illegitimate.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> That is non-responsive which isn't okay, but understandable because you can't refute the premise of my post.


I have no interest in being responsive to you in this matter. You said that practically nobody wants to pay for avant-garde music. That's an inaccurate statement. Just admit your error and move on.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

soni said:


> I don't understand what you have to gain from arguing against experimental music other than upsetting its fans.


It's the:

"I hate this crap!" 
"It's not real music!"
"I can not believe anybody truly likes it, because I don't!" 
"I know what real music should sound like"


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Not many people listen to, appreciate, Ockeghem or Machaut or Abelard I suppose. What conclusion am I now to draw from that?

There's quite a lot of avant garde music happening in London -- You know, Birtwiste's Mask of Orpheus had its second run at the Colleseum in December and November last year, sellout audiences in what is, I think, the largest theatre in Britain. There's Cafe Oto in Hackney and even Kings Place in the West End. There's a significant festival here every year, and others in other UK cities. These concerts and operas are not free -- far from it. Berlin, Milan, Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Madrid . . . they all have quite a thriving scene I think.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> I have no interest in being responsive to you in this matter. You said that practically nobody wants to pay for avant-garde music. That's an inaccurate statement. Just admit your error and move on.


This forum does not represent the collective interest of overall CM listeners in paying to listen to avant-garde whether for public performances or recordings. The income from avant-garde performances compared to traditional or other modern music (separate from avant-garde) is likely minuscule. Don't comment on my posts if you're going to be non-responsive. And move on yourself.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> There is no evidence that avant-garde is attracting a significant segment of the classical music audience and there is no evidence that that has improved over time. Why? Because there is a correlation between the popularity of composers of traditional CM and their ability to compose music with melody, harmony and structure that resonates with the listening audience and which has been characteristic of CM for 300-400 years.


I'm not sure I know exactly which works are avant-garde or experimental compared with "normal" contemporary classical music. To me it seems there is a somewhat smooth continuum. Assuming you're talking about works that a very high percentage of contemporary listeners would view as avant-garde, I'm not sure what should be concluded from your statement.

I generally agree with what you say above, but I'm not sure what comes next. Are you simply suggesting that people on TC should acknowledge the disconnect of such music from the vast majority of listeners? Are you suggesting something further? Should those composers not write such music? What, if anything, should change?


----------



## binkley (Feb 2, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Also, the fact is that, by far, the public performance of avant-garde music is in small venues and often free or at nominal cost. The income from the sale of avant-garde recordings is a pittance compared to traditional CM or even non-avant-garde modern music. I wouldn't be surprised if most avant-garde listeners resort to YouTube.


I don't know what you consider "avant garde", but both the major symphony orchestras in your state devote significant portions of their schedules to new music, and do quite well at filling the seats with paying customers. But perhaps the mere fact of getting played at Disney or Davies precludes it from being considered "avant garde"?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

-----


mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure I know exactly which works are avant-garde or experimental compared with "normal" contemporary classical music. To me it seems there is a somewhat smooth continuum. Assuming you're talking about works that a very high percentage of contemporary listeners would view as avant-garde, I'm not sure what should be concluded from your statement.


I agree that the definition of avant-garde as applied to CM can be murky. In general, I think that music that is devoid of melody, harmony and structure unrecognizable by most listeners is considered to be avant-garde. The components of this music have been described (even by its supporters) as timbre, rhythm and noise.



> I generally agree with what you say above, but I'm not sure what comes next. Are you simply suggesting that people on TC should acknowledge the disconnect of such music from the vast majority of listeners? Are you suggesting something further? Should those composers not write such music? What, if anything, should change?


Personally, I don't think music as I describe above should be under the umbrella of CM. Although, obviously, I don't like the stuff, I have no problem with avant-garde being a genre separate from CM and no problem with composers continuing to create it on that basis. And, of course given reality, I am not suggesting that it not be discussed as it is on TC.

But, I think that those who discuss avant-garde should be honest about what it is and what it isn't. That includes understanding that the characteristics of most avant-garde are extremely different from traditional CM and even the atonal music of someone like Schoenberg.

Along that line: I stayed out of this thread until the post below which disparages tonal music that is similar to that composed in the past and then insinuates that avant-garde music -which typically has no melody, harmony and minimal or no structure- is on some kind of continuum as that from Bach to Mahler. I will continue to respond to that kind of provocational sketchy perspective.



Enthusiast said:


> .. There are some composers who produce music that could have been written 50 or even 100 years earlier - I suppose John Williams does something like that - but the resulting "clones" seem infertile and dull to me. At best they arrive at 3rd rate versions of their models. It makes me sad that some composers of talent do this and I can't for the life of me understand why they do ... unless it is to make big money.
> 
> ...The past does live on in new and avant garde music just as Bach lives on in Mahler.


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

DaveM said:


> -----
> Personally, I don't think music as I describe above should be under the umbrella of CM. Although, obviously, I don't like the stuff, I have no problem with avant-garde being a genre separate from CM and no problem with composers continuing to create it on that basis. And, of course given reality, I am not suggesting that it not be discussed as it is on TC.
> 
> But, I think that those who discuss avant-garde should be honest about what it is and what it isn't. That includes understanding that the characteristics of most avant-garde are extremely different from traditional CM and even the atonal music of someone like Schoenberg.
> ...


OK, now I understand your perspective a lot better. As an avant-garde listener, I do in fact agree that it is unhelpful to describe it as "classical music", and I avoid using that term myself when explaining my tastes to others. However, the reason it's discussed on this forum is out of convenience - most avant-garde listeners come from a classical music background, and I think the 3 Second Viennese composers can correctly be described as "classical" (or do you have a suggestion to the contrary?). I normally specify "serial music" even though not all the music I like is serial, but it's a good start at least.

I also don't agree with Enthusiast's unnecessarily provocative comment, although he is entitled to dislike Williams.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Ultimately, the only solution is to send these atonophobes to reeducation camps where Webern's complete works are played over loudspeakers every 45 minutes


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

I propose a truce. We modernists are sick of hearing that the music we listen to is ugly, random nonsense that doesn't "use the overtone series", while presumably traditionalists have had their fill of hearing comparisons between Boulez and Beethoven. I say live and let live! Nobody is harmed by someone liking or not liking serial music; I will continue to advocate for it to anyone who will listen but to those who won't listen, I have no problem with that


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

binkley said:


> I don't know what you consider "avant garde", but both the major symphony orchestras in your state devote significant portions of their schedules to new music, and do quite well at filling the seats with paying customers. But perhaps the mere fact of getting played at Disney or Davies precludes it from being considered "avant garde"?


You are correct that the LA Phil has introduced a significant amount of new music. How much of that would be called avant-garde is uncertain, but I would admit that some of it probably has been. It is for that reason that I said 'by far' rather than 'all' in the part of my post that you quoted. Having said that, most of the contemporary music played at the Disney Hall is carefully scheduled with traditional works since it is likely it wouldn't fill the seats on its own. Also, I have done a search on a number of works premiered there and from what I can tell, much or most of it is never heard again.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

soni said:


> I propose a truce. We modernists are sick of hearing that the music we listen to is ugly, random nonsense that doesn't "use the overtone series", while presumably traditionalists have had their fill of hearing comparisons between Boulez and Beethoven. I say live and let live! Nobody is harmed by someone liking or not liking serial music; I will continue to advocate for it to anyone who will listen but to those who won't listen, I have no problem with that


Good post, but I would clarify that my issue as described above is with avant-garde music not serial, atonal, second Viennese School music (which I also am not a big fan of, but still recognize it as under the CM umbrella).


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> This forum does not represent the collective interest of overall CM listeners in paying to listen to avant-garde whether for public performances or recordings. The income from avant-garde performances compared to traditional or other modern music (separate from avant-garde) is likely minuscule. Don't comment on my posts if you're going to be non-responsive.


I was responding to your statement that "practically no one wants to pay to hear it". The statement is clearly false.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> I was responding to your statement that "practically no one wants to pay to hear it". The statement is clearly false.


*
Avant-Garde Music: Some Publication Problems* 
by Mary Wedgewood

*Abstract*
Composers of avant-garde music encounter many problems getting their works published. Three reasons why such music is generally unattractive to publishers are identified: (1) it is extremely difficult for an editor to assess it on the basis of its artistic merit; (2) to prepare it for public dissemination may require editorial services or physical plant capabilities which are not readily available in most publishing houses; and (3) there is a very limited market for the finished product. Some ways in which publishers deal with problems presented by avant-garde music scores when they do undertake their publication are mentioned, including applications of photoduplication and computer technologies.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> *
> Avant-Garde Music: Some Publication Problems*
> by Mary Wedgewood
> 
> ...


If you want to equate "very limited" with "practically nobody", go for it. I think there's some distance between the two.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I personally believe -- I want to emphasize the speculative nature of this -- that the reason that people who don't like progressive (or avant-garde or modernist or whatever - we all know what we mean here, even when someone uses the word "atonal" to describe it) music object to it so strongly is because as classical music listeners they consider themselves culturally superior to people who don't listen to it. But their inability to enjoy progressive music challenges that identification. They feel insulted, and they strike back. 

There may sometimes be a political edge to it as well. People who resent democratic government with a romantic idea of monarchy, or people who lament the social changes that have taken place over the past century, might be associating the new forms of art music with those changes or with democracy. 

Even though I'm someone who easily enjoys progressive music, I think its fans should handle our detractors gently. Barring some conservative revolution, they'll always be looking up at us in the cultural hierarchy, and that really would be frustrating, even infuriating. The good news for everyone is that a lot of progressive music isn't even nearly as unpleasant as its reputation suggests. Takemitsu's music is a fine example -- it's practically easy listening. Most of the critics of progressive music will be happy to discover that they too can enjoy a lot of it! Their place in the cultural hierarchy is not so bad after all! And as for the people who simply dogmatically reject anything since, oh, 1945 or whatever, we can just leave them alone. There are so few of them that they don't matter. Wonderful new music continues to be produced, even to be recorded at a faster pace than any of us can keep up with, and there's nothing any of our detractors can do about it. 

I'd also say we should have the same attitude to people who don't enjoy art music of any style or era. If they never get around to it, too bad for them. None of their insults are going to stop musicians from making music or stop us from listening to it. And, gradually, some of them do come around eventually, and when they do, welcome!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> If you want to equate "very limited" with "practically nobody", go for it. I think there's some distance between the two.


Perhaps a little hyperbole on my part, on the same level as your statement that I'm in denial.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2020)

DaveM said:


> Perhaps a little hyperbole on my part, on the same level as your statement that I'm in denial.


Contemporary music concerts are filled with enthusiastic listeners. Beethoven concerts padded with old codgers who are nodding off and napping through the slow movements, gripping that they haven't heard a decent Beethoven concert since Szell died. "Practically nobody" might be more essential than you think.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Contemporary music concerts are filled with enthusiastic listeners. Beethoven concerts padded with old codgers who are nodding off and napping through the slow movements, gripping that they haven't heard a decent Beethoven concert since Szell died. "Practically nobody" might be more essential than you think.


It might be a good idea to read my posts more closely before commenting since I've been talking specifically about avant-garde music and not contemporary music in general. Still, however enthusiastic you may think listeners of contemporary are at concerts, they are not the ones keeping orchestras financially viable...not by a long shot.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I agree with @Science, composers will press on regardless of bad press. The expressive lure is still too great when it comes to highly chromatic music with some tangible connections to the past.

Every committed composer should get to a point in their development where they have to confront atonality in order to find their response to it, regardless of popularity.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

DaveM said:


> *
> Avant-Garde Music: Some Publication Problems*
> by Mary Wedgewood
> 
> ...


This is very true Dave. Even some composers and musicians have the same problem despite their 'specialist' advantage. Having said that, I've worked with some fabulous players who are totally committed to dissonant music (not avant-garde by your definition), so all is not lost. There is a thirst for music beyond the conventional at the professional level that gives one hope still.

Worse still, I've heard that some publishers will not accept submissions of scores for their consideration anymore unless they are accompanied by a raft of letters of recommendation from distinguished people as back-up. Fair enough, it is understandable and prudent.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DaveM said:


> *
> Avant-Garde Music: Some Publication Problems*
> by Mary Wedgewood
> 
> ...


New music _*should *_be hard to publish. It can be hard to assess the merit of something very new. These things are as they should be. It is also likely that only a small proportion of the new music that *does *reach us after this winnowing is actually worthwhile. The existence of a large amount of poor new music does not prove that all new music is rubbish.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Along that line: I stayed out of this thread until the post below which disparages tonal music that is similar to that composed in the past and then insinuates that avant-garde music -which typically has no melody, harmony and minimal or no structure- is on some kind of continuum as that from Bach to Mahler. I will continue to respond to that kind of provocational sketchy perspective.


Just to be clear, I would disparage all music that seeks to repeat the great music of the past - a doomed venture if ever there was one - and am only interested in the real thing. Tonality has nothing to do with it and nowhere in this forum have I ever disparaged tonal music, music that I spend a lot of my life listening to and enjoying. It is a matter of fact that the best classical music written today, including avant garde music, follows in a tradition that stretches back well beyond Purcell and Bach. This is recognised by most critics with a range that reaches to the present day and many of our leading performers and exponents. That you have not found the key to unlocking this late flowering of the tradition is OK with me but I do prefer that my views are not misrepresented.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> Just to be clear, I would disparage all music that seeks to repeat the great music of the past - a doomed venture if ever there was one - and am only interested in the real thing. Tonality has nothing to do with it and nowhere in this forum have I ever disparaged tonal music, music that I spend a lot of my life listening to and enjoying. It is a matter of fact that the best classical music written today, including avant garde music, follows in a tradition that stretches back well beyond Purcell and Bach. This is recognised by most critics with a range that reaches to the present day and many of our leading performers and exponents. That you have not found the key to unlocking this late flowering of the tradition is OK with me but I do prefer that my views are not misrepresented.


If you feel you need to clarify your post, fine, but it was not misrepresented. Since you used John Williams as an example and you were responding to a post that was referring to great tonal works in the past, it was easy to assume you were talking about tonal music composed similar to music in the past. So, the statement in my post 'tonal music that was similar to the past' does not infer that you were disparaging tonal music per se.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

violadude said:


> Well, this is sort of where the comparison to language breaks down. When we speak words, we speak with the intention that each word can be translated as having a direct meaning, referring to either tangible objects or definite ideas that anyone can understand. This isn't quite the same as music, what matters in music is if it carries expressive meaning, which isn't the same as the kind of meaning we expect language to carry.
> 
> To use an analogy, it's like this: If my dog poops on the floor, and I look at my dog, point at the poop and yell "dkaloka flakbluka tirgaliba!" None of my words have any commonly understood meaning, none of them can be translated directly into an object or idea that we all can understand BUT the tone with which I say those words, and my body language, can carry expressive meaning and from there you can translate it in a general, as opposed to a specific, way, if that makes sense.
> 
> ...


An excellent post! For me, the new ranges of expressivity that hove into view when breaking from former modes of expression are one of the great attractions of listening to contemporary music.



violadude said:


> I look at my dog, point at the poop and yell "dkaloka flakbluka tirgaliba!"


Call me old fashioned, but I wouldn't have used the subjunctive in that sentence.


----------

