# Cage's legacy?



## nosmelc (Aug 22, 2011)

I am interested in reading what people think Cage left us. My own opinion is of a profoundly negative inheritance although I have widely different opinions of what he did at different stages in his career. 
there is an amazing appearance on the Gary Moore show (you tube) in which Cage performs "water walk" which is a strange, (in that it is made up of various sounds: pouring water, duck calls, radios falling on the ground etc.), and a somewhat amusing performance; amazing in that it was ever on commercial television. The point, as Cage says on the show when asked if he considers it making music, is that music is the production of sound period, a questionable assertion.
4'33" was, to my mind the ultimate conceptual piece. Here the point shifts to all sound is music. While I think there was a time when this was a relevant thing to question in order to open peoples mind, I find it absurd that someone would actually leave their home to go to a concert in which this non-piece is performed today. There are you tube videos of this in which a moderator inanely explains the piece to the mentally deficient audience.
then there are the records of amorphous "happenings." and works of conceptual gimmickry. Nonsense to my ears, mind and soul.
While Cage produced some worthwhile music early on, his legacy stems from his later work which presents a noninvolved composer in a musical world where anything goes which I find worse than worthless, rather being a poor influence on young would be or so called musician/composers and the state of "New Music" ever since.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think he was a genius. I think the repertoire would lose a lot if you take his contributions out of the equation. His idea of using algorithms from the I -Ching in his percussion music was a stroke of brilliance, and that aspect of his oeuvre alone greatly enriches the Western Music tradition imo. Music wise I don't enjoy everything he put out there. But his ideas were very good. I have a similar view of the composer Xenakis.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

nosmelc said:


> I am interested in reading what people think Cage left us. My own opinion is of a profoundly negative inheritance although I have widely different opinions of what he did at different stages in his career.
> there is an amazing appearance on the Gary Moore show (you tube) in which Cage performs "water walk" which is a strange, (in that it is made up of various sounds: pouring water, duck calls, radios falling on the ground etc.), and a somewhat amusing performance; amazing in that it was ever on commercial television. The point, as Cage says on the show when asked if he considers it making music, is that music is the production of sound period, a questionable assertion.
> 4'33" was, to my mind the ultimate conceptual piece. Here the point shifts to all sound is music. While I think there was a time when this was a relevant thing to question in order to open peoples mind, I find it absurd that someone would actually leave their home to go to a concert in which this non-piece is performed today. There are you tube videos of this in which a moderator inanely explains the piece to the mentally deficient audience.
> then there are the records of amorphous "happenings." and works of conceptual gimmickry. Nonsense to my ears, mind and soul.
> While Cage produced some worthwhile music early on, his legacy stems from his later work which presents a noninvolved composer in a musical world where anything goes which I find worse than worthless, rather being a poor influence on young would be or so called musician/composers and the state of "New Music" ever since.


He's no worse an influence on young composers/musicians than someone that tells them that they should limit their creativity...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with tdc, John Cage was very significant for c20th music overall. Cage's work with chance/indeterminacy really opened up many avenues which are still being explored today. Like Schoenberg's "liberation of the dissonance," and other milestones of our age, Cage's compositions & ideas about music really cannot be underestimated.



nosmelc said:


> ...I have widely different opinions of what he did at different stages in his career.


Same with any other composer. Eg. Beethoven is often said to be incomprehensible in his late period (just check out the thread about the_ Grosse Fuge_, how many people here - or at least former members, it's an old thread - don't understand it & some even poo-poo it big time).



> 4'33" was, to my mind the ultimate conceptual piece...


That's right, it's a conceptual art piece. This kind of thing really came to the fore after 1945, but guys like the Dadaists and others were already doing similar things during/after the first world war. This type of thing isn't new, in other words. Neither is some people's inability to accept these things as trends in c20th art, pure and simple. They were there and are there. It's like 100 years ago, get over it!!!



> ...There are you tube videos of this in which a moderator inanely explains the piece to the mentally deficient audience...


Well, if you say that, you may as well say any audience is "mentally deficient" if they are attending a performance of any type of thing that you personally don't like. These labels, judgements, cliches, whatever can be applied to anything (pick anything & go ahead and pull down people for being free to choose what type of live things people go to & pay for, it's their right, full stop).



> ...then there are the records of amorphous "happenings." and works of conceptual gimmickry. Nonsense to my ears, mind and soul...


Some people say the same thing about say Erik Satie, who inspired/influenced a whole lot of composers, not only Cage but contemporaries like Debussy and _Les Six_.



> While Cage produced some worthwhile music early on, his legacy stems from his later work which presents a *noninvolved* composer in a musical world where anything goes which I find worse than worthless, rather being a poor influence on young would be or so called musician/composers and the state of "New Music" ever since.


I don't think what Cage did was entirely "non-involved," he was simply trying to open up possiblities, to give musicians options in how they perform a piece. A lot of classical music performance is based on convention. Eg. the original ornamentation in Allegri's famous _Miserere_ has long been lost, it wasn't noted down. Classical music is not only about notating things on the page, and Cage focused on a type of music that took this to the maximum limit (in some ways, it was extreme compared to the past, but in other ways, he was extending what had happened in the past)...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I don't think Cage was a genius. He may have been creative enough to come up with conceptual gimmicks like _4'33"_ but the actual music that he wrote, well; let's just say he didn't create a school of second generation composers following his idiom in the way great composers of the past did not long following their deaths, or even a close circle of notable students. And I'm sure he wasn't without critiques even amongst his fellow composers. I would say composers such as Arnold Schoenberg would most probably have far greater influence on 20th century music than the following generation of composers where Cage belonged.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ That's just simply not true. I was at a concert of contemporary music last week, and one of the pieces had improvisation, which was integral to the piece. It was by our own Australian Matthew Hindson, quite a popular composer here nowadays, & titled _Comin' Right 'Atcha_ for chamber orchestra. There were parts of the score left blank for soloists in the orchestra to improvise, and during that time the conductor stopped waving his baton, he let them do what they decided to do. Turns out they played popular tunes, which I recognised but can't name. The name of the piece comes from a James Brown song, a kind of riff from that song which formed that basis of the "theme" for Hindson's work. It was a lot of fun and a joy to listen to - a lot like some of Cage's stuff that I know, _Credo in Us_ comes to mind, a great piece.

So there you go (& that's only one example of many). It's true that John Cage didn't create a school, but he has had enormous impact over the decades to this day (but neither did say Beethoven, Wagner or Brahms make a school strictly speaking & even those who did, like Schoenberg, influenced composers way beyond their own "school" or personal circle of students, friends, intimates, etc.). I don't like to bandy about vague and cliched words like "genius," but in terms of what I have heard of Cage's and other's music & read criticism, scholarship, etc. about these things, his place in the history of c20th music is on solid ground, just as solid as the reputations/contributions of say Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok, Varese, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Carter, etc. & so on...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> ^^ That's just simply not true. I was at a concert of contemporary music last week, and one of the pieces had improvisation, which was integral to the piece. It was by our own Australian Matthew Hindson, quite a popular composer here nowadays, & titled _Comin' Right 'Atcha_ for chamber orchestra. There were parts of the score left blank for soloists in the orchestra to improvise, and during that time the conductor stopped waving his baton, he let them do what they decided to do. Turns out they played popular tunes, which I recognised but can't name. The name of the piece comes from a James Brown song, a kind of riff from that song which formed that basis of the "theme" for Hindson's work. It was a lot of fun and a joy to listen to - a lot like some of Cage's stuff that I know, _Credo in Us_ comes to mind, a great piece.
> 
> So there you go (& that's only one example of many). It's true that John Cage didn't create a school, but he has had enormous impact over the decades to this day (but neither did say Beethoven, Wagner or Brahms make a school strictly speaking & even those who did, like Schoenberg, influenced composers way beyond their own "school" or personal circle of students, friends, intimates, etc.). I don't like to bandy about vague and cliched words like "genius," but in terms of what I have heard of Cage's and other's music & read criticism, scholarship, etc. about these things, his place in the history of c20th music is on solid ground, just as solid as the reputations/contributions of say Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok, Varese, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Carter, etc. & so on...


I'm not saying Cage had nil influence. Please be clear on that. I'm saying he hasn't yet had the influence that say Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms (since you mentioned them) and even Schoenberg had during and immediately after their deaths (let alone big names like Richard Strauss). Popularity is also relative. I don't known many pieces by Matthew Hindson and doubt many members here would either.


----------



## nosmelc (Aug 22, 2011)

tdc - i will listen to the IChing music you highly recommended.
Sid James - I agree that he tore down walls, approached music from different vantage points and that it was all part of the development of Western music (the very idea of development itself is what makes it uniquely interesting). He was a liberator in a long line that includes Schoenberg and Satie as well as Beethoven and Debussey. My problem with what I hear listening to, for example, a retrospective of his work on WKCR, is that I find the sounds themselves (only after a point in his career) to be totally worthless, stimulating neither feelings nor ideas, and unlike the Grosse Fugue, Cage's later works will really not improve as I improve my powers of concentration and musical understanding because they are not intended to be taken "seriously."
Utilizing the element of chance as part of compositional method is capable of producing interesting results, but Cage seems to have pushed freedom beyond the bounds of usefulness or any sense of what could be considered "art." Stravinsky said that the songs of birds, the rustle of leaves or the thunder of a cascade might produce emotions, but it is not "music." Music, as a form of art, needs human direction. Cage seems to have done everything in his power to limit that aspect of music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have read rather detailed discussions of how Xenakis used random number generators in creating music. I have also read that Cage used randomness as well along with the I Ching. Does anyone know of a good (relatively detailed) description how Cage used randomness and the I Ching to produce music?


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Oh yeah, let's have another 4'33'' discussion! 

That's not art! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn't! Oops, time's up.










In my opinion, Cage is innocent. He was lured to believe that he could compose freely without any boundaries or any consideration paid to good taste. He was clearly misled by earlier composers, who started experimenting and venturing into areas better left pristine. Composers like Arnold, Anton and Alban in Vienna. And maybe they wouldn't have done all their stuff if bad boy Claude in Paris hadn't done his. And maybe bad boy Claude hadn't gone to such extremes if he hadn't visited Bayreuth to hear music by Richard "I don't like certain people" Wagner. And it was Wagner who opened Pandora's box of modernism with that single chord back in 1865. 

So, please lay off poor John. He just didn't know better.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I'm not saying Cage had nil influence. Please be clear on that.


Okay.



> I'm saying he hasn't yet had the influence that say Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms (since you mentioned them) and even Schoenberg had during and immediately after their deaths (let alone big names like Richard Strauss).


It's true that Cage is not known by audiences now as those guys, and perhaps never will be a "mainstream" composer. But neither were many composers whose music emerged post 1945, eg. Edgard Varese. However, in terms of influence on fellow composers of then and now & about developing new concepts/ideas/techniques of music, they have contributed a lot.

So yes, popularity & influence is different. Eg. some of J.S. Bach's music was still known by those in the music industry for about 100 years after his death, despite his overall obscurity, until Mendelssohn revived his choral music especially. Mozart had a well-thumbed score of_ The Well Tempered Clavier_, & I wouldn't be surprised if Beethoven did too. But in terms of the general public at that time, they didn't know J.S. Bach at all or very much. Many of Bach's works were only premiered in the c20th (eg. _The Art of Fugue_ was first played in the 1920's). I'd say compared to how much Bach's music was known up to 100 or maybe even 150+ years after his death, John Cage is in a better position now only 20 years after his death. A lot of his music is available in score or on disc, so too many of his writings on music as well as other people's writing about him...



> Popularity is also relative. I don't known many pieces by Matthew Hindson and doubt many members here would either.


Well Mr Hindson is well known to classical concertgoers in Australia at least. Just going to chamber concerts here I have heard several of his works of that type. The one last week was contemporary classical only, but the other few were a mix of old and new music. He's also the head of the composition department at Sydney Conservatorium. I don't think he's done opera but he has done a few works for the Australian Ballet company. So he's not obscure, but you might not know him as your focus is different from mine (which is okay). In terms of his international reputation, I'm not sure where that stands.

In any case, other composers of the recent past who were influenced by Cage to varying degrees were Witold Lutoslawski, Alan Hovhaness & Morton Feldman (the last two knew him personally, where friends with him). These are basically mainstream composers. Of course, like all composers worth their salt, they didn't ape Cage's ideas or techniques, they basically used them as a springboard for their own musical explorations...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

nosmelc said:


> ...Sid James - I agree that he tore down walls, approached music from different vantage points and that it was all part of the development of Western music (the very idea of development itself is what makes it uniquely interesting). He was a liberator in a long line that includes Schoenberg and Satie as well as Beethoven and Debussey.


I agree about that, he did do a lot for music, esp. after 1945.



> ...My problem with what I hear listening to, for example, a retrospective of his work on WKCR, is that I find the sounds themselves (only after a point in his career) to be totally worthless, stimulating neither feelings nor ideas, and unlike the Grosse Fugue, Cage's later works will really not improve as I improve my powers of concentration and musical understanding because they are not intended to be taken "seriously."
> Utilizing the element of chance as part of compositional method is capable of producing interesting results, but Cage seems to have pushed freedom beyond the bounds of usefulness or any sense of what could be considered "art."...Music, as a form of art, needs human direction. Cage seems to have done everything in his power to limit that aspect of music.


Well, I haven't heard as much music by Cage as you. I don't do that as a rule because inevitably I get bored and annoyed of a composer's music if I hear heaps of it. It doesn't matter if it's a composer of old times or closer to today. In any case, yes his music often has a strong element of whimsicality (& so do his quotes, which people here like to get on their high horse about and all that, but they're taking him too seriously, imo). I agree that music needs "human direction," as you say, I'm not a huge fan of the idea that Art=Life, I'm closer to thinking that it's kind of artificial. However, I'm not interested in analysing Cage's philosophies, whether I agree with them or not, I basically have enjoyed what I've heard of his music (but yes, I would go mad if I heard all or most of what he composed, basically the same as with any other composer, I don't like to do "retrospectives" of a composer's entire output, so maybe I'm faint hearted in that way?)...



> ...Stravinsky said that the songs of birds, the rustle of leaves or the thunder of a cascade might produce emotions, but it is not "music."


I would think that Stravinsky would also be critical of what other composers who were younger than him were doing, not only in relation to environmental music/sounds, etc. I have found Stravinsky's critiques of other composers of his time to be hit and miss, eg. he was critical of a number of composers that I find worthwhile and interesting. Maybe Igor had a bit of an inflated ego? (I don't know, he sometimes comes across like that, but he did admire some composers of the next generation, eg. Takemitsu)...


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Sid, Not for nothing, but the "hoodie cat" is a lot cuter than that horned thingie you currently have on display. But I'm sure you know that already, yeah?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Crap...............


----------



## nosmelc (Aug 22, 2011)

have begun listening to some of Cage's I ching music. i must admit that it sounds episodic with molecule size episodes that, as yet lack any sense or feeling. I can't hear anything coherent happening. It might help me if you would explain what it is that you feel is brilliant about this music. The idea of "mathematical" music making is rather anathema to me. In regard to writing dodecaphonic music, Schoenberg advised his students to adhere to certain rules and then compose as you always have. If creation is not a matter of human inspiration it seems more like a game to me. While I have great respect for a Pierre Boulez, I feel his Institute which scientifically explores music is off base. The world needs art to help us retain some of our humanity, not make us more mechanical.


----------



## nosmelc (Aug 22, 2011)

violadude
who are you referring to?


----------



## nosmelc (Aug 22, 2011)

SId
will see if I can find Comin' right tcha on you tube, but coming to classical music from jazz I have to say from what I've heard most orchestra players would have been better off leaving improvisation to the pro's.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

nosmelc said:


> violadude
> who are you referring to?


I'm referring to anyone who says a composer should do this and that and not do that other stuff because the "audience" doesn't like it. Whatever a composer does there is going to be a portion of the audience that doesn't like it, so why try to please anyone. Composers should compose whatever the hell they feel like composing, they should let their imaginations and creativity run wild without having someone telling them they shouldn't do this and should be doing that instead. If a composer just does what he wants then he'll end up pleasing some and disappointing others, so what? Composition is about self-exploration as much as it is about trying to write "good" music.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

violadude said:


> Composition is about self-exploration as much as it is about trying to write "good" music.


I'd argue this is exactly what makes good music.

I wonder what sort of stuff the Baroque composers would try if they were born in the 2000s instead of hundreds of years ago.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

nosmelc said:


> SId
> will see if I can find Comin' right tcha on you tube, but coming to classical music from jazz I have to say from what I've heard most orchestra players would have been better off leaving improvisation to the pro's.


Well, all I'm saying is I was there at that concert & I enjoyed it (the whole program was solely made up of contemporary works), esp. that Matthew Hindson piece. His style is more kind of "popular culture" oriented than say Cage was, but the element of improvisation in _Comin' right Atcha _did make me think of Cage a bit. If you can't find that piece by Hindson, his chamber music is pretty good, he's often played here in that format, but he's also done ballet scores as well. A lot of his music is quite bouncy and vibrant...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I wonder what sort of stuff the Baroque composers would try if they were born in the 2000s instead of hundreds of years ago.


Probably not baroque music!


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

violadude said:


> I'm referring to anyone who says a composer should do this and that and not do that other stuff because the "audience" doesn't like it. Whatever a composer does there is going to be a portion of the audience that doesn't like it, so why try to please anyone. Composers should compose whatever the hell they feel like composing, they should let their imaginations and creativity run wild without having someone telling them they shouldn't do this and should be doing that instead. If a composer just does what he wants then he'll end up pleasing some and disappointing others, so what? Composition is about self-exploration as much as it is about trying to write "good" music.


Right... Audiences don't exist, their opinions don't matter. Right... Everyone should just do whatever the **** they want. No need for any discipline or law or order or rules or anything. Screw music theory and conventional harmonies and forms, we don't need any of that crap!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> Right... Audiences don't exist, their opinions don't matter. Right... Everyone should just do whatever the **** they want. No need for any discipline or law or order or rules or anything. Screw music theory and conventional harmonies and forms, we don't need any of that crap!


You're hilarious! I was just reading the notes to a disc of a couple of Brahms' piano quartets, and basically at the time a critic or two of the conservative variety had a go at him for similar reasons (eg. they said that these works lacked structure, discipline, form, they're more free or rhapsodic than they should be, etc.). In the _Piano Quartet #3 in C minor, Op. 60_, Brahms even did a very naughty thing, not progressing from C minor in the begining to C major at the end (as was a still common practice in his time), but ending in C minor as he had begun. Naughty boy Brahms! & naughty boys Schoenberg & John Cage as well! They should have all stuck to "tradition" like superglue and given us boring rehash, "safe," "acceptable" (or "accessible") music...


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Sid James said:


> You're hilarious! I was just reading the notes to a disc of a couple of Brahms' piano quartets, and basically at the time a critic or two of the conservative variety had a go at him for similar reasons (eg. they said that these works lacked structure, discipline, form, they're more free or rhapsodic than they should be, etc.). In the _Piano Quartet #3 in C minor, Op. 60_, Brahms even did a very naughty thing, not progressing from C minor in the begining to C major at the end (as was a still common practice in his time), but ending in C minor as he had begun. Naughty boy Brahms! & naughty boys Schoenberg & John Cage as well! They should have all stuck to "tradition" like superglue and given us boring rehash, "safe," "acceptable" (or "accessible") music...


There's a difference between making minor liberties within an accepted form and doing whatever the **** you want.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Sid, Was that the concert where they played the 4th SQ of Shostakovich?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> There's a difference between making minor liberties within an accepted form and doing whatever the **** you want.


Why shouldn't composers do what they want? Like I said, some people will like it and some wont, ALWAYS! So whats wrong with composers pleasing themselves in their composition. They're not slaves, they're artists.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Who made the musical rules that innovative composers have advanced or broken? It wasn't the audience.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> Right... Audiences don't exist, their opinions don't matter. Right... Everyone should just do whatever the **** they want. No need for any discipline or law or order or rules or anything. Screw music theory and conventional harmonies and forms, we don't need any of that crap!


And as for this supposed audience, I love Cage's experiments in music...am I not part of the audience? My opinions matter don't they?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Something I would like to see is a general increase in the public interest of contemporary classical music. I am convinced that one of the best ways to make that happen is by introducing a certain level of predictability. People like to have some vague idea of what to expect when they go to listen to music, or go to a movie or read a book or anything regarding entertainment. They don't want to know all the details, just enough to help them appreciate it. The way contemporary music is being written now, there's almost zero predictability because people seem to just write what they feel. But too much individuality can be a bad thing for an industry. 

I do appreciate the general civility you have in your posts violadude, unlike some other contemporary music lovers...


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

starthrower said:


> Who made the musical rules that innovative composers have advanced or broken? It wasn't the audience.


Again, such advances throughout the history of music were generally made through gradual modifications of existing forms and practices, not by introducing anything radically new. Wagner was an exception.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> Something I would like to see is a general increase in the public interest of contemporary classical music. I am convinced that one of the best ways to make that happen is by introducing a certain level of predictability. People like to have some vague idea of what to expect when they go to listen to music, or go to a movie or read a book or anything regarding entertainment. They don't want to know all the details, just enough to help them appreciate it. The way contemporary music is being written now, there's almost zero predictability because people seem to just write what they feel. But too much individuality can be a bad thing for an industry.
> 
> *I do appreciate the general civility you have in your posts violadude, unlike some other contemporary music lovers...*


Thank you, I try not to offend anyone, thats no way to get people to listen to what you have to say.

I think if you say that by writing music that some (or a lot) of audience members don't like composers are saying F*** you to the audience, I think you have to say that about any composer, because I don't think there is music that exists that every single person in the world likes.

Instead of thinking that John Cage is saying screw the audience, I think its more accurate to say that if you don't like his music, then he's not writing music for you, he's writing music for me  just like Katy Parry doesn't sing her music for me, she sings her music for my sister (and her other fans).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> There's a difference between making minor liberties within an accepted form and doing whatever the **** you want.


Well, it's true that there is a difference between Brahms & say John Cage, but my point stands that extreme conservative listeners don't like change, sometimes of any sort.



Ravellian said:


> Something I would like to see is a general increase in the public interest of contemporary classical music. I am convinced that one of the best ways to make that happen is by introducing a certain level of predictability. People like to have some vague idea of what to expect when they go to listen to music...The way contemporary music is being written now, there's almost zero predictability because people seem to just write what they feel. But too much individuality can be a bad thing for an industry...


Well, I'm not saying everyone has to like John Cage, but I'm saying what he did can be used in different ways. I'd say that the Matthew Hindson piece I talked about incorporating improvisation did so in a structured way. The improvised bits were like solo cadenzas of various instruments. The conductor did not get involved with what they were doing. There was a strong element of tradition there. & the whole work sounded quite tonal, being based on that riff from that James Brown song.

But to cut a long story short, many composers (even "modern tonal" composers like Hindson) are using techniques pioneered or whatever by John Cage. So it's happened, it's a matter of history. Get over it, take it or leave it, it's there now & there's nothing anyone can do about it if they don't like it. Accept or don't accept, move on...


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

violadude said:


> I think if you say that by writing music that some (or a lot) of audience members don't like composers are saying F*** you to the audience, I think you have to say that about any composer, because I don't think there is music that exists that every single person in the world likes.


No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with partially reaching backwards towards older, accepted rules of harmony and form that audiences are more likely to appreciate, while still retaining individuality.. in other words, it is important to have one foot in the past while simultaneously making one step forward. I am also not against progress in music, but I wish it also to have strong logical continuity with what has proceeded. As it is now, many composers are trying to do this, but I feel too many are trying to be the new Wagner or Cage...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with partially reaching backwards towards older, accepted rules of harmony and form that audiences are more likely to appreciate, while still retaining individuality.. in other words, it is important to have one foot in the past while simultaneously making one step forward. I am also not against progress in music, but I wish it also to have strong logical continuity with what has proceeded. As it is now, many composers are trying to do this, but I feel too many are trying to be the new Wagner or Cage...


Hmm...I see what point you're trying to make. But at the same time, I sense an element for the past in almost all the contemporary classical I listen to. How far back do you consider the past anyway? Because I consider composers like Schoenberg and those guys in the past by now...


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

violadude said:


> Hmm...I see what point you're trying to make. But at the same time, I sense an element for the past in almost all the contemporary classical I listen to. How far back do you consider the past anyway? Because I consider composers like Schoenberg and those guys in the past by now...


From what I understand, the latest harmonic system that has come to be widely accepted and appreciated by audiences is the extension of tonality utilized by Wagner, Scriabin, and others in which 'expected' resolutions of tension-filled chords do not occur. Then of course, tonality is still always a viable and safe option. If a composer wishes to use a more controversial compositional method like serialism or aleatorics, they should strive in all other ways to make the composition as audience-friendly as possible (simple and understandable forms, clear motives/themes, etc). This may ensure that these relatively new compositional options become 'standard' and widely accepted.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Sid James said:


> But to cut a long story short, many composers (even "modern tonal" composers like Hindson) are using techniques pioneered or whatever by John Cage. So it's happened, it's a matter of history. Get over it, take it or leave it, it's there now & there's nothing anyone can do about it if they don't like it. Accept or don't accept, move on...


Well perhaps aleatorics are more standardized and widely accepted than I had thought. A shame, since I hate chance and improvisation in performance


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> Well perhaps aleatorics are more standardized and widely accepted than I had thought...


Chance, aleatorics, non-determinism or whatever you'd like to call it does seem to be in a fair amount of new or newer music (most of it I hear live). The Hindson piece was pretty special in terms of the clearer distinction between the notated bits and the "chance" or improvisatory bits. I think that Mr Hindson's popularity here - amongst classical music concertgoers, anyway - proves that the newer technques can be used in a way that doesn't necessarily mean they're not fun or scare people off or whatever. I think composers like him balance what he wants to do with who are his audience, & I think he does it with artistic integrity intact as far as I can tell.



> ...A shame, since I hate chance and improvisation in performance


Well, musos I know say the same thing, improvisation, etc. is bloody hard. It's not really made up on the spot at all, hours and hourse of practice, doing & thinking, is behind it, as a musician like yourself would be well aware...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> From what I understand, the latest harmonic system that has come to be widely accepted and appreciated by audiences is the extension of tonality utilized by Wagner, Scriabin, and others in which 'expected' resolutions of tension-filled chords do not occur. Then of course, tonality is still always a viable and safe option. If a composer wishes to use a more controversial compositional method like serialism or aleatorics, they should strive in all other ways to make the composition as audience-friendly as possible (simple and understandable forms, clear motives/themes, etc). This may ensure that these relatively new compositional options become 'standard' and widely accepted.


Well I guess we just flat out disagree...I think the composer should have the freedom to do what they want to do...how can art remain to be art if it has to pander to those that don't understand it?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Something about Cage I can't put my finger on just rubs me the the wrong way. I don't mind exploring Xenakis or George Crumb and would actually love to see them live, but Cage just induces a vomit reaction. Perhaps it's just the extreme gall of the worthless 4'33", which like a leaking septic tank has drowned all of his other works in **** for me.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Something about Cage I can't put my finger on just rubs me the the wrong way. I don't mind exploring Xenakis or George Crumb and would actually love to see them live, but Cage just induces a vomit reaction. Perhaps it's just the extreme gall of the worthless 4'33", which like a leaking septic tank has drowned all of his other works in **** for me.


Can we please stop obsessing over 4'33". John Cage didn't even intend for it to be listened to on a regular basis, it was just a clever way to state something he believed about music, a one time thing.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

violadude said:


> Can we please stop obsessing over 4'33". John Cage didn't even intend for it to be listened to on a regular basis, it was just a clever way to state something he believed about music, a one time thing.


You can work your entire life as a doctor or scientist, and just one tiny slip-up in integrity brings your entire career, no matter how esteemed up to that point, crashing down. 4'33" is that slip-up for Cage, it compromises his entire output.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> You can work your entire life as a doctor or scientist, and just one tiny slip-up in integrity brings your entire career, no matter how esteemed up to that point, crashing down. 4'33" is that slip-up for Cage, it compromises his entire output.


I don't see how...its just a statement about hiss beliefs...


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2011)

Here is what I read whenever Ravellian or Couchie posts about contemporary music: "Composers should write for me. They should write what I want to hear."

Since that's pretty blatant, some concealment has to take place, like "the audience" or "the listener" replacing "me" and "I."

But that's what it comes down to, it seems to me.

As for composers of the past making small changes to the music of their past, well that is at least partly (as the Brahms example should have shown) an illusion--that's what things look like to us, now, because we have the advantage of living in 2011 and can easily hear how Brahms' innovations built on the past. Much easier for us in 2011 to hear that than for people in 1880, say. Just as it has always been. It was much easier for listeners in 1880 to hear how Beethoven built his innovations on the music of Haydn and Mozart. Much easier than for listeners in 1800.

And so it goes.

As for what composers should or should not do, generally, why, they're going to do whatever they do no matter what. They all want people to like their music, of course.

They all know that only some people will like their music. A very few right off the bat. Maybe more as time goes on. Some composers, with an eye to the main chance, will try to write for the kind of people who seem to still be attending symphony concerts and buying CDs. And guess what? Only some people like their music as well. Only some.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I don't really think that, so I'm sorry that's what you read.

What I get from Cage is this: "Here is my music. It's defining quality is the lack of music". This emulates to a 'T' the children's Emperor's New Clothes fable. 4'33" really had to be the potential to be a brilliant satire on aesthetic criticism, sadly he and other people actually take it as a serious contribution. It's this respect and serious treatment of obvious farce which turns a lot of people off Cage, I think.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Couchie said:


> I don't really think that, so I'm sorry that's what you read.
> 
> What I get from Cage is this: "Here is my music. It's defining quality is the lack of music". This emulates to a 'T' the children's Emperor's New Clothes fable. 4'33" really had to be the potential to be a brilliant satire on aesthetic criticism, sadly he and other people actually take it as a serious contribution. It's this respect and serious treatment of obvious farce which turns a lot of people off Cage, I think.


Agree. You know, folks who draw parallels with great composers of the past (like the Brahms example, Haydn example etc.) are simply not comparing in a constructive manner. The greats of the past were innovative within the boundaries of what their audience would have at the very least, identified all these pieces as music; it is that simple. They didn't write music that was pretentious cacophonic nonsense, which like I have said many times before: if you blindfold a listener and then let them listen to many of these avant-garde pieces, the majority of them would not identify as music without prior knowledge, _let alone tell whether such pieces was well performed or not_. If the perfomer was moving rubber ducks across a pool of water, throwing an old radio on the ground and hitting a triangle, yet this is music following some stochastic sampling off a Monte Carlo simulation method, then a modern listener comes along believing it so _only because (s)he was told/read about it_. This is just bullsheet pretentiousness.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think some people here are confusing two issues. 

The first is the question whether a certain listener likes John Cage's music or not, which is an individual choice. It's a matter of individual taste, etc. 

The second is the contribution that composers like Cage made to music in the post-1945 era (eg. right up until today). Basically, read any reasonably authoritative book on music, whether general or focussing on modern/contemporary music, and Cage's name will at least be mentioned (or his contribution to music discussed in some depth, etc.). I'd hazard a guess that he's even had an impact on non-classical music. In any case, as I said above, Cage's contribution to & influence of composers today has been/is considerable. Of course, he's more of a "composer's composer," he's never going to be as popular as say Stravinsky was or is (but I'd say in terms of influence on fellow composers, they are equal)...


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The greats of the past were innovative within the boundaries of what their audience would have at the very least, identified all these pieces as music; it is that simple. They didn't write music that was pretentious cacophonic nonsense.


Well, this is simply wrong, as you probably already know. But you're not about to admit it, are you? History just doesn't match your preconception, so history must be ignored.

Listeners of the past heard Mozart and Beethoven and Berlioz and Schumann and Bizet and Liszt and Brahms and Wagner and Tchaikovsky and Debussy and Stravinsky and on and on and on as pretentious cacophonic nonsense at first. (Some of them--it's always only some. I don't hear any of the music you despise as cacophonic nonsense at all--but then since all you have to do is discount my experience, you can remain smug and correct, eh?)

It's that simple.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> Listeners of the past heard Mozart and Beethoven and Berlioz and Schumann and Bizet and Liszt and Brahms and Wagner and Tchaikovsky and Debussy and Stravinsky and on and on and on as pretentious cacophonic nonsense at first.


Spare us your contorted view on equating the music of those great folks with cacophonic crap.

I quote my own paragraph again below, and yet again, when presenting my thought-experiment about music recognition without prior knowledge/awarness, you again avoid the real issue. Likewise on the matter of performance critique on avant-garde sounds, which I rarely, in fact I don't ever recall, reading a negative critique on a bad performance of such pieces. Frankly, I don't even think you can tell whether a Xenakis chainsaw-sound was well performed or not, other than masquerade as self-contention that it was "good music" simply because the composer said it was music. Bravo! Let's have an encore on that.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Agree. You know, folks who draw parallels with great composers of the past (like the Brahms example, Haydn example etc.) are simply not comparing in a constructive manner. The greats of the past were innovative within the boundaries of what their audience would have at the very least, identified all these pieces as music; it is that simple. They didn't write music that was pretentious cacophonic nonsense, which like I have said many times before: if you blindfold a listener and then let them listen to many of these avant-garde pieces, the majority of them would not identify as music without prior knowledge, _let alone tell whether such pieces was well performed or not_. If the perfomer was moving rubber ducks across a pool of water, throwing an old radio on the ground and hitting a triangle, yet this is music following some stochastic sampling off a Monte Carlo simulation method, then a modern listener comes along believing it so _only because (s)he was told/read about it_. This is just bullsheet pretentiousness.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Spare us your contorted view on equating the music of those great folks with cacophonic crap.
> 
> I quote my own paragraph again below, and yet again, when presenting my thought-experiment about music recognition without prior knowledge/awarness, you again avoid the real issue. Likewise on the matter of performance critique on avant-garde sounds, which I rarely, in fact I don't ever recall, reading a negative critique on a bad performance of such pieces. Frankly, I don't even think you can tell whether a Xenakis chainsaw-sound was well performed or not, other than masquerade as self-contention that it was "good music" simply because the composer said it was music. Bravo! Let's have an encore on that.


Uhh..Why can't Xenakis' music be "good" music simply because some people like it?...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

violadude said:


> Uhh..Why can't Xenakis' music be "good" music simply because some people like it?...


Quite honestly, I care less if some people here don't value certain composers or their music which I value. Not only for what you say, but more importantly that the bulk of "middle ground" or "consensus" opinion coming from the people who matter in terms of music appreciation/knowledge - eg. musicians, music scholars/musicologists/writers on music, composers, etc. - are squarely on my side (which is the commonsense side). None of them would say Xenakis or Cage or Stockhausen is rubbish or something like that, even if they don't like them.

& I keep saying this all the time. J.S. Bach for at least a century after his death was much like John Cage is now, he was mainly a "composer's composer." Bach's choral music was presented to the mass public by Mendelssohn; the first time _The Art of Fugue_ was played in a public concert was like in the 1920's. However, despite his music being largely unknown to the general music listening public, John Cage's legacy is more widely available now & accessible to those who want it than Bach's was 20 years after his death. Anyone can get to "know" Cage through his writings, scores, recordings of his music, opinions on his music, etc. He's only obscure to those who don't know his stuff, in other words. Unlike Bach who had to be "resurrected," for want of a better term, by dedicated musicians long after his death...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

violadude said:


> Uhh..Why can't Xenakis' music be "good" music simply because some people like it?...


No, what I meant in my post was how can you tell if a particular _performance_ of Xenakis' music was well _performed_ (leaving aside for the moment the quality of the music itself)? I have rarely, if ever, recall reading a negative critique of such performances (like we often do say, such and such recording/concert of a Mozart piano concerto was badly performed), which leads me to think that people automatically assume that the performance of the avant-garde piece was "good", presupposing it was music to begin with, often because one has a prior awareness/knowledge that it was music. Hence my other question, which was a thought-experiment about blindfolding people without letting them know it was a composed piece of sound to begin with, and see how many such blindfolded listners can tell the extreme avant-garde cacophonic sounds were music, let alone well performed music. :tiphat:

But mute silence in response, unless mute silence equates to implicit and subtle agreement with what I suggested?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Quite honestly, I care less if some people here don't value certain composers or their music which I value. Not only for what you say, but more importantly that the bulk of "middle ground" or "consensus" opinion coming from the people who matter in terms of music appreciation/knowledge - eg. musicians, music scholars/musicologists/writers on music, composers, etc. - are squarely on my side (which is the commonsense side). None of them would say Xenakis or Cage or Stockhausen is rubbish or something like that, even if they don't like them.
> 
> & I keep saying this all the time. J.S. Bach for at least a century after his death was much like John Cage is now, he was mainly a "composer's composer." Bach's choral music was presented to the mass public by Mendelssohn; the first time _The Art of Fugue_ was played in a public concert was like in the 1920's. However, despite his music being largely unknown to the general music listening public, John Cage's legacy is more widely available now & accessible to those who want it than Bach's was 20 years after his death. Anyone can get to "know" Cage through his writings, scores, recordings of his music, opinions on his music, etc. He's only obscure to those who don't know his stuff, in other words. Unlike Bach who had to be "resurrected," for want of a better term, by dedicated musicians long after his death...


As for Johann Sebastian, history is your answer. Bach did not publish a vast majority of his music, and his professional career was a local one. In case if you don't know, he was a unique great composer from a professional/career viewpoint in that he did not travel outside his native country at all. All his life, he was in Germany (and a local part of it). His music only "left Germany" through his sons and close circle of Leipzig students. He was not an international star unlike all the other greats who travelled outside of their native country. So given his "local-ness", his greatness was even more astounding.

Imagine if Peter Sculthorpe never left Tasmanina ...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> No, what I meant in my post was how can you tell if a particular _performance_ of Xenakis' music was well _performed_ (leaving aside for the moment the quality of the music itself)? I have rarely, if ever, recall reading a negative critique of such performances (like we often do say, such and such recording/concert of a Mozart piano concerto was badly performed), which leads me to think that people automatically assume that the performance of the avant-garde piece was "good", presupposing it was music to begin with, often because one has a prior awareness/knowledge that it was music. Hence my other question, which was a thought-experiment about blindfolding people without letting them know it was a composed piece of sound to begin with, and see how many such blindfolded listners can tell the extreme avant-garde cacophonic sounds were music, let alone well performed music. :tiphat:
> 
> But mute silence in response, unless mute silence equates to implicit and subtle agreement with what I suggested?


I have heard Avant-Garde music not performed well. There is a recording of Penderecki's Threnody on Naxos that I think is terrible. There is no intensity in the sound, the arch of the piece is lost, the instruments don't come in on their parts with crisp attacks. The recording of that piece on Matrix is much better.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Spare us your contorted view on equating the music of those great folks with cacophonic crap.


Um, this is not my view. I do not equate the music of "those great folks" with cacophonic crap. The view I presented was that of some contemporaneous reports of "those great folks," which those listeners in that time heard as "cacophonic crap."

This is not as difficult as you're making it out to be.

As for dodging issues, well.... If the shoe fits.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

violadude said:


> I have heard Avant-Garde music not performed well. There is a recording of Penderecki's Threnody on Naxos that I think is terrible. There is no intensity in the sound, the arch of the piece is lost, the instruments don't come in on their parts with crisp attacks. The recording of that piece on Matrix is much better.


Penderecki is not too bad. Takes some effort but even I manage to come around to some of his music that I have listened to. I have also read some bad reviews of Schoenberg's violin concerto on recording, which makes interesting read. These are challenging pieces, which I have on recording, that at the very least do sound like music. I've listened to the Schoenberg violin concerto many times (over ten), and there are some surprising moments, but it still hasn't warmed up very much, though still listenable.

But what I was taking aim at was the extreme cacophonic variety that I've posted before, sounds that don't resemble much more different to R2-D2 from Star Wars beeping or a chainsaw going off. You know, the pretentious garbage that some good listeners even so proudly admit they have recordings of amongst the 4,000 CDs they own that are deleted, private recordings of etc. that blindfolded listeners can't even tell if it is music ...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> As for Johann Sebastian, history is your answer...In case if you don't know, he was a unique great composer from a professional/career viewpoint in that he did not travel outside his native country at all. All his life, he was in Germany (and a local part of it). His music only "left Germany" through his sons and close circle of Leipzig students. He was not an international star unlike all the other greats who travelled outside of their native country. So given his "local-ness", his greatness was even more astounding.
> 
> Imagine if Peter Sculthorpe never left Tasmanina ...


I don't know if that is always relevant, whether a composer travelled or not. Beethoven was superglued to Germany/Austria despite numerous attempts by the Brits to get him to visit there. Brahms was similar, didn't enjoy travelling, I think the most far East he went was Hungary (literally on Vienna's doorstep). Yet composers like John Field, who travelled all over the place, had more impact on composers (with his music, eg. composing the first nocturnes, a genre taken up by Chopin) than the public, who knew him more as a pianist. Liszt largely stopped touring as a pianist by about age 40, but even up till then, he never played his "meatier" works in public (eg. the _Sonata in B minor_), the public wanted lighter things like his _Hungarian Rhapsodies _& transcriptions. He composed the _Transcendental Etudes _largely for composers, not listeners (like Bach's _Art of Fugue_). The public didn't really want to hear these, they wouldn't know these from a bar of soap, yet now they're considered among their finest works. Ravel hated travel, I don't think he left Paris let alone France for any extended period of time, maybe spending a day or two over the border in Spain, but that was about it. Debussy was similar in his later years, but he did study in Rome during his younger years and spent time then in Russia as well.

So one can argue either way. It isn't really that relevant whether they travelled or not. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about whether the public knew them, how they knew them, and how many of their works were like more interesting for composers than the public for a long time, etc.



> ...Bach did not publish a vast majority of his music, and his professional career was a local one...


In terms of publication, that is a good point, but what I'm saying is that "those in the know" had some access to Bach's music in the period after his death when it was obscure for the general public. Quite a number of post-1945 composers are in a similar situation, they are like more known by composers, musicians, or those listeners with interest or who like this sort of music. So there is value to newer composers music, even if they're not as popular as say Glass or Part or whoever. Just like Bach was of value to some people until people like Mendelssohn and Landowska came along ages after he died...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> No, what I meant in my post was how can you tell if a particular _performance_ of Xenakis' music was well _performed_ (leaving aside for the moment the quality of the music itself)? I have rarely, if ever, recall reading a negative critique of such performances (like we often do say, such and such recording/concert of a Mozart piano concerto was badly performed), which leads me to think that people automatically assume that the performance of the avant-garde piece was "good", presupposing it was music to begin with, often because one has a prior awareness/knowledge that it was music...


Sorry, this is utter nonsense to say the least. With composers who are LIVING often recordings are done in their presence. Any technical or interpretative issues can be ironed out with them personally, with their input, before the recording/performance. So naturally, it will have less problems than something by a dead composer, esp. one dead for 100+ years. I own numerous recordings like this, and also regularly attend concerts where the composer is present (just did that last night, actually). So what you're talking about performances of new music being not good enough or whatever is just hogwash (sorry!). If anything, they are more accurate than older music. Can you resurrect Handel and ask him whether he likes say Hogwood's or whoever's performance of one of his works?

Today's performers of new music are just as perfectionists like that of older music. I was at a premiere of a new work in the 1990's when at the end of the piece, after the applause, the conductor told the audience that there were too many mistakes made the first time, so they proceeded to play it "properly" the second time. It was a substantial piece, about 20 minutes. More recently this year, I was at a recital of electro-acoustic music, and the saxophonist Ben Carey did a similar thing, he stopped sometime into the piece so that the elctronics could be adjusted. I think Carey was playing his own piece, but he also played other things, same goes with those.

Even with composers now dead like Cage, Xenakis, Stockhausen, etc. we have a wealth of information about what they said about their music, how/why they wrote it, etc. coming directly from their mouths, not a secondary or third person source, as with much of old/ancient music. So basically I don't think you understand the "guts" of contemporary classical music, that's okay, but making blanket statements like this just talks to the fact that you personally don't like certain types of music for whatever reason. That can be relevant, but it's not all encompassing, it's not the "truth" by any means...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Sorry, this is utter nonsense to say the least. With composers who are LIVING often recordings are done in their presence. Any technical or interpretative issues can be ironed out with them personally, with their input, before the recording/performance. So naturally, it will have less problems than something by a dead composer, esp. one dead for 100+ years. I own numerous recordings like this, and also regularly attend concerts where the composer is present (just did that last night, actually). So what you're talking about performances of new music being not good enough or whatever is just hogwash (sorry!). If anything, they are more accurate than older music. Can you resurrect Handel and ask him whether he likes say Hogwood's or whoever's performance of one of his works?
> 
> Today's performers of new music are just as perfectionists like that of older music. I was at a premiere of a new work in the 1990's when at the end of the piece, after the applause, the conductor told the audience that there were too many mistakes made the first time, so they proceeded to play it "properly" the second time. It was a substantial piece, about 20 minutes. More recently this year, I was at a recital of electro-acoustic music, and the saxophonist Ben Carey did a similar thing, he stopped sometime into the piece so that the elctronics could be adjusted. I think Carey was playing his own piece, but he also played other things, same goes with those.
> 
> Even with composers now dead like Cage, Xenakis, Stockhausen, etc. we have a wealth of information about what they said about their music, how/why they wrote it, etc. coming directly from their mouths, not a secondary or third person source, as with much of old/ancient music. So basically I don't think you understand the "guts" of contemporary classical music, that's okay, but making blanket statements like this just talks to the fact that you personally don't like certain types of music for whatever reason. That can be relevant, but it's not all encompassing, it's not the "truth" by any means...


That's not what I was suggesting. If you have Cage or a living composer personally directing the pieces, then I would say the composer who knew best, would most likely have assured their intentions came out best under performance. But what of many other recordings and performances that don't? Many of the bizzare avant-garde types are without their direction, that leave a large "segment" (if that's the right term) of the music to the perfomer, such as throwing a radio onto the ground or moving a rubber ruck across a pool of water. How do you discern if that is a well performed piece? Or that doesn't matter? Your points above argued from the composers and performers point of view, who are "just as perfectionists like that of older music", which I do not doubt on the substance of that assertion, but how do you, Sid James or _some guy_, as listerners, tell if the piece was a fine performance? We don't doubt Herbert von Karajan was a perfectionist, but even he came up with some bad recordings. It just seems to be that some avant-garde listeners are willinging to switch off their "thinking musical faculty" when it comes to cacophonic pieces and assume all performances are great. When pieces of music get to the point where listeners might have a hard time appreciating it, let alone telling if the performers were reallu up to it or not, it's all smokes & mirrors.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It just seems to be that some avant-garde listeners are willinging to switch off their "thinking musical faculty" when it comes to cacophonic pieces and assume all performances are great. When pieces of music get to the point where listeners might have a hard time appreciating it, let alone telling if the performers were reallu up to it or not, it's all smokes & mirrors.

Well obviously if you believe that there is no "good" nor "bad" music... only the inability of certain listeners to appreciate certain music... then you must logically assume that there can be no "good" nor "bad" performances of the same.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> That's not what I was suggesting. If you have Cage or a living composer personally directing the pieces, then I would say the composer who knew best, would most likely have assured their intentions came out best under performance...


Agreed & I'd also say the same about conductors, musicians, etc. who play a living composer's pieces with his/her input (without the composer being directly involved in the performance, but being heavily consulted about it in preparation, being there at the premiere or recording session, etc.).



> ...But what of many other recordings and performances that don't? Many of the bizzare avant-garde types are without their direction, that leave a large "segment" (if that's the right term) of the music to the perfomer, such as throwing a radio onto the ground or moving a rubber ruck across a pool of water. How do you discern if that is a well performed piece? Or that doesn't matter? Your points above argued from the composers and performers point of view, who are "just as perfectionists like that of older music", which I do not doubt on the substance of that assertion, but how do you, Sid James or _some guy_, as listerners, tell if the piece was a fine performance?...


Well, I personally am not into music like that which you describe, but I have heard it on air. Eg. a recent piece that won an award in Europe which was a chamber work that also had glasses being smashed. I'm not sure if it was chance-based, I think that the moment that the glass was smashed was put directly into the score. So even those kinds of things can be controlled to a degree if the composer wants them to be.

In terms of your general point about there not being enough control in some pieces, and not being able to judge a performance as a result, I think that the ball is more in the performer's court than the composers' in these works. That is kind of the point of the whole thing. In THIS recording for example, cellist Sonia Wieder-Atherton plays pieces by Giacinto Scelsi for which he calls for a metal mute that is attached to the strings of the cello. In the notes, she says that in her performance, she went for more caution and control than she would if the mute wasn't there (it makes the sounds that come out less predictable than in normal playing). She made that decision with her experience as a cellist. Another cellist might make a completely different decision, play these pieces in a totally different way. So there maybe isn't a "right" or "wrong" way. But as in all classical, there are several ways to play the same piece (probably limited to the number of individual musicians on the planet). So basically, as with any other music, the listener has to have a degree of trust in the integrity, skills and knowledge, etc. of the performer. Reading Ms Wieder-Atherton's notes, I can see that she knows her stuff. She also plays Monteverdi on this disc, so she's not just experted in newer music. Our musicians, or the best of them imo, can do many different things.



> ...We don't doubt Herbert von Karajan was a perfectionist, but even he came up with some bad recordings.


Well, I personally don't build monuments to anyone, whether it be to Karajan or the cellist I mentioned above. I enjoy some things more or less than others. I don't like what I've heard of the work of Martha Argerich, I think that some pianists I've heard here live could run rings around her in some ways, but I'm not going to rubbish her or anyone else I don't like. That's life, it's about balance.



> ...It just seems to be that some avant-garde listeners are willinging to switch off their "thinking musical faculty" when it comes to cacophonic pieces and assume all performances are great. When pieces of music get to the point where listeners might have a hard time appreciating it, let alone telling if the performers were reallu up to it or not, it's all smokes & mirrors...


Well I think this is a rant, basically & I think it's an extreme opinion. It might apply to some listeners in the extremes of the spectrum, but most listeners are in the middle part of the spectrum. You seem to have a problem with those at the extreme "avant-garde" end, but I'm more concerned about those in the extreme "hard" conservative end. These people walk out on things like Mahler or R. Strauss & consider them to be 'horrible atonal noise' or something of the sort. They think that the "best" classical music was only from between say about 1800-1900, and then the warhorses ONLY. I'm just sick of these extremists, as they tend to dominate the discourse much much more than the "avant-garde" extremists that you seem to be very concerned about. Have a look at the Sydney Symphony Orchestra's program for this year. It's mainly warhorses, not much else, or if anything else, it's basically tokenism. They've lost many middle ground listeners, such as myself & others I know, as a result of this pandering to people who don't have a clue about what is the crux of music (now I could rant, but I won't)...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Have a look at the Sydney Symphony Orchestra's program for this year. It's mainly warhorses, not much else, or if anything else, it's basically tokenism.


That's all economics. Subsidies can't be afforded to keep the arts given a pot of money that's finite in size. I agree, we would love to see a much broader range of pieces performed, and even have a Baroque ensemble that is made up of its own members (like some world class symphony orchestras that have their own period instrument bands too).

The smashing glass piece you mentioned is another whole new level. Is there a recording of the piece? :lol: There is a new office tower being constructed in the CBD and I hear similarly awful sounds. Maybe I should ask the construction workers for an encore? Though I doubt that was part of their work contract.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The first time I heard Cage's music was on a 20th century classical music compilation album...I had no idea who John Cage was, had never heard any of his music, or anything about '433. All I knew was that to my ears the music sounded really fresh, vibrant, and completely different than any music I had ever heard before. He inspired me and I have no doubt he will continue to inspire many composers with his ideas. For the record though I've never considered him to be a Beethoven or Brahms type composer, I agree with the ideas some others have put forth that in the future he'll be seen more as a CPE Bach type composer, someone whose innovations really opened a lot of doors type thing - an innovator more so than a producer of many masterpieces. I don't enjoy all of Cage's pieces, and I agree with a lot of HC's ideas about the crappiness of a lot of modern music. I do think there is a lot of really questionable stuff being put out there right now, and I have noticed HC does actually listen to and respect a lot of newer music, more than some would think. He has a point about some of the pieces out there. I think its fine and its funny this music rubs him that way. Why should everyone automatically accept everything? Is critical thinking not allowed anymore? Its not like HC criticizes anything and everything new.

I just think though in the case of Cage, many people let '433 and some of his outspoken ideas about the definition of 'music' possibly get in the way of enjoying his music for what it is - a lot of it is quite good, and very innovative.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I'm just sick of these extremists, as they tend to dominate the discourse much much more than the "avant-garde" extremists that you seem to be very concerned about. Have a look at the Sydney Symphony Orchestra's program for this year. It's mainly warhorses, not much else, or if anything else, it's basically tokenism. They've lost many middle ground listeners, such as myself & others I know, as a result of this pandering to people who don't have a clue about what is the crux of music (now I could rant, but I won't)...


I understand your point, Sid, and I do believe that only playing pre-modern music is bad for classical music (or any music). Actually, contemporary music _should_ be played not just modern. The real question is: which works and how often?

I think you're a bit hard on the group you label "extremists". It's my understanding that these "extremists" represent a large fraction of the listening public (maybe even quite large). I think they are the middle ground. There have been several threads discussing how best to introduce modern music to the average classical listener. I don't think we really know what would work well or even work at all. I know it's frustrating to people like you who hunger for newer works, but they just want some enjoyable entertainment.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> That's all economics...


& also ideology, dogma, prejudgement (the recent Mahler 9 walkout, which is now a mix between being legendary & notorious)...



> ...The smashing glass piece you mentioned is another whole new level. Is there a recording of the piece? :lol: There is a new office tower being constructed in the CBD and I hear similarly awful sounds. Maybe I should ask the construction workers for an encore? Though I doubt that was part of their work contract.


You are prejudging here. It was a good piece in my opinion. It won a prestigious prize decided by the _International Rostrum of Composers_. But apart from that, I enjoyed it, it was contemporary chamber music at it's finest. Yes, the smashing glasses were unusual and wierd, but that's the territory with new music sometimes (but not all the time). Here are the details -

Kristaps Pētersons (born 1982, Latvia): _Twilight Chants_, for mixed choir, double bass and glasses (2009)

HERE is a list of past winners of the prize. These are big names in contemporary classical, past and present of the last few decades. You probably know guys like Ligeti, who are now dead, but you may not know some of the living ones, all of whose works I've heard so far prove them to be at a very high level. This is no mickey mouse prize, it's decided by a panel of experts in the contemporary music field. No doubt, a "people's choice" prize would be different, but as far as for what it's worth, a measure of expert opinion, it's pretty good, it correlates with my experience with some of these composers' music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

tdc said:


> The first time I heard Cage's music was on a 20th century classical music compilation album...I had no idea who John Cage was, had never heard any of his music, or anything about '433. All I knew was that to my ears the music sounded really fresh, vibrant, and completely different than any music I had ever heard before. He inspired me and I have no doubt he will continue to inspire many composers with his ideas. For the record though I've never considered him to be a Beethoven or Brahms type composer, I agree with the ideas some others have put forth that in the future he'll be seen more as a CPE Bach type composer, someone whose innovations really opened a lot of doors type thing - an innovator more so than a producer of many masterpieces.


Schoenberg would agree with you, from his viewpoint as teacher of Cage, and also a member of the older generation of composers. Schoenberg famously called Cage "not a composer, but an inventor of genius."



> ...Why should everyone automatically accept everything? Is critical thinking not allowed anymore?


I'd kind of change that and say "Why should everyone NOT accept music that has potential to be basically interesting, engaging, imaginative, etc.?" Postive rather than negative.



> ...Its not like HC criticizes anything and everything new.


No, but he is sometimes quick to prejudge (see my reply to him above).


> ...I just think though in the case of Cage, many people let '433 and some of his outspoken ideas about the definition of 'music' possibly get in the way of enjoying his music for what it is - a lot of it is quite good, and very innovative.


I agree, people should listen to Cage's actual music, rather than concept pieces like 4'33" that get you nowhere in that regard. & not only listening, but reading widely about post-1945 music, the various trends, etc. is also a good idea...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> ...I think you're a bit hard on the group you label "extremists"...


Maybe I am being hard or judgemental myself, but I think basically these highly inflexible people are BAD NEWS for the future of classical music as a whole.



> ...It's my understanding that these "extremists" represent a large fraction of the listening public (maybe even quite large). I think they are the middle ground...


Well it depends which audience you're talking about.

If you're talking about say the audience of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra here, then these inflexible listeners are definitely a large part of their audience (hence, the largely unimaginative "bums on seats" warhorse programming you get from that group).

However, if you look at the concerts I frequent more in the smaller venues - presenting a more interesting variety of music, or at least less well travelled in some ways, not all warhorses - then there the "middle ground" is exactly those types of listeners, highly flexible. Some of the concerts I go to are specialist areas (eg. choral, contemporary, chamber), but others offer a mix of old and new things. I don't ever see say a third of those audience members desert the concert halfway at interval (which is what I made that thread about, these inflexible people walking out or avoiding Mahler or R. Strauss), but this happens all the time at the Sydney Symphony & other "flagship" groups. It's ridiculous.



> ...There have been several threads discussing how best to introduce modern music to the average classical listener. I don't think we really know what would work well or even work at all. I know it's frustrating to people like you who hunger for newer works, but they just want some enjoyable entertainment.


Look at the latest concerts thread which has my reviews of previous concerts I've attended, many of which had a mix of old & new things, put together appropriately. The answer to your question is good & imaginative programming. Things that will engage the average listener in the middle part of the spectrum, not just pander to various rigid conservative cliques. It's happening here, but not really to the "flagship" groups. They think of classical music as a museum piece, as outdated as the tastes of these listeners stuck in the jurassic era. But I've given up reviewing concerts there because some people say I'm long-winded, etc. which is probably true, so I'm not going to bother, I don't want to bore people to death...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Flexibility is relative. You yourself are not a fan of JS Bach, which is fine. That doesn't bother me.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ Yeah, but I'm more okay with J. S. Bach's music now than I was say two years ago when I joined this forum (you weren't a member then so you maybe don't know my "transformation" or whatever you'd call it). & some Baroque era composers I've always liked eg. the Italians & now Handel.

But the bottom line is not you or me or anyone on this forum it's more broader, imo. It's an issue of acknowledging that post-1945 composers made & still make a big contribution to classical music & that this music is not only about the musical legacies of the distant past (which I admit are still of huge importance) but also of the more recent past & present day as well. In other words, it's a living art & craft.

That's what I'm driving at with regards to "flexibility," the "big picture." It's also about things like balance & giving things a chance, as you've done with some things formerly foreign to your tastes, as I've done in my own way & many other "middle ground" listeners have & continue to do...


----------



## nosmelc (Aug 22, 2011)

there's nothing "wrong" with anyone doing what they want as long as it is not harmful to others and since no one has to listen, no harm done. But if a person makes music that just explores themselves why should anyone listen to it? What do they have to offer?


----------



## nosmelc (Aug 22, 2011)

i couldn't agree more with the idea of reaching back while retaining one's individuality. Stravinsky, (certainly one of the greatest composers of the past hundred years) created neoclassical music for thirty years.


----------



## nosmelc (Aug 22, 2011)

If a composer wishes to use a more controversial compositional method like serialism or aleatorics, they should strive in all other ways to make the composition as audience-friendly as possible 

how is aleatorics a method of composition? Getting back to Cage, he wrote aleatoric music that consists of drawings to be interpreted by performers. I don't see how this is a musical composition at all. A painting by Monet or whomever one likes may be beautiful, it may also inspire someone to play music but I don't think anyone thinks of Monet as a composer. So why should anyone thinks Cage's drawings are pieces of music?


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2011)

Aleatorics refers to the (largely) European practice of allowing limited performing freedom within a composer controlled context.

Cage´s practice is called indeterminacy and is the (largely) American practice of making situations in which the composer has little to no control over the actual sounds of a piece. (Ricardo Mandolini once said that Cage´s relation to one of his indeterminate pieces is analogous to an intrument maker´s relationship to the instrument she´s made. She has made a thing which will make music, but she has no control over the music anyone will make on her instrument.)

As for Cage´s drawings, he did make a lot of drawings, but those are not scores, they´re drawings. He also made a lot of graphic scores. These all come with detailed instructions as to how to play the shapes. He also wrote a lot of conventionally scored music, too. And he did indeterminate piece with both forms of notation. 

People think Cage´s graphic scores are music because Cage was a composer.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

One of John Cage's first pieces of indeterminate work was _Imaginary Landscape No.4_ (1951). Cage interestingly described the piece and performance of it as follows, with his usual dose of bombast and esotericism: " ... _a mistake is beside the point, for once anything happens, it authentically is_".

Now that's interesting, because if HarpsichordConcerto decided to be a performing monkey in this piece (by bluffing everyone that he was a trained musician in front of the audience), that during the "performance" itself, he farted as loudly as he could and so a _mistake_ was made, so his flatuence literally and authentically was part of the performance??? :lol: If he was having lucky day, the audience might want an encore.

Scored for 12 radios amongst whatever else, the music professor explained this piece followed by a "performance" of it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I actually like that series of pieces, they are very interesting imo & also highly innovative. He wasn't only one of the pioneers of "chance" music, but also predicting (in a way) things like musique concrete, which was emerging in Europe during the same post-war period with guys like Pierre Schaeffer & Pierre Henry (& also Edgard Varese). If this was 1951, that's a good thing, he was doing things like this 60 years ago, he was pioneering many things still being explored today in many different ways...


----------

