# Is It A Sign Of Stupidity If A Person Dislikes Varese?



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Last week _New Yorker_ critic Alex Ross tweeted:



> *Zappa on Varèse's critical reception: "The reason that they hated it is because they were stupid. But these things happen in America."*



I have one Varese CD on my shelf which I bought many years ago (Boulez Conducts Varese) and I honestly have no desire to revisit his music again, much of it concerned with sound and process per se rather than with purely musical ideas and their development. There's simply too much music out there I've either not yet experienced or not experienced or understood to the deepest level of which I'm capable to spend valuable time sussing out the ostensible music value of someone like Varese.

Question:

Are you a little surprised that the leading classical critic in the United States Ross would tweet that?

Taking that sort of attitude definitely won't change any minds, right?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm more disturbed that Alex Ross is being called the "leading classical critic in the United States".

Who cares what Zappa or Ross think. Life's too short. Listen to what you like. Ignore the rest.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

hpowders said:


> I'm more disturbed by you calling Alex Ross the "leading classical critic in the United States".


Oh, I didn't mean it that way... What I meant was most 'prominent' classical music critic.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Well, it wasn't necessarily his attitude, but Zappa's. Zappa, brilliant as he was at times, had a lot of opinions and pulled no punches. 

I'm not overly fond of Varese's music either, but I don't hate him. I think there is a subtle difference.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

No, I'd say it was just Ross exercising his right to free speech. It's what he feels, surely, rather than what he thinks? I can't see it changing many minds either way. It might draw some people's attention to Varèse's music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hpowders said:


> I'm more disturbed that Alex Ross is being called the "leading classical critic in the United States".
> 
> Who cares what Zappa or Ross think. Life's too short. Listen to what you like. Ignore the rest.


I wonder why it is that some people like Varese and some people don't. It could be that some people are too stupid to appreciate it, of course. Just like some people are to stupid to appeciate Hamlet and the Elgin Marbles.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Oh, I didn't mean it that way... What I meant was most 'prominent' classical music critic.


If you like Varese, fine. Who cares what Zappa and Ross say? Zappa has always been controversial.

Ross can play Varese 24/7, 365 days a year for all I care. Zappa too, wherever he is.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I wonder why it is that some people like Varese and some people don't. It could be that some people are too stupid to appreciate it, of course. Just like some people are to stupid to appeciate Hamlet and the Elgin Marbles.


My credo is and always has been, listen to what you like, performed by whomever you like, but don't attempt to force your stuff down my throat when I politely indicate I prefer something else.

You like Varese. That's fine. You hate Varese. That's fine. Insert the name of any other composer there instead of Varese. I don't lose any sleep over this trivial nonsense.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

There's a whole topic on this forum discussing whether or not classical music fans in general are more intelligent than others. I'd say no.

As for the question of specific composers/styles (no matter which), again I'd say no. Speaking of personal opinion, Varese did a good bit of fascinating work, but personally I enjoy the composers he inspired (Messiaen, Boulez) more than pieces like Ameriques or Deserts. Ionisation is a great piece, though, and I do question the distinction you make between "sound" and the "purely musical". Surely rhythm and timbre are musical qualities as well?


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

A "re-tweet" or tweeting a quote doesn't necessarily mean _endorsement_, many people on Twitter make this very clear as to avoid misunderstandings. So, I can't really address your question about Alex Ross. The Zappa quote is absurd, of course. Then again, he was probably being controversial just for the sake of being controversial. So, who knows.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I hate the insinuation that if I don't like a composer, I must be stupid. However, I won't be baited by it. Life's too short.

I have never taken anything Zappa said seriously. Add this one to the long list.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> A "re-tweet" or tweeting a quote doesn't necessarily mean _endorsement_, many people on Twitter make this very clear as to avoid misunderstandings. So, I can't really address your question about Alex Ross. The Zappa quote is of course, absurd. Then again, he was probably being controversial just for the sake of being controversial. So, who knows.


Yeah, that's true. Just re-tweeting something from Zappa doesn't say anything about Ross. He simply wants to stir the pot and have the issue debated.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Xavier said:


> I have one Varese CD on my shelf which I bought many years ago (Boulez Conducts Varese) and I honestly have no desire to revisit his music again, much of it concerned with sound and process per se rather than with purely musical ideas and their development. There's simply too much music out there I've either not yet experienced or not experienced or understood to the deepest level of which I'm capable to spend valuable time sussing out the ostensible music value of someone like Varese.
> 
> Question:
> 
> ...


That's a pretty stupid assessment. He wants to move on to other music he doesn't "understand" when he hasn't even taken the time to listen to the Varese CD he has. I'd say Varese on the "deepest level" goes beyond mere "sound and process".

As for the Zappa quote. Take it with a grain of salt. He was answering an interview question most likely posed by someone who knows nothing about music, so why should he waste his time an energy expounding on the subject? He saved that for his college lectures, and extensive interviews for publications read by musicians.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Twitter's main function is to make yourself look stupid, self promotion is a secondary aim. Pay no heed to the twits and your life will improve immeasurably.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

I admit to not knowing Varese at all, so I just watched and listened to a performance of Ionisation on the web. It was quite interesting. Not everyday you listen to a work with a siren in it. I think this is a score that would best be appreciated live (of course, that could be said about all pieces). I'm not sure I 'liked' it but it certainly kept my attention for 7 minutes.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Zappa's general opinion of the American public was not very high, it's not surprising he would say that. However, I've never seen that quote before, and it would nice to have a source beyond someone's twitter feed. I do recall him saying that popular music is sold as a visual medium in America, and joking that you could sell Varèse to a pop audience if you had a guy with a tambourine bopping along to it at the front of the stage.

Varèse's work has great importance for me, both as a composer and as a listener. I don't think you have to be smart to like it, I don't think you have to be stupid to dislike it, but I do think it is highly rewarding music that is worth taking the time to absorb.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

"...taking the time to absorb." That's the key! Hell, it's taken me three years to get into the Bartok quartets. And now I'm finally hearing the music. 

And I should have used the word shortsighted, instead of stupid, when commenting on the Varese assessment.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

starthrower:



starthrower said:


> That's a pretty stupid assessment. He wants to move on to other music he doesn't "understand" when he hasn't even taken the time to listen to the Varese CD he has.


Oh please... I listened to _Amériques_, _Arcana_, _Density 21.5_, _Déserts_ and _Ionisation_ many times when I first bought that Sony Classical CD in 1997.

Anyway, I will leave the experiencing of and involvement with Varese to those who've more of a taste than I for quasi-music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Quasi music. That made me laugh! But seriously, 1997 was a long time ago. You could listen to it again, and then trash it!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

To answer the question: Yes, if you haven't met him. Also stupid to like the guy under that condition. Regarding his music, who cares either way? Not, at this time, Varese anyway.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Xavier said:


> quasi-music.


Please explain.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

^^^
Hey man, I thought you retired? Nice to see you back!

That's Ukko, I mean.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Xavier said:


> Anyway, I will leave the experiencing of and involvement with Varese to those who've more of a taste than I for quasi-music.


Myself, I would just call it music.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

starthrower said:


> ^^^
> Hey man, I thought you retired? Nice to see you back!


No, I've been around, just haven't really seen any discussions that interest me lately, that or I had nothing to say worth saying. I've mostly been in the Today's Composers forum plugging my wares.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Heh, heh! Sorry for the edit, but nice to hear from Crudblud too.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

TurnaboutVox said:


> No, I'd say it was just Ross exercising his right to free speech. It's what he feels, surely, rather than what he thinks? I can't see it changing many minds either way. It might draw some people's attention to Varèse's music.


In a way, it *did*. In order to understand the thread, I thought I'd better listen (for the first time) to some Varèse. The great thing about TC is that it educates us willy-nilly! 

So I'm listening to his *Amériques*. It's not really my cup of tea, but to my surprise it's palatable; I 'quite like it' and I can see that it has been crafted carefully. Of course, that may be because compared with newer music, Varèse's piece doesn't sound too unconventional - but when it first appeared, it *was*, and many people find it difficult to appreciate new music simply because their taste has been formed differently. That's understandable & not wrong if they don't persecute new composers but just shrug and walk away.

So my answer is, people who dislike Varèse are not stupid; and nor can you label people who do like his music. I still like Beatrix Potter's *Squirrel Nutkin*, but that doesn't mean I have the IQ of a seven-year-old.

I'm with hpowders on this - chacun à son goût.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

This might be a language-thing but the word "hate" has such a strong and very negative meaning in Dutch, that I avoid it in my mental system. I can't use it in the casual way Americans or Brits use it .

Anyways, matter of age, I guess, to make such strong statements and actually care about what other people think about it/you. Like what you like, speak your mind (in a nice way) and think for yourself. An open mind is good for all aspects in life. 
These type of discussions always remind me of a song by The Tubes: "I was a punk before you were a punk"
Life realy is too short for this.....

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

The OP does some subtle distorting of what it presents.

The Zappa quote is not about a person or persons generally but about critical reception and the critical climate in the US, specifically. I took it to be referring to critics shirking their responsibilities not about audience reactions generally.

And it wasn't about liking or disliking, either, but about hating.

Xavier might also want to consider the possibility that his Boulez CD is not the be all and end all of Varese performances, too. I've been a huge admirer of Varese ever since I first heard his music. And Boulez's recordings are not what I would ever recommend. Well, I would recommend that you avoid them. It's odd. You'd think that Boulez would put out really spiff performances of Varese; you know, along the lines of his Webern CDs. But no.

[Edit: Just read Xavier's revealing remark about "quasi-music." Too bad about that.]


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Jos said:


> This might be a language-thing but the word "hate" has such a strong and very negative meaning in Dutch, that I avoid it in my mental system. I can't use it in the casual way Americans or Brits use it .
> 
> Anyways, matter of age, I guess, to make such strong statements and actually care about what other people think about it/you. Like what you like, speak your mind (in a nice way) and think for yourself. An open mind is good for all aspects in life.
> These type of discussions always remind me of a song by The Tubes: "I was a punk before you were a punk"
> ...


You are right. Life is too short to be wasting any time on this.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

some guy said:


> Xavier might also want to consider the possibility that his Boulez CD is not the be all and end all of Varese performances, too. I've been a huge admirer of Varese ever since I first heard his music. And Boulez's recordings are not what I would ever recommend. Well, I would recommend that you avoid them. It's odd. You'd think that Boulez would put out really spiff performances of Varese; you know, along the lines of his Webern CDs. But no.


What performances of Varese would you recommend? Chailly's set perhaps?


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Chailly's set is pretty good. Surprised the hell outta me, anyway.

And his _Ameriques_ is the original, which I prefer as it has all those Debussy-ish bits in it.

And his _Deserts_ is the complete piece, not some eviscerated thing like what Boulez offers up.

And while the set is not complete--just billed as complete--it does have some very tasty little nuggets that no one else has bothered to record, yet.

Lyndon-Gee's are also quite good, for recent recordings. Craft and Mehta both put out some very fine performances back in the day. As I recall, it was a Craft LP that got Zappa started on his life-long love affair with Varese's music.

[Edit: I like the performance of _Arcana_ that is coupled with Holst's _Planets,_ conducted by Leonard Slatkin. Not sure how easy that one is to find. It and the Mehta are the ones to have for that piece, though. I haven't heard Martinon's Varese in forever. I don't remember it one way or the other. I've never heard Nagano's, but I've been consistently under-impressed by Nagano, so am no sort of guide to his recordings at all.]


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> What performances of Varese would you recommend? Chailly's set perhaps?


The Chailly set is spectacular. Hopefully one day the recordings Frank conducted and produced of Varese will get released too. Slonimsky said something to the effect that he had never heard the music played better.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hpowders said:


> My credo is and always has been, listen to what you like, performed by whomever you like, but don't attempt to force your stuff down my throat when I politely indicate I prefer something else.
> 
> You like Varese. That's fine. You hate Varese. That's fine. Insert the name of any other composer there instead of Varese. I don't lose any sleep over this trivial nonsense.


I think all that's pretty sound, I was just trying to a bit further and see what underpins these tastes.

You know, there's a certain sort of guy who has tried a bit to listen to music not written in the way of Haydn, Beethoven etc, music which isn't common practice music, found it a real challenge, and then straight away abandons it, they may even dismiss it, incorrectly, as not very good. And sometimes, in some cases, I think that's because they're not clever enough to appreciate it, just not genetically gifted enough. Or maybe because they're just so dead behind the eyes that they're not curious enough to explore it. Or because they're so conceited and arrogant that they think their initial judgement is a valid one.

So we have three types of stupidity.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

some guy said:


> Chailly's set is pretty good. Surprised the hell outta me, anyway.
> 
> And his _Ameriques_ is the original, which I prefer as it has all those Debussy-ish bits in it.
> 
> ...


My only beef with the Chailly set is that it seems there were some technical issues with Deserts, with the electronics. I may be mistaken, but in my Lyndon-Gee recording, most of the electronic parts are pretty clear, with audible tones whereas the same parts in the Chailly set are heavily distorted, and some of the melodies are practically inaudible.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> So we have three types of stupidity.


And there are many more........


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Xavier said:


> much of it concerned with sound and process per se rather than with purely musical ideas and their development.


Are those two different things?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

some guy said:


> As I recall, it was a Craft LP that got Zappa started on his life-long love affair with Varese's music.


Federic Waidman was apparently the conductor on the first Varèse record Zappa heard. Never heard of Waidman, but Zappa recalls the record details in this article.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

BurningDesire said:


> My only beef with the Chailly set is that it seems there were some technical issues with Deserts, with the electronics. I may be mistaken, but in my Lyndon-Gee recording, most of the electronic parts are pretty clear, with audible tones whereas the same parts in the Chailly set are heavily distorted, and some of the melodies are practically inaudible.


Yeah, sorry. I should have mentioned that the Lyndon-Gee is also complete. I don't remember the differences, but now I'm inspired to see if I have both of those sound files with me. I'll give both of them a listen, again, if I do.

And thanks to Crudblud for the info about Zappa's first Varese. I was going purely by memory on that one.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Xavier said:


> Last week _New Yorker_ critic Alex Ross tweeted:
> 
> [/font][/b][/size]
> Question:
> ...


_Is It A Sign Of Stupidity If A Person Dislikes Varese?_No.

_Are you a little surprised that the leading classical critic in the United States Ross would tweet that?_

No.

_Taking that sort of attitude definitely won't change any minds, right?_

That's not Ross's attitude. But irrespective who 'owns' the attitude, who says that they want to change minds?

_Is it a sign of stupidity to start threads with 'quotes out of context' used to misrepresent the opinions of others and to promote a reactionary agenda?_

...?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It's no more a sign of stupidity for someone who dislikes Varese as it is a sign of intelligence for someone who likes Varese.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Let's look at Varese's music for what it is. He is a modernist, conceived of sound as "stuff" he could move around. Hardly any traditional musical concerns, like voice leading, chords, harmonic function. So you have to listen to it as "sound" mainly, not as "musical ideas" in the traditional sense. He has his idiosyncracies: the tribal-sounding riffs, lots of percussion.

So to call it "quasi-music" is, in a way, correct, since hunting for Mozartian devices in there will be fruitless. It's correct, that is, if you choose to limit "music" to mean the traditional craft of music, concerned with pitch and harmony and tonal function.

So I am not offended by the use of the term "quasi-music;" I see it as a negative manifestation of someone who is a conservative, and has chosen to limit their idea of what "true music" is.

I see it as music of the highest order, myself; but I have art credentials, like art of all eras, and understand art as a language. The real problem is "modern art" and how music tries to fit into that, and how most of the Western classical music produced in the 300 years before the 20th century was created according to the tradition which that established.

Modernism in any art form demands that we be flexible and open, and prepared to depart from tradition and older ways of defining art.

So, to call Varese "quasi-music" is presumptuous.

I think the best sounding and best-performed Varese are these:





















 Click to open expanded view


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I'm more disturbed that Alex Ross is being called the "leading classical critic in the United States".


Who are the leading US classical critics that one should be reading?


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I see it as music of the highest order, myself; but I have art credentials, like art of all eras, and understand art as a language.


Wait a minute, you're calling me presumptuous?!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Wait a minute, you're calling me presumptuous?!


No; but to say that Varese is quasi-music is a presumptuous action. I don't engage in personal attacks.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Gentlemen..... Gentlemen.... I implore you!!!!! :lol:


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I am actually tired of these discussions. I have been very hesitant to get involved again.

Is liking or disliking Varese a sign of intelligence? I don't know and I don't care.

I have read some interesting posts concerning recordings.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> I am actually tired of these discussions. I have been very hesitant to get involved again.
> 
> Is liking or disliking Varese a sign of intelligence? I don't know and I don't care.
> 
> I have read some interesting posts concerning recordings.


I'm tired of it because folks get emotional as one camp opposes the other.

Can't we simply all get along?


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Who are the leading US classical critics that one should be reading?


None.

All forms of musical performance would exist very nicely if we had no public criticism at all.

(The literary arts are another matter altogether)


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Varèse, or Zappa, don't really do much to me. I recognize his influence but his message is, more often than not, bound to it's time.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

TurnaboutVox said:


> No, I'd say it was just Ross exercising his right to free speech. It's what he feels, surely, rather than what he thinks? I can't see it changing many minds either way. It might draw some people's attention to Varèse's music.


yes, it has attracted more than four pages of comments on TC - and that must have raised Varese's profile ... at least for some readers


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I wonder why it is that some people like Varese and some people don't. It could be that some people are too stupid to appreciate it, of course. Just like some people are to stupid to appeciate Hamlet and the Elgin Marbles.


Oh dear, oh dear - still in the stone age of 'If you don't like what I like, you must be stupid'?

Like Hpowders, if you like it, then fine. If you don't, then fine. But if you want to pretend that you are less stupid than me because you like <insert named composer> and I don't, then it isn't ok, but I simply refuse to engage with a pointless battle.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Varese? I find his music to be pompous and overbearing, which moves my feelings to the background every time. :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Oh dear, oh dear - still in the stone age of 'If you don't like what I like, you must be stupid'?
> 
> Like Hpowders, if you like it, then fine. If you don't, then fine. But if you want to pretend that you are less stupid than me because you like <insert named composer> and I don't, then it isn't ok, but I simply refuse to engage with a pointless battle.


 Your post is logical and makes sense. What are you doing here?

I have more important fish to fry.... a tilapia fillet.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

I just realized... I actually haven't listened to anything of Varese! I'll listen to a few pieces today... and then we can decide once and for all if I am, in fact, stupid!!! :kiss:


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

violadude said:


> Are those two different things?


Ok, you win... That line making a distinction between 'sound and process' and 'purely musical ideas' makes little sense.

And yes, Varese can be enjoyed, even relished, at some other level. But at the level of music - that condition to which all art aspires - I think it mostly fails.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

So the way I see it is we need a poll, like vs dislike, that needs to be cross-referenced with valid IQ scores. How else can we get a definitive answer?

Otherwise, all we are getting here is opinions from the miñions.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Xavier said:


> But at the level of music - that condition to which all art aspires - I think it mostly fails.


Does this make sense to anyone else? "All art aspires to be at the level of music"??


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Does this make sense to *anyone else*? "All art aspires to be at the level of music"??


I hope you don't mean that it makes sense to you, MacL


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Macleod



MacLeod said:


> Does this make sense to anyone else? "All art aspires to be at the level of music"??


It's a reference to the essayist Walter Pater.

_"All art aspires to the condition of music"_

This aphorism refers to music's unique ability among all the arts to address directly the human center of feeling without any participation by, or recourse to, the human intellectual apparatus. At its best, music has the uncanny capacity to paralyze intellect; to force, for the time, an automatic suspension of rational thought.

I am arguing that this unique ability and uncanny capacity is lacking in much of Varese.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Macleod
> 
> It's a reference to the essayist Walter Pater.
> 
> ...


Sounds like bunk to me. But go ahead, try to justify your argument.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> Sounds like bunk to me. But go ahead, try to justify your argument.


I am willing to suggest that it "sounds like bunk" to you because your own music is not composed with the posited intent - or effect. Although I have no notion of why "automatic" was stuck in there.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Ukko said:


> I am willing to suggest that it "sounds like bunk" to you because your own music is not composed with the posited intent - or effect. Although I have no notion of why "automatic" was stuck in there.


It sounds like bunk to me because it's entirely experiential. There's no way of proving it does or does not do whatever it is Xavier thinks it's supposed to do.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

> All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music.


Perfect for twitter: glib, opaque, wise sounding without being burdened with excess meaning.



> All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music. For while in all other works of art it is possible to distinguish the matter from the form, and the understanding can always make this distinction, yet it is the constant effort of art to obliterate it. That the mere matter of a poem, for instance--its subject, its given incidents or situation; that the mere matter of a picture--the actual circumstances of an event, the actual topography of a landscape--should be nothing without the form, the spirit, of the handling; that this form, this mode of handling, should become an end in itself, should penetrate every part of the matter:--this is what all art constantly strives after, and achieves in different degrees.
> 
> _The School of Giorgione_ (1877) by Walter Horatio Pater published in _The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poetry_


Far too long a thought for twitter, also replete with a source, always kind of a threatening prospect. You can actually see what he is saying and why he is saying it, and to me it does indeed sound bunkish, a very 19th century view of the arts that is fossilised onto an authoritative name. In fact much of 20th century art unashamedly showed off its form.

Since when has intelligence been so divorced from feeling.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Last week _New Yorker_ critic Alex Ross tweeted:
> 
> [/font][/b][/size]
> I have one Varese CD on my shelf which I bought many years ago (Boulez Conducts Varese) and I honestly have no desire to revisit his music again, much of it concerned with sound and process per se rather than with purely musical ideas and their development. There's simply too much music out there I've either not yet experienced or not experienced or understood to the deepest level of which I'm capable to spend valuable time sussing out the ostensible music value of someone like Varese.
> ...


I was taught not to judge the intelligence of other people. You may judge the music/composer from an artistic viewpoint but that's go nothing to do with the intelligence of people. That's my view.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Your post is logical and makes sense. What are you doing here?
> 
> I have more important fish to fry.... a tilapia fillet.


I don't like tilapia fillet, so I must be smarter than you.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I wonder why it is that some people like Varese and some people don't.


Because people are different. You always seem to want to get to the bottom of things. The problem is that there's often nothing of value under the carpet.

A person's musical taste tells us nothing about that person except his/her musical taste.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> In a way, it *did*. In order to understand the thread, I thought I'd better listen (for the first time) to some Varèse. The great thing about TC is that it educates us willy-nilly!
> 
> So I'm listening to his *Amériques*. It's not really my cup of tea, but to my surprise it's palatable; I 'quite like it' and I can see that it has been crafted carefully. Of course, that may be because compared with newer music, Varèse's piece doesn't sound too unconventional - but when it first appeared, it *was*, and many people find it difficult to appreciate new music simply because their taste has been formed differently. That's understandable & not wrong if they don't persecute new composers but just shrug and walk away.


Yeah, so I listened to Amériques and Poème électronique. I didn't think it was spectacular or anything... but it was okay. I think that the people of the last 50 years are much much better, and this includes Berio, Xenakis, Scelsi, Boulez, Norgard and... okay I don't want to drop a ton of names. 

I ask the experts to forgive me if I'm wrong... but it didn't sound very harmonically unified... it also wasn't that special from a linear narrative standpoint either. It seemed more exploratory than anything else, but not exploratory in the best way. I don't know guys, for me the names I gave above are much more creative and musical.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2014)

We can all agree that Varese is excellent so who cares if Zappa wants to state it in a more controversial way, right?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Yeah, so I listened to Amériques and Poème électronique. I didn't think it was spectacular or anything... but it was okay. I think that the people of the last 50 years are much much better, and this includes Berio, Xenakis, Scelsi, Boulez, Norgard and... okay I don't want to drop a ton of names.
> 
> *I ask the experts to forgive me if I'm wrong... but it didn't sound very harmonically unified... it also wasn't that special from a linear narrative standpoint either. It seemed more exploratory than anything else, but not exploratory in the best way.* I don't know guys, for me the names I gave above are much more creative and musical.


Interesting. If I listened for all that stuff, I'd be to busy to enjoy _any_ music. Chacun à son goût.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2014)

Crudblud said:


> Please explain.


Quasi-music is basically a derogatory term for music one doesn't understand, right?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think my issue with Varese _is_ the overuse of percussion. I get all jumpy when firecrackers are going off during our holidays. [No, I have never been in the military, so no need to feel sympathy. It's not PTSD.] I also find Dvorak's cymbal crashes and triangle jangling to be tedious and nerve wracking. So if I'm not as fond of Varese as others, it has nothing to do with how innovative he may have been or with intelligence.

I don't think this is what Zappa meant anyway. The recording industry was so conservative after the mid 1970s - yes I think it was justifiable to call the buying public in general stupid. They feasted on whatever empty calories were spoon fed them. They still do. I'm sure this is what he was referring to if we were to hear it in context.

Eventually, after a lifetime of loneliness in one's esoteric passions, bitterness must set in. Have we not all experienced this? If I casually mention Mendelssohn or Schubert in the office, I get blank stares or deer in headlights looks. It does get old. Do I think my coworkers are stupid? Individually no. Collectively yes. IQ appears inversely proportional to population mass.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Ukko said:


> Interesting. If I listened for all that stuff, I'd be to busy to enjoy _any_ music. Chacun à son goût.


Oh... I meant from a visceral standpoint it seemed a bit too wandering. Like... you can vaguely feel when a piece is unified harmonically even if you don't know a thing about the technique used (I certainly don't), just by feeling viscerally whether it seemed satisfying and centered or not.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

There are plenty of intelligent people who don't care for music. We're all wired differently but on the whole, I think most have varying degrees of appreciation for it, otherwise it wouldn't sell.

Varese? Great composer. One doesn't need to be intellectually superior to appreciate his work.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I had some Craft recordings many years ago on lp, then bought the Chailly CD set, which I hadn't listened to for years until this thread made me pull it off the shelf. As others have said, that is one nice thing about a forum like this, stimulating us to re listen to music that has been gathering cobwebs on our shelves and brains. I am really enjoying this, more than at other times in my life.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

From what I have heard of Varèse, it is not my taste. To say I "hate" it however seems a somewhat juvenile reaction and I can understand the "if you hate it, you're stupid" attitude, not that it is a valid assessment. But as someone pointed out, he seemed to be criticizing critics more than people's personal taste. 

While I do entertain the possibility that perhaps I simply do not possess the ability to appreciate music like that, I am not convinced that ability is synonymous with intelligence.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Anyhow, Alex Ross has no street cred with me as a critic. For modern music someone I respect is Walter Simmons, the former modern music critic of Fanfare, who I sorely miss after he left several months ago. It was Simmons who turned me on to the Persichetti Piano Sonatas, now some of my favorite 20th century music, which I surely would never have known about.


----------



## iwhoopedbatman (Sep 18, 2014)

The 'they just don't understand it' (in any iteration) is the lamest excuse for poor art in history and has been used as long as there have been critics and apologists.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

iwhoopedbatman said:


> The 'they just don't understand it' (in any iteration) is the lamest excuse for poor art in history and has been used as long as there have been critics and apologists.


Was it always a lame excuse? When Mahler said it was it lame? Or what about when Beethoven said it?


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2014)

Xavier said:


> It's a reference to the essayist Walter Pater.
> 
> _"All art aspires to the condition of music"_
> 
> This aphorism refers to music's unique ability among all the arts to address directly the human center of feeling without any participation by, or recourse to, the human intellectual apparatus. At its best, music has the uncanny capacity to paralyze intellect; to force, for the time, an automatic suspension of rational thought.


Your substitution of 'level' for 'condition' makes a significant difference to what is implied. Reading the fuller quote that quack provides (excellent work, quack, thanks) it's clear that Pater is stating an opinion, no more, and one that is no more or less valid than Zappa's (Ross's opinions are unknown here).

In fact, I don't read the Pater the way you do. I don't believe it's about 'intellectual thought' at all, but about what Pater believes is the directness of musical form, unencumbered by 'content'. He may be right to explore that difference between music and the other arts, but his conclusion is flawed.



hpowders said:


> Anyhow, Alex Ross has no street cred with me as a critic. For modern music someone I respect is Walter Simmons, the former modern music critic of Fanfare, who I sorely miss after he left several months ago. It was Simmons who turned me on to the Persichetti Piano Sonatas, now some of my favorite 20th century music, which I surely would never have known about.


Thanks for the reference to Walter Simmons and Fanfare. However, why has Ross no street cred with you 'as a critic'? (I'm assuming that it's him, not you who is the critic). I've only encountered him in the occasional column and through his writing of the TV series _The Rest Is Noise_ and he seemed to have perfectly acceptable (unexceptional) opinions.

[add]

I've found a piece of Simmons, _Voices in the Wilderness_, and reading the small extract available online, I can see his instant appeal. He outlines what he calls a 'Modernist perspective of musical history' which he then wishes to undermine by showing that tonal composers were still at work (in the period selected for analysis) and that tonality was neither dead nor dying. The rest of the book is a study of six composers characterised as 'neo-romantic' - Bloch, Hanson, Barber, Giannini, Creston, Flagello.

I might suggest that he could simply have presented an analysis of American Neo-Romanticism without the contextual argument he prefers to offer. In doing so, he sets himself up not as a champion of these six composers, but, more importantly, an opponent of the modernist perspective he has described.

I accept that without reading the whole book, I may be misjudging him.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Because people are different. You always seem to want to get to the bottom of things. The problem is that there's often nothing of value under the carpet.
> 
> A person's musical taste tells us nothing about that person except his/her musical taste.


Do you think that some people have better judgement than others? I do. And I'm impressed by how that refinement comes through experience, amongst other things. So I think there's a lot of interesting things under the carpet - the whole of aethetics is under the carpet in fact.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2014)

Xavier said:


> I am arguing that this unique ability and uncanny capacity is lacking in much of Varese.


It would make a nice change if you _were_ to argue this. All I've seen so far, however, is you asserting this. With no effort to justify or support your assertion in any way.

I'd still disagree with you. But an argument would make a nice change from unsupported assertions.

Otherwise, I've always found that my intellect and my emotions are two inseparable parts of an integrated system.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

I've noticed a trend on this forum, and this thread, the intelligence thread, and the dozens of "atonal music sucks" threads all reflect it. The trend is, and i WILL NOT name names, that there are a handful of posters on this forum who (pardon this broad generalization) always seem to defend modern music/atonal music/noise music. This handful of posters also write the most thought provoking posts, seem to have a very high level of musical knowledge, and seem to be extremely intelligent people. So, from my perspective, the people who enjoy the likes of Varese, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Cage, etc....seem to be very smart, trained, and experienced. Is this a coincidence? I selected 4 composers who I've listened to and not enjoyed. I don't bash them. I just move on. But the people who bash them seem rather simple/inexperienced and the people who enjoy them seem extremely intelligent/experienced. Am I the only one who sees this?


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2014)

^ It's because "music has to be pretty to be music" is a pretty bizarre train of thought.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> ^ It's because "music has to be pretty to be music" is a pretty bizarre train of thought.


Oh for crying out loud. 

Just for your information: "Saint Francis of Assisi", "From The House Of The Dead" and "Moses and Aron" are among my very favorite works.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

I love beautiful music. I love haunting melodies. I love Schubert. I love Beethoven's 6th. I love Bach. I love Mendelssohn. When I hear Varese I hear "noise". There's nothing wrong with me. But there's only two logical explanations to people who claim to enjoy Varese. 

1. A group of highly intelligent, highly informed, highly experienced music lovers have banded together and formed a secret society with the primary mission of claiming to love something they hate, just to mess with beginners and the inexperienced listeners of the world.

2. They actually enjoy Varese and the whole thing can be attributed to personal taste.

There are no other options.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2014)

Xavier said:


> Oh for crying out loud.
> 
> Just for your information: "Saint Francis of Assisi", "From The House Of The Dead" and "Moses and Aron" are among my very favorite works.


Would you like a cookie?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Do you think that some people have better judgement than others? I do.


Sure, but I don't think it has anything to do with musical taste.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Weston said:


> Well, it wasn't necessarily his attitude, but Zappa's. Zappa, brilliant as he was at times, had a lot of opinions and pulled no punches.
> 
> *I'm not overly fond of Varese's music either, but I don't hate him. I think there is a subtle difference*.





some guy said:


> The OP does some subtle distorting of what it presents.
> 
> The Zappa quote is not about a person or persons generally but about critical reception and the critical climate in the US, specifically. I took it to be referring to critics shirking their responsibilities not about audience reactions generally.
> 
> ...





Tristan said:


> From what I have heard of Varèse, it is not my taste. *To say I "hate" it however seems a somewhat juvenile reaction and I can understand the "if you hate it, you're stupid" attitude*, not that it is a valid assessment. But as someone pointed out, he seemed to be criticizing critics more than people's personal taste.
> 
> While I do entertain the possibility that perhaps I simply do not possess the ability to appreciate music like that, I am not convinced that ability is synonymous with intelligence.


English is not my native language, but I can see the difference between "dislike" and "hate".

So, my answer to the OP is: No, it is not a sign a stupidity if one dislikes Varese. As very well said by someone of you (hpowders in primis) "de gustibus non est disputandum".

That said, hating somebody's work just because you don't understand it, or you don't want/try to understand it (IMO the correct meaning of Zappa's sentence), is a very stupid attitude that could lead to even worse outcomes. History is full of these cases. I have in mind one guy named Galileo....


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Would you like a cookie?


You were the one who came out with the ridiculous assumption about 'prettiness' and musical value.

I just wanted to make it very clear (by sharing a few of my favorites) that my dislike of Varese has NOTHING to do with that.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2014)

scratchgolf said:


> I've noticed a trend on this forum, and this thread, the intelligence thread, and the dozens of "atonal music sucks" threads all reflect it.


What's odd is that it's not really clear what this thread _is _about, though it is clear what it has become. (True, attitudes to 'modern' music is part of it: arguably, it's about Twitter!)

I don't think I've ever heard a single bar of Varese, though he is not unknown to me, but I defend other people's right to listen to what they will and express the opinions they will, provided, if they expect their opinion to be taken seriously, that they offer some coherent supporting argument.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> Was it always a lame excuse? When Mahler said it was it lame? Or what about when Beethoven said it?


"You would like this if you only understood it" _is_ pretty lame. How would you know?

"Perhaps you don't like this because you don't understand it, and would have a chance to like it if you understood it" is truer to the fact that perceptions can change over time.

Being honest with ourselves, our own reasons for our aesthetic opinions are hard to determine. Art is not something that is judged logically.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

As an aside: I never get tired of this Bernard Holland article:

The leap from "understand" to "appreciate" is long and blind. Respectful cognizance and enlightenment through diligent listening tell me that Composer X was a brilliant composer, but at the end of a long day, how many of us take home his string quartets to cuddle with affection?

[....]

The word "understand" remains elusive. I don't understand an elm tree, but give me the right one, and I like to sit under it. Knowing its biology may help, but the heart is not a biologist. An implicit contract has been signed but is not necessarily being honored. It states that if I understand a piece of music, I'm likely to like it, too. This is not true. No amount of experience and analysis can by itself induce the stab of communication between art and its beholder.

[....]

The downside of music education is not only that it confuses understanding with love; it threatens an arrogance that classical music can ill afford.

RTWT here

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/arts/music-why-you-can-t-learn-to-like-it.html


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Hmm. Varese... Stupid if I don't like it...

Gosh, I hope not!

But now you've got me worried. Where's that New York Times crossword puzzle?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

More people would like more things if they understood less.
#showerthoughts


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

No, though its a good indication you don't care for the music of Edgard Varèse.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Xavier said:


> As an aside: I never get tired of this Bernard Holland article:
> 
> The leap from "understand" to "appreciate" is long and blind. Respectful cognizance and enlightenment through diligent listening tell me that Composer X was a brilliant composer, but at the end of a long day, how many of us take home his string quartets to cuddle with affection?
> 
> ...


But the relation between great art and audience isn't always a stab, in my experience. Say with The Art of Fugue, or Ferneyhough's 6th quartet or Purcell's Fantasias or op 131 by Beethoven. There was initially a sense, an intuition, that something special was happening. And there were some melodies, transitions, which were entertaining. But it was only with much greater aquaintance that I really began to hear what was special about the music. That greater acquaintance is a sort of understanding.

I'll also add that in my experience loving great art is not really like loving people. "Love" isn't univocal.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2014)

Xavier said:


> You were the one who came out with the ridiculous assumption about 'prettiness' and musical value.
> 
> I just wanted to make it very clear (by sharing a few of my favorites) that my dislike of Varese has NOTHING to do with that.


I dunno, those are some beautiful works you listed.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> But the relation between great art and audience isn't always a stab, in my experience.


Where did you get that idea?

Read the article again: he talks about 'diligent listening'


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Not liking Varese is not evidence for stupidity. Not liking Xenakis is.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Morimur said:


> Not liking Varese is not evidence for stupidity. Not liking Xenakis is.


<---------------Stupid


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

<------------ Eye-gore sez: "Whenever Xenakis writes two notes of music, one of them is wrong."


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

<-----------------Xenakis "wrote" notes?


;-)


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Weston said:


> <-----------------Xenakis "wrote" notes?
> 
> ;-)


I heard that for certain pieces he calculated certain nondeterministic sequences of notes using a computer? Was that a technique he used often?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I heard that for certain pieces he calculated certain nondeterministic sequences of notes using a computer? Was that a technique he used often?


Stochastic music, right. He would always end up rendering the final result into score rather than graphic notation, which was a huge thing for a few years in the avant-garde.



Morimur said:


> Not liking Varese is not evidence for stupidity. Not liking Xenakis is.


Personally, I'd hesitate before implying Charles Rosen was stupid....


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Stochastic music, right. He would always end up rendering the final result into score rather than graphic notation, which was a huge thing for a few years in the avant-garde.
> 
> Personally, I'd hesitate before implying Charles Rosen was stupid....


What do you think of Xenakis' music, Mahlerian?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Morimur said:


> What do you think of Xenakis' music, Mahlerian?


I usually find it interesting, and he had a good deal of imagination for the sheer sound of his works, but I'm not usually bowled over by them. I think his piece Oresteia was the one I listened to most recently, and I enjoyed it, but I found the choral works on this disc a little overlong:









Metastaseis is a classic of its type, though, and I think it's better than Penderecki's similar works by far.

With many of the post-WWII avant-garde composers, I feel that a performance missing the spatial element is losing a crucial element that hasn't been taken advantage of enough by record labels. Producing a surround sound DVD of more of these works would help (I'm aware that some of these exist for Xenakis).


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> With many of the post-WWII avant-garde composers, I feel that a performance missing the spatial element is losing a crucial element that hasn't been taken advantage of enough by record labels. Producing a surround sound DVD of more of these works would help (I'm aware that some of these exist for Xenakis).


That's an excellent point! I'm not even close to being an audio nerd but came closest when I heard some excellent surround sound stuff of some recent UK works with spatial elements


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

I find Xenakis' work to be quite thrilling; nothing else sounds like it, with the exception of car crashes and war.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Morimur said:


> I find Xenakis' work to be quite thrilling; nothing else sounds like it, with the exception of car crashes and war.


Perhaps you've got something there. Some have said they hear beauty in Xenakis. I hear pain and terror. Nothing that sounds like any war I've served in but I can certainly seem him pouring his own personal combat experiences into his music. There is nothing more terrifying than the scream of a 107mm rocket as it's headed for you. I imagine Xenakis' war experiences were worse than mine. One thing I can say with certainty is I'd rather spend an hour reading about Xenakis (Sadly can't speak with him) than listening to his music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

scratchgolf said:


> Perhaps you've got something there. Some have said they hear beauty in Xenakis. I hear pain and terror. Nothing that sounds like any war I've served in but I can certainly seem him pouring his own personal combat experiences into his music. There is nothing more terrifying than the scream of a 107mm rocket as it's headed for you. I imagine Xenakis' war experiences were worse than mine. One thing I can say with certainty is I'd rather spend an hour reading about Xenakis (Sadly can't speak with him) than listening to his music.


And yet, there are times in Kraanerg, in some performances, when I find the writing for brass instruments funny, a great example of humour in music. And I always think that the Jack Quartet make Tetras sound funny - full of cows farting and mooing.

That's not a recommendation for the Jack Quartet, by the way, unless you like that sort of thing.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

All this talk of Xenakis got me curious so I gave him another listen. I don't hear car crashes exactly. I hear large cosmic events. So curse it all! I may become interested in yet another composer I have no time for and should not afford.

Maybe that's the real reason we dislike music. It's Darwinian. Those who like everything have fewer funds for survival.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Weston said:


> All this talk of Xenakis got me curious so I gave him another listen. I don't hear car crashes exactly. I hear large cosmic events. So curse it all! I may become interested in yet another composer I have no time for and should not afford.
> 
> Maybe that's the real reason we dislike music. It's Darwinian. Those who like everything have fewer funds for survival.


Yeah... Murder and suicide are not good for survival either but humans are rather fond of those.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Weston said:


> All this talk of Xenakis got me curious so I gave him another listen. I don't hear car crashes exactly. I hear large cosmic events. So curse it all! I may become interested in yet another composer I have no time for and should not afford.
> 
> Maybe that's the real reason we dislike music. It's Darwinian. Those who like everything have fewer funds for survival.


Start bookmarking!


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2014)

I find that everytime someone relates some horrible thing they supposedly hear in music, I have to spend the next half hour or so untwisting my pantaloons.

Not funny!!:lol:

(An aside, everyone I know who loves contemporary music, knowledgeably and unequivocally, agrees that Xenakis' music is more consistently of high quality of any composer in that century. Not necessarily better, you understand, but more consistent from piece to piece. If you disagree, you are probably stupid.*)





*For the mods who don't have a sense of humor (and there may be one or two), this was what we in the business refer to as a joke.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

some guy said:


> I find that everytime someone relates some horrible thing they supposedly hear in music, I have to spend the next half hour or so untwisting my pantaloons.
> 
> Not funny!!:lol:
> 
> ...


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

some guy said:


> ...Xenakis' music is more consistently of high quality of any composer in that century. Not necessarily better, you understand, but more consistent from piece to piece. If you disagree, you are probably stupid.*)


Agree, but of that century, only Stravinsky seems to get credit for consistently producing quality work. I am not familiar with his entire œuvre, but I don't regard 'The Fairy's Kiss' and 'Three Japanese Lyrics' as anything but vapid.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

scratchgolf said:


> Perhaps you've got something there. Some have said they hear beauty in Xenakis. I hear pain and terror. Nothing that sounds like any war...


Pain, terror and war are synonymous.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Morimur said:


> Pain, terror and war are synonymous.


And his music can invoke those feelings. It can not sound like them. Have you ever seen a war movie where the sound drops out at the height of an intense fight? This is rather accurate in my experiences. Some call it "being in the zone". I attribute it to all five senses heightening in an effort to preserve human life.

Oddly enough, and this is a conversation I just had with my father, Beethoven's inspiration for his 6th Symphony was walks in the country. When I walk in the country I listen to Beethoven's 6th. Should I not walk without music and hear the same things that inspired Beethoven? Perhaps it's the same with Xenakis. He lived through some truly terrible times. I believe this is reflected in his music, although my listening has been extremely limited compared to some. I'll say SOME of his music. Yet, listening to his music can make me reflect on my own combat experiences without actually sounding like anything combat related. Not sure if this makes sense. I just confused myself.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2014)

I hear all the ferocious violence of nature in Beethoven's sixth, the ceaseless battle for survival, the destructive elements, the brutality of the brutes. (Why do you think they call 'em brutes, eh? Buncha poisonous bugs and rapacious carnivores is all. It's a jungle out there!)

[N.B.--There may be some trace elements of sarcasm in the above. Just a skosh or two here and there. You know.]


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

A few years ago during Spring, I was on my way to work and the gel in my hair smelled 'fruity'. As I am walking towards the bus stop, I sense a presence... and then I hear an aggressive _buzz_ (like a chain-saw), jet by my ear. A few seconds later it returns and now, not content with merely buzzing around me, it begins to sting my head repeatedly, over and over again for what seemed like an eternity. As I am flailing my hands about and smacking myself on the head in an attempt to kill the creature, I catch a glimpse of it and realize that it is a WASP. I keep trying to kill it (and smacking myself) and begin to run up and down the sidewalk in a desperate attempt to flee. The pain is horrendous. It feels as if I am being stabbed in the head with a knife. I nearly collapsed. Fortunately, as suddenly as the attack began, it stopped. The wasp left. It had given me a thorough *** kicking which I won't soon forget. I staggered back home, went upstairs and collapsed on the bed. No work on that day. All this to say, Xenakis' music sometimes reminds me of that horrid buzzing, but it is so well composed that I don't mind the discomfort. If that makes me a masochist, so be it.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

^^I felt compelled to like this. If you understand why, please explain it to me. I hate not knowing. You've also made me want to listen to Xenakis again and see what happens. As for Varese, his output is so limited, and there's so much other music to explore, I may have to just remain stupid for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2014)

Varese was one of the more important figures of the twentieth century. It's very unsettling (a word that's been coming up a lot in another thread) to find out how many otherwise knowledgeable and even sympathetic listeners have not heard any of his music, and even more unsettling to hear that when they do, they're not impressed.

Not impressed with Varese?

That's like hearing Bach for the first time and saying that it's OK, but quite repetitious and predictable.

(True story, my ex-wife was teaching Shakespeare to an undergraduate class, and one student--after squirming around in his seat for a bit--finally said, "But it's so full of cliches!"

No idea that they weren't cliches at the time--no idea that it was Shakespeare who had come up with those (now) well-known phrases in the first place.)


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Felt compelled to like your post as well. I've heard a few Varese pieces. What would you suggest for a starting point? I'm actually listening to Xenakis now and, at a minimum, wouldn't mind trying a Varese piece or two.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I find Varese impressive in many ways, and acknowledge he was a very important composer. Elements of his composition I find incredible but his pieces tend to often somehow structurally not quite satisfy me, and for my tastes he just uses the sound of a siren too darn much.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I like Varèse but I'd prefer to be identified with the stupid if possible. I know a lot of you will manage to work this out for me. Thanks in advance!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Xavier said:


> ...
> Are you a little surprised that the leading classical critic in the United States Ross would tweet that? ...


I am not surprised, it's just another example of one of the pitfalls of that kind of Modernist thinking. It is contradictory because while there was the argument that contemporary classical is for a small amount of enthusiasts, there was a simultaneous putting down of the mainstream listeners (or majority of average listeners) of classical as a whole. Its a dichotomy - while those into new music are open minded, the mainstream listeners are closed minded. That sort of thing.

In any case, composers tend to say more insightful things when they focus on things like their own passions, inspirations and compositional processes rather than various ideological bunfights.



> ...Taking that sort of attitude definitely won't change any minds, right?


No it won't, which is why I think its unwise to peddle that sort of divide and conquer type tactic. It has clearly failed, and while ideology will never cease to be part of discussion around classical music, I think its better to focus on connections rather than the differences.

Varese was influenced by other composers, such as Richard Strauss, Mahler, Stravinsky, Bartok and Busoni (the latter taught him). He in turn influenced many, in particular those who where interested in sonority, some already mentioned on this thread, another one is Sculthorpe. I find there are more connections than dividing lines in music, including more recent music.

Also, I took something like 5 years to come round to appreciating Varese's music. After I got over that hurdle (and it was more a matter of things outside music that made me curious to revisit his music, and I've still got the two Naxos discs), I really expanded into many directions of new/newer music.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2014)

Perhaps we need periodic reminders.

It's kinda tough on the people doing the reminding, but "oh well."

Ross supplies the context of "critical reception" for his quote of Zappa. "Critical reception" is something quite other from "reception by mainstream listeners." (And "mainstream listeners" is probably not descriptive of anyone, really.) How was Varese's music received by the people who were supposed to know, professionally, how to process that music? Well, not very well. Why? Well, probably because those critics were being stupid. And, further, there was a lot of that critical stupidity going on the U.S. at the time.

Just by the way, the statement that "contemporary music is for a small amount of enthusiasts" is not only circular (the people who like it are the people who like it) but is also not what proponents of contemporary music thought. They may have noticed that only a small group of people liked it, but that's quite different from saying that that is the whole point of writing it. In any event, classical music generally has been identified as music for a very small elite. So it's not a particularly "Modernist" idea, anyway. It's amazing how successfully "Modernism" has been saddled with something that's been a pretty persistent and pretty ordinary component of thinking about classical music generally for several generations. 

I'm pretty sure that the divide and conquer tactic of pitting contemporary proponents against mainstream listeners is a bad idea.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Morimur said:


> A few years ago during Spring, I was on my way to work and the gel in my hair smelled 'fruity'. As I am walking towards the bus stop, I sense a presence... and then I hear an aggressive _buzz_ (like a chain-saw), jet by my ear. A few seconds later it returns and now, not content with merely buzzing around me, it begins to sting my head repeatedly, over and over again for what seemed like an eternity. As I am flailing my hands about and smacking myself on the head in an attempt to kill the creature, I catch a glimpse of it and realize that it is a WASP. I keep trying to kill it (and smacking myself) and begin to run up and down the sidewalk in a desperate attempt to flee. The pain is horrendous. It feels as if I am being stabbed in the head with a knife. I nearly collapsed. Fortunately, as suddenly as the attack began, it stopped. The wasp left. It had given me a thorough *** kicking which I won't soon forget. I staggered back home, went upstairs and collapsed on the bed. No work on that day. All this to say, Xenakis' music sometimes reminds me of that horrid buzzing, but it is so well composed that I don't mind the discomfort. If that makes me a masochist, so be it.


A well-known aspect of hair gels... they attract insects. If gel would remain wet and sticky, you may as well adorn your head with flypaper! The lesser known aspect of hair gels is that they seep in through the pores of your scalp, then penetrate the skull and continue on into the brain, which precipitates a catalytic process of the brain tissue in a condition called gelification.

There are no known medical remedies to undo the damage once the condition takes hold and the condition is progressive, inevitably turning the victim's brain to mush. An odd side affect of the condition is an obsessive impulse to buy more and more cosmetic products, at least until the condition has progressed to the point where the victim can no longer even find the way out of their own domicile.

Did the wasp sting turn you into a wasp? Just curious.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Morimur said:


> A few years ago during Spring, I was on my way to work and the gel in my hair smelled 'fruity'. As I am walking towards the bus stop, I sense a presence... and then I hear an aggressive _buzz_ (like a chain-saw), jet by my ear. A few seconds later it returns and now, not content with merely buzzing around me, it begins to sting my head repeatedly, over and over again for what seemed like an eternity. As I am flailing my hands about and smacking myself on the head in an attempt to kill the creature, I catch a glimpse of it and realize that it is a WASP. I keep trying to kill it (and smacking myself) and begin to run up and down the sidewalk in a desperate attempt to flee. The pain is horrendous. It feels as if I am being stabbed in the head with a knife. I nearly collapsed. Fortunately, as suddenly as the attack began, it stopped. The wasp left. It had given me a thorough *** kicking which I won't soon forget. I staggered back home, went upstairs and collapsed on the bed. No work on that day. All this to say, Xenakis' music sometimes reminds me of that horrid buzzing, but it is so well composed that I don't mind the discomfort. If that makes me a masochist, so be it.


I respectfully suggest that you may be in error accusing a wasp for your distress. Apparently when they sting they deposit the 'sting' in the victim and bugger off to die, hence repeated stings are hardly possible. I suggest that you may have been wearing your headphones and listening to music of minimalism genre (or perhaps the 2 nd Viennese School) which can have the effect you describe.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Polyphemus said:


> I respectfully suggest that you may be in error accusing a wasp for your distress. Apparently when they sting they deposit the 'sting' in the victim and bugger off to die, hence repeated stings are hardly possible. I suggest that you may have been wearing your headphones and listening to music of minimalism genre (or perhaps the 2 nd Viennese School) which can have the effect you describe.


Bees lose their stings and die, wasps do not, at least not any wasp I've encountered.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Bees lose their stings and die, wasps do not, at least not any wasp I've encountered.


I bow to your superior knowledge of entomology (if that's the right branch of science.).
My only experience of Bee/Wasp encounter ended with a rolled up copy of the Guardian Newspaper and a smudge on the wall of the hotel room. So assuming it might have been a Bee as opposed to a Wasp I did save it a lingering death by my swift retribution.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> A well-known aspect of hair gels... they attract insects. If gel would remain wet and sticky, you may as well adorn your head with flypaper! The lesser known aspect of hair gels is that they seep in through the pores of your scalp, then penetrate the skull and continue on into the brain, which precipitates a catalytic process of the brain tissue in a condition called gelification.
> 
> There are no known medical remedies to undo the damage once the condition takes hold and the condition is progressive, inevitably turning the victim's brain to mush. An odd side affect of the condition is an obsessive impulse to buy more and more cosmetic products, at least until the condition has progressed to the point where the victim can no longer even find the way out of their own domicile.
> 
> Did the wasp sting turn you into a wasp? Just curious.


Fantastic. I haven't used gel in years but you just freaked me out with this revelation--I am a bit of a hypochondriac.


----------



## Min (Jul 20, 2014)

I reply to the OP:

In terms merely of its relative level of sonic (non)integration, Edgar Varese's _*Integrales*_ (



) seems atrocious.

But, if you had had no prior exposure to any of the sonically much more integrated musics, you likely would find much to enjoy in this piece by Varese.

Of course, if, at that point, if you then were offered your preference from among the full range of musics, I think you would spend the bulk of your musical time on the more...melodic musics.

But, you still would retain a basic enjoyment in the style of Varese. It would be a bit like having have been exposed only to "yucky" tasting food during your childhood (such as brewers yeast tablets, broccoli, alfalfa sprouts, raw kale, and plain raw fish), and only then being introduced to BBQ, tacos, apple crisp, and plain baked potatoes.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Min said:


> I reply to the OP:
> 
> "sonic (non)integration"
> 
> "sonically much more integrated musics"


Okeedoh, are these turns of phrase something come up with by non-musicians, or are they now some of the newspeak in music theory, comp, analysis textbooks, and those of either the conservatory variety, or that newer study offered in some art schools, "Sound Art"?


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2014)

Min said:


> But, if you had had no prior exposure to any of the sonically much more integrated musics, you likely would find much to enjoy in this piece by Varese.


This seems on the face of it to be an extraordinarily peculiar speculation.

I have no idea what you mean by "sonically integrated," if you do not find _Integrales_ to be so (nor what you mean by "melodic" if you do not find _Integrales_ to be crammed to the gills with melody).

So instead of trying to second-guess what you mean, I'll just point out that when I first heard Varese's music, I had already spent the ten years before that time listening to Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Bizet, Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, Dvorak, Smetana, Berwald, Grieg, Telemann, Bartok, Bruckner, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Weber, Pergolesi, Schumann, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Ravel, Debussy, R. Strauss and maybe one or two more.

Anyone in there who was writing whatever you mean by "sonically integrated" music? If so, point made. I loved Varese's music instantly. And still love it very much. So prior exposure galore, eh? And still loved Varese right off the bat.



Min said:


> Of course, if, at that point, if you then were offered your preference from among the full range of musics, I think you would spend the bulk of your musical time on the more...melodic musics.


I already had a pretty full range of classical music by the time I first heard Varese. And I spent the bulk of my musical time after that on Ives and Cage and Xenakis and Carter and Mumma and Ashley and Stockhausen and Ligeti and Berio and Lachenmann and Oliveros and Smiley and Shields and Andre and Neumann and Amacher and Karkowski and Galas and Noetinger and Ferrari and Ferreyras and Dhomont and maybe one or two others.

So I am at least one "you" who doesn't fit into your speculation in any way.

Otherwise, note the date on that piece. 1924. You have chosen a ninety year old piece to vent about. That's kinda like accusing a greatgrandpa of being a punk kid.

So here, for your listening pleasure, is some sonically integrated Karkowski:






And some sonically integrated Brümmer:






And some sonically integrated Mouri:






(I apologize to Katsura's fans everywhere for this woefully short clip. It's longer than the 34 second thing youtube has anyway.)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Please label me very, very, very stupid.


----------

