# Where Are the Women??



## hawk (Oct 1, 2007)

Today I heard a piano concerto by Amy Cheney Beach. It was very nice! I am sure you all are aware but she is the only woman composer to be honored by having her name on the granite wall at Boston's Hatch "Shell" along side 86 male composers.
While listening to her music it made me wonder why there are so few (she is the first that I have heard) female composer's????


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

I once liked her piano concerto. But I don't think it abandoned my shelves at least once in the last... three years. It's next in my list of Things to listen now. Thanks!.

Back to the topic, they are here

Clara Schumann
Louise Farrenc
Sofia Gubaidulina
Kaija Saariaho
Cecile Chaminade
the Boulangers
Grażyna Bacewicz
Hildegard von Bingen
Alicia Terzian
Sophie Eckhardt-Gramatté

(...)


----------



## ChamberNut (Jan 30, 2007)

Another to add is Fanny Mendelssohn, Felix's sister.


----------



## oisfetz (Dec 11, 2006)

Eckhardt-Gramatte. Big and fine solo violin capricci. Do you have the
recording?.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

oisfetz said:


> Eckhardt-Gramatte. Big and fine solo violin capricci. Do you have the
> recording?.


I heard a few of them. Didn't Marc André Hamelin record some of his piano works?


----------



## Oneiros (Aug 28, 2006)

Yes, apparently women (in the classical era) were not "virile" enough to compose music, and those who did were criticised because this virility was unbecoming in a woman.  

I've also read that status had a lot to do with it - it wasn't socially acceptable for women to write music; they should stay at home and attend to domestic matters. This is why many women adopted male pen-names - they were better accepted this way.


----------



## oisfetz (Dec 11, 2006)

Eckhardt-Gramatte 10 caprices,+ Gary Kulesha,3 caprices, by Jasper Wood, FLEURS DE LYS 2.3149. Not easy to find.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2007)

One thing about female composers is that many of them are still alive. That is, they are "modern" composers, and people who listen to classical symphonic music still seem, many of them, to have little or nothing to do with music by composers who are still alive.

Pity.

There are hundreds of very fine women writing music. There are hundreds of women writing really fine music. Whichever you prefer.

I hate to start a list, being sure to leave out some very fine people. But "oh, well."

Michele Bokanowski
Eliane Radigue
Christine Groult
Beatriz Ferreyra
Bonnie Miksch
Elsa Justel
Christina Kubisch
Alice Shields
Joan Tower
Zeena Parkins
Diamanda Galas
Joan LaBarbara
Francoise Barriere
Natasha Barrett
Annette Vande Gorne
Hildegard Westerkamp
Diana Simpson
Monique Jean
Elzbieta Sikora
Roxanne Turcotte
Adrienne Alexander
Katarzyna Glowicka
Dobromila Jaskot
Anna Clyne

This is, I hasten to assure you, a SHORT list--even of stuff in my own collection, it's a short list. _Some_ of my favorites, anyway.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

What about... Monica Conversano?


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2007)

Hahahahaha!

Got me!!

(Hey, come on. I've only heard the one piece, you know!!)


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

There are hundreds of very fine women writing music. There are hundreds of women writing really fine music. Whichever you prefer.

=============================================
all of them....unknown!

Martin macho Pitchon


----------



## Listener (Sep 20, 2010)

There is an answer to this question, but it isn't politically correct.


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2010)

To myaskovsky2002, you live in Montreal? That's where quite a number of very well-known composers live. Some of them female.

To Listener, oh, go ahead, give the answer: it's that most people, including the people who post to classical music forums, don't really like music all that much.* What? Not the "politically incorrect" answer you were thinking of? Well, it's the right one, anyway. (Women are indeed every bit as good as men when it comes to composing.)

*To be fair, a lot of people do like _pieces_ of music. Individual pieces, even individual composers. I might go so far as to admit individual eras, but I won't. This WAS supposed to be a "politically incorrect" answer, right?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

It says something that in our age of equal opportunity (or at least the age when we've come closer to that ideal than at other points in musical history) female composers are doing better than ever before. There's no reason to believe that given the same set of circumstances it would have been any different in the past.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Ellen Zwilich.

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


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Things have not always been as they are now. For hundreds of years, women were under the control of men. In the main, they were not allowed to be creative, to study to be great performers or composers. The opportunities simply did not exist for women in the 17-19th centuries. Often, they did not even have an education (you don't need education to bear children, cook and look after the home and your man, after all!). This having been said, a small number of women composers DID manage to make a name for themselves in their time, although male-dominated posterity has largely forgotten them, sadly.

Here is a link that might be helpful:

http://www.kapralova.org/DATABASE.htm


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Vaneyes said:


> Ellen Zwilich.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Taaffe_Zwilich


Here's a very favourable review:

*http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=13035*


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Where Are the Women??


In kitchen, by the cookware/washing machine, where they belong :tiphat:


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Making us a sammich


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

To Listener, oh, go ahead, give the answer: it's that most people, including the people who post to classical music forums, don't really like music all that much.* What? Not the "politically incorrect" answer you were thinking of? Well, it's the right one, anyway. 

In other words, if the classical listener does not listen to all of the rather obscure contemporaries that you like, they don't like music very much? Certainly, I may agree with your intention to prove that women (in theory) are every bit as creative as men when it comes to music, but the actual achievements don't bear this out. And the same can be said of women artists and women writers. Obviously, the "politically incorrect" answer to this question that was oh so slyly hinted at and expected is that women simply aren't as good as men in the arts... and while this may be true... or rather while we might surely say without much fear of contradiction that the achievements of women in music lag well behind those of men, this obviously this ignores the gross inequalities imposed upon them, beginning with sexist attitudes toward the education of women, but also including, surely, the expectations of a majority of women as to their own roles in society. One might as well ignore all the inequalities imposed upon African Americans and simply suggest that the fact that the sole reason they have lagged behind others in achievements in art, music, and literature is their innate inferiority. Such a conclusion would be just as false.

Women are indeed every bit as good as men when it comes to composing.

Are they... as a whole? Women have produced as many masterworks of music as men? I'll surely agree that some women are great composers... as good as or better than many men. I quite like Kaija Saariaho and Sofia Gubaidulina myself and look forward to discovering more female (as well as male) composers of real merit currently unknown to me, but seriously, I don't think it does any good to challenge the assumption (that there are no great female composers or that women are inferior to men as composers) by putting forth the idea that there is this hidden wealth of female composers that only those "in the know" are aware of. Certain academics have made similar attempts with regard to African American achievements in the arts... or womens' achievements in visual art...
The problem is that such is simply a lie (well intended though it may be) which seeks to avoids confronting the uncomfortable history of political and social realities that have long placed women (and African Americans, and Native Americans, and the poor, etc...) at a distinct disadvantage and limited their achievements... at a cost to all of us.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Are they... as a whole? Women have produced as many masterworks of music as men? I'll surely agree that some women are great composers... as good as or better than many men. I quite like Kaija Saariaho and Sofia Gubaidulina myself and look forward to discovering more female (as well as male) composers of real merit currently unknown to me, but seriously, I don't think it does any good to challenge the assumption (that there are no great female composers or that women are inferior to men as composers) by putting forth the idea that there is this hidden wealth of female composers that only those "in the know" are aware of. Certain academics have made similar attempts with regard to African American achievements in the arts... or womens' achievements in visual art...
> The problem is that such is simply a lie (well intended though it may be) which seeks to avoids confronting the uncomfortable history of political and social realities that have long placed women (and African Americans, and Native Americans, and the poor, etc...) at a distinct disadvantage and limited their achievements... at a cost to all of us.


Define ''masterworks''.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Cease the PC. There's obvioulsy a lot more quality music by men then by women.


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2010)

some guy said:


> To myaskovsky2002, you live in Montreal? That's where quite a number of very well-known composers live. Some of them female.
> 
> *To Listener, oh, go ahead, give the answer: it's that most people, including the people who post to classical music forums, don't really like music all that much.** What? Not the "politically incorrect" answer you were thinking of? Well, it's the right one, anyway. (Women are indeed every bit as good as men when it comes to composing.)
> 
> *To be fair, a lot of people do like _pieces_ of music. Individual pieces, even individual composers. I might go so far as to admit individual eras, but I won't. This WAS supposed to be a "politically incorrect" answer, right?


Wow, what leap of logic brought you to that conclusion? So, the reason there aren't as many female composers is . . . people simply don't really like music that much? You know, you could have thrown out some other doozies of explanations that would have at least allowed us to follow your chain of thought. Like saying that people discriminate against female composers. Or that female composers don't write as good of music. But to claim that the lack of female composers is due to a lack of appreciation for music just leaves me scratching my head.

So my appreciation for a number of male composers and enjoyment of their music does not equate to liking music so long as I can't count at least one female composer among the list that I appreciate? Oh wait - I enjoy von Bingen's works. Yay!!!! I must be counted as one of the few that likes music! To think, before I came across her works, I just didn't like music. Then . . . like magic, I suddenly started liking music.

For cultural reasons, women didn't participate in many vocations for centuries. That is why they are historically so underrepresented in those areas. Would they have fared as well had they been able to? Leaving aside the knee-jerk responses claiming that there is no difference between the sexes other than plumbing, any answer will be a pure shot-in-the-dark conjecture. We will never know. But the reality we face is that they have come to the table in this area much later than men. No doubt some excel. And some don't. Just like male composers. In general, I don't listen to very many modern composers - and this is where the majority of female composers are going to fall - as that style of music in general doesn't appeal to me. So my neglect of female composers is most likely due to most of them writing in a style I don't care for, and is the same reason I don't listen to that many modern male composers either. And my failure to appreciate that style of music, regardless of who the composer is, has absolutely no bearing on my appreciation for music in general. One is not required to like every form and style of music in order to be able to like any form or style of music. You may as well say that, since I don't care for asparagus, I must not like vegetables in general. Never mind that I thoroughly enjoy salads, peppers, green beans, and numerous other members of this group.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Here we go again, the "battle of the sexes"...


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2010)

Here's another interesting tidbit about posters to classical music forums, many of them cannot read. Oh, all right. I'm being generous. Many of them find more pleasure in twisting other poster's words than they do in dealing with what the other posters have actually said.

As in StlukesguildOhio: "In other words, if the classical listener does not listen to all of the rather obscure contemporaries that you like, they don't like music very much?"

Hmmm. An interesting twist of "most people, including those who post to classical music forums, don't really like music all that much." Now that is an inflammatory and probably indefensible assertion made in a moment of high puckishness. One thing it is not is a criticism of people who don't listen to the contemporaries I do. ("Obscure" is St's word, note, and says more about him than it does about the contemporary composers.)

To DrMike: I've already declined to defend my assertion. But you do tempt me to do so, you really do. Just so you know. Otherwise, if you don't listen to "modern music" much, then you're right, you won't know the women composers who are every bit as good as their male counterparts. And there are a lot of them. More than ever before.* So there's really nothing theoretical about their talent, not any more. It's right there, ready to be heard. As a side note, the words "modern music," surely the least felicitous of the umbrella terms, do not identify a style but numerous styles. (If "style" is even the right word. I'm pretty sure it's not.)

*I wasn't talking about the number of women composers. I was talking about their visibility to the general classical listener. And their visibility is rather low, as low as most of their male counterparts among most classical listeners. St keeps saying that that "obscurity" means that they're just not as good. Or that the women that only a few people "in the know" know about (tautology his!) are a chimera. St, I think that once again you've presented the conversational equivalent of "heads I win, tails you lose." Most people don't know any of the artists you fancy, even the "famous" ones. Why knowing should be considered a handicap, indeed a proof of bad faith, is quite beyond me. You consider your knowledge to be a good thing, but mine to be bad? That's just silly.

To both of you (and I should really have waited for Ravellian to jump into the fray, so that I could deal with everyone all at once, eh?), yes, there are many fine composers who are also women. I can say that with some assurance because I know many of them. Even more than on that rather short list I proffered over three years ago when this thread first began. St plays that knowledge out as some rarified specialist knowledge so outside the mainstream as to be practically useless and probably illusory. DrMike plays that knowledge out as me trying to prove how sophisticated I am. Sigh.

How about I just love music? Wouldn't we all get along a lot better if we just listened to music and talked about what we liked rather than all this ceaseless wrangling and petty jealousies? "I love music more than you." "No, I love music more than _you._" "What you guys call music isn't even really music. Only the music _I_ love is worth listening to." "You're stupid." "You're a jerk."

Fair enough? Oh well. When all is said and done, I still love listening to music. I still have hundreds of CDs by dozens of composers who are also women. I enjoy those CDs as much as I enjoy the CDs I have of composers who are also men.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> To Listener, oh, go ahead, give the answer: it's that most people, including the people who post to classical music forums, don't really like music all that much.* What? Not the "politically incorrect" answer you were thinking of? Well, it's the right one, anyway. (Women are indeed every bit as good as men when it comes to composing.)
> 
> *To be fair, a lot of people do like _pieces_ of music. Individual pieces, even individual composers. I might go so far as to admit individual eras, but I won't. This WAS supposed to be a "politically incorrect" answer, right?


That's got to be the most intelligent comment I have read in this forum. (Yes, scarcasm intended). You will need to take my word when I prove you wrong: had Handel been a _Georgina_ and had Cage been a _Joanna_, I would have loved Georgina's and detested much of Joanna's, as much I do George's and John's.

By the way, I randomly looked up one of your women you listed. *Zeena Parkins* (born 1956). I randomly picked a string quartet piece on youtube. I can't stand the piece. Here it is.

(So called music starts at the 36th second, after the quartet tunes).


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2010)

some guy said:


> Here's another interesting tidbit about posters to classical music forums, many of them cannot read. Oh, all right. I'm being generous. Many of them find more pleasure in twisting other poster's words than they do in dealing with what the other posters have actually said.
> 
> As in StlukesguildOhio: "In other words, if the classical listener does not listen to all of the rather obscure contemporaries that you like, they don't like music very much?"
> 
> ...


Well it is nice that you chose to not even address my criticism of your statement, and yet still represent your long post as a reply. I didn't say that my taste in music was in any way superior to yours. I objected to your previous statement that the reason more people don't listen to female composers/why there aren't more female composers is that most people, including people who post on these forums, don't like music. It is an absurd statement for which you provide no evidence. Why, in your mind, is liking female composers somehow indivisibly linked with linking music in general? You state that you refuse to explain your statement - I suspect that the more accurate statement would be that you have no explanation for your statement.

There does not need to be some sinister explanation as to why there are not as many female composers appreciated by fans of classical music. We aren't all on here, promoting male composers in order to promote some dastardly scheme to suppress the musical output of female composers. The fact of the matter is that male composers have an overwhelming numerical superiority. So it stands to reason that, even if you were to select what composers you listen to in a completely random fashion, you will still have almost exclusively a collection of male composers. But we don't pick randomly. And as you have conceded, most female composers are still alive, and are writing in musical styles which even their male counterparts are having a harder time drawing as many fans to as, say, baroque, classical, or romantic composers.

The original question has a very simple answer. The same reason there aren't a lot of female composers throughout history is the same reason there aren't as many female scientists throughout history, or female engineers, or female doctors, or female lawyers, or female politicians . . . I could go on. Not until really the 20th century, when women's rights began to be more vigorously asserted, did we start to see a significant increase in females joining professions that had been almost exclusively the domain of men. So in the areas of classical music, men had a couple centuries head start. And that is why there are more male than female composers. Other explanations are sheer speculation - we don't know if there would have been more historically were they accepted.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

DrMike said:


> So, the reason there aren't as many female composers is . . . people simply don't really like music that much?


I defy anyone to be able to identify any difference between the music of 'male' and 'female' composers.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> I defy anyone to be able to identify any difference between the music of 'male' and 'female' composers.


At its best, music by male composers can thrill the soul and a good performance will send an audience into raptures.

At its best, music by female composers is.....admirable.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> I defy anyone to be able to identify any difference between the music of 'male' and 'female' composers.


What your question has to do with my quote I don't know. I have never insinuated a difference in their music, where comparisons can be made. When I listen to medieval music, I doubt I can detect any differences between von Bingen and others that could be attributed to her sex, as opposed to only her personal style. And the same goes for men.

I have never made any statement regarding the quality of music produced by men vs. women. In fact, as has been stated, a large proportion of female composers are from the 20th century onward, and much of the musical styles employed in that period doesn't particularly appeal to me - and so I don't count many male composers from that period among my collection either. I enjoy some of the symphonies of Hovhaness, and the later choral works of Arvo Part. If people can recommend to me female composers that are similar, I am more than happy to give them a listen. But even then, Part and Hovhaness aren't in my top tier of preferences. I tend to prefer first Baroque, then Romantic, then Classical, then Renaissance, then modern. And as you will no doubt notice, you only start seeing more female composers there near the end of my preferences. And you are right - I probably would not notice and differences between male and female modern composers.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> By the way, I randomly looked up one of your women you listed. *Zeena Parkins* (born 1956). I randomly picked a string quartet piece on youtube. I can't stand the piece. Here it is.
> 
> (So called music starts at the 36th second, after the quartet tunes).


Wow! You should have given some better warning before people click on that link. I think I scared the kids with this one.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

DrMike- ...as you have conceded, most female composers are still alive, and are writing in musical styles which even their male counterparts are having a harder time drawing as many fans to as, say, baroque, classical, or romantic composers.

And this is the crux of what I suggested in my earlier post. Yes, there may be a great many active contemporary female composers... a far greater percentage of composers as a whole than ever before... but if the majority are writing in a manner that has not attracted a great many listeners or attention (that "obscure" word)... even among those who admittedly love classical music and even make a concerted effort to explore new works... how is this to be equated with disliking music? Only those who like what some guy likes, or Dr, Mike likes, or Andre likes, or I like might be considered as truly liking music? My wife travels with me to the various art museums and art exhibitions I attend. She didn't like the big Francis Bacon show, and Anslem Kiefer left her cold... but she likes Impressionism, Bonnard, Edward Hopper, J.M.W. Turner... and even Max Beckmann and Joseph Cornell... so am I to suggest she simply doesn't "really" like art because she hasn't come around to appreciating Sean Scully or Martin Puryear, or Anish Kapoor, or Lee Bontecou?


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> And this is the crux of what I suggested in my earlier post. Yes, there may be a great many active contemporary female composers... a far greater percentage of composers as a whole than ever before...


Which would then make the average female composer a brave modernist and the average male composer a tonal sissy. 



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> That's got to be the most intelligent comment I have read in this forum. (Yes, scarcasm intended). You will need to take my word when I prove you wrong: had Handel been a _Georgina_ and had Cage been a _Joanna_, I would have loved Georgina's and detested much of Joanna's, as much I do George's and John's.
> 
> By the way, I randomly looked up one of your women you listed. *Zeena Parkins* (born 1956). I randomly picked a string quartet piece on youtube. I can't stand the piece. Here it is.
> 
> (So called music starts at the 36th second, after the quartet tunes).


Thanks for the link! Cool music, indeed.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

(Quote)Fsharpmajor - Here's a very favourable review:

http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=13035

Thank you. With the exception of Peanuts Gallery, the compositions are good, but I thought the Naxos production was poor. Mediocre interp., playing and sound. More like a 5/6.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2010)

DrMike said:


> You state that you refuse to explain your statement - I suspect that the more accurate statement would be that you have no explanation for your statement.


That is A possibility. Interesting that you chose it as THE possibility.

Here's another one, I'm a busy man who regrets having thrown a provocative statement out there, and who is too busy to back it up. Take your pick.

(Your pick will reveal more about you than about me.)

But, alas, I do have an explanation. And now I'm going to give it. It consists mainly of generalizations, which I do not prefer. But to get to specifics takes time. (I did mention that whole regret thing, right?) I do think that most people don't really like music, including people who post to classical music forums. In brief, most people have music on in order to fill up a (perceived) emptiness. I'm tempted to say that just about any music will do, except that people have very particular styles they prefer. So someone who likes hip hop will not fill the silence with country and western. And someone who likes top forty will not fill the silence with r & b. So with music there seem to be two needs going on, one to fill the void and two to tickle a particular taste.

I think you can tell the genuine music lovers by whether they need to fill the void and by whether they are curious about music they've never heard. And not just willing to "give it a shot" but eager to experience it. Most people who post to classical music forums seem afraid of music. "Which piece by X should I start with?" "Does Y write that atonal crap?" "Music by Z scared my kids!" Only safe music is allowed. How it got to be considered "safe" doesn't enter into it. Does A composer write in a way that ignores everything that has happened since Brahms? Then A is safe. Does B work with sounds that Brahms would never have dreamed of using? Then B is to be avoided, and not just avoided, but excoriated.

And that's the only gripe I have. The only gripe I've ever had. HarpsichordConcerto and Ravellian, for instance, don't like a lot of things. Fine. But why take every opportunity to express their dislikes as if they somehow were definitive judgments about the music itself? Everything they have ever reported as disliking are things that other people have found much pleasure in. (And that seems to be terribly threatening. Why?) Most of the items on their excoriate list are things I have sampled and found to be good. So is it just a choice between HC and R's tastes and mine? Not at all. It's a matter of what do we all value--music or bickering? Seems to me that quite a few posters value bickering over everything, value slamming the things they hate (and that they hate with very little cause) over enjoying the things that they love.

Well, that's really all there is to it. But DrMike is perhaps thinking, but what about the women? Well, that's perhaps rather tenuous. Here's what I was thinking. Most women composers are alive. Many of them are writing in non-popular ways. Just like the guys. If you're not interested in exploring beyond your safety zone, you're not going to know any of these women. If you're not interested in exploring beyond your safety zone--no, if you even HAVE a safety zone--then you're not really interested in music.

Now, there may be many cogent arguments to be made against that assertion. But there it is. That's what I think. Have at it!! (Making sure, St, that you have at what I actually said, not at some chimerical distortion you fabricate.)

Now, y'all have a nice Thanksgiving. Drink a lot and sleep a lot and don't respond to this for days and days. Gimme a chance to get some work done, eh?


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I randomly looked up one of your women you listed. *Zeena Parkins* (born 1956). I randomly picked a string quartet piece on youtube. I can't stand the piece. Here it is.
> 
> (So called music starts at the 36th second, after the quartet tunes).


Interesting experience. I normally find it very difficult to break through into new modes of art in any form, and when this piece began (seriously horribly, I thought), I winced; but I decided just to stay with it through to the end.

Now ... I'm not going to rush out and buy the CD (is it _on_ a CD?), but I am certainly going to listen to this again tomorrow, and possibly even the day after that, too. There were passages that did indeed make me wince, particularly early on; but there were other passages that seemed very exciting indeed, and some that seemed eerie and strangely compelling. And I didn't expect such a positive response at all.

What struck me above all was the intensity and commitment of the players. It was fascinating watching them watching each other, taut and poised to respond. That speaks volumes, for me, about their own engagement with the music, and I found it infectious. Good for Zeena Parkins, I say. And thanks.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> That is A possibility. Interesting that you chose it as THE possibility.
> 
> Here's another one, I'm a busy man who regrets having thrown a provocative statement out there, and who is too busy to back it up. Take your pick.
> 
> (Your pick will reveal more about you than about me.)


I pick Dr.Mike's explanation. I wonder if you are really _that busy_ a person, having written two rather lengthy responses so far, both appear to be well over 1,000 words in length altogether (#25, #35).



some guy said:


> ... if you even HAVE a safety zone--then you're not really interested in music.


You are about the most elitist music admirer I have come across with that comment (either in the real world or in discussion forums). 99% of folks I would assume have comfort zones, simply because that's their personal preference, including people in the music industry (except of course, member some guy). Therefore, we are all not really interested in music … according to you. 

Sorry for my rather short response. I am rather busy. I can't even defend your accusation that "HC don't like a lot of things".


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I pick Dr.Mike's explanation. I wonder if you are really _that busy_ a person, having written two rather lengthy responses so far, both appear to be well over 1,000 words in length altogether (#25, #35).


Heads you win, tails I lose.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You are about the most elitist music admirer I have come across....


You say that as if that were a _bad_ thing!



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Sorry for my rather short response. I am rather busy.


I'm gonna go with "I believe you" on this one.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I do think that most people don't really like music, including people who post to classical music forums. In brief, most people have music on in order to fill up a (perceived) emptiness. 

Can you perhaps get just a bit more pretentious than to take it upon yourself to define just why it is that others listen to music (to fill some perceived void?) and then dismiss this reason (defined by you) as unworthy?

I'm tempted to say that just about any music will do, except that people have very particular styles they prefer. So someone who likes hip hop will not fill the silence with country and western. And someone who likes top forty will not fill the silence with r & b. So with music there seem to be two needs going on, one to fill the void and two to tickle a particular taste.

So there is no discernment on the part of all these lesser music listeners... any music will do... and yet conversely... there is a preference for particular styles... particular composers...? Perhaps you might clarify that? You are accusing us of not really giving a damn about what we listen to, so long as it fills the void... (which some might argue sounds more like your own take on music)... and yet at the same time we are limited in what we like? How does this work out?

I think you can tell the genuine music lovers by whether they need to fill the void and by whether they are curious about music they've never heard. And not just willing to "give it a shot" but eager to experience it.

OK... let's address this one. HarpsichordConcerto, from what I have gleaned, owns every last opera by Handel... a good number of them in several different versions. Have you even heard half of Handel's operas let alone every one of them? If you haven't, does this mean that you lack the curiosity about music you haven't heard... or simply that you have elected to spend your time elsewhere with a body of music that you prefer more more? It would seem to me that exploring all that Handel or Bach or Monteverdi or Gesualdo or Mozart or Sweelinck have composed... and in various interpretations... involves no less curiosity and no less passion for the exploration of music than your vaunted passion for exploring contemporary composers. You have decided to focus upon that which has given you the greatest pleasure (your comfort zone) no less than others have.

If you're not interested in exploring beyond your safety zone... if you even HAVE a safety zone--then you're not really interested in music.

I must agree fully with HC in that this is an undeniably elitist... snobbish suggestion. Of course you will quite probably side-step the statement or accuse me and HC of taking your words out of context... but ultimately it comes down to you suggesting that anyone who does not listen to music in the same manner as yourself is close-minded and doesn't really like music at all.

Ultimately, we all have "comfort" zones... areas where we garner the greatest pleasure and spend the most time and effort... and others that we could do without or perhaps even avoid. You have made it clear that you dislike Bax... and undoubtedly there are many others. Vernon Handley, a conductor of some repute, liked Bax enough to make the attempt at conducting and recording the whole of his oeuvre (he died before he could complete this). Are we to assume that only one of you is correct in their judgment of Bax and that either Handley or you don't really like music... or perhaps it is possible that you both really like/d music and simply have/had different preferences.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

haa.. that string quartet video is 'epic'. that remind me of Sofia Gubaidulina piece that I posted sometime ago : 




here another female composer :





keep in mind Xenakis or Ligetti also done something like this, I can't understand Xenakis (out of comfort zone that is) but Ligetti is quite ok. well,.. talkin' being sexist a bit.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Just read the first post and realised that this thread is THREE YEARS OLD!!! Looks like we have brought a few skeletons out of the cupboard with this one!

I agree with some guy's suggestions that many classical - & non classical - listeners have "comfort zones" that border on inflexibility. I have here declared my lack of being "grabbed" by anything much by J.S. Bach, so that's the limit of my "comfort zone." But that doesn't make me dismiss the Baroque period all together & I really like guys like Handel, D. Scarlatti, Vivaldi, Corelli, etc. Basically, the more "Italian" the better (Handel spent time in Italy, and I can hear that in his music). So I don't have a problem with "comfort zones," more with people who tend to dismiss a whole era based on very little actual listening. Hearsay is not good enough, you have to actually listen to & experience music for yourself. If HC has a problem with Zeena Parkins, for example, that does not mean that he might not appreciate many, many contemporary composers, providing that he is flexible and explores a wide range of the repertoire. But of course, it's not a perfect world, unfortunately. People will still make judgements based on insufficient and faulty information...


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2010)

So, some guy, now I understand your statement - I understand why you made it, but don't agree with your generalizations. Your original statement, though, had this insinuation - that you and Listener - both had reached the same conclusion, and you chose to make the statement, as if it were an easily reached conclusion. In fact, it required a great deal of explanation. So it was definitely incumbent on you to clarify such a statement when the underlying assumptions behind it were far from self-evident.

Your generalization is highly suspect, and I wonder whether the company you keep thinks in these terms, and that has shaped your opinion. One can only truly like something if one is willing to go beyond comfort zones and experience all that there is to experience? The problem is that expectation borders on impossible - it literally requires you to experience all that exists. In reality, it more likely allows some to put on an air of superiority. It is a safe statement, really, to be willing to experience everything, because it really isn't possible. It is a theoretical statement only, because any number of excuses can then be given for why you haven't, in fact, experienced EVERYTHING. The tougher thing, intellectually, is to be able to discern what is, in fact, worth your attention, and what is not. Take, for examply, my particular field - science. Now, I can claim that one can only be a true scientist if one is willing to give consideration to ANY hypothesis put forward. In reality, though, a truly good scientist knows what is not worth their time. Under the theory of stepping outside one's comfort zone, I would have to consider plate tectonics and angry giants living under the earth's surface equally as explanations for earthquakes. But we both know that is absurd.

For music, I can both like it, and not like all of it. I like music. I don't like all manifestations of music. Let's take an extreme example. I have listened to a few dark metal bands briefly. I knew very quickly that it did not appeal to me. I don't find it necessary, then, to listen to every single dark metal band. I have sampled some contemporary composers. Many do not appeal to me. If I know that another composer is similar, I don't feel the need to explore their music. And yet I still like music. 

Your description of why people do or don't like music - as you have explained it - is both overly simplistic, and makes wrong assumptions. First, reasons for liking music are not either/or. People come to music for a variety of reasons. Second, even if people listen to music to fill silence, that does not mean that they don't like music. I like food, but I don't like all food. I am not required to try, or even be willing to try, every type of food possible, to justify my fondness for food. 

I like movies. There are certain types that I don't want to watch - porn, erotica, ultra-violent slashers, to name just a few. But I still like movies. I like to read. I read all the time. I am constantly craving to learn more. I don't wish to sample all genres. I have never read a harlequin romance, nor do I ever plan on it. The same goes for those dime-a-dozen teenage serials, such as the Gossip Girl series. I am selective in what I choose to expose myself to. And the same goes for music. 

You think that your willingness to experience every kind of classical music means that you truly like music, as opposed to those who are more discriminating in their listening, which you attribute to not actually liking classical, but merely choosing this particular type of music to fill the silence in their life. That is not elitism - that is simply arrogance. An elite person would make known their credentials and with what expertise they are able to make such statements. You have not done that. For all we know, you could be a 15-year old who doesn't actually even listen to classical music, but posts his comments after some quick research on wikipedia. Do I think that is true? No, I believe you do listen to classical music, and, unlike you, I fully believe that you do like classical music. I give you that benefit of the doubt, because, you see, I cannot know what is in your head.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I agree with some guy's suggestions that many classical - & non classical - listeners have "comfort zones" that border on inflexibility. 

I would say that we ALL have comfort zones. There are composers and periods that I like more than others. There is music I like very little. I haven't come across much of anything I like in the genre of heavy metal, rap, or Chinese opera. I suppose I could keep digging, but it seems more fruitful to explore those areas that I have some real interest in. I agree that you cannot dismiss anything without having given a listen. I don't really like Schoenberg... but I have 10 discs by him (which may be more than you have by Bach, Andre). If I personally dismiss a lot of the composers recommended by SomeGuy, it is because there's a track record there of recommending music which doesn't do anything but irritate me at best. I have had others who listen to contemporary music who I have listened to and as a result I have discovered any number of composers I quite like: Scelsi, Feldman, Crumb, David Lang, Tristan Murail, Julian Anderson, Kaija Saariaho, Tuur, Vasks, Silvestrov, Takemitsu, etc... There is just as much exploration, involved in discovering less-well known artists within a known/admired genre/era... or less-well-known pieces within a given artist's oeuvre.

I have here declared my lack of being "grabbed" by anything much by J.S. Bach, so that's the limit of my "comfort zone." But that doesn't make me dismiss the Baroque period all together & I really like guys like Handel, D. Scarlatti, Vivaldi, Corelli, etc. Basically, the more "Italian" the better (Handel spent time in Italy, and I can hear that in his music).

So why would you bristle if someone were to admit that they don't like Schoenberg but quite like Stravinsky, don't like Boulez but quite like Copland, don't like Stockhausen but quite admire Glass and Reich?

So I don't have a problem with "comfort zones," more with people who tend to dismiss a whole era based on very little actual listening. Hearsay is not good enough, you have to actually listen to & experience music for yourself. 

Of course... but again, after a while we all play the odds. If we find that the last 10 composers from a given genre and period don't resonate with us, while the deeper we dig in another direction, the more splendid work we find... well then it seems obvious that most of us will follow where our pleasure takes us.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...If I personally dismiss a lot of the composers recommended by SomeGuy, it is because there's a track record there of recommending music which doesn't do anything but irritate me at best. I have had others who listen to contemporary music who I have listened to and as a result I have discovered any number of composers I quite like: Scelsi, Feldman, Crumb, David Lang, Tristan Murail, Julian Anderson, Kaija Saariaho, Tuur, Vasks, Silvestrov, Takemitsu, etc... There is just as much exploration, involved in discovering less-well known artists within a known/admired genre/era... or less-well-known pieces within a given artist's oeuvre...
> 
> Of course... but again, after a while we all play the odds. If we find that the last 10 composers from a given genre and period don't resonate with us, while the deeper we dig in another direction, the more splendid work we find... well then it seems obvious that most of us will follow where our pleasure takes us.


It seems from your comments here and generally that you are quite a flexible person in terms of listening to contemporary (& the "classic") composers. I don't think why some guy & yourself can't see eye to eye on this. I think that he is more rallying against the totally inflexible classical listeners, who think that The Rite of Spring (composed as you know in 1913) is the last word on "modern music." I knew such a person, a friend of a friend. I used to go the the same Australian Chamber Orchestra concerts, and apparently this guy was only interested in the first half, and left during interval, so before the second half of each concert. This was because they used to sometimes program "the classics" in the first half - which he liked - but he wouldn't have a bar of the more "modern" stuff (even if it was from guys like Stravinsky or Bartok who died decades ago). I think that this kind of pretty inflexible classical listener is what some guy is on a crusade against - and all power to him, imo. I think there is a problem if people are so inflexible that they can't stand the music of someone who died 40 or more years ago. We are living in 2010, not 1910. Of course, the guy had a right to pay for only half his concert. But I think some guy is suggesting that such people are missing out on a good portion of the deal when they shut themselves off from certain classical music of more modern times because it may not be as familiar to them as "the classics." Pity them, I say...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I personally need to listen to more contemporary music (along with the older "masters") for the simple reason that this music confronts issues and ideas that are current. Of course among the modern contemporary music I listen to I include jazz, bluegrass, blues, and rock along with "classical" music. At the same time, I'll acknowledge that some don't feel this need... don't approach music with the desire to discover something new... something that speaks to the here and now... and this is fine. I'll not presume that the listener who is deeply passionate about medieval music to the near exclusion of everything else is inferior to myself, because i have broader tastes... 

I'll freely admit that I don't like some music. Rap and Heavy Metal does nothing for me. I haven't been overly impressed with most of what I've heard along the lines of electronic "noise" and concrete music. Schoenberg still leaves me cold... and I'll admit that I'm not as deeply in love with chamber music and string quartets/quintets as I am with some other genre. Scelsi and Tristan Murail and Arvo Part and Osvaldo Golijov and Daniel Catan all prove to me that there is much to love in contemporary classical music, but I'll not take the stance that those who aren't interested in contemporary music are close-minded (let alone don't really like music)... at least they are no more close-minded than myself (or anyone else) for not being open to rap and heavy metal and Chinese opera.

I fully agree that there is something wrong with dismissing music... or with making public statements denigrating a style or era as a whole... or an individual composer... without having at least made an effort to listen to the work.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2010)

DrMike said:


> ...I understand your statement..., but don't agree with your generalizations.


I'm good with that.


DrMike said:


> Your original statement, though, had this insinuation - that you and Listener - both had reached the same conclusion, and you chose to make the statement, as if it were an easily reached conclusion.


Yes. It's called a joke. It was an attempt, however feeble, at humor. (As evidenced in the comment: "This is supposed to be 'politically incorrect' after all." (May not be quoted exactly.)) 


DrMike said:


> I wonder whether the company you keep thinks in these terms, and that has shaped your opinion.


Really? Well, no. This is a conclusion of my own. It is highly tentative, and I'm very pleased that you and St are taking such care with it. More than I deserve. It's interesting to continue to think about these things with you two. (Though I admit, I'm much more _comfortable_ with Andre's comments!!)


DrMike said:


> In reality, it more likely allows some to put on an air of superiority.


This bit has always puzzled me. It seems to be an idee fixe of yours. One, I'm confident enough, or perhaps arrogant enough, not to need approval by TC posters. (Though see comment about Andre's comments, above.) Two, I never claimed that I was one of the people who has succeeded in abolishing all boundaries. I do think it's a good direction to head in, though I also don't think that all musics are going to repay careful and sympathetic listening. I've only gotten to the reserve judgment stage. Probably it's as far as I'm capable of. And three, "an air of"??? (Note: three is another one of those joke things. Just so you know.)


DrMike said:


> The tougher thing, intellectually, is to be able to discern what is, in fact, worth your attention, and what is not.


I'm pretty sure I do not agree with this. The tougher thing for me has been to jettison the idea that I can certainly and irrevocably determine what's good and what's not for all time. There are some things I'm pretty sure I'll never admire. Jennifer Higdon's music, for instance. But that list is small and getting smaller. It will never vanish. And I would never suggest to anyone that Higdon (or Bax, for that matter) is not worth anyone's time.

That's probably the only place I really do feel superior to the likes of Ravellian and HC. I don't turn my dislikes (or likes) into norms for anyone else.

The longer I listen, the more I have to conclude that I'm just not good enough to pass judgment on anything much. 


DrMike said:


> I have listened to a few dark metal bands briefly. I knew very quickly that it did not appeal to me.


And I trust less and less things that happen quickly. Though I too do not find it necessary to listen to every single neo-tonalist, for instance.


DrMike said:


> For all we know, you could be a 15-year old who doesn't actually even listen to classical music....


Mmmm. Probably not. It's a stylistic thing. I don't really come off as 15. Though, it is also true that men generally do not mature much past 12 intellectually. Or at least that's what certain women I've known report as being true!!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> That's probably the only place I really do feel superior to the likes of Ravellian and HC. I don't turn my dislikes (or likes) into norms for anyone else.


Interesting. You honestly believe that I, HarpsichordConcerto, have the magical ability with a Harry Potter wand to turn my personal likes and dislikes into norms for anyone else on this planet. And as a result of that belief, secure your own ego and security ("feeling superior") off this stranger called HC from the internet. (If I recall correctly, you wrote earlier in another thread that you are a person aged 58).



some guy said:


> The longer I listen, the more I have to conclude that I'm just not good enough to pass judgment on anything much.


Funny that. I feel the very exact opposite. The longer I listen over the years, the more I am confident to conclude by passing judgement whether or not a piece of music works for me or is utter crap.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

jurianbai said:


> haa.. that string quartet video is 'epic'. that remind me of Sofia Gubaidulina piece that I posted sometime ago :


Thanks. I remember that piece. I think it's utter crap.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> The longer I listen, the more I have to conclude that I'm just not good enough to pass judgment on anything much.


Socrates would have agreed with you. That's good enough company for me.

Meanwhile, I've been actually listening for a second time to a piece of music by one of these female composers, namely:



> Originally Posted by HarpsichordConcerto:
> I randomly looked up one of your women you listed. Zeena Parkins (born 1956). I randomly picked a string quartet piece on youtube. I can't stand the piece. Here it is.
> 
> (So called music starts at the 36th second, after the quartet tunes).


I'm pretty astonished by my response to it on this second listening. In particular, I find the sequence that begins around 2.25 very remarkable. That fast rhythmic thrumming for 30 seconds is pretty exciting by any standards, building up enormous tension, and then there's the sudden unexpected lapse into silence, followed by the eerie repetitive passage through to the end that leaves one feeling a strange mixture of dismay and satisfaction. It's not Mozart, and it's a long way off my normal grazing grounds, and I wouldn't be able to listen to very much of it. But I'm pretty sure it isn't crap.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

some guy-
The longer I listen, the more I have to conclude that I'm just not good enough to pass judgment on anything much.

Socrates would have agreed with you. That's good enough company for me.

Of course Socrates probably never existed outside of the literary character invented by Plato... and his famous knowing of nothing was little more than a ploy to direct others into agreeing with his manner of thought.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Of course Socrates probably never existed outside of the literary character invented by Plato... and his famous knowing of nothing was little more than a ploy to direct others into agreeing with his manner of thought.


Does this matter? I consider it one of the most profound statements ever made, whoever said it, and for whatever reason.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2010)

Elgarian, you flatter me. But I'll happily accept being in the company of Socrates!



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The longer I listen over the years, the more I am confident to conclude by passing judgement whether or not a piece of music works for me or is utter crap.


You have never had the experience of hearing a piece, disliking it, then hearing it again years later and thinking "Wow, that's really good"?

I have had many many of those experiences. Too many to ignore. It has led me to examining my listening. And I have noticed that my listening changes from piece to piece and from year to year. And the biggest obstacle to my enjoyment of any individual thing at any particular time is expectations.

The fewer I take into a listening session, the likelier I will be able to enjoy whatever I hear.

As for my comment about norms, that's not about your ability to magically influence us but your magical ability to present your personal likes and dislikes as if they were accurate descriptions and valid evaluations of the pieces themselves--your magical power of being able to kid yourself that you've got ahold of the truth about a piece. You hear a piece and think it's crap, therefore the piece IS crap, and someone else listening to it and thinking it very fine just doesn't count at all. You have pronounced and so it is.

(Note the sleight of hand in "works *for me* or *is* utter crap." Magical indeed!!)


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2010)

some guy said:


> The longer I listen, the more I have to conclude that I'm just not good enough to pass judgment on anything much.


When you say you have concluded that you are not good enough to pass judgment on anything much, can we rightly assume, based on the broad judgments you have made here, that this particular area is one of those minority cases where you do feel you are good enough to pass judgment?

Sorry, but the false modesty after already having made the comments seems a bit comical.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2010)

Heads you win, tails I lose.

Well, I guess it's just not worth all the effort of typing to respond to you any more DrMike.

Too bad. My judgment of you was mostly positive.

Was.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2010)

some guy said:


> Heads you win, tails I lose.
> 
> Well, I guess it's just not worth all the effort of typing to respond to you any more DrMike.
> 
> ...


I just think it was rather comical to make a statement to the effect that you don't like to pass judgment much, when this whole extended tangent has spun off of a judgment statement on your part.

No worries, though. Your not taking the time to respond leaves me with the opportunity to turn on some music that I don't actually like, but which happily will fill the void left by the ending of a conversation here.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

It seems a sad state of affairs that a potentially interesting thread about female composers should degenerate so rapidly into exchanges of personal animosity, instead of actually discussing the work of female composers.

As I explained in two posts above, I found the piece by Zeena Parkins posted by Harpsichord Concerto surprisingly accessible and rewarding (albeit challenging), and I'd have enjoyed reading other sensibly expressed views about it. The slanging match, however, interests me not at all.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

It's not weightlifting, so I don't see that why women given equal opportunity shouldn't be able to compose just as well as men. Today there is equal opportunity for them to do so (or we're getting there anyway), so I predict that contrary to the past, come the end of this century there will be a number of female composers included on those lists of greatest composers of the 21st century.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> I'm pretty astonished by my response to it on this second listening. In particular, I find the sequence that begins around 2.25 very remarkable. That fast rhythmic thrumming for 30 seconds is pretty exciting by any standards, building up enormous tension, and then there's the sudden unexpected lapse into silence, followed by the eerie repetitive passage through to the end that leaves one feeling a strange mixture of dismay and satisfaction. It's not Mozart, and it's a long way off my normal grazing grounds, and I wouldn't be able to listen to very much of it. But I'm pretty sure it isn't crap.


The sequence around 2:25 is not that remarkable to me: it reminded me of Bartok's string quartets, and given how Parkins seemed to have plonked it in the middle of nowhere, appeared more bizzare before it quietly disappeared. An unoriginal and awkward treatment.

As for a real female composer of merit from the past, I put a CD on today; let me introduce to listeners (if you haven't already heard of): *Elisabeth-Claude Jacquet de la Guerre* (1665 - 1729). A most remarkable female composer. A quick biography shows why:- she got married in 1684 to Marin de la Guerre (harpsichordist and organist), but sadly for Elisabth-Claude, it didn't last too long: her husband died in 1704, their 10 year old son and only child died in 1697, and her own brother died in 1707. A widow in the 18th century who was also a musician/composer of the lower middle class was no easy feat. What was remarkable as a female composer was that she published many of her own works and became apparently financially independent. French law in the 18th century recognised a widow as a free person.

I have the following CDs. There is nothing about the works that could suggest it was composed by a lady.

Trio sonatas, played by Camerata Moderna (on period instruments).









Six harpsichord suites (2 CDs), played by Elizabeth Farr. This is an excellent CD.









Sadly for Zeena Parkins, there doesn't seem to be a big choice of recordings of her works. Perhaps three hundred years later?


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The sequence around 2:25 is not that remarkable to me: it reminded me of Bartok's string quartets, and given how Parkins seemed to have plonked it in the middle of nowhere, appeared more bizzare before it quietly disappeared. An unoriginal and awkward treatment.


I'm not comparing it with anything else - just trying to take it as it comes, as I would with any other new piece of music (I don't know enough about Bartok to be able to comment on your comparison). But I don't agree that the exciting rhythmic thrumming is coming from nowhere. Listening now this morning for the third time, it seems to me to be related to something that is hinted at around 1.01, then fades, then returns again with more vigour at around 1.10, but again fades out without fulfilling its promise. So the intensely rhythmic passage that comes at 2.25 isn't _altogether_ unexpected - except in the strength of it. I think I'm saying that I don't see it as being 'in the middle of nowhere', but as part of a structure that I only dimly discern. And the silence that follows is very expressive and tense - one feels one can cut it with a knife.

Original? I'm not competent to say. Awkward? Well, there are passages that I still think are seriously horrible. But I'm finding less and less awkwardness with each listen.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> Original? I'm not competent to say.


You are too modest. Consult the pair of items that keep our brains apart and connected; our ears.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You are too modest. Consult the pair of items that keep our brains apart and connected; our ears.


No, you misunderstand me. It's not a matter of modesty - I'm perfectly capable of listening carefully and recognising that this particular piece of music has value. But to assess _originality_ I need to have a much wider knowledge of music than I do. For all I know there may be a thousand pieces of music out there like this one by Parkins, and if this were highly derivative, I simply wouldn't know.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2010)

Not sure about this. Not sure if it's worth the effort. But "oh, well."

DrMike, when I said I wasn't good enough to pass judgment, I was talking about the changes I had noticed in my own listening. To music. That the longer I listen, the less confidence I have in my ability to judge a piece. Why, right now I'm listening to Klaus Huber's _Erniedrigt - Geknechtet - Verlassen - Verachtet ...._ When I first bought this CD, I was really disappointed, the more so because I quite like the other Huber pieces I've heard. This time, only the second listening, the piece seems so immediately delightful and captivating, I can hardly hear whatever it was that had so disappointed me before.

Of course, we all make judgments all the time. If you want comedy, why not note that "I'm not good enough to pass judgment" is itself a judgment! And deciding that you were just being uncharitable, and not really interested in the arguments (which I noted by concluding that it's a situation where heads, you win and tails, I lose) is also a judgment. And so forth.

Noticing how my own listening has changed over the years, how my perception of a piece changes from hearing to hearing, sometimes means I want to counter the assertions of people like HarpsichordConcerto, who hears a tiny youtube clip of one piece by Zeena Parkins (and not even a representative one) and has the effrontery* to pronounce it "crap." It's not necessarily the piece, you see, that's in question, but the listening. (Listening is a very important part of the situation, but it often is ignored completely or at best simply taken for granted.)

*Yes, this is a judgment.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I want to counter the assertions of people like HarpsichordConcerto, who hears a tiny youtube clip of one piece by Zeena Parkins (and not even a representative one) and has the effrontery* to pronounce it "crap." It's not necessarily the piece, you see, that's in question, but the listening. (Listening is a very important part of the situation, but it often is ignored completely or at best simply taken for granted.

Yes... its all in the listener... or to use a more famous analogy that would be more apt in my field: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." But how far do we take this? Is Mozart played by a 9 year old struggling to get the notes right still beautiful if only I come to it from the right mindset? In other words... is there no "good" nor "bad"? Liberace, Celine Dion, 50-Cent, The Monkeys, ABBA, Hannah Montana, Britney Speares... all of these are brilliant music... and if we don't agree its because of a failure upon our part?

Or is your suggestion that it is the listening that is in question simply a round about way for you to suggest the failure and inferiority of another who doesn't share your likes or dislikes?


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2010)

St, do you know or even care that you have changed "it's not _necessarily_ the piece" into "its (sic) _all_ in the listener"? (emphasis mine) Or that those are two very different statements, not compatible, not comparable, and certainly not identical.

Bad faith.

And, as you may already know, I think that beauty resides neither in the beholder nor in the thing beheld but in the relationship between the two. An active relationship.

And certainly you do know that in the example I used, of HC listening to one piece, the culpability is indeed entirely in the listener. You can see that by looking at some of the other responses about that piece, which are sympathetic and sensitive and intelligent, even the ones who struggle with it or with parts of it are never simply dismissive as HC was.

Or is it really because you genuinely enjoy bickering more than you enjoy listening to music?


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> is there no "good" nor "bad"? Liberace, Celine Dion, 50-Cent, The Monkeys, ABBA, Hannah Montana, Britney Speares... all of these are brilliant music... and if we don't agree its because of a failure upon our part?


These polarisations into 'success' and 'failure' (which particular wheels grind eternally around here at TC) aren't helpful. It's not a contest, it's an exploration. The difficulty (leaving aside for the moment *someguy*'s very pertinent observation that it's the_ relationship_ that counts) is that it's much easier to know what's good than to know what's bad. My experience of of listening and looking over a lifetime has been a long trail of discovering that quite a lot of art which once seemed worthless to me has subsequently become of great value; faced with that chastening fact, my only rational response to something that _seems_ worthless right now, is to leave the jury out.

Why be so fervent about writing something off? After all, it really doesn't matter; if a work of art is truly bad, it will fade into oblivion anyway because no one will care about it with any degree of consistency.

To return to the polarisation issue: think about what happens when we listen to Zeena Parkins (above). Should we approach it with the question 'is this good or bad?' If we do, we greatly diminish our chance of discerning value in it, and we reduce the exercise to a kind of personal X-factor contest. Rather, shouldn't we approach it with the question 'What kind of journey will this take me on?' That's what's exciting, surely, about listening to music. Where will this take me? What am I about to be shown?


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> my only rational response to something that _seems_ worthless right now, is to leave the jury out.


Definitely. Atonal music seemed pretty much useless to me some years ago. Now that I understand it, it is usually more rewarding than its tonal counterpart.



> Why be so fervent about writing something off? After all, it really doesn't matter; if a work of art is truly bad, it will fade into oblivion anyway because no one will care about it with any degree of consistency.


Really? Isn't the music scene pretty much filled with crap that never ever seem to fade into oblivion, whereas oblivion abounds with high quality music? 



> To return to the polarisation issue: think about what happens when we listen to Zeena Parkins (above). Should we approach it with the question 'is this good or bad?' If we do, we greatly diminish our chance of discerning value in it, and we reduce the exercise to a kind of personal X-factor contest. Rather, shouldn't we approach it with the question 'What kind of journey will this take me on?' That's what's exciting, surely, about listening to music. Where will this take me? What am I about to be shown?


Yes. Just like Kandinsky said 100 years ago:

_*… lend your ears to music, open your eyes to painting, and … stop thinking! Just ask yourself whether the work has enabled you to "walk about" into a hitherto unknown world. If the answer is yes, what more do you want?*_


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

TresPicos said:


> Isn't the music scene pretty much filled with crap that never ever seem to fade into oblivion


Well, yes and no. The crap is always there, but its constituents are continually changing.

What I'm getting at is the sort of thing that Ruskin said in 1843:

'If it be true ... that nothing has been for centuries consecrated by public admiration, without possessing in a high degree some kind of sterling excellence, it is not because the average intellect and feeling of the majority of the public are competent in any way to distinguish what is really excellent, but because all erroneous opinion is inconsistent, and all ungrounded opinion transitory.'


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2010)

some guy said:


> Not sure about this. Not sure if it's worth the effort. But "oh, well."
> 
> DrMike, when I said I wasn't good enough to pass judgment, I was talking about the changes I had noticed in my own listening. To music. That the longer I listen, the less confidence I have in my ability to judge a piece. Why, right now I'm listening to Klaus Huber's _Erniedrigt - Geknechtet - Verlassen - Verachtet ...._ When I first bought this CD, I was really disappointed, the more so because I quite like the other Huber pieces I've heard. This time, only the second listening, the piece seems so immediately delightful and captivating, I can hardly hear whatever it was that had so disappointed me before.
> 
> ...


Some guy,
You have misunderstood my criticism of your comments from the beginning. I don't really care how you approach music appreciation. It works for you, and it helps you to find enjoyment in music. My criticism was in your insinuation that those who don't approach music from the same perspective as you don't really like music, but merely use it as something to fill quiet time.

My assertion is that everybody has their own way of approaching music. Some like to fill their lives with it, others seek to set aside time specifically for listening intently to it. Some like to return to pieces they don't initially appreciate to see whether they can find something new that connects with them. Others prefer to limit their listening to works that they find aesthetically pleasing. Some like to listen from an educated perspective, analyzing the various techniques used in the composition, while others could couldn't tell a sonata form to save their life, and only know they like the way it sounds. And the nice thing with music is that there exists works to satisfy all these different groups. And they can all equally like music.

I have no issue with how you find music that you like. I have an issue with your rather bold assertion that those who don't approach it in the same way don't actually like music. The reality is that people who appreciate Zeena Parkins and those who can't stand her can BOTH like music - they just don't like the same kind in this instance.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Some guy,
> You have misunderstood my criticism of your comments from the beginning.


That's perhaps because you have misunderstood my comments from the beginning. I have never said "that those who don't approach music from the same perspective as _ don't really like music, but merely use it as something to fill quiet time." None of my comments were about how people should listen to music. Just an observation that boils down to this, "if you're not curious, you're not interested." No big deal. And no one has to like music, much less the music I like. Really. Any insinuations are coming from somewhere besides me.

I absolutely agree that everybody has their own way of approaching music. Indeed, my gripe about people who constantly bash new music is that they present their responses to it as if those were the only valid responses. Any others are either lies or deception. My current addition to my standard rebuttal of that was to suggest that the people who slam new music don't even like music, generally. It's not a suggestion I would go to the stake for. And I, at least, am done with defending it, at least on this thread!

I agree with the rest of what you said in your post, too. Except for calling my tentative and rather tongue-in-cheek idea a "bold assertion." Everything else, though._


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Returning to the OP... I'm currently listening to this:










Chiara Margarita Cozzolani (1602-c.1677) spent her entire adult life within the four walls of the musically famous convent of Santa Radegonda in Milan where reportedly crowds would gather filling the exterior church of the convent to hear the angelic voices of nuns singing Cozzolani's passionate and ecstatic music.

There is a site devoted to Cozzolani's music to be found here (where you can listen to examples of her music):

http://www.cozzolani.com/

I'm quite enjoying this recording...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that all that some guy is basically saying is don't be quick to judge a music with your 'gut' reactions. Who knows, over time your perception may change and you might come to appreciate it more. Is this such a controversial notion? I think not...


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2010)

Two things. Elgarian's "It's not a contest, it's an exploration," which I like so much that I'm totally gonna steal it and use it over and over again.

Andre's "don't be quick to judge a music with your 'gut' reactions."

That does pretty much sum it all up.

Now, let's all go out and listen to some nice music. Some of it might be by a guy. (Per Bloland: _Negative Mirror II._) Some of it might be by a chick. (Kathy Jackanich: _Polarity._)

(These are from two of the nine Innova CDs I just picked up for $2.50 each from my corner record store that recently bought hundreds of CDs from an estate. (Yes, there still are a few record stores. I live two blocks away from one of them.) Innova 705 and 774, respectively. In fact, my total from that batch of used CDs was 47 CDs for 127USD. I'm so happy!:lol


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> Now, let's all go out and listen to some nice music.


Sure. What do you make out of this piece by French electronic music composer *Eliane Radigue* (born 1932)? The name came from your list of female composers.








some guy said:


> (These are from two of the nine Innova CDs I just picked up for $2.50 each from my corner record store that recently bought hundreds of CDs from an estate. (Yes, there still are a few record stores. I live two blocks away from one of them.) Innova 705 and 774, respectively. In fact, my total from that batch of used CDs was 47 CDs for 127USD. I'm so happy!:lol


I can agree with you here about bargains. It does make one feel rather clever about shopping when scooping up great bargain deals. I love it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2010)

HC, you remind me of how little Radigue I have in my collection, in spite of my great admiration for Michele Bokanowski, who has a great admiration for Eliane Radigue.

I must get more Radigue.

But you ask about _Adnos I._ For one, it's a great example of one of the other types of minimalism besides the pattern repetition kind, which is all anyone hears about (so is all anyone can talk about). This is the kind of piece where there's not much going on and the changes are so small (and happen so slowly) that you're not at all sure whether it's you just perceiving things differently or whether it's the composer who's actually done something.

I've heard a lot of theories as to what this kind of music is supposed to do to you. I'm only sure about what it does to me. It makes me more alert than before it started. Tuned into two things, the sheer sounds themselves (which are presented "straight," not put into any shapes or patterns to manipulate my feelings) and the richness and variety at the as it were microscopic level. I used to hate this kind of music, by the way. In fact, I was surprised when Michele told me of her admiration for Eliane's music. But I went back to it, and soon was immersed in the very spare, sparse, stripped down music of people like Radigue and Niblock and Sachiko M and Mattin. (That's two chicks and two guys for the mathematically inclined.)

It's taken me longer and has taken more effort to enjoy this type of music than any other, but it's been a rewarding effort for me. (The clip, which is a nice long one, just ended--long before I wanted it too!!)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Interesting perception of _Adons I_. Frankly, it reminded me of the compressor of a refrigerator; please don't take it the wrong way, I'm being perfectly honest with how the piece came across to my ears upon listening for the first time, and felt it was very interesting afterwards when reading your view about it. Although it will be a long, long way for me (if ever) to come to terms with it in ways of perception that might be similar to yours, all I can currently say is I am as puzzled as well as impressed by how this piece could impress another listener (who obviously knows his music well).

Some have described sounds like it as for meditation material, too.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Two things. Elgarian's "It's not a contest, it's an exploration," which I like so much that I'm totally gonna steal it and use it over and over again.

Certainly... but don't presume that because others prefer to explore music different from yourself that it is not still "exploration". You seem to call for an openness to anything and everything. This may be well and fine... perhaps even admirable. Then again, most of us do not have an unlimited budget to just buy music at random... or even the time to invest listening to anything and everything. Most of us, as Dr. Mike suggested earlier, choose when to invest our time and money based upon previous experiences. If I listen to two or three examples of electronic chirps, whizzles, and sqeaks and they leave me feeling like I'm hearing my engine having a breakdown I'm probably not going to be all that motivated to explore more examples of the same... although assuredly there might just be some composers in the genre that I would like. No... I'm going to take an alternative route. I'm going to start with a composer I like and branch out from there. For example, recently I've been branching out from Bach and Handel and Vivaldi and discovering Sweelinck, Buxtehude, Zemlinka, Biber, Rameau, and any number of others... and not surprisingly, I like a good many of them... and no, it's not a contest. Perhaps none of them equal Handel... let alone Bach... but each brings something unique and interesting... and most importantly, I find them all pleasurable.

Now you have repeatedly cited any number of obscure composers... and yes... lets get right to the heart of this since you challenged the term "obscure" last time... these are "obscure" composers. We are talking on a site frequented by classical music aficionados... any number of whom do explore new music. How many of the women composers you listed, for example, has anyone else here even heard of... let alone heard or collected? Now I can certainly do the same within my own discipline... throw out the names of 10 or 15 artists that I could be assured almost no one else... even on an art discussion forum... would know. And I would accept the fact that this is because they are not major players... they are rather "obscure". If I started talking of Chuck Close, Lucian Freud, Damien Hisrt, Sean Scully, Anselm Kiefer, R.B. Kitaj, John Currin, etc... I could be rather certain that a good many of those who followed contemporary art would have at least heard of these artists.

There was a member here (now banned) who went by the moniker, Herzeleide. Like a good many advanced students in the arts, he is passionate about modern and contemporary movements in the arts... in this case in music. While we have had our disagreements (on another music forum), I will admit that he has pointed the way to any number of composers that I have found quite intriguing, including Tristan Murail, Gérard Grisey, Julian Anderson, Joantahn Harvey, and George Crumb... and surprisingly... after doing a little research on Amazon and on Wikipedia... I discovered that none of these composers were all that "obscure". Others here have recommended David Lang, William Bolcolm, and Joseph Schwantner... who again I found I quite liked... and again I found were not truly "obscure" at all. What this is leading to is a question: If you truly wished to broaden the tastes of others... to promote contemporary music... why would you continue to push such obscure and highly experimental composers? We all know that you are aware of and listen to composers none of us have even heard of. You don't need to prove yourself on this account. But seriously... I have (believe it or not) checked into any number of the composers that you have mentioned in passing, and I cannot say how many times I found nothing available by them on Amazon... or its all out of print... or it costs a small mint.

Once again, if you are serious about promoting modern and contemporary music, might it not seem logical to start with music that has been accepted and recognized to a larger extent... that can be found in print and on line. Why not offer up some YouTube samples of the music? I bought the music I have by Harry Partch and Tristan Murail and Takemitsu on the basis of what I heard on line... and on the positive discussion of the work by a member enthralled with the work. You complain that no one is buying contemporary music... and if this concerns you why do you make no effort to promote beyond just generalized complaints as to how we do like new music... or music in general?

Ultimately, as Rasa has suggested, I couldn't care less what others think about what I like or dislike. I must follow my own passions... I must follow what gives me pleasure. I'm quite enamored of Medieval music which is little mentioned here... indeed, I might suspect far less mentioned than Contemporary music. Should I start a thread about how Medieval music is not shown the appropriate degree of love?

Andre's "don't be quick to judge a music with your 'gut' reactions."

That does pretty much sum it all up.

Perhaps... and I'll be the first to admit that we all grow and change and discover that what we once loved now leaves us cold, and in what we once shunned we suddenly discover something that speaks deeply to us... but again, can we force this? I suppose we can... we could employ some Pavlovian methodology... I could be tied down and forced to listen to nothing but Schoenberg for weeks on end until suddenly I might discover, "Eh... its not half bad." Indeed, this would almost seem the method employed by the mass media to promote Lady Gaga and other such rubbish.

When I was a college freshman I had a professor who kept prodding me to attend the Velasquez show in New York... but I blew it off. At the time I thought, "Velasquez? Eh... lots of boring grays and blacks and no colors and no nudes... not like Rubens, whom I loved." A few short years later I was kicking myself. How could I have been so stupid? Velasquez, for Christ's sake!!? But if I had gone... I honestly doubt that I would have had the sudden epiphany. I simply wasn't ready for Velasquez. I might never be ready for Schoenberg... but I challenge the notion that this is because my taste is immature in comparison to someone who fully grasps Schoenberg's brilliance and is enthralled with the music. Some Guy has admitted to not liking Bax... does this make his taste immature in comparison to mine... or to our old buddy Mirror Image who loved Bax?

Again... I'm left questioning... how many time must I listen to a piece before we are qualified to offer an opinion? John Cage has the great answer to that with his "If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all," but ultimately this strikes me as simply suggesting that we never offer a negative opinion... we just keep on listening (again in a Pavlovian manner) until suddenly we discover it really wasn't that bad after all. But wouldn't it be much more fruitful to spend my time listening to what I do like... what does bring me pleasure? I agree that art sometimes makes demands upon the audience... but ultimately the audience must feel that these demands are more than compensated for.

And now enough rambling... and back to my music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2010)

I never think about obscurity, just about music. I don't offer recommendations of things for their obscurity or lack of it, but for whether I think they're worthwhile.

Otherwise, you may want to revise your obscurity test. Eliane Radigue and Zeena Parkins, two people from my original list, are dead famous. Pauline Oliveros has been famous for decades. Bokanowski and Groult and Barrett's CDs and DVDs are easy to find.

But so what? I just listened to several CDs of music by several people I'd never heard of before that was perfectly delightful. Since they're "obscure," you're not likely to have heard of them, either. So I'm supposed to recommend composers you already know or who are already generally well-known? Why? They don't need any promoting. It's the obscure ones who need the promoting. That should be reason enough.

But, as I said, I don't think about obscurity at all, just about delight. Everyone I "promote," everyone I recommend has delighted me. And so, perhaps, they may delight other people as well. That should suffice.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Where?*

They are all discussing about cute guys... Go and see Tenors, Baritons....cute.

It is not fair!

Martin, cute but old.


----------

