# Today's String Quartets: better* than ever before



## Guest (Aug 12, 2018)

I've always found it curious that there are so many string quartet ensembles that put so much time and energy into playing contemporary music. We've had so many interesting and varied compositions for string quartet that have sprung up in the last couple of decades that pushed the boundaries of what this standard chamber group can do that I would probably say that the late 20th century and early 21st century has been the renaissance of the String Quartet.

Ensembles that spring to mind are:

Arditti Quartet
JACK Quartet
Stadler Quartet
Quatuor Diotima
Kairos Quartett
Pellegrini Quartet
Spektral Quartet
Kronos Quartet
Asasello Quartett
Ensemble Coriolis

and others who have also helped to provide a platform for experimentation and discovery for an enormous range of contemporary composers.

I do find it interesting that even earlier in the 20th century the string quartet rarely moved outside the more traditional 18th and 19th century mould in which it was born, despite new developments in other areas.

*obviously I don't believe a Ferneyhough string quartet inherently _better_ than a Dvorak quartet or a Schoenberg quartet, but since Ferneyhough the medium of the string quartet has certainly taken flight into exploring new areas of sound production, textures, spatialisation etc. and string quartets who play new repertoire are more abundant than ever before.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2018)

Here's some stuff I personally really like, for example, played by some quartets listed above


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

I actually find the Ercetin to be interesting in textures. Some interesting sonic worlds there. The other two I could easily do without.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2018)

Eusebius12 said:


> I actually find the Ercetin to be interesting in textures. Some interesting sonic worlds there. The other two I could easily do without.


Yeah it took me a little while to get into Czernowin's work to be honest, but my taste simply expanded I think. The Ercetin quartet to me has a certain sound to it that is very well established and very distinctive.........and I think it has a nice sense of time and spacing as well.

I don't think music like this will have come to exist without the ensembles who are willing to provide a platform for composers to push the supposed boundaries.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

shirime said:


> Yeah it took me a little while to get into Czernowin's work to be honest, but my taste simply expanded I think. The Ercetin quartet to me has a certain sound to it that is very well established and very distinctive.........and I think it has a nice sense of time and spacing as well.
> 
> I don't think music like this will have come to exist without the ensembles who are willing to provide a platform for composers to push the supposed boundaries.


Good on them. Music must be a living art, not a museum piece. But the music will live or die on its inherent qualities, and not on its idiom. I'm probably more flexible though in my tastes than one might assume


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I was lucky to see the Spektral Quartet perform Feldman's String Quartet No. 2 in Chicago. Do you know if that's the longest single movement of music ever written, aside from something like a single note that's instructed to be held for 7 hours or something? It's the longest piece of purely classical (excluding Richter's Sleep for example, though that seems like it would be right up my alley) music I'm aware of, regardless of it being a single movement. It was a wonderful, mesmerizing experience. I sat in amazement listening and watching intently, along with many others doing the same. There was somehow a single seat left in the front row, I guess it was fate, so I had the best possible audio and visual experience. Each of them had a stack of paper about 20cm tall which was wild to see. About halfway through they took turns discarding half of the pile.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Yes and no. There are more good strinq quartets giving concerts than ever. But there have almost always been good ensembles who relied not just on the classics, but gave good concert time to newly composed works -- going back at least to the Juilliard, Amadeus, Concord, etc. Bartok's quartets have been in the repertoire since they were composed. Elliot Carter's, George Rochberg's . . . And I've always thought the Kronos to be more of a marketing phenomenon.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I can listen to all three of those. I can't listen to Ferneyhough. I also like Ben Johnston's quartets, and Scelsi.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Fredx2098 said:


> I was lucky to see the Spektral Quartet perform Feldman's String Quartet No. 2 in Chicago. Do you know if that's the longest single movement of music ever written, aside from something like a single note that's instructed to be held for 7 hours or something? It's the longest piece of purely classical (excluding Richter's Sleep for example, though that seems like it would be right up my alley) music I'm aware of, regardless of it being a single movement. It was a wonderful, mesmerizing experience. I sat in amazement listening and watching intently, along with many others doing the same. There was somehow a single seat left in the front row, I guess it was fate, so I had the best possible audio and visual experience. Each of them had a stack of paper about 20cm tall which was wild to see. About halfway through they took turns discarding half of the pile.


I have heard Richter's Sleep, or at least quite a lot of it. I thoroughly enjoyed the chunks that I heard. He writes quite expressively, I can't recall the work in any great detail, but if I had time I would certainly want to experience it again. Something of that style of music is extremely meditative.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Eusebius12 said:


> I have heard Richter's Sleep, or at least quite a lot of it. I thoroughly enjoyed the chunks that I heard. He writes quite expressively, I can't recall the work in any great detail, but if I had time I would certainly want to experience it again. Something of that style of music is extremely meditative.


I haven't really listened to any of his music intently. I've heard some little snippets and they were quite beautiful if I remember correctly. The reason I wouldn't really call it classical is because it's about half classical and half electronic/ambient, and for the most part I prefer just ambient drone music for a meditative feeling. I do want to listen to Sleep at some point though because I'm drawn to long pieces of music. There are two tracks by Robert Rich called Somnium and Perpetual which are 7 and 8 hours of beautiful ambient music for sleeping, but it's also nice to listen to if you like ambient drone.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

shirime said:


> Here's some stuff I personally really like, for example, played by some quartets listed above


All are pretty interesting. Ever since I accepted Lachenmann and Ferneyhough, the others go down easier.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Interesting...but is it beautiful? As a performer, would someone champ at the bit for chance to play any of this? As a listener would you say, "Boy, I can't wait for the Czernowin!!!" Not my cup of tea. The real master of the quartet - Beethoven, Dvorak, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Borodin - have nothing to fear. Sorry, this just leaves me cold. It's more mathematics than music. Just my humble opinion.

But I will add this is line with the original post: we are very much blessed today with ensembles of spectacular ability. Their intonation, tone, rhythmic accuracy are marvels and make them the equal of any of the hallowed quartets of the past. There's a lot of great playing out there.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> Interesting...but is it beautiful? As a performer, would someone champ at the bit for chance to play any of this? As a listener would you say, "Boy, I can't wait for the Czernowin!!!" Not my cup of tea. The real master of the quartet - Beethoven, Dvorak, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Borodin - have nothing to fear. Sorry, this just leaves me cold. It's more mathematics than music. Just my humble opinion.
> 
> But I will add this is line with the original post: we are very much blessed today with ensembles of spectacular ability. Their intonation, tone, rhythmic accuracy are marvels and make them the equal of any of the hallowed quartets of the past. There's a lot of great playing out there.


I find especially the first one by Ercetin quite beautiful. I doubt it is mathematics, looking at the score of the 2nd one. It is just striving to attain pure sound and its interaction with other voices. You forgot the greatest quartet writers, Shostakovich and Bartok


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> All are pretty interesting. Ever since I accepted Lachenmann and Ferneyhough, the others go down easier.


I find that sort of thing: once you crack certain composers it seems to open up a wider world.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> Interesting...but is it beautiful? As a performer, would someone champ at the bit for chance to play any of this? As a listener would you say, "Boy, I can't wait for the Czernowin!!!" Not my cup of tea. The real master of the quartet - Beethoven, Dvorak, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Borodin - have nothing to fear. Sorry, this just leaves me cold. It's more mathematics than music. Just my humble opinion.
> 
> But I will add this is line with the original post: we are very much blessed today with ensembles of spectacular ability. Their intonation, tone, rhythmic accuracy are marvels and make them the equal of any of the hallowed quartets of the past. There's a lot of great playing out there.


I think there are people (because I know them, and don't know many more) who would say 'Boy, I can't wait for the Czernowin!!!'


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Fredx2098 said:


> I haven't really listened to any of his music intently. I've heard some little snippets and they were quite beautiful if I remember correctly. The reason I wouldn't really call it classical is because it's about half classical and half electronic/ambient, and for the most part I prefer just ambient drone music for a meditative feeling. I do want to listen to Sleep at some point though because I'm drawn to long pieces of music. There are two tracks by Robert Rich called Somnium and Perpetual which are 7 and 8 hours of beautiful ambient music for sleeping, but it's also nice to listen to if you like ambient drone.


The reason why I didn't hear all of it (Richter's Sleep) is because I actually was lying down and dozing on and off. A completely acceptable response according to Richter . The categorization doesn't interest me so much, but then a lot of genre blurring occurs nowadays, and really Philip Glass or many of the minimalists don't seem all that much of a leap. In fact Richter seems more classical at times than Glass or Reich in my opinion. Almost anything can be 'classical music' these days, no?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I found all three pieces utterly uninteresting and felt no inclination to finish listening to any of them.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

My criticism would be the same as to how I criticize Ferneyhough. I find this music to be absurd and unnecessarily complex. Once you see through the difficulty of the written score and just concentrate on what is happening musically, it becomes apparent that the music is in fact quite boring and trivial, mainly just a series of random-sounding coloristic effects. Actually the music is deceptively, albeit overly, simple and banal, with no substance whatsoever. Since there are no melodies and phrasing, the music has very little shape and the colors and dynamics is all there is to hold it together, but they change so rapidly and there is so much of it in so little time, that there is nothing left to build on to create a satisfying musical arch.

In actuality, this music is very easy to write. Time consuming, but easy. It is very improvisatory in nature. As a composer I can say that I find writing this type of music to be very unrewarding. There is too much work just for what I find to be mediocre results. Besides, I don’t know why one would go through all this trouble when you can get similar sounding results by writing simpler music. The music can sound functionally the same in simpler notation and even aleatoric notation.

I’m of the belief that a composer should be able to hear exactly in his head what he writes. I have my doubts that these composers and especially Ferneyhough operate that way. I would bet that they just think their music up and that’s it. If they can hear this type of music, they should be able to pass an ear-training test I could create in their style. I would make the music just as nearly impossible to read as they write it. They would get no help from other players being in an ensemble setting. Just a few passes of the computer-generated playback. No way would they pass. You have to guess at it, at best.
It’s absurd.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Hah! ^ ^ ^ Your first paragraph sums up the basis of my reaction (boredom) really well.



Torkelburger said:


> In actuality, this music is very easy to write. Time consuming, but easy. It is very improvisatory in nature. As a composer I can say that I find writing this type of music to be very unrewarding. There is too much work just for what I find to be mediocre results. Besides, *I don't know why one would go through all this trouble when you can get similar sounding results by writing simpler music. The music can sound functionally the same in simpler notation and even aleatoric notation.*


I have my suspicions but don't feel like being mean today.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

I only had time to listen to the first one.



Torkelburger said:


> Once you see through the difficulty of the written score and just concentrate on what is happening musically, it becomes apparent that the music is in fact quite boring and trivial.


Odd, this didn't become apparent to me (and seemingly a few others in this thread). Beautiful from start to finish.


----------



## Resurrexit (Apr 1, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> Once you see through the difficulty of the written score and just concentrate on what is happening musically, it becomes apparent that the music is in fact quite boring and trivial, mainly just a series of random-sounding coloristic effects.


I largely agree. I guess it's kind of interesting to listen to as an exercise in manipulating the building blocks of sound, but soon grows tiresome.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Monotonous, inconsequential music.

Thinking up new sounds to be produced by traditional instruments seems to be the goal of a lot of composers now. Sounds can be pleasing or intriguing in themselves, but they're just one ingredient of music. In the past, composers resorted to unusual sounds because they needed them for a larger purpose. Nowadays the sounds often seem to be the main point, but I have yet to find it a point of much consequence.

This sort of thing isn't new at all, and, curiously, it's nearest equivalent in the visual arts - abstract "color field" painting - flourished and faded over half a century ago and now looks rather dated. These pieces aren't all that fresh in the sounds they make; a string can only plunk, squeak and whine in a limited number of ways. In any case they reinforce the feeling that classical music has become a self-absorbed phenomenon with little to say to our world, kept half-alive by a small contingent of believers riding on the ever-thinning comet tail of a once-great tradition.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

A lot of negativity here! Poor shirime, hide your beautiful eye from the naysayers!


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Hah! ^ ^ ^ Your first paragraph sums up the basis of my reaction (boredom) really well.
> 
> I have my suspicions but don't feel like being mean today.


You are right to be suspicious! I made an extraordinary claim! You are correct in that a simplified version would not be _exactly_ the same. But you could make it _functionally_ the same ("functionally" being the operative word). Or "basically", or "in essence" the same.

For example, if Ferneyhough writes a 7/16 bar with a whole rest in it and I write a 3/8 bar with a whole rest in it or even a quarter rest with a fermata over it (at the end of a 2/4 bar), what's the difference really? One's difficult, one's mildly easy, and one's easy, but they are all functionally the same, musically. A brief pause in the music lasting approximately the same length.

And instead of writing difficult time signatures like say, 13/8, how about seeing if you can write 4/4 followed by 5/8? And if Ferneyhough is writing changing odd time signatures in order to get irregularities in the rhythmic feel, for example 7/32, 6/16, 4/8 etc., can't you get irregular-feeling music by writing changing odd time signatures that are simpler? Can't they functionally accomplish the same irregularity? 4/4 followed by 5/8, 3/4, 7/8 sounds irregular and is much easier to play.

There are tricks even in 4/4, 3/4, and 2/4 to make the music sound irregular. Like placing rests (of varying values) on the downbeats, tie notes across downbeats, tie notes across barlines, fermatas, tuplet vs. tuplet, etc. But it's much easier to play. Sounds functionally the same, though. Need pregnant pauses? Need unsynchronized flurry of notes? Need a wash of sound? It can all be accomplished with this simpler notation.

You could also utilize _rit._ and _a tempo_ and similar markings throughout the score to make the music sound irregular, but keep the notation simple. And when Ferneyhough writes dynamics like pppp - ppp - pp - fff - mf - pp in rapid succession on each and every note (which is hardly, if ever, played as written), can't you get functionally the same results by writing the overall dynamic arch with traditional notation (cresc. and decresc. with accents)? Isn't that how performers end up playing the music anyway? And if Ferneyhough writes a 9-tuplet but divides it further with 6:5 tuplet and 4-tuplet, is it really going to be that different than a 10-tuplet (written simpler)?

I am confident these techniques could easily produce music that is notated simpler but functionally sounds the same as Ferneyhough's music.

Regarding aleatory, the first piece starts and stops and the music sounds so irregular and "out of sync" that it lends itself perfectly to aleatoric writing. You could really utilize those aleatoric boxes with dashes. I could easily rewrite the first piece as an aleatoric piece. In fact, a lot of the parts of the scores from post 2 are already somewhat aleatoric in nature. Stemless noteheads with lines of duration drawn, squiggly lines showing indeterminate notes, etc.

As always, interested in any thoughts you may have, EB.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This music is all about sueface detail from my experience. Aleatory will not achieve the same results, unless you take the best of a lot of iterations, and combine those best parts together. I've been analysing Ferneyhough, and he changes the stresses with each time signature change. To combine or normalize a time signature, it will he harder on the performers. I recall Brilliant Corners by Monk that is in 4/4 time throughout, but with different stresses throughout the performers couldn't get a complete take right. 

Also the differences can be heard in general with the time changes, that make things more spontaneous and explosive. Reducing will like above, make it harder on the performers, or make things less spontaneous. There is in fact a lot of cohession in these and Ferneyhough, it's just not in the macro picture with harmony and rhythm. Especially in Ferneyhough Quartet 6, there are larger segments with small unifying motifs like bow bounces or glissandos.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> A lot of negativity here! Poor shirime, hide your beautiful eye from the naysayers!


No it's interesting to see what people perceive. Honestly, I love listening to this music and it sounds very musical to me.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> No it's interesting to see what people perceive. Honestly, I love listening to this music and it sounds very musical to me.


I also find it interesting, I was just making a joke about your username


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I also find it interesting, I was just making a joke about your username


Oh I missed that, lol....must have blinked/winked


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Torkelburger said:


> My criticism would be the same as to how I criticize Ferneyhough. I find this music to be absurd and unnecessarily complex. Once you see through the difficulty of the written score and just concentrate on what is happening musically, it becomes apparent that the music is in fact quite boring and trivial, mainly just a series of random-sounding coloristic effects. Actually the music is deceptively, albeit overly, simple and banal, with no substance whatsoever. Since there are no melodies and phrasing, the music has very little shape and the colors and dynamics is all there is to hold it together, but they change so rapidly and there is so much of it in so little time, that there is nothing left to build on to create a satisfying musical arch.
> 
> In actuality, this music is very easy to write. Time consuming, but easy. It is very improvisatory in nature. As a composer I can say that I find writing this type of music to be very unrewarding. There is too much work just for what I find to be mediocre results. Besides, I don't know why one would go through all this trouble when you can get similar sounding results by writing simpler music. The music can sound functionally the same in simpler notation and even aleatoric notation.
> 
> ...


I agree for the most part, except I found that the colouristic effects of the Ercetin were somewhat interesting. There may not be any huge compositional logic at play. Connectedness within a composition seems to be a rather passe skill, this comes from rejecting melody in my view. Melody is in its basic form, a series of connected tones, whether they be derived tonally, modally, serially, aleatorically, or in any other method or tradition. The notion of connectedness within themes and across themes is something that seems lacking in a lot of 20th and 21st century music (but not all)


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2018)

One thing I love about music in the 20th century are the different approaches to dealing with time and pacing in music. Often some pieces are less linear and less goal oriented and the flow of one idea to the next does not really fit within the linear temporal aesthetic that earlier European styles followed. The notion of connectedness within themes and across themes is not really that important to my enjoyment of the music when it isn't a feature of the music, but it is part of what I enjoy in pieces of music that feature it.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> This music is all about sueface detail from my experience. Aleatory will not achieve the same results, unless you take the best of a lot of iterations, and combine those best parts together. I've been analysing Ferneyhough, and he changes the stresses with each time signature change. To combine or normalize a time signature, it will he harder on the performers. I recall Brilliant Corners by Monk that is in 4/4 time throughout, but with different stresses throughout the performers couldn't get a complete take right.
> 
> Also the differences can be heard in general with the time changes, that make things more spontaneous and explosive. Reducing will like above, make it harder on the performers, or make things less spontaneous. There is in fact a lot of cohession in these and Ferneyhough, it's just not in the macro picture with harmony and rhythm. Especially in Ferneyhough Quartet 6, there are larger segments with small unifying motifs like bow bounces or glissandos.


You are nitpicking. I'm not talking about re-arranging Ferneyhough's prewritten music, I'm talking about starting over and writing from scratch music from a blank piece of paper and your imagination, so you first argument is moot.

I would bet anything that I can make things just as explosive or spontaneous with 7/8, 9/8, 12/8, 5/8, 4/4, ¾, etc. than the time signatures Brian writes. You can "change the stresses" with each of those or not, and speaking as a performer myself, it would not be harder. It would be easier.

I am not convinced by your argument. I still assert that most people (musician or otherwise) listening to what Brian writes and what I would write: you can get similar sounding results, music that is functionally the same, by writing simpler music notation. And that person will not know the difference.



> This music is all about surface detail from my experience.


And that is a major flaw in the music in my honest opinion. The sheer volume of ever-changing details in the short amount of space leaves nothing left to develop into a satisfying musical shape. And being this detailed with dynamics, in particular, has to be one of the most annoying things about New Complexity. I mean, go over to your piano and pick a note and play ppppp - ppp - f - mp -pp - pppp - mf - ff - p in rapid succession, heck, even in slow succession and see if you can do it. Now try it with different notes. It's ridiculous. No performer ever does it correctly. It is unnatural.

No, this music is all about complexity for complexity's sake.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Torkelburger said:


> I am not convinced by your argument. I still assert that most people (musician or otherwise) listening to what Brian writes and what I would write: you can get similar sounding results, music that is functionally the same, by writing simpler music notation. And that person will not know the difference.
> 
> And that is a major flaw in the music in my honest opinion. The sheer volume of ever-changing details in the short amount of space leaves nothing left to develop into a satisfying musical shape. And being this detailed with dynamics, in particular, has to be one of the most annoying things about New Complexity. I mean, go over to your piano and pick a note and play ppppp - ppp - f - mp -pp - pppp - mf - ff - p in rapid succession, heck, even in slow succession and see if you can do it. Now try it with different notes. It's ridiculous. No performer ever does it correctly. It is unnatural.


Someone else who knows Ferneyhough's music better than myself will be able to explain this better than me, so I'd like to be corrected if need be as I'm pretty new to him but have read about his music here and there...

It is my understanding that a very important part of Ferneyhough's compositions is the physical nature of it: it's music that is best experienced live. The extreme amount of detail is what contributes to the character of the music in performance: as musician(s) do their best to perform what the guy wrote, the intensity is palpable for the observer and listener.

Perhaps you could indeed write something that kind-of-not-really sounds similar (and, from what I've heard, the composer is interested in creating interesting/satisfying (depending on the listener) progressions of sound): but the composition that you propose would lack the essential physicality and intensity.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> as musician(s) do their best to perform what the guy wrote, *the intensity is palpable for the observer and listener.*


Now _I'm_ the one who is suspicious. Sounds a little woo-woo. I think you're giving him a little too much credit here. I have my doubts the score has this effect.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Torkelburger said:


> Now _I'm_ the one who is suspicious. Sounds a little woo-woo. I think you're giving him a little too much credit here. I have my doubts the score has this effect.


I should say, I believe that to be one of the intentions of the composer. If I'm not off base (again, someone correct me if I am: and, others, probably don't take what I'm saying too seriously until my vague remembrances are verified), then whether the work has this effect or not is dependent on three things:

1. The composer succeeding in his aims.
2. A good performance.
3. Who is listening to it: it's not going to have the same effect on everyone, obviously.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

I just can't picture it. I mean, he sits writing at his desk and then thinks, "Wait a second, I really need some intensity here. I know! I'll put an overabundance of details on each and every note on the score so the players will really struggle with it so the live performance will be intense!" I'm just not seeing it.

Besides, since he puts a ridiculous amount of detail on 100% of every note on every bar, that would mean 100% intensity 100% of the time. That's rather emotionally shallow, isn't it? Wouldn't you want to break up the intensity every once in awhile and explore other emotions?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Torkelburger said:


> You are right to be suspicious!
> 
> As always, interested in any thoughts you may have, EB.


Not much to add on my part! I agree with your observations on the absurd complexity of notation bordering on fetishism. When I wrote "I have my suspicions" I meant suspicions about what sort of personality disorder might lead a composer to think it was a good idea.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Not much to add on my part! I agree with your observations on the absurd complexity of notation bordering on fetishism. When I wrote "I have my suspicions" I meant suspicions about what sort of personality disorder might lead a composer to think it was a good idea.


Er, so do you want the symptom of "Writing over-complex music in the style of Brian Ferneyhough" to the DSM-V Paraphilias (I must say it doesn't have that effect on me, even at a live recital) or which Personality disorder?

And, is it caused by nature and / or nurture in what proportion? 

It is very interesting to read your (and others') analysis of his music, though.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2018)

The thing I find really interesting about Ferneyhough's notation is his interest in the psychology of performance and interpretation. What looks like an information overload on the page is intentional. From what I know about his music from people who have played his music, I've learnt that Ferneyhough's approach is to constantly keep the performer very much in the present moment without reading ahead too much, as would be typical for the same musician reading scores that are less information dense. I think it's a wonderful idea, he talks about what he calls a 'memory horizon' where, even if a musician knows a Ferneyhough piece very well, it's not possible to remember every specific detail and often the musician is performing without being able to predict what happens four bars ahead. Often, performances of his music have some kind of furious energy, even if the sounds themselves are exposed and sparse, because of the emotional state that is evoked in the musician from the score.

Needless to say, all the expressive directions and indications in his scores are never played accurately but what they do convey to the musicians do help a lot with considering how to actually interpret his music. Perhaps that's why he has become so well known out of the composers of so-called 'new complexity.'


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Torkelburger said:


> You are nitpicking. I'm not talking about re-arranging Ferneyhough's prewritten music, I'm talking about starting over and writing from scratch music from a blank piece of paper and your imagination, so you first argument is moot.
> 
> I would bet anything that I can make things just as explosive or spontaneous with 7/8, 9/8, 12/8, 5/8, 4/4, ¾, etc. than the time signatures Brian writes. You can "change the stresses" with each of those or not, and speaking as a performer myself, it would not be harder. It would be easier.
> 
> ...


I was aware of the idea of writing the music from scratch, that was my understanding, I don't see how my argument would be any different. Try writing something like that then, but using different notation than his. Those odd time signatures are similar to using tuplets, to change the sense of rhythm. I agree there is some truth in the complexity for complexity's sake. But still, that is the effect he is trying to get across, and a sort of statement in perception from what I've read. Also he uses serialism. Certain segments will just come out that way with the notation.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Curiously, what is your favourite Ferneyhough string quartet, Torkelburger?

I have a weakness for _Dum Transisset_ but I really love the second and sixth quartets the most.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Here's something by another composer, York Höller, whose music certainly focusses more on its melodic/pitch features, but I am particularly drawn to some of his earlier works such as his String Quartet no. 1 _Antiphon_ for SQ and tape:






This is a lot older than the string quartets I posted earlier, so this is probably an outlier.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> Here's something by another composer, York Höller, whose music certainly focusses more on its melodic/pitch features, but I am particularly drawn to some of his earlier works such as his String Quartet no. 1 _Antiphon_ for SQ and tape:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ooh that's nice. I like that painting (?) on the video too.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> Ooh that's nice. I like that painting (?) on the video too.


Yeah I don't know what the painting is unfortunately. I love modern and contemporary art, but unfortunately I'm not well versed in it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> Yeah I don't know what the painting is unfortunately. I love modern and contemporary art, but unfortunately I'm not well versed in it.


Have you checked out the painters I mentioned in that thread? If you like the painting on the video you'd probably like the guys I mentioned, namely Rothko and maybe Jack Bush.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> Have you checked out the painters I mentioned in that thread? If you like the painting on the video you'd probably like the guys I mentioned, namely Rothko and maybe Jack Bush.


I'm familiar with Rothko and Jack Bush, but I prefer things a little more.........hm, I'm not sure, I really like Anselm Kiefer, Ai Weiwei, Olafur Eliasson, Yayoi Kusama, Patricia Piccinini, Jackson Pollock, Georg Baselitz,


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

shirime said:


> The thing I find really interesting about Ferneyhough's notation is his interest in the psychology of performance and interpretation. What looks like an information overload on the page is intentional. From what I know about his music from people who have played his music, I've learnt that Ferneyhough's approach is to constantly keep the performer very much in the present moment without reading ahead too much, as would be typical for the same musician reading scores that are less information dense. I think it's a wonderful idea, he talks about what he calls a 'memory horizon' where, even if a musician knows a Ferneyhough piece very well, it's not possible to remember every specific detail and often the musician is performing without being able to predict what happens four bars ahead. Often, performances of his music have some kind of furious energy, even if the sounds themselves are exposed and sparse, because of the emotional state that is evoked in the musician from the score.
> '


This is an interesting idea, I know that many performances today are far too meticulously rehearsed which robs them of a certain spontaneity. How to keep the music 'improvisational' without sacrificing a certain amount of preparation and familiarity, keeping the music fresh. Note that I haven't referred to Ferneyhough's music itself!


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

shirime said:


> I'm familiar with Rothko and Jack Bush, but I prefer things a little more.........hm, I'm not sure, I really like Anselm Kiefer, Ai Weiwei, Olafur Eliasson, Yayoi Kusama, Patricia Piccinini, Jackson Pollock, Georg Baselitz,


Patricia Piccinini? You enjoy all those flying whale udders...


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Eusebius12 said:


> Patricia Piccinini? You enjoy all those flying whale udders...


I don't know the flying whale udders (?) but I like her sculptures a lot. Big Mother is one of my favourites.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Eusebius12 said:


> This is an interesting idea, I know that many performances today are far too meticulously rehearsed which robs them of a certain spontaneity. How to keep the music 'improvisational' without sacrificing a certain amount of preparation and familiarity, keeping the music fresh. Note that I haven't referred to Ferneyhough's music itself!


Yes this is it! Ferneyhough's approach is but one solution. To me it seems like the inverse of way baroque musicians would embellish very simple melodies to create something that sounds more complex, more spontaneous and more musical.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> I'm familiar with Rothko and Jack Bush, but I prefer things a little more.........hm, I'm not sure, I really like Anselm Kiefer, Ai Weiwei, Olafur Eliasson, Yayoi Kusama, Patricia Piccinini, Jackson Pollock, Georg Baselitz,


Just checked all those guys out and they're pretty cool, though I'm not a fan of the uncanny valley feeling. Maybe "dimensional" would be the word compared to Rothko and Bush.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> Just checked all those guys out and they're pretty cool, though I'm not a fan of the uncanny valley feeling. Maybe "dimensional" would be the word compared to Rothko and Bush.


I'm a big fan of the uncanny valley.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

I quite like this one, out of Ferneyhough's shorter works for string quartet:






It's very physical; the music seems to present itself as an erratic dance of sound evoking impassioned emotion of varying kinds with every turn. The nature of one phrase leading to a highly contrasting new idea, then interrupted by a completely different melody, all strung together, reminds me a lot of how Mozart strings together contrasting musical phrases like a constant stream of non-sequitur sentences.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Interesting to read all these technical views on what Ferneyhough does. But I am not sure I would bother with his music if I had read it first. I believe there is complexity in it but I don't really hear it in the end result. I hear interesting and often exciting music that seems to me to belong firmly to the tradition but to take it in some interesting and appealing new directions.

I do genuinely find the technical insight interesting but also fear it can _sometimes _get in the way of hearing. Of course, I would love to know more about the technical side of music - I would love to be able to read it and to play it - but it never happened. Many members of my family were/are musicians but strangely I do not think they are as competent as I am at listening. I could be a professional music punter!


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Interesting to read all these technical views on what Ferneyhough does. But I am not sure I would bother with his music if I had read it first. I believe there is complexity in it but I don't really hear it in the end result. I hear interesting and often exciting music that seems to me to belong firmly to the tradition but to take it in some interesting and appealing new directions.
> 
> I do genuinely find the technical insight interesting but also fear it can _sometimes _get in the way of hearing. Of course, I would love to know more about the technical side of music - I would love to be able to read it and to play it - but it never happened. Many members of my family were/are musicians but strangely I do not think they are as competent as I am at listening. I could be a professional music punter!


I don't even believe there _is_ any complexity, at least, it isn't complex for the sake of being complex. It seems more like Ferneyhough has an interest in the relationship between the written score and the sound of the music as processed and interpreted by musicians, so he writes music exactly how he needs to in order to write the music that he wants to write. I agree that the music itself doesn't sound _complex_; it sounds more 'unified' than it looks on the page, anyway. There's certainly a strong exterior, immediate musical sound that can be heard and felt by anyone, so all the philosophical, psychological, historical and technical influences and details in his music are certainly not necessary to enjoy his music.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> I was aware of the idea of writing the music from scratch, that was my understanding, I don't see how my argument would be any different. Try writing something like that then, but using different notation than his. Those odd time signatures are similar to using tuplets, to change the sense of rhythm. I agree there is some truth in the complexity for complexity's sake. But still, that is the effect he is trying to get across, and a sort of statement in perception from what I've read. Also he uses serialism. Certain segments will just come out that way with the notation.


If that's the case, then you are over-complicating things. It should be obvious to anyone by now you can write music that sounds complex but is written in simpler notation that is easier to play by the performers. Stresses intact. It can be done. You need not agree, however.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

shirime said:


> Curiously, what is your favourite Ferneyhough string quartet, Torkelburger?
> 
> I have a weakness for _Dum Transisset_ but I really love the second and sixth quartets the most.


(chuckle) They are all tied for my least favorite. I dislike them all equally. I'll give any another try if you'd like, but I can't guarantee I'll change my mind. Which do you recommend and why?


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Torkelburger said:


> (chuckle) They are all tied for my least favorite. I dislike them all equally. I'll give any another try if you'd like, but I can't guarantee I'll change my mind. Which do you recommend and why?


Post #52, post #54.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

shirime said:


> I don't know the flying whale udders (?) but I like her sculptures a lot. Big Mother is one of my favourites.


They are very, well , 'organic'...


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Torkelburger said:


> If that's the case, then you are over-complicating things. It should be obvious to anyone by now you can write music that sounds complex but is written in simpler notation that is easier to play by the performers. Stresses intact. It can be done. You need not agree, however.


I believe that the 'new complexity' is overlayered. Quite a few composers, not just more recent ones than Ferneyhough, layer their scores with aurally unrelated parts that don't register with the ear or have any inherently logically related connections.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm looking for a middle way between the new consonance rehash and the scratch and squeak "avant garde".


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

starthrower said:


> I'm looking for a middle way between the new consonance rehash and the scratch and squeak "avant garde".


Höller, Seroussi, Eggert, Uzor, Rihm.....

But the 'new consonance' is, uh, pretty old and has been around for decades if you look at the stuff Pärt, Tavener and Gorecki have composed since the 70s. I'm sure there are more composers writing in that idiom but I seldom hear of them.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Eusebius12 said:


> They are very, well , 'organic'...


Yes. 

................


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

shirime said:


> Post #52, post #54.


I listened to it. Alas, no. It is not for me. It's the same tired clichés over and over and over again. One overused string effect/extended technique after the other all lined up in row, with pregnant pauses in between. I found myself rather bored of it after about two minutes, and after five I had to shut it off. Anything even remotely attractive in it is trivial at best. I find the use of effects unmusical and tedious. I see a composition only concerned with surface and not substance. The sounds seem to be the main point, but I find that not enough to hold my interest and find it inconsequential (see Woodduck's post #22).

People mention spontaneity, but I see that as a drawback. In Shostakovich's quartets for example, each note has a purpose in relation to the whole. But with this spontaneity, each note only means something in its present moment. This makes the piece lack cohesion and comprehension (and leads me to boredom). And I'll take the "physicality and intensity" of Shostakovich over this any day of the week. These are just my opinions, which are not any better than anyone else's. I totally respect your opinion for liking this music. It's just not for me (and I do find the notation to be self-indulgent and totally ridiculous).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Er, so do you want the symptom of "Writing over-complex music in the style of Brian Ferneyhough" to the DSM-V Paraphilias (I must say it doesn't have that effect on me, even at a live recital) or which Personality disorder?
> 
> And, is it caused by nature and / or nurture in what proportion?
> 
> It is very interesting to read your (and others') analysis of his music, though.


The symptom I was referring to isn't "writing over complex" music, it's the apparent attempt to make complex music more difficult to perform by using needlessly and pointlessly obscure notation. See Torkelburger's posts above for specifics.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

shirime said:


> Höller, Seroussi, Eggert, Uzor, Rihm.....
> 
> But the 'new consonance' is, uh, pretty old and has been around for decades if you look at the stuff Pärt, Tavener and Gorecki have composed since the 70s. I'm sure there are more composers writing in that idiom but I seldom hear of them.


Kancheli, MacMillan, Vine, Meale, Adams, Glass,Sculthorpe, Kats-Chernin, even some Thomas Ades would qualify...


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Eusebius12 said:


> Kancheli, MacMillan, Vine, Meale, Adams, Glass,Sculthorpe, Kats-Chernin, even some Thomas Ades would qualify...


I would probably put all of them except for Ades in the 'new consonance' category (if that is even a thing) and Ades as sort of in between the 'new consonance' and the 'avant-garde'


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

How 'bout Feldman guyz


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> How 'bout Feldman guyz


Feldman is good but there's a lot more than Feldman that I like.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> Feldman is good but there's a lot more than Feldman that I like.


I feel like he's a good middle ground between consonance and noisy avant-garde. Full of dissonance but it all sounds pleasant and relaxing, in his undynamic pieces anyways.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I feel like he's a good middle ground between consonance and noisy avant-garde. Full of dissonance but it all sounds pleasant and relaxing, in his undynamic pieces anyways.


Oh yeah, true, but I'm thinking of more recent composers.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Have you heard these works? Here be avant-garde music. Requested by the Arditti Quartet, composed between 1981 and 1997, with the last part being his final work. I love this guy.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't dig Adams or Glass. I was into Rihm for a while, but there's nothing original there. He's a very clever and prolific composer but it's really too much. I'm happy with Saariaho, Norgard, Gubaidulina, Murail. 

I don't know if anyone has surpassed Berg's Lyric Suite? To my ears it still sounds incredibly cutting edge and inventive. I have loads of string quartets but I could live with Berg, Bartok, Schoenberg, Ravel and Debussy's quartet. And I like no.3 by Schnittke as performed by the Borodin Quartet.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

New complexity, new consonance … it's all going to end up with Eclectic Neo-Everything before too long. Let's get on with it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> Have you heard these works? Here be avant-garde music. Requested by the Arditti Quartet, composed between 1981 and 1997, with the last part being his final work. I love this guy.


I have not previously paid much attention to his music but I did come across this video (or one like it) once before. Listening to it now, I like what I hear so I will have to find some more of his music to listen to. Thanks for bringing it up.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

...............


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Today's string quartets versus the past... Better sound quality overall today and more contemporary works to choose from, but not necessarily better _played_. There is a difference and it can take practice to tell the difference. For instance, my favorite Bartok String Quartets were recorded by the Hungarian Ramor ST in _1960_... The sound is still good but not as good by today's standards, and yet the interpretations are outstanding, better than today's, in my opinion, not too harsh, astringent and gruff as Bartok is all too often distorted and played - the difference between the highest possible quality of sound and an outstanding, idiomatic musical performance. So I'm leery of being seduced by the quality of sound when the performance could actually be dry, intellectual and sterile, if one plays attention.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

shirime said:


> Oh yeah, true, but I'm thinking of more recent composers.


Tormis. Esenvalds, Golijov and Sallinen.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2018)

Eusebius12 said:


> Tormis. Esenvalds, Golijov and Sallinen.


I've heard of Golijov and Sallinen but barely come across their work......are they recorded by string quartet ensembles mentioned in the OP or ensembles like them?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> I have not previously paid much attention to his music but I did come across this video (or one like it) once before. Listening to it now, I like what I hear so I will have to find some more of his music to listen to. Thanks for bringing it up.


Glad you like it! He's one of my favorites. If I haven't mentioned him to you before, I usually compare his style to Xenakis, but I personally find it more emotional and beautiful, I think it might be more precisely composed. Perhaps his most well-known works are his orchestral pieces, in chronological order: Antar Atman, Ariadna, Sahara, Oleada, and Coma Berenices (which is his second to last work). I love them all, and they're great to listen to in order like that.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

shirime said:


> I've heard of Golijov and Sallinen but barely come across their work......are they recorded by string quartet ensembles mentioned in the OP or ensembles like them?


Actually, the 1st 2 probably have composed very little chamber music in general, and the last 2 I can't recall any string quartets specifically, just speaking about neo-tonal composers in general.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

starthrower said:


> And I like no.3 by Schnittke as performed by the Borodin Quartet.


_One word:_ Molinari.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2018)

Well I listened to this one again recently and I think that perhaps it's my favourite string quartet at the moment. More than the 6th! I think ~10 minutes is a pretty good length for a string quartet that is so packed with juicy sounds......there's so much good stuff in here that it's like putting a ripe cherry tomato in your mouth and bursting it with your teeth, filling your mouth with flavour and almost more juice than could actually fit inside it!






Man, this is cool stuff.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Great thread, Shirime. Lots of interesting music here.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2018)

science said:


> Great thread, Shirime. Lots of interesting music here.


Thanks, science, glad you enjoyed it.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

There are six Sallinen string quartets, but I do not believe the latest one has been recorded. No.3 is quite well known, sort of variations on a Finnish folk song, with a title too long to record here!! Tormis mainly composed for choir, but not exclusively. I don't know of the existence of any chamber music from him...

As far as ensembles are concerned, I suspect we are spoiled for choice, there are dozens of top quality quartets out there playing. And yet the older ones still have a magical je ne sais quoi, be they the Busch, the Hungarian, Lark's Ramor, the Borodin's, whoever. Are modern quartets better but safer????


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2018)

I'm checking out this one by Sallinen, number 3 as recommended by Robert Pickett.






I have to say, it probably doesn't stray too far into the more exploratory areas that String Quartets have gone in the last few decades, but it does go there from time to time. There's very much a more 'systematic' approach, rather than a _musical_ approach, to the treatment of the wider idiomatic sounds of the ensemble. It's very list-like in that regard.

What are the other New Music quartets that come to your mind out of the dozens of top quality ensembles that you can think of? I'd be happy to explore further.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Shrime - I'd struggle to argue that Sallinen Is "cutting edge" as a composer, or indeed that Some Aspects is one of his finer works, but I enjoy it. He also tends to work with clumps of ideas, which I think is what you mean by "list like"?

You might enjoy his 5th Quartet, "Pieces of Mosaic", which is his most extended (sorry, don't know No.6) and its subtitle might give you a clue as to its nature (as well as links to his 5th Symphony). Interesting sounds.

I am not the great afficionado of the ultra modern that you are, but of the post-Bartok quartet cycles, the one I find the most impressive is the twenty-odd by Vagn Holmboe. I can't recommend any one piece to start with, but these are inherently musical works that are remarkably satisfying. As are his Symphonies, concertos, chamber concertos etc.

Not quite modern, but I was also highly impressed by Grazyna Baczewicz's quartets, there's a very fine set on Chandos with the Silesian Quartet.

I am afraid I tend to judge new quartets by their Bartok! Sorry to be so limited/limiting. The best recent ones I have heard are the Heath Qt, the Belcea Qt, and the Vertavo Qt. They have done nothing else, but the Hungaroton New Edition has a ? Super group ? Quartet, the Mikrokosmos Qt. doing the Bartók's. These are just brilliant, and my favourite all in all. I saw a very fine English ensemble recently, the Carducci Qt. doing Shostakovich. I find his quartets hit and miss, apologies. I hope the Carducci will - as their lead violin sort of intimated to me - have a go at the Bartok soon!


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Has Rădulescu been mentioned? If not, there.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2018)

Something performed by the Spektral Quartet, as mentioned in the OP, _Scan_ by Charlie Sdraulig:






I always feel that his music is some kind of weird bridge between the extreme 'expanded timbral palette' associated especially with the new complexity movement....but in some kind of old school minimalist context.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Wolfgang Rihm - String Quartet no. 13 (2011)




one of the better modern string quartets.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Sdrauling is bad
Rihm is OK 
Nancarrow is great




Lutoslawski is amazing




and Schnittke is pure genius extraordinaire


----------

