# The duty of a composer



## Guest (Apr 25, 2012)

The duty of a composer is to write the music that you do not yet like. --Herbert Brün

(Disclaimer: I have not been able to find this comment online. It was given me by David Means a couple of days ago. But trying to find it, I did read a lot of Brün, and that was fun. I think that if people who contribute to on-line music discussions had read some Brün, the discussions would have been very different. Some would never have been started. Anyway, this is as close as I can remember to what David said that Herbert said.)

(Other disclaimer: I probably should never have started this thread.)


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Composers can write whatever they want. In any case, that comment by Brün can be applied to highly innovative composers, who are trying to be original with their music. Of course, it's a valid trend (maybe the most interesting), but not the "duty" of every composer. And you can begin any thread that you want. .


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think some clarification is needed with regards to the "yet". Music we don't yet like because it's new and we haven't heard it yet, but the assumption is that the composer should write something we will like when we listen to it? Or "yet" in that when we do listen to it, we won't like it, and it ought to be music that requires repeated effort before we do appreciate it?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I think some clarification is needed with regards to the "yet". Music we don't yet like because it's new and we haven't heard it yet, but the assumption is that the composer should write something we will like when we listen to it? Or "yet" in that when we do listen to it, we won't like it, and it ought to be music that requires repeated effort before we do appreciate it?


well, I have assumed something like the second choice, since in the first case it would be an obvious statement, with no content (if we have not heard the music yet, obviously we can't say "I like it"!)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Whether or not you "like" a piece may not be the correct gauge. A more correct gauge is whether the piece grabs you. 

NPR used to have a poetry show, and the host would read a poem, then ask, "Does that grab you?" 

Artists should concern themselves with connection. I've heard many likeable pieces which I don't connect with. But I've heard many pieces that I didn't "like" on first hearing but which connected with me in a way that I felt it worth the effort to dig deeper into and find out why.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

aleazk said:


> well, I have assumed something like the second choice, since in the first case it would be an obvious statement, with no content (if we have not heard the music yet, obviously we can't say "I like it"!)


If it is the second, I think the quote is stupid. There's nothing wrong with the music having that quality, but to have it as your major goal is silly.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

My first thought on reading Brun's quote was that it is a provocative and witty way of saying that music should change. My second thought was that it implies that most composers shirked their duty. We know that certain composers have moved music to a less comfortable place for many listeners, but I have always thought, throughout history, the vast majority have composed in a manner that was generally immediately appreciated. The modern era may be different.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> But I have always thought, throughout history, the vast majority have composed in a manner that was generally immediately appreciated. The modern era may be different.


I think when Philip Glass and Steve Reich popped up in New York, what was notable about their music was, here was something completely new that people actually liked to hear. They proved it can still be done.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> The duty of a composer is to write the music that you do not yet like. --Herbert Brün
> 
> (Disclaimer: I have not been able to find this comment online. It was given me by David Means a couple of days ago. But trying to find it, I did read a lot of Brün, and that was fun. I think that if people who contribute to on-line music discussions had read some Brün, the discussions would have been very different. Some would never have been started. Anyway, this is as close as I can remember to what David said that Herbert said.)
> 
> (Other disclaimer: I probably should never have started this thread.)


The only part of that I am in agreement with is, "I probably should never have started this thread."

The disclaimer is a new-age P.C. waffle, worthy of a politician's P.R. "Spin Doctor" 

*Composers write what they have to write (as in obey the dictates of their inner drummer) and what and how they can.* Any and all of them are writing something "which was not." before they wrote it. At that phase of the procedure, there is afterward a piece which no one knew if they wanted to hear or not, perhaps including the composer.

Besides, in a global society where 'newness' and novelty are ruthlessly marketed over quality anything; without a lot of sophisticated qualifying that's a dangerous dictum to speak out loud in front of the children, dear. (And are we certain they would listen to All Of That and understand?)

The only other real composer proscriptions are in the event of a commission and for all those there are specific registration: many an orchestral work currently being funded is not commissioned by just one, but several bands; *** winds, brass, etc. & the matter of the duration of the piece. when that is the case, the composer has a 'sub-set' of the two to compose for, perhaps no longer tipping the piece to, for example 'that band with the famous brass section.' That is already enough, really.

I'm rather more than weary (if not slightly sick) of _writers making these glib sociopolitical / philosophic statements which read like soft-core pronouncements of a manifesto. Writers are wordsmiths, not composers of music_. They are free to think and say what they like, but truly, each time I read about music from other than a real and active composer, it reinforces my experience that all writers, bad, alright and good, are pretty much idiots when it comes to writing about music. 
_
At least half the pronouncements from composers are enthusiastic temporary thoughts, which change. Currently, the more they are interviewed as the supposedly necessary publicity to keep the machinery and their career going, they are apt to say anything at the given moment in the interview, or the paid talk presentation, etc._

Those writers should pick up some manuscript paper and compose something of their own. The composers, I believe, should not say much about music. This has led to that hyperbole pure ** exactly like "the Artist's Statement" which now adorns the wall and accompanies the artist's paintings adjacent that little framed Lit-Crit phrased steaming dung. The artist's statement, gallery viewers, is on the damned walls.

To paraphrase Stravinsky, "The only worthwhile comment on music is more music."


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm uncomfortable with the whole notion of an artist having any kind of 'duty' beyond simply creating art. 

Artists having duties strikes me as a very totalitarian/fascist outlook on the role of the artist.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Figurative language is lost on this crowd, I tells ya!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think when a composer can achieve what is being alluded to in the OP it is one of the highest marks of authentic artistic expression, brilliance and foresight, and for myself one of the most rewarding musical experiences. (When I feel my understanding of music and my enjoyment of music has been somehow broadened by this occurring). But would agree that the duty of a composer differs between composers. When a composer can broaden my understanding of music within a more traditional template - I find this is equal to what is being described in the OP. Clearly being original within an older form is more difficult than being original by creating something radically new. But I don't think originality in itself is the highest goal of art (but perhaps one honorable goal) I also don't think that liking a work instantly is automatically indicative of a 'fake' or illegitimate composer.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2012)

Not sure how PetrB read my post. His responses don't seem to match what I actually did there.

The disclaimer, for instance, is nothing more than the reason why the comment doesn't have quote marks around it. Because I don't know if those are Herbert's exact words.

As for Herbert Brün, he was a philosopher and a composer. That may be an unhappy combination, but there it is. He was both. And his writings on music have been valued by many people over the years. As has his music, for that matter. Kind of like Berlioz. A fine composer and a fine writer as well.

As for the comment, well, the important words are, as you all have noted, "duty" and "yet." The yet refers to the moment before an unfamiliar piece becomes familiar. It is a short moment, and one Brün valued. (There are many ways to write pieces no one's ever heard before that are nonetheless utterly familiar from the get go. That's easy. That's not something Brün valued, no.)

As for duty, well, our actions do have consequences. I don't think Brün's comment goes any beyond that. (I share Argus' ideas about fascism.) You are a composer? There are consequences to how you write, to the compositional decisions you make. No one really thinks that they can just do anything they want. (Or maybe it's that "anything" is so qualified by "want" that it's not really "anything" any more, eh?)

I thought it was a pretty good expression of an ideal. In an ideal world, every composer would want to produce something that I don't yet like. The duty (the pleasure) of every listener is to encourage composers to write things listeners don't yet like.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

This explains why some love listening to the noise trash "music". Pushing to the extremes for the sake of it rather just just write great music. Anyone can write trash, and weirdos will love it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

The duty of a contemporary composer: to drive the neighbours up the wall with loud repetitive cluster chords beaten on the piano with the composer's head.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Rapide said:


> This explains why some love listening to the noise trash "music". Pushing to the extremes for the sake of it rather just just write great music. Anyone can write trash, and weirdos will love it.


Pushing music forward doesn't necessarily equal noise.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

By the way, the duty of the composer is to compose music.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> Pushing music forward doesn't necessarily equal noise.


Are you saying that noise is a bad thing?


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

The duty of a composer is to do whatever it is that he feels is his duty. If that's composing music, good. If it's not, let him compose whenever he wants.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Are you saying that noise is a bad thing?


No, I love noise. I just think it is absurd that the idea of "progression in music" is equated with pushing it to some noisy extreme.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> By the way, the duty of the composer is to compose music.


The duty of a painter is to paint paintings
The duty of a poet is to write poems
The duty of a cleaner is to clean dirty things


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Ooops wrong thread... 

and yes, that is exactly it CoAG!


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Instead of using the value laden word, "*duty"--*with all of its possible inherent military and political overtones--suppose the word "*calling" *were to be substituted?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Are we entitled to something from composers? Well, if they are being paid, then whatever entitlement there is, has been already satisfied. A composer's music is very much the same as his/her thoughts, in that the composer has no duty whatsoever to think in this or that manner. We people may think alike, so we may listen to the same music, make clubs for different things that we like, etc.

Tell a composer his/her music isn't good, and he/she will probably say "well, I disagree with you", and that's about all there is to it. The poor person isn't a priest, doesn't work at a mill, or so on and so forth. An artist is an artist. Artists have particular thoughts about what it is that they want to express. And you can very well listen to another composer if you like.

Of course, there can be a world of difference between these two issues: duty, and what is or isn't the "correct" preference.

I say all of this, because of this interesting little caricature:



Rapide said:


> This explains why some love listening to the noise trash "music". Pushing to the extremes for the sake of it rather just just write great music. Anyone can write trash, and weirdos will love it.


Of course, this doesn't seem to be all that typical of a view, for the members of TC. But let's look at this thinking: How much is it different from not liking knitting, and jeering at people who like to knit? "Oh my! Why they would subject their ears to that is beyond me!" Hahahahaha... What's more wild is your condescension to people who simply think differently than you. Maybe their reasons are as cheap as you say. Oh well, I guess those people just like that. They get a rise from the excitement. That's great for them, isn't it?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*Revision of my fisrt respone (missed revise deadline)*

LOL. "*Revision of my first response* to correct that typo....



some guy said:


> The duty of a composer is to write the music that you do not yet like. --Herbert Brün
> 
> (Disclaimer: I have not been able to find this comment online. It was given me by David Means a couple of days ago. But trying to find it, I did read a lot of Brün, and that was fun. I think that if people who contribute to on-line music discussions had read some Brün, the discussions would have been very different. Some would never have been started. Anyway, this is as close as I can remember to what David said that Herbert said.)
> 
> (Other disclaimer: I probably should never have started this thread.)


The only part of that I am in agreement with is, "I probably should never have started this thread."

ADD / Revise: IF this sort of one word dictum or challenge to thought means to imply that composers should not write something interchangeable with any works from before, including their own work, I fully agree.

If it is _mistaken_ as "be novel at all costs," which it could also be interpreted as, then it is as flighty as I perceived it to begin with.

It looks good on paper, sounds goo (if not important') and to me, more 'clever' than anything else. .

I was speaking with a colleague once, and we found ourselves at full agreement in firmly believing that the composer should not for a moment be thinking in terms of their own 'comfort' or worry about the either the comfort of the players or the audience. That is to me the 'right' aesthetic and 'ethical' standpoint of about any artist. A professional writer may come up with a tidier way to say it, though I wonder if that would turn out as brief, campaign handy-zippy, as the little gem you've cited.

There are a number of differently phrased 'tenets of what the composer ought' floating about, and have been for long enough that they are veritable pennies of the realm. One such is that a good work of art is for the artist to deliver something which people recognize as having 'always existed' but that nn one had as yet brought forth.

Like many another such 'qualification,' there is room to fit the next 'best' pop song as well as the next avant garde masterpiece on that peg.

That is why I thin your particular selected statement is rather precious in comparison, and I don't care for it, not what it is weakly attempting to say.r.

Here is any artist's, or composers, 'duty: * male what they feel they must (as in obey the dictates of their inner drummer) and what and how they can.* Any and all of them are making something "which was not." before they made it. At that phase of the procedure, there is afterward a piece which no one, including the maker, knew if it was wanted or not.

The only other real composer proscriptions are in the event of a commission and for all those there are specific registration: many an orchestral work currently being funded is not commissioned by just one, but several bands; strings, winds, brass, etc. & the matter of the duration of the piece. When that is the case, the composer has a 'sub-set' of the two to compose for, perhaps no longer tipping the piece to, for example 'that band with the famous brass section.' That is already enough, really.

_writers making these glib sociopolitical / philosophic statements which read like soft-core pronouncements of a manifesto just weary me. Writers are wordsmiths, not composers of music_. They are free to think and say what they like, but truly, each time I read about music from other than a real and active composer, it reinforces my experience that all writers, bad, alright and good, are pretty much idiots when it comes to writing about music.

AND: At least half the pronouncements from composers are enthusiastic temporary thoughts, which change. Currently, the more they are interviewed as the supposedly necessary publicity to keep the machinery and their career going, they are apt to say anything at the given moment in the interview, or the paid talk presentation, etc.[/I]

Composers, I believe, should not say much about music. This has led to that hyperbole pure ** exactly like "the Artist's Statement" which now adorns the walls of art galleries and accompanies the artist's paintings adjacent that little framed Lit-Crit phrased steaming dung. The artist's statement, gallery viewers, is on the damned walls.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

samurai said:


> Instead of using the value laden word, "*duty"--*with all of its possible inherent military and political overtones--suppose the word "*calling" *were to be substituted?


It would still be too facile, glib and inadequate to what it 'attempts' to do.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

tgtr0660 said:


> The duty of a composer is to do whatever it is that he feels is his duty. If that's composing music, good. If it's not, let him compose whenever he wants.


What else would a composer compose?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

PetrB said:


> The only part of that I am in agreement with is, "I probably should never have started this thread."
> 
> ADD / Revise: IF this sort of one word dictum or challenge to thought means to imply that composers should not write something interchangeable with any works from before, including their own work, I fully agree.
> 
> ...


If I may make a side comment, monsieur, I would ask that you work on your grammar a bit. No offense intended. The issue is that your writing confuses me, because of the grammar.

Regarding your opinion here, I would say that I agree on several levels. Yet, not with such vociferous clamor and emotional charge. Statements like these certainly seem to be exaggerations at best:



> Composers, I believe, should not say much about music. This has led to that hyperbole pure ** exactly like "the Artist's Statement" which now adorns the walls of art galleries and accompanies the artist's paintings adjacent that little framed Lit-Crit phrased steaming dung. The artist's statement, gallery viewers, is on the damned walls.


I wasn't aware that composers didn't have valid opinions pertaining to their own art, hehehe.

:tiphat:


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Polednice said:


> What else would a composer compose?


Not to be smart-alec, but on thinking of all the nommusical activities of great composers, a composer could: compose treatises on composing, music history, orchestration; he could compose letters of introduction for an aspiring composer/musician; he could compose articles on any or all of the above; he could compose libretti or poetry intended to be set to music; he could compose lectures for academia or the general public.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Manxfeeder said:


> Not to be smart-alec, but on thinking of all the nommusical activities of great composers, a composer could: compose treatises on composing, music history, orchestration; he could compose letters of introduction for an aspiring composer/musician; he could compose articles on any or all of the above; he could compose libretti or poetry intended to be set to music; he could compose lectures for academia or the general public.


I just realised that I read the original comment wrong. Oops! He said "whenever", but I read "whatever", so my question didn't make any sense.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

In browsing through Ravel's wiki page for a different thread, I came across this quote which I found intriguing and relevant to this thread:

"_On the initial performance of a new musical composition, the first impression of the public is generally one of reaction to the more superficial elements of its music, that is to say, to its external manifestations rather than to its inner content…often it is not until years after, when the means of expression have finally surrendered all their secrets, that the real inner emotion of the music becomes apparent to the listener_."

-Maurice Ravel

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


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> If I may make a side comment, monsieur, I would ask that you work on your grammar a bit. No offense intended. The issue is that your writing confuses me, because of the grammar.
> 
> Regarding your opinion here, I would say that I agree on several levels. Yet, not with such vociferous clamor and emotional charge. Statements like these certainly seem to be exaggerations at best:
> 
> ...


You're correct. 
1.) Writing anything at 7 a.m. after having been awake nearly 24 hours (and not being eighteen) is not going to turn out particularly well. Bad judgement call to post and not save it elsewhere, and read it before posting. Such are fora at times, without that being any good excuse.

2.) After fifty years of hearing and reading little thoughts on music as in the OP -- the great, the good, the bad, the ugly, the terrible and egregiously laughable, I have less than a short fuse for just about any of it. I should have thought that others, too, may want and need their own fifty years accumulation to share such a rave, and should have left the irascible old guy act to those more practiced in it and who actually enjoy it  Beg Pardon.

3.) Of course artists may have something more than worthwhile to say about their craft, their art, and the work of others or the medium itself. But, if the art is not in the medium is not words, I think what has been best said is in that other medium, the words thing often more confusing and cluttering the arena than being of any real 'help.' It is to be hoped no words are need to 'explain' a piece of music, or a painting or sculpture: I maintain if they are, it is either context dependent, ergo 'weak,' or the piece is just not articulate enough to communicate on its own.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I just realised that I read the original comment wrong. Oops! He said "whenever", but I read "whatever", so my question didn't make any sense.


In that case, I withdraw my nonsmart-alec but nevertheless cogent and articulate observation .


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Of course, this doesn't seem to be all that typical of a view, for the members of TC. But let's look at this thinking: How much is it different from not liking knitting, and jeering at people who like to knit? "Oh my! Why they would subject their ears to that is beyond me!" Hahahahaha... What's more wild is your condescension to people who simply think differently than you. Maybe their reasons are as cheap as you say. Oh well, I guess those people just like that. They get a rise from the excitement. That's great for them, isn't it?


I listen to much contemporary music and hve discussed the composers' music with its composers when opportunities were/are there. Responsibility of the artists, those who take responsibility in composing music, from contemporary composers who I know are those who created (or attmpted) art music. There are numoerous untalented composers today who "do not care", they follow the irresponsible path of thinking as long as the artist says it is art, then it is art. Then they end up producing trash. In the real broader world, you end up with a minority of weirdos who accept it - thse folks and the artists - have no standard, they are a bunch debased people. Rap music is just as good.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

tdc said:


> In browsing through Ravel's wiki page for a different thread, I came across this quote which I found intriguing and relevant to this thread:
> 
> "_On the initial performance of a new musical composition, the first impression of the public is generally one of reaction to the more superficial elements of its music, that is to say, to its external manifestations rather than to its inner content…often it is not until years after, when the means of expression have finally surrendered all their secrets, that the real inner emotion of the music becomes apparent to the listener_."
> 
> ...


Well, MR never had to sit through a performance of this ..






Or this






Read the Ravel quote again after listening to those and you will begin to understand how lucky he was to have died when he did.

And to get back to the original quote. Could the same thing have been said about literature or poetry? Does art _have_ to challenge? Is that what compels the artist to create? I don't think so.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Neatly? the same as any musician: TO SERVE THE MUSE, VIA MUSIC.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Look, I may even dislike the music just as much as you, but how is anyone supposed to have a genuine, well-meaning conversation when people so readily say tripe like this?



Petwhac said:


> Read the Ravel quote again after listening to those and you will begin to understand how lucky he was to have died when he did.


I have to point out as well that, although I do not always (often?) agree with the "hardline" modernists on this forum about good music or good compositional virtues or on more general topics about art and aesthetics, they much, much, much more rarely resort to comments like that - we have disagreements, but they're well-mannered. Yet, on the other side - those who fervently dislike a lot of modern music - there are always multiple people throwing these insults around in every thread whenever the chance arises. I can't understand where this endless hatred comes from, and, to be frank, given that the modernists are in the minority, hugely unrepresented on concert programs and always coming in for insults, I can't help but think that the mentality of musical conservatives is similar to misogynistic men's rights groups (the analogy being that an overly privileged social group sets up an irrational pariah and pretends to be the victim, possibly because they just have a need to be angry).

Much modern music _may_ be crap, but at least I can respect the maturity of its listeners.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Look, I may even dislike the music just as much as you, but how is anyone supposed to have a genuine, well-meaning conversation when people so readily say tripe like this?
> 
> I have to point out as well that, although I do not always (often?) agree with the "hardline" modernists on this forum about good music or good compositional virtues or on more general topics about art and aesthetics, they much, much, much more rarely resort to comments like that - we have disagreements, but they're well-mannered. Yet, on the other side - those who fervently dislike a lot of modern music - there are always multiple people throwing these insults around in every thread whenever the chance arises. I can't understand where this endless hatred comes from, and, to be frank, given that the modernists are in the minority, hugely unrepresented on concert programs and always coming in for insults, I can't help but think that the mentality of musical conservatives is similar to misogynistic men's rights groups (the analogy being that an overly privileged social group sets up an irrational pariah and pretends to be the victim, possibly because they just have a need to be angry).
> 
> Much modern music _may_ be crap, but at least I can respect the maturity of its listeners.


I beg your pardon but if your comment is directed at me I'd very much like to know whom you think I've insulted?
I never called anything crap, but you did.
If you would care to come off your high relativistic horse and not be so ready to feel outraged you might see I am making an historical observation. Yes it was put a little provocatively but I was rather hoping for an intelligent response regarding the likelihood of a listener ever getting past the initial reaction to the superficial surface of the musical examples and finding 'meaning'.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

It was directed at you and the many people who say things like you. Seeing as you're willing to defend your statement of closed-minded bias as a "historical observation", there's obviously nothing productive that either of us can say to each other.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Polednice said:


> It was directed at you and the many people who say things like you. Seeing as you're willing to defend your statement of closed-minded bias as a "historical observation", there's obviously nothing productive that either of us can say to each other.


Again you make a personal attack without justification. There is nothing in my comments that could lead you to conclude that I am closed minded or biased. Please refrain from knee jerk reactions as a substitute for thinking.
If you need me to spell it out I will. But perhaps you might think about the point I am making and get a sense of humour in the process.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> The duty of a composer is to write the music that you do not yet like. --Herbert Brün
> 
> (Disclaimer: I have not been able to find this comment online. It was given me by David Means a couple of days ago. But trying to find it, I did read a lot of Brün, and that was fun. I think that if people who contribute to on-line music discussions had read some Brün, the discussions would have been very different. Some would never have been started. Anyway, this is as close as I can remember to what David said that Herbert said.)
> 
> (Other disclaimer: I probably should never have started this thread.)


You mean contemporary composers purposely write music nobody likes? Explains a lot.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> You mean contemporary composers purposely write music nobody likes? Explains a lot.


If Wagner was still alive he would be a "contemporary composer"


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

PetrB said:


> You're correct.
> 1.) Writing anything at 7 a.m. after having been awake nearly 24 hours (and not being eighteen) is not going to turn out particularly well. Bad judgement call to post and not save it elsewhere, and read it before posting. Such are fora at times, without that being any good excuse.
> 
> 2.) After fifty years of hearing and reading little thoughts on music as in the OP -- the great, the good, the bad, the ugly, the terrible and egregiously laughable, I have less than a short fuse for just about any of it. I should have thought that others, too, may want and need their own fifty years accumulation to share such a rave, and should have left the irascible old guy act to those more practiced in it and who actually enjoy it  Beg Pardon.
> ...


1. Well, this is the internet. It's no biggy, right? But I reckon it's good to be a little frank, when you can't understand someone's writing.

2. Ah, monsieur, you needn't beg any pardon. As long as we can come to an understanding, I'm nonplussed. Without a little firecracker here and there, these threads can be a bit boring to read.

3. Right. And it's not as if composers must understand their own process or intentions. Those with majors in the humanities and philosophy would probably be better suited to describing art, and debating over it's nature. Makes me think I ought to get into the subject from the lens of more professions, around here. If any excuse to discuss stuff like anthropology or sociology on a music forum, arrives, yours truly will hopefully be around :tiphat: Makes me think of how much there is, that I haven't gotten into.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> If Wagner was still alive he would be a "contemporary composer"


Instead he's a dead composer who purposely wrote music nobody likes.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Rapide said:


> I listen to much contemporary music and hve discussed the composers' music with its composers when opportunities were/are there. Responsibility of the artists, those who take responsibility in composing music, from contemporary composers who I know are those who created (or attmpted) art music. There are numoerous untalented composers today who "do not care", they follow the irresponsible path of thinking as long as the artist says it is art, then it is art. Then they end up producing trash. In the real broader world, you end up with a minority of weirdos who accept it - thse folks and the artists - have no standard, they are a bunch debased people. Rap music is just as good.


Ah, I see. And where is this person you speak of, who is defaming art like that, peddling cheap attempts at art to others?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Instead he's a dead composer who purposely wrote music nobody likes.


I prefer him to Brahms.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Again you make a personal attack without justification. There is nothing in my comments that could lead you to conclude that I am closed minded or biased. Please refrain from knee jerk reactions as a substitute for thinking.
> If you need me to spell it out I will. But perhaps you might think about the point I am making and get a sense of humour in the process.


Maybe your meaning isn't so apparent, friend. If you would be explicit as you can, I'm sure there is a better chance that Polednice and others here will appreciate your views.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I am making an historical observation.


What you call "an historical observation" I would call a historical _fallacy._ Of course Ravel with Ravel's ears in 1930 would have some difficulty with your two examples (though probably less trouble than you imagine--and that is a point too, eh? That it's just your imagining how someone who is not you would react to something you dislike, and a _dead_ someone at that!).

He at least would have the excuse of 1930 ears. Petwhac, with 2012 ears, should probably not be characterizing the experience of listening to these two very delightful pieces as 'having to sit through'. (Or only in the sense that I, for instance, would say the same thing about a concert of Chopin's music. Which I don't like, even though it's obviously very fine music indeed.)

And what about people in Ravel's time who had difficulties with Ravel's music? Those people felt about Ravel as Petwhac does about Rădulescu and Ferneyhough. Now THERE'S a historical observation for ya!!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> What you call "an historical observation" I would call a historical _fallacy._ Of course Ravel with Ravel's ears in 1930 would have some difficulty with your two examples (though probably less trouble than you imagine--and that is a point too, eh? That it's just your imagining how someone who is not you would react to something you dislike, and a _dead_ someone at that!).
> 
> He at least would have the excuse of 1930 ears. Petwhac, with 2012 ears, should probably not be characterizing the experience of listening to these two very delightful pieces as 'having to sit through'. (Or only in the sense that I, for instance, would say the same thing about a concert of Chopin's music. Which I don't like, even though it's obviously very fine music indeed.)
> 
> And what about people in Ravel's time who had difficulties with Ravel's music? Those people felt about Ravel as Petwhac does about Rădulescu and Ferneyhough. Now THERE'S a historical observation for ya!!


It is you who is peddling a fallacy not I.
You make the error of believing that there is a continuity from Ravel to Radulescu when in fact there isn't. Ravel more likely leads to Pat Metheney or Bill Evans or Glass or Adams than to Ferneyhough and Radulescu.
Firstly, I am guessing, but Ravel may well have had Stravinsky in mind when he made his observation as he is known to have defended the Rite against the outrage it caused in certain quarters. He pointed out that it was the piece as a whole and not the it's harmonic and melodic constituents which was 'new'.
There are many common elements shared between Beethoven and Schoenberg as there are between Chopin and Ravel.
*I ask you to point to some common elements in Ravel and Ferneyhough or Radulescu, something that might indicate to him that they were all in the same line of development.*
Yes it is true we'll never know how Ravel would have heard Ferneyhough just as we may never know how any of our contemporaries hear music. I can't listen with your ears and you can't listen with mine. Therefore perhaps all debate on music is somewhat redundant. However, let us struggle on.
You seem to be of the opinion that to have an opinion that is unfavourable to some more recent trends (60 or so years now) in 'concert' or 'classical' music, is to be held in some contempt or labelled conservative or reactionary. Yet what is the label to be applied to someone who doesn't favour Chopin's music (any of it)? I suppose that could be considered discerning could it? You say you don't like it but that it is "obviously very fine music". How so? If you can articulate what it is that makes it fine perhaps you could do so for the Ferneyhough.
I suspect you won't though. In fact you see, you can't. Just as I can't explain to you why Ravel's Gaspard or Trio is delightful to me. 
It's alright for you to take a posture on Chopin or anyone because you are a right-on and knowing modernist who's musical brain is so in advance of mine that you wait with pity on me to catch up and eventually experience the joy of Messrs Ferneyhough, Radulescu etc.
You think I have dismissed this music out of hand the way you dismiss Chopin. Well I don't. I have listened for many years with an open mind in an attempt to 'get inside' it. I have come to the conclusion that it is beyond my musical faculties but I'll make you a bet. You and many others would not be able to distinguish between a ersatz Ferneyhough quartet and the real thing at least by listening alone. The same is not true, I believe for Chopin and Ravel.
*If you do nothing else in response to this post I beg you please please try and articulate what it is that makes those two examples by Ferneyhough, Radulescu so delightful.*


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

The point is _not_ that it is not OK to have an unfavourable opinion about certain kinds of music, but that you can't seem to comprehend that some people might like music which you have no taste for, and that you apparently have some kind of mental complex that leads you to believe a composer is better off _dead_ than listening to such music.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Polednice said:


> The point is _not_ that it is not OK to have an unfavourable opinion about certain kinds of music, but that you can't seem to comprehend that some people might like music which you have no taste for, and that you apparently have some kind of mental complex that leads you to believe a composer is better off _dead_ than listening to such music.


Like I said, get a sense of humour!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Like I said, get a sense of humour!


Well, maybe I've got you all wrong - I'm not going to be able to determine that with certainty online - but I think the problem of hateful musical conservatives is so extensive that Poe's Law applies.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I thought that Radelescu piece was quite enjoyable honestly...I guess I am just getting used to more of the newer stuff, but nothing about that piece struck me as being overly hard to get into or written for the sheer sense of being different etc. It struck me as a well-constructed piece of music, with a very intriguing and unique interplay between what sounded like real instruments and electronic sounds.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Well, maybe I've got you all wrong - I'm not going to be able to determine that with certainty online - but I think the problem of hateful musical conservatives is so extensive that Poe's Law applies.


See, I think Poe's Law applies to contemporary music itself.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The duty of a composer is to enlist and fight for his country like a proper man (in the ideology wars, maybe?...so for no country but for ideology...maybe for atonal music...or Wagner...the three B's...Elton John...or Mantovani...take your pick...let's go into battle, fight to the death...) -

Guys, put on your uniform, grab your gun and get on a horse...

& this is not sexist, ladies support this ideological war effort too...

While we're at it, let's have a cultural revolution,  Red Guards, grab your little red books and wave them enthusiastically.

What's all this got to do with music?...um...nothing...but I've gone into anti-ideology/dogma meltdown (again!)...


----------

