# What is so great about the 20th century's music?



## micro

First off, I apologize for my English. Second, I am a complete amateur listener (but I've been listening to classical music for almost 10 years now) so I guess many members here are professional performers and composers, academics or have some knowledge with music theory. So please don't take it so seriously as I am already a lowly peasant!

I began with classical music as many noobs (Vivaldi, Mozart, and all the lightweight and funny music of the 18th century) then began to dive into the more serious Mozart and Bach works and then Beethoven concertos and, his and Schubert's chamber music. Then I fell in love with the traditional and strict romantic composers, I find Brahms the perfect composer who brought music to its climax especially in his chamber music works. I love also many works by Dvorak, Tchaikovsky and I find sublimity in almost anything written by Rachmaninoff. I love Mendelssohn and Chopin too!

Then, Wagner and Debussy came to this world.

I read many articles and reviews by professionals that consider these 2 guys as the founders of 20th century music. Let us ignore Wagner and his profound techniques as professionals always say that peasants like me won't understand. But let us talk about Debussy, his followers and what they did to music. As a _noob_, I've always thought that they only sought (Debussy, Stravinsky and all second viennese guys and their followers) to break harmony and strip off any trail of beauty and the listener should comply to their lawless and often lifeless notes. Did they just have disdain for anything traditional and well organised, did they think that chaos and ugliness must be sought? I still love many of the 20th century works (An exception is Ravel, and of course Rachmaninoff as I said before and some Mahler (I find his 8th and 2nd symphonies are excellent and only matched my Bethooven's!) I even consider Ravel's string quartet 1movment as the greatest chamber music piece I have ever heard). But generally, music became gradually so ugly and pretentious to me (I tried to listen to Stockhausen! what the actual ***!).

In conclusion, after years of trying to understand and appreciate, I just cannot understand most 20th music and I think it is mostly overrated and pretentious and nothing beautiful comes from it no matter what I force myself to appreciate it! And I always say to myself that classical music stopped entirely since Rachmaninoff died!


----------



## Art Rock

There's no arguing about taste.

Where you fail to hear the beauty, others do. There is no right or wrong.


----------



## Guest

+1.

We are all free to like or dislike any music.


----------



## micro

I know, I just tried to say that since debussy, stravinsky and schoenberg, music gradually and irreversibly just went too far/weird/pretentious to the extent (I think) it cannot be called music at all. It is not just a difference between baroque/classical, classical/romantic. It just went too far.


----------



## joen_cph

Any provocative effect is quite limited here, due to discussions about the subject having been had at regular intervals. 

You seem to like some diversity in music, but put your limit at a certain point (which however is an imaginary point both chronologically and stylistically speaking, since a lot of say neo-romantic music, or music with neo-romantic traits, or "easier" music, was composed after Rachmaninov).


----------



## DavidA

For me music is for enjoyment and if I don't like certain pieces I simply don't listen to them. I do like certain pieces of 20th century music and other pieces I don't. Whether music has gone downhill this century I don't know, but I remember what the conductor Hans Vonk said in response to a question about modern music: "Possibly there is no time like now when composers were more out of touch with audiences."


----------



## Weston

I wouldn't say there is anything more special or less special about 20th century (or not traditionally harmonic) music. I like it, but it took me a long time, and if I'm being honest I probably don't get quite as much enjoyment out of it as I do from more traditional harmonies and melodies. Or maybe it's not lesser enjoyment, but a different kind of enjoyment. Either way it's enjoyment.

My suggestion is to try not to force yourself to enjoy it and to try not to be offended if others enjoy it. There is plenty of the more traditional music -- tons more than any of us can ever listen to in many lifetimes, and none of it is going away. Maybe someday the appreciation of other forms will come if you desire it. Or not. There is no shame in not liking something.


----------



## EdwardBast

The majority of listeners and concert goers seem to disagree with you. There is an enormous amount of very popular 20thc music that is widely heard as profound, interesting and beautiful.

(And I was originally just going to write "Not again" again.  )


----------



## Chordalrock

DavidA said:


> Hans Vonk said in response to a question about modern music: "Possibly there is no time like now when composers were more out of touch with audiences."


This is supposed to be a bad thing? Let's recall what happens when artists aren't "out of touch" with audiences: Hollywood (embarrassing fluff that no one would watch more than once). Or in the case of music, you get endless thousands of pop albums that NOBODY listens to, they only listen to the hits that play on radio, everything else is filler that is composed to please the average listener but actually almost no one bothers to listen to more than once. Trying to please the masses is a terrible thing if your heart isn't in it.

Personally I enjoy atonal music more than the classics these days. It's horror music for a horror world (e.g. early Penderecki), mystical music for a mystical world (1950s Messiaen), it's artistically creepy (Schoenberg, Sessions), and other things you just don't find in earlier music except in small doses at most.


----------



## GreenMamba

micro said:


> I know, I just tried to say that since debussy, stravinsky and schoenberg, music gradually and irreversibly just went too far/weird/pretentious to the extent (I think) it cannot be called music at all. It is not just a difference between baroque/classical, classical/romantic. It just went too far.


Of course it can be called music. It's music you don't like.


----------



## mmsbls

There was a time in my life when my experience almost exactly mirrored yours (I did always love Wagner). I adored pre-20th century music, but even Ravel and Debussy were a bit unpleasant to me. Stockhausen's and others' music sounded horrible. I couldn't understand why people would write music like that, and in some sense, I didn't feel much of it was music. 

I'm not sure what was different between our subsequent attempts to enjoy/appreciate the new music. My experience is similar to Weston's above. I listened repeatedly to much varied new music. The process was slow, but ultimately I began to find that some of the new music was enjoyable and even beautiful. I have continuously found that music I previously thought was awful I now enjoy. Sometimes I can easily remember what I found unpleasant about music I now like, but other times, as with Stravinsky, I can't easily imagine not liking the music. 

Your experience is similar to a high percentage (maybe the vast majority) of classical music lovers. It's wonderful that you adore pre-20th century classical music. There's so much that is beautiful, moving, and simply sublime. The vast majority of people somehow do not like that music. It turns out that there is also so much 20th century/contemporary music that many of us find compelling and thoroughly enjoy. There does not appear to be some simple, straightforward process to get people like you and me to like this newer music, but it certainly is possible. And many of us on TC feel it was well worth the effort.


----------



## Woodduck

As people who grow up hearing music based largely on the norm of Western tonal harmony (which musicians call "common practice"), we all have different responses to music that either extends or departs from that norm. Common practice reached its fullest development between the 18th and early 20th centuries, and that's the period from which dates most of the "classical" music which is still best understood and enjoyed by a majority of listeners.

It sounds as if you're one of those listeners. You have plenty of company and need not apologize for your tastes. But you seem awfully ready to generalize about the music you don't like and about 20th-century music in general. If anything characterizes the music of that century, it's variety. Just for fun, look at this list of 20th-century composers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ical_composers

How many of them have you listened to? How much of an effort have you made to learn about what they were trying to do and say? I might also ask whether you've listened to much Medieval and Renaissance music, and then whether you've made the acquaintance of music from other parts of the world - India, perhaps, or China - which is put together quite differently from Western music but is found to be beautiful and meaningful by those who grow up hearing and performing it. I've found that with a little attention much of that beauty and meaning can come through even to someone raised on Bach and Chopin.

Just keep listening. Nobody is obligated to subject himself repeatedly to music he loathes, but if you encounter music that doesn't really grab you yet seems to have some qualities you find intriguing, listen some more and try to identify what it is about it that seems interesting. I'll bet that whether or not you come to like their music, you will at least come to hear Stravinsky and Messiaen and Berg as music. And if you never get as far as Stockhausen and Xenakis, don't worry about it!


----------



## Prodromides

micro said:


> music gradually and irreversibly just went too far/weird/pretentious to the extent (I think) it cannot be called music at all.


I'm glad 20th century music went far & weird - these are reasons why I listen to such music! My favorite period is post-WW II through the 1970s.

As a footnote, I've notice that those years ending in the number '9' tend to symbolize trends within 20th century compositions.
By 1949, 12-tone techniques and the Darmstadt scene began to exert tremendous influence on young composers and academia.
By 1959, a subset of composers (Scelsi, Xenakis, Ligeti, Cerha, Penderecki, etc.) went on their own independent paths towards _sonorism_ as a reaction against rigid dodecaphony [and they couldn't return to Romantic tonal music and simultaneously 'save face' and be taken seriously].
By 1969, further reactions against serialism formed what we now consider as Minimalism (via Philip Glass, Steve Reich + others).
By 1979, institutions such as IRCAM and composers such as Hugues Dufourt had already begun to arrive at what is called Spectral Music via application of computer science in music.

Thereabouts is where my interest subsides a little, and I'm hard-pressed to associate any aspect of current music from the past 30 years into specific trends - so I don't know exactly what to say regarding years 1989 & 1999.


----------



## Boldertism

Stravinsky and Sibelius are what's great about 20th century music.


----------



## KenOC

Boldertism said:


> Stravinsky and Sibelius are what's great about 20th century music.


The 20th century was the century of the "S"s, just like the 19th century had its three "B"s, at least until Berlioz was replaced by that upstart Bach. Let's see, there's Sibelius, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Schnittke, and that other guy whose name I never remember.


----------



## Mahlerian

Boldertism said:


> Stravinsky and Sibelius are what's great about 20th century music.


And Mahler and Schoenberg and Boulez and Messiaen and Debussy and Takemitsu and Carter and Babbitt and Prokofiev and Bartok and Berg and Ligeti and Kurtag and Stockhausen and Webern and....


----------



## senza sordino

The 20th century music composition has a much wider palette of techniques. That appeals to some and not to others. There is a much broader range of sounds available in 20th century music. That appeals to some and not to others. I like a lot of 20th music, but not all of it. I also don't like everything composed in the 18th century. We all have our likes and dislikes.


----------



## Strange Magic

My suggestion would be to find yourself a performance, on YouTube or CD, of Prokofiev's Third Piano Concerto. Here we have a 20th century work that clearly rests solidly on older foundations, but/and that can serve as a stepping-stone into further exploration of other works by Prokofiev, like his Second Piano Concerto. You may then be tempted to listen to contemporaries of Prokofiev, for whom he had respect--you already like Ravel; Prokofiev also befriended Poulenc, and he more or less got along with Shostakovich. So you might try Shostakovich's two piano concertos, "just to see/hear what they're like", etc.; maybe Poulenc's Concerto for Two Pianos and his Concerto for Organ, Strings, and Tympani, then maybe a little Bartok.... Maybe you'll stop at Bartok--I did--but that's the best way to get into newer, different music--small, digestible bits, one after another...


----------



## isorhythm

Strange Magic said:


> My suggestion would be to find yourself a performance, on YouTube or CD, of Prokofiev's Third Piano Concerto. Here we have a 20th century work that clearly rests solidly on older foundations, but/and that can serve as a stepping-stone into further exploration of other works by Prokofiev, like his Second Piano Concerto. You may then be tempted to listen to contemporaries of Prokofiev, for whom he had respect--you already like Ravel; Prokofiev also befriended Poulenc, and he more or less got along with Shostakovich. So you might try Shostakovich's two piano concertos, "just to see/hear what they're like", etc.; maybe Poulenc's Concerto for Two Pianos and his Concerto for Organ, Strings, and Tympani, then maybe a little Bartok.... Maybe you'll stop at Bartok--I did--but that's the best way to get into newer, different music--small, digestible bits, one after another...


I just opened this thread to suggest Prokofiev's 3rd concerto and some Poulenc! (I like Martha Argerich's performance of the Prokofiev.)

So I strongly second this post, micro.


----------



## Boldertism

Mahlerian said:


> And Mahler and Schoenberg and Boulez and Messiaen and Debussy and Takemitsu and Carter and Babbitt and Prokofiev and Bartok and Berg and Ligeti and Kurtag and Stockhausen and Webern and....


Looks like I have more listening to do.


----------



## dieter

'And I always say to myself that classical music stopped entirely since Rachmaninoff died!'
A reply to Micro's post: I've always said there is more music in a bar of Rachmaninov than in Schoenberg's whole output. ( Facetiously, of course.)


----------



## dieter

Woodduck said:


> As people who grow up hearing music based largely on the norm of Western tonal harmony (which musicians call "common practice"), we all have different responses to music that either extends or departs from that norm. Common practice reached its fullest development between the 18th and early 20th centuries, and that's the period from which dates most of the "classical" music which is still best understood and enjoyed by a majority of listeners.
> 
> It sounds as if you're one of those listeners. You have plenty of company and need not apologize for your tastes. But you seem awfully ready to generalize about the music you don't like and about 20th-century music in general. If anything characterizes the music of that century, it's variety. Just for fun, look at this list of 20th-century composers:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ical_composers
> 
> How many of them have you listened to? How much of an effort have you made to learn about what they were trying to do and say? I might also ask whether you've listened to much Medieval and Renaissance music, and then whether you've made the acquaintance of music from other parts of the world - India, perhaps, or China - which is put together quite differently from Western music but is found to be beautiful and meaningful by those who grow up hearing and performing it. I've found that with a little attention much of that beauty and meaning can come through even to someone raised on Bach and Chopin.
> 
> Just keep listening. Nobody is obligated to subject himself repeatedly to music he loathes, but if you encounter music that doesn't really grab you yet seems to have some qualities you find intriguing, listen some more and try to identify what it is about it that seems interesting. I'll bet that whether or not you come to like their music, you will at least come to hear Stravinsky and Messiaen and Berg as music. And if you never get as far as Stockhausen and Xenakis, don't worry about it!


More pearls, Mr Woodduck.


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> The 20th century was the century of the "S"s, just like the 19th century had its three "B"s, at least until Berlioz was replaced by that upstart Bach. Let's see, there's Sibelius, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Schnittke, and that other guy whose name I never remember.


I thought it was Brahms who replaced Berlioz.


----------



## Xenakiboy

What's so great about the 20th Century's music?

Everything for me.
The range of artistic and emotional expression + the innovation throughout that hundred years is immeasurable.
It not only builds up from the previous centuries, but it adds onto it in many ways (neo-classicism/poly-stylism) 

The majority of my favorite and most personally attached composers are from this era too, do I need to say more? :lol: :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> The 20th century was the century of the "S"s, just like the 19th century had its three "B"s, at least until Berlioz was replaced by that upstart Bach. Let's see, there's Sibelius, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Schnittke, and that other guy whose name I never remember.


This is actually quite correct. Prior to the 20th century more famous composers' names began with "B" than with any other letter. In the 20th century "S" took the lead.

It would be pleasant to think that in the 21st century we'll get past all the "B""S," but things aren't looking good so far.


----------



## ArtMusic

micro said:


> .....
> In conclusion, after years of trying to understand and appreciate, I just cannot understand most 20th music and I think it is mostly overrated and pretentious and nothing beautiful comes from it no matter what I force myself to appreciate it! And I always say to myself that classical music stopped entirely since Rachmaninoff died!


I know of a lot of classical music listeners who share the same view. It comes down to one simple observation: that the musical heritage of the Baroque, Classical and Romanticism were vastly dispelled by the first half of the 20th century into a different artistic direction. Ker word is underlined. It was a natural progression into serialism/twelve-tone/polystylism/modernism/post-modernism etc. I would preferentially view it collectively as "post-classical". I think if listeners approach it with the "right" expectations, then 20th century music would have had much better reception.


----------



## violadude

micro said:


> In conclusion, after years of trying to understand and appreciate, I just cannot understand most 20th music and I think it is mostly overrated and pretentious and nothing beautiful comes from it no matter what I force myself to appreciate it! And I always say to myself that classical music stopped entirely since Rachmaninoff died!


So, are you actually asking us about 20th century music in an attempt to understand it? Or did you just want to complain about it? If it's the former I'm happy to offer suggestions. I suspect it's the latter, though. Why else would you go up to someone in good faith and say "HEY your music sucks!!! Now tell me more about it!" Doesn't work like that. Hostility only begets more hostility, or at best, apathy.


----------



## micro

Thank you guys! I didn't expect all these great comments!
But let me be more clear about what and who exactly does not appeal to me in 20th century music:

1. Completely Okay: Rachmaninoff
2. Mostly Okay: Ravel, Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and many 19th century composers who just happened to get old in the 20th century like Elgar, Saint-Saens, Sibelius and others.
3. Some Okay (Many weird but still okay): Stravinsky, Debussy, Richard Strauss
4. Occasional Okay: Bartok, Britten
5. Rarely Okay: Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Boulez and all post-ww2 second viennese school.
6. Justin Bieber is better than those: Stockhausen, Xenakis.


My top five composers:
1. Brahms
2. Rachmaninoff
3. Tchaikovsky
4. Dvorak
5. Mozart

As I said I began with classical music with late 18th century music. I still think that music went to its climax in late 19th century with Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Dvorak and it took the downhill course since/by Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok and Schoenberg. I am also in a lifelong love with sacred renaissance/late-medieval works by Tallis, Josquin, Palestrina, Ockeghem, Brumel and others who lived in this period.

I had some difficulty to appreciate the more serious and dark romantic works at the beginning but it was not long until I found myself in love with serious romanticism. I just always had that tall barrier to understand the music brought by the people in points 3/4 to 6 and many others who followed their paths.

I am not here just to say (Hi, modern classical sucks, Bye). I am here to get some help/discussion how to listen and appreciate a kind of music I've always found pretentious and lifeless no matter how much I listen to.


----------



## mmsbls

micro said:


> I am not here just to say (Hi, modern classical sucks, Bye). I am here to get some help/discussion how to listen and appreciate a kind of music I've always found pretentious and lifeless no matter how much I listen to.


I came to TC with essentially that same desire. One of the first threads I started asked for help enjoying modern music. The discussion included a lot of very helpful suggestions. Many of the people posting there also significantly disliked modern music before eventually enjoying it.


----------



## Xenakiboy

micro said:


> 6. Justin Bieber is better than those: Stockhausen, Xenakis.


:lol:

I really hope you're joking.... ut:



micro said:


> I am not here just to say (Hi, modern classical sucks, Bye). I am here to get some help/discussion how to listen and appreciate a kind of music I've always found pretentious and lifeless no matter how much I listen to.


Calling a whole century of diverse music "pretentious and lifeless" is awfully opinionated...


----------



## MarkW

The best way to have even a chance of appreciating music that so far fails to appeal to you is to go to actual concerts and hear the pieces played live. A whole lot more happens in that setting than when something comes at you disembodied through a speaker or earbuds.


----------



## Pugg

senza sordino said:


> The 20th century music composition has a much wider palette of techniques. That appeals to some and not to others. There is a much broader range of sounds available in 20th century music. That appeals to some and not to others. I like a lot of 20th music, but not all of it. I also don't like everything composed in the 18th century. We all have our likes and dislikes.


Most valued point so far.:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

micro said:


> Thank you guys! I didn't expect all these great comments!
> But let me be more clear about what and who exactly does not appeal to me in 20th century music:
> 
> 1. Completely Okay: Rachmaninoff
> 2. Mostly Okay: Ravel, Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and many 19th century composers who just happened to get old in the 20th century like Elgar, Saint-Saens, Sibelius and others.
> 3. Some Okay (Many weird but still okay): Stravinsky, Debussy, Richard Strauss
> 4. Occasional Okay: Bartok, Britten
> 5. Rarely Okay: Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Boulez and all post-ww2 second viennese school.
> 6. Justin Bieber is better than those: Stockhausen, Xenakis.
> 
> My top five composers:
> 1. Brahms
> 2. Rachmaninoff
> 3. Tchaikovsky
> 4. Dvorak
> 5. Mozart
> 
> As I said I began with classical music with late 18th century music. I still think that music went to its climax in late 19th century with Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Dvorak and it took the downhill course since/by Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok and Schoenberg. I am also in a lifelong love with sacred renaissance/late-medieval works by Tallis, Josquin, Palestrina, Ockeghem, Brumel and others who lived in this period.
> 
> I had some difficulty to appreciate the more serious and dark romantic works at the beginning but it was not long until I found myself in love with serious romanticism. I just always had that tall barrier to understand the music brought by the people in points 3/4 to 6 and many others who followed their paths.
> 
> I am not here just to say (Hi, modern classical sucks, Bye). I am here to get some help/discussion how to listen and appreciate a kind of music I've always found pretentious and lifeless no matter how much I listen to.


Thanks for clarifying. It's good to see that your tastes are a bit broader than you may have led us to think. The breakdown by degrees of liking confirms my impression that you become uncomfortable with music that departs greatly from systematic tonality and triad-based harmony.

I'm curious about your omission of a crucial figure - Wagner - from any of your "liking" categories. In the first post you bracketed him with Debussy as marking the beginning of modernism (though you didn't use that word). Is that what your ears tell you, or simply what you've gathered from reading on the subject?


----------



## Guest

micro said:


> 6. Justin Bieber is better than those: Stockhausen, Xenakis.


This is a curious way of telling us how 'okay' those two composers are. I'm not sure I understand...I _think _I do, but I wouldn't want to jump to false conclusions.

Would you care to elaborate?


----------



## kartikeys

micro, I find many people 
having the same views. they cite the same reasons for 
failure of modern art and music. Including some fine 
classical musicians. They say culture has become very relative. 
It's supposed to be some sort of no-questions-asked phenomenon. 
So audience stays out. I recently read some of my work to an audience. 
I explained to them the meaning of the words. Nobody else bothered to. 
They were even against it. 'The audience should already know about 
our feelings'.


----------



## kartikeys

senza sordino said:


> The 20th century music composition has a much wider palette of techniques. That appeals to some and not to others. There is a much broader range of sounds available in 20th century music. That appeals to some and not to others. I like a lot of 20th music, but not all of it. I also don't like everything composed in the 18th century. We all have our likes and dislikes.


That's true. New sounds, new experiments. 
I am certain people in earlier centuries did 
not like everything that they heard, though 
lack of media meant their senses were 
more attuned to appreciation.


----------



## micro

Woodduck said:


> Thanks for clarifying. It's good to see that your tastes are a bit broader than you may have led us to think. The breakdown by degrees of liking confirms my impression that you become uncomfortable with music that departs greatly from systematic tonality and triad-based harmony.
> 
> I'm curious about your omission of a crucial figure - Wagner - from any of your "liking" categories. In the first post you bracketed him with Debussy as marking the beginning of modernism (though you didn't use that word). Is that what your ears tell you, or simply what you've gathered from reading on the subject?


Yeah, it may be so. I just didn't want to use the word 'atonality' because I didn't want to get involved into a technical discussion as I know literally nothing about music theory.

As for Wagner, this is weird. I mostly find Wagner's work boring. I know it seems very unintelligent and ignorant to say so as Wagner may be considered by many critics as the most influential composer of all time. For example, I found Mozart, Brahms, Rachmaninoff, Dvorak, Bach, Vivaldi, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Beethoven as great composers to me because I listened to many works by them and I found extraordinary sublimity and vigor in their works. Nobody told me they are great composers, I just listened and recognized it myself. On the Wagner's side, I could not understand why exactly he was that great. His music wasn't catchy. I know that I like a music piece when it doesn't get out of my head even if it is not playing. If professionals and critics didn't write many articles about his greatness, I would not have known myself that he was a great composer. I still like Der Ring des Nibelungen and of course the Ride of the Valkyries which I consider one of the finest and greatest classical pieces. But an another example is Max Bruch who wrote one of the greatest violin concertos of all time and yet he was not considered as one of the greatest composers!


----------



## micro

mmsbls said:


> I came to TC with essentially that same desire. One of the first threads I started asked for help enjoying modern music. The discussion included a lot of very helpful suggestions. Many of the people posting there also significantly disliked modern music before eventually enjoying it.


Thanks! many suggestions in your thread! I should listen to some of them in the upcoming days!


----------



## micro

MacLeod said:


> This is a curious way of telling us how 'okay' those two composers are. I'm not sure I understand...I _think _I do, but I wouldn't want to jump to false conclusions.
> 
> Would you care to elaborate?


I can't even know how to elaborate and I can't call what they did is music to me.


----------



## Mahlerian

micro said:


> I can't even know how to elaborate and I can't call what they did is music to me.


How would you define music, then?


----------



## micro

Mahlerian said:


> How would you define music, then?


I can't. But I think you know that their works are exceptionally weird to the extent that they cannot be put into the same category of any kind of classical music or may be any kind of music.


----------



## Mahlerian

micro said:


> I can't. But I think you know that their works are exceptionally weird to the extent that they cannot be put into the same category of any kind of classical music or may be any kind of music.


Neither is among my favorite composers, but they're certainly within the classical tradition, and their pioneering work with electronics laid the groundwork for some of the most important developments that have come since.

Despite the way it may seem, the apparent weirdness of much 20th century music is rarely if ever the point. It's not a striving after the new for novelty's sake so much as an expansion of resources and expressive possibilities.


----------



## Guest

micro said:


> I can't even know how to elaborate and I can't call what they did is music to me.


How odd not to be able to explain the relevance of Justin Bieber to a discussion about classical music.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Your problem with post-Rachmaninov art music might be primarily one of time and familiarity, but it's up to you whether you feel it's worth your while to spend time and effort on becoming more familiar with it.

I have been reflecting as I read this thread that as a small child I idolised Beethoven and was quite reluctant to listen to anyone else, although I did listen to a lot of what Beethoven had written. Under my father's influence and that of a family friend I also heard some Bach, Scarlatti, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Mahler, Arthur Sullivan, Elgar, Dvorak, Liszt, Mussorgsky, and a few other 19th century composers, Rachmaninov, Gershwin, Prokofiev and almost by accident, a contemporary Scottish composer live at a concert.

I stuck with what I knew, and mostly Beethoven, if I listened to classical music at all between 10 and 20 or 21.

As a student I rediscovered CM, through Beethoven's chamber music, and via that to Schumann, Brahms, Alkan, Busoni, late Mahler, Strauss, Ives, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Bartok, Hindemith, Honegger, Debussy, Ravel, Poulenc, Britten, Shostakovich, and then Boulez, Reich and Glass. And there I paused again, didn't explore past Boulez as I didn't enjoy what I'd heard, but I heard more and more from the pre-1950 era I'd now come to terms with.

Then 25 years later, 6 or 7 years ago, after a serious illness and a fairly long period off work when I was free to listen a lot, I came back again and amongst other things I began to hear post 1950 composers in a new light, partly because I now had a teenage son listening to experimental contemporary music of different genres, so I discovered and enjoyed Murail and Grisey, Radulescu, Riley, Gloria Coates, Feldman, Young, and Henze, Rihm, Crumb, Harvey, Manoury, Carter, Maxwell Davies, Robert Simpson, MacMillan, James Dillon and so on.

It's amazing to me to listen to a spectralist work, or a serialist piece by Boulez, and realise that I just hear it as music now. Webern sounds tonally centred to my ears, as does Schoenberg (Berg always did). I know that at 25 I found these composers very difficult (and like you, I'd have said that Boulez fell outside the category of music; Webern and Schoenberg and some Britten only just within my definition of it). I'm still most comfortable with older music: works from 1890 - 1950 probably provide me with the most pleasurable balance of familiarity and unfamiliarity / challenge for my present tastes. 

What I would say, though, is that I always wanted to explore unfamiliar music and find something comprehensible and enjoyable in it: I always found it exciting even when I didn't really like it, which might sound odd. I can always remember that first encounter with the avant-garde at 8 or 9 years old in the concert hall, and the music that didn't seem to be music.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Mahlerian said:


> Despite the way it may seem, the apparent weirdness of much 20th century music is rarely if ever the point. It's not a striving after the new for novelty's sake so much as *an expansion of resources and expressive possibilities.*


This I particularly agree with. I think that one important point is that in the 20th century many composers were trying to express qualities, feelings and experiences other than beauty (although that's also true of many 19th century composers), and they had, or developed, more tools with which to do this.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Sorry, I'm nuking this post for the greater good.


----------



## Mahlerian

Watch out that you aren't taken seriously...


----------



## Nereffid

micro said:


> As a _noob_, I've always thought that they only sought (Debussy, Stravinsky and all second viennese guys and their followers) to break harmony and strip off any trail of beauty and the listener should comply to their lawless and often lifeless notes. Did they just have disdain for anything traditional and well organised, did they think that chaos and ugliness must be sought? I still love many of the 20th century works (An exception is Ravel, and of course Rachmaninoff as I said before and some Mahler (I find his 8th and 2nd symphonies are excellent and only matched my Bethooven's!) I even consider Ravel's string quartet 1movment as the greatest chamber music piece I have ever heard). But generally, music became gradually so ugly and pretentious to me (I tried to listen to Stockhausen! what the actual ***!).
> 
> In conclusion, after years of trying to understand and appreciate, I just cannot understand most 20th music and I think it is mostly overrated and pretentious and nothing beautiful comes from it no matter what I force myself to appreciate it! And I always say to myself that classical music stopped entirely since Rachmaninoff died!


If you think 20th-century music is by and large ugly, then you probably haven't heard enough of it. By which I don't mean if you keep listening to Boulez it will eventually sound beautiful - that might happen, too, but it's not my point, which is this:

When I first became interested in classical music, I didn't pay too much attention to when things were written, and now looking back it's clear that was plenty of 20th-century music that I liked straight away (Prokofiev's _Romeo and Juliet_ is the first that springs instantly to mind). 
But the first music that I knew was modern before I heard it was Glass's _Glassworks_. Chaos and ugliness? Hardly; even if one doesn't like minimalism, those aren't words one is likely to use.
The second piece of modern music I heard was Stockhausen's _Hymnen_. I was intrigued; yeah, call it ugly and pretentious if you want. Ultimately I didn't warm to it but I could see the appeal.
And the third IIRC was Taverner's _The Protecting Veil._ Again, this is not ugly music unless you really want to stretch the imagination.
Those were my introductions; I've found plenty more (and different) music over the years that suits my fairly conventional notions of what counts as beauty or "greatness" in music.

So you may simply be looking in the wrong places. There's too much variety in 20th-century music (and especially in music of the last 40 years or so) to dismiss it so readily, I think.


----------



## elgar's ghost

In answer to the Op, the scale of its diversity.


----------



## Mahlerian

Nereffid said:


> Chaos and ugliness? Hardly; even if one doesn't like minimalism, those aren't words one is likely to use.
> [...]
> And the third IIRC was Taverner's _The Protecting Veil._ Again, this is not ugly music unless you really want to stretch the imagination.


Later Boulez isn't the least bit ugly either to me, and I have no idea how anyone could perceive it that way.

But I'm not other people, and I know for a fact that many things which seem so clearly beautiful to all of us today were perceived by others as the very height of ugliness by others in the past. So I wouldn't presume to tell others what is and isn't ugly to them.


----------



## SimonNZ

TurnaboutVox said:


> Then 25 years later, 6 or 7 years ago, after a serious illness and a fairly long period off work when I was free to listen a lot, I came back again and amongst other things I began to hear post 1950 composers in a new light, partly because I now had a teenage son listening to experimental contemporary music of different genres, so I discovered and enjoyed Murail and Grisey, Radulescu, Riley, Gloria Coates, Feldman, Young, and Henze, Rihm, Crumb, Harvey, Manoury, Carter, Maxwell Davies, Robert Simpson, MacMillan, James Dillon and so on.


Does your son post on TC?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

SimonNZ said:


> Does your son post on TC?


Not so far as I know. He posts about music elsewhere, though.


----------



## manyene

Micro's problems with 20th-century music are ones experienced by quite a few listeners who love the 18th and 19th century masters but then come up short against last century composers who broke away and developed more dissonant and even atonal forms.

On the other hand, one of the great features of 20th-century music is the sheer variety of what is on offer. There are still composers using 19th-century idioms, and even some who avoid the edgy harmonies of Mahler. Alla Pavlova and Schmidt-Kowalski come to mind, writing music that 19th-century audiences would find quite acceptable. And there are lots more examples. It is really a matter of investigation, using the riches of YouTube to find what is available out there.


----------



## worov

KenOC said:


> The 20th century was the century of the "S"s, just like the 19th century had its three "B"s, at least until Berlioz was replaced by that upstart Bach. Let's see, there's Sibelius, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Schnittke, and that other guy whose name I never remember.


Richard Strauss ?


----------



## Strange Magic

Sessions. Roger Sessions.


----------



## Blancrocher

He could be referring to Nikos Skalkottas, maybe.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

worov said:


> Richard Strauss ?


Strauss, Stravinsky, and Stockhausen - the three "st"s.


----------



## worov

Arnold Schoenberg ?


----------



## Balthazar

I'm pretty sure it's Schoenberg, Scelsi, and Saariaho.


----------



## Jacck

listening again to the symphony by Bittner (a late romantic, Mahler did propagate his music), I cannot help but feeling something was lost, or even destryoed by Schoenberg. Likely the ability to create beautiful music, or even the strife to achieve beauty. His ugly dissonant bizzare psychotic music (I like it!) became the new musical fad all over the world, and completely uprooted the whole tradition of classical music. Almost no one who came after Schoenberg could replicate him and much of modern music is just bland, ugly, boring. It does not contain beauty, and does not strive for beauty. It can be interesting, yes, but it never is beautiful. That you have to seek from the movie sountracks.

PS: I do actually like modern CM. I do not hate it. But I do see it as inferior art to the previous eras


----------



## larold

_I just cannot understand most 20th music and I think it is mostly overrated and pretentious and nothing beautiful comes from it no matter what I force myself to appreciate it!_

Even though Rachmaninoff and other romantics wrote and performed music in the 20th century I've heard that a lot. Setting aside other fallacious ideas I think there is some validity to the "beauty" argument.

Most 20th century music after Mahler and 1920 is not based in beauty. It has been oft-stated that the inventions of the auto and airplane and the two world wars had a significant impact on music in that century. I think that is probably true.

I find the 20th century the most eclectic with more available styles and options in music listening, study and performance than any other. There is plenty of traditional tonal music such as Barber, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich and Copland, impressionism, lots of new national schools of music (French Le Six, the American band of brothers from mid-century, English under Elgar and Vaughan Williams, Hungarian under Bartok and Kodaly, others), and the development of atonal music beginning with the Second Viennese School, electronic and other sound worlds that prospered in the century. Many fans of the latter forms are not musicians and/or know nothing about music; they just like the sounds.

It was also the century where film music became a part of the rigor of classical music. That is probably the best known and most widely heard form of classical music right now.

To me the 20th century created a stew of unending options that simply aren't available in any other time. Still ... there are many beautiful compositions written in the 20th century. Among them are:

-- Samuel Barber *Violin Concerto*
-- Howard Hanson *"Romantic" Symphony No. 2*
-- Edward Elgar *Serenade in E minor*, *Elegy* and *Sospiri*.
-- Ralph Vaughan Williams *Serenade to Music*, *The Lark Ascending* and *Norfolk Rhapsody No. 3* among others.

Try any of them and you'll see beauty still existed in mid-20th century.


----------



## SanAntone

> I find Brahms the perfect composer who brought music to its climax especially in his chamber music works. I love also many works by Dvorak, Tchaikovsky and I find sublimity in almost anything written by Rachmaninoff. I love Mendelssohn and Chopin too!


This is enough great music here to last a lifetime. You needn't worry about not liking the 20th century (and beyond) - but, there are some fun composers. I'll just name three.

*Leonard Bernstein*. You may know him as a conductor, but he wrote some truly remarkable music. His three symphonies are a god place to start. Then his works for stage, the ballets, _Fancy Free_, _Dybbuk_ - his works for theater, _Candide_, of course _West Side Story_, and my favorite _Mass_.

*Morton Feldman*. A unique composer. Which is one of the primary attributes of 20th century music, its broad stylistic range. Feldman wrote organic music which seems to develop slowly and of its accord. His works can be long, but try _Rothko Chapel_, _Palais de Mari_, _The Viola in My Life_. To appreciate Feldman you must just let the music float over you; don't try to make sense of it but listen to it with an empty mind. You may like it; I sure do - a lot.

*Francis Poulenc*. A bright, witty, and melodic composer whose music you might like. His chamber music is wonderful and varied; his sacred works _Stabat Mater_, _Gloria_, _Mass_ are beautiful. The keyboard works, both solo and with orchestra, _Aubade_, piano concerto, and harpsichord concerto, the organ symphony - display his piquant and infectious style.

As I said, the 20th century boasts of many styles and composers. It is certainly not all atonal.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

The 20th century has the incredibly poignant, valedictory late works of Mahler and Strauss. It has the late Romantic wistfulness of Rachmaninoff and Elgar. It has the austerely beautiful neoclassicism of Stravinsky, the expressive innovation of the Second Viennese School, and the luscious precision of Debussy and Ravel. It has the folk-inspired, uniquely original music of Ives, Nielsen, Sibelius, Bartok, Vaughan Williams, and Janacek; all of whom represent the spirit of their country with distinct voices. It has the Russian spirit of unbreakability as seen through Prokofiev and Shostakovich. It has the dazzlingly colorful music of Messiaen, Boulez, Takemitsu, Dutilleux, and many others. It has a mind-boggling array of styles and ideas from Minimalism to Spectralism and works ranging from the nihilistic to the optimistic. It is simply my favorite century for music.


----------



## Ethereality

I don't understand the concept that 20th century and late romantic music provides weaker or less beautiful harmony, like the music of Ravel, Stravinsky, Glazunov, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff. Sounds completely made up, except however composers like Wagner, Mahler and Shostakovich who ended up going way off the deep end in their form that it renders their music incompatible with early music. Late Romantic composers however like Rachmaninoff and Borodin ended up keeping brilliant form and rhythm while inventing new expressive languages. 20th century music seems much more imaginative and expressive than the music before it. The music of the Big 3 and Brahms has a perfect sense of flow and form, but not necessarily more profound and beautiful, nor especially harmonically clever. Contemporary music is a more expanded and expressive language in tonal harmony and imagery than previous music could possibly portray. P P portray, like Peter and the Wolf, Planets, Petrushka. Forum members who just enthrall over Baroque or Classical seem incredible simple to me.



larold said:


> -- Samuel Barber *Violin Concerto*
> -- Howard Hanson *"Romantic" Symphony No. 2*
> -- Edward Elgar *Serenade in E minor*, *Elegy* and *Sospiri*.
> -- Ralph Vaughan Williams *Serenade to Music*, *The Lark Ascending* and *Norfolk Rhapsody No. 3* among others.


Hanson's 2nd has awesome form and stellar beauty. I like these recommendations!


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## Jacck

Ethereality said:


> I don't understand the concept that 20th century and late romantic music provides weaker or less beautiful harmony, like the music of Ravel, Stravinsky, Glazunov, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff. Sounds completely made up, except however composers like Wagner, Mahler and Shostakovich who ended up going way off the deep end in their form that it renders their music incompatible with early music. Late Romantic composers however like Rachmaninoff and Borodin ended up keeping brilliant form and rhythm while inventing new expressive languages. 20th century music seems much more imaginative and expressive than the music before it. The music of the Big 3 and Brahms has a perfect sense of flow and form, but not necessarily more profound and beautiful, nor especially harmonically clever. *Contemporary music is a more expanded and expressive language in tonal harmony and imagery than previous music could possibly portray.* P P portray, like Peter and the Wolf, Planets, Petrushka. Forum members who just enthrall over Baroque or Classical seem incredible simple to me.
> Hanson's 2nd has awesome form and stellar beauty. I like these recommendations!


we are not talking about late romantic music, but post-Schoenbergian atonal music. And I disagree that it is more expressive than the tonal music. The music is mostly dissonant (ie not very pleasing to the untrained ear), and hence the emotions it can express are mostly anxiety, paranoia, hallucinations, psychosis etc. That is why the atonal music is mostly used in horror movies to evoke such atmospheres. Atonal music has great difficulties expressing uplifting emotions such as hope, joy, love, spirituality or beauty. So no, it is not more expressive. On the contrary, it is quite limited in its expressiveness.


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> . Atonal music has great difficulties expressing uplifting emotions such as hope, joy, love, spirituality or beauty.


I am sure you are wrong about that.


----------



## Jacck

Mandryka said:


> I am sure you are wrong about that.


then show me an example of such modern music (from composers like Lachenmann, Carter, Birtwistle, Boulez, Schoenberg, Scelsi, Xenakis etc). Again, I like their music and find it somewhat interesting and I like to listen to it from time to time, but I would not describe the music as beautiful or uplifting.


----------



## Sequentia

Just keep listening and have an open mind. That's all the advice (if you're not after essays on aesthetics) that can be offered. John Cage put it well when he said:

"If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all."

One might say the same about concepts of beauty and the like.


----------



## Sequentia

Mandryka said:


> I am sure you are wrong about that.


The problem, as it has been in the thousands of similar discussions on this and other fora, is that terms like "tonal" and "atonal" get thrown around as if they were not dependent on listeners' experiences and personalities and as if music were black and white. One only needs to point out that late Boulez is far more "tonal" and less astringent than the Boulez of the 1940s and 1950s, but of course, making sweeping generalizations is easier and more appealing than reading a book or listening to music you've chosen not to listen to because "iTsUgLySoUnDiNg" (not referring to you personally, of course).

Anyway, cadences, dissonances and melodies are just some of the many parameters employed in music, and making a discussion on nebulous concepts like "beauty" revolve around them leaves more percussive, timbre-oriented or rhythmic music out of the question, which should not be happening. Focusing on those and other parameters of composition can help one understand 20th-century music and may be what the OP is looking for.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Jacck said:


> we are not talking about late romantic music, but post-Schoenbergian atonal music. And I disagree that it is more expressive than the tonal music. The music is mostly dissonant (ie not very pleasing to the untrained ear), and hence the emotions it can express are mostly anxiety, paranoia, hallucinations, psychosis etc. That is why the atonal music is mostly used in horror movies to evoke such atmospheres. Atonal music has great difficulties expressing uplifting emotions such as hope, joy, love, spirituality or beauty. So no, it is not more expressive. On the contrary, it is quite limited in its expressiveness.


I understand (and share to some extent) the opinion that atonality is limited when it comes to expressing joy or a sense of hope, but why associate spirituality and beauty with that sort of emotions? They both can comes from dark places, and they often do. There is beauty in the sheer raw power of Xenakis music or the orchestral colors of Scelsi, to name two of the composers you already named. "Beautiful" does not equal "pretty".


----------



## JAS

Sequentia said:


> Just keep listening and have an open mind. That's all the advice (if you're not after essays on aesthetics) that can be offered. John Cage put it well when he said:
> 
> "If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all."
> 
> One might say the same about concepts of beauty and the like.


That may be the worst advice about art and music that I have ever read. It sounds like the artistic equivalent of "beatings will continue until morale improves."


----------



## norman bates

Jacck said:


> we are not talking about late romantic music, but post-Schoenbergian atonal music. And I disagree that it is more expressive than the tonal music. The music is mostly dissonant (ie not very pleasing to the untrained ear), and hence the emotions it can express are mostly anxiety, paranoia, hallucinations, psychosis etc. That is why the atonal music is mostly used in horror movies to evoke such atmospheres. Atonal music has great difficulties expressing uplifting emotions such as hope, joy, love, spirituality or beauty. So no, it is not more expressive. On the contrary, it is quite limited in its expressiveness.


I think he's saying just that we know have a much varied arsenal of things. I agree that atonality and serialism are not great to express uplifting emotions (altough I disagree about beauty), but composers in the twentieth century can use simple tonality, non functional harmony, quartal harmony, politonality, microtonalism, atonality, serialism, chromaticism, noise, modality, extended lush chords... and there are composers who have used a lot of those things. And besides harmony there have been a lot of explorations on rhythm, new instruments and colors, electric and electronic possibilities, sound effects, there are influences of other musical cultures... It means having more options, and music and art in general certainly is not just about expressing hope and joy or love. Expression of negative things is equally valid.
That said, to make an example a Takemitsu (I'm mentioning him just because I'm listening a lot to him these days) made music that uses a lot of instruments that aren't in the european tradition, his harmony often is not serialist or atonal but it's not even tonal, his use of space is something completely different from the music before the 20th century, and his work creates a totally unique soundworld.


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> then show me an example of such modern music (from composers like Lachenmann, Carter, Birtwistle, Boulez, Schoenberg, Scelsi, Xenakis etc). Again, I like their music and find it somewhat interesting and I like to listen to it from time to time, but I would not describe the music as beautiful or uplifting.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ Sorry Mandryka, but I don't hear "hope, joy, love, spirituality or beauty."


----------



## Jacck

I have listened to all the compositions by Mandryka and have to agree with Phil. I do like the music, but I would not describe the feelings it conjures in my as uplifting. It is simply strange music. But everybody is different and reacts to music in his own idiosyncratic ways.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ Sorry Mandryka, but I don't hear "hope, joy, love, spirituality or beauty."


So what do you conclude?

ws;.cmjws;.lvcslvnjsdlnjv


----------



## consuono

JAS said:


> That may be the worst advice about art and music that I have ever read. It sounds like the artistic equivalent of "beatings will continue until morale improves."


:lol: Exactly. When I hear "have an open mind and give it a chance" I know it's going to be glops of noise.


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> I have listened to all the compositions by Mandryka and have to agree with Phil. I do like the music, but I would not describe the feelings it conjures in my as uplifting..


What? Not even the Scelsi?


----------



## Jacck

Mandryka said:


> What? Not even the Scelsi?


I actually listened to the whole Scelsi (all 25 minutes) and found it rather disharmonic, dark and angry. All those low piano keys being bashed vigorously. There might have been some passages, which I would describe as beautiful, but as a whole, that is not how I would characterize the work.


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> I actually listened to the whole Scelsi (all 25 minutes) and found it rather disharmonic, dark and angry. All those low piano keys being bashed vigorously. There might have been some passages, which I would describe as beautiful,


Uplifting is what I was thinking of. I don't know what you mean by "disharmonic", I can't remember seeing the word before. Is this disharmonic?


----------



## Jacck

Mandryka said:


> Uplifting is what I was thinking of. I don't know what you mean by "disharmonic"


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/uplifting
"inspirational; offering or providing hope, encouragement, salvation, etc.:"

I havent felt anything like it. But I do think that the Scelsi is the best and most interesting of the works you posted. I actually do like the work a lot. I just do not experience it as uplifting (ie conjuring hope, inspiration etc)


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/uplifting
> "inspirational; offering or providing hope, encouragement, salvation, etc.:"
> 
> I havent felt anything like it. But I do think that the Scelsi is the best and most interesting of the works you posted. I actually do like the work a lot. I just do not experience it as uplifting (ie conjuring hope, inspiration etc)


I like the Xenakis most I think.

The Scelsi, by the way, is an improvisation. He used to improvise freely at the piano and pay someone to write it down!

The Boulez is just one short piece from a long sequence, and the whole thing always reminds me of Prokofiev's Visions Fugitives.


----------



## norman bates

Jacck said:


> I actually listened to the whole Scelsi (all 25 minutes) and found it rather disharmonic, dark and angry. All those low piano keys being bashed vigorously. There might have been some passages, which I would describe as beautiful, but as a whole, that is not how I would characterize the work.


can't dark and angry things be beautiful? For instance I think that Uaxuctum (talking of Scelsi, who is a composer I love) is incredibly fascinating, mysterious and atmospheric. There's a sense of sublime that actually, altough in a obviously different way, reminds me of the vast and terrible landscapes of the romantic painters of the 19th century like Caspar Friedrich, Bocklin or Peder Balke.
Probably a lot of fan of music before the twentieth century that are looking for form could not like it, but it's a music with a different perspective.


----------



## consuono

Jacck said:


> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/uplifting
> "inspirational; offering or providing hope, encouragement, salvation, etc.:"
> 
> I havent felt anything like it. But I do think that the Scelsi is the best and most interesting of the works you posted. I actually do like the work a lot. I just do not experience it as uplifting (ie conjuring hope, inspiration etc)


In most modern music I hear a too-self-conscious effort to sound as different from Common Practice as the composer feels comfortable with being. It doesn't sound "organic".


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mandryka said:


> So what do you conclude?
> 
> ws;.cmjws;.lvcslvnjsdlnjv


No conclusions from me. I think beauty is the most general of those, and I think atonal music could be beautiful if done well. I remember a discussion on a thread on Rochberg, who rejected serialism when his son died, which he felt couldn't express his anger and sadness. I recall the notion made that maybe only Rochberg was limited in his atonal expression, but I see it as something more. When you deal with Life and Death, it's a whole different matter than producing intellectually stimulating and interesting music. Here is a clip from some Naxos program notes. Notice they said he didn't abandon atonality, but when I listen to his stuff it sounds very tonal to me.

"But in 1961 the Rochbergs' seventeen-year-old son, Paul, fell ill with a brain tumour. He died three years later, throwing his father into despair. Confronted with his son's death, Rochberg struggled to give that tragedy some meaning through his music, but the serialism upon which his career had been built he now found empty and meaningless. It was a language that could not bear the weight of his sorrow. But while Rochberg rejected serialism, he did not reject the atonal composition out of which serialism had grown and which characterized its harmonic syntax. Instead, Rochberg began to construct his music out of both tonal and atonal languages. In so doing, he dramatically reinterpreted the notion of stylistic uniformity that had been a hallmark of the Western aesthetic since antiquity. He refused to abandon "past" musical styles, insisting that they continue to live - transformed by his individual artistry but recognizable nonetheless - in his new art. By including these diverse forms of music, Rochberg believed that he had expanded the emotional range that modern music was able to express. He had found a contemporary language that could both bear the weight of despair and point to transcendence, and, unlike either strict serialism or aleatoric composition, it was a language that was pointedly individualistic."


----------



## gregorx

Phil loves classical said:


> When you deal with Life and Death, it's a whole different matter than producing intellectually stimulating and interesting music. Here is a clip from some Naxos program notes. Notice they said he didn't abandon atonality, but when I listen to his stuff it sounds very tonal to me.
> 
> "...But while Rochberg rejected serialism, he did not reject the atonal composition out of which serialism had grown and which characterized its harmonic syntax. Instead, Rochberg began to construct his music out of both tonal and atonal languages. In so doing, he dramatically reinterpreted the notion of stylistic uniformity that had been a hallmark of the Western aesthetic since antiquity. He refused to abandon "past" musical styles, insisting that they continue to live - transformed by his individual artistry but recognizable nonetheless - in his new art. By including these diverse forms of music, Rochberg believed that he had expanded the emotional range that modern music was able to express. He had found a contemporary language that could both bear the weight of despair and point to transcendence, and, unlike either strict serialism or aleatoric composition, it was a language that was pointedly individualistic."


I agree with the point you have made. I'm not sure any of the composers previously mentioned upstream are trying to express the same emotions that other Periods were. With the Romantics, it wasn't enough to just be uplifting, inspirational, and pleasurable as the Classics were, you had to be exhilirating, amazing, falling to your knees and breaking down in tears. That's just not the world we live in today. To expect composers to stay in that would be asking a lot.

Been listening to Rochberg. I'd like to listen to a composition of the style described above, if you can recommend one. I think Wellesz did much the same thing with his music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

gregorx said:


> I agree with the point you have made. I'm not sure any of the composers previously mentioned upstream are trying to express the same emotions that other Periods were. With the Romantics, it wasn't enough to just be uplifting, inspirational, and pleasurable as the Classics were, you had to be exhilirating, amazing, falling to your knees and breaking down in tears. That's just not the world we live in today. To expect composers to stay in that would be asking a lot.
> 
> Been listening to Rochberg. I'd like to listen to a composition of the style described above, if you can recommend one. I think Wellesz did much the same thing with his music.


Rochberg's symphonies are almost Romantic to me, while his quartets are more atonal. I think some composers comparable to Rochberg may be Alan Rawsthorne and Malcolm Arnold. I'm surprised you think Wellesz is emotional. That's good if you do. Which work in particular? cuz he's Schoenberg's pupil.


----------



## hammeredklavier

There are lots of composers in the modern era that I would not consider as "classical music composers". It doesn't mean they're artistically inferior to classical music - it's just that they follow different philosophies from those of classical music, -they're as far removed from classical music as today's horror film music composers are. Putting everything from classical music to avant-garde music in the same camp is like putting heavy metal and jazz in the same camp. An inconvenient truth for some people, but it's not hard to see that insects and crustaceans aren't the same species.


----------



## Mandryka

gregorx said:


> I agree with the point you have made. I'm not sure any of the composers previously mentioned upstream are trying to express the same emotions that other Periods were. With the Romantics, it wasn't enough to just be uplifting, inspirational, and pleasurable as the Classics were, you had to be exhilirating, amazing, falling to your knees and breaking down in tears. That's just not the world we live in today. To expect composers to stay in that would be asking a lot. .


I think the conception of music as something which pushes the listener into a certain emotional state is very old fashioned, rather like the conception of a novel as something which makes the reader lose himself in a story with twists and turns.

Instead, contemporary music is more about inciting the listener to use his imagination.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> ...
> Instead, contemporary music is more about inciting the listener to use his imagination.


Which I guess is supposed to make up for the lack of imagination in the artist.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Which I guess is supposed to make up for the lack of imagination in the artist.


This jibe is completely out of kilter with the remarkable creative achievements in the 20th and 21stC imv. Imagination is an essential trait for a composer (in any period) and has taken on even greater significance with the emancipation and development of the language over the last 100 years or so.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> This jibe is completely out of kilter with the remarkable creative achievements in the 20th and 21stC imv. Imagination is an essential trait for a composer (in any period) and has taken on even greater significance with the emancipation and development of the language over the last 100 years or so.


"Emancipation" and "development" to do what? "Emancipation" FROM what? The history of "serious" music over the past 100 years is a history of decline. It's delusional to think otherwise.


----------



## mikeh375

never mind......


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> never mind......


From your own website:


> My aim is to communicate to as wide an audience as I can and so I have eschewed the dodecaphonic style and the permanent (some would say alienating) asymmetrical rhythm found in many contemporary works (but not before I dabbled with both of these parameters! ), in favour of a deeply personal harmonic approach to expression and structural function, allied with a willingness to always exploit any contrapuntal opportunities afforded by the material.


 Dodecaphonic music and asymmetrical rhythm are "emancipations", I suppose, which by your own tacit admission doesn't appeal to a wide audience, but the old contrapuntal chains might still.

The problem with the "emancipation" thing is that the greatest art has always worked within limits and boundaries. It's been disciplined. When boundaries are removed, confusion to some degree results. The same has happened to film and other visual arts.



> Having spent almost 30 years writing music for popular and immediate consumption, I am now on a journey of discovery to find out what I am capable of, wish me luck.


 Yes, good luck, sincerely.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> "Emancipation" and "development" to do what? "Emancipation" FROM what? The history of "serious" music over the past 100 years is a history of decline. It's delusional to think otherwise.


It can be 'emancipation to', not just 'from'. So, to answer the question, emancipation 'from' the narrow expectations of what classical music _should _be, 'to' what it _could _be. You might not like all the outcomes of that emancipation, but to conclude that the last 100 years has seen a decline is a gross inaccuracy.


----------



## mikeh375

> ..Consuono...
> From your own website:
> My aim is to communicate to as wide an audience as I can and so I have eschewed the dodecaphonic style and the permanent (some would say alienating) asymmetrical rhythm found in many contemporary works (but not before I dabbled with both of these parameters! ), in favour of a deeply personal harmonic approach to expression and structural function, allied with a willingness to always exploit any contrapuntal opportunities afforded by the material.
> Dodecaphonic music and asymmetrical rhythm are "emancipations", I suppose, which by your own tacit admission doesn't appeal to a wide audience, but the old contrapuntal chains might still.
> 
> The problem with the "emancipation" thing is that the greatest art has always worked within limits and boundaries. It's been disciplined. When boundaries are removed, confusion to some degree results. The same has happened to film and other visual arts.
> 
> Having spent almost 30 years writing music for popular and immediate consumption, I am now on a journey of discovery to find out what I am capable of, wish me luck.
> Yes, good luck, sincerely.


I personally am conservative and do believe in an expanded traditional approach but am also a great fan of contemporary work and especially the actual creative freedom one can experience in creating imaginative pieces, unencumbered by tradition. My own artistic aesthetics does not support your stance though and your interpretation of emancipation is in direct contradiction to the discipline required to work coherently and effectively in a more expanded field of sound. The "confusion" results from the fact that a new approach and paradigm is being taken, not because it is undisciplined as you seem to imply. There are always exceptions of course, but there is far more excellence in the period under discussion, excellence that easily rivals previous epochs - just in a different way.


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> It can be 'emancipation to', not just 'from'. So, to answer the question, emancipation 'from' the narrow expectations of what classical music _should _be, 'to' what it _could _be. You might not like all the outcomes of that emancipation, but to conclude that the last 100 years has seen a decline is a gross inaccuracy.


Which is why these "emancipated" works have to be tucked in with unemancipated ones in order to be heard by more than a dozen or so. Of course.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> The history of "serious" music over the past 100 years is a history of decline. It's delusional to think otherwise.


Decline of what?


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> I personally am conservative and do believe in an expanded traditional approach but am also a great fan of contemporary work and especially the actual creative freedom one can experience in creating imaginative pieces, unencumbered by tradition. My own artistic aesthetics does not support your stance though and your interpretation of emancipation is in direct contradiction to the discipline required to work coherently and effectively in a more expanded field of sound.


The problem is there's a dwindling few who actually think that, on the whole, "coherent and effective" describes most modern "serious music".
You say "unencumbered by tradition" but at the same time imply another encumbrance suggested by the "required discipline".


> The "confusion" results from the fact that a new approach and paradigm is being taken, not because it is undisciplined as you seem to imply. There are always exceptions of course, but there is far more excellence in the period under discussion, excellence that easily rivals previous epochs - just in a different way.


Really. So what would this different excellence be?


----------



## mikeh375

.....excellence in musicianship, technical prowess and invention and visionary creative imagination to put it all together would be one answer to your question. 
I'm not staying with you on this consuono, as detente will never be reached. At least we have Papa Bach in common.


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> It can be 'emancipation to', not just 'from'. So, to answer the question, emancipation 'from' the narrow expectations of what classical music _should _be, 'to' what it _could _be. You might not like all the outcomes of that emancipation, but to conclude that the last 100 years has seen a decline is a gross inaccuracy.


So...what _could_ it be, exactly, and how does that differ from what many of us expect it _should_ be? That sounds like playing a game in which I make the rules and set the terminology as I go along and then declare myself the clear winner when it's over.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> .....excellence in musicianship, technical prowess and invention and visionary creative imagination to put it all together would be one answer to your question. ...


That describes Common Practice, from which we've been emancipated.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> So...what _could_ it be, exactly, and how does that differ from what many of us expect it _should_ be? That sounds like playing a game in which I make the rules and set the terminology as I go along and then declare myself the clear winner when it's over.


I wouldn't play that game then. 

The problem would be that you point to something we might both agree is execrable, I might point to something we both agree is excellent. Without both having a legitimate survey of the output deemed classical of the past 100 years, we won't get very far.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Which is why these "emancipated" works have to be tucked in with unemancipated ones in order to be heard by more than a dozen or so. Of course.


Which emancipated works? I don't know what you are referring to.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> . . . Instead, contemporary music is more about inciting the listener to use his imagination.


I don't need any artist to incite me to use my imagination. I have one, and can use it on my own. When I use it, I am the creator of the product, and no one else. If an artist tells me to use my imagination, he or she gets none of the credit.


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> Rochberg's symphonies are almost Romantic to me, while his quartets are more atonal. I think some composers comparable to Rochberg may be Alan Rawsthorne and Malcolm Arnold. I'm surprised you think Wellesz is emotional. That's good if you do. Which work in particular? cuz he's Schoenberg's pupil.


I very much like Arnold's various Dance selections, but I find his symphonies generally tough going.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

How many days since that debate last appeared on talkclassical? 7? 10?
Could you at least stick to the original question (can atonal music be uplifting?, or something like that)?


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> So...what _could_ it be, exactly, .


Well, here's three things. It could use non standard sounds, sounds produced from instruments in ways which differ from c19 good practice, or sounds electronically produced. And it could be based on new scales, for example which are derived from the partials of a real note played by an instrument. It could explore new spatial arrangements, it could could create extremely complex textures which incite the imagination of the listener and provide new challenges for the musicians. And more . . .



consuono said:


> how does that differ from what many of us expect it _should_ be?


It would be potentially more expressive at least, and potentially more engaging, less rote, less predictable too.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> That describes Common Practice, from which we've been emancipated.


No, you're wrong about that. Common practice constituted a _limitation _of excellence in technical prowess and invention and visionary creative imagination because common practice is itself a constraining system.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> No, you're wrong about that. Common practice constituted a _limitation _of excellence in technical prowess and invention and visionary creative imagination because common practice is itself a constraining system.


To me, the constraint is to produce things that I actually want to listen to. I approve of such a constraint. (Not all constraints are necessarily bad. Food is constrained to what can actually be digested.)

I suspect that Consuono means "emancipated" in an ironic sense. Modern composers have been emancipated from the demand for melody, and the tyranny of the audience. This has ended a bit like the Roman victory at Masada.


----------



## JAS

Kilgore Trout said:


> How many days since that debate last appeared on talkclassical? 7? 10? . . .


That might be a new record.



Kilgore Trout said:


> Could you at least stick to the original question (can atonal music be uplifting?, or something like that)?


In theory, I suppose it might be possible. I don't know of any such examples. (There is, of course, uplifting in a purely energizing sense, and uplifting more in the sense of satisfying or encouraging.) It must also be admitted that such responses may be very individual, and many examples of atonal music that people have ardently insisted are "beautiful" left me cold. (That is not to suggest that their response is invalid, just that it is personal, and not necessarily widely shared.)


----------



## Fabulin

Most "art composers" (in the millionrainbows sense) by definition in the recent decades have composed against common taste, and so against common practice, and then they and colleagues would point to listeners who do react positively to that music as a "proof" of it being good music. This is Texas sharpshooter fallacy in assessment of musical excellence.


----------



## gregorx

Phil loves classical said:


> Rochberg's symphonies are almost Romantic to me, while his quartets are more atonal. I think some composers comparable to Rochberg may be Alan Rawsthorne and Malcolm Arnold. I'm surprised you think Wellesz is emotional. That's good if you do. Which work in particular? cuz he's Schoenberg's pupil.


I was refering to Wellesz combining tonal and atonal elements in his music, not any attempt to add an overt emotional context. Wellesz was Schoenberg's pupil, but he left Europe for English academia and was eventually denounced by his teacher. Probably as a melodist or something.

But the OP's contention that the goal of Modernists was to strip all beauty out of music and replace it with "lifeless notes" is a reactionary view that has caught on in some circles. And an absurd one. Simply proclaiming " but, but, Schoenberg!" misses the point. 20th C. composers were rejecting the over-wrought Romantacism that had gone well over the top by the end of the 19th C. and become stagnant. It's not difficult to understand why the Industrial Revolution, two World Wars, the atomic bomb and the computer age (not to mention other musical forms like Jazz) changed musical expression in Western Art Music. Nice to have the old music, but I for one am glad they're not making that stuff anymore.


----------



## annaw

gregorx said:


> I was refering to Wellesz combining tonal and atonal elements in his music, not any attempt to add an overt emotional context. Wellesz was Schoenberg's pupil, but he left Europe for English academia and was eventually denounced by his teacher. Probably as a melodist or something.
> 
> But the OP's contention that the goal of Modernists was to strip all beauty out of music and replace it with "lifeless notes" is a reactionary view that has caught on in some circles. And an absurd one. Simply proclaiming " but, but, Schoenberg!" misses the point. 20th C. composers were rejecting the over-wrought Romantacism that had gone well over the top by the end of the 19th C. and become stagnant. It's not difficult to understand why the Industrial Revolution, two World Wars, the atomic bomb and the computer age (not to mention other musical forms like Jazz) changed musical expression in Western Art Music. Nice to have the old music, but I for one am glad they're not making that stuff anymore.


I'm just going to drop in for a moment to make this one post. I have absolutely nothing against contemporary music or post-Schoenberg atonal music. There're many gems for sure. The only question is that are we quite sure that the lack of purely tonal classical music, like the one that's been composed for centuries until the 20th, isn't among the reasons why classical music is losing popularity? Again, I'm not saying that contemporary classical music is somehow worse, but lots of it is simply much more difficult to approach for a random person not acquainted with classical music. When Beethoven, Mozart, or Brahms composed, their music had to appeal immediately because many people wouldn't hear it ever again. Now, if I took a random person who has never heard any classical and played him a fully atonal Xenakis piece, would the person be convinced in the greatness of classical music? Maybe a few would, but majority probably not. Not because it's less great than, say, Beethoven's 7th but simply because an untrained human ear is not used to hearing such music and is not trained to hear its greatness. It took me lots of "training" to get used to atonal music but that's possible only thanks to streaming and youtube, neither of which were available when Beethoven lived and had to write music which appealed immediately and secured his popularity. His popularity doesn't make me doubt in his genius. The people who'd say that Beethoven was a simpleton who lacked erudition and intellectuality are probably in minority.

I started thinking about it when there was a thread in the opera subforum about the current situation of opera as an art form: there're no Great singers like those in the previous century and there're also no new popular operas. When was the last time someone wrote an opera which became a part of the standard repertoire, like Verdi's or Wagner's operas? That wasn't very recently. It doesn't mean that new operas aren't being composed but they aren't necessarily as approachable as the Classical, Romantic or early 20th century operas. An art form has to be constantly progressing and changing to ensure it stays alive through appealing to its audience who will ensure its popularity. It's of no use if the artist appealed only to himself and the already existent audience.

I see no reason to be surprised opera seems to be taking its last breaths, if the new music that's being composed is not approachable to _most_ (sure, there're exceptions) people who are not already acquainted with classical music. What classical music has to do to stay alive, is to bring in new audience, not educate the already existent one. To do that, there needs to be just a larger variety of music - both tonal and atonal. The current situation seems to be dominated by atonal music which, despite all its greatness and genius, is often intellectually over-the-top for a classical music newcomer or for a person who has never heard classical music.

This post is not anti-contemporary/anti-atonal nor is it pro-tonal, but I feel that the atonal contemporary music needs to be accompanied by tonal music if we want contemporary classical music to be something more than music which appeals only to a small group of people.


----------



## JAS

^^^ I will note that it is also not approachable to many/most of us who _are_ already acquainted with classical music. (Am I capable of appreciating modern trends? Possibly. Is it what I want? No.) Other than that, I agree with your overall point.


----------



## Mandryka

annaw said:


> When Beethoven, Mozart, or Brahms composed, their music had to appeal immediately because many people wouldn't hear it ever again.


Just very quickly, I'm between meetings and I haven't had time to reflect on all you've said, but I'm pretty sure this immediate appeal wasn't true for Brahms and (at least) later Beethoven. Brahms has always been very divisive.

(Oh, and as someone who's been exploring Stockhausen's Licht operas recently, I'm not so sure I agree with you about opera!)


----------



## Kilgore Trout

annaw said:


> I'm just going to drop in for a moment to make this one post. I have absolutely nothing against contemporary music or post-Schoenberg atonal music. There're many gems for sure. The only question is that are we quite sure that the lack of purely tonal classical music, like the one that's been composed for centuries until the 20th, isn't among the reasons why classical music is losing popularity? Again, I'm not saying that contemporary classical music is somehow worse, but lots of it is simply much more difficult to approach for a random person not acquainted with classical music. When Beethoven, Mozart, or Brahms composed, their music had to appeal immediately because many people wouldn't hear it ever again. Now, if I took a random person who has never heard any classical and played him a fully atonal Xenakis piece, would the person be convinced in the greatness of classical music? Maybe a few would, but majority probably not. Not because it's less great than, say, Beethoven's 7th but simply because an untrained human ear is not used to hearing such music and is not trained to hear its greatness. It took me lots of "training" to get used to atonal music but that's possible only thanks to streaming and youtube, neither of which were available when Beethoven lived and had to write music which appealed immediately and secured his popularity. His popularity doesn't make me doubt in his genius. The people who'd say that Beethoven was a simpleton who lacked erudition and intellectuality are probably in minority.


Your analysis doesn't take into consideration the social transformations of the post-Second world war, and its consequences on music. Classical music (and its variations) is not the only music anymore in the occidental world like it was until around 1920, and that changes the game completely. Composers had their part in the present situation, but mainly because they thought they could go against all these transformations and somehow win in the end. They could be writing tonal music (some of them do), that wouldn't change much, they've already lost the game.
Do you want tonal music? 99 % of music played in the world right now is tonal, but it's not classical music (or music coming from the classical music tradition).

PS: Your argument about streaming and youtube have no real historic basis. Contemporary music was a kind of music that high classes were still interested in in the 60's and 70's. It isn't anymore, because popular music have taken all the place.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> There are lots of composers in the modern era that I would not consider as "classical music composers". It doesn't mean they're artistically inferior to classical music - it's just that they follow different philosophies from those of classical music, -they're as far removed from classical music as today's horror film music composers are. Putting everything from classical music to avant-garde music in the same camp is like putting heavy metal and jazz in the same camp. An inconvenient truth for some people, but it's not hard to see that insects and crustaceans aren't the same species.





consuono said:


> "Emancipation" and "development" to do what? "Emancipation" FROM what? The history of "serious" music over the past 100 years is a history of decline. It's delusional to think otherwise.


As I understand Classical Music was always about development and exploring boundaries. The definition of "serious music" is very sketchy and subjective. I find Brahms hard to take seriously, as some big names also do (which I never fail to mention). But he pushed the boundaries as Schoenberg said. I've heard some Classical period fans say the Romantic period is over-the-top (which I felt before myself). It's the same sort of outlook at 20th C and contemporary music. Newer music will always infringe on the sensibilities of older aesthetics. Goal posts will always shift. They have since the Middle Ages. This is my PRO perspective.

My CON perspective is Classical music has become less emotional, as the thread was getting into for a bit. What is pleasant is not always up for debate. My cat for some reason always comes when I (try to) play Ravel and Debussy on piano, but stays away with Bartok.


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> Which emancipated works? I don't know what you are referring to.


The ones that open for Beethoven or Brahms symphonies on orchestral programs to ensure that somebody will at least hear them.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> The ones that open for Beethoven or Brahms symphonies on orchestral programs to ensure that somebody will at least hear them.


So, the ones that also belong to the classical tradition if the definition is any music programmed for a CM concert by venues that offer CM concerts?

BTW, how literally do we take your 100 years? Anything produced by any CM composer since 1920 represents a deterioration of CM?


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> *To me, the constraint is to produce things that I actually want to listen to. *I approve of such a constraint. (Not all constraints are necessarily bad. Food is constrained to what can actually be digested.)
> 
> I suspect that Consuono means "emancipated" in an ironic sense. *Modern composers have been emancipated from the demand for melody, and the tyranny of the audience. *This has ended a bit like the Roman victory at Masada.


To me, I have no right to place any constraint on a composer of music, but that they want to compose it. However, if we all take an _entirely _personal perspective, we will make no progress!

'Modern' composers is too vague. Do you mean only those who compose in a 'modern' idiom (whatever that might be)? Or do you mean any one who has composed during the 'modern' period?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Phil loves classical said:


> As I understand Classical Music was always about development and exploring boundaries. The definition of "serious music" is very sketchy and subjective. I find Brahms hard to take seriously, as some big names also do (which I never fail to mention).


What about Brahms' music do you have lacking that you can't take him seriously? His best music is as good as anyone's.


----------



## JAS

MacLeod said:


> To me, I have no right to place any constraint on a composer of music, but that they want to compose it. However, if we all take an _entirely _personal perspective, we will make no progress!


To the extent that I am the audience, I have every right to demand such restraints. (If a composer, or any artist, is not interested in an audience, the creator of the product can do as he or she pleases, but should not complain about a lack of appreciation or financial reward.) I am not interested in "progress" as an inherent good of its own. (And talk about a vague term. Like "reform," the word is too often used to convey a favorable sense imposed on unfavorable outcomes.)



MacLeod said:


> 'Modern' composers is too vague. Do you mean only those who compose in a 'modern' idiom (whatever that might be)? Or do you mean any one who has composed during the 'modern' period?


In this context, I mostly mean composers active during the period since tonality has been considered a kind of unwanted shackle.


----------



## JAS

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> What about Brahms' music do you have lacking that you can't take him seriously? His best music is as good as anyone's.


And outside of something like the Academic Festival Overture, it seems pretty serious to me.


----------



## Andante Largo

In 20th century music, I appreciate works from the first half of the 20th century that have romantic roots, which are, in a way, the last edition of romanticism in music.

Here is a list of my 30 favorites such works (limited to a maximum of two per composer):


Castelnuovo-Tedesco - Violin Concerto No. 2 ("I Profeti"), Op. 66 (1931)
Castelnuovo-Tedesco - Cello Concerto in F major, Op. 72 (1935)
Delius - The Walk To the Paradise Garden (1901)
Delius - Double Concerto, for violin, cello & orchestra (1916)
Gernsheim - Cello Concerto in E minor (1907)
Gernsheim - Violin Concerto No.2 in F major (1914)
Graener - Symphonietta, for strings & harp, Op. 27 (1905)
Graener - Wiener Sinfonie, for orchestra, Op. 110 (1941)
Howells - Elegy, for viola, string quartet & string orchestra (1917)
Howells - Music for a Prince, for orchestra (1948)
Karłowicz - Lithuanian Rhapsody, symphonic poem for orchestra, Op. 11 (1906)
Karłowicz - Sorrowful Tale, symphonic poem for orchestra, Op. 13 (1908)
Melartin - Sleeping Beauty Suite, Op. 22 (1904)
Noskowski - Symphony No. 3 in F major, "From Spring to Spring" (1903)
Perosi - Suite No. 2 'Venezia' (1906)
Perosi - Piano Concerto (1916)
Peterson-Berger - Symphony No. 3 in F major (1915) 
Peterson-Berger - Earina Suite for orchestra (1917)
Reger - Romantic Suite for orchestra, Op. 125 (1912)
Respighi - Suite in G major, P.58 (1905)
Respighi - Poema autunnale (1925)
Różycki - Mona Lisa Gioconda, Op.29 (1911)
Różycki - Piano Concerto No. 1 in G minor, Op. 43 (1918)
Sibelius - Violin Concerto in D minor, Op. 47 (1905)
Sibelius - Symphony No. 7 in C major, Op. 105 (1924)
Stenhammar - Two Sentimental Romances, Op. 28 (1910)
Stenhammar - Serenade for orchestra in F major, Op. 31 (1913)
Vaughan Williams - The Lark Ascending (1914)
Żeleński - Piano Concerto in E flat major, Op. 60 (1903)
Żeleński - Piano Quartet in C minor, Op. 61 (1907)


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> To the extent that I am the audience, I have every right to demand such restraints. (If a composer, or any artist, is not interested in an audience, the creator of the product can do as he or she pleases, but should not complain about a lack of appreciation or financial reward.) I am not interested in "progress" as an inherent good of its own. (And talk about a vague term. Like "reform," the word is too often used to convey a favorable sense imposed on unfavorable outcomes.)


No, no, I just mean this discussion will make no progress


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> As I understand Classical Music was always about development and exploring boundaries. The definition of "serious music" is very sketchy and subjective. I find Brahms hard to take seriously, *as some big names also do* (which I never fail to mention).


Who are the other 'big names' who fail to take Brahms seriously, may I ask?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Let's compare George Lloyd and Iannis Xenakis.

It seems reasonable for me to choose to listen to Lloyd or to listen to Xenakis, or both or neither (- for me, it's generally neither). That's my choice, based on my taste. It also seem reasonable for me to criticise Lloyd's music, so long as I do so by addressing it in its own terms. The same is true for Xenakis.

What is not, in my mind, reasonable is to criticise Lloyd in terms which are appropriate for Xenakis, or vice versa. To criticise Lloyd's music because you require that music written at the time he was writing should be more "progressive", or to criticise Xenakis' music because it does not follow the norms of strict tonality (say) would be pointless. In reality that sort of criticism is just dressing up one's own preferences as though they are more objective than that.

To the extent that I am going to get off the fence regarding the original question (What is so great about the 20th century's music?), I would only express the opinion that no one has the right to define 20th century music beyond the natural sense of the words (- music composed in the 20th century). Lloyd wrote 20th century music, as did Xenakis. If you want to exclude Lloyd (on the basis it was too old fashioned) or Xenakis (on the basis that you think it is barely music at all!), then define your terms appropriately.

To answer the question, by the way, what is great about 20th century music is (perhaps) its variety.


----------



## Mandryka

Ex,ms x. Sum:sxmmsnxn


----------



## JAS

MacLeod said:


> No, no, I just mean this discussion will make no progress


This discussion will never make progress unless both sides agree to separate. But "modern" wants to keep the house, the car and the kids. (And the funding to support them, without really earning anything like the majority of the income.)


----------



## Phil loves classical

DavidA said:


> Who are the other 'big names' who fail to take Brahms seriously, may I ask?


Uh, oh. I'm regretting mentioning it again. Britten, Tchaikovsky. Just let me tuck tail and run.


----------



## JAS

Andante Largo said:


> In 20th century music, I appreciate works from the first half of the 20th century that have romantic roots, which are, in a way, the last edition of romanticism in music. . . .


The items on your list that I know make me want to look into those I don't know. Thanks for the list (a copy of which I have saved)


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> Uh, oh. I'm regretting mentioning it again. Britten, Tchaikovsky. Just let me tuck tail and run.


Brahms and Tchaikovsky didn't like each other's music but they got on OK when they met apparently:

https://theimaginativeconservative....ocrity-tchaikovsky-brahms-richard-nilsen.html

As for Britten...........


----------



## annaw

Kilgore Trout said:


> Your analysis doesn't take into consideration the social transformations of the post-Second world war, and its consequences on music. Classical music (and its variations) is not the only music anymore in the occidental world like it was until around 1920, and that changes the game completely.


How does that change the game? Europe was full of folk music which was certainly not considered classical, at least not back then. Of course, our era is the era of globalisation but I don't see why that should be the reason classical music should lose some of its universal appeal. There's a reason why pop music is so popular. Post-1920 there were still Sibelius, Strauss, and Mahler. It's a question of composing tradition, not so much of the era.



> Composers had their part in the present situation, but mainly because they thought they could go against all these transformations and somehow win in the end. They could be writing tonal music (some of them do), that wouldn't change much, they've already lost the game.
> Do you want tonal music? 99 % of music played in the world right now is tonal, but it's not classical music (or music coming from the classical music tradition).


Indeed, indeed, some of them do and they don't seem to be losing. Pärt and Williams are the two most performed living composers. Phew, I'm half Estonian and you say to me that Pärt is losing :devil:. What is there to lose, anyway?



> PS: Your argument about streaming and youtube have no real historic basis. Contemporary music was a kind of music that high classes were still interested in in the 60's and 70's. It isn't anymore, because popular music have taken all the place.


This was not at all the point I was making. I can listen to dozens of different Wagner Ring cycle recordings wherever and whenever. In the 19th century, I might have managed to listen to it only a few times during my lifetime. Wagner had to ensure that one or two listens were enough. To get used to atonal music, I had to listen to it repeatedly before I started liking it. If I was able to listen to it once or twice, I doubt I would have gotten used to it, which could be entirely my own problem but considering the controversy, I don't think I'm the only person who finds lots of it more difficult to approach.

Again. I have ABSOLUTELY nothing against atonal music. Why is it so bad to say that it might help to increase classical music's popularity a bit, if _in addition_ to atonal music, contemporary composers would compose a bit more tonal as well? I'm not naive and I don't believe CM will ever be as popular as it was a few centuries ago but it also shouldn't make people constantly ask "is classical music dying?"


----------



## Andante Largo

Eclectic Al said:


> To answer the question, by the way, what is great about 20th century music is (perhaps) its variety.


If you find a gold coin in the trash can, it does not mean that the variety of the contents of the trash can is an advantage.


----------



## annaw

Andante Largo said:


> If you find a gold coin in the trash can, it does not mean that the variety of the contents of the trash can is an advantage.


20th century is far from a trash can, though. In my opinion, at least. There were many great composers and, as EA says, lots of variety. I think there could be a bit more variety in the 21st century as well.


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> So, the ones that also belong to the classical tradition if the definition is any music programmed for a CM concert by venues that offer CM concerts?


Which tradition do most audience members want to hear? Or rather, which tradition do most audience members avoid like the plague? I'd say it's the (largely) cacophonous sounds of "progress". But then of course there is the rejoinder that there are some composers writing melodic, tonal things, and that's true...which makes the "modern era" rather overly-eclectic and characterless. I just don't find much interesting in the new music over the past 50 years or so, and I've tried to get it. Sorry, but I don't, and I know I'm not alone in that.



> BTW, how literally do we take your 100 years? Anything produced by any CM composer since 1920 represents a deterioration of CM?


I quoted the "100 years" from some other comment. I stated that in terms of composition, those 100 years were a time of decline. Prove me wrong.


----------



## norman bates

Andante Largo said:


> If you find a gold coin in the trash can, it does not mean that the variety of the contents of the trash can is an advantage.


but the trash can in case has a huge amount of gold coins.
That's why in a quite recent poll here on TalkClassical if I remember correctly the 20th century was the one with most preferences.


----------



## norman bates

consuono said:


> I quoted the "100 years" from some other comment. I stated that in terms of composition, those 100 years were a time of decline. Prove me wrong.


how can someone prove your tastes wrong? It's not possible. But the fact that the 20th century was the preferred century here, on a board of classical music fans tells that there a lot of us like it very much, and appreciate its variety huge of rhythms, harmonies, melodies, sounds, and different approaches, not to mention a lot of amazing music. You're free to think that the last one was a century of decline; the majority of classical music lovers here think that, even with its excesses and normal presence of bad stuff it was an amazing period of creativity and wonderful music.


----------



## consuono

annaw said:


> ... I'm not naive and I don't believe CM will ever be as popular as it was a few centuries ago but it also shouldn't make people constantly ask "is classical music dying?"


Classical music _ performance _ is certainly not dying. In fact, with armies of brilliant young performers on just about any instrument you can think of, today might be a sort of Golden Age in that regard. In terms of actually _creating_ fresh and engaging music I do think CM is dying, if not dead. My own theory is that common practice reached such a plateau -- especially with the "Big Three" -- that everything that followed was a reaction to them, either emulating them or trying to be as different from them as possible...a sort of "reactionary progressivism" mishmash. It could just be that in western music the creative wells are exhausted and dry in terms of new music. I think the same thing can be seen in pop.


----------



## annaw

consuono said:


> I quoted the "100 years" from some other comment. I stated that in terms of composition, those 100 years were a time of decline. Prove me wrong.


I cannot answer for MacLeod but... Strauss, Mahler, Sibelius, Nielsen, Janacek, Zemlinsky, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Martinu, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Villa-Lobos, Orff, Puccini, Mascagni, Korngold, Messiaen, Britten, Elgar, Lutosławski...just to name a few.


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> how can someone prove your tastes wrong? It's not possible. But the fact that the 20th century was the preferred century here, on a board of classical music fans tells that there a lot of us like it very much, and appreciate its variety huge of rhythms, harmonies, melodies, sounds, and different approaches, not to mention a lot of amazing music. You're free to think that the last one was a century of decline; the majority of classical music lovers here think that, even with its excesses and normal presence of bad stuff it was an amazing period of creativity and wonderful music.


One can make absolutely no judgement about the general popularity or merit of music based on a poll here at TC. I say with some confidence that we have a disproportionate number of members who like/enjoy/appreciate very modern music. Indeed, that seems to be why many of them _are_ active here.

As you state, it is not really possible to prove someone's tastes as being wrong, but likewise it is not possible to prove them as being right.


----------



## consuono

norman bates said:


> ...You're free to think that the last one was a century of decline; the majority of classical music lovers here think that, even with its excesses and normal presence of bad stuff it was an amazing period of creativity and wonderful music.


I wonder which era and which composers sell the best, which ones still are foremost when it comes to the tastes of performers and listeners. I really don't know, but my hunch is it wouldn't be "art music" from, say, 1920 onward, regardless of what the tastes on this particular forum are.


----------



## consuono

annaw said:


> I cannot answer for MacLeod but... Strauss, Mahler, Sibelius, Nielsen, Janacek, Zemlinsky, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Martinu, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Villa-Lobos, Orff, Puccini, Mascagni, Korngold, Messiaen, Britten, Elgar, Lutosławski...just to name a few.


Great. Now do the last 50 years. Then 25. Then 10. Most of the ones on your list are children of the 19th century.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> I quoted the "100 years" from some other comment. I stated that in terms of composition, those 100 years were a time of decline. Prove me wrong.


So let me take something which I love and you tell me why it's an example of a decline. I'll chose something short and chamber sized. That way I may get to understand your position better. Richard Barrett's Ne songe plus à fuire. If you're not familiar with it it's here


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> One can make absolutely no judgement about the general popularity or merit of music based on a poll here at TC. I say with some confidence that we have a disproportionate number of members who like/enjoy/appreciate very modern music. Indeed, that seems to be why many of them _are_ active here.
> 
> As you state, it is not really possible to prove someone's tastes as being wrong, but likewise it is not possible to prove them as being right.


yes I agree. It's just that I found funny the "prove it!" like any list would make any difference.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> So let me take something which I love and you tell me why it's an example of a decline. I'll chose something short and chamber sized. That way I may get to understand your position better. Richard Barrett's Ne songe plus à fuire. If you're not familiar with it it's here


Here's decline in three videos:


----------



## Phil loves classical

annaw said:


> Again. I have ABSOLUTELY nothing against atonal music. Why is it so bad to say that it might help to increase classical music's popularity a bit, if _in addition_ to atonal music, contemporary composers would compose a bit more tonal as well? I'm not naive and I don't believe CM will ever be as popular as it was a few centuries ago but it also shouldn't make people constantly ask "is classical music dying?"


There is some more tonal contemporary music, like Part and Rautavaara, but it doesn't have the respect as the atonal, more edgy stuff. It can't be all that original, since they've already mined tonality to the max in the last century, so people would generally prefer the older stuff, and wouldn't really give the new stuff the same respect. So it's a bit of a dichotomy as I see it. Either cutting edge stuff or the old stuff.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Here's decline in three videos:


I know that's your opinion, what I don't understand is what it's based on. Can you explain please?


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> I know that's your opinion, what I don't understand is what it's based on. Can you explain please?


It's based on my hearing.



norman bates said:


> yes I agree. It's just that I found funny the "prove it!" like any list would make any difference.


When I'm told that my feeling that the past 100 musical years has been a decline is a "gross inaccuracy" I would expect some evidence to show that. Seems reasonable enough.


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> There is some more tonal contemporary music, like Part and Rautavaara, but it doesn't have the respect as the atonal, more edgy stuff. It can't be all that original, since they've already mined tonality to the max in the last century, so people would generally prefer the older stuff, and wouldn't really give the new stuff the same respect. So it's a bit of a dichotomy as I see it. Either cutting edge stuff or the old stuff.


Tonality is only "mined to the max" if you wanted it to go somewhere else. It is this undue emphasis on doing something substantially "new" that has gotten us into a mess, in my opinion.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> It's based on my hearing.


Am I right to think that when you say that the quality of music has declined what you mean is that when you listen, you like newer stuff less than older stuff?


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> It's based on my hearing.
> 
> When I'm told that my feeling that the past 100 musical years has been a decline is a "gross inaccuracy" I would expect some evidence to show that. Seems reasonable enough.


IMO Ne songe plus a fuire an example of the evidence you're looking for.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> There is some more tonal contemporary music, like Part and Rautavaara, but it doesn't have the respect as the atonal, more edgy stuff. It can't be all that original, since they've already mined tonality to the max in the last century, so people would generally prefer the older stuff, and wouldn't really give the new stuff the same respect. So it's a bit of a dichotomy as I see it. Either cutting edge stuff or the old stuff.


"Atonality" and "edgy" isn't really original anymore either. It's passé. And why is "original" the standard anyway?


----------



## annaw

consuono said:


> Great. Now do the last 50 years. Then 25. Then 10. Most of the ones on your list are children of the 19th century.


Yes, but much of their music (excluding Mahler) was composed and influenced by the 20th century world. I still think it would be better to talk about composing traditions rather than centuries. Sibelius is on the late-Romantic side for example. Anyway, my point is that 20th century as a whole was one of great compositional climaxes.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Why isn't Ne songe plus a fuire an example of evidence?


Evidence of what? That this "music" is great genius and deeply moving? It's noise. If you like it, great. All 5 or 6 of you can like it. There's your "evidence".


----------



## Guest

My hearing tells me that there is much 20th C music that is as good as what went before. QED.


----------



## consuono

annaw said:


> Yes, but much of their music (excluding Mahler) was composed and influenced by the 20th century world. I still think it would be better to talk about composing traditions rather than centuries. Sibelius is on the late-Romantic side for example. Anyway, my point is that 20th century as a whole was one of great compositional climaxes.


No, a lot of them like Stravinsky and Prokofiev helped MAKE the 20th century. As I said, now do 50, then 25, then 10.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Evidence of what? That this "music" is great genius and deeply moving? It's noise. If you like it, great. All 5 or 6 of you can like it. There's your "evidence".


Now I'm confused. Is it a question of numbers? Are you saying that the decline consists in the fact that, for example, there are more people who appreciate and enjoy older music than recent music?


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> My hearing tells me that there is much 20th C music that is as good as what went before. QED.


My hearing tells me that the modern example is a joke compared to the first Bach cello suite. Most hearing would agree.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> As I said, now do 50, then 25, then 10.


Cage, Stockhausen, too hard to do 10.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> My hearing tells me that the modern example is a joke compared to the first Bach cello suite. Most hearing would agree.


So now the decline is from Bach onwards?


----------



## norman bates

consuono said:


> I wonder which era and which composers sell the best, which ones still are foremost when it comes to the tastes of performers and listeners. I really don't know, but my hunch is it wouldn't be "art music" from, say, 1920 onward, regardless of what the tastes on this particular forum are.


Who cares. Taylor Swift sells probably more than Bach, Mozart and Beethoven combined.
If your point is that a lot of classical music in the 20th century (well, especially in the period of serialism) is inaccessible: absolutely true. That doesn't says anything about quality. There's accessible music that is beautiful and amazing, and accessible music that is terrible. But it's the same with difficult music and art in general. There are excesses, there's stuff that is bad, pretentious or forgettable and there are masterpieces. Volume of sales and accessibility in itself (exactly as what I said about the poll above, onestly) can't be the only way to judge the value of music. 
I'm sure that there are much more people who know and listen to Eine kleine nachtmusic, Pachelbel's canon or Fur Elise than the Art of the fugue, the last quartets of Beethoven or Tristan und Isolde for the very same reason (inaccessibility) you're using against modern music in the 20th century.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Now I'm confused. Is it a question of numbers? Are you saying that the decline consists in the fact that, for example, there are more people who appreciate and enjoy older music than recent music?


Not simply numbers, although I was told that the many modern music fans on this forum spoke to the overwhelming vitality of modern music. I don't think you're confused at all. I think praising stuff like you posted is de rigueur for demonstrating the degree of one's "enlightenment". It's praising the naked emperor's new clothes.


----------



## Eclectic Al

annaw said:


> Yes, but much of their music (excluding Mahler) was composed and influenced by the 20th century world. I still think it would be better to talk about composing traditions rather than centuries. Sibelius is on the late-Romantic side for example. Anyway, my point is that 20th century as a whole was one of great compositional climaxes.


Indeed: the key word is "tradition".
I want to listen to music which communicates to me from within a tradition, potentially by extending it in new directions, and I am not convinced that the ability to carry on doing this will ever be mined out. The tradition provides me with the context, within which I can appreciate the inspiration.

Aiming for originality for its own sake seems likely to sacrifice more than it gains. It's a bit like asking me to read a book which is written in a new invented language. I might get something from it (say if I can see some patterns in the way it is formed), but I am likely to get much more out of something written in a language which I understand, or an evolution of such a language. My enjoyment is likely to be much less deep with an original invented language, as a key element of communication with the author has been lost.


----------



## consuono

> Who cares. Taylor Swift sells probably more than Bach, Mozart and Beethoven combined.


So NOW numbers don't matter...


----------



## Kilgore Trout

annaw said:


> How does that change the game? Europe was full of folk music which was certainly not considered classical, at least not back then.Of course, our era is the era of globalisation but I don't see why that should be the reason classical music should lose some of its universal appeal. There's a reason why pop music is so popular. Post-1920 there were still Sibelius, Strauss, and Mahler. It's a question of composing tradition, not so much of the era.
> Indeed, indeed, some of them do and they don't seem to be losing. Pärt and Williams are the two most performed living composers. Phew, I'm half Estonian and you say to me that Pärt is losing :devil:. What is there to lose, anyway?


Cultural and economical hegemony. 
Folk music is completely different to modern popular music. By the end of the 19th century, folk music had pretty much no cultural or economic existence. But even before that, a lot of what was popular in the 18th and 19th centuries was derived from classical music. Famous arias were sung in cafes. All the girls from bourgeois condition learned to play the piano and sing. Classical music was played at every party, by the partygoer themselves, who knew to play instruments and read music. Classical music was the one and only music with any real symbolic, cultural and economic existence.
The emergence of popular music was concomitant to the rise of the middle class, and relegated classical music to a the statut of a hobby for the elites. It still had a symbolic power until the 1970's, but this power started to disparear when the cultural elites were almost completely replaced by economical elites, and when the high middle classes stopped to try to live like the higher class.
The classical music audience is just, today, an audience among different audiences with different economic interests and different culturel interests. The pretention to universality and higher purpose that classical music used to bear has no place in a world like that. If you make tonal music, you're just pandering to a specific audience. If you to attempt to continue the tradition of musical "progress", you're writting music for nobody.
It's simply not the same world, and you can't expect a composer to have the same place in it as Beethoven or Brahms or Mahler, whatever music he writes.



annaw said:


> This was not at all the point I was making. I can listen to dozens of different Wagner Ring cycle recordings wherever and whenever. In the 19th century, I might have managed to listen to it only a few times during my lifetime. Wagner had to ensure that one or two listens were enough.


He didn't try to ensure anything. Wagner's music was heavily controversial in his times, like the music of many others before him. You act like the music written by the great names was immediately accepted. It was not.
On another hand, my point was to say that in the 60's and 70's, streaming and youtube didn't exist. Yet, a lot people were able to understand atonal music on the first listen, mainly because of their cultural background (sure, there were records, but there weren't as easily available as today).



annaw said:


> Again. I have ABSOLUTELY nothing against atonal music. Why is it so bad to say that it might help to increase classical music's popularity a bit, if _in addition_ to atonal music, contemporary composers would compose a bit more tonal as well?


But plenty of composers write tonal music today. I would say that around 80 % of contemporary music written in America today is tonal (even if it's not the same tonality as Beethoven). Every year, more than half the new music played at the London Prom's is tonal. It is only in France, Germany and Italy that you'll find big die-hard avant-garde strongholds, but even in these countries you'll find plenty of tonal composers.


----------



## annaw

Kilgore Trout said:


> Cultural and economical hegemony.
> Folk music is completely different to modern popular music. By the end of the 19th century, folk music had pretty much no cultural or economic existence. But even before that, a lot of what was popular in the 18th and 19th centuries was derived from classical music. Famous arias were sung in cafes. All the girls from bourgeois condition learned to play the piano and sing. Classical music was played at every party, by the partygoer themselves, who knew to play instruments and read music. Classical music was the one and only music with any real symbolic, cultural and economic existence.


European culture is so multifaceted that we cannot make any effective generalisations here. Folk music has had a much greater impact than what you seem to describe. Bourgeois was only a part of the society; your average peasant probably didn't know almost anything about classical music. Almost whole European nations where enslaved and in a condition where playing piano was probably very low on the priority list. Drinking and working songs accompanied daily activities and became what we now call folk songs. People had no access to more expensive classical instruments and couldn't even read or write, not to mention understand a score. National identity of many European nations was preserved through different forms of art, folk songs among them. Folk music in Estonia had an _immense_ cultural and national impact in the 20th century. I'd say that religious music was very impactful as well and had a great cultural existence because it was accessible for arguably more people. Saying that CM was the only real form of music seems inaccurate to me.



> On another hand, my point was to say that in the 60's and 70's, streaming and youtube didn't exist. Yet, a lot people were able to understand atonal music on the first listen, mainly because of their cultural background (sure, there were records, but there weren't as easily available as today).


Thanks for an elaboration. I get your point now.



> But plenty of composers write tonal music today. I would say that around 80 % of contemporary music written in America today is tonal (even if it's not the same tonality as Beethoven). Every year, more than half the new music played at the London Prom's is tonal. It is only in France, Germany and Italy that you'll find big die-hard avant-garde strongholds, but even in these countries you'll find plenty of tonal composers.


That's an interesting point. I have to think a bit about the matter.


----------



## Coach G

I like 20th Century classical music. Apart from the heavy-hitters, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven; and just a bit of Vivaldi and Handel; there's not much Baroque/Classical I listen to on a regular basis. Composers such as Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn and Chopin, are OK, but I'm generally not much for the really pretty and beautiful sounds of the high Romantic era. I guess my diet is really big on Late Romantic through the Early Modern era with some post-World War II mixed in; and I'm pretty much open to all the styles involved; the tonal composers such as Shsotakovich, Britten and Barber; the real "Americana:" composers such as Copland, Virgil Thomson, and William Schuman (min you, not all of them were composing Americana all the time). I'm also open to the serial composers such as Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Sessions and Dallapiccola, and other far-out composers such as Cage.


----------



## norman bates

consuono said:


> So NOW numbers don't matter...


it didn't matter even when I told you about the preferences of the users of this board, I saw you like to use the argument of numbers and popularity and I used it against what you were saying. Still it doesn't matter, that comment was more about showing the fallacy of the argument of popularity. But at least you can see that a lot of people here who are great fans of classical music, that sometimes are even musicians or composers themselves have a different point of view, since you were talking like the decline of classical music in the 20th century like it's a obvious thing to anybody who knows a bit of the genre.


----------



## JAS

We seem to be setting a great deal of stock in the conflict of tonal and atonal, as if that is the only characteristic of interest in the music. It may be a convenient dividing point, but it is certainly possible, I think, to write unappealing tonal music. The broader question is whether it is equally possible to write atonal music with a similar base of appeal. (Obviously. defenders of the more modern trends will say "yes," basing the idea of appeal on their own ideas.) Of course, we also get into trouble when the cry is that melody or beauty has died. It is interesting to me that we can probably all hear the often stark differences between the various forms, but find it so difficult to put a name on it. (It is almost as if it does not want to be named.)


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> We seem to be setting a great deal of stock in the conflict of tonal and atonal, as if that is the only characteristic of interest in the music. It may be a convenient dividing point, but it is certainly possible, I think, to write unappealing tonal music. The broader question is whether it is equally possible to write atonal music with a similar base of appeal


Personally I think that atonality in itself has a narrower scope in terms of expressivity. For those who said that atonality can't express joy or hope or uplifting emotions... I tend to agree with it (I even opened a thread exactly about that years ago). 
But I think it should be considered as an addiction to the possibilities of music, instead of something against tonality. The problem is that history has brought this vision of "tonal vs atonal" instead of "great, we have another expressive tool". It's seen more as instrument of power, that's the main problem.
That said, 20th century's music innovations went well beyond harmony (rhyhtm, sound, even new perspectives on what music is and what it can do). And in harmony itself, well beyond atonality. A lot of modal music for instance sounds completely different from the music of the renaissance/medieval period. Extended harmonies, polytonality, quartal harmonies, microtonality etc were explored in many ways (and need further explorations too).


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> Personally I think that atonality in itself has a narrower scope in terms of expressivity. For those who said that atonality can't express joy or hope or uplifting emotions... I tend to agree with it (I even opened a thread exactly about that years ago).
> But I think it should be considered as an addiction to the possibilities of music, instead of something against tonality. The problem is that history has brought this vision of "tonal vs atonal" instead of "great, we have another expressive tool". It's seen more as instrument of power, that's the main problem.
> That said, 20th century's music innovations went well beyond harmony (rhyhtm, sound, even new perspectives on what music is and what it can do). And in harmony itself, well beyond atonality. A lot of modal music for instance sounds completely different from the music of the renaissance/medieval period. Extended harmonies, polytonality, quartal harmonies, microtonality etc were explored in many ways (and need further explorations too).


I think we have a similar impression of the music, just very different reactions to it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Andante Largo said:


> If you find a gold coin in the trash can, it does not mean that the variety of the contents of the trash can is an advantage.


Every period of music has a big trash can. Much more trash than gold.


----------



## Phil loves classical

JAS said:


> Tonality is only "mined to the max" if you wanted it to go somewhere else. It is this undue emphasis on doing something substantially "new" that has gotten us into a mess, in my opinion.


You mean making new tunes are never-ending. True, but some people feel what is the point? Film music already does that.



consuono said:


> "Atonality" and "edgy" isn't really original anymore either. It's passé. And why is "original" the standard anyway?


Atonality is not new, but edginess will always be by definition, as in timbres/rhythms and stuff more recently. "Original" only as in breaking new ground in what *can be* a meaningful way. Just being different is not enough. I think of it as progression for Art and Mankind, to avoid stagnation. I agree enjoyment could be very different. I also do question how big these steps are lately in timbre and rhythm exploration compared to what's already been achieved before the last few decades, since there is something given away in return. But I still admire the progress nonetheless.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Not simply numbers,


Am I right to think that in your opinion things have declined for two reasons?

1. Not many people like recent music like Ne songe plus a fuire.

And

2. You personally don't like to hear that sort of thing.


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> . . . True, but some people feel what is the point?


Exactly my reaction to most modern forms of music.


----------



## Jacck

Phil loves classical said:


> You mean making new tunes are never-ending. True, but some people feel what is the point? Film music already does that..


yes, but film music are not symphonies. I would love if Jerry Goldsmith has produced symphonies out of his sountracks. So much talent lost to silly cinema, because tonality was pushed out of academia by the atonalist junta


----------



## Phil loves classical

Jacck said:


> yes, but film music are not symphonies. I would love if Jerry Goldsmith has produced symphonies out of his sountracks. So much talent lost to silly cinema, because tonality was pushed out of academia by the atonalist junta


Ever try Rautavaara's Symphony 7, or Pavlova's Symphony 3? Or Howard Shore's LOTR symphony? Pleasant enough, but I prefer the stuff by Martinu, Tubin, Arnold, Nielsen which are more edgy within tonal music.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Jacck said:


> tonality was pushed out of academia by the atonalist junta


Very likely to be true.

It's not only in music that academia has descended into being a collection of echo chambers, where all that matters is getting papers published, and the only way to do that is to write stuff which is sympathetic to the views (and past publication history) of those on the editorial boards.

As soon as something becomes received wisdom in an academic field then not much good accrues to someone who ploughs a different path.


----------



## Jacck

Eclectic Al said:


> Very likely to be true.
> 
> It's not only in music that academia has descended into being a collection of echo chambers, where all that matters is getting papers published, and the only way to do that is to write stuff which is sympathetic to the views (and past publication history) of those on the editorial boards.
> 
> As soon as something becomes received wisdom in an academic field then not much good accrues to someone who ploughs a different path.


if you want to have some fun, read this
https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0310/0310368.pdf


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> tonality was pushed out of academia by the atonalist junta


Strangely enough last night I was listening to three pieces of what sounded like tonal music by academics, one by James Weeks, one by Antoine Beuger and one by Helmut Lachenmann. Or rather, I think they have academic connections - certainly Weeks and Lachenmann. So I guess what you say can't be true any more. The Beuger, _Un lieu pour faire sonner l'éternité_, is really special!


----------



## Jacck

Mandryka said:


> Strangely enough last night I was listening to two pieces of tonal music by academics, one by James Weeks and one by Helmut Lachenmann. So I guess what you say can't be true any more.


I dont know about now, I was rather thinking of the 1950's, where atonality was the new fad and who did not jump on the bandwagon was sidelined. This led to the disruption of long lasting musical traditions. Musicians who wrote in the old style were derided as outmoded and their work was ignored etc. This was the real damage by the atonalists. Nowadays it is likely not as extreme, but the tradition is no longer there.


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> I dont know about now, I was rather thinking of the 1950's, where atonality was the new fad and who did not jump on the bandwagon was sidelined. This led to the disruption of long lasting musical traditions. Musicians who wrote in the old style were derided as outmoded and their work was ignored etc. This was the real damage by the atonalists. Nowadays it is likely not as extreme, but the tradition is no longer there.


Yes I've heard it said, I don't know how true it is. The trios in Stockhausen's Klang are tonal, for example, and there's also Cage's Harmonies from the Apartment House, and of course Howard Skempton's music. That's without thinking too hard.

But yes, on reflection these are after the 1950s, I'd have to think about the music just after the war.


----------



## mikeh375

Jacck said:


> tonality was pushed out of academia by the atonalist junta


This attitude was prevalent at my Alma Mater Jacck. The thing is, (and with hindsight), it's not bad for a young composer to be exposed to expanded techniques like this that go beyond common practice, in fact, it is essential for growth. A composer with the right attitude to such things will always remain intact if tonality is preferred and maybe his/hers expressive palette will be all the richer for having explored more open fields.

One needs the journey in order to arrive at the destination.


----------



## Mandryka

I was always under the impression that experimental composers were rejected by the staid American university system of the 1950s and 1960s, and hence Cage, Babbitt, Feldman and Carter all found more concert work and commissions in Germany than in the USA. Generally in Europe there was a major cultural shift around 1968 which made the climate more open to new ideas, and more distrustful of old ones, especially in universities. 

However by this time "atonal" = serial music was already an old idea. It was one of the ideas the European avant garde avoided.


----------



## hammeredklavier

norman bates said:


> Who cares. Taylor Swift sells probably more than Bach, Mozart and Beethoven combined.
> I'm sure that there are much more people who know and listen to Eine kleine nachtmusic, Pachelbel's canon or Fur Elise than the Art of the fugue, the last quartets of Beethoven or Tristan und Isolde for the very same reason (inaccessibility) you're using against modern music in the 20th century.


None of the pieces you mentioned were written with the mindset "noise is also music", "who cares if you listen". 
Good thing that you mentioned artists of other genres like Taylor Swift -- Just like jazz, heavy metal, rock and stuff, classical music and contemporary music are separate genres. Scott Joplin also composed operas, used folk music elements, yet he's not considered a classical music composer. The same logic applies to contemporary music.
Classical art and contemporary art are categorized separately in visual arts and literature. But why not in music?


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> Classical art and contemporary art are categorized separately in visual art and literature. But why not in music?


Because many contemporary avant garde composers are just working with techniques already established in mainstream music -- spacialisation in Berlioz and Gabrieli; unspecified durations in Louis Couperin and other French writers of unmeasured music; variation where the motif is very hidden in Beethoven; independence from tonal constraints of rhythm, melody, and other elements in Machaut, Wagner.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Am I right to think that in your opinion things have declined for two reasons?
> 
> 1. Not many people like recent music like Ne songe plus a fuire.
> 
> And
> 
> 2. You personally don't like to hear that sort of thing.


Tell me why it's a good piece and worthy of study. Show me the score, go measure by measure (if it has measures) and demonstrate its excellence and craftsmanship. I can do that with Art of Fugue or Mozart or Beethoven or a Chopin nocturne. You just throw up some noise and say that you love it, with the tacit understanding that if anyone doesn't -- if anyone dares to point out that it's just noise -- then it means they're just small-minded and hey, music-is-music-and-it's-all-good-because-"subjective". I think that's been part of the modern-music con game for quite a while now.


----------



## Mandryka

One thing that's interesting to me in Ne songe plus à fuire is the glissandos, as far as I know the way Richard Barrett uses glissandos is wholly original and I like it very much musically. Also interesting for me is the way it seems _essentially_ a cello piece - the musical ideas come from the nature of the instrument. I can't think of a piece of music which is more radically cello.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> Because many contemporary avant garde composers are just working with techniques already established in mainstream music -- spacialisation in Berlioz and Gabrieli; unspecified durations in Louis Couperin and other French writers of unmeasured music; variation where the motif is very hidden in Beethoven; independence from tonal constraints of rhythm, melody, and other elements in Machaut, Wagner.


This is similar to claiming that I can write something as good as anything by Mozart just because I might use C major. Trivial comparisons do not make substantial similarities. There is little point in arguing something that our own ears tell us clearly is not so.


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> Trivial comparisons do not make substantial similarities.


Oh, you are mistaken I think, these are substantial similarities!


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> Oh, you are mistaken I think, these are substantial similarities!


Perhaps you (and a few others), but not me (and many, many others). And I have the advantage of being able to run a test with actual people, and not producing the results you suggest.


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> Perhaps you (and a few others), but not me (and many, many others). And I have the advantage of being able to run a test with actual people, and not producing the results you suggest.


I suspect there is no real difference between us, it's just that what you see as substantial I see as surface, superficial; and what you see as insignificant I see as fundamental.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> I suspect there is no real difference between us, it's just that what you see as substantial I see as surface, superficial; and what you see as insignificant I see as fundamental.


To me, that sounds like a major difference . . . . and there we are, with no resolution to close the gap.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> Tell me why it's a good piece and worthy of study. Show me the score, go measure by measure (if it has measures) and demonstrate its excellence and craftsmanship. I can do that with Art of Fugue or Mozart or Beethoven or a Chopin nocturne. You just throw up some noise and say that you love it, with the tacit understanding that if anyone doesn't -- if anyone dares to point out that it's just noise -- then it means they're just small-minded and hey, music-is-music-and-it's-all-good-because-"subjective". I think that's been part of the modern-music con game for quite a while now.


One thing I noticed with Contemporary Classical Music like "Ne songe plus a fuire" is the rhythms have caught up and some like Ferneyhough have exceeded those in Oriental Classical music improvisation. Now the accelerations and decelerations, with abrupt and intricate changes in rhythms, meter can replicate on paper what was innate through experience and improvised in Oriental Classical. Also the timbres now have a much larger variety since the early 20th century.


----------



## Open Lane

Heh, i don't understand why you seem to put your own tastes over others. I like a lot of the music you memlntioned liking... and i like a lot of the stuff you do not. Why should anyone care what you think? I'm not going to get nasty but you need to realize, musical taste is subjective.


----------



## consuono

Open Lane said:


> Heh, i don't understand why you seem to put your own tastes over others. I like a lot of the music you memlntioned liking... and i like a lot of the stuff you do not. Why should anyone care what you think? ...


They shouldn't, I guess, but the fact that a comment gets the New Music Evangelists riled up shows that somebody does. Meh, it's an online forum. Why should I care what YOU think?


----------



## Prodromides

consuono said:


> Tell me why it's a good piece and worthy of study. Show me the score, go measure by measure (if it has measures) and demonstrate its excellence and craftsmanship ... I think that's been part of the modern-music con game for quite a while now.


*Dialoghi* (1960) is a superlative specimen of serial compositon/12-tone techniques. Below is a link to a digital file on the 75-page manuscript by Luigi Dallapiccola. This is not my favorite opus by Dallapiccola, but overall I place Dallapiccola within my favorite Top 20 composers.

https://archives.nyphil.org/index.p...060-72fd45474655-0.1/fullview#page/1/mode/2up

The booklet notes accompanying the Stradivarius CD containing a recording of *Dialoghi* goes into highly detailed analysis on how well this piece is constructed and demonstrates its symmetrical design.

This music probably won't lift the listener into heavenly aspirations full of hope for a better world tomorrow, but it's certainly mathematically complex enough not to be merely a 'con game'.


----------



## consuono

^ I can understand the craftsmanship and logic behind 12-tone/serial composition. It still seems cold and sterile to me. I used to be a big fan of Webern's transcription of Bach's 6 part ricercar until I realized that Webern had essentially destroyed the work by cutting up the melodic lines.


----------



## Open Lane

consuono said:


> They shouldn't, I guess, but the fact that a comment gets the New Music Evangelists riled up shows that somebody does. Meh, it's an online forum. Why should I care what YOU think?


You do have a point.


----------



## tdc

Just thinking about the comment some pages back about music is not about evoking emotions, but the imagination. For one thing, why should those two things be mutually exclusive?

Taken further, there are some individuals who are incapable of feeling strong emotions (people with mental conditions, sociopathy etc.) I remember reading that at times sociopaths will practice mimicking common facial reactions expressing different emotional states in the mirror, as they are incapable of experiencing those genuine feelings themselves.

Actually in this light this particular philosophy in relation to some post modern approaches to music makes sense to me. The music seems a kind of reflection of post modern thought.


----------



## tdc

The above doesn't mean I think all newer music is bad. I love much 20th century music. That Takemitsu piece in post #197 sounds great.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> The history of "serious" music over the past 100 years is a history of decline. It's delusional to think otherwise.





consuono said:


> When I'm told that my feeling that the past 100 musical years has been a decline is a "gross inaccuracy" I would expect some evidence to show that. Seems reasonable enough.


Seems reasonable enough that instead of demanding evidence to contradict your assertion, you provide some evidence in support of it.

It also seems reasonable to me that you post without your provocative 'delusional'. Unless, of course, provoking is all you're about, in which case, your assertion about 'decline' can be taken with a pinch of salt. Given that some posters are now trying to oblige by offering 'evidence' - a mission doomed to failure - I'm inclined to think that is precisely your purpose.


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> Seems reasonable enough that instead of demanding evidence to contradict your assertion, you provide some evidence in support of it.
> 
> It also seems reasonable to me that you post without your provocative 'delusional'. Unless, of course, provoking is all you're about, in which case, your assertion about 'decline' can be taken with a pinch of salt.


Imagining that we're in the midst of a sort of eternal boom in the area of "art music" composition is delusional. Which is an *opinion*, and yours can be taken with the same pinches of salt, right?


> Given that some posters are now trying to oblige by offering 'evidence' - a mission doomed to failure - I'm inclined to think that is precisely your purpose.


I haven't seen much evidence, and more to the point I haven't heard it. You're right: expecting what isn't there is doomed to failure. Now cue another reference to Sibelius or Strauss.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Prodromides said:


> The booklet notes accompanying the Stradivarius CD containing a recording of *Dialoghi* goes into highly detailed analysis on how well this piece is constructed and demonstrates its symmetrical design.


But this not an argument in favor of anything. This is a technocratic idea, that if it's carefully constructed music, it's good music. Yet a perfectly constructed piece can sounds like ****. It's just paper work and basic mathematics. What matters is how the underlining construction is carried in the actual sound world that is available to the listener.


----------



## consuono

Kilgore Trout said:


> But this not an argument in favor of anything. This is a technocratic idea, that if it's carefully constructed music, it's good music. Yet a perfectly constructed piece can sounds like ****. It's just paper work and basic mathematics. What matters is how the underlining construction is carried in the actual sound world that is available to the listener.


Don't be silly. It's EVIDENCE, dontchaknow.


----------



## Eclectic Al

tdc said:


> Just thinking about the comment some pages back about music is not about evoking emotions, but the imagination. For one thing, why should those two things be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Taken further, there are some individuals who are incapable of feeling strong emotions (people with mental conditions, sociopathy etc.) I remember reading that at times sociopaths will practice mimicking common facial reactions expressing different emotional states in the mirror, as they are incapable of experiencing those genuine feelings themselves.
> 
> Actually in this light this particular philosophy in relation to some post modern approaches to music makes sense to me. The music seems a kind of reflection of post modern thought.


Yes. I suppose emotions or imagination - evoking either would be a good outcome from listening to a piece of music.

For me, as I have grown older, much of my favourite music has become that which creates the sense that order is being restored in my mind - Bach, Haydn, Brahms. That does not preclude emotion, but it's about an emotion which is rooted in order - stabilising not destabilising. The avant-garde stuff I've heard rarely (if ever) gives me that sense of stabilising and restoring order to my mental state - more the reverse.

When you talk about sociopaths, you bring to mind a thought I was having, which is that some music primarily communicates ineffably, whereas other music seems often to end up with advocates resorting to writing down in words why it is so interesting or well-constructed or whatever. The bias towards a piece of music being dependent on there being a written explanation of what it is about fits beautifully with the idea that it has become part of an academic discourse about theories of music, rather than a thing in itself. The piece of music has shifted from being something which non-specialists can simply appreciate without any resort to a theory, and has become part of an argument about what music is - a means to an end within a discussion between music theorists, if you like. This does feel post-modern.

Take the earlier cello piece. A non-specialist will imagine that a cello has evolved over centuries as a musical instrument where if you manipulate it in a certain way you can generate attractive sounds. This interacts with compositional and performance traditions, which use the instrument in that way. An avant-garde person will think, aha, but we can also manipulate it in different ways and make other sounds - and those sounds are no less valid - who is to tell me that the traditional sounds are attractive? It could be regarded as music to smash the cello - because I say so. Well that's fine as part of a post-modern discussion about the nature of music - but I'd rather hear the instrument used in a way which is the "natural" evolution of the process whereby the instrument and the sounds have evolved hand-in-hand. The cello is what it is precisely in order to make normal cello sounds.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

consuono said:


> Don't be silly. It's EVIDENCE, dontchaknow.


Well, we're still waiting for your evidence that "The history of "serious" music over the past 100 years is a history of decline".


----------



## Prodromides

Kilgore Trout said:


> But this not an argument in favor of anything. This is a technocratic idea, that if it's carefully constructed music, it's good music. Yet a perfectly constructed piece can sounds like ****. It's just paper work and basic mathematics. What matters is how the underlining construction is carried in the actual sound world that is available to the listener.


Yeah, my post is not an argument, per se - it is a response to 'consuono' asking "show me the score" and to demonstrate a work worthy of study and its craftsmanship. My mind thought 1st of this piece because I recall the album notes offering such demonstration.

After consuono's reply, though, it seems rather that melodic lines and 'soul' are being sought ... and not so much craftmanship.
Apparently, composers are charlatans and their musics are parlour tricks if there are no hummable melodies to uplift listeners.
However, one doesn't search for Lord Byron poetry in Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialism, does one?


----------



## annaw

Kilgore Trout said:


> But this not an argument in favor of anything. This is a technocratic idea, that if it's carefully constructed music, it's good music. Yet a perfectly constructed piece can sounds like ****. It's just paper work and basic mathematics. What matters is how the underlining construction is carried in the actual sound world that is available to the listener.


The rejection of conventional compositional forms requires lots of attention. Very clearly outlined symphonic sonata form enabled the Classical composers write one good symphony after another. The form itself was relatively good. Schoenberg was an extremely talented composer and I think would have made a great late Romantic. Schoenberg's atonal music is high-quality because his 12-tone technique was thoroughly thought-through. What's a bit problematic with contemporary music is that the composers sometimes look as if they felt that they could get away with anything because it's "modern". I'm relatively convinced that Schoenberg had the talent to compose some utterly wonderful tonal music and modernity wasn't a way to hide his compositional downsides which it sometimes seems to have become. Therefore, I appreciate the composers who have put lots of thought into structuring their pieces if they have rejected the conventional forms.


----------



## mikeh375

annaw said:


> The rejection of conventional compositional forms requires lots of attention. Very clearly outlined symphonic sonata form enabled the Classical composers write one good symphony after another. The form itself was relatively good. Schoenberg was an extremely talented composer and I think would have made a great late Romantic. Schoenberg's atonal music is high-quality because his 12-tone technique was thoroughly thought-through. What's a bit problematic with contemporary music is that the composers sometimes look as if they felt that they could get away with anything because it's "modern". I'm relatively convinced that Schoenberg had the talent to compose some utterly wonderful tonal music and modernity wasn't a way to hide his compositional downsides which it sometimes seems to have become. Therefore, I appreciate the composers who have put lots of thought into structuring their pieces if they have rejected the conventional forms.


There is no doubt that suspicions of a lack of sincerity can be a problem for the listener when all familiar musical signposts have been subjected to expansion. Rhythm too is a problem, more so than the vertical when it comes to comprehension imv because its unifying trait , its sense of regularity, is lost in many contemporary scores.

Even though a complete breakdown of metric regularity is not something I naturally gravitate to in my own music, I see this liberation from the bar line as a particularly powerful adjunct to the composers arsenal and expressive reach. I do also acknowledge how alienating it can be.


----------



## norman bates

Eclectic Al said:


> Yes. I suppose emotions or imagination - evoking either would be a good outcome from listening to a piece of music.
> 
> For me, as I have grown older, much of my favourite music has become that which creates the sense that order is being restored in my mind - Bach, Haydn, Brahms. That does not preclude emotion, but it's about an emotion which is rooted in order - stabilising not destabilising. The avant-garde stuff I've heard rarely (if ever) gives me that sense of stabilising and restoring order to my mental state - more the reverse.


this is an interesting point and I like it more than the superficial "common practice music better than modern music". And I think you're right.
Altough I think that some neoclassical music does that, like this masterpiece:






I get that neoclassical to some means conservative, but clearly a piece like this above could not have existed in the 18th century.

It must be said in any case that there's space in art (and cinema, literature, architecture) for destabilising things. I get that it's stuff that doesn't "heal" or gives comfort, but still it has its place and merit.


----------



## Mandryka

Eclectic Al said:


> For me, as I have grown older, much of my favourite music has become that which creates the sense that order is being restored in my mind - Bach, Haydn, Brahms. That does not preclude emotion, but it's about an emotion which is rooted in order - stabilising not destabilising.


I feel the opposite, what I enjoy is the feeling that the music is so complex that there's much more going on that I can ever grasp, that each time I revisit I will discover something new and surprising. That's why I like polyphonic music, which is very much in the modern style.

This piece by Philippe Manoury is an example








Eclectic Al said:


> . The avant-garde stuff I've heard rarely (if ever) gives me that sense of stabilising and restoring order to my mental state - more the reverse.


Have you heard this?

Manfred Beuger's Un Lieu Pour Faire Sonner L'éternité, it's listenable here

https://www.cafeoto.co.uk/shop/chants-irene-kurka/


----------



## Mandryka

annaw said:


> Therefore, I appreciate the composers who have put lots of thought into structuring their pieces if they have rejected the conventional forms.


Do you enjoy Debussy's Jeux? Or is it too much of a cavalier rejection of conventional forms for you? I just note in passing that the Manoury I posted above is a Passacaille I guess -- can't get more conventional than a Passacaille!


----------



## consuono

Prodromides said:


> Yeah, my post is not an argument, per se - it is a response to 'consuono' asking "show me the score" and to demonstrate a work worthy of study and its craftsmanship. My mind thought 1st of this piece because I recall the album notes offering such demonstration.
> 
> After consuono's reply, though, it seems rather that melodic lines and 'soul' are being sought ... and not so much craftmanship.


Who says they're mutually exclusive?


> Apparently, composers are charlatans and their musics are parlour tricks if there are no hummable melodies to uplift listeners.


No, the "charlatans" (and I don't think they're conscious charlatans at all) are those who dress up globs of noise in the traditional trappings of notation and terminology and say that it's "music". Like the following, for example, which someone posted in another thread a while back. If anything, this is anti-music. I don't get the impression that "composing" such requires a lot of skill and craftsmanship. Just knowledge of notation and terminology, meter etc...and a keyboard.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> I don't get the impression that "composing" such requires a lot of skill and craftsmanship. Just knowledge of notation and terminology, meter etc...and a keyboard.


Well impressions _can_ be deceiving, she's a PhD with a "glob" of prestigious awards. Her musical provenance alone should tell you, whether you like the music or not, that it's her expression and it's a valid one, as valid as any other and created by a serious artist. Her music is the result of hard graft and conviction... and skill and craftsmanship.

If you don't like it fine, but why cast aspersions towards her ability when she is admirably qualified?


----------



## JAS

mikeh375 said:


> Well impressions _can_ be deceiving, she's a PhD with a "glob" of prestigious awards. Her musical provenance alone should tell you, whether you like the music or not, that it's her expression and it's a valid one, as valid as any other and created by a serious artist. Her music is the result of hard graft and conviction.


And a perfectly valid response to her creations is "that is terrible noise, make it go away."

Edit: My initial "like" to consuono's post was before that part was added, but I share the response that selection generates.


----------



## mikeh375

JAS said:


> And a perfectly valid response to her creations is "that is terrible noise, make it go away."


.
...well we _could_ do this all day.


----------



## JAS

mikeh375 said:


> .
> ...well we could do this all day.


Indeed. But the real point is that no one who creates a product to be consumed by others gets a presumption of special status once the work has actually been experienced. The work stands or fails on its own.


----------



## mikeh375

^^ I agree JAS. That's not my line of posting though. It's one thing not to like a work, but quite another to attack the composer, indirectly or not. I'm not the decorum police though, but if I where, some would be consigned to 5 years hard 21stC listening....


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> Well impressions _can_ be deceiving, she's a PhD with a "glob" of prestigious awards. Her musical provenance alone should tell you, whether you like the music or not, that it's her expression and it's a valid one, as valid as any other and created by a serious artist. Her music is the result of hard graft and conviction... and skill and craftsmanship.
> 
> If you don't like it fine, but why cast aspersions towards her ability when she is admirably qualified?


Qualifications are shown through the product, not someone's c.v. I couldn't care less what degrees she has. How many did Mozart have?

By the way I had to chuckle at the "hard graft" typo.


----------



## JAS

mikeh375 said:


> ^^ I agree JAS. That's not my line of posting though. It's one thing not to like a work, but quite another to attack the composer, indirectly or not. I'm not the decorum police though, but if I where, some would be consigned to 5 years hard 21stC listening....


Is any negative comment necessarily an attack on the composer? The difficulty in creating a work of this kind is absolutely impossible for me to determine as a listener. Even if it could be determined, it makes no difference to me if it was hard to create, or easy; the result is the same. If a composer cannot take the heat of criticism, then he or she is in the wrong profession. Rebecca Saunders may be the brightest and nicest person I have never met, but if this is a fair representation of the kind of music she writes, it is, to me, simply terrible and without redeeming value. I am under no obligation to pretend otherwise.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Who says they're mutually exclusive?
> I don't get the impression that "composing" such requires a lot of skill and craftsmanship. Just knowledge of notation and terminology, meter etc...and a keyboard.


You're wrong. There's quite a long analysis of the craftsmanship in _Crimson _here, for example.

http://125.234.102.146:8080/dspace/...transformations_of_musical_modernism_2016.pdf


----------



## mikeh375

JAS said:


> Is any negative comment necessarily an attack on the composer? The difficulty in creating a work of this kind is absolutely impossible for me to determine as a listener. Even if it could be determined, it makes no difference to me if it was hard to create, or easy; the result is the same. If a composer cannot take the heat of criticism, then he or she is in the wrong profession.


...taking the heat is part of it for sure. Ignorant statements that cast aspersions on provenance, even sincerity are careless and unnecessary imv.


----------



## JAS

mikeh375 said:


> ...taking the heat is part of it for sure. Ignorant statements that cast aspersions on provenance, even sincerity are careless and unnecessary imv.


They are part of the casual response one must expect. Usually, they are an attempt to explain what to them is inexplicable; namely why anyone would create something of this sort. To me, the only line might be to call the composer a terrible person for making it. We really don't know anything about these composers from their works, other than that they seem to have accepted some ideas that we might consider utterly baseless in terms of application in our own world. It is why I have often referred to this kind of music as "academic music," written by and for academics. But that too has been criticized as being dismissive.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Qualifications are shown through the product, not someone's c.v. I couldn't care less what degrees she has. How many did Mozart have?
> 
> *By the way I had to chuckle at the "hard graft" typo.*


......that's what it takes to get to a high level. Mozart would tell you the same.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> ...taking the heat is part of it for sure. Ignorant statements that cast aspersions on provenance, even sincerity are careless and unnecessary imv.


What do you mean "provenance"? I think she's utterly sincere. And I think the music of hers that I've heard is utterly and sincerely bad. That's my prerogative, if not "provenance". So this stuff is written by Ph.Ds for Ph.Ds? There's the problem.


Mandryka said:


> You're wrong. There's quite a long analysis of the craftsmanship in Crimson here, for example.


I downloaded it but it's 366 pages of faculty notes covering various topics. You'll have to point it out to me.


----------



## mikeh375

Mandryka said:


> You're wrong. There's quite a long analysis of the craftsmanship in _Crimson _here, for example.
> 
> http://125.234.102.146:8080/dspace/...transformations_of_musical_modernism_2016.pdf


Mandryka, thanks for this, it looks good. I'll have a read of it for sure.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> I downloaded it but it's 366 pages of faculty notes covering various topics. You'll have to point it out to me.


In Arnold Whittall's paper, page 60 ff


----------



## consuono

JAS said:


> ...It is why I have often referred to this kind of music as "academic music," written by and for academics. But that too has been criticized as being dismissive.


I think that's exactly what it is. "Who Cares if You Listen?"


----------



## JAS

At a glance, this book is the stuff of rich parodies. It is exactly why academia is so often mocked by the masses, and not entirely without justification. To those who have not drunk the Koolaid, it is word soup, an amazing conglomeration of words arranged in the semblance of sentences and paragraphs, but ultimately meaning nothing at all. (Some of the historical and contextual details might not be without value.) Even if it were the most insightful analysis in the history of such efforts, it could not overcome the reaction to actually hearing the music.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^ there's the internet for you....sigh. Why not just leave experts to their thing then, I mean it's not meaningless to some. You've just come across as a hater of expertise, which I never had you down as. Every composer you love was an expert.


----------



## JAS

I am not a hater of expertise. (Indeed, I am a great admirer of expertise, well applied.) I am a hater of pretension, and self important nonsense. There may be all of these in this book. Academia is full of such stuff, as I am fully aware of from more personal experience in the world of literary studies.


----------



## consuono

JAS said:


> At a glance, this book is the stuff of rich parodies. It is exactly why academia is so often mocked by the masses, and not entirely without justification. To those who have not drunk the Koolaid, it is word soup, an amazing conglomeration of words arranged in the semblance of sentences and paragraphs, but ultimately meaning nothing at all. (Some of the historical and contextual details might not be without value.) Even if it were the most insightful analysis in the history of such efforts, it could not overcome the reaction to actually hearing the music.


"Transformations of Appearance: Suddenness and the Modernist Fragment".

Why do the titles of so many academic papers have the form of "First Statement: Next Statement Reinforcing First Statement"? 
Like, " 'I Do Not Like Green Eggs and Ham' : Societal and Individual Influences and Constraints on Dietary Inhibition and Self-Expression".


----------



## annaw

Mandryka said:


> Do you enjoy Debussy's Jeux? Or is it too much of a cavalier rejection of conventional forms for you? I just note in passing that the Manoury I posted above is a Passacaille I guess -- can't get more conventional than a Passacaille!


I have nothing against the rejection of conventional forms. I'm an ardent Wagnerite after all. What I'm saying is that _when_ they are rejected, the piece shouldn't be reduced to some total randomness. _Jeux_ is a ballet and a skilful composer like Debussy probably tried to follow a certain programme. Programme itself keeps it from being just random.

I simply don't see the rejection of tradition always justified. Schoenberg justified it. His friend Kandinsky did as well. Just saying "it's modern and abstract" doesn't give me any insight into what role the modernity and abstractness have in conveying the message of the work. Abstractness has to be handled carefully and with great skill. I love Kandinsky because of that - one of the greatest examples of an immensely effective and powerful use of abstractness I can think of at the moment.


----------



## JAS

consuono said:


> "Transformations of Appearance: Suddenness and the Modernist Fragment".
> 
> Why do the titles of so many academic papers have the form of "First Statement: Next Statement Reinforcing First Statement"?
> Like, " 'I Do Not Like Green Eggs and Ham' : Societal and Individual Influences and Constraints on Dietary Inhibition and Self-Expression".


It is a thing, and somewhat a fulfillment of expectations. I have done it myself (not in the musical realm), although I like to think that I have the "clever" half of the title (as a hook) and the "descriptive" half (to give an idea of what it is actually about). (The order is sometimes one way, and sometimes the other.) It is usually an attempt at being creative, which is not in and of itself a bad thing (depending on the paper that follows).


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^ there's the internet for you....sigh. Why not just leave experts to their thing then, I mean it's not meaningless to some. You've just come across as a hater of expertise, which I never had you down as. Every composer you love was an expert.


Every composer I love was indeed an expert who composed for the public. Bach wrote the Well Tempered Clavier and Clavier-Übung series with amateurs like me in mind, "to refresh [my] spirit". Huge difference.


----------



## SanAntone

A case can be made for _anything_. However, for someone who "loves" the music of a composer or style no amount of argumentation will convince him otherwise. I believe that opinions about art are subjective, that it is delusional to think there is objective criteria to judge art, and to wrap a subjective opinion in professional jargon implying that the opinion stated is objective is suspect, IMO.

The only basis for appreciating music is to listen to it. Some people will enjoy it, others will not - neither opinion is right or wrong.

This ought to be obvious, but so often on Internet forums it seems like it needs to be said again and again.


----------



## JAS

^^^ sometimes I am interested in history and context, but that never really affects my personal (and subjective) response to the product itself. (There might be rare examples where an explanation improves my appreciation a little, perhaps pointing out small details of which I was not consciously aware.)


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> A case can be made for _anything_. However, for someone who "loves" the music of a composer or style no amount of argumentation will convince him otherwise. I believe that opinions about art are subjective, that it is delusional to think there is objective criteria to judge art, and to wrap a subjective opinion in professional jargon implying that the opinion stated is objective is suspect, IMO.
> 
> The only basis for appreciating music is to listen to it. Some people will enjoy it, others will not - neither opinion is right or wrong.
> 
> This ought to be obvious, but so often on Internet forums it seems like it needs to be said again and again.


I fully agree. The problems start when there is no sensitivity to the preferences of others and derogatory comments become the norm under the guise of 'IMO'.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> A case can be made for _anything_. However, for someone who "loves" the music of a composer or style no amount of argumentation will convince him otherwise. I believe that opinions about art are subjective, that it is delusional to think there is objective criteria to judge art, and to wrap a subjective opinion in professional jargon implying that the opinion stated is objective is suspect, IMO.
> 
> The only basis for appreciating music is to listen to it. Some people will enjoy it, others will not - neither opinion is right or wrong.
> 
> This ought to be obvious, but so often on Internet forums it seems like it needs to be said again and again.


Well yes and no, I mean I think that the request for an explanation of Rebecca Saunder's craft in Crimson is a perfectly valid request and can lead to some interesting ideas, I hate your anti intellectualism in fact, as if the only way to appreciate music is to sit in front of it like a cabbage and let it effect you, as if music is a sort of aural porn.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> Well yes and no, I mean I think that the request for an explanation of Rebecca Saunder's craft in Crimson is a perfectly valid request and can lead to some interesting ideas, I hate your anti intellectualism in fact, as if the only way to appreciate music is to sit in front of it like a cabbage and let it effect you, as if music is a sort of aural porn.


I am not anti-intellectual. However, I do think there are limits to the use of scholarship. Much can be added to our collective knowledge about early music performance practices, or the history of the development of the sonata-allegro form, or as George Perle has done with his analyses of the operas of Alban Berg.

But to use faux-scholarship in an attempt to prove a case against atonal music, e.g., is a misuse of the tools of scholarship. It was popular at one time to use the overtone series s a representation of natural laws in support of tonality. This kind of argument used against lovers of atonal music is what I am talking about.

But, yes, listening to the music is how music is appreciated, not by reading about it. Reading about it can be worthwhile, but I repeat, there is no argument that can be made to prove to me that a composer that I love actually wrote bad music.


----------



## SanAntone

I remember Daniel Asia getting some attention a few years back with his attack on John Cage. I wondered at the time what he hoped to accomplish. I had never heard of him before, I found out he is a composer. I listened to some of his music; it was okay, nothing that moved me one way or another. But his attack of Cage I thought totally subjective and a perfect example of someone using academic resources to trash a composer whose work, while controversial, represents a major contribution to 20th century culture.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

The entire problem (and the problem with TC at large) is that we are so inclined to think and speak in terms of "good" and "bad" (though to some of us these notions are purely subjective).

It's not how art works.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> . . . But to use faux-scholarship in an attempt to prove a case against atonal music, e.g., is a misuse of the tools of scholarship. It was popular at one time to use the overtone series s a representation of natural laws in support of tonality. This kind of argument used against lovers of atonal music is what I am talking about.


Or _for_ atonal music.



SanAntone said:


> But, yes, listening to the music is how music is appreciated, not by reading about it. Reading about it can be worthwhile, but I repeat, there is no argument that can be made to prove to me that a composer that I love actually wrote bad music.


Or the reverse, that a particular piece of music to which I have an extremely adverse reaction is actually good music.



Mandryka said:


> Well yes and no, I mean I think that the request for an explanation of Rebecca Saunder's craft in Crimson is a perfectly valid request and can lead to some interesting ideas, I hate your anti intellectualism in fact, as if the only way to appreciate music is to sit in front of it like a cabbage and let it effect you, as if music is a sort of aural porn.


An explanation is not necessarily a justification. Part of my problem with most of this "academic" music (to use my preferred term) is that all it has is an intellectual (or, more accurately, a theoretical) aspect, and one that is of no interest to me.


----------



## JAS

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> The entire problem (and the problem with TC at large) is that we are so inclined to think and speak in terms of "good" and "bad" (though to some of us these notions are purely subjective).
> 
> It's not how art works.


It is subjective, but for art, for the most part, that actually _is_ how it works. (It might also do more than that, but that is where it starts.)


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

JAS said:


> It is subjective, but for art, for the most part, that actually _is_ how it works. (It might also do more than that, but that is where it starts.)


It's a massive and somewhat harmful oversimplification. To me at least. I'll edit this when I have time later.


----------



## SanAntone

In order to appreciate a sunset do we need to be meteorologists? Must we be botanists to appreciate the beauty of a flower?

Would it enhance your appreciation of a tree lined dirt path in the winter to be told why the leaves fell off?


----------



## mikeh375

^^^^....no but conversely, appreciation can be greatly enhanced by knowing _why_ a thing is.


----------



## annaw

SanAntone said:


> In order to appreciate a sunset do we need to be meteorologists? Must we be botanists to appreciate the beauty of a flower?
> 
> Would it enhance your appreciation of a tree lined dirt path in the winter to be told why the leaves fell off?


My appreciation is certainly enhanced by analysing and reading about music (although music itself is of course the primary source of my appreciation). Maybe I'm a bit weird in this respect .


----------



## Kilgore Trout

This thread.


----------



## JAS

It is good to get the old horse corpse out from time to time and give it a serious thrashing, just to break in a new whip, or to keep in practice.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> In order to appreciate a sunset do we need to be meteorologists? Must we be botanists to appreciate the beauty of a flower?
> 
> Would it enhance your appreciation of a tree lined dirt path in the winter to be told why the leaves fell off?


Yes, obviously. Appreciation is a more or less thing, a superficial or profound thing.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> Yes, obviously. Appreciation is a more or less thing, a superficial or profound thing.


If I understand you correctly, you are saying that knowing the scientific explanation of why leaves fall off trees would enhance your appreciation of the beauty a winter scene of a tree lined path presents.

Really?


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that knowing the scientific explanation of why leaves fall off trees would enhance your appreciation of the beauty a winter scene of a tree lined path presents.
> ?


I am saying that knowing the scientific explanation of why leaves fall off trees would enhance anyone's appreciation of a winter scene with a tree lined path.

I don't do « beauty », I suspect it is an utterly worthless concept. Like « great »


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> I am saying that knowing the scientific explanation of why leaves fall off trees would enhance your appreciation of a winter scene of a tree lined path presents.
> 
> I don't do « beauty », I suspect it is an utterly worthless concept. Like « great »


Ah. I absolutely "do" beauty; and for me it is not a worthless concept. But, I agree with you about "great;" a bothersome word when used to describe composers/artists, except as a colloquialism, i.e. "I went to hear The Beatles last night; is was GREAT!".

But knowing what you think is useful.


----------



## Jacck

Mandryka said:


> I am saying that knowing the scientific explanation of why leaves fall off trees would enhance anyone's appreciation of a winter scene with a tree lined path.


that reminds me of Richard Feynman

_"I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."_

Feynman is one of my biggest heroes, but this might be one of those instances where I am not sure I agree with him. Beauty is best enjoyed by the innocent minds of children, who experience things for the first time and everything is new and hence marvelous. Knowledge actually makes the mind old and dull and clutered. When we think we know, the knowledge interferes with direct perception, because we do not perceive what actually is, but what we think we it is.


----------



## Fabulin

I would certainly agree with Feynman.


----------



## Jacck

Fabulin said:


> I would certainly agree with Feynman.


I rather agree with Einstein

_"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead -his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."_

and knowledge takes away mystery, at least for most people as they age. True scientists like Einstein and Feynman preserve the mind of a child across their whole lives and dont lose the ability to wonder and experience the mysterious


----------



## amfortas

Jacck said:


> Feynman is one of my biggest heroes, but this might be one of those instances where I am not sure I agree with him. Beauty is best enjoyed by the innocent minds of children, who experience things for the first time and everything is new and hence marvelous. Knowledge actually makes the mind old and dull and clutered. When we think we know, the knowledge interferes with direct perception, because we do not perceive what actually is, but what we think we it is.


"We do not perceive what actually is, but what we think it is," sounds like a pretty good summation of the human condition.


----------



## SanAntone

Jacck said:


> that reminds me of Richard Feynman
> 
> _"I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."_
> 
> Feynman is one of my biggest heroes, but this might be one of those instances where I am not sure I agree with him. Beauty is best enjoyed by the innocent minds of children, who experience things for the first time and everything is new and hence marvelous. Knowledge actually makes the mind old and dull and clutered. When we think we know, the knowledge interferes with direct perception, because we do not perceive what actually is, but what we think we it is.


With respect to Feynman, what he is describing is additional information which may offer insight into what is going under the surface. But what I respond to when I look at a flower is the flower seen naturally, not as it looks under a microscope. I might also experience its odor - but these are things immediately available to me, and are enough for me to appreciate the flower's beauty.

It is even more crucial with music, since music goes by in time - we can't stop the music to analyze what is going on harmonically or rhythmically, or if we missed a word. Yes, we might be following a score, but when I am reading a score, it can inhibit my aural enjoyment since I am experiencing the music visually, which divides my mind into visual/aural and contributes to a more cerebral way of experiencing the music.

My preferred method of listening to music is to turn off my rational mind as much as possible and allow my intuitive mind to open up to the music. I don't want to be thinking about what I am hearing. I don't want stray thoughts about what the harmonic progression might be (I could tell you this if I wanted to); I certainly don't want to be trying to figure out a tone row if it is a serial work.

So, not only would knowing the why leaves fall off trees not enhance my enjoyment of the winter scene - it would actually undermine my enjoyment. Often too much information destroys the beauty.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that knowing the scientific explanation of why leaves fall off trees would enhance your appreciation of the beauty a winter scene of a tree lined path presents.
> 
> Really?


For me, the appreciation of music is one third listening
one third analyzing and understanding the score 
and one third using the elements or the whole piece to express myself. Also collecting is a very interesting hobby - and I think it's related to self-expression also.


----------



## norman bates

Jacck said:


> that reminds me of Richard Feynman
> 
> _"I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."_
> 
> Feynman is one of my biggest heroes, but this might be one of those instances where I am not sure I agree with him. Beauty is best enjoyed by the innocent minds of children, who experience things for the first time and everything is new and hence marvelous. Knowledge actually makes the mind old and dull and clutered. When we think we know, the knowledge interferes with direct perception, because we do not perceive what actually is, but what we think we it is.


according to this view, the most celebrated composers, who had a great knowledge of music, form and harmony and those who have the deepest knowledge of the secrets of compositions are the least able to discern what it's necessary to make beautiful music. I don't think it's true. 
Superficial erudition without true knowledge could have bad consequences in aesthetic judgments. But it's a delicate argument, since we are talking about this in relation to modern music, and one thing that many seem to not understand that the scope of a lot of modern music is changed.


----------



## annaw

SanAntone said:


> With respect to Feynman, what he is describing is additional information which may offer insight into what is going under the surface. But what I respond to when I look at a flower is the flower seen naturally, not as it looks under a microscope. I might also experience its odor - but these are things immediately available to me, and are enough for me to appreciate the flower's beauty.
> 
> It is even more crucial with music, since music goes by in time - we can't stop the music to analyze what is going on harmonically or rhythmically, or if we missed a word. Yes, we might be following a score, but when I am reading a score, it can inhibit my aural enjoyment since I am experiencing the music visually, which divides my mind into visual/aural and contributes to a more cerebral way of experiencing the music.
> 
> My preferred method of listening to music is to turn off my rational mind as much as possible and allow my intuitive mind to open up to the music. I don't want to be thinking about what I am hearing. I don't want stray thoughts about what the harmonic progression might be (I could tell you this if I wanted to); I certainly don't want to be trying to figure out a tone row if it is a serial work.
> 
> So, not only would knowing the why leaves fall off trees not enhance my enjoyment of the winter scene - it would actually undermine my enjoyment. Often too much information destroys the beauty.


Hmm... I've done laboratory biological research. I can say that there's beauty in understanding all the details, there's beauty and elegance in the enormously difficult systems of the human body. Its beauty is undeniable to me and I think this is what Feynman is referring to. There're elegant maths solutions and biological concepts. Theoretical knowledge can make you view things from an entirely different perspectives which can enhance your appreciation of them. The changes on cellular level which make a flower bloom are so subtle and complex that it's quite overpowering how something like that is even possible. It's beautiful! Developing my understanding of things has usually only enhanced my enjoyment of them and that's why I'm sometimes so addicted to analysing. (We even discussed this with Mandryka in the weekly SQ thread. )


----------



## Mandryka

People who think that "beauty" is a concept worth dealing with, what do you make of claims like this?



PetrB said:


> I can think of no other composer who has composed such ugly music which is still consumed and so admired.
> 
> Beethoven composed some of the ugliest music I have ever heard.
> 
> The two ugly "masterworks" which are near to enshrined, up on the highest pedestals, as some of the greatest music which people continue to consume and adore?
> 
> The Hammerklavier Sonata & the Grosse Fugue: (For which is uglier, ugliest, I would call it a tie.)
> 
> I can think of no other contenders for this dubious place of the ugly distinction: Beethoven is one great composer who wrote, it seems, great and seriously ugly music from time to time.
> 
> ... and I'm serious.





Phil loves classical said:


> Agree that some of Beethoven, Mahler, Sessions, and Webern are ugly. Question is do you still find "ugly music" interesting? Didn't find the Patterson, nor Shostakovich especially ugly.
> 
> I find Mozart, Ravel, Vaughan Williams music very beautiful. Varese, and especially Prokofiev, are beautiful to me in a weird way.


----------



## annaw

Mandryka said:


> People who think that "beauty" is a concept worth dealing with, what do you make of claims like this?


Fair point. Another proof that beauty is in the eye of the beholder .


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> People who think that "beauty" is a concept worth dealing with, what do you make of claims like this?


Ugly or pretty etc., the common denominator is that it's there to make you think outside of yourself. All art should do this.


----------



## norman bates

I think that beauty is a word that we tend to use often with slight different meanings, but that does not mean that there's not an objective part in it. I tend to agree with what wikipedia says about it: " beauty has been stated to have levels of objectivity and partial subjectivity which are not fully subjective in their aesthetic judgement. ". 
But I think that the discussion on beauty, while interesting, is not so central. The fact is that composers in the 20th century were also thinking about music in different ways.
But maybe this is vague, so I want to mention what Kundera thought about Xenakis that I think is brilliant and says a lot about modern classical composers (and modern art in general):

"_Even being a "prophet of unfeelingness," Joyce was able to remain a novelist; Xenakis, on the other hand, had to leave music. His innovation was different in nature from that of Debussy or of Schoenberg. Those two never lost their ties to the history of music, they could always "go back" (and they often did). For Xenakis, the bridges had been burned. Olivier Messiaen said as much: Xenakis's music is "not radically new but radically other." Xenakis does not stand against some earlier phase of music; he turns away from all European music, from the whole of its legacy. He locates his starting point somewhere else: not in the artificial sound of note separated from nature in order to express human subjectivity, but in the noise of the world, in a "mass of sound" that does not rise from inside the heart but instead comes to us from the outside, like the fall of the rain, the racket of a factory, or the shouts of a mob.

His experiments on sounds and noises that lie beyond notes and scales - can they become the basis of a new period in music history? Will his music live for long in music lovers' memory? Not very likely. What will remain is the act of enormous rejection: for the first time someone dared to tell European music that it can all be abandoned. Forgotten. (Is it only chance that in his youth, Xenakis saw human nature as no other composer ever did? Living through the massacres of a civil war, being sentenced to death, having his handsome face forever scared by a wound…) And I think of the necessity, of the deep meaning of this necessity, that led Xenakis to side with the objective sound of the world against the sound of a soul's subjectivity._"


----------



## tdc

Music is not primarily an intellectual thing in my view, it is a combination of the heart/inspiration and the intellect, but I think music at its most potent speaks to the heart more so than the rational mind. 

When composers describe their compositional process, it is not really a process of rationally thinking a piece into existence, the process seems to be more mysterious than that. Why were Ives, Sibelius and Copland not able to compose late in life? They still had all of their mental faculties. Copland stated it felt like someone had turned off a faucet referring to his musical inspiration. Inspiration cannot be scientifically measured, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Look at the speed at which J.S. Bach and Mozart created music, look at the speed at which high level improvisors perform music. There seems to be a zone where there is a kind of flow where the artist is not constrained by complex thinking processes, this in fact seems to be the zone where the most potent musical ideas are generated.

I think over intellectualizing music is more harmful than the other way around. The ironic thing is that in the quest to strengthen the intellect, many scientific minds appear to lose the ability to use their minds holistically, because they deny the existence of things that cannot be scientifically measured. Now basic concepts like beauty, greatness, and spirit have no meaning, because they can't be limited and reduced to a formula or objective definition.


----------



## Mandryka

norman bates said:


> I think that beauty is a word that we tend to use often with slight different meanings, but that does not mean that there's not an objective part in it. I tend to agree with what wikipedia says about it: " beauty has been stated to have levels of objectivity and partial subjectivity which are not fully subjective in their aesthetic judgement. ".
> But I think that the discussion on beauty, while interesting, is not so central. The fact is that composers in the 20th century were also thinking about music in different ways.
> But maybe this is vague, so I want to mention what Kundera thought about Xenakis that I think is brilliant and says a lot about modern classical composers (and modern art in general):
> 
> "_Even being a "prophet of unfeelingness," Joyce was able to remain a novelist; Xenakis, on the other hand, had to leave music. His innovation was different in nature from that of Debussy or of Schoenberg. Those two never lost their ties to the history of music, they could always "go back" (and they often did). For Xenakis, the bridges had been burned. Olivier Messiaen said as much: Xenakis's music is "not radically new but radically other." Xenakis does not stand against some earlier phase of music; he turns away from all European music, from the whole of its legacy. He locates his starting point somewhere else: not in the artificial sound of note separated from nature in order to express human subjectivity, but in the noise of the world, in a "mass of sound" that does not rise from inside the heart but instead comes to us from the outside, like the fall of the rain, the racket of a factory, or the shouts of a mob.
> 
> His experiments on sounds and noises that lie beyond notes and scales - can they become the basis of a new period in music history? Will his music live for long in music lovers' memory? Not very likely. What will remain is the act of enormous rejection: for the first time someone dared to tell European music that it can all be abandoned. Forgotten. (Is it only chance that in his youth, Xenakis saw human nature as no other composer ever did? Living through the massacres of a civil war, being sentenced to death, having his handsome face forever scared by a wound…) And I think of the necessity, of the deep meaning of this necessity, that led Xenakis to side with the objective sound of the world against the sound of a soul's subjectivity._"


I wonder if Kundera had listened to much Xenakis, I mean, IMO Cindrées and Kraanerg are no more a rejection of European music than Rite of Spring or some passages from Die Frau Ohne Schatten. And that stuff about "the noise of the world" is more true if Luc Ferrari than Xenakis.


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> Music is not primarily an intellectual thing in my view, it is a combination of the heart/inspiration and the intellect, but I think music at its most potent speaks to the heart more so than the rational mind.
> 
> When composers describe their compositional process, it is not really a process of rationally thinking a piece into existence, the process seems to be more mysterious than that. Why were Ives, Sibelius and Copland not able to compose late in life? They still had all of their mental faculties. Copland stated it felt like someone had turned off a faucet referring to his musical inspiration. Inspiration cannot be scientifically measured, does that mean it doesn't exist?
> 
> Look at the speed at which J.S. Bach and Mozart created music, look at the speed at which high level improvisors perform music. There seems to be a zone where there is a kind of flow where the artist is not constrained by complex thinking processes, this in fact seems to be the zone where the most potent musical ideas are generated.
> 
> I think over intellectualizing music is more harmful than the other way around. The ironic thing is that in the quest to strengthen the intellect, many scientific minds appear to lose the ability to use their minds holistically, because they deny the existence of things that cannot be scientifically measured. Now basic concepts like beauty, greatness, and spirit have no meaning, because they can't be limited and reduced to a formula or objective definition.


"Now basic concepts like beauty, greatness, and spirit have no meaning, because they can't be limited and reduced to a formula or objective definition."

They can't? I think you can find whole articles about this process of reduction. Every aspect of any art can be stripped of its mystery and explained. We might not like the explanation. Materialism.


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> Music is not primarily an intellectual thing in my view, it is a combination of the heart/inspiration and the intellect, but I think music at its most potent speaks to the heart more so than the rational mind.
> 
> When composers describe their compositional process, it is not really a process of rationally thinking a piece into existence, the process seems to be more mysterious than that. Why were Ives, Sibelius and Copland not able to compose late in life? They still had all of their mental faculties. Copland stated it felt like someone had turned off a faucet referring to his musical inspiration. Inspiration cannot be scientifically measured, does that mean it doesn't exist?
> 
> Look at the speed at which J.S. Bach and Mozart created music, look at the speed at which high level improvisors perform music. There seems to be a zone where there is a kind of flow where the artist is not constrained by complex thinking processes, this in fact seems to be the zone where the most potent musical ideas are generated.
> 
> I think over intellectualizing music is more harmful than the other way around. The ironic thing is that in the quest to strengthen the intellect, many scientific minds appear to lose the ability to use their minds holistically, because they deny the existence of things that cannot be scientifically measured. Now basic concepts like beauty, greatness, and spirit have no meaning, because they can't be limited and reduced to a formula or objective definition.


Of course, everyone knows that Beethoven laboured over his music, the notebooks are evidence to the huge amount of thinking and experimentation which went into every bar. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Bach worked in any less an intellectual way - given the sort of symbolism built into the scores it would be highly likely that he worked very hard, planned some of his music very hard, I would think.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> Of course, everyone knows that Beethoven laboured over his music, the notebooks are evidence to the huge amount of thinking and experimentation which went into every bar. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Bach worked in any less an intellectual way - given the sort of symbolism built into the scores it would be highly likely that he worked very hard, planned some of his music very hard, I would think.


Educated musicians could follow what LvB was doing, work after work as they were released, but in Bach's situation, was he appreciated for all the marvelous details in his scores? I hope he was. If not it must've been very difficult.


----------



## SanAntone

Of course the act of composing has nothing to do with the act of listening. While the composer is certainly using his intellect and organizing his materials for the composition in a very deliberate and mindful manner. A listener is not deconstructing the work of the composer as he listens. He is experiencing the music in a much more ad hoc and serendipitous manner. One need not know anything about music in order to enjoy listening to it, and there is no guarantee that a trained composer would enjoy listening to a work of music more than someone who is not trained as a musician.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Of course the act of composing has nothing to do with the act of listening. While the composer is certainly using his intellect and organizing his materials for the composition in a very deliberate and mindful manner. A listener is not deconstructing the work of the composer as he listens. He is experiencing the music in a much more ad hoc and serendipitous manner. One need not know anything about music in order to enjoy listening to it, and there is no guarantee that a trained composer would enjoy listening to a work of music more than someone who is not trained as a musician.


How do you know any of this if you're not a trained musician or composer? I'm just curious how you think.


----------



## norman bates

Mandryka said:


> I wonder if Kundera had listened to much Xenakis, I mean, IMO Cindrées and Kraanerg are no more a rejection of European music than Rite of Spring or some passages from Die Frau Ohne Schatten.


He made a lot of stuff that he's way different than that and hardly has any tie with previous music. 
But besides Xenakis, a lot of composers in the 20th century were just re-thinking the possibilities of music or even the reasons to compose music. The world was different, everything was accelerating, there were changes in a lot of fields, but it seems that a lot of people judge them exactly like they were musicians of the 19th century but unable to understand what beauty is, to write a good melody or a epic symphony or a uplifting concerto. When many of them, while loving the music of the past weren't even trying to do that because their life was different and the world was different and they had to find new "answers" to the problem that is making art.


----------



## Luchesi

norman bates said:


> He made a lot of stuff that he's way different than that and hardly has any tie with previous music.
> But besides Xenakis, a lot of composers in the 20th century were just re-thinking the possibilities of music or even the reasons to compose music. The world was different, everything was accelerating, there were changes in a lot of fields, but it seems that a lot of people judge them exactly like they were musicians of the 19th century but unable to understand what beauty is, to write a good melody or a epic symphony or a uplifting concerto. When many of them, while loving the music of the past weren't even trying to do that because their life was different and the world was different and they had to find new "answers" to the problem that is making art.


It's always been glaring to me how these questions are answered;

Do you know a lot about music theory? 
Do you have experience performing or conducting, interpreting? 
Do you know a lot about the development of the elements of music down through history? 
Have you tried composing something new and serious? 
What do you think of modern works? No, I'm serious…


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> How do you know any of this if you're not a trained musician or composer? I'm just curious how you think.


If all music is essentially equal and we can't introduce any kind of value judgements, then why would such things as craftsmanship even matter? On the other hand I've been td that the possession of a doctorate ensures that a composer is going to be skilled and I have no right to give a negative judgement of that composer's works.

Insanity.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> If all music is essentially equal and we can't introduce any kind of value judgements, then why would such things as craftsmanship even matter? On the other hand I've been td that the possession of a doctorate ensures that a composer is going to be skilled and I have no right to give a negative judgement of that composer's works.
> 
> Insanity.


'Sounds like we agree that we should study the large subject of music. And many modern works are for the people who do that.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> How do you know any of this if you're not a trained musician or composer? I'm just curious how you think.


I am a trained composer and musician.


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> 'Sounds like we agree that we should study the large subject of music. And many modern works are for the people who do that.


It sounds to me though like you're advocating the Babbit approach of a small composer class composing arcane, inaccessible stuff for an equally small and "in the know" listener class. That translates to a medium that is dying, if not dead.


----------



## norman bates

Luchesi said:


> It's always been glaring to me how these questions are answered;
> 
> Do you know a lot about music theory?
> Do you have experience performing or conducting, interpreting?
> Do you know a lot about the development of the elements of music down through history?
> Have you tried composing something new and serious?
> What do you think of modern works? No, I'm serious…


I have a decent knowledge of how many elements of music changed through history (and being a fan of architecture, painting, cinema and art in general I'm able to see how the similarities and differences in the developments in different arts). I've played for many years, I know how to read music and I have a quite basic knowledge of theory. But there's no need to be a conductor or having the harmonic knowledge of Slonimsky to know basic things like the fact that Debussy played non functional harmony, Stravinsky politonality, or that Schoenberg used Serialism, Russolo introduced noise, Schaeffer concrete music, Reich the phasing, Cage aleatoric music and concepts of oriental philosophy. I think everybody without any formal knowledge could grasp many those things aurally without having any sort of formal education. Like the shift from melody and harmony to sound, texture and rhythm.
About modern works... it's a quite vague question. Modernism like it's usually intended, from Debussy? I think I already said it: there are things I love, there are things I consider awful, there are things I think are so so, there are things that I don't get. In general it's my favorite century even because of its amazing variety and new directions (there's more variety in the 20th century than in the music from Perotinus to the late Romantic composers of the 19th century).
Now, what this interrogation has to do with what I said?


----------



## consuono

^ To follow up a little on the comment I made above, it could be said that classical music has always been "niche", has always been a tiny group composing for a small group of listeners. However, the desire for a large audience was usually there. Bach composed for church congregations after all; Handel, Mozart and Beethoven composed for a paying public who definitely had ideas of "beauty" and "worth". There wasn't an overt attempt to alienate and to be in some academic ivory tower composing simply for others in the tower who had the requisite qualifications to stroke their chins and marvel at the skillfully constructed tone clusters. The Art of Fugue is arcane and esoteric, but it can be simply enjoyed as beautiful music in itself. Most modern music, not so much.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> It's always been glaring to me how these questions are answered;
> 
> Do you know a lot about music theory?
> Do you have experience performing or conducting, interpreting?
> Do you know a lot about the development of the elements of music down through history?
> Have you tried composing something new and serious?
> What do you think of modern works? No, I'm serious…


Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Some I like, some I don't.

But I disagree with your theories about what's important about listening to new music, or any music. I never want my training to impinge upon my listening, especially for new music.


----------



## norman bates

consuono said:


> The Art of Fugue is arcane and esoteric, but it can be simply enjoyed as beautiful music in itself. *Most modern music, not so much.*


I disagree about this, but again, it depends what kind of beauty one is expecting. For instance if one wants to listen wonderful melodies or exciting rhythms a lot of people would not enjoy it particularly the Art of the fugue. A lot of people think it's a quite cold, detached and cerebral work and they don't mean it as a compliment (and I've seen threads here of people who dislike it). 
And after all Bach was a composer who experimented with things like the crab canon (counterpoint with the same line played backward, a concept that I suspect had an influence on Schoenberg) that seems just a clever trick very much in the vein of certain 20th century music.
And it's the same for 20th century music, if there's a piece where the focus is texture (for the few minutes I listened to it, the Rebecca Saunders piece you posted) to judge it in terms of melodies of romantic crescendos or something like clearly doesn't allow to appreciate it for what it is because you're looking for something that it's not.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Yes
> Yes
> Yes
> Yes
> Some I like, some I don't.
> 
> But I disagree with your theories about what's important about listening to new music, or any music. I never want my training to impinge upon my listening, especially for new music.


But don't you think you're a rare listener?


----------



## SanAntone

norman bates said:


> I disagree about this, but again, it depends what kind of beauty one is expecting. For instance if one wants to listen wonderful melodies or exciting rhythms a lot of people would not enjoy it particularly the Art of the fugue. A lot of people think it's a quite cold, detached and cerebral work and they don't mean it as a compliment (and I've seen threads here of people who dislike it).
> And after all Bach was a composer who experimented with things like the crab canon (counterpoint with the same line played backward, a concept that I suspect had an influence on Schoenberg) that seems just a clever trick very much in the vein of certain 20th century music.
> And it's the same for 20th century music, if there's a piece where the focus is texture (for the few minutes I listened to it, the Rebecca Saunders piece you posted) to judge it in terms of melodies of romantic crescendos or something like clearly doesn't allow to appreciate it for what it is because you're looking for something that it's not.


Why box up a piece of music with expectations like, "wonderful melodies or exciting rhythms" or "cold, detached and cerebral" or "the focus is texture." But then you arrive at this bit, which I agree with: "to judge it in terms of melodies of romantic crescendos or something like clearly doesn't allow to appreciate it for what it is."

Yes, I agree we must appreciate a piece of music for "what it is" and not look "for something that it's not" - listen to it with complete openness with no preconceptions or expectations. As it is playing, do not analyze what you've heard.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> But don't you think you're a rare listener?


I have no idea. But I suspect that most musicians, especially those with my background (which has been primarily in jazz) would approach listening in the same way. Musicians are trained to listen to the musicians around them when they perform and be in the moment, so I would expect that they would approach listening to music of which they are not a part of the ensemble in the same way.

Further, I suggest this is the best way to listen for everyone since it imposes nothing on the music and accepts what is there without judging it. This is especially important for new music.


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> Of course, everyone knows that Beethoven laboured over his music, the notebooks are evidence to the huge amount of thinking and experimentation which went into every bar. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Bach worked in any less an intellectual way - given the sort of symbolism built into the scores it would be highly likely that he worked very hard, planned some of his music very hard, I would think.


But ultimately how hard they worked or didn't work is not that important is it? I think it is possible to over think compositions, also to rush them, some compositions need more time to grow, clearly. Evidence of the amount of labor, provides us some interesting clues about the creative process, but they are irrelevant to our experience of the music. There are plenty of people with very high intellect and music degrees that work very hard yet they are not notable composers. I love the additional layers of depth and mystery Bach added to his works, however, if his music didn't sound inspired, no one would be interested in any of that.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I have no idea. But I suspect that most musicians, especially those with my background (which has been primarily in jazz) would approach listening in the same way. Musicians are trained to listen to the musicians around them when they perform and be in the moment, so I would expect that they would approach listening to music of which they are not a part of the ensemble in the same way.
> 
> Further, I suggest this is the best way to listen for everyone since it imposes nothing on the music and accepts what is there without judging it. This is especially important for new music.


Interesting. I haven't heard that before, unexpected from what you've said about yourself.


----------



## tdc

Luchesi said:


> They can't? I think you can find whole articles about this process of reduction. * Every aspect of any art can be stripped of its mystery and explained.* We might not like the explanation. Materialism.


If it were true anyone could be a brilliant composer.


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> If it were true anyone could be a brilliant composer.


It has to come from the composer first. It's my opinion that the composer doesn't know HOW it affects us. It's a curious subject. There are straightforward explanations and there are also some very wild explanations which entail dominance and subordination ideas in the derivation of major and minor triads.


----------



## hammeredklavier

norman bates said:


> I disagree about this, but again, it depends what kind of beauty one is expecting. For instance if one wants to listen wonderful melodies or exciting rhythms a lot of people would not enjoy it particularly the Art of the fugue. A lot of people think it's a quite cold, detached and cerebral work and they don't mean it as a compliment (and I've seen threads here of people who dislike it).


Do you listen to Bach's contemporaries? The Art of the fugue is written in the same idiom as this:





albeit the Bach is more skillfully and thoroughly-composed with inter-woven fugal elements.
Do you enjoy listening to Eberlin's 9 toccatas and fugues any more than Bach's Art of the fugue?


----------



## consuono

> They can't? I think you can find whole articles about this process of reduction. Every aspect of any art can be stripped of its mystery and explained. We might not like the explanation. Materialism.


Only in part and after the fact.





Now go write something similar. I can't, so here's what I'll do instead. I'll take one line of dissonant sounds as the subject, another as the counter subject, have them overlap and enter and re-enter et voilá! "Craftsmanship". It misses an essential ingredient though, and that's to make the entire artifice sound as natural and inevitable as breathing. That's "modern music" to me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I think the problem is that avant-garde music and classical music are very different in terms of philosophy, too different in fact they must be considered as entirely different genres. (I'm not necessarily saying that avant-garde philosophies are artistically bad; I don't think avant-garde music is an a objectively inferior form of art than classical music.) There should be a subform "avant-garde music" where people can discuss avant-garde music only, and discussion of avant-garde music in the main forum should be discouraged. (just like film music) 
When two different groups of people are forcibly placed together in one camp, they won't get along very well. That's what's happening here, with avant-garde music enthusiasts and classical music enthusiasts being forced to pretend they're the same kind. Only if some people stopped being so egotistical and simply accepted some "facts", - everyone would have been happier.

Here's what I wrote on the subject in another thread:

"In my view, a "music composer" has to satisfy these 3 requirements in order to genuinely considered be part of "classical music":

1. must make relation with his close/direct predecessors in western music
2. must make relation with his distant predecessors in western music
3. must not have philosophies like "noise is also music", "who cares if you listen"

Take Beethoven, for example, he paid homage to Haydn (a close predecessor of his), and also paid homage to Palestrina (a distant predecessor of his). He had strong personal expressions in works like the grosse fugue, but he never had the attitude "noise is music". I think in the grosse fuge, Beethoven expanded on the ideas of his previous works, the 9th symphony scherzo and the serioso quartet first movement - he wasn't really "trolling" his audience.

John Cage, on the other hand, disowned his distant predecessors by saying "If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same. But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different."

I'm not saying contemporary stuff like avant-garde music is "bad art" per se, - I just wonder how much of it philosophically adheres to "classical music". It feels more like a genre on its own. I guess a composer can still make interesting effects even if he adheres to the philosophy "noise is music" - as long as a piece of music has its audience, it has its worth. (And as I pointed out in other threads, certain types of contemporary music may have practical application as soundtrack for horror films). But again, in order for something to be considered "classical music", there has to definitive proof that it is.
I feel guys like J. Williams or Y. Kuramoto are closer in philosophy to "classical music". 
Being "innovative" or "experimental" is not something a composer must have, to be considered classical (ex. J. Strauss II, as JAS pointed out)"


----------



## hammeredklavier

Again, look at visual arts and literature. They don't call anything produced in our age "classical".


----------



## Mandryka

Luchesi said:


> Educated musicians could follow what LvB was doing, work after work as they were released,


I think there came a time somewhere in the late c19 and early 20th century where the harmonic/expressive resources of tonal music had expanded to the point where it became possible to realise music where the syntax of tonality would (or could) no longer provide structural coherence to guide the listener. Maybe not as early as Beethoven or Brahms, it's a long time since I last thought about their music, but Liszt and Wagner and Busoni and Reger and Scriabin and Mendtner and Debussy quite possibly.


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, look at visual arts and literature. They don't call anything produced in our age "classical".


You are wrong about that. Think of all those story novels which win prizes and sell on newspaper stands in airports, think of all those pictures which fill small town suburban galeries or are sold to tourists on the railings of Hyde Park in London.

One avant garde composer who may well fit the bill is Chris Newman


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> "In my view, a "music composer" has to satisfy these 3 requirements in order to genuinely considered be part of "classical music":
> 
> 1. must make relation with his close/direct predecessors in western music
> 2. must make relation with his distant predecessors in western music
> 3. must not have philosophies like "noise is also music", "who cares if you listen"




You would include Lachenmann and Rihm and Finnissy and many many other c21 avant garde composers with these. Even Cage is indebted to Satie certainly and Schubert possibly, and Beethoven by reaction against.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Only in part and after the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now go write something similar. I can't, so here's what I'll do instead. I'll take one line of dissonant sounds as the subject, another as the counter subject, have them overlap and enter and re-enter et voilá! "Craftsmanship".* It misses an essential ingredient though, and that's to make the entire artifice sound as natural and inevitable as breathing. That's "modern music" to me.*


And yet to many composers who write as such, inevitability _is_ an essential quality. Do you honestly think it is somehow drummed out of their aesthetics as they immerse themselves deeper into the art? That somehow the more they learn, the more they forget about the end result? In fact inevitability is very important when familiar musical signposts are diluted or abandoned simply because justification at every step is, in the main, required as a composer progresses through the writing of a piece. This justification (and integrity) links in with inevitability as ongoing choice is guided by the music and imagination. I certainly agree with you about Bach (I even played through that Prelude and Fugue the other day), but I also acknowledge the craftsmanship in contemporary practice that leads to new avenues of expression that you are so dismissive of.

A complicated language might seem like a bewildering nonsense to you but that is because of your own aesthetic proclivities barrier (no pejorative meaning intended). The composer will see and hear differently to you because of highly developed skill, knowledge and musical experience. You either follow or not but to conclude that musicality is missing is unfounded imv.


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> Do you listen to Bach's contemporaries? The Art of the fugue is written in the same idiom as this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> albeit the Bach is more skillfully and thoroughly-composed with inter-woven fugal elements.
> Do you enjoy listening to Eberlin's 9 toccatas and fugues any more than Bach's Art of the fugue?


yes I've listened to Bach's contemporaries. But why you're asking? I love the Art of the fugue.


----------



## Ariasexta

I am dedicated to the baroque and Renaissance stuff, sometimes I find some touch of our own age with George Benson and some japanese singers like Gackt, Hyde, and their follower Shin. I have to name them because I do not listen to modern music extensively, I grew up on rock and then Tchaikovsky and Beethoven, which shaped my musical burgeonings. There is something I find in common between best rocks and jazz with early music, that is the pure passion. Music that lacks passion is not music, in modern times there can be many reasons behind suck lukewarmness in music, trying to appeal to the general capital market is one of them, and secondly the scientifical distraction from the attention to musical qualities, breaking down coherence of harmonies into abstract accoustical representations of half-baked mathematical ideas. They are sick stuff. They just need to brand their music as rock or jazz, even as the worst pieces of rock and jazz, stop pretending to be a part of the progressiveness within the tradition of classical music. Classical music does not need any progressive developments.


----------



## Ariasexta

So what is passion, passion is something radical, unforgiving, burning, all from the tenderest to the craziest, yet pure and true. 
So, only art can be the vessel of passion, and passion is sacred, it is for humanity and the rest of universe and God. Passion does not allow blemishes or a grain of hypocracy. This is what I want to hear from music, passion.


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> I think the problem is that avant-garde music and classical music are very different in terms of philosophy, too different in fact they must be considered as entirely different genres. (I'm not necessarily saying that avant-garde philosophies are artistically bad; I don't think avant-garde music is an a objectively inferior form of art than classical music.) There should be a subform "avant-garde music" where people can discuss avant-garde music only, and discussion of avant-garde music in the main forum should be discouraged. (just like film music)
> When two different groups of people are forcibly placed together in one camp, they won't get along very well. That's what's happening here, with avant-garde music enthusiasts and classical music enthusiasts being forced to pretend they're the same kind.


There are many of us who are the same kind: I love music of the medieval period, of the renaissance, of the baroque era, of the classical period (my least favorite though, but I tend to like a lot neoclassical music which had similar ideals of the music of the 18th century), of the romantic era and of the modern era. And there are differences between all these periods.
I love gothic art, the art of the renaissance, the baroque era, the modern era. Gothic art, that now is widely appreciated, until the 19th century was considered barbarian. Vasari, the great art historian, had this kind of reaction to it. Imagine thinking this of the beautiful cathedrals in France and Italy for instance. Should we separate gothic art from the rest of the history of art? In the 19th century when romantic painters arrived (like Delacroix, Turner, Peder Balke) were considered bad painters by those in classical tradition who celebrated instead David, Ingres, Bouguerau etc. Then it was the turn of impressionists, that were considered a joke for a long time. Then we had Picasso and Kandinsky and Miro, Matisse and Klee etc and again they were considered as bad art.
In jazz, there were critics who thought that Duke Ellington (Duke Ellington!) was betraying real jazz. Than bebop in the 40s wasn't considered real jazz by many. Then free jazz arrived and to many it wasn't jazz anymore. Than jazz-rock and fusion arrived and to many it wasn't jazz anymore. I personally (like many others) love all those periods.

In the history of art (and music) everytime there's a change there are those who think that things have to be separated. But if the tradition is the same, what kind of benefit should it brought? To stop discussions is not a benefit in my opinion.



> Only if some people stopped being so egotistical and simply accepted some "facts", - everyone would have been happier.
> 
> Here's what I wrote on the subject in another thread:
> 
> "In my view, a "music composer" has to satisfy these 3 requirements in order to genuinely considered be part of "classical music":
> 
> 1. must make relation with his close/direct predecessors in western music


that's true for most modern classical music (schoenberg looked to Brahms, Debussy to Wagner, Wagner to Berlioz, Stravinsky to Debussy and Schmitt etc)



> 2. must make relation with his distant predecessors in western music


again this is true for a lot of modern classical music: Bach was a huge influence on Schoenberg and Webern for instance. Gesualdo was a big influence on Stravinsky.



> 3. must not have philosophies like "noise is also music", "who cares if you listen"


this is totally arbitrary. And I suspect that Beethoven had already the "who cares if you listen" attitude. For what I know he despised the fact that people didn't appreciate the Grosse fuge.



> John Cage, on the other hand, disowned his distant predecessors by saying "If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same. But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different."


John Cage had a real appreciation for Satie for instance.



> I'm not saying contemporary stuff like avant-garde music is "bad art" per se, - I just wonder how much of it philosophically adheres to "classical music". It feels more like a genre on its own. I guess a composer can still make interesting effects even if he adheres to the philosophy "noise is music" - as long as a piece of music has its audience, it has its worth. (And as I pointed out in other threads, certain types of contemporary music may have practical application as soundtrack for horror films). But again, in order for something to be considered "classical music", there has to definitive proof that it is.
> I feel guys like J. Williams or Y. Kuramoto are closer in philosophy to "classical music".
> Being "innovative" or "experimental" is not something a composer must have, to be considered classical (ex. J. Strauss II, as JAS pointed out)"


Gesualdo, Monteverdi, Beethoven, Wagner were all very innovative and experimental for their time (and for what I know the more traditional Brahms didn't like Wagner). There were composers in the renaissance experimenting with microtonality. The well-tempered clavier of Bach was an experiment with the possibilities of a new tuning).


----------



## mikeh375

^^ nice Norman. The water in the well will become stagnant if it isn't changed now and again.


----------



## Ariasexta

Because living under a system of popular hypocrisy(m chinese), maybe so do many of you in case of working for the left, I have developed a sensitivity of detecting hypocrisy within cultural creations, because all the rest of life is so full of hypocrisy to the point of making one wanting suicide. No passion no life, I would die any painful death in a world without passion, using pain to make up the want of passion. Do not be surprised if I were an emperor and would hang those bad musicians and artists. :devil:


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> . . . And it's the same for 20th century music, if there's a piece where the focus is texture (for the few minutes I listened to it, the Rebecca Saunders piece you posted) to judge it in terms of melodies of romantic crescendos or something like clearly doesn't allow to appreciate it for what it is because you're looking for something that it's not.


And for many, many of us, what it _is_ is not something we are seeking. Consequently, it makes demands and offers us nothing that we want. This makes it fundamentally different from all of the music that comes before it, and a fair amount of music that comes after it (which followers of the modern tend to dismiss as backward looking or pastiche). Fortunately, there is much to appreciate and enjoy in the alternatives. (It is just annoying that something we dislike claims to have usurped something we love, and to necessarily be the evolution of something that it utterly rejects.)


----------



## JAS

mikeh375 said:


> ^^ nice Norman. The water in the well will become stagnant if it isn't changed now and again.


But we change it with more pure water (recognizable as what it already had), and not acid or bleach or something that isn't even liquid.


----------



## Eclectic Al

mikeh375 said:


> ^^ nice Norman. The water in the well will become stagnant if it isn't changed now and again.


I would amend this metaphor a bit - by reference to this link:
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/16/how-do-wells-get-their-water-from-underground-rivers/

A healthy well will not become stagnant. Its source may change in composition (becoming polluted, or becoming cleaner, or simply seeing a change in mineral composition); its level may rise or fall; different species of bacteria, algae or whatever may flourish or die out within it. This will all happen via natural evolutionary trends.

If you have stagnant well and you just put new water into it, then it will soon be stagnant again. By ignoring the source you haven't fixed the well; you have turned it into something more like a septic tank. You are now condemned to a future of periodically pumping out the slurry.

A well may be healthy or poisoned or exhausted or whatever - but you won't fix it by standing at the top and throwing new stuff into it. If you want to keep it healthy then you will need to have respect for its natural sources, and work with them not reject them.


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> And for many, many of us, what it _is_ is not something we are seeking. Consequently, it makes demands and offers us nothing that we want. *This makes it fundamentally different from all of the music that comes before it,*


like I've said, that's what is always happened through the history of art. The paintings of Jan Van Eyck don't look like the works of Cimabue. Hyeronimous Bosch doesn't look like Mantegna. The painting of Caravaggio don't look like the ones of Perugino. El Greco looks extremely different from Leonardo. Goya's late painting were extremely different from what David was doing etc. The history of art, music, architecture etc has always gone through periods of dramatic changes, to the point the things belonging to the same tradition look like opposites. Even things that here are widely appreciated by those with more conservative tastes with no discussion have often great differences. History went from the extremes of rococo with tons of details everywhere to the clarity of classicism, which is many ways was looking for the opposite ideal.
artists of the same period in the past were doing things so extremely different that seems like world aparts:

Bernt Notke (1435-1509)








Francesco Laurana (1430-1502)









So at the end of the day these kind of separations are a matter of taste and expectations. But the fact that we (I include myself) can be disappointed by the fact that in a modern era we can't find what we like doesn't mean that there's a cultural flow of ideas where continuity and dramatic changes (in both ways, for instance neoclassicism was a reaction to the music of the romantic era) belong to the same tradition and culture.


----------



## mikeh375

JAS said:


> But we change it with more pure water (recognizable as what it already had), and not acid or bleach or something that isn't even liquid.


...and so history repeats itself. ...in forums and art.


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> like I've said, that's what is always happened through the history of art. The paintings of Jan Van Eyck don't look like the works of Cimabue. Hyeronimous Bosch doesn't look like Mantegna. The painting of Caravaggio don't look like the ones of Perugino. El Greco looks extremely different from Leonardo. Goya's late painting were extremely different from what David was doing etc. The history of art, music, architecture etc has always gone through periods of dramatic changes, to the point the things belonging to the same tradition look like opposites. Even things that here are widely appreciated by those with more conservative tastes with no discussion have often great differences. History went from the extremes of rococo with tons of details everywhere to the clarity of classicism, which is many ways was looking for the opposite ideal.
> artists of the same period in the past were doing things so extremely different that seems like world aparts:


Actually, they don't seem like entirely different worlds, just notable differences within the same at least vaguely recognizable world. It is when you get to Jackson Pollock that you have something utterly unlike the rest.


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> Actually, they don't seem like entirely different worlds, just notable differences within the same at least vaguely recognizable world. It is when you get to Jackson Pollock that you have something utterly unlike the rest.


I suspect that you don't like Jackson Pollock and that's why you used him as an example of "before and after". But there were many "before and after" in earlier periods. The excessive, overwhelming, dramatic sculpture of Notke has very little in common with the delicate, simple and refined clarity of the work of Laurana.


----------



## JAS

I use Jackson Pollock as a more appropriate representation of the gap between traditional classical music, and much of what has come since Schoenberg. The David statues of Donatello, Verrocchio, and Michelangelo are all clearly very different, but recognizable as human male forms.


----------



## Mandryka

Well I just listened to Nicolas Hodges playing Rebecca Saunders’ Crimson, and it sounded like the most beautiful music I have ever heard in all my life. Go figure.


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> I use Jackson Pollock as a more appropriate representation of the gap between traditional classical music, and much of what has come since Schoenberg. The David statues of Donatello, Verrocchio, and Michelangelo are all clearly very different, but recognizable as human male forms.


The funny thing is that composers and critics saw the ties of Schoenberg with the romantic tradition. After all he started with Gurrelieder (clearly inspired by Wagner) and even the expressionism of his atonal works still could be seen as a extremism of that same tradition (and expressionism in general was exactly that after all). So while he clearly made a revolution, there's still a continuity in it. Webern on the other hand brought a different sensibility.
In the same way Pollock that is often seen as an alien had clearly his ties in the european expressionism, Soutine being a obvious name. Soutine who was influenced by Van Gogh. So even in the work of artists that have made things that are so different and often controversial and a continuity with a previous tradition.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Well I just listened to Nicolas Hodges playing Rebecca Saunders' Crimson, and it sounded like the most beautiful music I have ever heard in all my life. Go figure.


No it didn't, and you know it. I'd bet Rebecca Saunders wouldn't even buy that.


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> The funny thing is that composers and critics saw the ties of Schoenberg with the romantic tradition. After all he started with Gurrelieder (clearly inspired by Wagner) and even the expressionism of his atonal works still could be seen as a extremism of that same tradition (and expressionism in general was exactly that after all). So while he clearly made a revolution, there's still a continuity in it. Webern on the other hand brought a different sensibility.
> In the same way Pollock that is often seen as an alien had clearly his ties in the european expressionism, Soutine being a obvious name. Soutine who was influenced by Van Gogh. So even in the work of artists that have made things that are so different and often controversial and a continuity with a previous tradition.


No. Simply NO. A connection is by no means necessarily a continuity. You might just as well argue that because everything that exists has some connection to something else, that everything is the same. (Clearly, such a claim would be untrue.) You ignore the idea of distinction and thresholds of differences. That such a threshold took place even within the work of one composer, Schoenberg, does not mean that no threshold existed. Most people listening to Rebecca Saunders' composition would not think that it has any meaningful similarity to a a Tchaikovsky ballet. Even if similar instruments are used, they are used in such a different way that the connection is basically meaningless. To accept your argument, as stated, we must totally discard the evidence that our own ears tell us. That is not a reasonable demand, and I say NO.


----------



## SanAntone

John Cage took much from Erik Satie's rejection of the conservatory and Cage's work inspired generations of composers (including Rebecca Saunders). One can continue a tradition by questioning the priorities and assumptions at its foundation, creating a tributary of a alternate tradition, a continuation of sorts. Schoenberg did not wish to destroy the tradition that produced Wagner, Debussy and Mahler, but to continue it to what he saw as its logical conclusion.


----------



## Luchesi

So many big ideas in here recently! I don't know which to reply to first. I feel overwhelmed and stifled. …Because I've had many of these thoughts vaguely come and go in my mind, but here they are all clearly presented from the thinking and experiences of other enthusiasts. 


Where else would this be possible? without the tiresome detritus of real world conversations (and small talk).


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> No. Simply NO. A connection is by no means necessarily a continuity. You might just as well argue that because everything that exists has some connection to something else, that everything is the same. (Clearly, such a claim would be untrue.) You ignore the idea of distinction and thresholds of differences. That such a threshold took place even within the work of one composer, Schoenberg, does not mean that no threshold existed. Most people listening to Rebecca Saunders' composition would not think that it has any meaningful similarity to a a Tchaikovsky ballet. Even if similar instruments are used, they are used in such a different way that the connection is basically meaningless. To accept your argument, as stated, we must totally discard the evidence that our own ears tell us. That is not a reasonable demand, and I say NO.


I would not say either that the piece of Saunder has any similarity with the Tchaikovsky ballet. Except for the fact that it's music written for a certain kind of instruments and from a similar tradition (classical music). With continuity I meant just that those belong to the same tree. I would not say that for Gagaku music, or gamelan, or carnatic music, or blues, or maqam. But for all the
huge differences the avantgarde classical of the twentieth century was generated by the european classical tradition. Exactly as Pollock is a stage of the same path where before there were more traditional painters. Even things that are revolutionary often exist in a dialectical (I would even say phylosophical) relationship to what existed before, even negating some those existent values and perspectives.


----------



## JAS

At some point, the butterfly is no longer the caterpillar. (I had a less favorable metaphor in mind, but this will do. They are generally at least considered the same species, so the metaphor has severe limitations.) You may not wish to hear (or acknowledge) the _stark_ differences in these musical products, but most listeners do. Simply denying it doesn't make it any better, or more acceptable.


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> At some point, the butterfly is no longer the caterpillar. (I had a less favorable metaphor in mind, but this will do.) You may not wish to hear (or acknowledge) the stark differences in these musical products, but most listeners do. Simply denying it doesn't make it any better, or more acceptable.


I certainly don't have any interest in denying the huge differences. And to me it would not make any difference if the music in the twentieth century would be called another way (even because "modern classical music" is a absolutely useless term, to some it means Debussy, others think to something composed ten minutes ago, to some is just a matter of style to others is just a chronological thing). I could still have the possibility to listen both traditional classical music and the new one. It would have absolutely no impact in my ability to listen what I want.
Still, Schoenberg existed because during the romantic tradition composers were going toward a more and more pronounced chromaticism and Schoenberg and others were just a culmination of that path, and he's a part of that path. Like Pollock existed because expressionism and abstract painting in the past become bolder and bolder and he was a culmination of that path.

The only thing I get is that there are listeners who don't like that path, and would prefer to make a separation with the illusion that separating thing would brought again at the attention of a wide audience composers who make music like in the 19th or 18th century.

(absolutely nothing against it by the way, as I've said many other times i absolutely LOVE the music of the very conservative Gerald Finzi, I don't judge the value of music in terms of innovation).


----------



## Guest

Mandryka said:


> Well I just listened to Nicolas Hodges playing Rebecca Saunders' Crimson, and it sounded like the most beautiful music I have ever heard in all my life. Go figure.


Is 'beauty' the only valid criteria? Or is it one end of a valid continuum from beautiful to ugly? Either way, it seems to me that whether anyone finds the work beautiful or ugly, there are other criteria by which to judge the value of a work.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> At some point, the butterfly is no longer the caterpillar. (I had a less favorable metaphor in mind, but this will do. They are generally at least considered the same species, so the metaphor has severe limitations.) You may not wish to hear (or acknowledge) the _stark_ differences in these musical products, but most listeners do. Simply denying it doesn't make it any better, or more acceptable.


I thought the question was not if they were different, but whether there was a link to the classical music tradition.

There is some music which I have wondered if it should be called classical, electronic music, e.g. - or chance music. Ultimately it doesn't matter how we label these different styles, what would seem to be important is the intention of the composer. Did s/he think they were writing classical music or not?

Personally, I don't concern myself with labels and am more concerned in how the music strikes me as I listen: do I find it engaging?


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> . . . Still, Schoenberg existed because during the romantic tradition composers were going toward a more and more pronounced chromaticism and Schoenberg and others were just a culmination of that path, and he's a part of that path. Like Pollock existed because expressionism and abstract painting in the past become bolder and bolder and he was a culmination of that path.


You make this sound as if it were inevitable, when it was not. They might have gone any number of directions, including backwards, or not really gone anywhere.



norman bates said:


> The only thing I get is that there are listeners who don't like that path, and would prefer to make a separation with the illusion that separating thing would brought again at the attention of a wide audience composers who make music like in the 19th or 18th century. .. .


I am under no such illusion. I don't think that the audience is coming back. The damage is already done. I am mostly annoyed at being force fed this stuff at concerts (to the point where I have mostly abandoned them), and being told that the music I love is now the music I hate, and I just have to accept that and support it . . . I don't.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> I thought the question was not if they were different, but whether there was a link to the classical music tradition.
> 
> There is some music which I have wondered if it should be called classical, electronic music, e.g. - or chance music. Ultimately it doesn't matter how we label these different styles, what would seem to be important is the intention of the composer. Did s/he think they were writing classical music or not?
> 
> Personally, I don't concern myself with labels and am more concerned in how the music strikes me as I listen: do I find it engaging?


My question is if there is a link significant enough that there isn't more difference than similarity. I think the differences outweigh the similarities.


----------



## norman bates

SanAntone said:


> I thought the question was not if they were different, but whether there was a link to the classical music tradition.
> 
> There is some music which I have wondered if it should be called classical, electronic music, e.g. - or chance music. Ultimately it doesn't matter how we label these different styles, what would seem to be important is the intention of the composer.


I agree but it's not just the intention. It's the fact that a lot of modern composers with very few exceptions were trained as classical composers, learning harmony and counterpoint and form, living immersed in the study of the masters of the past, dealing often with the same instruments of the classical tradition (the piano, the violin, the cello, the oboe, the clarinet, the harp etc) working with operatic singers, writing scores exactly as the composers of the past (and waiting for some classically trained musician to play those scores) instead of say, recording in the studio like a rock musician.


----------



## Mandryka

MacLeod said:


> Is 'beauty' the only valid criteria? Or is it one end of a valid continuum from beautiful to ugly? Either way, it seems to me that whether anyone finds the work beautiful or ugly, there are other criteria by which to judge the value of a work.


This is why I talked about a function of music being to stimulate the imagination of the listener somewhere above in this thread.


----------



## Eclectic Al

MacLeod said:


> Is 'beauty' the only valid criteria? Or is it one end of a valid continuum from beautiful to ugly? Either way, it seems to me that whether anyone finds the work beautiful or ugly, there are other criteria by which to judge the value of a work.


I think perhaps it is? But there can be "negative beauty". I think the point is that the music is seeking (and hopefully succeeding) to be expressive. By expressive, I mean expressive of feelings. To be expressive it can be "ugly", but ugly is on the beauty spectrum.

What, for me, is anathema to music is not ugliness in opposition to beauty. Instead, the enemy of music is unfeelingness. If a piece of "music" is constructed purely from an intellectual perspective and, to the extent that it seeks to communicate anything, it only aims to communicate an idea rather than a feeling, then it is not music. If you want to convey an idea, you would be better off writing it down in words.

I have no problem with music being ugly, if that ugliness is intended to convey a feeling (such as despair, panic, rage, whatever).


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> My question is if there is a link significant enough that there isn't more difference than similarity. I think the differences outweigh the similarities.


You make it sound as though it's a quantitative thing, as if you could make a list of similarities and differences in the style of a schoolteacher and just see which list is longer.


----------



## Mandryka

Eclectic Al said:


> I have no problem with music being ugly, if that ugliness is intended to convey a feeling (such as despair, panic, rage, whatever).


The model you seem to be working with is that the music is a stimulus to produce a feeling in the listener, that's the job of music. But why? Why that rather than other ways of enjoying the experience: music to stimulate the imagination, stimulate the intellect, make curious, make the listener think about the past tradition and the future of possibilities in a fresh way etc?

I hate the idea of the listener as a sort of passive thing who goes to a concert, sits back and waits to be moved, pushed, lured, cajoled into an "emotion" . . . . horrible! Listeners become the puppet of the composer who's pulling the strings with his tunes. Like kids at a pantomime. NO! KILL ME NOW!


----------



## Eclectic Al

Mandryka said:


> The model you seem to be working with is that the music is a stimulus to produce a feeling in the listener, that's the job of music. But why? Why that rather than other things: stimulate his imagination, stimulate his intellect, make him curious, make him think about the past tradition and the future of possibilities in a fresh way etc?
> 
> I hate the idea of the listener as a sort of passive thing who goes to a concert, sits back and waits to be moved is . . . . horrible! Listeners become the puppet of the composer who's pulling the strings with his tunes. Like kids at a pantomime. NO! KILL ME NOW!


I think it is because those things would be (in terms of the way my mind works) better stimulated by words. I think about the past in words; I imagine things (beyond a certain level) in words; I stimulate my intellect in words (or numbers - as I am a mathematician); I express curiosity in words.

What is unique about music is that it connects so directly to feelings. That is what gives it a special status. I am sure some people get a visceral reaction to visual art too. I can also be moved by literature, but to my mind that is a less "pure" reaction than my reaction to music because it is mediated via a plot (expressed in words). Music is so special because it does not need the intellectual aspect to communicate feelings.

I do play the piano, albeit very badly, so I'm not always passive. However, the last thing I would want to do is think about the piece I am playing in a form dependent on words for expression or conceptualisation. (I don't even really like vocal music, in part because I don't want words to intrude. It helps with vocal music if it is in a language I don't speak.)


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> You make it sound as though it's a quantitative thing, as if you could make a list of similarities and differences in the style of a schoolteacher and just see which list is longer.


Not just number, but also degree. Assigning some actual values would be tricky for things that are so subjective. You, for example, appear to have a sense of what is beautiful that I clearly do not recognize as such. And I don't know that it needs to be that formal. I can see that a mountain is tall (without knowing exactly how tall it is), and the inclines steep (without knowing exactly what the angle might be).


----------



## Mandryka

If you focus on feelings you miss the best part of the music. Look, I'm interested a bit in LvB op 135/ii in the opening part at least, I like the complex rhythm created by the syncopation of the melody. For me the pleasure has nothing to do with feelings, it is about enjoying the structure. At about 45 secs into this clip -- it's great to see the cellist do it, you really see how the melody shifts a beat totally unexpectedly. There's a sort of intellectual pleasure in experiencing the audacity of the gesture.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I do understand this, because I am a mathematician. There is great beauty in a good proof, and not much in a brute force one, say dependent on lots of computer back-up.
It's just not what I'm seeking from music.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Oh, and I would add that the essence of a great proof is the imaginative leap. It's the thing you can marvel at after the event, but not any intellectualism beforehand. It's the non-intellectual content that's the joy.


----------



## Mandryka

Eclectic Al said:


> I do understand this, because I am a mathematician. T


Me too -- but I've forgotten it all now! I just can't do it any more.


----------



## Jacck

Eclectic Al said:


> I do understand this, because I am a mathematician. There is great beauty in a good proof, and not much in a brute force one, say dependent on lots of computer back-up.
> It's just not what I'm seeking from music.


like proving the Riemann hypothesis using the Hilbert-Polya conjecture? I have some intermediate mathematical education (I know what a tensor, a Lie group or differential equation is) and I dont find the intellectual pleasure of mathematics or physics too similar to music. Mathematics requires much more effort to get into, but the rewards are also greater than with music. Music is for relaxation, not for intellectual stimulation.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Mandryka said:


> Me too -- but I've forgotten it all now! I just can't do it any more.


Me too, in a way. I prostituted myself for filthy lucre. But I still have a yearning for the purity of the abstract,


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> If you focus on feelings you miss the best part of the music. Look, I'm interested a bit in LvB op 135/ii in the opening part at least, I like the complex rhythm created by the syncopation of the melody. For me the pleasure has nothing to do with feelings, it is about enjoying the structure. At about 45 secs into this clip -- it's great to see the cellist do it, you really see how the melody shifts a beat totally unexpectedly. There's a sort of intellectual pleasure in experiencing the audacity of the gesture.


To me, if you _don't_ focus on the feelings you miss the best part of music (unless it doesn't have any). This is our line of division.



Jacck said:


> . . . Music is for relaxation, not for intellectual stimulation.


Well, not _heavy_ intellectual stimulation.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Jacck said:


> like proving the Riemann hypothesis using the Hilbert-Polya conjecture? I have some intermediate mathematical education (I know what a tensor, a Lie group or differential equation is) and I dont find the intellectual pleasure of mathematics or physics too similar to music. Mathematics requires much more effort to get into, but the rewards are also greater than with music. Music is for relaxation, not for intellectual stimulation.


I don't disagree. That's probably why I am quite anti-intellectual in music. I think you need to go 100% for the spadework, or otherwise just enjoy.


----------



## Mandryka

This has been a very good discussion for the past few days, thanks to everyone!


----------



## mikeh375

Eclectic Al said:


> Me too, in a way. I prostituted myself for filthy lucre. But I still have a yearning for the purity of the abstract,


ditto Al..........


----------



## Eclectic Al

Mandryka said:


> There's a sort of intellectual pleasure in experiencing the audacity.


That's why I like Haydn. Remember him! It's the little audacious bits of spice that he throws in. I can't (or won't) intellectualise it, but I feel it.

Here's an idea. I'll start a thread where someone proposes an "avant garde" piece, and someone else proposes a work by Haydn. People must listen to both, and then comment. I mean it. :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

Eclectic Al said:


> That's why I like Haydn. Remember him! It's the little audacious bits of spice that he throws in. I can't (or won't) intellectualise it, but I feel it.
> 
> Here's an idea. I'll start a thread where someone proposes an "avant garde" piece, and someone else proposes a work by Haydn. People must listen to both, and then comment. I mean it. :lol:


That's a new idea to me. Did Haydn realize he was creating what you hear? Automatic for him? That's quite a connection you have with him. I play his clever sonatas, but I can't get that connection. Maybe it's only in how he handles strings and orchestra. They sing more than keyboards.


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> The model you seem to be working with is that the music is a stimulus to produce a feeling in the listener, that's the job of music. But why? Why that rather than other ways of enjoying the experience: music to stimulate the imagination, stimulate the intellect, make curious, make the listener think about the past tradition and the future of possibilities in a fresh way etc?
> 
> I hate the idea of the listener as a sort of passive thing who goes to a concert, sits back and waits to be moved, pushed, lured, cajoled into an "emotion" . . . . horrible! Listeners become the puppet of the composer who's pulling the strings with his tunes. Like kids at a pantomime. NO! KILL ME NOW!


The way you think about emotions seems so odd to me. As though if music makes you feel an emotion it is somehow unethical or equivalent to a base sexual act and you may flagellate yourself afterwards for allowing yourself to be so manipulated.

If music causes a reaction in you that "stimulates the imagination, stimulates the intellect, makes curious, makes the listener think about the past tradition and the future of possibilities in a fresh way" then one could point out that you are being "cajoled", "lured" or "pushed" into that reaction, in precisely the same way. The only difference is that you seem to feel the intellect is sacrosanct and heart reactions are somehow base and morally suspect.

In my view if you try to separate emotional responses out of music (or life). You are limiting your own consciousness, experience, and even your own mind.


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> If music causes a reaction in you that "stimulates the imagination, stimulates the intellect, makes curious, makes the listener think about the past tradition and the future of possibilities in a fresh way" then one could point out that you are being "cajoled", "lured" or "pushed" into that reaction, in precisely the same way.


When you imagine, you imagine freely. The content of what you imagine is not determined by the sounds. When you become curious and when you reflect, and the direction of that reflection is something which you chose, the music which gave rise to it does not violate your autonomy.

By contrast, when a composer uses sounds to make you feel, he is manipulating you.

It would be interesting to think in this context of the most manipulative piece of music I know, Wishart's Red Bird






And to contrast it with a more cognitive piece, something like Ravel's orchestral La Valse maybe.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Mandryka said:


> By contrast, when a composer uses sounds to make you feel, he is manipulating you.


That is certainly true. It is, however, a manipulation which I tolerate - and indeed seek.

Similarly, an actor manipulates me, as does a painter or an author, and those seeking their work out are (I would guess) wanting that manipulation.

My concern about being manipulated is when it connects to beliefs.

Take charity adverts on the television. They use mawkish music and exploitative video footage of people or animals to seek to get me to sign up to a direct debit of £3 per week. I object to that - regardless of the cause.

Films use music to add to the emotional punch. I object to that if the film is seeking to alter my opinions about something - whether it be a militaristic propaganda film with martial music, or a climate emergency film with sad music over footage of a drought area. I don't object to it if it is internal to the film's own world - such as happy music over a wedding at the end of a Jane Austen film.

Comedians: great, happy to be manipulated into laughing, so long as they are not endlessly pushing a political agenda.

This is another reason I don't want to think about music very hard, and I don't seek biographical details of composers, and I don't want to know about their politics or opinions, and I don't really like songs/opera (because they have words). I am only too happy to allow music to manipulate me, provided that the manipulation is not aimed at changing my beliefs.


----------



## Fabulin

Mandryka said:


> By contrast, when a composer uses sounds to make you feel, he is manipulating you.


You nailed it. That's the point of music.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> . . . By contrast, when a composer uses sounds to make you feel, he is manipulating you.


In what way does your preferred approach to music avoid any sense of being manipulated? If you, as a listener, are not in some way being limited or directed by the composer (and in this case the performers), what is the creator of the music providing to you?


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> In what way does your preferred approach to music avoid any sense of being manipulated? If you, as a listener, are not in some way being limited or directed by the composer (and in this case the performers), what is the creator of the music providing to you?


In my preferred approach I am aware that I am eves-dropping onto the musicians being creative, creatively responding to the score. That's what I like. I like to experience the interaction of musicians with each other and (possibly) with a score.

Examples -- I dunno, this maybe






and this


----------



## Mandryka

Fabulin said:


> You nailed it. That's the point of music.


Well, one point of music is to be played. That has to be part of it.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> In my preferred approach I am aware that I am eves-dropping onto the musicians being creative, creatively responding to the score. That's what I like. I like to experience the interaction of musicians with each other and (possibly) with a score.


I also hear and enjoy the interaction of the musicians, but I am more interested in what that interaction produces than a thing for its own sake. But this is precisely the kind of thing that I hear from people who "get" modern classical music, and it is precisely the kind of experience that I am not seeking. It is also the kind of thing that is precisely why it is not compatible with what comes before. (I do wonder if people who start to listen to music in the way you propose find that they do that will all music.)


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> I It is also the kind of thing that is precisely why it is not compatible with what comes before.


Can you say a bit more about that?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Luchesi said:


> "Now basic concepts like beauty, greatness, and spirit have no meaning, because they can't be limited and reduced to a formula or objective definition."
> 
> They can't? I think you can find whole articles about this process of reduction. *Every aspect of any art can be stripped of its mystery and explained.* We might not like the explanation. Materialism.


I agree with that, some of us just like to dissect stuff, and have been accused of just looking at music from a technical perspective. But personally, I find more enjoyment that way.



Mandryka said:


> The model you seem to be working with is that the music is a stimulus to produce a feeling in the listener, that's the job of music. But why? Why that rather than other ways of enjoying the experience: music to stimulate the imagination, stimulate the intellect, make curious, make the listener think about the past tradition and the future of possibilities in a fresh way etc?
> 
> I hate the idea of the listener as a sort of passive thing who goes to a concert, sits back and waits to be moved, pushed, lured, cajoled into an "emotion" . . . . horrible! Listeners become the puppet of the composer who's pulling the strings with his tunes. Like kids at a pantomime. NO! KILL ME NOW!


I see them being the same, with or without emotion. I think even avant garde music is manipulating, even though the listener may think they have more freedom from the composer's will. It's not necessarily a bad thing to be willfully manipulated.


----------



## Phil loves classical

JAS said:


> I also hear and enjoy the interaction of the musicians, *but I am more interested in what that interaction produces than a thing for its own sake. But this is precisely the kind of thing that I hear from people who "get" modern classical music*, and it is precisely the kind of experience that I am not seeking. It is also the kind of thing that is precisely why it is not compatible with what comes before. (I do wonder if people who start to listen to music in the way you propose find that they do that will all music.)


I honestly think those people who say that don't actually "get" modern music, contrary to what they claim. Especially when they start pulling emotions they feel out of a hat.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> I honestly think those people who say that don't actually "get" modern music, contrary to what they claim. Especially when they start pulling emotions they feel out of a hat.


There are many different types of modern music, do you think they all have something interesting in common?


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> Can you say a bit more about that?


I don't know that I can say a lot more about this. The way you say you listen to music, since it does not satisfy by melody and the kind of manipulation you don't like, basically requires that you listen for something else. I do not need to listen for that something else when I listen to traditional classical music because it provides other satisfactions that do not require that. (In the case of traditional music, it may be possible to listen to it in your way, but it does not usually work the other way around. That is, we cannot listen to modern music in the way that we listen to traditional music, because the elements we need are, mostly, not present. And often, what is present, is expressly unpleasant to us, making it something that we specifically do not want to hear any longer.)


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> I honestly think those people who say that don't actually "get" modern music, contrary to what they claim. Especially when they start pulling emotions they feel out of a hat.


I don't know why you would think this, because it simply isn't true. It suggests that the assignment of feelings is truly arbitrary, but that denies that many people of vaguely similar backgrounds will share a similar response. I cannot go into an exact mapping, but as a very basic example, more energetic music is more likely to inspire a sense of happiness, while slower music may convey a sense of reserved dignity, and very slow music something approaching sadness. High and low notes have similar associations. It gets more personal if we assign feeling noble or humorous, although these too can be widely shared. There is also simply a feeling of general pleasure in a appreciating a lovely melody, and it recognizing its return (in the original form, or a modified but still recognizable form). Certainly people listening to the last movement of Beethoven's 9th are not likely to think that they are hearing a dirge. These people are exuberant about something!

(There can also be other, more personal, associations. A particular melody may remind me of a particular person or setting, from personal experience. These associations can often be explained, but would not necessarily be shared without prompting.)


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> There are many different types of modern music, do you think they all have something interesting in common?


I seek out modern works because they're from today's experts in musical creativity and where the art is going. Whether or not I agree with their offerings. It would have been the same if I was living in LvB's time and being shocked by his visions.

If I didn't think they were experts, more knowledgeable, more experienced, more dedicated than I am I would probably have the severely limited opinions of the man-on-the-street. Why would we want to be like that?


----------



## JAS

Luchesi said:


> I seek out modern works because they're from today's experts in musical creativity and where the art is going. Whether or not I agree with their offerings. It would have been the same if I was living in LvB's time and being shocked by his visions.
> 
> If I didn't think they were experts, more knowledgeable, more experienced, more dedicated than I am I would probably have the severely limited opinions of the man-on-the-street. Why would we want to be like that?


And this is exactly the kind of sneering we get simply by acknowledging our response to music that we find ugly and/or uninteresting.

And for the record, I do not presume that they are more knowledgeable or dedicated or anything else. In the end, no position trumps my own reaction, nor should it (unless I am unable to form an intelligent reaction, and I am very much able to do so).


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> I seek out modern works because they're ... where the art is going.


It would seem to be going in many different directions; which is a good thing, IMO.

Not so much anymore, but for a while I was actively finding new music from young composers in their 20s and 30s, some older. I then contacted many and assembled a collection of short interviews with them on my blog. One thing that came through is that all of them saw themselves as part of a tradition, based in large part with whom they studied and the composers they acknowledged as an influence.

Often the music was extremely well made and engaging. If anyone is interested, here's the link to these Profiles.


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> I don't know why you would think this, because it simply isn't true. It suggests that the assignment of feelings is truly arbitrary, but that denies that many people of vaguely similar backgrounds will share a similar response. I cannot go into an exact mapping, but as a very basic example, more energetic music is more likely to inspire a sense of happiness, while slower music may convey a sense of reserved dignity, and very slow music something approaching sadness. High and low notes have similar associations. It gets more personal if we assign feeling noble or humorous, although these too can be widely shared. There is also simply a feeling of general pleasure in a appreciating a lovely melody, and it recognizing its return (in the original form, or a modified but still recognizable form). Certainly people listening to the last movement of Beethoven's 9th are not likely to think that they are hearing a dirge. These people are exuberant about something!
> 
> (There can also be other, more personal, associations. A particular melody may remind me of a particular person or setting, from personal experience. These associations can often be explained, but would not necessarily be shared without prompting.)


One interesting thing about electronic music is that they use sounds which have a recognisable origin, and this gives them an emotional connotation. Trevor Wishart is an expert at this, I posted the youtube of his Red Bird above somewhere, it's an extreme example.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Luchesi said:


> If I didn't think they were experts, more knowledgeable, more experienced, more dedicated than I am I would probably have the severely limited opinions of the man-on-the-street. Why would we want to be like that?


People producing these works may well be experts, but then so are producers of film music or indeed popular music.

However, that's not really my prime concern. I am in general wary of deferring to "experts", as defining who is an expert is increasingly a matter which is handed over to other "experts". The obvious difficulty with this is that you can end up spiralling in ever-decreasing circles, with experts simply being people who share the worldview of the existing clique. The only way you can get on is to be in tune with the prejudices of those with influence, and round and round it goes.

At least with natural sciences there is some protection through the ability to check science via experiment. Even there, though, when it becomes untestable (for example as in some theoretical physics or in simulation of outcomes for chaotic systems where you have no ability to rerun the real world to repeat the test) there is a large danger of group think.

When it comes to the social sciences, and to new music which is seeking approval from academic experts (as opposed to music which is judged by amateurs via a market), there is little left but an echo chamber.

If a field of work cannot be judged objectively, and is generally only appreciated by people who are themselves deeply involved in the field, then that's fine, but it smacks of being a cult. People can get a lot out of being part of a cult: an enjoyment of the practices it involves, a sense of belonging, etc.

After many pages of discussion in this thread I must admit that I am coming to the conclusion that there is very little in common between avant-garde music and other sorts - largely because it seems to be becoming clear that the participants are seeking substantially different things. It seems like avant-garde people primarily appreciate music via an analytical process with the personal experience of the sounds being secondary, whereas others treat the experience of the sound as primary, and may or may not want to analyse what's going on theoretically as a secondary matter.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> One interesting thing about electronic music is that they use sounds which have a recognisable origin, and this gives them an emotional connotation. Trevor Wishart is an expert at this, I posted the youtube of his Red Bird above somewhere, it's an extreme example.


Mere sounds are not music. I have no emotional connection to this work, unless "please make it stop" counts.


----------



## annaw

What means that our own emotions, which are the product of the music, manipulate us? Wouldn't it mean that when I walked in a forest on a sunny day, listened to birds sing and was made happy by that, I'm being manipulated as well? If a friend told me about someone's misery and I felt empathy, am I being manipulated?

The feeling of empathy is actually one of the nearest things to the emotions created by music (though some argue against music creating real emotions), I can think of at the moment. Similarly, it makes us feel something we wouldn't feel without it. On the other hand, what emotions would we feel at all, if it wasn't for external factors? I cannot see how one emotion could be more manipulative than another one. Yes, one can be more real, in the sense that it's connected with some personal event we are undergoing at the specific moment, but the feelings and emotions music creates are similarly very real but possibly just more abstract because music doesn't provide objects to which our emotions are usually attached to. We don't start feeling angry at the piece or saddened by the piece itself.

This very great expressive quality of music, acknowledged by many philosophers, is the very reason where I think lies its power. That's why music can have an immense emotional impact. The performers are there to convey their own understanding of the composer's work but a musical performance isn't for me about the performers. Rather, it's a mutual experience of the composer's work, experienced by the performers and the listeners from different perspectives.

The expressiveness is given to music at least partly through using specific musical structures which possess the quality of expressiveness or which convey a certain "feeling". I personally feel that the Romantics, for example, managed to use these structures with particular skilfulness, while _some of the_ contemporary composers, through rejecting conventional musical qualities (tonality, harmony, melody etc) simply don't put them into similar use but that was probably not their goal either. Even if I acknowledged that a piece I'm listening to is sad, I can still remain in a cheerful mood and thus the extent to which music could be described as "manipulative" is questionable.

I do believe there is subjectiveness in the emotions we feel, as Hanslick put it:

_Just as the painter extracts scenes and figures from the tones, so does the listener classify them as feelings and events. Both interpretations have some kind of connection with the tones, but not a necessary one._


----------



## JAS

Eclectic Al said:


> People producing these works may well be experts, but then so are producers of film music or indeed popular music. . . .


And film music is an excellent example of an innate emotional reaction to music, admittedly based on a collective sense of shared experience. There is an error often made that film music is merely embodying what is on the screen, but this is only sometimes true. We can watch, for example, a man walking with a vase of flowers, with no music and other context and think nothing of it. The same scene with a lush, pulsing love theme gives the scene a romantic sense, and with ominous or suspenseful music tells us to be on the alert, that something is about to happen (or at least we are to assume so).


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> Mere sounds are not music. I have no emotional connection to this work, unless "please make it stop" counts.


If you persisted you'd see it has a structure, there are horrible sounds and there are beautiful sounds. That structure is one of the things which makes it musical, and not "mere sounds"

It is a very disturbing thing though, and I can fully understand your reaction (for what it's worth I feel about _ Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda_ and _Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk_ the same as you do _Red Bird_ - nevertheless I am glad to have seen them.)


----------



## Jacck

JAS said:


> Mere sounds are not music. I have no emotional connection to this work, unless "please make it stop" counts.


I have never heard of Tevor Wishart before, but I am now listening to his Imago on youtube and I am quite enjoying it. It is one of the more interesting modern pieces for me. A lot of the modern music has an ASMR effect on me (such as the Trevor Wishart). Many modern pieces create interesting soundscapes and either you like listening to them or you dont.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> If you persisted you'd see it has a structure, there are horrible sounds and there are beautiful sounds. That structure is one of the things which makes it musical, and not "mere sounds"


Mere sounds and some semblance of structure are also not music. If I had persisted, I suspect that it would only have given me a headache.


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> I have never heard of Tevor Wishart before, but I am now listening to his Imago on youtube and I am quite enjoying it. It is one of the more interesting modern pieces for me. A lot of the modern music has an ASMR effect on me (such as the Trevor Wishart). Many modern pieces create interesting soundscapes and either you like listening to them or you dont.


Try and find him giving a lecture, there used to be some stuff on youtube, he's adorable in a sort of British university professor way. He's not really a composer (Jas will be pleased to know), he's an IT man who found his way into music.


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> Mere sounds and some semblance of structure are also not music. If I had persisted, I suspect that it would only have given me a headache.


Well, without wishing to punish you further, I'll point out that they're not mere sounds but highly processed sounds, processed with great attention to minute nuances.

Oh for goodness sake, Jas, pull yourself together. Are you a wimp? Get some paracetamol ready and listen to all of it.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> Well, without wishing to punish you further, I'll point out that they're not mere sounds but highly processed sounds, processed with great attention to minute nuances.
> 
> Oh for goodness sake, Jas, pull yourself together. Are you a wimp? Get some paracetamol ready and listen to all of it.


I am fine just avoiding stuff of this sort, thanks. If this is the product, no amount of intention transforms it into music.

I am watching Trevor Wishart - Composing the real. I think he is completely loony, and deeply invested in a path that will never produce anything worthwhile.


----------



## norman bates

Eclectic Al said:


> People producing these works may well be experts, but then so are producers of film music or indeed popular music.
> 
> However, that's not really my prime concern. I am in general wary of deferring to "experts", as defining who is an expert is increasingly a matter which is handed over to other "experts". The obvious difficulty with this is that you can end up spiralling in ever-decreasing circles, with experts simply being people who share the worldview of the existing clique. The only way you can get on is to be in tune with the prejudices of those with influence, and round and round it goes.
> 
> At least with natural sciences there is some protection through the ability to check science via experiment. Even there, though, when it becomes untestable (for example as in some theoretical physics or in simulation of outcomes for chaotic systems where you have no ability to rerun the real world to repeat the test) there is a large danger of group think.
> 
> When it comes to the social sciences, and to new music which is seeking approval from academic experts (as opposed to music which is judged by amateurs via a market), there is little left but an echo chamber.
> 
> If a field of work cannot be judged objectively, and is generally only appreciated by people who are themselves deeply involved in the field, then that's fine, but it smacks of being a cult. People can get a lot out of being part of a cult: an enjoyment of the practices it involves, a sense of belonging, etc.
> 
> After many pages of discussion in this thread I must admit that I am coming to the conclusion that there is very little in common between avant-garde music and other sorts - largely because it seems to be becoming clear that the participants are seeking substantially different things. * It seems like avant-garde people primarily appreciate music via an analytical process w*ith the personal experience of the sounds being secondary, whereas others treat the experience of the sound as primary, and may or may not want to analyse what's going on theoretically as a secondary matter.


about the bolded part: to me, as a person who has a deep appreciation for a lot of modern music and art, that's absolutely, completely, in the most definitive way NOT TRUE. Analytical listening is useful to understand what's happening in technical terms. But that is certainly not what gives me pleasure. In fact most of the time I don't even know what's happening in the music from a technical point of view and while I have the curiosity to understand it when there's music that I really love, it's always a consequence of my enjoyement. 
Since I have a passion for architecture too, I think it's easy to make a comparison with it. One sees the proportions, the lines, the colors, the textures of the materials, the effect of the building (if it's calming, if it's powerful, if it's mysterious and so on). The way how the building stands, even if there are very complex structural calculations can be interesting but it's almost not related to the aesthetic pleasure that the building could gives. In fact there are buildings that are probably engineering marvels but that I think are hideous.


----------



## Phil loves classical

JAS said:


> I don't know why you would think this, because it simply isn't true. It suggests that the assignment of feelings is truly arbitrary, but that denies that many people of vaguely similar backgrounds will share a similar response. I cannot go into an exact mapping, but as a very basic example, more energetic music is more likely to inspire a sense of happiness, while slower music may convey a sense of reserved dignity, and very slow music something approaching sadness. High and low notes have similar associations. It gets more personal if we assign feeling noble or humorous, although these too can be widely shared. There is also simply a feeling of general pleasure in a appreciating a lovely melody, and it recognizing its return (in the original form, or a modified but still recognizable form). Certainly people listening to the last movement of Beethoven's 9th are not likely to think that they are hearing a dirge. These people are exuberant about something!
> 
> (There can also be other, more personal, associations. A particular melody may remind me of a particular person or setting, from personal experience. These associations can often be explained, but would not necessarily be shared without prompting.)


I was referring more to emotions people get out of atonal music. But my main point, is the interaction between players is not for the sake of it only, and those that claim that are not actually getting it in my view.


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> I was referring more to emotions people get out of atonal music.


There you may be right, and I am sorry if I misunderstood.


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> Mere sounds are not music.


onestly I can think of pieces that are basically mare sound that I love with an incredible atmosphere. Than one could call those pieces "not music", but that doesn't change the fact that it's still art with a great value.
Two short examples:

Delia Derbyshire - The delian mode





Alfred Schnittke - Stream


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> I was referring more to emotions people get out of atonal music. .


I'm not following you. Are you really saying that if music is atonal it isn't expressive emotionally. If so, I think you're wrong? Here's something by Beat Furrer which I think is atonal (though I've learned that I'm rubbish at recognising whether something is or not)


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> But my main point, is the interaction between players is not for the sake of it only, and those that claim that are not actually getting it in my view.


Again, I don't understand this well enough to comment. Sometimes that interaction can be very stimulating to hear IMO -- is that agreeing with you or not? I can't work it out.


----------



## Mandryka

norman bates said:


> Than one could call those pieces "not music"


I just think that it's not worth going down that road. Call it shmusak if that makes people happy. If someone wants to explain the difference between shmusak and music then that could be more interesting, I don't see anything interesting there though, other than some sort of extreme conservative desire to protect traditional values or something, Beckmesser style.


----------



## Eclectic Al

norman bates said:


> about the bolded part: to me, as a person who has a deep appreciation for a lot of modern music and art, that's absolutely, completely, in the most definitive way NOT TRUE. Analytical listening is useful to understand what's happening in technical terms. But that is certainly not what gives me pleasure. In fact most of the time I don't even know what's happening in the music from a technical point of view and while I have the curiosity to understand it when there's music that I really love, it's always a consequence of my enjoyement.


This is getting interesting. 

I really hope that's true - and I have no reason to doubt it.
Music should be about pleasure. Good to hear.


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> onestly I can think of pieces that are basically mare sound that I love with an incredible atmosphere. Than one could call those pieces "not music", but that doesn't change the fact that it's still art with a great value.


I could not play the first. The second is by no means offensive, but neither does it rise anywhere near my minimum threshold for music.

But, if you enjoy it, that is fine. My only question is if we should be actively trying to feed this sort of thing into a mainstream, or telling people that this is what classical music is today, just get used to it. I would not want to include this on a concert or CD with more traditional works. (If it was on its own, with works in a similar vein, and the audience was fully aware of what it would be getting, that would be fine with me. I would prefer not to be present or to buy it.)


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> My only question is if we should be actively trying to feed this sort of thing into a mainstream.


What do you mean "should", and who is "we"? By mainstream do you mean classic FM?


----------



## JAS

I am not familiar with classic FM. We is a general reference. Should is a question of active advocacy. I would not want to hear any of these pieces on my local classical radio station. I would not want to buy a CD with such a mix, nor attend a concert. I would not recommend them to someone starting out with classical music.


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> I am not familiar with classic FM. We is a general reference. Should is a question of active advocacy. I would not want to hear any of these pieces on my local classical radio station. I would not want to buy a CD with such a mix, nor attend a concert. I would not recommend them to someone starting out with classical music.


OK, I just think that some people will have their curiosity piqued some people won't and there's no way to know unless you try. In that sense I actively advocate trying this sort of stuff.


----------



## JAS

^^^ and others, with a mild interest, may be turned off entirely, misled that this is what is out there and nothing more.


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> ^^^ and others, with a mild interest, may be turned off entirely, misled that this is what is out there and nothing more.


That's always going to be a risk, whatever they listen to.


----------



## Guest

Mandryka said:


> Try and find him giving a lecture, there used to be some stuff on youtube, he's adorable in a sort of British university professor way. *He's not really a composer* [...], *he's an IT man who found his way into music*.


I think Trevor Wishart would be surprised to hear that. He's very much a composer who dabbled very well in IT.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> That's always going to be a risk, whatever they listen to.


The risk goes up exponentially depending on what is offered. I think very few people would regard these as attractive musical pieces.


----------



## Mandryka

TalkingHead said:


> I think Trevoe Wishart would be surprised to hear that. He's very much a composer who dabbled very well in IT.


I don't know why I said that, but there's something . . . which made me think that he was an IT man who dabbled in composing. But you're probably right.


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> The risk goes up exponentially depending on what is offered. I think very few people would regard these as attractive musical pieces.


Few people would regard caviar as an attractive food.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> I am watching Trevor Wishart- Composing the real. I think he is completely loony, and deeply invested in a path that will never produce anything worthwhile.


I think what you have written is juvenile and idiotic. Read his book On Sonic Art, it shows a sharp musical mind, and ear. *Mind* and *ear*: geddit?
As to *Red Bird*, not my favourite work of his. His *Vox* cycle is much more my cup of tea (one of them was commissioned by the BBC Proms). And my all-time favourite of his is *Anticredos*, a _tour-de-force_ of extended vocal technique for six amplified voices with a fantastically detailed and thought-out graphic score.


----------



## Fabulin

I find Mr. Wishart's works to be simply scientific experiments (of linguistics, acoustics, and, because of their results, psychology). Very informative, but of not much use "out there" as music.


----------



## Mandryka

TalkingHead said:


> I think what you have written is juvenile and idiotic. Read his book On Sonic Art, it shows a sharp musical mind, and ear. *Mind* and *ear*: geddit?
> As to *Red Bird*, not my favourite work of his. His *Vox* cycle is much more my cup of tea (one of them was commissioned by the BBC Proms). And my all-time favourite of his is *Anticredos*, a _tour-de-force_ of extended vocal technique for six amplified voices with a fantastically detailed and thought-out graphic score.


Oh, I've never heard Anticredos, I'll have to try and get it.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> Few people would regard caviar as an attractive food.


Me among them (and I have tried it). In fact, I am very wary of anything that is recommended as a delicacy as so many have turned out to be dreadful.


----------



## JAS

TalkingHead said:


> I think what you have written is juvenile and idiotic.


Think as you like. I stand by my comment. He is just raving on and on about nonsense. None of what he is doing is music, or anything like it.



TalkingHead said:


> Read his book On Sonic Art, it shows a sharp musical mind, and ear. *Mind* and *ear*: geddit?


I am not interested, based on his lecture presentation. He has some fundamental ideas about sound and music that I think are utterly unfounded. It certainly does not make me wish for more.


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> I could not play the first. The second is by no means offensive, but neither does it rise anywhere near my minimum threshold for music.
> 
> But, if you enjoy it, that is fine. My only question is if we should be actively trying to feed this sort of thing into a mainstream, or telling people that this is what classical music is today, just get used to it. I would now want to include this on a concert or CD with more traditional works. (If it was on its own, with works in a similar vein, and the audience was fully aware of what it would be getting, that would be fine with me. I would prefer not to be present or to buy it.)


I've never seen anybody pushing these kind of things (in that case, an experiment with a old ANS synthesizer, a wonderful machine that transformed drawings into sound) to a mainstream audience. And clearly music like that will never be mainstream, especially now in a era where there's less and less curiosity for music that is different. 
There's only thing that if I could I would push, and it's for musical education that isn't just centered on one genre or one era but that tries to make young people to experience the most diverse kinds of music, traditional and experimental when they still don't have any kind of preconceived idea about what music should and should not be. Like common practice classical music, opera, all kind of modern classical music, gamelan, gagaku, carnatic music, blues, jazz, folk, rock, flamenco, samba, salsa, great american songbook songs, noise, electronic music etc. But it's just a dream.


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> Me among them (and I have tried it). In fact, I am very wary of anything that is recommended as a delicacy as so many have turned out to be dreadful.


the thing with acquired tastes is that (like music) as the expression says, sometimes it requires time to be appreciated, to "click".
Maybe you find one thing disgusting one day, and years later you're asking yourself "how it's possible that I didn't like this"? It happened to me many times with both food and music.


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> the thing with acquired tastes is that (like music) sometimes it requires time to be appreciated.
> Maybe you find one thing disgusting one day, and years later you're asking yourself "how it's possible that I didn't like this"? It happened to me many times with both food and music.


They often say that the first man to eat a crab was very brave. I usually say, not as brave as the second man to eat a raw oyster.

The other thing about acquired tastes is that many of them are not really worth acquiring.


----------



## Roger Knox

I think there is an element here of us needing to become confident with our own developing taste in classical music. (I wish we could still use words like "taste" and even "aesthetics" to help describe our preferences without being attacked as elitist, but I'll go on and use them anyway.) In 20th century music there are aesthetic differences -- including in values and in what music is taken to "mean" -- compared to music of previous eras.

Not everyone who loves classical music has broad tastes. That's ok. If there are some things we need to know concerning listening to 20th-century music, during these constricted times there are on-line courses and other resources including this forum. There's nothing like ongoing learning! What one knows and hears helps to hone the taste and increase confidence.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> Think as you like. I stand by my comment. He is just raving on and on about nonsense. None of what he is doing is music, or anything like it.
> 
> I am not interested, based on his lecture presentation. He has some fundamental ideas about sound and music that I think are utterly unfounded. It certainly does not make me wish for more.


More nonsense. I'm wasting my time with you; go and wallow in the silt of your ignorance.


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> They often say that the first man to eat a crab was very brave. I usually say, not as brave as the second man to eat a raw oyster.
> 
> The other thing about acquired tastes is that many of them are not really worth acquiring.


Yes, but the thing is that only time can tell. One of the things I really like of myself is being curious. Of course one can live perfectly without curiosity, but I've learned to appreciate many things that otherwise I would not been able to, that opened new vistas if I can put it this way. And when you appreciate something that before you hated, it's one of those times that realizing you were wrong feels even good. It's humbling and gives the proper perspective that we have always things to learn.
Or at least, this is my personal experience.


----------



## Phil loves classical

TalkingHead said:


> I think Trevor Wishart would be surprised to hear that. He's very much a composer who dabbled very well in IT.


I was thinking who the heck is Trevor Wishart (Wish Art? :lol. I searched and found this video. I found the music very engaging. Pretty interesting how it says in the notes that he developed the software which did the processing.


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> More nonsense. I'm wasting my time with you; go and wallow in the silt of your ignorance.


Interesting how the "everything is subjective" mantra seems to go out the window when modern music is criticized.


> I found the music very engaging.


What does that mean? It reminds me of the old days when a less-than-attractive woman would be called "vivacious" or such.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> What does that mean? It reminds me of the old days when a less-than-attractive woman would be called "vivacious" or such.


It means the music was very engaging to me . For me it's the rhythms, the sonorities, the stereophonic effects. I'm not so concerned how it sounds to others.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> Think as you like. I stand by my comment. He is just raving on and on about nonsense. None of what he is doing is music, or anything like it.
> 
> I am not interested, based on his lecture presentation. He has some fundamental ideas about sound and music that I think are utterly unfounded. It certainly does not make me wish for more.


Much of it *is* nonsense, JAS, but these types get a free pass under the aegis of 'postmodernism'. Fortunately people are waking up!! Like the new musicology where white privilege and other sordid little self-justification tropes are to be found in abundance.


----------



## consuono

Christabel said:


> Much of it *is* nonsense, JAS, but these types get a free pass under the aegis of 'postmodernism'. Fortunately people are waking up!! Like the new musicology where white privilege and other sordid little self-justification tropes are to be found in abundance.


What's funny is to read people spouting postmodernish dogma and then deny that it's any such thing.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> What's funny is to read people spouting postmodernish dogma and then deny that it's any such thing.


It's the 'emperor's new clothes' syndrome.


----------



## Lilijana

TalkingHead said:


> I think what you have written is juvenile and idiotic. Read his book On Sonic Art, it shows a sharp musical mind, and ear. *Mind* and *ear*: geddit?
> As to *Red Bird*, not my favourite work of his. His *Vox* cycle is much more my cup of tea (one of them was commissioned by the BBC Proms). And my all-time favourite of his is *Anticredos*, a _tour-de-force_ of extended vocal technique for six amplified voices with a fantastically detailed and thought-out graphic score.


The first Wishart piece I heard was Red Bird, actually, and I think it's a terrific musical experience even if it isn't necessarily a favourite. Globalalia is my favourite, actually. Nice to see some mention of his music here, though!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Lilijana said:


> The first Wishart piece I heard was Red Bird, actually, and I think it's a terrific musical experience even if it isn't necessarily a favourite. *Globalalia* is my favourite, actually. Nice to see some mention of his music here, though!


Just listened to it now. Yup, fascinating and entertaining stuff. The way he actually took the tones and the "ch" consonants in Mandarin starting around 22:23 and added other tones and the same consonant from other languages was hilarious and brilliant.


----------



## SanAntone

Sadly what appears to be missing from much of this discussion are three things I think are crucial to appreciating art in all its forms:

1) Curiosity
2) Resist judgment
3) Resist categorization


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> Sadly what appears to be missing from much of this discussion are three things I think are crucial to appreciating art in all its forms:
> 
> 1) Curiosity
> 2) Resist judgment
> 3) Resist categorization


Agree. I used to love judging and dismissing stuff I didn't want to get into or try to understand further. Some of my old posts shown this tendency.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> Sadly what appears to be missing from much of this discussion are three things I think are crucial to appreciating art in all its forms:
> 
> 1) Curiosity
> 2) Resist judgment
> 3) Resist categorization


I think you're being a bit hard. The reactionary mindless trolls were kept in their place, most of them had retired to lick their wounds, most of the exchanges were well mannered -- even when responding to half baked, ill expressed, ignorant posts. The fulminations at the end of the day London time yesterday were unfortunate -- but that's what happens on a public forum. It takes all sorts.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Interesting how the "everything is subjective" mantra seems to go out the window when modern music is criticized. [...]


Show me - and do it quickly or hush up - where I said "everything is subjective".


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> Think as you like. I stand by my comment. *He is just raving on and on about nonsense*. None of what he is doing is music, or anything like it.


For the bolded comment above I was going to put you on my ignore list, then I thought, nah, let's give this guy a hard time, he needs it. So, here I am; feeling fresh, alive and joyful. Let's get to it.
First off, let's dissect your opening gambit: *"He is just raving on and on about nonsense"*. In the rhetorical arts that would count as an emotional appeal to the mob. Oh, c'mon, "rhetorical arts" is a bit too fancy, innit? Your comment is as deep and meaningful as Mrs Enid Scroggs posting in the comments section under an article in her local rag (newspaper). Well, let's let that go for now. The essential thing to bear in mind is that JAS (an unknown bean-counter or suit working in some company or other) considers a noted composer and academic to be "raving on and on about nonsense". OK, we note this and put it aside for later.



JAS said:


> I am not interested, based on his lecture presentation. *He has some fundamental ideas about sound and music that I think are utterly unfounded*. It certainly does not make me wish for more.


That is a much more interesting comment. You clearly know a lot about Trevor Wishart and his fundamental ideas about sound and music. I know a lot of his music and have read his seminal publications on the sonic arts so we are on the same playing field, right? So, JAS, I want *you* to tell *me* in what way his fundamental ideas about sound and music are utterly unfounded, using concrete references to the published literature, scores and other resources. You made these comments, _ergo_ the onus is on you. Get to it.
In the meantime, I take this occasion to _not_ wish you a pleasant day.


----------



## consuono

> Show me - and do it quickly or hush up - where I said "everything is subjective".


Somebody needs to get with the program. So you're saying this is objectively great stuff? Prove it quick, or hush up. And it's a gray rainy day here, so you can leave off that part of your "bug up my a***" shtick.



> First off, let's dissect your opening gambit: "He is just raving on and on about nonsense". In the rhetorical arts that would count as an emotional appeal to the mob.


First off, it's no more a rhetorical trick than calling this stuff "music".



> So, JAS, I want you to tell me in what way his fundamental ideas about sound and music are utterly unfounded, using concrete references to the published literature, scores and other resources.


 Why don't you demonstrate how it's fundamentally sound and grounded, using concrete references beyond the usual advertising language such as "compelling and engaging sound worlds" and the like?


> The way he actually took the tones and the "ch" consonants in Mandarin...


I'll scratch that last comment and just ask...this is "music" in what way?


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> demonstrate how it's fundamentally sound and grounded!


What sort of thing would be a demonstration of that? I could put you on to material about the form of _Red Bird_ for example. Or the processes he used to make the sounds. Is that what you're after? Or his aesthetic ideas about composition.

How you getting on with that paper on _Crimson_? Is it any good?


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Sonic art, maybe. I don't think anything interesting hangs on this.


So sonic art = music? I think a lot hangs on it.



> What sort of thing would be a demonstration of that? I could put you on to material about the form of Red Bird for example. Or the processes he used to make the sounds. Is that what you're after? Or his aesthetic ideas about composition.


Hmm..maybe structural analysis of some kind?



> How you getting on with that paper on Crimson?


I read it, and noticed that the author described a certain section of that work as "chorale-like" or something. I didn't hear anything of the sort. It's academic gobbledygook in praise of academic gobbledygook.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> I read it, and noticed that the author described a certain section of that work as "chorale-like" or something. I didn't hear anything of the sort. It's academic gobbledygook in praise of academic gobbledygook.


Would you mind doing me a favour? Could you upload the pdf to some file sharing service and give me the link? I can't get it to load from the original link.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> I think you're being a bit hard. The reactionary mindless trolls were kept in their place, most of them had retired to lick their wounds, most of the exchanges were well mannered -- even when responding to half baked, ill expressed, ignorant posts. The fulminations at the end of the day London time yesterday were unfortunate -- but that's what happens on a public forum. It takes all sorts.


Well, I want to learn modern music but I don't like where this (Red Bird) might be going (methods aren't important to me), so it makes me unreceptive to its interrelations.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Somebody needs to get with the program. So you're saying this is objectively great stuff? Prove it quick, or hush up. And it's a gray rainy day here, so you can leave off that part of your "bug up my a***" shtick.
> 
> First off, it's no more a rhetorical trick than calling this stuff "music".
> 
> Why don't you demonstrate how it's fundamentally sound and grounded, using concrete references beyond the usual advertising language such as "compelling and engaging sound worlds" and the like?
> I'll scratch that last comment and just ask...this is "music" in what way?


You seem somewhat exercised. I'll deal with you later as right now I'm off for dinner to a rather nice restaurant. I think I'll have you either as an _amuse-gueule_ or as a light dessert. 
Later!


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> You seem somewhat exercised. I'll deal with you later as right now I'm off for dinner to a rather nice restaurant. I think I'll have you either as an _amuse-gueule_ or as a light dessert.
> Later!


Naw, I'm chill as can be, bruh.

I'll be waiting.


----------



## Luchesi

It's very 'natural', but if hatred can be stirred up by so little instigation we have little chance of survival as a species.


----------



## JAS

^^^ It is actually pretty amazing that we have lasted as long as we have, but it appears that we won't last as long as the dinosaurs did.


----------



## Luchesi

JAS said:


> ^^^ It is actually pretty amazing that we have lasted as long as we have, but it appears that we won't last as long as the dinosaurs did.


They probably fought endlessly about food and territories, but not about works of expression.
Does that make us more advanced?


----------



## JAS

Luchesi said:


> They probably fought endlessly about food and territories, but not about works of expression.
> Does that make us more advanced?


I don't know, but suddenly I feel hungry, and I need to check to make sure that my front door is locked.


----------



## Jacck

Luchesi said:


> They probably fought endlessly about food and territories, but not about works of expression.
> Does that make us more advanced?


after the nuclear apocalypse, the surviving roving bands will again fight for food, water and territories. Most of the surface will be radiactive and unsuitable for agriculture, and the nuclear winter will cause massive famine, where 99% of mankind will perish. And then the Eloi and the Morlocks evolve.


----------



## JAS

Jacck said:


> after the nuclear apocalypse, the surviving roving bands will again fight for food, water and territories. Most of the surface will be radiactive and unsuitable for agriculture, and the nuclear winter will cause massive famine, where 99% of mankind will perish. And then the Eloi and the Morlocks evolve.


I think we already have Morlocks.


----------



## Luchesi

Jacck said:


> after the nuclear apocalypse, the surviving roving bands will again fight for food, water and territories. Most of the surface will be radiactive and unsuitable for agriculture, and the nuclear winter will cause massive famine, where 99% of mankind will perish. And then the Eloi and the Morlocks evolve.


But will they fight about the questions "What is music and what sounds are OK to use for expression?"

I enjoyed some of the alternative endings to The Time Machine.


----------



## Luchesi

JAS said:


> I think we already have Morlocks.


We should kill them all.


----------



## Jacck

Luchesi said:


> We should kill them all.


most people are easily deceived by Morlocks and do not recognize them behind their mask


----------



## Luchesi

Jacck said:


> most people are easily deceived by Morlocks and do not recognize them behind their mask


"I see dead people."

If you saw dead people why would it be scary?

What about seeing dead composers, like Rosemary Brown did?


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Naw, I'm chill as can be, bruh.
> 
> I'll be waiting.


Despite the fact you've been (sic) exercised, I'd suggest you *don't feed the trolls*; for the good of this site.


----------



## Luchesi

Christabel said:


> Despite the fact you've been (sic) exercised, I'd suggest you *don't feed the trolls*; for the good of this site.


It's not evident to you that TalkingHead is highly educated in music? It's likely that you don't understand his posts. Whooosh!


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> It's not evident to you that TalkingHead is highly educated in music? It's likely that you don't understand his posts. Whooosh!


A lot of composers turning out gloopy glops of sound and calling it "music" are also highly educated in music. So what? It doesn't mean they have any actual talent or discernment.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> A lot of composers turning out gloopy glops of sound and calling it "music" are also highly educated in music. So what? It doesn't mean they have any actual talent or discernment.


If they are able to communicate and affect their listeners (or at least those with a similar stance), then they succeeded in what they were trying to achieve. Isn't music a form of communication without using words? I think of contemporary music as a foreign language to those who accept English as the standard, and don't accept it as music.


----------



## SanAntone

> A lot of composers turning out gloopy glops of sound and calling it "music" are also highly educated in music. So what? It doesn't mean they have any actual talent or discernment.


What it means is that you do not have the powers of discernment to appreciate their music. You have a limited ability to hear beyond the music that does not challenge your comfort zone. It means that your poverty stricken imagination is satisfied with a reduced landscape of music.

Nothing wrong with any of that - other than you barking your ignorance like a dog as the caravan passes you by.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> What it means is that you do *not have the powers* of discernment to appreciate their music. You have a limited ability to hear beyond the music that does not challenge your comfort zone. It means that your poverty stricken imagination is satisfied with a reduced landscape of music.
> 
> Nothing wrong with any of that - other than you barking your ignorance like a dog as the caravan passes you by.


I sympathize with your view. But here is my sticking point, I think it's more the willingness rather than power, speaking from my own experience. The thing that got me over the hump is constantly asking the question "Suppose this, then what?"


----------



## hammeredklavier

JAS said:


> They often say that the first man to eat a crab was very brave. I usually say, not as brave as the second man to eat a raw oyster.
> The other thing about acquired tastes is that many of them are not really worth acquiring.


To me, a lot of avant-garde music is not "acquired taste". I don't think it's trash, it still has its applications and purpose in the modern society. Just imagine you're watching some grotesque scenes of a gory/horror film, and simply imagine that the music with all its effects acts as a soundtrack for that film. To me, this is the aesthetic appeal of a lot of avant-garde music. So I can see how it interests some people, who are into this sort of aesthetics. I agree with some people here that music isn't quite something to "understand", but to "feel".
I can't really say I dislike it, but I don't want to spend hours and hours listening to the stuff, because I have other things to prioritize over it. The same way I won't suddenly start liking horror movies. That would be so out of my character.

In this way, I could listen to all of this without thinking that any of it is trashy or ugly:





I talked about this before in other threads:

"Regardless of whether you like it or not, a lot of contemporary music also has its uses in modern culture. Listen to the soundtrack at 18:00, 18:30 of this documentary. I think it fits the scenes very appropriately. -It does a very good job at creating an atmosphere of grotesque feelings appropriate for the scenes.

*[ 18:00 ]*
*[ 18:30 ]*





It reminds me of Stockhausen's _Gesang der junglinge_, and I can't think of any other pieces of classical music that can do this better. So I think a lot of contemporary music has incidental music-like character in it that it has to be used in some sort of context, such as visual media content, to be relevant to modern society."

"This Feldman piano and string quartet piece instills in me a feeling of "having an endless series of questions" and it is suitable as soundtrack for documentaries or films dealing with mysteries. I'm reminded of those eerie, silent scenes of the horror films I've watched where a zombie or a ghost might be hiding somewhere, waiting to ambush the protagonist:


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> A lot of composers turning out gloopy glops of sound and calling it "music" are also highly educated in music. So what? It doesn't mean they have any actual talent or discernment.


I can see your point. "How can we call something "art", if it's something anyone can achieve". 
I also ponder this question from time to time, - the same one being asked in modern art today:


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> To me, this is the aesthetic appeal of a lot of avant-garde music. So I can see how it interests some people, who are into this sort of aesthetics. I agree with some people here that *music isn't quite something to "understand", but to "feel"*.


I think some people can "feel" to an understanding of certain type of music (I'm usually not one of them). I have to try to understand first to be interested or to like. I think it has to do with being more left-brained vs right.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TalkingHead said:


> You seem somewhat exercised. I'll deal with you later as right now I'm off for dinner to a rather nice restaurant. I think I'll have you either as an _amuse-gueule_ or as a light dessert.
> Later!


Have you finished your dinner yet? I guess you had something else other than consuono for a dessert. Consuono will be Consumed for breakfast, I suppose?



Luchesi said:


> It's not evident to you that TalkingHead is highly educated in music? It's likely that you don't understand his posts. Whooosh!


What's also evident to me is that TalkingHead eats through his ear and excretes through his mouth.


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> What it means is that you do not have the powers of discernment to appreciate their music. You have a limited ability to hear beyond the music that does not challenge your comfort zone. It means that your poverty stricken imagination is satisfied with a reduced landscape of music.
> 
> Nothing wrong with any of that - other than you barking your ignorance like a dog as the caravan passes you by.


What I don't understand is the implication that highly trained people have somehow lost music and musical discernment along the way. Obviously this isn't the case and people would understand that if they knew better. Subjectivity is the only value judgement here which is fine of course, but irrelevant to the composer's artistry and ability.


----------



## Fabulin

Once you listen enough, everything becomes "catchy", and then nothing really stands out the way it did earlier. This is a professional delusion caused by deliberate abnormally intense habituation.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> What it means is that you do not have the powers of discernment to appreciate their music. You have a limited ability to hear beyond the music that does not challenge your comfort zone. It means that your poverty stricken imagination is satisfied with a reduced landscape of music.
> 
> Nothing wrong with any of that - other than you barking your ignorance like a dog as the caravan passes you by.


Always amuses me that this is the response of some we get when we say we do not like music which sounds like someone pushing a piano down the stairs. Oh yes we have poverty stricken imaginations and a reduced landscape. We are also barking our ignorance. The fact that these guys might be pulling the wool over people's in the name of music eyes does not occur?


----------



## norman bates

Fabulin said:


> Once you listen enough, everything becomes "catchy", and then nothing really stands out the way it did earlier. This is a professional delusion caused by deliberate abnormally intense habituation.


Altough it's true (for all kind of music) that repeated listening obviously help music to be memorized, I don't think that everything becomes catchy. And even so, why "abnormally intense habituation" should be wrong? Basically every musician who studies music and memorize it goes through "abnormally intense habituation". I can't think of something that describes that more than the blind Helmut Walcha memorizing the whole art of the fugue with all the voices independently. He memorized all the works written by Bach.


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> To me, a lot of avant-garde music is not "acquired taste". I don't think it's trash, it still has its applications and purpose in the modern society. Just imagine you're watching some grotesque scenes of a gory/horror film, and simply imagine that the music with all its effects acts as a soundtrack for that film. To me, this is the aesthetic appeal of a lot of avant-garde music. So I can see how it interests some people, who are into this sort of aesthetics. I agree with some people here that music isn't quite something to "understand", but to "feel".
> I can't really say I dislike it, but I don't want to spend hours and hours listening to the stuff, because I have other things to prioritize over it. The same way I won't suddenly start liking horror movies. That would be so out of my character.
> 
> In this way, I could listen to all of this without thinking that any of it is trashy or ugly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I talked about this before in other threads:
> 
> "Regardless of whether you like it or not, a lot of contemporary music also has its uses in modern culture. Listen to the soundtrack at 18:00, 18:30 of this documentary. I think it fits the scenes very appropriately. -It does a very good job at creating an atmosphere of grotesque feelings appropriate for the scenes.
> 
> *[ 18:00 ]*
> *[ 18:30 ]*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It reminds me of Stockhausen's _Gesang der junglinge_, and I can't think of any other pieces of classical music that can do this better. So I think a lot of contemporary music has incidental music-like character in it that it has to be used in some sort of context, such as visual media content, to be relevant to modern society."
> 
> "This Feldman piano and string quartet piece instills in me a feeling of "having an endless series of questions" and it is suitable as soundtrack for documentaries or films dealing with mysteries. I'm reminded of those eerie, silent scenes of the horror films I've watched where a zombie or a ghost might be hiding somewhere, waiting to ambush the protagonist:


I think that the association with images (like watching a movie) is a great way to feel the effect of music without having the prejudices being in the way of it. So while it seems you still see it as a poor version of higher kind of music, I agree that it's a good way yo understand it .
That's why I think that movies like 2001 Space Odyssey (Kubrick), 3 women (Altman), or Red Desert (Antonioni) are great ways to approach modern music... besides being great movies.

But I'm curious to understand what you mean with that liking a horror movie would be out of your character. It's an interesting remark because I don't know if you mean it this way, but it sounds a bit like "I'm not supposed to like this movie, I'm not that kind of person" and I wonder if this is the way we build our identities and what "that kind of person" means for you.


----------



## SanAntone

mikeh375 said:


> What I don't understand is the implication that highly trained people have somehow lost music and musical discernment along the way. Obviously this isn't the case and people would understand that if they knew better. Subjectivity is the only value judgement here which is fine of course, but irrelevant to the composer's artistry and ability.


Subjective musical discernment exists for both composers and the audiences. Musical expertise gives composers the tools needed to write the music their subjective taste dictates. As is the case with all artists, they hope to find an receptive audience - which often happens.

Naysayers who harangue these composers and audiences of new music, which the naysayers are unable to even consider as music, display an abhorrent arrogance.


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> Always amuses me that this is the response of some we get when we say we do not like music which sounds like someone pushing a piano down the stairs. Oh yes we have poverty stricken imaginations and a reduced landscape. We are also barking our ignorance. The fact that these guys might be pulling the wool over people's in the name of music eyes does not occur?


Oh sure, composers of new music are all charlatans and their audiences are fools. Why is it so hard for you to live and let live?

I would not comment if you and those like you would just be satisfied with saying you don't like it. But, no, you must go on to question the motives of the composers and the intelligence of the audience.

That's not insulting at all.


----------



## Fabulin

norman bates said:


> Altough it's true (for all kind of music) that repeated listening obviously help music to be memorized, I don't think that everything becomes catchy. And even so, why "abnormally intense habituation" should be wrong? Basically every musician who studies music and memorize it goes through "abnormally intense habituation". I can't think of something that describes that more than the blind Helmut Walcha memorizing the whole art of the fugue with all the voices independently. He memorized all the works written by Bach.


This is just something I noticed in my own case, and deducted based on how educated others spoke of changing tastes and so on. I've read and heard some highly educated musicians, both performers and composers, and even some listeners, shaking their heads in confusion as to why does the non-professional public [here: anyone who is "less educated" than them] not react with elation to works, that are, a crucial idea here "good enough" to elicit a strong reaction in the view of the professionals. Quite many are oblivious to a natural human perspective, just like visual artists sometimes roll their eyes on the scientifically supported universal preference for beautiful landscape paintings.

I did not mean repetition of particular pieces, but rather types of sounds and structures. After a while a studious listener can consider everything "interesting", which I have witnessed quite a few times in self-professed musical omnivores.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Subjective musical discernment exists for both composers and the audiences. Musical expertise gives composers the tools needed to write the music their subjective taste dictates. As is the case with all artists, they hope to find an receptive audience - which often happens.
> 
> Naysayers who harangue these composers and audiences of new music, which the naysayers are unable to even consider as music, display an abhorrent arrogance.


"...which the naysayers are unable to even consider as music, display an abhorrent arrogance."

Are there a lot of musical experts who are "naysayers"? Any famous experts?


----------



## norman bates

Fabulin said:


> This is just something I noticed in my own case, and deducted based on how educated others spoke of changing tastes and so on. I've read and heard some highly educated musicians, both performers and composers, and even some listeners, shaking their heads in confusion as to why does the non-professional public [here: anyone who is "less educated" than them] not react with elation to works, that are, a crucial idea here "good enough" to elicit a strong reaction in the view of the professionals. Quite many are oblivious to a natural human perspective, just like visual artists sometimes roll their eyes on the scientifically supported universal preference for beautiful landscape paintings.
> 
> I did not mean repetition of particular pieces, but rather types of sounds and structures. After a while a studious listener can consider everything "interesting", which I have witnessed quite a few times in self-professed musical omnivores.


yes, but what's wrong with it? I call it learning. It seems that you see learning as a corruption of this "natural human perspective" while I think that through repetition our brain can learn to appreciate and understand a different thing, exactly like we can learn a different language or even emotions.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> Subjective musical discernment exists for both composers and the audiences. Musical expertise gives composers the tools needed to write the music their subjective taste dictates. As is the case with all artists, they hope to find an receptive audience - which often happens.
> 
> Naysayers who harangue these composers and audiences of new music, which the naysayers are unable to even consider as music, display an abhorrent arrogance.


It is no more arrogant to say that something isn't music than it is to say that it is. It is certainly not abhorrently arrogant. It is particularly not arrogant to say it about something when 9 out of 10 people who hear it are likely to agree with your assessment. What Wishart and composers like him are doing is so far out of the mainstream that it is they who display a certain degree of arrogance to impose their ideas on others. A long history is against them.


----------



## JAS

Luchesi said:


> "...which the naysayers are unable to even consider as music, display an abhorrent arrogance."
> 
> Are there a lot of musical experts who are "naysayers"? Any famous experts?


Maybe David Hurwitz?


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> It is no more arrogant to say that something isn't music than it is to say that it is. It is certainly not abhorrently arrogant. It is particularly not arrogant to say it about something when 9 out of 10 people who hear it are likely to agree with your assessment. What Wishart and composers like him are doing is so far out of the mainstream that it is they who display a certain degree of arrogance to impose their ideas on others. A long history is against them.


Are you advocating hegemony of the majority? 90% of people don't like classical music of any kind. Does that cause you to question your own taste?

Wishart and other living composers of new music are not imposing anything on anybody. Where do you get that idea? I get the feeling though that if you could you would stop Wishart from writing the music he wishes. I call that arrogant. Not Wishart for simply writing music he feels compelled to create. You need not listen.

Is it not enough for you to enjoy the music you do like?


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> It is no more arrogant to say that something isn't music than it is to say that it is. It is certainly not abhorrently arrogant. It is particularly not arrogant to say it about something when 9 out of 10 people who hear it are likely to agree with your assessment. What Wishart and composers like him are doing is so far out of the mainstream that it is they who display a certain degree of arrogance to impose their ideas on others. A long history is against them.


Are you sure you're not Beckmesser? It's not a preislied! It breaks the rules!


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> Oh sure, composers of new music are all charlatans and their audiences are fools. Why is it so hard for you to live and let live?
> 
> I would not comment if you and those like you would just be satisfied with saying you don't like it. But, no, you must go on to question the motives of the composers and the intelligence of the audience.
> 
> That's not insulting at all.


I'm not questioning the motives of the composers - they have to make a living - or th3 intelligence of the audience. I am questioning why when people say they don't like these things you guys have to chime in with posts questioning our intelligence. A bit rich you saying what you do when you've just question the intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you. Live and let live as you say but it works both ways


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> [...] What Wishart and composers like him are doing is so far out of the mainstream that *it is they who display a certain degree of arrogance to impose their ideas on others*. A long history is against them.


Impose their ideas on others? What are you ranting on about?


----------



## JAS

TalkingHead said:


> Impose their ideas on others? What are you ranting on about?


absolutely nothing.


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> I'm not questioning the motives of the composers - they have to make a living - or th3 intelligence of the audience. I am questioning why when people say they don't like these things you guys have to chime in with posts questioning our intelligence. A bit rich you saying what you do when you've just question the intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you. Live and let live as you say but it works both ways


You certainly are questioning the motives of the composers and the intelligence of their audience when you accuse the composers of attempting to "pull the wool over their audience's eyes." And you'd have to be a fool to think otherwise.

When you and others say these kinds of things, I feel a need to point out that *you admit to being unable to appreciate new music*, almost as a badge of honor, something you boast about. Then you ridicule anyone who does appreciate it.

Again, I wouldn't comment at all if you just left it at you don't like new music - but you say more than that, you say "it's not music" and anyone who likes it doesn't know when they are being fooled.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> When you and others say these kinds of things, I feel a need to point out that *you admit to being unable to appreciate new music*, almost as a badge of honor, something you boast about. Then you ridicule anyone who does appreciate it.


Well you wouldn't expect pond life to appreciate new music, so why expect all human beings?


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> Are you advocating hegemony of the majority? 90% of people don't like classical music of any kind. Does that cause you to question your own taste?


The comment was that it was not just arrogant but horrendously arrogant to say what Wishart offers under the label of music isn't music. The vast majority does get to weigh in on that.



SanAntone said:


> Wishart and other living composers of new music are not imposing anything on anybody. Where do you get that idea? I get the feeling though that if you could you would stop Wishart from writing the music he wishes. I call that arrogant. Not Wishart for simply writing music he feels compelled to create. You need not listen.


Wishart is a very extreme example. The problem is that people who take such an extreme position give cover to people who program concerts and CDs to mix a lot of less extreme stuff with traditional stuff. (See, this isn't as bad as that.) It is also annoying that this kind of extreme nonsense gets lumped into the general category of classical music. It feeds its own (small) audience, and should have its own label. I have no problem with Rock music, or heavy metal music, as long as I don't have to listen to them, but no one is trying claim that they are classical music.



SanAntone said:


> Is it not enough for you to enjoy the music you do like?


I do.


----------



## Phil loves classical

JAS said:


> The comment was that it was not just arrogant but horrendously arrogant to say what Wishart offers under the label of music isn't music. *The vast majority does get to weigh in on that*.


Interesting statement, but I disagree with that statement. I believe all that is required is for some who can discern patterns in tones and/or rhythms to call it music, and not just static patterns, but patterns in motion or transformation, which is really what all music has in common. And which is also why I don't consider 4'33" remotely as music. Honestly speaking of my own experience again, late-period Beethoven was an incoherent mass of sounds to me before, and I really doubt the majority of people in the world could make sense of it at first hearing. But once you get that, it's definitely music. I think this works the same way with contemporary music. If I heard a random mass of sound that I couldn't make any sense of, I wouldn't call it music.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> The comment was that it was not just arrogant but horrendously arrogant to say what Wishart offers under the label of music isn't music. The vast majority does get to weigh in on that.


The obvious way to weigh in is to not support his music. Which is their right and one I applaud. I just ask that you and your majority would stop short of going on about what I choose to support. I don't care if you call it music or not, what is important is whether there are people who enjoy listening to it.

You do not have a dog in that hunt; just leave them be.



> Wishart is a very extreme example. The problem is that people who take such an extreme position give cover to people who program concerts and CDs to mix a lot of less extreme stuff with traditional stuff. (See, this isn't as bad as that.) It is also annoying that this kind of extreme nonsense gets lumped into the general category of classical music. It feeds its own (small) audience, and should have its own label. I have no problem with Rock music, or heavy metal music, as long as I don't have to listen to them, but no one is trying claim that they are classical music.


I lot to unpack there. Let's take them one at a time:

_"The problem is that people who take such an extreme position give cover to people who program concerts and CDs to mix a lot of less extreme stuff with traditional stuff." _

New music is not programmed nearly as much as the traditional stuff in the traditional classical music venues. New music is most often encountered in its own, smaller less formal, venues.

_"It is also annoying that this kind of extreme nonsense gets lumped into the general category of classical music."_

The classification "classical music" is anything and everything music marketers say it is. I would bet Wishart couldn't care less how his music is labeled by somebody. He has his own method of promoting his art and does not rely nor solicit classification by sellers and media. I also doubt he is such a fool as to think someone like you would be a likely fan. He might wish his music were not called classical, as well, since he then has to run a gauntlet of people like you who think what he does is not even music.

He probably wishes to avoid you as much, maybe more, as you wish to avoid his music. But I would guess you and those like don't cross his mind at all. He doesn't want or need your approval or permission to make his art.

_"It feeds its own (small) audience, and should have its own label."_

People do sub-categorize it as: Experimental music, avant-garde, new music, sound art, etc. I can assure you his fans don't care if its called classical and know how to find what they are looking for.

_"I have no problem with Rock music, or heavy metal music, as long as I don't have to listen to them, but no one is trying claim that they are classical music."_

You also don't have to listen to Wishart, no matter if its labeled classical or not.


----------



## JAS

If they would stay in their own world, they would never have to hear from me at all, but they don't. In part, they insist on being the new form of the thing I love, as if it is progress, or even as if it were true. They insist on sneering at those who don't share a favorable response to their "exciting ideas" as ignorant, and, so it seems, arrogant. I will always push back on such nonsense. (In a way, I don't actually care about their sneering. I have the comfort of numbers on my side. But it does bother me somewhat to let the utter corruption of perfectly good concepts at the hands of people who just want to engage in bad philosophy and stunts for the sake of getting attention, and part of it bothers me for precisely the same reason that they do it . . . they hope that it might catch on. Even if what they promote does not actually catch on, language and meaning get more and more subverted until it is hard to really say anything that isn't saddled with the baggage of pushing an ideology rather than genuine thought.)


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> If they would stay in their own world, they would never have to hear from me at all, but they don't. In part, *(1) they insist* on being the new form of the thing I love, as if it is progress, or even as if it were true. *(2) They insist on sneering at those who don't share a favorable response to their "exciting ideas" as ignorant, and, so it seems, arrogant. * I will always push back on such nonsense. (In a way, I don't actually care about their sneering. I have the comfort of numbers on my side. But it does bother me somewhat to let the *(3) utter corruption of perfectly good concepts at the hands of people who just want to engage in bad philosophy and stunts for the sake of getting attention*, and part of it bothers me for precisely the same reason that they do it . . . they hope that it might catch on. Even if what they promote does not actually catch on, language and meaning get more and more subverted until it is hard to really say anything that isn't saddled with the baggage of pushing an ideology rather than genuine thought.)


Maybe you would feel more comfortable with concentration camps for them and their fans. This fringe minority is polluting your pure classical music and it is a danger that must be stopped.

(1) They insist? I've never heard this.

(2) I think I called you arrogant not because you don't share a favorable response to their "exciting ideas" but precisely because you cannot tolerate them at all and if any sneering is taking place it by you as you fling the "it's not music" charge.

(3) You know this is their motivation? How? Does it beggar your imagination that these composers might believe in what they are doing no less than any other "proper" classical composer?

What is ludicrous is how outsized you perceive the threat to "the thing you love" by what you admit is a tiny group of people.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> Maybe you would feel more comfortable with concentration camps for them and their fans. This fringe minority is polluting your pure classical music and it is a danger that must be stopped.
> 
> (1) They insist? I've never heard this.
> 
> (2) I think I called you arrogant not because you don't share a favorable response to their "exciting ideas" but precisely because you cannot tolerate them at all and if any sneering is taking place it by you as you fling the "it's not music" charge.
> 
> (3) You know this is their motivation? How? Does it beggar your imagination that these composers might believe in what they are doing no less than any other "proper" classical composer?
> 
> What is ludicrous is how outsized you perceive the threat to "the thing you love" by what you admit is a tiny group of people.


Clearly you don't know what arrogance means (and the level of projection is amazing), nor music (in any widely shared meaning of the word).

Mostly, it is an annoyance. I don't go out of my way to seek it out, but when it comes into my path, I sometimes feel compelled to call it out.

It is always amusing to see people, presumably with sufficient intelligence to know what they are doing, create something to get an effect precisely from being outrageous, and then objecting when there is an negative response.

I once knew someone who claimed that aliens were communicating to him by radio waves, picked up by the metal fillings in his teeth. Other than that, he was fine.


----------



## Luchesi

JAS said:


> Maybe David Hurwitz?


We have so much of the music that he represents already. Don't we want something more descriptive of modern times and modern thoughts ...modern joys/fears etc.?


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Clearly you don't know what arrogance means (and the level of projection is amazing), nor music (in any widely shared meaning of the word).


I know what music is. I also think you wish to exclude from the world of music that which you dislike. I support freedom of artistic expression knowing that inevitably someone will produce something I dislike. But I am not really harmed by it, and I welcome the diversity.



> Mostly, it is an annoyance. I don't go out of my way to seek it out, but when it comes into my path, I sometimes feel compelled to call it out.


There are things within an open society which can be annoying to someone. But the alternative, i.e. a society with arbiters of what is allowed to be expressed under the rubric of artistic expression, is worse, IMO. We've been down that road, where composers were censored. I oppose that kind of thing, clearly you are okay with it, as long as you are the one doing the censoring.



> It is always amusing to see people, presumably with sufficient intelligence to know what they are doing, create something to get an effect precisely from being outrageous, and then objecting when there is an negative response.


You second guess the motivation of a composer such as Mr. Wishart, I do not. I assume he is motivated by the same desire to write music as any other composer. The only thing that separates his expression from the ones you approve of is your subjective taste.



> I once knew someone who claimed that aliens were communicating to him by radio waves, picked up by the metal fillings in his teeth. Other than that, he was fine.


I fail to see what this has to do with the issue we are discussing, unless you are comparing your friend with Mr. Wishart. Which is a bit arrogant on your part.


----------



## JAS

Luchesi said:


> We have so much of the music that he represents already. Don't we want something more descriptive of modern times and modern thoughts ...modern joys/fears etc.?


I did not necessarily mean it as a recommendation, merely a response to the question.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> You certainly are questioning the motives of the composers and the intelligence of their audience when you accuse the composers of attempting to "pull the wool over their audience's eyes." And you'd have to be a fool to think otherwise.
> 
> When you and others say these kinds of things, I feel a need to point out that *you admit to being unable to appreciate new music*, almost as a badge of honor, something you boast about. Then you ridicule anyone who does appreciate it.
> 
> Again, I wouldn't comment at all if you just left it at you don't like new music - but you say more than that, you say "it's not music" and anyone who likes it doesn't know when they are being fooled.


I feel unable to appreciate some things that masquerade as modern music but when one listens one is conscious (as I heard a distinguished conductor once say) that the composer had completely lost touch with the audience. Of course there are some who are being fooled. Some of the tripe and nonsense served up will sink like a stone in years to come - as it always has. Some will survive - like Beethoven's late quartets which no-one understood at the time. It is your insistence that all of us must regard some of this stuff with unguarded appreciation else we are in some wise lacking that ticks me off. If you want to spend evening listening to it then fine - but please, dear friend, don't say that because the rest of us don't then we are in some way lacking because you are only fooling yourself.


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> Well you wouldn't expect pond life to appreciate new music, so why expect all human beings?


It would of course help if people could read what the pond life writes! :lol:


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> . . .
> There are things within an open society which can be annoying to someone. But the alternative, i.e. a society with arbiters of what is allowed to be expressed under the rubric of artistic expression, is worse, IMO. We've been down that road, where composers were censored. I oppose that kind of thing, clearly you are okay with it, as long as you are the one doing the censoring. . . .


Ironically, the only censoring that I see is a few chirping birds trying to shout down an opinion (a widely held opinion) that they don't like. Wishart and others can do as they please. I am not stopping them, or even suggesting that they be stopped. I am just pointing out that calling his elaborate sound experiments music is an abuse of the term as it is generally understood. And to suggest that it is in any meaningful way a continuation of the tradition of classical music, just creates a terribly mistaken idea for those who don't know better.


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> I feel unable to appreciate some things that masquerade as modern music but when one listens one is conscious (as I heard a distinguished conductor once say) that the composer had completely lost touch with the audience. Of course there are some who are being fooled. *Some of the tripe and nonsense served up will sink like a stone in years to come* - as it always has. Some will survive - like Beethoven's late quartets which no-one understood at the time.


That's fine and as it should be. But there is no reason to usurp that process by attempting to squash a composer's work at the outset. I am happy to let the test of time take place, in fact I rely upon it and feel no need to ry to hurry it along.

Maybe I have thicker skin than some of you who protest so much. I enjoy listening to new music, at least once. It often is interesting, often not interesting to me. But I refuse to question the motivations of the composer and would never tell someone who likes music I find uninteresting that they are fooling themselves.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Ironically, the only censoring that I see is a few chirping birds trying to shout down an opinion (a widely held opinion) that they don't like. Wishart and others can do as they please. I am not stopping them, or even suggesting that they be stopped. I am just pointing out that calling his elaborate sound experiments music is an abuse of the term as it is generally understood. And to suggest that it is in any meaningful way a continuation of the tradition of classical music, just creates a terribly mistaken idea for those who don't know better.


That's an interesting mixed metaphor, chirping birds shouting down an opinion. Well I am happy to finally see you give Mr. Wishart permission to write his music, or what ever it is. Very big of you. I don't even know if he calls it music, does he? He might call it sound art, or something. But I understand you are just trying to protect those unfortunates who don't know what classical music is.

But, I really don't think the idea of music is threatened by Mr. Wishart. You can rest easy on that. I mean, not with people like you standing guard.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> That's fine and as it should be. But there is no reason to usurp that process by attempting to squash a composer's work at the outset. I am happy to let the test of time take place, in fact I rely upon it and feel no need to ry to hurry it along.
> 
> Maybe I have thicker skin than some of you who protest so much. I enjoy listening to new music, at least once. It often is interesting, often not interesting to me. But I refuse to question the motivations of the composer and would never tell someone who likes music I find uninteresting that they are fooling themselves.


What do you mean 'quashing a composer's work'? I am not a critic but merely an unknown member of TC giving an opinion. Thicker skin? What On earth does that mean? If I don't like something I don't listen as there is so much I like. Why should I listen to stuff I don't like when there is so much I do?


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> That's an interesting mixed metaphor, chirping birds shouting down an opinion. Well I am happy to finally see you give Mr. Wishart permission to write his music, or what ever it is. Very big of you. I don't even know if he calls it music, does he? He might call it sound art, or something. But I understand you are just trying to protect those unfortunates who don't know what classical music is.
> 
> But, I really don't think the idea of music is threatened by Mr. Wishart. You can rest easy on that. I mean, not with people like you standing guard.


If Wishart, specifically, does not refer to what he produces as music, nor use terms that might mislead others into supposing that it is music, and would correct anyone who might use the term applied to what he produces, then he and I would be in agreement on that point. If that is the case, the error was only made by the person who brought it up as music in a thread about music.


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> What do you mean 'quashing a composer's work'? I am not a critic but merely an unknown member of TC giving an opinion. Thicker skin? What On earth does that mean? If I don't like something I don't listen as there is so much I like. Why should I listen to stuff I don't like when there is so much I do?


I don't expect you to listen to music you don't like, never said so. I wish you had never heard any music you didn't like so I wouldn't have hear you go on about how bad it is and the composer must be perpetrating a con job on gullible listeners.

If I hear something I don't like I just move on, but I don't bad-mouth it either.

Anyway, I've made my points and will bow out. This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere except in a circle.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> If Wishart, specifically, does not refer to what he produces as music, nor use terms that might mislead others into supposing that it is music, and would correct anyone who might use the term applied to what he produces, then he and I would be in agreement on that point. If that is the case, the error was only made by the person who brought it up as music in a thread about music.


Sorry, saw this after I said goodbye. But Mr Wishart has written extensively on the topic of what he terms "sonic art". So there - NOT music; sonic art.

I am so relieved. :lol:


----------



## JAS

So, we are all in agreement that what Wishart produces is not music, and thus, by implication, certainly not classical music. Consequently, it is not arrogant of me to say that it is not music. Your apology is accepted. (It is always nice to end a discussion on a point of agreement.)


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> So, we are all in agreement that what Wishart produces is not music, and thus, by implication, certainly not classical music. Consequently, it is not arrogant of me to say that it is not music. Your apology is accepted. (It is always nice to end a discussion on a point of agreement.)


He was appointed as *composer*-in-residence at the University of Durham in 2006, and then at the University of Oxford Faculty of *Music* in 2010-11, supported by the Leverhulme Trust.

I think there are some folks who don't have a problem with calling him a composer. Composers write music.


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> I feel unable to appreciate some things that masquerade as modern music but when one listens one is conscious (as I heard a distinguished conductor once say) that the composer had completely lost touch with the audience. Of course there are some who are being fooled. Some of the tripe and nonsense served up will sink like a stone in years to come - as it always has. Some will survive - like Beethoven's late quartets which no-one understood at the time. It is your insistence that all of us must regard some of this stuff with unguarded appreciation else we are in some wise lacking that ticks me off. If you want to spend evening listening to it then fine - but please, dear friend, don't say that because the rest of us don't then we are in some way lacking because you are only fooling yourself.


"...but please, dear friend, don't say that because the rest of us don't then we are in some way lacking because you are only fooling yourself."

Well, we are "lacking" since we don't know what was in the composer's mind
we don't know what he has discovered in his experience and education 
we don't know how to compose and create a modern work, or maybe you do?


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> He was appointed as *composer*-in-residence at the University of Durham in 2006, and then at the University of Oxford Faculty of *Music* in 2010-11, supported by the Leverhulme Trust.
> 
> I think there are some folks who don't have a problem with calling him a composer. Composers write music.


So you disagree with Wishart and want to call it music. (Would it be wrong to call that arrogant?) Talk about having your cake and eating it too.


----------



## SanAntone

More on Trevor Wishart's writings



> *New Music Theory and Practice*
> 
> In the past, the quality or nature of sounds used in music was set by the technology of instrument design, and conventions about performance and musical 'expression'. In the 19th century, European composers became increasingly concerned with 'sonority', through development of new orchestration techniques, and new instruments. However, a systematic approach to sound itself had to wait for the invention of sound recording and the accurate computer analysis of sounds. Studios, and then computers, also provided powerful new tools for musicians to work directly with sound.
> 
> In the book _On Sonic Art_, Trevor Wishart discussed new musical possibilities offered by these tools, and developed notion of a sophisticated art of sound, or Sonic Art. In particular, put forward the ideas of sound landscape (handling sound images and representation using sound), and sound transformation as a unifying principle for composing, traditionally or with sounds.
> 
> The book _Audible Design_, provides detailed description of the craft of sound transformation using new software instruments, with non-mathematical explanations and recorded music examples of all processes.
> 
> Many of these processes (e.g. sound morphing, spectral stretching, waveset distortion, sound shredding, grain manipulation, moving harmonic field filters) were first developed by Trevor Wishart, either at IRCAM, or as part of the Composers Desktop Project. Virtually all processes described in Audible Design are available on the Sound Loom.
> 
> The book _Sound Composition_, describes the musical thinking and working methods behind the composition of most of Trevor Wishart's electro-acoustic and vocal works.
> 
> Based on lectures presented over the last 40 years, the discussion is illustrated with copious sound examples, on the 2 CDs which accompany the book. The final chapter discusses sound diffusion, and is followed by reproductions of the diffusion scores used by the composer, with worked examples.


I think it incorrect to deny that Mr. Wishart works within the broad definition of music.


----------



## JAS

^^^ Which just puts us back where we started. Think what you will. I have made my position clear, and defended it. I am content to let it stand.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> So you disagree with Wishart and want to call it music. (Would it be wrong to call that arrogant?) Talk about having your cake and eating it too.


Your argument is with Oxford and Durham. I don't care what he calls it or what someone else calls it. But I do think that the definition of music is broader that what you seem to want it to be.

Here's Merriam Webster:

*the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity*

Nothing there prohibits what Wishart does.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> Your argument is with Oxford and Durham. I don't care what he calls it or what someone else calls it. But I do think that the definition of music is broader that what you seem to want it to be.
> 
> Here's Merriam Webster:
> 
> *the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity*
> 
> Nothing there prohibits what Wishart does.


Except that music, in this sense, is not a science or art. (A symphony is not a science or an art, while it might be an art product.) The second part of the definition is more operational in this context: "vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony" but all words have both a denotation and a connotation. The connotation usually reflects common usage. And no doubt we would quibble about the meaning of all the parts of the definition. And clearly your ideas are far, far out of the mainstream of thought on the subject.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Except that music, in this sense, is not a science or art. (A symphony is not a science or an art, while it might be an art product.) The second part of the definition is more operational in this context: "vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony" but all words have both a denotation and a connotation. The connotation usually reflects common usage. And no doubt we would quibble about the meaning of all the parts of the definition. And clearly your ideas are far, far out of the mainstream of thought on the subject.


I wish to be more inclusive (as is the first definition in Merriam-Webster) and you wish to be more exclusive. There is a number of 20th century composers who work in the "sound art" area: Futurists, Musique concrète, much electronic music, John Cage's work.

But ideas of harmony and melody were stretched very far with serial music, Boulez, Stockhausen, and the Darmstadt composers, not to mention the microtonal composers, or someone like Harry Partch. Experimentation has been a part of the tradition of classical music going back to Gesualdo, at least.

I don't see the benefit in being too limiting with the concept of music.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> I wish to be more inclusive (as is the first definition in Merriam-Webster) and you wish to be more exclusive. There is a number of 20th century composers who work in the "sound art" area: Futurists, Musique concrète, much electronic music, John Cage's work.
> 
> But ideas of harmony and melody were stretched very far with serial music, Boulez, Stockhausen, and the Darmstadt composers, not to mention the microtonal composers, or someone like Harry Partch. Experimentation has been a part of the tradition of classical music going back to Gesualdo, at least.
> 
> I don't see the benefit in being too limiting with the concept of music.


Since you wish to assert Webster's as the authority, you might also consider their definition of noise:

: loud, confused, or senseless shouting or outcry the noise of the rioters
2a : sound entry 1 especially : one that lacks agreeable musical quality or is noticeably unpleasant traffic noise engine noises
b : any sound that is undesired or interferes with one's hearing of something I couldn't hear him over all the noise.
c : an unwanted signal or a disturbance (such as static or a variation of voltage) in an electronic device or instrument (such as radio or television) broadly : a disturbance interfering with the operation of a usually mechanical device or system
d : electromagnetic radiation (such as light or radio waves) that is composed of several frequencies (see frequency sense 3b) and that involves random changes in frequency or amplitude (see amplitude sense 1b)
e : irrelevant or meaningless data or output occurring along with desired information The initial data includes a lot of noise that needs to be weeded out.

I think this clearly is more suitable to what Wishart is doing. (His own apparent preference for "sonic art" neatly avoids the problem.) One benefit of being more limiting about the definition of music is that it eliminates a lot of mere noise.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> What I don't understand is the implication that highly trained people have somehow lost music and musical discernment along the way. Obviously this isn't the case and people would understand that if they knew better. Subjectivity is the only value judgement here which is fine of course, but irrelevant to the composer's artistry and ability.


What I don't understand is the implication that a degree in music guarantees somehow that whatever the bearer of same composes is worthy of consideration. That's fetishizing "expertise" which may not be expertise at all. It's really fetishizing the educational establishment.

An oddity about modern music is that none of it ever seems to be bad or even subpar. That's not allowed. As long as the composer has the educational aura, then hush up and try to understand the profundity, you rube.


----------



## SanAntone

*JAS*, could I impose upon you to ask whose music among the composers from the 20th century (or 21st century) do you enjoy?

Regarding your #494, Wishart _composes_ his music. It is organized and not "loud, confused, or senseless." From what I've read, he spends considerable time plotting his pieces, organizing his materials and putting them together, which by the way is the meaning of the verb "to compose".


----------



## JAS

^^^ to what point? Is your question whether I simply dismiss anything written in the last 100 or 50 years? Nothing I would list would alter your opinion of me as a low taste dinosaur, not that I care what you think. (I thought I had a fig around here somewhere, but apparently not.) 

The mere fact that Wishart apparently felt that he needed to come up with a new term for what he does shows that it is not music. Were it music, that would suffice. Either he is playing word games, or you are.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> Are you advocating hegemony of the majority? 90% of people don't like classical music of any kind. Does that cause you to question your own taste?
> 
> Wishart and other living composers of new music are not imposing anything on anybody. Where do you get that idea? I get the feeling though that if you could you would stop Wishart from writing the music he wishes. I call that arrogant. Not Wishart for simply writing music he feels compelled to create. You need not listen.
> 
> Is it not enough for you to enjoy the music you do like?


Just to point out that 'hegemony of the majority' is tautological.


----------



## Bulldog

JAS said:


> The mere fact that Wishart apparently felt that he needed to come up with a new term for what he does shows that it is not music. Were it music, that would suffice. Either he is playing word games, or you are.


I don't have a problem with the man wanting to coin a special classification on his compositions. Sonic Art does have a nice ring to it.

Is it music? Yes, just not music that I find appealing. On the other hand, I do prefer Wishart to plenty of traditional bona-fide composers.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> He was appointed as *composer*-in-residence at the University of Durham in 2006, and then at the University of Oxford Faculty of *Music* in 2010-11, supported by the Leverhulme Trust.
> 
> I think there are some folks who don't have a problem with calling him a composer. Composers write music.


Does it not give you pause that you have to actually explain what a composer does? Nobody had to do that for Beethoven. Just saying.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> *JAS*, could I impose upon you to ask whose music among the composers from the 20th century (or 21st century) do you enjoy?
> 
> Regarding your #494, Wishart _composes_ his music. It is organized and not "loud, confused, or senseless." From what I've read, he spends considerable time plotting his pieces, organizing his materials and putting them together, which by the way is the meaning of the verb "to compose".


"...plotting..organizing (his) materials...putting (them) together". Oh, so he's a chef!!! Or a writer. Or a film director. Or a graphic artist. Or a property developer.


----------



## SanAntone

Christabel said:


> Does it not give you pause that you have to actually explain what a composer does? Nobody had to do that for Beethoven. Just saying.


I didn't have to do it for Wishart except that his status as a composer of music was called into question.



Christabel said:


> "...plotting..organizing (his) materials...putting (them) together". Oh, so he's a chef!!! Or a writer. Or a film director. Or a graphic artist. Or a property developer.


His materials are different from those needed for other occupations and specifically related to his composition process.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> ^^^ to what point? Is your question whether I simply dismiss anything written in the last 100 or 50 years? Nothing I would list would alter your opinion of me as a low taste dinosaur, not that I care what you think. (I thought I had a fig around here somewhere, but apparently not.)
> 
> The mere fact that Wishart apparently felt that he needed to come up with a new term for what he does shows that it is not music. Were it music, that would suffice. Either he is playing word games, or you are.


I was just interested in the composers you liked from the 20th century. And I don't consider you a low taste dinosaur, I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought anything like that. I don't much care for Wishart's music either - but that's not the point.

Wishart is a composer of a kind of music which is very different from our traditional idea of what constitutes classical music. He's been doing it for over forty years, and getting hired by some prominent institutions of higher learning.

He has nothing to prove; he's already arrived whether we like his work or not.

Regarding his coining a special term, music can be described as sonic art. You seem to get more hung up on terminology that I do. I am less interested in terms used to describe music than the music itself, as heard.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Play that Funky Music White Boy! At the most basic level, it's pretty funky especially around 20:15 or 21:30, or 23:45 (just a few among many moments). He creates his own beats with processed voice instead of drum beats. If you don't view Hip Hop as music, then maybe you don't see this either. But I suspect this could resonate with the Pop/R&B audience over Baroque, if numbers do matter.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> I didn't have to do it for Wishart except that his status as a composer of music was called into question.
> 
> His materials are different from those needed for other occupations and specifically related to his composition process.


Whereas Beethoven's status as a composer of music was NEVER questioned.


----------



## Guest

Phil loves classical said:


> Play that Funky Music White Boy! At the most basic level, it's pretty funky especially around 20:15 or 21:30, or 23:45 (just a few among many moments). He creates his own beats with processed voice instead of drum beats. If you don't view Hip Hop as music, then maybe you don't see this either. But I suspect this could resonate with the Pop/R&B audience over Baroque, if numbers do matter.


I listen to music specifically to get away from this kind of noise; it does your head in!! Yet another reason why I choose to live out of cities.


----------



## SanAntone

Christabel said:


> Whereas Beethoven's status as a composer of music was NEVER questioned.


True. But some critics of his time questioned his late music. Pioneering artists are often misunderstood and/or rejected; it is cliche. But I have no desire to elevate Wishart's importance and compare him to someone like Vincent Van Gogh, just offering a context for your line of reasoning.


----------



## consuono

Christabel said:


> Does it not give you pause that you have to actually explain what a composer does? Nobody had to do that for Beethoven. Just saying.


LOL, exactly. If a "work of musical art" has to be accompanied by a dissertation to persuade me that despite what I'm hearing with my uneducated ears it is a work of musical art, then something's awry.


----------



## consuono

> True. But some critics of his time questioned his late music.


But I don't think its existential status as actual music ever seriously was questioned.


> Wishart is a composer of a kind of music which is very different from our traditional idea of what constitutes classical music.


When you try to redefine music so that your non-musical work can be defined as music, you're playing word games.


> He's been doing it for over forty years, and getting hired by some prominent institutions of higher learning.


Which means absolutely nothing to me.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> LOL, exactly. If a "work of musical art" has to be accompanied by a dissertation to persuade me that despite what I'm hearing with my uneducated ears it is a work of musical art, then something's awry.


This has long been my own argument; the emperor (cough) actually has no clothes!!!


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> But I don't think its existential status as actual music ever seriously was questioned.
> When you try to redefine music so that your non-musical work can be defined as music, you're playing word games.
> Which means absolutely nothing to me.


Right on the money here. Word salads, justification and re-definition; the hallmarks of Postmodernism. Started with that *toilet bowl which was art, apparently. Should have been in a SCIENCE museum.

(*come to think of it; I can find a couple of additional uses for it...now!!!)

Postmodernism is discussed here with two huge intellectuals: you'll hear everything you need to know within the first 10 minutes.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Christabel said:


> Right on the money here. Word salads, justification and re-definition; the hallmarks of Postmodernism. Started with that *toilet bowl which was art, apparently. Should have been in a SCIENCE museum.
> 
> (*come to think of it; I can find a couple of additional uses for it...now!!!)
> 
> Postmodernism is discussed here with two huge intellectuals: you'll hear everything you need to know within the first 10 minutes.


I used to use my contempt for the fragmentary and chance nature of postmodernism against contemporary music on this forum. But I've found very little contemporary music is actually fragmentary or chance, when I got to know it better. (I still hate the music I believe is of that nature, but I won't name them here). I think a lot of film scores are just as or more fragmentary than contemporary Classical music in general, and I think I'm being conservative there (and not because I know you're a film buff BTW). What makes it more appealing is the visual "cinematic" quality and dramatic shifts in mood in film music, the more readily recognizable gestures from wide use (again from my own experience, film music used to be an incomprehensible mass of sound without the visuals to me), but much of contemporary music works much a similar way to me, except it can stand more on its own without the visuals of the film because it has more unity and narrative of its own without the story. If people have a problem with recognizing film or contemporary Classical music as music, I really don't mind. I realize I may be cheapening Contemporary Classical Music, but it's more of an illustration.


----------



## Guest

Phil loves classical said:


> I used to use my contempt for the fragmentary and chance nature of postmodernism against contemporary music on this forum. But I've found very little contemporary music is actually fragmentary or chance, when I got to know it better. (I still hate the music I believe is of that nature, but I won't name them here). I think a lot of film scores are just as or more fragmentary than contemporary Classical music in general, and I think I'm being conservative there (and not because I know you're a film buff BTW). What makes it more appealing is the visual "cinematic" quality and dramatic shifts in mood in film music, the more readily recognizable gestures from wide use (again from my own experience, film music used to be an incomprehensible mass of sound without the visuals to me), but much of contemporary music works much a similar way to me, except it can stand more on its own without the visuals of the film because it has more unity and narrative of its own without the story. If people have a problem with recognizing film or contemporary Classical music as music, I really don't mind. I realize I may be cheapening Contemporary Classical Music, but it's more of an illustration.


Most film music is tonal, whether fragmentary or not. Some is atmospheric and amorphous, but it's more than noise.

I worked in TV decades ago at our national broadcaster in Australia, the ABC. There was, in those days, a Sound Library which provided background music to documentaries and TV series or films. Many of these musical fragments were shapeless, essentially tuneless and completely unappealing but they served a purpose as deep background because most people took no notice.  For example, we had a TV series called "*Skippy*" about a bush kangaroo; much of the atmospheric music for that came straight from one of those kinds of Sound libraries. The TV series about the kangaroo was mostly schlock but kids liked it. I believe the BBC and Thames TV used those kinds of atmospheric grabs from sound libraries as well. None of this should be confused with the fine scores many composers created for film including, but not limited to, Bernard Herrmann.

And I don't regard that excerpt from Wishart, as one example, as Contemporary Music. It is sound design, sonic art or Foley - depending on what function it serves.






Most of these arguments about sonic art/avant garde/sound design become essentially Heuristics. I think that logic is replaced by emotion as a short-cut justification; I say it's music and if you question me - which you shouldn't - I will resort of ad homs to back up my position. Because offense taking is part of the paradigm people tend to retreat from normative, intellectual discussions into either guilt or defeat. Very much a part of the modern world of academe these days, and buttressed by cancel culture,suppression and censorship. Ergo, people will be prevented from suggesting something is other than some *BELIEVE *it to be - reasoning or not. Once there, it becomes an article of faith.


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> For example, we had a TV series called "*Skippy*" about a bush kangaroo; much of the atmospheric music for that came straight from one of those kinds of Sound libraries. The TV series about the kangaroo was mostly schlock but kids liked it.


I remember Skippy, I watched it as a kid (Czech TV was broadcasting it at that time). One of the few Australian productions (along with Crocodile Dundee) that made it here


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> What I don't understand is the implication that a degree in music guarantees somehow that whatever the bearer of same composes is worthy of consideration. That's fetishizing "expertise" which may not be expertise at all. It's really fetishizing the educational establishment.
> 
> An oddity about modern music is that none of it ever seems to be bad or even subpar. That's not allowed. As long as the composer has the educational aura, then hush up and try to understand the profundity, you rube.


...like I say, some don't get it which is fine, they wont know and understand a composers musical and aesthetic journey because they have not been through the learning and developing process to such a high standard. The "establishment" is there to develop and encourage a composer's inner voice not bury it. "Expertise" at no point is considered the goal. Expertise needs to be acquired as the medium of music is complicated and needs work but to think that learning drains the composer's music of ...well music, is quite an uninformed position to hold. As I have often said, in the learning, one finds ones own voice.

For me, the main problem in this thread is the insulting and contemptibly dismissive language aimed at capable and highly talented artists and _not the subjective opinion itself_. Language that questions the integrity of composers because the music they create is not understood, not listened to and consequently unfamiliar, has the feel of ad hominem imv.

It's such a shame that people express their preferences in the somewhat callous manner shown as it is bound to cause conflict in an arena of multiple taste and experience.


----------



## Prodromides

Christabel said:


> Many of these musical fragments were shapeless, essentially tuneless and completely unappealing but they served a purpose as deep background because most people took no notice.


I own some discs of library/stock music. There are quite a number of them (Bruton, Chappell, etc.). Various composers contributed to such ... composers who wrote concert works plus music for cinema & TV, like Marius Constant, Wilfred Josephs, Gino Marinuzzi jr., etc. While the cues might be formless or without melody, their appeal depends upon the listener. Such tracks probably wouldn't be unappealing to me as they were to you. Instead of stating "completely unappealing" as if this is fact, you should describe such as being unappealing to your aesthetics/sensibilities. Something might be unappealing to one or many, but not to all peoples.

Regarding the stock music libraries utilized by Australian networks, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the pieces might have been written by the likes of Don Banks or Tristram Cary or maybe even Peter Sculthorpe. 
In the U.S. around 1957/'58, Bernard Herrmann himself provided music for the CBS music library.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> I don't expect you to listen to music you don't like, never said so. I wish you had never heard any music you didn't like so I wouldn't have hear you go on about how bad it is and the composer must be perpetrating a con job on gullible listeners.
> 
> If I hear something I don't like I just move on, but I don't bad-mouth it either.
> 
> Anyway, I've made my points and will bow out. This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere except in a circle.


Giving one's opinion on a forum is not bad mouthing. BTW I have not actually mentioned anything specifically so I don't understand what you are getting upset about.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> ...like I say, some don't get it which is fine, they wont know and understand a composers musical and aesthetic journey because they have not been through the learning and developing process to such a high standard.


The proof of this high standard of learning would be the production of worthwhile art. It's not that some won't get it; it's that practically nobody gets it outside that little insulated group of devotees of academic stuff.


> The "establishment" is there to develop and encourage a composer's inner voice not bury it.


 The "establishment" is there to survive and perpetuate itself. In fact, the vitality of western art music probably began to decline when the academic establishment got hold of it.


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> ..*.like I say, some don't get it which is fine*, they wont know and understand a composers musical and aesthetic journey because they have not been through the learning and developing process to such a high standard. The "establishment" is there to develop and encourage a composer's inner voice not bury it. "Expertise" at no point is considered the goal. Expertise needs to be acquired as the medium of music is complicated and needs work but to think that learning drains the composer's music of ...well music, is quite an uninformed position to hold. As I have often said, in the learning, one finds ones own voice.
> 
> For me, the main problem in this thread is the insulting and contemptibly dismissive language aimed at capable and highly talented artists and _not the subjective opinion itself_. Language that questions the integrity of composers because the music they create is not understood, not listened to and consequently unfamiliar, has the feel of ad hominem imv.
> 
> It's such a shame that people express their preferences in the somewhat callous manner shown as it is bound to cause conflict in an arena of multiple taste and experience.


For some not to get it is fine the problem is when most outside a small group don't get it


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> The proof of this high standard of learning would be the production of worthwhile art. It's not that some won't get it; it's that practically nobody gets it outside that little insulated group of devotees of academic stuff.
> The "establishment" is there to survive and perpetuate itself. In fact, the vitality of western art music probably began to decline when the academic establishment got hold of it.


Your last sentence has some credibility, however the 'new' was instigated by individuals and circumstance, what followed stylistically was inevitable. Your first sentence is subjectively understandable, but intellectually you can surely appreciate the sense of fallaciousness about it.


----------



## Eclectic Al

A slightly different angle. I would like to explore, not the question of whether the avant-garde creations we are considering are music or not (or, more specifically, are classical music or not), but the question of why those supportive of them would wish to claim the term music (or classical music).

I am currently (after decades in work) pursuing a PhD as a hobby, and have encountered academia in its current incarnation, within a business school. I have encountered the parallel question, of why some types of academic endeavour want to claim the word science for their activities.

What they are doing seems to me not to be science, largely because there is no possibility of falsifiability, and generally no attempt to challenge their own claims via experiment. There are many, many defences for their activities (words like ontology and epistemology pop up often, for example, with extensive parts of such papers spent describing their ontological or epistemological stance, usually by reference to extensive citing of prior papers). Another favourite defence is that the work is "theory building", so there is no exploration of falsifying examples because that would be a later stage in the scientific process - via more empirical and experimental studies. However, when you follow the citing in such papers they reference and are referenced by other purely theoretical papers, and the empirical and experimental studies are very thin on the ground. And such empirical or experimental studies as exist might be anthropological in nature (for example), where the findings are very much individual impressions from immersion in an activity with (again) little chance of falsification, or indeed meaning that could be attached to that.

The intention of this activity is generally to get published in journals (ideally "top tier") in order to get funding. In order to do that your papers have to be "interesting", which means interesting to fellow writers in the field, because that way the editorial process will get you published, which boosts your reputation and gets you tenure, funding for the institution, etc. There are even papers on the structure that you should follow in order to get published, and those papers are published in their own right.

So you have an activity which creates income for the practitioners, by participating in a conversation with other practitioners about their field of endeavour, which is guarded as a form of closed shop by not publishing anything which would fundamentally challenge the worth of the activity. The guarding is achieved by the editorial process. The activity need have very little reference to whether it is in accord with any "reality" outside the discourse itself. This is also protected by challenging the existence of, or meaning of the word, "reality".

The desire to claim the term "science" for this activity is that it creates an aura around the work, and gives it credibility. It is seeking the linkage to the natural sciences, because they have widespread credibility. If the activity was labelled, for example, "Social Word Games" instead of "Social Science" then it would be much hard to get funding.

I suspect the same thing is going on with music. If you can link "Sonic Art" with "Music" or "Classical Music" then you have attached it to a field with pre-existing credibility and you can more readily obtain funding by being part of an institution's music department and get grants from cultural foundations. Whether it actually is Music or not, is not a valid question (or course) because that would require some sort of objective test and there is no such objective test.

Note that in all the above ramble I personally am not taking a position on whether this activity is music or not. I am just noting that the commercial realities of the people engaged in it likely require them to cling tenaciously to the word music and the connection to classical music.

In a way the process works like this: those highly educated in "music" support this activity; because it is pursued by the educated elite it must be superior; and because it is superior it is deserving of funding outside the grubby commercial market. It is important, in making this case, to connect to classical music because that has a historic reputation of superiority over other music, as can be seen in the use of the phrase "serious music" to distinguish it from inferior "popular music". Hence, the attempt is really to achieve a continuation of an idea of cultural superiority and to use that to achieve a privileged position in which it is not necessary to achieve widespread appeal in order to obtain an income.


----------



## Mandryka

Eclectic Al said:


> A slightly different angle. I would like to explore, not the question of whether the avant-garde creations we are considering are music or not (or, more specifically, are classical music or not), but the question of why those supportive of them would wish to claim the term music (or classical music).
> 
> I am currently (after decades in work) pursuing a PhD as a hobby, and have encountered academia in its current incarnation, within a business school. I have encountered the parallel question, of why some types of academic endeavour want to claim the word science for their activities.
> 
> What they are doing seems to me not to be science, largely because there is no possibility of falsifiability, and generally no attempt to challenge their own claims via experiment. There are many, many defences for their activities (words like ontology and epistemology pop up often, for example, with extensive parts of such papers spent describing their ontological or epistemological stance, usually by reference to extensive citing of prior papers). Another favourite defence is that the work is "theory building", so there is no exploration of falsifying examples because that would be a later stage in the scientific process - via more empirical and experimental studies. However, when you follow the citing in such papers they reference and are referenced by other purely theoretical papers, and the empirical and experimental studies are very thin on the ground. And such empirical or experimental studies as exist might be anthropological in nature (for example), where the findings are very much individual impressions from immersion in an activity with (again) little chance of falsification, or indeed meaning that could be attached to that.
> 
> The intention of this activity is generally to get published in journals (ideally "top tier") in order to get funding. In order to do that your papers have to be "interesting", which means interesting to fellow writers in the field, because that way the editorial process will get you published, which boosts your reputation and gets you tenure, funding for the institution, etc. There are even papers on the structure that you should follow in order to get published, and those papers are published in their own right.
> 
> So you have an activity which creates income for the practitioners, by participating in a conversation with other practitioners about their field of endeavour, which is guarded as a form of closed shop by not publishing anything which would fundamentally challenge the worth of the activity. The guarding is achieved by the editorial process. The activity need have very little reference to whether it is in accord with any "reality" outside the discourse itself. This is also protected by challenging the existence of, or meaning of the word, "reality".
> 
> The desire to claim the term "science" for this activity is that it creates an aura around the work, and gives it credibility. It is seeking the linkage to the natural sciences, because they have widespread credibility. If the activity was labelled, for example, "Social Word Games" instead of "Social Science" then it would be much hard to get funding.
> 
> I suspect the same thing is going on with music. If you can link "Sonic Art" with "Music" or "Classical Music" then you have attached it to a field with pre-existing credibility and you can more readily obtain funding by being part of an institution's music department and get grants from cultural foundations. Whether it actually is Music or not, is not a valid question (or course) because that would require some sort of objective test and there is no such objective test.
> 
> Note that in all the above ramble I personally am not taking a position on whether this activity is music or not. I am just noting that the commercial realities of the people engaged in it likely require them to cling tenaciously to the word music and the connection to classical music.
> 
> In a way the process works like this: those highly educated in "music" support this activity; because it is pursued by the educated elite it must be superior; and because it is superior it is deserving of funding outside the grubby commercial market. It is important, in making this case, to connect to classical music because that has a historic reputation of superiority over other music, as can be seen in the use of the phrase "serious music" to distinguish it from inferior "popular music". Hence, the attempt is really to achieve a continuation of an idea of cultural superiority and to use that to achieve a privileged position in which it is not necessary to achieve widespread appeal in order to obtain an income.


Have you looked at Wittgenstein's theory family resemblances in The Philosophical Investigations? If not, I'd suggest it's a good thing to think about.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Giving one's opinion on a forum is not bad mouthing. BTW I have not actually mentioned anything specifically so I don't understand what you are getting upset about.


Yes, this whole debate is as pointless as an episode of _Skippy_.

Oops. Thought I was posting in the upsetting Unpopular Opinions thread.


----------



## Guest

Prodromides said:


> I own some discs of library/stock music. There are quite a number of them (Bruton, Chappell, etc.). Various composers contributed to such ... composers who wrote concert works plus music for cinema & TV, like Marius Constant, Wilfred Josephs, Gino Marinuzzi jr., etc. While the cues might be formless or without melody, their appeal depends upon the listener. Such tracks probably wouldn't be unappealing to me as they were to you. Instead of stating "completely unappealing" as if this is fact, you should describe such as being unappealing to your aesthetics/sensibilities. Something might be unappealing to one or many, but not to all peoples.
> 
> Regarding the stock music libraries utilized by Australian networks, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the pieces might have been written by the likes of Don Banks or Tristram Cary or maybe even Peter Sculthorpe.
> In the U.S. around 1957/'58, Bernard Herrmann himself provided music for the CBS music library.


That latter paragraph; that's quite true, as I remember reading about it in the excellent biography of Herrmann. You have instructed me on how I should describe my feelings about the music. "You should describe" is sadly typical of the censorious tone we've all become inured to in the 21st century.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> The proof of this high standard of learning would be the production of worthwhile art. It's not that some won't get it; it's that practically nobody gets it outside that little insulated group of devotees of academic stuff.
> The "establishment" is there to survive and perpetuate itself. In fact, the vitality of western art music probably began to decline when the academic establishment got hold of it.


Great comments and it's difficult to disagree with you. But we are living in the anti-high-standard era; hierarchies and power structures are believed by some to exist within elite pursuits, classical music being one of these. Since we are living in the era which questions whether one work of art has intrinsically more worthy than any other (read this as a metaphor for class and race) - that everything is equal because, after all, everything is reduced to power relationships - advocating for certain 'musics' simply becomes an article of faith, as I mentioned earlier. In short, ideology is loaded into these questions and, as such, the waters are muddied and the thought police are out to make sure we are all in large agreement. Ergo, rabbit holes develop as to whether we say we liked it and this doesn't nullify anybody else liking it; saying we don't like it is adversarial and needlessly aggressive (and threatening); we show our ignorance if we don't 'get it' because, after all, we are so buried in the power structures of great art. On and on it goes....blather and more blather. We are not allowed, almost by fiat, to suggest that certain music has infinitely more merit than other music. And certainly we do not have permission to even suggest some sounds and noise aren't music.

Who's doing the bullying here? We've got a term for it in Australia: cry-bullies.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Yes, this whole debate is as pointless as an episode of _Skippy_.
> 
> Oops. Thought I was posting in the upsetting Unpopular Opinions thread.


Yeah, and thanks for your deeply thoughtful and provocative contribution.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> Yeah, and thanks for your deeply thoughtful and provocative contribution.


And thanks for yours :tiphat:


----------



## Eclectic Al

Mandryka said:


> Have you looked at Wittgenstein's theory family resemblances in The Philosophical Investigations? If not, I'd suggest it's a good thing to think about.


Yeah. I think I'm making more of a practical point than a philosophical one.

My point is that whatever the rights and wrongs of pointing to similarities or differences between avant garde and classical, the practical situation is likely to encourage those active in the avant garde field to want the connection. They might be right or wrong in that (- whatever right or wrong would mean here), but it is pretty clear that they will have an interest in making the case.


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> A slightly different angle. I would like to explore, not the question of whether the avant-garde creations we are considering are music or not (or, more specifically, are classical music or not), but the question of why those supportive of them would wish to claim the term music (or classical music).
> 
> I am currently (after decades in work) pursuing a PhD as a hobby, and have encountered academia in its current incarnation, within a business school. I have encountered the parallel question, of why some types of academic endeavour want to claim the word science for their activities.
> 
> What they are doing seems to me not to be science, largely because there is no possibility of falsifiability, and generally no attempt to challenge their own claims via experiment. There are many, many defences for their activities (words like ontology and epistemology pop up often, for example, with extensive parts of such papers spent describing their ontological or epistemological stance, usually by reference to extensive citing of prior papers). Another favourite defence is that the work is "theory building", so there is no exploration of falsifying examples because that would be a later stage in the scientific process - via more empirical and experimental studies. However, when you follow the citing in such papers they reference and are referenced by other purely theoretical papers, and the empirical and experimental studies are very thin on the ground. And such empirical or experimental studies as exist might be anthropological in nature (for example), where the findings are very much individual impressions from immersion in an activity with (again) little chance of falsification, or indeed meaning that could be attached to that.
> 
> The intention of this activity is generally to get published in journals (ideally "top tier") in order to get funding. In order to do that your papers have to be "interesting", which means interesting to fellow writers in the field, because that way the editorial process will get you published, which boosts your reputation and gets you tenure, funding for the institution, etc. There are even papers on the structure that you should follow in order to get published, and those papers are published in their own right.
> 
> So you have an activity which creates income for the practitioners, by participating in a conversation with other practitioners about their field of endeavour, which is guarded as a form of closed shop by not publishing anything which would fundamentally challenge the worth of the activity. The guarding is achieved by the editorial process. The activity need have very little reference to whether it is in accord with any "reality" outside the discourse itself. This is also protected by challenging the existence of, or meaning of the word, "reality".
> 
> The desire to claim the term "science" for this activity is that it creates an aura around the work, and gives it credibility. It is seeking the linkage to the natural sciences, because they have widespread credibility. If the activity was labelled, for example, "Social Word Games" instead of "Social Science" then it would be much hard to get funding.
> 
> I suspect the same thing is going on with music. If you can link "Sonic Art" with "Music" or "Classical Music" then you have attached it to a field with pre-existing credibility and you can more readily obtain funding by being part of an institution's music department and get grants from cultural foundations. Whether it actually is Music or not, is not a valid question (or course) because that would require some sort of objective test and there is no such objective test.
> 
> Note that in all the above ramble I personally am not taking a position on whether this activity is music or not. I am just noting that the commercial realities of the people engaged in it likely require them to cling tenaciously to the word music and the connection to classical music.
> 
> In a way the process works like this: those highly educated in "music" support this activity; because it is pursued by the educated elite it must be superior; and because it is superior it is deserving of funding outside the grubby commercial market. It is important, in making this case, to connect to classical music because that has a historic reputation of superiority over other music, as can be seen in the use of the phrase "serious music" to distinguish it from inferior "popular music". Hence, the attempt is really to achieve a continuation of an idea of cultural superiority and to use that to achieve a privileged position in which it is not necessary to achieve widespread appeal in order to obtain an income.


In general agreement with these comments, and somewhat cynical about it all really. But there is an objective test as to what is music - or, at least, there used to be. It's only since the postmodernists came along that the 'church was thrown open' (pinching the words of Dickens) and people began to doubt. Doubt and faith; they play larger roles in all this than you might think. Objectively: if I fart into the toilet there is an objective test about whether that is music. If there isn't an objective answer that isn't the fault of music but the fault of those who've twisted our heads so comprehensively that we've been conned into thinking anything can be anything it likes. That is semantics and not music.

Music is based on a system of tones and scales, formed into a structure and sense of musical logic which is generally accepted by a creative and consumer cohort to BE music, by consensus, worthy of being supported by audiences, based on considerable infrastructure and usually sponsored by corporations and governments. It is essentially intellectually and emotionally uplifting. It is cultural entropy and not enlightenment.

You can call a cement mixer or a leaf blower musical instruments, but how many years in the conservatoire will be needed to 'master' these? Or can we all just make it up as we go along, then call for a grant and say we are 'working on our art'? Somebody is having a lend of somebody else.

The cynic in me believes that these kinds of marginal esoteric pursuits are like "high priests murmuring to each other" (Camille Paglia). Conformity is essential.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Jacck said:


> I remember Skippy, I watched it as a kid (Czech TV was broadcasting it at that time). One of the few Australian productions (along with Crocodile Dundee) that made it here


Loved Skippy. Strangely my memory is of black and white. Perhaps it was that we had a black and white TV, although maybe it's that I remember my whole early childhood in black and white.

That Skippy was a genius ("What are you telling us Skippy?), and he really was a "friend ever true".


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> Your last sentence has some credibility, however the 'new' was instigated by individuals and circumstance, what followed stylistically was inevitable. Your first sentence is subjectively understandable, but intellectually you can surely appreciate the sense of fallaciousness about it.


The fallaciousness lies in calling non-music music simply because that is acceptable in one's own cultural subgroup. Again, it's admiring the clothes of the naked emperor. That's the fallaciousness that I appreciate.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> The fallaciousness lies in calling non-music music simply because that is acceptable in one's own cultural subgroup. Again, it's admiring the clothes of the naked emperor. That's the fallaciousness that I appreciate.


Bingo. The emperor's new clothes (with apologies to Beethoven).


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> Loved Skippy. Strangely my memory is of black and white. Perhaps it was that we had a black and white TV, although maybe it's that I remember my whole early childhood in black and white.
> 
> That Skippy was a genius ("What are you telling us Skippy?), and he really was a "friend ever true".


I loved these comments!! My kids always laughed about what we call 'Skippy paws' - which were fake paws on a stick, looking like they belonged to Skippy and used to negotiate doors, windows and other non-animal-friendly structures.

Kangaroos are not the benign animals represented on "Skippy". In fact, my son has half a dozen of them grazing each evening on his property and they can be very dangerous and aggressive. Best avoided.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Christabel said:


> my son has half a dozen of them grazing each evening on his property and they can be very dangerous and aggressive. Best avoided.


But not Skippy! Surely.


----------



## mikeh375

Eclectic Al said:


> A slightly different angle. I would like to explore, not the question of whether the avant-garde creations we are considering are music or not (or, more specifically, are classical music or not), but the question of why those supportive of them would wish to claim the term music (or classical music).
> 
> I am currently (after decades in work) pursuing a PhD as a hobby, and have encountered academia in its current incarnation, within a business school. I have encountered the parallel question, of why some types of academic endeavour want to claim the word science for their activities.
> 
> What they are doing seems to me not to be science, largely because there is no possibility of falsifiability, and generally no attempt to challenge their own claims via experiment. There are many, many defences for their activities (words like ontology and epistemology pop up often, for example, with extensive parts of such papers spent describing their ontological or epistemological stance, usually by reference to extensive citing of prior papers). Another favourite defence is that the work is "theory building", so there is no exploration of falsifying examples because that would be a later stage in the scientific process - via more empirical and experimental studies. However, when you follow the citing in such papers they reference and are referenced by other purely theoretical papers, and the empirical and experimental studies are very thin on the ground. And such empirical or experimental studies as exist might be anthropological in nature (for example), where the findings are very much individual impressions from immersion in an activity with (again) little chance of falsification, or indeed meaning that could be attached to that.
> 
> The intention of this activity is generally to get published in journals (ideally "top tier") in order to get funding. In order to do that your papers have to be "interesting", which means interesting to fellow writers in the field, because that way the editorial process will get you published, which boosts your reputation and gets you tenure, funding for the institution, etc. There are even papers on the structure that you should follow in order to get published, and those papers are published in their own right.
> 
> So you have an activity which creates income for the practitioners, by participating in a conversation with other practitioners about their field of endeavour, which is guarded as a form of closed shop by not publishing anything which would fundamentally challenge the worth of the activity. The guarding is achieved by the editorial process. The activity need have very little reference to whether it is in accord with any "reality" outside the discourse itself. This is also protected by challenging the existence of, or meaning of the word, "reality".
> 
> The desire to claim the term "science" for this activity is that it creates an aura around the work, and gives it credibility. It is seeking the linkage to the natural sciences, because they have widespread credibility. If the activity was labelled, for example, "Social Word Games" instead of "Social Science" then it would be much hard to get funding.
> 
> I suspect the same thing is going on with music. If you can link "Sonic Art" with "Music" or "Classical Music" then you have attached it to a field with pre-existing credibility and you can more readily obtain funding by being part of an institution's music department and get grants from cultural foundations. Whether it actually is Music or not, is not a valid question (or course) because that would require some sort of objective test and there is no such objective test.
> 
> Note that in all the above ramble I personally am not taking a position on whether this activity is music or not. I am just noting that the commercial realities of the people engaged in it likely require them to cling tenaciously to the word music and the connection to classical music.
> 
> In a way the process works like this: those highly educated in "music" support this activity; because it is pursued by the educated elite it must be superior; and because it is superior it is deserving of funding outside the grubby commercial market. It is important, in making this case, to connect to classical music because that has a historic reputation of superiority over other music, as can be seen in the use of the phrase "serious music" to distinguish it from inferior "popular music". Hence, the attempt is really to achieve a continuation of an idea of cultural superiority and to use that to achieve a privileged position in which it is not necessary to achieve widespread appeal in order to obtain an income.


This is a good post Al that encapsulates nicely the issues under dispute. The retreat into academia has not served the New well from an outside perspective. The listeners mistrust in the absence of recognised and accepted procedure and the composer's willingness to explore new paths has carved a chasm between composer and audience.

It is true that the set-up for tenure in academia is self-serving but generally, composers we talk about here on TC have broken through academic walls and have become well known for one thing...their music. The fact that audiences are not _only_ composed of initiates, that world class musicians are prepared to perform such works and that recordings are released, should suggest to sceptics that there is a place for the New's aesthetics beyond academic ramparts. I can also get along with your point about the 'classical tag' - I myself use the term 'New' or perhaps concert art music as 'Classical' does not sit well imv.

The difference as I see it with music, as opposed to your example of free or radical unhinged science, is that the great musical tradition is tangibly preserved within a lot of the new, i.e. there is an empirical aspect. The art is developed and built upon theoretically yes, but also musically (sensually), even more so. From the simplest (sensory) orchestration tricks that clarify an idea through to the expressive heritage invested in an upward melodic leap, these and countless other tried and tested procedures are subconsciously and consciously assimilated in formative years and built upon. In fact it's not too fanciful to say that the curve of musical development almost willed itself to be as it is now because there is no stopping human nature's desire to probe. This is not wrong, rather it feels musically natural to me.
As I began to learn more and more and acquire more competence, I found my own aesthetics were willing me on to push harder against norms, a sense of exploration to see what I could find.This is of course a necessary quality one needs in order to reach competent self expression. The danger is that composer's will immerse themselves to a point where only they can see the inevitability of their work. This is not because of a lack of integrity or musicality as been suggested by others, but simply the urge to seek and find the moment that resonates deep within. The expertise will help you get there, it wont dictate it though. It was always thus.


----------



## norman bates

Christabel said:


> Great comments and it's difficult to disagree with you. But we are living in the anti-high-standard era; hierarchies and power structures are believed by some to exist within elite pursuits, classical music being one of these. Since we are living in the era which questions whether one work of art has intrinsically more worthy than any other (read this as a metaphor for class and race) - that everything is equal because, after all, everything is reduced to power relationships - advocating for certain 'musics' simply becomes an article of faith, as I mentioned earlier. In short, ideology is loaded into these questions and, as such, the waters are muddied and the thought police are out to make sure we are all in large agreement. Ergo, rabbit holes develop as to whether we say we liked it and this doesn't nullify anybody else liking it; saying we don't like it is adversarial and needlessly aggressive (and threatening); we show our ignorance if we don't 'get it' because, after all, we are so buried in the power structures of great art. On and on it goes....blather and more blather. We are not allowed, almost by fiat, to suggest that certain music has infinitely more merit than other music. And certainly we do not have permission to even suggest some sounds and noise aren't music.
> 
> Who's doing the bullying here? We've got a term for it in Australia: cry-bullies.


I'm certainly against the idea that all music has equal merit. But certainly I don't mean it as "the music produced after common practice harmony by thousands of musicians in different styles is inferior to the one produced during CP harmony era".


----------



## norman bates

consuono said:


> The fallaciousness lies in calling non-music music


maybe there should be an agreement on what constitutes music before saying what is music and what is not. 
Wikipedia defines it as such:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music

"Music is an art form, and cultural activity, whose medium is sound. General definitions of music include common elements such as pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics (loudness and softness), and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture (which are sometimes termed the "color" of a musical sound). *Different styles or types of music may emphasize, de-emphasize or omit some of these elements*"

also

"The creation, performance, significance, and even the definition of music vary according to culture and social context. *Indeed, throughout history, some new forms or styles of music have been criticized as "not being music",** including Beethoven's Grosse Fuge string quartet *in 1825,[3] early jazz in the beginning of the 1900s[4] and hardcore punk in the 1980s.[5] "


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> This is a good post Al that encapsulates nicely the issues under dispute. The retreat into academia has not served the New well from an outside perspective.


But the "retreat into academia" has served "the New" quite well, because otherwise most "Newists" would either starve or have to take up something else. It's the same really in most of the arts. It's income from universities and government grants. There really is no forging a connection with anything resembling a "general public", nor is there any apparent desire to do so. It's no accident that the most recognizable composers of the past 60 years or so have worked primarily in film.

Composers like Bach, Mozart and even the individualist Beethoven did truly seek to edify ("build up") the listener in some way. The modern attitude *for the most part* is to throw up unlistenable stuff and then sneer at the audience for not getting it...and castigate the audience for presumption and arrogance in criticizing it.



> The difference as I see it with music, as opposed to your example of free or radical unhinged science, is that the great musical tradition is tangibly preserved within a lot of the new, i.e. there is an empirical aspect. The art is developed and built upon theoretically yes, but also musically (sensually), even more so.


 I disagree. I think there is a lot of lip-service to and study of common practice composition, but the "official" mindset is that we've "progressed" beyond that and that what is important is to be "trail blazers" and to explore and be startlingly or shockingly "original" -- that is, to be as unlike common practice as possible. Ultimately I think it's just leftovers of old 19th century artist-as-magnificent-rebel-shocking-the-bourgeoisie stuff, ironically.


----------



## consuono

Eclectic Al said:


> ...
> In a way the process works like this: those highly educated in "music" support this activity; because it is pursued by the educated elite it must be superior; and because it is superior it is deserving of funding outside the grubby commercial market. It is important, in making this case, to connect to classical music because that has a historic reputation of superiority over other music, as can be seen in the use of the phrase "serious music" to distinguish it from inferior "popular music". Hence, the attempt is really to achieve a continuation of an idea of cultural superiority and to use that to achieve a privileged position in which it is not necessary to achieve widespread appeal in order to obtain an income.


I think that's a pretty accurate summary of how the process has worked over the past several decades.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> But the "retreat into academia" has served "the New" quite well, because otherwise most "Newists" would either starve or have to take up something else. It's the same really in most of the arts. It's income from universities and government grants. There really is no forging a connection with anything resembling a "general public", nor is there any apparent desire to do so. It's no accident that the most recognizable composers of the past 60 years or so have worked primarily in film.
> 
> Composers like Bach, Mozart and even the individualist Beethoven did truly seek to edify ("build up") the listener in some way. The modern attitude *for the most part* is to throw up unlistenable stuff and then sneer at the audience for not getting it...and castigate the audience for presumption and arrogance in criticizing it.
> 
> I disagree. I think there is a lot of lip-service to and study of common practice composition, but the "official" mindset is that we've "progressed" beyond that and that what is important is to be "trail blazers" and to explore and be startlingly or shockingly "original" -- that is, to be as unlike common practice as possible. Ultimately I think it's just leftovers of old 19th century artist-as-magnificent-rebel-shocking-the-bourgeoisie stuff, ironically.


Whereas I can't refute your last paragraph completely given my own experience, I'd say you are missing some salient points. There are practical reasons, as well as musical ones for composers being aware of the great tradition and one can easily discern this awareness and mastery of in the scores of many many 20th _and_ 21stC composers. Common Practice certainly is not necessary for the more extreme New but believe me, technical assuredness and musical savvy is and although it's not fully reliant on the past, it is still a valid means of musical expression.

A lot of composers are also performers, or have attained a high degree of performance on their instrument, people like Thomas Ades, Huw Watkins, John McCabe et al. That in itself immerses them in the musicality of the great tradition and develops and informs their aesthetics as they master works from the past and learn composing craft. McCabe in particular has a deserved reputation as a Haydn specialist and one easily sees a link to the great tradition in his scores despite the modern language.

There has always been an aura around the cult of personality but it has absolutely no bearing on a composer in the act of trying to find their own proclivities in their formative years. They will seek with integrity and mentoring what they feel is right for them. 'Shockingly' original may well be a factor for some personalities, but not everyone and to dismiss the New (actually more like the Old), out of hand the way you are doing is a shame because there is so much wonderful work out there - ones ears just need a sense of adventure.

Who has openly castigated the audience, any examples you can cite that don't come from angry exchanges between supporters online?


----------



## consuono

Music, or not?


----------



## mikeh375

You haven't responded to my question. I will to yours to show willing.

Is it music? Yes it is, in a specialised, niche definition as per Norman's post above. Is it music to me as I would want it? Well that's a _subjective_ no, I see it as sound design coming as I do from a media background. Is it self expression? Possibly, or it might simply be sonic exploration, not purporting to be music as such. Am I going to trash the composer and cast aspersions on her artistic intent?.... No.

And to show you that tradition remains intact after academia....is this music to your ears? You'll at least hear the continuity with the past I'm sure. Let's see if you also hate modern harmonic and melodic thought that has its roots in tradition.











Perhaps you'll be able to cite some references to audiences being called names by academia or composers.


----------



## SanAntone

*This is directed to Christabel, consuono, and any others who are in their camp.*

Will you name a *living composer* whose works you admire? I say living composer since that is contemporary music, i.e. music of our time - not that made in the early 20th century - but today.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> The fallaciousness lies in calling non-music music simply because that is acceptable in one's own cultural subgroup. Again, it's admiring the clothes of the naked emperor. That's the fallaciousness that I appreciate.


I can only speak for myself from my own conversion. The emperor is not naked, at least in most Contemporary Classical. I began my journey because I hated the Contemporary Classical Music scene to prove to myself he is naked, and feel more justified in my beliefs (sound familiar? ). I had a lot of skepticism in the Arts, coming from a more applied math background, and generally viewed those people as charlatans, the gullible, or the superficial. But as I said earlier, I took the step to accept certain premises in the music and see where it would lead, and if it lead to a contradiction, then I would be sure of its fallacy. In my days in University I was great at arriving at an understanding in applied math through proof by contradiction to understand how the prof arrived at a certain solution. I was able to conclude that the music had some underlying logic that I couldn't disprove. It was not only static patterns, but moving, and carried the same logic along. For me I can follow Ferneyhough, Rihm, Suk as easily as Beethoven or Mozart now.


----------



## SanAntone

A new string quartet, written in 2018.

Alexandra du Bois - String Quartet: Oculus pro oculo totum orbem terrae caecat


----------



## Jacck

Phil loves classical said:


> I can only speak for myself from my own conversion. The emperor is not naked, at least in most Contemporary Classical. I began my journey because I hated the Contemporary Classical Music scene to prove to myself he is naked, and feel more justified in my beliefs (sound familiar? ). I had a lot of skepticism in the Arts, coming from a more applied math background, and generally viewed those people as charlatans, the gullible, or the superficial. But as I said earlier, I took the step to accept certain premises in the music and see where it would lead, and if it lead to a contradiction, then I would be sure of its fallacy. In my days in University I was great at arriving at an understanding in applied math through proof by contradiction to understand how the prof arrived at a certain solution. I was able to conclude that the music had some underlying logic that I couldn't disprove. It was not only static patterns, but moving, and carried the same logic along. For me I can follow Ferneyhough, Rihm, Suk as easily as Beethoven or Mozart now.


I have no problem if the modern music is labeled as music or even if it is part of the musical tradition (these are mere semantic definitions). The only thing that matters to me: do I actually enjoy listening to the music? The answer for me is that yes, sometimes I do, but much less frequently so than with the previous eras of music and there is little that stands out for me. There is not a single memorable thing among anything I ever heard from Ferneyhough, possible because there is no easy recognizable melody for my brain to remember.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> You haven't responded to my question. I will to yours to show willing.
> 
> Is it music? Yes it is, in a specialised, niche definition as per Norman's post above. Am I going to trash the composer and cast aspersions on her artistic intent?.... No.


Why not? As an artist she's putting herself out there. Is criticism forbidden? There's that oddity again: criticism not allowed. There are 19th century composers who don't get that kind of a break.



> Perhaps you'll be able to cite some references to audiences being called names by academia or composers.


Here's one such instance from 1996, but I don't think the sentiment is that rare:


> The only harmonic support the composer can give the expressive surface is the occasional (and by now, old and tired) device of finagling some intermittent consonant harmony out of his Serial procedures. Composers who do this call it "tonal implication" or "tonal reference," but it is really nothing of the kind, because tonality is a syntax, not just a vocabulary. Invoking consonance is just another gross distinction, another primitive and largely meaningless gesture. These are harsh judgments but necessary ones. Academic composers still maintain a smug front. In a 60th-birthday interview Mr. Martino was still blaming everyone but himself for the lack of headway his music had made despite all his prizes and plum academic posts. He was still heaping Babbittian scorn on "laymen," lobbying, as he put it, for a "potty-trained audience" and contending that "what we need are concert hall bouncers." And, of course, he was still simultaneously bragging that audiences disliked "Notturno," his Pulitzer Prize-winning sextet, and whining that his works were not more regularly performed before such audiences.


https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/10/arts/classical-view-how-talented-composers-become-useless.html


----------



## SanAntone

> Is criticism forbidden?


No, of course not. However, questioning the motives of a composer is so highly speculative and disrespectful that it is counterproductive to an intelligent discussion of the work.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Why not? As an artist she's putting herself out there. Is criticism forbidden? There's that oddity again: criticism not allowed. There are 19th century composers who don't get that kind of a break.
> 
> *Here's one such instance from 1996, but I don't think the sentiment is that rare:
> *
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/10/arts/classical-view-how-talented-composers-become-useless.html


I don't think it is common neither, but thanks for posting something. It certainly smacks of bitterness and disillusionment. He learnt the hard way I fear. 
So does your distaste for anything after a certain date (whenever that is), extend to more complicated harmonic thought and more disjunct thematic material as in the examples I gave you?
I certainly haven't said criticism isn't allowed so do keep up.


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> No, of course not. However, questioning the motives of a composer is so highly speculative and disrespectful that it is counterproductive to an intelligent discussion of the work.


my point all along too.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> No, of course not. However, questioning the motives of a composer is so highly speculative and disrespectful that it is counterproductive to an intelligent discussion of the work.


"Motives" my a**. I'm questioning if it's music or not. I'm questioning if there's any actual talent and artistic merit there. The usual standards applied to most other composers before composition apparently became this sacrosanct untouchable thing.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> I don't think it is common neither, but thanks for posting something. It certainly smacks of bitterness and disillusionment. He learnt the hard way I fear.


Oh, I think it's quite common, as evidenced by the indignant reactions of the "Newist" devotees in this thread. This from that article is modern music to a tee:


> *And, of course, he was still simultaneously bragging that audiences disliked "Notturno," his Pulitzer Prize-winning sextet, and whining that his works were not more regularly performed before such audiences.*





> So does your distaste for anything after a certain date (whenever that is), extend to more complicated harmonic thought and more disjunct thematic material as in the examples I gave you?


My theory is that western music has probably run its course. Tonal compositions are going to be derivative in some way. The alternative -- the noisy, pretentious racket parading as "art" -- does absolutely nothing but get a little praise from people wanting to be seen to be "in the know" and who "get it". And it wins Pulitzers and gets tenure.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Oh, I think it's quite common, as evidenced by the indignant reactions of the "Newist" devotees in this thread. This from that article is modern music to a tee:
> 
> My theory is that western music has probably run its course. Tonal compositions are going to be derivative in some way. The alternative -- the noisy, pretentious racket parading as "art" -- does absolutely nothing but get a little praise from people wanting to be seen to be "in the know" and who "get it". And it wins Pulitzers and gets tenure.


Tonality in an extended form is alive and kicking not that you know much about it I suppose given your aversion and perhaps unwillingness to listen to anything beyond your tastes. 
None of this matters though, you'll keep on publishing callous and unfounded, uninformed remarks about composers' integrity and no doubt get some satisfaction from it. Their music may be "out there" and fair game, but is the person?


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> "Motives" my a**. I'm questioning if it's music or not. I'm questioning if there's any actual talent and artistic merit there. The usual standards applied to most other composers before composition apparently became this sacrosanct untouchable thing.


You are entitled to your opinion, no question there. How many times must you express it before you are satisfied we know where you stand?

I suppose you are satisfied visiting the museum of classical music since you think that "that western music has probably run its course." But, no, you aren't satisfied with limiting yourself to listening to music back when it was safely tonal, to works from the past. You cannot stop yourself from carping on and on, questioning "if there's any actual talent and artistic merit there."

It becomes tiresome having you around for those of us who are curious about new music and wish to give it a chance. We are optimists, we have faith in the creative impulse and new composers. Very much unlike you who has written off new music with, "My theory is that western music has probably run its course."

How sad for you. No wonder you sound bitter.


----------



## Jacck

consuono said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/10/arts/classical-view-how-talented-composers-become-useless.html


the comparison of music to mathematics by Babbit is outrageous. The goal of all art since time immemorial was to entertain people. Artist produced works, that the people liked, and people paid them for it. This concept still works in the popular genres such as rock, pop, jazz etc. There is no absolute truth in art, as it is in mathematics or other natural sciences. The natural sciences have clearly visible outputs, that improve on the lives of people in a tangible manner. Music does nothing like that. One of the greatest illusions is that music progresses from worse to better just like the progress in natural sciences. This is an obvious nonsense. There is no progress to music, just change in styles and fashions and fads. The goal of music now, as always, should be to entertain as it did entertain 500 years ago (or was used for spiritual purposes). This decoupling between modern music and the tastes of audiences is clearly a problem that arose because musicians started to get financed from universities and did not have to care about the appeal of their music (hence the arrogant comments from people like Babbit and Boulez). I see no way how to fix this now. And I am sorry for modern composers. I think they have it much harder than composers of the past, because they have to compete against all the musical tradition of the past centuries for attention. Maybe another reason for the postmodernist deconstruction of music is that fact that the musical traditions have exhausted themselves. Nowadays, the music was brought to its bare limit and there is nowhere else to progress, the music nowadays is bordering on "noise" (this is not a derogaroty comment) and any further deconstruction would in fact lead to noise. So they just experiment with novel ways how to play their instruments, toying with different timbres etc. If there is any way to progress for music, it must abondon this deconstructionist paradigm and rediscover beauty.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> ...
> I certainly haven't said criticism isn't allowed so do keep up.


Really now. So give us some criticism of that little tidbit I posted.


> Tonality in an extended form is alive and kicking not that you know much about it...


And there it is, inevitably. :lol:

Later.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Really now. So give us some criticism of that little tidbit I posted.
> And there it is, inevitably. :lol:
> 
> Later.


indeed, you're lack of knowledge about current music is a fact is it not? It's certainly been evident for some time....Or...am I wrong? I mean, c'mon, you don't know that much about it and are still happy to consign it to the trash. Right? Criticism or fact? Either way our spat has nothing to do with the threads thrust so co-opting my statement of a probable _fact_ as a confirmation of whatever point you are making about criticism doesn't really work.


----------



## janxharris

mikeh375 said:


> Tonality in an *extended form* is alive and kicking not that you know much about it I suppose given your aversion and perhaps unwillingness to listen to anything beyond your tastes.
> None of this matters though, you'll keep on publishing callous and unfounded, uninformed remarks about composers' integrity and no doubt get some satisfaction from it. Their music may be "out there" and fair game, but is the person?


Do you mean in the use of extended harmony?


----------



## SanAntone

Germán Alonso - so f**king easy

*Germán Alonso : thinking music in terms of rhythm and energy*



> Even if I consider myself to be a little iconoclastic, there are quite a lot of musicians who influenced me at some point, I am no exception in this sense. Some of them remain as musical references in the present, some others don't.
> 
> In general terms, we can say that I discovered 20th century music through the "French connection", starting from Debussy and reaching to post-spectralist composers, from whom I took a few ideas about fusing rock and New Music, among other things.
> 
> I mostly think music in terms of rhythm and energy, therefore Stravinsky and Bartók had to be on the list. More or less for the same reasons, I've always been interested in rock and, a little later, in jazz, so we would have to include Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix or Miles Davis as well.
> 
> There's no particular order of importance in the musicians I've mentioned and of course I'm missing a lot of them. (Actually, speaking about influences is always awkward for me. Pretty much everything that shakes your thinking is an influence in creating music.)


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> You are entitled to your opinion, no question there. How many times must you express it before you are satisfied we know where you stand?


How many times must you express yours?



> It becomes tiresome having you around for those of us who are curious about new music and wish to give it a chance. We are optimists, we have faith in the creative impulse and new composers. Very much unlike you who has written off new music with, "My theory is that western music has probably run its course."


 I couldn't care less if you find my "presence" tiresome or not. A bunch of New Music Evangelists telling me that I shouldn't speak ill of the sacred artistic noise is even more tiresome.


> How sad for you. No wonder you sound bitter.


I'm not bitter. No wonder you sound deluded.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Jacck said:


> I have no problem if the modern music is labeled as music or even if it is part of the musical tradition (these are mere semantic definitions). The only thing that matters to me: do I actually enjoy listening to the music? The answer for me is that yes, sometimes I do, but much less frequently so than with the previous eras of music and there is little that stands out for me. There is not a single memorable thing among anything I ever heard from Ferneyhough, possible because there is no easy recognizable melody for my brain to remember.


I agree. If some see the deficiency in melody as a decline in music, or even that it is not music at all, I believe that is true for those individuals, which I can see being the majority of listeners. But it's when they equate it with randomness then that is where I think they are overstepping their bounds of understanding.


----------



## consuono

> Their music may be "out there" and fair game, but is the person?


When did I say anything whatsoever about the person?


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> I agree. If some see the deficiency in melody as a decline in music, or even that it is not music at all, I believe that is true for those individuals, which I can see being the majority of listeners. But it's when they equate it with randomness then that is where I think they are overstepping their bounds of understanding.


I don't equate it with "randomness". I equate it with a dry well.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> When did I say anything whatsoever about the person?


...you've questioned musicality and integrity enough. _That_ is very personal to an artist. Isn't it enough to just say you don't like it and miss such and such about it? How about a little tack, unless you are happy with these sort of exchanges. 
Posting aesthetic insults online is not the best way forward in a multiple tastes forum. This is how it will always end up - unfriendly.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> indeed, you're lack of knowledge about current music is a fact is it not? It's certainly been evident for some time....Or...am I wrong? I mean, c'mon, you don't know that much about it and are still happy to consign it to the trash. Right? Criticism or fact? Either way our spat has nothing to do with the threads thrust so co-opting my statement of a probable _fact_ as a confirmation of whatever point you are making about criticism doesn't really work.


Still can't bring yourself to offer some criticism of that snippet of that work, eh? I know enough about modern music. I haven't been living exclusively in Baroque, Classical and Romantic Hall during my time on the planet. Don't make assumptions.


----------



## SanAntone

*Catherine Lamb, Prisma Interius VIII* (2018)
World premiere at London's Cafe OTO at the 5th show of Kammer Klang's 2017-2018 season on March 6th.

Plus-Minus Ensemble:
Alice Purton, cello
Aisha Orazbayeva, violin
Vicky Wright, clarinet
Tom Pauwels, guitar
Roderick Chadwick, electronics
Mark Knoop, electronics

*Catherine Lamb : interacting points within expanding harmonic space*



> I was discussing recently with friends of a similar age to me, regarding the last generation having grown up without internet and mobile computers. We experienced the gradual/steady shift of humans' relationship to these now everyday technological tools, through our twenties and into our thirties. It seems necessary to mention this, as, on reflection, my most impressionable years involved discoveries away from computers (as I have always been slightly behind technology).
> 
> So mine has been a string of happened exposures, finding and searching for resonances through other humans and recordings I have been able to discover. Here is one possible, quite reduced, continuous pathway of personal composer resonances up to now (possible as in tomorrow I might have a different perspective path), where past and future-present do not delineate:
> 
> Stravinsky-Debussy-Bach-Satie-A&JColtrane-Monk-Jarrett-Simone-Britten-Ligeti-Webern-Purcell-vonBingen-Ockeghem-Rameau-L.Subramaniam-R.Naryan-K.Amonkar-U.Bhawalkar-Nano S- Riley-Young-Oliveros-Cage-Feldman-Ustvolskaya-R.C.Seeger-Tenney-Radigue-Lucier-Pisaro-Frey-Z.M. Dagar-Steenberge-Wada-So-Grady-Holter-Winter-Szlavnics-Scelsi-Amacher-Eubanks-Darboven-Ablinger-Ullman-Lang-Sabat-Arkbo-Froberger-Torros-Chang-Spiegel-o'Dwyer-Cuni …


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> the comparison of music to mathematics by Babbit is outrageous. The goal of all art since time immemorial was to entertain people. Artist produced works, that the people liked, and people paid them for it. This concept still works in the popular genres such as rock, pop, jazz etc. There is no absolute truth in art, as it is in mathematics or other natural sciences. The natural sciences have clearly visible outputs, that improve on the lives of people in a tangible manner. Music does nothing like that. One of the greatest illusions is that music progresses from worse to better just like the progress in natural sciences. This is an obvious nonsense. There is no progress to music, just change in styles and fashions and fads. The goal of music now, as always, should be to entertain as it did entertain 500 years ago (or was used for spiritual purposes). This decoupling between modern music and the tastes of audiences is clearly a problem that arose because musicians started to get financed from universities and did not have to care about the appeal of their music (hence the arrogant comments from people like Babbit and Boulez). I see no way how to fix this now. And I am sorry for modern composers. I think they have it much harder than composers of the past, because they have to compete against all the musical tradition of the past centuries for attention. Maybe another reason for the postmodernist deconstruction of music is that fact that the musical traditions have exhausted themselves. Nowadays, the music was brought to its bare limit and there is nowhere else to progress, the music nowadays is bordering on "noise" (this is not a derogaroty comment) and any further deconstruction would in fact lead to noise. So they just experiment with novel ways how to play their instruments, toying with different timbres etc. If there is any way to progress for music, it must abondon this deconstructionist paradigm and rediscover beauty.


I think this is all very true. The idiotic nonsense of comparing music to maths is immediately seen in what we are doing. Whereas the maths behind the programming which allows us to communicate on TC is beyond most (if not all) of us (apologies to any specialists) what they have produced(the program) is easily accessed by everyone. Babbit and his colleagues are in the position of the mathematicians writing an incomprehensible program and wondering why no-one appreciates it. Music (unlike maths) has no benefit apart from being accessible. Babbit &co merely deceive themselves.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> ...you've questioned musicality and integrity enough. _That_ is very personal to an artist. Isn't it enough to just say you don't like it and miss such and such about it? How about a little tack, unless you are happy with these sort of exchanges.
> Posting aesthetic insults online is not the best way forward in a multiple tastes forum. This is how it will always end up - unfriendly.


So in other words criticism is forbidden. Gotcha.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> I don't equate it with "randomness". I equate it with a dry well.


Ok, thanks for the clarification. I can accept that is how it is to most listeners.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> So in other words criticism is forbidden. Gotcha.


yeah, I see you don't get it, either that or you can't/wont discern. Others will see the point me and some others are making.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> ...
> Posting aesthetic insults online is not the best way forward in a multiple tastes forum. This is how it will always end up - unfriendly.


It ends up that way because you know that critics of modern music have a point, and it's hard to defend against. I am a huge admirer of Bach's music, but if someone on this forum detests Bach I don't have to be angry about it. I do think it would show a lack of musical understanding, and have said so, but ultimately I think Bach's work speaks for itself. The modern music devotee doesn't quite have that refuge. There's an insecurity at play.


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> There is not a single memorable thing among anything I ever heard from Ferneyhough, possible because there is no easy recognizable melody for my brain to remember.












(What a pleasure to revisit those etudes this afternoon. I'd forgotten how gorgeous they are.)


----------



## Phil loves classical

mikeh375 said:


> yeah, I see you don't get it, either that or you can't/wont discern. Others will see the point me and some others are making.


A teacher of mine used to say 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'. You probably heard it more often than I have.


----------



## mikeh375

janxharris said:


> Do you mean in the use of extended harmony?


Hey Jan, yes in this case. A little more complicated than compound though, if that's what you where thinking of. But I also should include linear development, rhythmic development and timbral imagination too, all part of the drivers that can be explored within the confines of a tangible link to tradition, as evidenced by the pieces I posted earlier and the 4tet SanAntone posted. Tonality is a long way off from being dead, it's been re-born thanks to the 20thC.


----------



## mikeh375

Phil loves classical said:


> A teacher of mine used to say 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'. You probably heard it more often than I have.


LOL, and of course...

you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> A teacher of mine used to say 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'. You probably heard it more often than I have.


Does help, of course, if the water is palatable!


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> A teacher of mine used to say 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'. You probably heard it more often than I have.


Really? So explain it, Phil. How do you criticize the work of an artist if criticism of that work amounts to a personal attack...since that artist's work *is* that artist and so that's forbidden, being an attack against the artist's person?

The dilemma is that the snippet I posted is clearly unmusical noise, although apparently carefully notated. However, if you call it that, it calls into question huge portions of modern music.


----------



## Jacck

Mandryka said:


> (What a pleasure to revisit those etudes this afternoon. I'd forgotten how gorgeous they are.)


good that you enjoy it, but honestly, for me it sounds exactly like everything else I ever heard from Ferneyhough. Maybe if I had the score (I would first need to learn how to read the scores) and listened to his works repeatedly many times, I would be able to distinguish between them and discover that each of them is unique and different. But as it now stands, it all sounds very same to me and I dont feel the incentive to listen to it repeatedly. No matter what work by Ferneyhough I take, it sounds the same to me. (maybe using slightly different instrumentation each time)


----------



## Phil loves classical

DavidA said:


> Does help, of course, if the water is palatable!


I have to agree that was my issue at the beginning.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> Really? So explain it, Phil. How do you criticize the work of an artist if criticism of that work amounts to a personal attack...since that artist's work *is* that artist and so that's forbidden, being an attack against the artist's person?
> 
> The dilemma is that the snippet I posted is clearly unmusical noise, although apparently carefully notated. However, if you call it that, it calls into question huge portions of modern music.


Can't speak for others, but I also had that suspicion of the motives of the Contemporary composer, so I don't think it's an unhealthy skepticism. I was able to dispel mine from working through the music. I do believe you're sincere in your trek.


----------



## mikeh375

Jacck said:


> good that you enjoy it, but honestly, for me it sounds exactly like everything else I ever heard from Ferneyhough. Maybe if I had the score (I would first need to learn how to read the scores) and listened to his works repeatedly many times, I would be able to distinguish between them and discover that each of them is unique and different. But as it now stands, it all sounds very same to me and I dont feel the incentive to listen to it repeatedly. No matter what work by Ferneyhough I take, it sounds the same to me. (maybe using slightly different instrumentation each time)


well said Jacck. Obviously I won't necessarily agree with you, but well said anyway...


----------



## SanAntone

*Sheila Silver speaks a musical language of her own*



> Silver's piano trio, To the Spirit Unconquered, is about the ability of the human spirit to transcend the most devastating of circumstances, to survive, and to bear witness. It was inspired, in part, by Nobel laureate Primo Levi's writings on the Holocaust.
> 
> The first movement, "With great intensity-strained, sometimes violent," represents fear, both controlled and uncontrolled, the internal as well as the external cry. Primo Levi wrote that when new arrivals to the concentration camps disembarked from the trains, they were struck with uncontrollable fear. Those who survived had to control that fear; those who succumbed to the fear lasted only a few days.
> 
> The music, characterized by pounding bass chords in the piano and fast tremolos in the strings, alternates between violent outbursts and controlled, subdued lines. At times the pianist plays inside the piano to augment the dramatic tension.


----------



## consuono

This looks extremely difficult to play as notated, but I wonder...what exactly is there about it that makes it worth the trouble?


----------



## SanAntone

*Ofer Pelz : unstable repetition *



> Are there composers who have been influential or relevant regarding your own work? Has this changed over time?
> 
> Looking back, the composers who influenced me the most are Bach, Ligeti, and Lutoslawski. Apparently, I simply gravitated to them specifically due to my piano teacher; and there is no doubt that I like their work a lot. I think something in common that was possible to find there, also in the selection of my music, was the use of polyphony and thinking that is more linear and less harmonic. I also think that those composers, each one in his own way, concerned themselves more with the linear movement of the music.
> 
> It very much interested me how Lutoslawski grants rhythmic freedom to performers by way of his use of "controlled randomness". In addition to being a composer, I am an improvisational performer. For me, the improvisation was always parallel to the work of the composition, sometimes helpful, but usually not really connected. I try more and more to combine the worlds and to understand that this is the case with Lutoslawski. Even though I am not as interested in him today as I was in the past, he is still relevant with his ideas and influence.
> 
> In the past few years, the influence of composers like Grisey and Furrer has been very important to me: although very different, both of them succeed with very limited use of material to maintain tension throughout the duration of the composition. I attempt in my way also to be economical with material and to return to it with great frequency, but to preserve the tension and the interest.







Ofer Pelz - Blanc sur Blanc


----------



## JAS

Wow. This thread got busy after I went elsewhere to finish a few things, and go to bed.



SanAntone said:


> I was just interested in the composers you liked from the 20th century. And I don't consider you a low taste dinosaur, I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought anything like that. I don't much care for Wishart's music either - but that's not the point.


Actually, that is very much the point. There are lots of things that I still consider to be music that I simply don't like. Wishart is well beyond even that point.

I do not normally pay all that much attention to when a work was written, although it often serves as a useful point of caution before I hear or consider buying something I am not already familiar with. (There is only a very rough correlation between when something was written and my response to it, although that correlation tends to grow more and more prohibitive as it enters the middle of the 20th century, and even more as it passes that point. I actually had to look up some of these to be sure of when they were composing.)

There are always works I care for more and others less by most composers. If I like enough pieces by that composer, I tend to use the shorthand expression of liking the composer, without listing specific works as included or exempt from inclusion. (Debussy is a good example of this. I like enough of his music to say that I like him as a composer, but I really cannot listen to his Fall of the House of Usher, for example, so to say that I like him as a composer does not mean that I like everything he did.) Here are some general examples of composers active in the 20th century that I like:

- Erkki Melartin (he was born in the late 19th century, but all 6 of his symphonies were written after 1900).

- I like lots of Sibelius (including most of the symphonies)

- I like most of what I have heard by Ralph Vaughan Williams

- I like quite a bit of music by Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco

- I like some Howard Hanson (especially, of course, his "romantic" symphony, for which I recommend the performance conducted by Charles Gerhardt)

- In the right mood, I like several works by Fikret Amirov. (Looking for his piano concerto, I found a CD that also has a piece on it from 1977 by Farhad Badalbeyll called The Sea for Piano and Orchestra which is wonderful.)

- I like a huge amount of film music of the 20th century, as the place that romantic music basically went

- I like a smattering of pieces by composers whose work I do not more generally appreciate. I like Arnold's English Dances, for example, but have a hard time with his symphonies. Michael Torke's Bright Blue music, from his color music, is okay (and not as annoying as minimalism often is. Pretty much the only thing by Schoenberg that I can call enjoyment is his Gurre-Lieder. I like Orff's Carmina Burana, and the other parts of the Trionfi series less so.)

There isn't much composed in the 21rst century so far that appeals to me. The Musketeers, by Oscar Navarro is from 2018, and is okay.

I am extremely grateful to be living in a age where recordings can be made with good performances and great sound even for relatively obscure repertoire. I have been able to enjoy many pieces that I would probably never get to hear at a concert. I am always looking for more music to enjoy, and never intentionally seeking out anything that I will hate. I have fairly broad characteristics that I am seeking, and they are broad enough to include a vast array of music (probably enough for one lifetime). Novelty and innovation are never high on my list of such characteristics. I never seek newness merely for its own sake, nor do I particularly care when a work was written; it might be yesterday or several hundred years ago. (Admittedly, the yesterday option is increasingly rare, but perhaps we will regain our senses at some point and return to melody, tunefulness and craftsmanship that is to be enjoyed rather than endured. I am not at all interested in the mathematics or theory behind so much that is considered modern. As Johnny Carson often had to admit for a joke, if it has to be explained, it didn't work.)



SanAntone said:


> Wishart is a composer of a kind of music which is very different from our traditional idea of what constitutes classical music. He's been doing it for over forty years, and getting hired by some prominent institutions of higher learning.


A mere demonstration of how bad things have gotten in the academic world, and why so few take their pronouncements seriously.



SanAntone said:


> He has nothing to prove; he's already arrived whether we like his work or not.


He has arrived exactly where? I never even heard of him until this thread, and I suspect that the vast majority of classical music fans have not heard of him either . . . lucky them.



SanAntone said:


> Regarding his coining a special term, music can be described as sonic art. You seem to get more hung up on terminology that I do. I am less interested in terms used to describe music than the music itself, as heard.


I am not "hung up on terminology," I just don't like words to be used in ways that merely confuse or obfuscate. I have long been interested in the tricks of propaganda, and this is one of the most basic ones. Muddle the meaning of a word, and you can use it to mean anything you like, even the opposite of what it once meant. Jonathan Swift saw this problem centuries ago, when, in his Gulliver's Travels he wrote about lawyers thus: "I said, 'there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves'."


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> This looks extremely difficult to play as notated, but I wonder...what exactly is there about it that makes it worth the trouble?


I don't know that early piece very well (I don't like piano much.) But listening to it just now my attention was caught by the central (icon) section (starting about 5.18) -- the deep chords marking out time, very evocative, mysterious.


----------



## SanAntone

Thanks, *JAS*, for taking the time for that post.

If you don't mind spending another five minutes more to indulge me, would you consider listening to this movement from a string quartet by *Krzysztof Meyer*. He is a composer whom I like, working currently, whose work you will agree is certainly "music."

*K. Meyer : String Quartet No. 8, Op. 67: I. Tranquillo
*





I've also posted several young composers whom I've interviewed with some snippets in an effort to humanize them. They are thoughtful sincere artists. Their music is probably not to your taste, and I am more curious than a "fan" but wholeheartedly support young composers writing new music. It often is revelatory.


----------



## norman bates

Jacck said:


> the comparison of music to mathematics by Babbit is outrageous. The goal of all art since time immemorial was to entertain people. Artist produced works, that the people liked, and people paid them for it. This concept still works in the popular genres such as rock, pop, jazz etc. There is no absolute truth in art, as it is in mathematics or other natural sciences. The natural sciences have clearly visible outputs, that improve on the lives of people in a tangible manner. Music does nothing like that. One of the greatest illusions is that music progresses from worse to better just like the progress in natural sciences. This is an obvious nonsense. There is no progress to music, just change in styles and fashions and fads. The goal of music now, as always, should be to entertain as it did entertain 500 years ago (or was used for spiritual purposes). This decoupling between modern music and the tastes of audiences is clearly a problem that arose because musicians started to get financed from universities and did not have to care about the appeal of their music (hence the arrogant comments from people like Babbit and Boulez). I see no way how to fix this now. And I am sorry for modern composers. I think they have it much harder than composers of the past, because they have to compete against all the musical tradition of the past centuries for attention. Maybe another reason for the postmodernist deconstruction of music is that fact that the musical traditions have exhausted themselves. Nowadays, the music was brought to its bare limit and there is nowhere else to progress, the music nowadays is bordering on "noise" (this is not a derogaroty comment) and any further deconstruction would in fact lead to noise. So they just experiment with novel ways how to play their instruments, toying with different timbres etc. If there is any way to progress for music, it must abondon this deconstructionist paradigm and rediscover beauty.


I do believe that there's progress in music. But doesn't mean that progress can be achieved without errors and forgettable experiments. But it's in the nature of humanity to be curious and look for new paths, new meanings and like with philosophy, new truths even. There's an element of exploration. We keep looking for new ways to produce music for the same reasons we are gone to the moon.


----------



## SanAntone

*Max Grafe - Janus Ponders the Cosmos*

Matheus Sardinha Garcia Souza - violin
Libby Garrett - bassoon
Miki Sawada - piano
Haley Rhodeside - harp
Doug Perry - percussion
Heewon Uhm - violin I
Zou Yu - violin II
Jane Mitchell - viola
Ian Gottlieb - violoncello
Jonathan Hammonds - contrabass

Mark Biggins - conductor

Info about the composer.


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> I do believe that there's progress in music. But doesn't mean that progress can be achieved without errors and forgettable experiments. But it's in the nature of humanity to be curious and look for new paths, new meanings and like with philosophy, new truths even. There's an element of exploration. We keep looking for new ways to produce music for the same reasons we are gone to the moon.


Not all change is progress.


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> Not all change is progress.


that's what I meant with "it doesn't mean that progress can be achieved without errors and forgettable experiments". But still humanity keeps having a desire for exploration.


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> (What a pleasure to revisit those etudes this afternoon. I'd forgotten how gorgeous they are.)


Frankly the only pleasure I had was turning them off. I did give them again but I can't stand this noise


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> that's what I meant with "it doesn't mean that progress can be achieved without errors and forgettable experiments". But still humanity keeps having a desire for exploration.


That is fine, but the word progress presumes improvement as a key part of the meaning. If you don't mean progress, just say change. It works perfectly.


----------



## Mandryka

DavidA said:


> Frankly the only pleasure I had was turning them off. I did give them again but I can't stand this noise


Well I wouldn't expect everyone to be able to appreciate them.


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> *This is directed to Christabel, consuono, and any others who are in their camp.*
> 
> Will you name a *living composer* whose works you admire? I say living composer since that is contemporary music, i.e. music of our time - not that made in the early 20th century - but today.


I can cope with some James MacMillan, and he's alive!

I sometimes think that a linkage to religious feeling maybe pushes music towards an attempt to communicate to a wider audience.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Eclectic Al said:


> I can cope with some James MacMillan, and he's alive!
> 
> I sometimes think that a linkage to religious feeling maybe pushes music towards an attempt to communicate to a wider audience.


Arvo Part is still alive. I'm not big into minimalism, but I do think some of his pieces are moving - and again there is a religious connection. (By the way, I say this as someone who is not personally religious.)
Spiegel im Spiegel is lovely.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> Arvo Part is still alive. I'm not big into minimalism, but I do think some of his pieces are moving - and again there is a religious connection. (By the way, I say this as someone who is not personally religious.)
> Spiegel im Spiegel is lovely.


Arvo Pärt has written several things I like a lot, _Kanon Pokajanen_ is one:






There are several YouTube channel devoted to new music by living composers, not nearly as well known as MacMilland and Pärt.

*incipitsify*

*Wellesz Modern*

*Score Follower*

I hope it is not asking too much for you to sample some of the videos I've posted here today.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I was looking at the Wikipedia entry for Arvo Part. There are some interesting comments of relevance for this thread.

_Pärt was the most performed living composer in the world from 2011 to 2018, but then the second-most performed composer, after John Williams. Of Pärt's popularity, Steve Reich has written:
Even in Estonia, Arvo was getting the same feeling that we were all getting ... I love his music, and I love the fact that he is such a brave, talented man ... He's completely out of step with the zeitgeist and yet he's enormously popular, which is so inspiring. His music fulfills a deep human need that has nothing to do with fashion._

And:

_Pärt's works are generally divided into two periods. He composed his early works using a range of neo-classical styles influenced by Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Bartók. He then began to compose using Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique and serialism. This, however, not only earned the ire of the Soviet establishment but also proved to be a creative dead-end.
------
The spirit of early European Polyphony informed the composition of Pärt's transitional Third Symphony (1971); thereafter he immersed himself in early music, reinvestigating the roots of Western music. He studied plainsong, Gregorian chant and the emergence of polyphony in the European Renaissance.

The music that began to emerge after this period was radically different. _

In other words, he found a route to composing, and a wide audience, by linking to a past tradition in a way which was clearly recognisable. Now many on this thread may think, therefore, that he copped out. I tend to the view that he just found something that worked for him.

If some composers stick to the avant garde then that's fine, but equally if others want to find inspiration in different styles then that's fine too. I find Reich's comments about the zeitgeist interesting, because it's not obvious why the zeitgeist should be out of step with Part, as Reich implies. Who gets to define the spirit of the times?


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> I was looking at the Wikipedia entry for Arvo Part. There are some interesting comments of relevance for this thread.
> 
> _Pärt was the most performed living composer in the world from 2011 to 2018, but then the second-most performed composer, after John Williams. Of Pärt's popularity, Steve Reich has written:
> Even in Estonia, Arvo was getting the same feeling that we were all getting ... I love his music, and I love the fact that he is such a brave, talented man ... He's completely out of step with the zeitgeist and yet he's enormously popular, which is so inspiring. His music fulfills a deep human need that has nothing to do with fashion._
> 
> And:
> 
> _Pärt's works are generally divided into two periods. He composed his early works using a range of neo-classical styles influenced by Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Bartók. He then began to compose using Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique and serialism. This, however, not only earned the ire of the Soviet establishment but also proved to be a creative dead-end.
> ------
> The spirit of early European Polyphony informed the composition of Pärt's transitional Third Symphony (1971); thereafter he immersed himself in early music, reinvestigating the roots of Western music. He studied plainsong, Gregorian chant and the emergence of polyphony in the European Renaissance.
> 
> The music that began to emerge after this period was radically different. _
> 
> In other words, he found a route to composing, and a wide audience, by linking to a past tradition in a way which was clearly recognisable. Now many on this thread may think, therefore, that he copped out. *I tend to the view that he just found something that worked for him.*
> 
> *If some composers stick to the avant garde then that's fine, but equally if others want to find inspiration in different styles then that's fine too. * I find Reich's comments about the zeitgeist interesting, because it's not obvious why the zeitgeist should be out of step with Part, as Reich implies. Who gets to define the spirit of the times?


I agree with you 100%. I think what's important is creating an receptive environment for composers of various styles of new music (which has been my argument with some of the posts here). I absolutely do not believe that as someone posted Western classical music has "run its course." I am optimistic and constantly hear new works that are wonderful, at least to my ears.

There is a resilient human impulse to create, write music, literature, theater, paintings and sculpture. But these artists need an audience. I am certainly not advocating blind support by those who do not like their music or art. But at the same time I think restraint from vitriol would be enough to allow for them to find their way and an audience naturally.


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> Well I wouldn't expect everyone to be able to appreciate them.


Great! I'm sure most people won't. Sorry but this stuff is just lost on the vast majority even of classical music lovers. The composers have lost touch with their audience. That is if they ever had touch with an audience outside of a very small clique


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> That is fine, but the word progress presumes improvement as a key part of the meaning. If you don't mean progress, just say change. It works perfectly.


but there are both changes and progress. Progress in this case meant as having more expressive tools and also new points of view on art and its meaning and how it makes us discover things at least. Then from my point of view I know there are masterpieces that are very important to me and you don't share the same idea, but I guess that we could agree that having more expressive possibilities is a good thing no matter how your perception of the existing music is.


----------



## norman bates

Eclectic Al said:


> find Reich's comments about the zeitgeist interesting, because it's not obvious why the zeitgeist should be out of step with Part, as Reich implies. Who gets to define the spirit of the times?


maybe it's the fact that Part in music was clearly inspired a lot by medieval composers like Perotinus (who by the way inspired Reich too)?


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> *Max Grafe - Janus Ponders the Cosmos*
> 
> Matheus Sardinha Garcia Souza - violin
> Libby Garrett - bassoon
> Miki Sawada - piano
> Haley Rhodeside - harp
> Doug Perry - percussion
> Heewon Uhm - violin I
> Zou Yu - violin II
> Jane Mitchell - viola
> Ian Gottlieb - violoncello
> Jonathan Hammonds - contrabass
> 
> Mark Biggins - conductor
> 
> Info about the composer.


Well I listened to this one, and I quite enjoyed it, thank you.

I got the feeling this was a composer who could produce something that would be very engaging, and become part of my personal list of pieces I might listen to more than once. However, I can't help but get the impression that he would feel held back from producing something like that, because it may then damage his credibility with purists for new music. It's a sense that he is avoiding outright, old-school tunefulness, because that would be seen as tawdry (which it shouldn't), whereas he might really be able (and might prefer) to go that way.

I imagine composers like him may be criticised in some purist circles for not pushing the boundaries.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> Well I listened to this one, and I quite enjoyed it, thank you.
> 
> I got the feeling this was a composer who could produce something that would be very engaging, and become part of my personal list of pieces I might listen to more than once. However, I can't help but get the impression that he would feel held back from producing something like that, because it may then damage his credibility with purists for new music. It's a sense that he is avoiding outright, old-school tunefulness, because that would be seen as tawdry (which it shouldn't), whereas he might really be able (and might prefer) to go that way.
> 
> I imagine composers like him may be criticised in some purist circles for not pushing the boundaries.


I think you imagine incorrectly. We are a long way from the doctrinaire climate of the post-war generation of Pierre Boulez. Today's composers in their 20s - 40s are very much supportive of their colleagues. There is a spectrum of styles composers use, there is no "school" to enforce. There is no "purist" circle, that is a very out-dated idea, if it ever really existed.

I have been fortunate to meet and interview dozens of these composers. Across the board they are open to the music around them and do not attempt to coerce some kind of stylistic adherence.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

The quote "There is still plenty of good music to be written in C major" is attributed to Schönberg, of all people, and I think that was just as true back then as it is today. Even he didn't think that tonality was somehow "mined to exhaustion". I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with reinventing the wheel, just as there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to break new sonic ground, even when those attempts seem to fall flat. I think the intent of a lot of avant-garde or contemporary composers is also judged hastily in this thread as simply attempting to be original or different just for its own sake so they can get recognition/cred in the ivory tower of academia and gratify their own shallow egos - sure, it could be some, but the mind of an artist is generally much more nuanced and complex than that. I despise that Rebecca Saunder's piano piece, for instance, but I don't think it's pretentious in its intent. "The emperor has no clothes" is such a hackneyed argument to attack modern art and avant-garde music.


----------



## Luchesi

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> The quote "There is still plenty of good music to be written in C major" is attributed to Schönberg, of all people, and I think that was just as true back then as it is today. Even he didn't think that tonality was somehow "mined to exhaustion". I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with reinventing the wheel, just as there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to break new sonic ground, even when those attempts seem to fall flat. I think the intent of a lot of avant-garde or contemporary composers is also judged hastily in this thread as simply attempting to be original or different just for its own sake so they can get recognition/cred in the ivory tower of academia and gratify their own shallow egos - sure, it could be some, but the mind of an artist is generally much more nuanced and complex than that. I despise that Rebecca Saunder's piano piece, for instance, but I don't think it's pretentious in its intent. "The emperor has no clothes" is such a hackneyed argument to attack modern art and avant-garde music.


OK, how far back should they go? Have you studied enough to know? If you're not a musician I'd like to know what you could be thinking.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Luchesi said:


> OK, how far back should they go? Have you studied enough to know? If you're not a musician I'd like to know what you could be thinking.


I'm not sure I understand the question, could you elaborate some?


----------



## Mandryka

Luchesi said:


> OK, how far back should they go? Have you studied enough to know? If you're not a musician I'd like to know what you could be thinking.


I think it's incorrectly addressed to you!

But I wanted to ask you what repelled you so much about Crimson, the Saunders piano piece.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I think Crimson is too static (staticity is something that can and has been done extremely well in music, I just don't hear it well executed in this piece) and there's not enough development going on to sustain it for 18 minutes. But that's just how I feel. Rebecca Saunders shouldn't give a damn what I think.


----------



## Jacck

norman bates said:


> but there are both changes and progress. Progress in this case meant as having more expressive tools and also new points of view on art and its meaning and how it makes us discover things at least. Then from my point of view I know there are masterpieces that are very important to me and you don't share the same idea, but I guess that we could agree that having more expressive possibilities is a good thing no matter how your perception of the existing music is.


where do you think music is coming from and towards what end do you think it is progressing? is there progress in clothing? At some small level, there is, there are better materials and we moved from animal skins to goretex, but really the basic need for trousers, tunics, jackets etc. is the same over millenia and people in a hundred years are still going to wear trousers. There are only different styles and fashions, from a Japanse kimono to baroque nobility outfits to modern t-shirts. And so it is with music. There is some small progress in instruments that we use to produce music, but there is no fundamental progress. It is totally incomparable with the progress in physics, biology or medicine.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> I think it's incorrectly addressed to you!
> 
> But I wanted to ask you what repelled you so much about Crimson, the Saunders piano piece.


Sorry, it was addressed to any non-musician.


----------



## Luchesi

Jacck said:


> where do you think music is coming from and towards what end do you think it is progressing? is there progress in clothing? At some small level, there is, there are better materials and we moved from animal skins to goretex, but really the basic need for trousers, tunics, jackets etc. is the same over millenia and people in a hundred years are still going to wear trousers. There are only different styles and fashions, from a Japanse kimono to baroque nobility outfits to modern t-shirts. And so it is with music. There is some small progress in instruments that we use to produce music, but there is no fundamental progress. It is totally incomparable with the progress in physics, biology or medicine.


Conservative listeners might be satisfied with difficult jazz. It has some tonal resolutions.


----------



## Guest002

Eclectic Al said:


> Well I listened to this one, and I quite enjoyed it, thank you.
> 
> I got the feeling this was a composer who could produce something that would be very engaging, and become part of my personal list of pieces I might listen to more than once. However, I can't help but get the impression that he would feel held back from producing something like that, because it may then damage his credibility with purists for new music. It's a sense that he is avoiding outright, old-school tunefulness, because that would be seen as tawdry (which it shouldn't), whereas he might really be able (and might prefer) to go that way.
> 
> I imagine composers like him may be criticised in some purist circles for not pushing the boundaries.


I like the quoted music. I feel it's something I am invited to listen to, enjoy and think about. It's not something being thrown in my face and telling me that I'm the bad boy for having paid to listen to the concert.

As "considerate" music, I will always give it a listen.

In the end, I didn't particularly think much of it, though there was nothing that offended my ears.

I dunno. Call me middle of the road, boring: I would pay to listen to this, but I wouldn't put it on my list of must-haves.

(Cueing in 4 other listens, just in case it "gets" me where one listen wouldn't)


----------



## Jacck

Luchesi said:


> Conservative listeners might be satisfied with difficult jazz. It has some tonal resolutions.


painting has progressed from Mona Lisa to a paint being squirted over the wall (Pollock etc). Such progress has slowly deconstructed form, perspective, any meaningful objects to depict and got rid of everything. Similarly music got rid of melody, of tonality, of structure etc. and what is left are colored splatched of sound reminiscent of musical equivalent of Pollock. There is nowhere to progress either from the art of Pollock or from modern music. They have to rediscover the wheel.

PS: I like some old fashioned jazz such as Sun-Ra and Miles Davis, but modern jazz is not really my thing (maybe due to lack of familiarity).


----------



## Guest002

Jacck said:


> painting has progressed from Mona Lisa to a paint being squirted over the wall (Pollock etc). Such progress has slowly deconstructed form, perspective, any meaningful objects to depict and got rid of everything. Similarly music got rid of melody, of tonality, of structure etc. and what is left are colored splatched of sound reminiscent of musical equivalent of Pollock. There is nowhere to progress either from the art of Pollock or from modern music. They have to rediscover the wheel.
> 
> PS: I like some old fashioned jazz such as Sun-Ra and Miles Davis, but modern jazz is not really my thing (maybe due to lack of familiarity).


Dunno. I think re-interpreting the wheel is something of the point. There are no ends to re-interpreting the wheel, after all. The only question is whether interpretation A or B is satisfying in some indeterminate way or other.

I must say, I have no problem with Miles Davis: sounds like someone with something to say. Modern jazz (no exemplars specified, but there are loads I could) sounds like someone who would like to have something to say, but isn't quite sure what he'd like to say, and takes 20 minutes to um and ahh about what he might be thinking he'd like to say. To me.

I hate 'random'. I like 'defined'. I am, I think, pretty open on what 'defined' should be or is, but my ears know it when they hear it.


----------



## Mandryka

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I think Crimson is too static (staticity is something that can and has been done extremely well in music, I just don't hear it well executed in this piece) and there's not enough development going on to sustain it for 18 minutes. But that's just how I feel. Rebecca Saunders shouldn't give a damn what I think.


Yes, I like static music and Saunders does a lot of it.


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> There is nowhere to progress either from the art of Pollock or from modern music. They have to rediscover the wheel.


Here are some areas which are being actively explored by classical music composers at the moment: Different types of structures for improvisation (à la Richard Barrett); instrument specific compositions - which exploit the specific overtones of instruments (à la Élianne Redigue); new music formed from existing music (à la Michael Finnissy). And of course there's work along the lines of Trevor Wishart, and new techniques with traditional instruments.


----------



## Jacck

maybe a little of topic, but probably the best movie commentary about arts that I have ever seen is the Japanese movie Achilles and Tortoise
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217243/
it is about a painter, but I think it is applicable to all arts


----------



## SanAntone

Krzysztof Meyer - String Quartet no. 12, I. Lento


----------



## SanAntone

Charles Wuorinen: Piano Quintet (1992/1994)


----------



## SanAntone

Salvatore Sciarrino: String quartet N°7


----------



## SanAntone

Wolfgang Rihm- Piano Trio


----------



## SanAntone

Gerhard: "String Quartet No. 2"


----------



## SanAntone

Beat Furrer: Concerto per pianoforte e orchestra (2007)


----------



## SanAntone

Per Nørgård - String Quartet no.10 "Harvest Timeless" (2005)


----------



## norman bates

Jacck said:


> where do you think music is coming from and towards what end do you think it is progressing?


I tend to see art as an exploration. Sometimes it manages to create something beautiful, sometimes it makes people see things in a new perspective. Sometimes it goes in a blind alley. Sometimes the blind alley is not really a blind alley as it seems. I'm tempted to say that there's a quest for something valuable and with a meaning, maybe even some form of truth, but I'm not so sure about the last one.



Jacck said:


> is there progress in clothing? At some small level, there is, there are better materials and we moved from animal skins to goretex, but really the basic need for trousers, tunics, jackets etc. is the same over millenia and people in a hundred years are still going to wear trousers. There are only different styles and fashions, from a Japanse kimono to baroque nobility outfits to modern t-shirts. And so it is with music. There is some small progress in instruments that we use to produce music, but there is no fundamental progress. It is totally incomparable with the progress in physics, biology or medicine.


As someone who loves the music of the twentieth century I find a lot of music that manages to express things that before didn't existed. The twentieth century has been a strange beast. It has seen a exponential acceleration in a lot of things, and has produced amazing stuff and horrible things. I think myself (and even a composer like Ligeti said that) that it produced a lot of music that is forgettable or ugly or pretentious or all these things together. Still I know that there's music that I consider absolutely amazing and it could not had existed before. And that kind of music didn't cancelled the music that existed before, and like it's been said few pages ago for all the extremism of 
a Boulez today people can produce whatever they want in every possible style. So yes, I see a progress. 
There's a lot of confusion for sure, due to the enormous amount of styles and music produced that makes it difficult to build a canon of the most valuable things which is the negative side of the story, but maybe with time there will be more clarity.

And yes, even if I tend to wear in a very simple way and most of people tend to wear the same, often ugly things, I see technologies for clothings that are and will improve what we wear (clothings that can't never gets wet, or warmer, or more confortable, there are those who talk about implanting chips to solve functions, new materials etc...). Stylistically is another story, I'm very ignorant about haute couture so I don't have an opinion about it.


----------



## SanAntone

Kevin Volans - String Quartet No.2 "Hunting: Gathering" (1987)


----------



## SanAntone

György Ligeti - Requiem


----------



## KenOC

Jacck said:


> painting has progressed from Mona Lisa to a paint being squirted over the wall (Pollock etc). Such progress has slowly deconstructed form, perspective, any meaningful objects to depict and got rid of everything.


Well, not everything. Found on line:

"The Norwegian Cultural Council has sparked outrage by allocating NOK 37 million ($4.1 million) to a controversial artist whose radical behaviour on stage has ruffled quite a few feathers.

"Norwegian artist Vegard Vinge is known for taking it to the extreme and is known for throwing faeces at the public and urinating on stage as part of his performances. In one instance, he sprayed paint out of his hindquarters and spread it across the canvas using a brush controlled by his very anus."


----------



## SanAntone

You may be wondering why I am posting these video clips. I am hoping that some of you who view 20th century music in a negative light might give these clips a chance. They are all by established composers, having long careers and acknowledged as among the best the 20th century produced.

Of these the *Meyer*, *Gerhard*, *Nørgård* and *Volans* are the ones I think of as the most striking.


----------



## norman bates

Jacck said:


> painting has progressed from Mona Lisa to a paint being squirted over the wall (Pollock etc). Such progress has slowly deconstructed form, perspective, any meaningful objects to depict and got rid of everything.


the thing is that if you don't like Pollock the twentieth century has also produced a lot of great traditional art. From very traditional things to less traditional.







































(about Parrish, I'm not sure if the history of art had seen a colorist that great before for instance)


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

KenOC said:


> Well, not everything. Found on line:
> 
> "The Norwegian Cultural Council has sparked outrage by allocating NOK 37 million ($4.1 million) to a controversial artist whose radical behaviour on stage has ruffled quite a few feathers.
> 
> "Norwegian artist Vegard Vinge is known for taking it to the extreme and is known for throwing faeces at the public and urinating on stage as part of his performances. In one instance, he sprayed paint out of his hindquarters and spread it across the canvas using a brush controlled by his very anus."


That's the kind of crap where you have to draw the line somewhere. Artists whose sole gimmick is provocation have no intrinsic value or integrity. Another example is the guy who got famous for dropping a rosary crucifix in a jar of p*ss. That's not art, he just did it to p*ss people off, pun unintended.


----------



## Jacck

SanAntone said:


> You may be wondering why I am posting these video clips. I am hoping that some of you who view 20th century music in a negative light might give these clips a chance. They are all by established composers, having long careers and acknowledged as among the best the 20th century produced.
> 
> Of these the *Meyer*, *Gerhard*, *Nørgård* and *Volans* are the ones I think of as the most striking.


I am not new to 20th century music and have listened to all the composers you posted here (possibly to different works). The Meyer, Wuorinen, Sciarrino or Rihm pieces sound almost indistinguishable to me, ie if you played one of those blindly to me, I would not be able to say to what composer it belongs to, because there is almost no individual voice to my ears. If you played me something unknown by Mozart, by Beethoven, by Bach, by Debussy, by Scriabin etc, I would probably be able to guess the composer (or maybe not), because they all have unique voices

for me personally, these are composers of modern music I find memorable - Schoenberg, Berg, Ligeti, Boulez, Xenakis, Lachenmann, Stockhausen, Murail, Messiaen (and possibly others I forgot). Out of those works you posted, I find Beat Furrer the most memorable. Rihm sounds pretty dull to me (all the works I heard). So yes, there is some genuinely good music among the modernists and a lot of pretty bad unmemorable music. But maybe it was so in every era?


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> I am not new to 20th century music and have listened to all the composers you posted here (possibly to different works). The Meyer, Wuorinen, Sciarrino or Rihm pieces sound almost indistinguishable to me, ie if you played one of those blindly to me, I would not be able to say to what composer it belongs to, because there is almost no individual voice to my ears. If you played me something unknown by Mozart, by Beethoven, by Bach, by Debussy, by Scriabin etc, I would probably be able to guess the composer (or maybe not), because they all have unique voices
> ?


just a couple of things about this post.

First, there is obviously a big time difference between Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy etc. Less so for the c20 composers. But that's not the important point I want to make.

The important point is this. If you can't hear the difference in style between the Sciarrino, the Rihm and the Worinien, I think you will do the more you become familiar with their work, and your acuity and discernment grows. In time the differences will hopefully become very clear, because I can assure you that they really are there!


----------



## JAS

I have been painting the steps in my new garage today. Unfortunately, I got a bit careless and made a Pollock. This was, however, no mere imitation or derivative work. No, indeed. My great new innovation is that it was all of one color, and that the color of white, whereas Pollock relied on the mere trickery of multiple bright colors. I think it makes an important statement, namely that I should be more careful. (In realizing my error, I am afraid that I made a bit of a Wishart as well, but that has not been captured for posterity.)


----------



## KenOC

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> That's the kind of crap where you have to draw the line somewhere. Artists whose sole gimmick is provocation have no intrinsic value or integrity. Another example is the guy who got famous for dropping a rosary crucifix in a jar of p*ss. That's not art, he just did it to p*ss people off, pun unintended.


That would be Andres Serrano, whose 1987 photograph_ Pi$$ Christ _was partially funded by the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA), an agency of the federal government. The resulting kerfuffle grew even greater with a 1989 NEA-funded exhibition of photos by Robert Mapplethorpe, many with sadomasochistic and homoerotic images.

Since then, the NEA has been more careful about its grants but has still been the subject of attacks, both for promoting immorality and for perceived elitism. Its budget has been severely cut and there have been continual attempts to abolish it entirely. Most recently Pres. Trump attempted to eliminate the NEA in the 2016 and 2018 budgets, but Congress kept it alive.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Naw, I'm chill as can be, bruh.
> I'll be waiting.


Splendid. Before we get down to it, I have a sneaking feeling you are a reincarnation of banned poster *1996D*. 
If you are not, you will very proabbaly enjoy his music that he has posted on this forum. Check it out and let us know what you think.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

What's so great about the 20th century's music is that you can be surprised and taken on a journey in sound  It just happened to me with the Trumpet concerto by Peter Maxwell Davies. I'm in my room again now...


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> Splendid. Before we get down to it, I have a sneaking feeling you are a reincarnation of banned poster *1996D*.
> If you are not, you will very proabbaly enjoy his music that he has posted on this forum. Check it out and let us know what you think.


Your detective work is as brilliant as your musical discernment. Go back and read where I had quite a few disagreements with that particular commenter.


----------



## consuono

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> That's the kind of crap where you have to draw the line somewhere. Artists whose sole gimmick is provocation have no intrinsic value or integrity. Another example is the guy who got famous for dropping a rosary crucifix in a jar of p*ss. That's not art, he just did it to p*ss people off, pun unintended.


Well given the extremely elastic definitions of music I've seen here I don't see how anything *can't* be called art if the person making it had even vaguely artistic pretensions. Or a fine arts degree.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> [...] So you're saying this is objectively great stuff?


I have no hesitation at all saying that *Trevor Wishart* composes *music*. 


consuono said:


> [T]his is "music" in what way?


I don't see why I should indulge you. I don't have a problem with Wishart's music. You do, though. Maybe start by listening to some of it? Then we can talk. Off you go. And have a bad, grey rainy day.


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> I don't see why I should indulge you.


In other words, "I don't know, but I'll pose and preen a little more on the way out."


> I don't have a problem with Wishart's music. You do, though. Maybe start by listening to some of it? Then we can talk.


Don't want to. A sound collage isn't music. And it stinks.


> Off you go. And have a bad, grey rainy day.


Still here, and it's a lovely day.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> So sonic art = music? I think a lot hangs on it.


So visual art = painting?


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> So visual art = painting?


Nope. Painting is a subset. A painting isn't a comic strip. Both are visual arts.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> How many times must you express yours?
> 
> I couldn't care less if you find my "presence" tiresome or not. A bunch of New Music Evangelists telling me that I shouldn't speak ill of the sacred artistic noise is even more tiresome.
> I'm not bitter. No wonder you sound deluded.


As I've said elsewhere, it's all part of a new culture of bullying people into conformity. For 'new music evangelists' substitute political correctness; no deviation from the orthodoxy will be tolerated. And we have a big, thick baseball bat for anybody who thinks independently. We've heard all this before from the politburo; back then there was a body count and that's where all this will end if it isn't stopped in its tracks and people are allowed to freely express dissent.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> *This is directed to Christabel, consuono, and any others who are in their camp.*
> 
> Will you name a *living composer* whose works you admire? I say living composer since that is contemporary music, i.e. music of our time - not that made in the early 20th century - but today.


I enjoy some Penderecki (he died a months or two ago) and Schnittke (who died in the 90s) and the American John Corigliano - very much alive. In fact, I recently presented a two hour program for our community group on Corigliano. I have no hestitation whatsoever in saying this is MUSIC - some of it very good indeed.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> A lot of composers turning out gloopy glops of sound and calling it "music" are also highly educated in music. So what? *It doesn't mean they have any actual talent or discernment.*


Yeah, but probably.


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> But not Skippy! Surely.


I'd have to paws to consider that!! But I can go outside on his acre property and call out "Skippy" and they all look around!!


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> Yeah, but probably.


About as probable as a Creative Writing grad being a Hemingway or Fitzgerald.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Music, or not?


Surely it's the building construction site down the road. There are precedents, of course, in using mechanical noise to create music. I repeat, "music":


----------



## norman bates

consuono said:


> Don't want to. A sound collage isn't music. And it stinks.


Do you have the same problem with visual collage? For instance I absolutely love the work of Joseph Cornell and its sense of melancholy and nostalgia


----------



## SanAntone

Christabel said:


> I enjoy some Penderecki (he died a months or two ago) and Schnittke (who died in the 90s) and the American John Corigliano - very much alive. In fact, I recently presented a two hour program for our community group on Corigliano. I have no hestitation whatsoever in saying this is MUSIC - some of it very good indeed.


Wonderful. Thanks for responding to my question. Could I trouble you once again to sample the clips I posted, the Meyer, Gerhard, Nørgård and Volans are the ones I think of as the most striking.

You might find that they too are music.


----------



## consuono

norman bates said:


> Do you have the same problem with visual collage? For instance I absolutely love the work of Joseph Cornell and its sense of melancholy and nostalgia


No problem at all, I love them. But none of the above are close relatives of Rembrandt's Return of the Prodigal Son. Different media.

I also find The Caretaker's albums to be interesting and very haunting. But they aren't original music. They're also sound collages.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> Wonderful. Thanks for responding to my question. Could I trouble you once again to sample the clips I posted, the Meyer, Gerhard, Nørgård and Volans are the ones I think of as the most striking.
> 
> You might find that they too are music.


I did sample some of these and agree that those were music; I'm saying that the sound design of Wishart which was (I think by you) posted definitely is not music. And the industrial sounds I just responded to are definitely not music; but I'm happy for them to be considered 'sound design', which is what this is. A not unworthy category, intrinsically.

This Cleveland Quartet by Corigliano is absolutely powerful and compelling: I like its austerity.


----------



## norman bates

consuono said:


> No problem at all, I love them. But none of the above are close relatives of Rembrandt's Return of the Prodigal Son.


Rembrandt is one of my favorite painters. His self portrait aged 51 made in 1657 is probably my favorite painting of all times. And personally I think that the work of Cornell deserves the same kind of respect given to great artists like Rembrandt.
But in any case, if you think that there's value in a visual collage to the point of saying that you love them, don't you think that there could be value also in a acoustic one even if you don't like what you've heard so far?


----------



## SanAntone

Turgut Erçetin - String Quartet No.1 "December"

*New Voice: Turgut Erçetin*



> I was introduced to Western Classical Music as a listener and a learner by the time I was a child. Consequently, the soundscape of my childhood created a unique bond with this music, particularly through Mahler and later period expressionists. And all the basis for what I later realized as my goals have partly stemmed from the questions that occupied my mind during those days. Not only these questions helped me to look deeper into the works of these particular composers, but they also expanded my understanding as to the point of other musical genres to which I was introduced in later years. And rock music was definitely one of them. I guess, as a guitar player, engaging with rock music was simply inevitable for me. Like most of the guitar players, I was, too, an admirer of Jimi Hendrix; and what appealed to me the most in his music was the way in which he could reflect the relation between the "intuitive" and the "analytical". Looking back from today, I can say that the arresting aspect in Mahler's music was not too dissimilar for me - although the outcome is totally different from Hendrix needless to say. Spatial means, ranging from quotations to harmonic space in Mahler's music, and the way in which they relate to the form as well as to the polyphonic figuration directed me to focus on this somewhat Bergsonian relationship. I guess these are the earliest moments I can recall when I first started to think on formulating the peculiarities of this musical relationship, which has been one of the main issues I have been engaging in my works.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Have you finished your dinner yet? I guess you had something else other than consuono for a dessert. Consuono will be Consumed for breakfast, I suppose?


Consuono was to be an _amuse-bouche_ or a light dessert. Unfortunately, he had gone off in the fridge overnight; I had to bin him. You are quite the *fouille-merde*, aren't you?



hammeredklavier said:


> What's also evident to me is that TalkingHead eats through his ear and excretes through his mouth.


An interesting visual interpretation. I can recommend to you a cheap psychologist (an ageing amateur active on this forum) to explore this issue with you. Send me a PM and you'll have her name by return post.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Splendid. Before we get down to it, I have a sneaking feeling you are a reincarnation of banned poster *1996D*.
> If you are not, you will very proabbaly enjoy his music that he has posted on this forum. Check it out and let us know what you think.


Off to the gulag for him, then!! Proabbaly (sic) right!! And you've got the Thought Police behind you to make sure your detective work pays dividends. It's mighty cold in the Siberian gulags, but I have a feeling this doesn't trouble you.


----------



## consuono

norman bates said:


> Rembrandt is one of my favorite painter. His self portrait aged 51 made in 1657 is probably my favorite painting of all time. And personally I think that the work of Cornell deserves the same kind of respect given to great artists like Rembrandt.


Certainly, but don't try to convince me that a collage is a painting.


----------



## SanAntone

Christabel said:


> I did sample some of these and agree that those were music; I'm saying that the sound design of Wishart which was (I think by you) posted definitely is not music. And the industrial sounds I just responded to are definitely not music; but I'm happy for them to be considered 'sound design', which is what this is. A not unworthy category, intrinsically.
> 
> This Cleveland Quartet by Corigliano is absolutely powerful and compelling: I like its austerity.


I agree. I first became aware of Corigliano in the early '80s. I remember having a double LP of 20th century works with something of his. I wish I still had the record since I can't remember it well enough to find it.

Oh, btw, I didn't post anything by Wishart. I'd never heard of him before visiting this thread. But I am glad to know about him and his work.


----------



## consuono

norman bates said:


> ...
> But in any case, if you think that there's value in a visual collage to the point of saying that you love them, don't you think that there could be value also in a acoustic one even if you don't like what you've heard so far?


See above. _An Empty Bliss Beyond This World_ is one of the most haunting things in decades. But it isn't working in the same medium as Shostakovich.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> What I don't understand is the implication that a degree in music guarantees somehow that whatever the bearer of same composes is worthy of consideration. That's fetishizing "expertise" which may not be expertise at all. It's really fetishizing the educational establishment.


I get it now: you have not been able to get your work performed and have been rejected as a composer by what you perceive as the "establishment"; this explain your bitterness.



consuono said:


> An oddity about modern music is that *none of it ever seems to be bad or even subpar.* That's not allowed. As long as the composer has the educational aura, then hush up and try to understand the profundity, you rube.


That's crap. I regularly attend a contemporary music festival and the audience is unforgiving, not to mention the savage reviews in the press written by critics who very probably have a music degree.


----------



## SanAntone

performed by Marco Fusi (viola d'amore) & Alessandro Perini (electronics)
ORF (en líka axir og önnur pynintgatæki) for viola d'amore and electronics by *Bára Gísladóttir* (2018)



> An oddity about modern music is that none of it ever seems to be bad or even subpar.


When I listen to any music I do not concern myself with whether it is bad or even subpar. Only, "does it engage my imagination, do I wish to continue listening." If not, I move on to another work. If I find something that does engage my imagination and I listen to the end, I most likely will have enjoyed the experience.

Whether the work is good, bad, or otherwise enters my mind. I am not in the evaluation business, my job is to listen and hopefully enjoy what I hear.


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> I get it now: you have not been able to get your work performed and have been rejected as a composer by what you perceive as the "establishment"; this explain your bitterness.


Your deductive ineptitude is astonishing. No, I'm not a composer, and I've never pretended to be one. 0 for 2, buddy.



> That's crap. I regularly attend a contemporary music festival and the audience is unforgiving, not to mention the savage reviews in the press written by critics who very probably have a music degree.


Critics most likely do not have a music degree, and general audiences of *course* are going to be savage with this stuff.


----------



## norman bates

consuono said:


> Certainly, but don't try to convince me that a collage is a painting.


Usually those are different things, altough I can think of some great work where both things (painting or drawings and collage) coexist. While not exatly paintings, I can think for instance of certain things of Alberto Breccia (in my personal opinion the greatest genius in the world of comics illustration) who was able to paint or draw also in a much more traditional style if he wanted but he often used every kind of technique (including collage) in his work:
























but in any case even being a different things I don't think it has a lot of sense to judge art from the tag attached to it.


----------



## consuono

> While not exatly paintings,


Period, full stop, end of story, next.


----------



## SanAntone

*Katherine Balch - drip music*

I didn't think I was going to like this work - but I kept with it and ended up enjoying it quite a bit. Very well done, the way the composer paced her gestures kept my interest and I wanted to see where she went.


----------



## norman bates

consuono said:


> Period, full stop, end of story, next.


well the difference in this case is so subtle to be basically negligible. Paintings are based on colors and drawings exactly like comic books. And Breccia was a painter himself, like other famous painters like Lyonel Feininger made also comics. So while the medium can be different, the way they are done it's the same. There's the kind of difference that I see between a symphony and a opera or a collection of lieder, something like that.
By the way, to make a more obvious example, painters like Picasso and Max Ernst used collage in their works.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> [...] What Wishart and composers like him are doing is so far out of the mainstream that it is they who display a certain degree of arrogance to impose their ideas on others. A long history is against them.


Yes, what Wishart composes is not mainstream but he is *not imposing anything on anybody*. Where do you get that idea from?


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> [...]Wishart is a very extreme example. The problem is that people who take such an extreme position *give cover to people* who program concerts and CDs to mix a lot of less extreme stuff with traditional stuff. (See, this isn't as bad as that.)


I can't believe that I'm reading this in the year 2020. It's like reading the Taliban charter on what should be listened to. Shocking. And extremely worrying.


JAS said:


> It is also annoying that *this kind of extreme nonsense* gets lumped into the general category of classical music. It feeds its own (small) audience, and *should have its own label*. I have no problem with Rock music, or heavy metal music, as long as I don't have to listen to them, but no one is trying claim that they are *classical music*.


Saying "this kind of extreme nonsense" does not lend any credibility to your overall argument. You seem to be lost in life without "labels". And you seem to be rather an authoritarian type. Doesn't wash with me. I think you will be frustrated until the end of your life. Sad.


----------



## SanAntone

*Adrien Trybucki - Spira* (2016)

ive performance by Talea Ensemble:
Yuki Numata Resnick violin
Elizabeth Weisser Helgeson viola
Chris Gross cello

Fascinating work! Has a rock edginess cut with some Stravinsky-like rhythms and tonalities. The composer achieved some creative sound production techniques from a string trio.


----------



## JAS

TalkingHead said:


> . . . Saying "this kind of extreme nonsense" does not lend any credibility to your overall argument. You seem to be lost in life without "labels". And you seem to be rather an authoritarian type. Doesn't wash with me. I think you will be frustrated until the end of your life. Sad.


Don't worry about me. I am fine. The only danger is perhaps if I hurt myself laughing too hard at the pretentious foolishness of people who fall for the kind of absurdities that Wishart is peddling.


----------



## SanAntone

*Anthony Cheung - Enjamb, Infuse, Implode *

Performed by ENSEMBLE INTERFACE
... for flute, clarinet, violin, cello, percussion and piano

Beautiful piece, Debussian instrumental colors and melodic phrases. I think Anthong Cheung is a composer to watch.


----------



## SanAntone

*Beat Furrer - Invocation VI *

Performed by Petra Hoffmann (soprano) & Eva Furrer (bass flute)
scene VI from the opera "Invocation" by Beat Furrer

Hearing this makes me want to see what the opera is like. Compelling performance.


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> *Beat Furrer - Invocation VI *
> 
> Performed by Petra Hoffmann (soprano) & Eva Furrer (bass flute)
> scene VI from the opera "Invocation" by Beat Furrer
> 
> Hearing this makes me want to see what the opera is like. Compelling performance.


This is certainly music for the initiated. May I ask, San Antone, if you are a musician or other participant in this musical world, or whether you enjoy purely as a casual listener?

More generally, I can't see how this kind of music would be viable if not for the 20th/21st-century state. I may be incorrect here, but I would be interested in learning more about the role of the state in supporting modernist music.


----------



## consuono

norman bates said:


> well the difference in this case is so subtle to be basically negligible. Paintings are based on colors and drawings exactly like comic books. And Breccia was a painter himself, like other famous painters like Lyonel Feininger made also comics. So while the medium can be different, the way they are done it's the same.


Oh give me a break. They're * different media*. Comic book illustration, while a graphic art requiring skill, is not painting. Nor is etching, nor is a hand-painted foam rubber sculpture.


TalkingHead said:


> I can't believe that I'm reading this in the year 2020. It's like reading the Taliban charter on what should be listened to. Shocking. And extremely worrying.


Either point out where anyone said this stuff should be banned, or hush up and run along. Since few really listen to it anyway, banning isn't necessary. It's self-banning by design.
The "authoritarian" impulse manifests itself in tacitly demanding that I call music what clearly is not.


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> performed by Marco Fusi (viola d'amore) & Alessandro Perini (electronics)
> ORF (en líka axir og önnur pynintgatæki) for viola d'amore and electronics by *Bára Gísladóttir* (2018)
> 
> When I listen to any music I do not concern myself with whether it is bad or even subpar. Only, "does it engage my imagination, do I wish to continue listening." If not, I move on to another work. If I find something that does engage my imagination and I listen to the end, I most likely will have enjoyed the experience.
> 
> Whether the work is good, bad, or otherwise enters my mind. I am not in the evaluation business, my job is to listen and hopefully enjoy what I hear.


Another question I have about a lot of this is: why bother to notate it? The exact same type of effect could be achieved from getting two people together and getting them to 'jam' using the same kind of noises they are making from following the score...


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> Another question I have about a lot of this is: why bother to notate it? The exact same type of effect could be achieved from getting two people together and getting them to 'jam' using the same kind of noises they are making from following the score...


Probably for the same reason that a viola d'amore is called for without any real sensitivity to the tonal characteristics of a viola d'amore. It's gives the thing a "learned" patina.


SanAntone said:


> Whether the work is good, bad, or otherwise enters my mind. I am not in the evaluation business, my job is to listen and hopefully enjoy what I hear.


If you're listening in the hopes of enjoying, you're evaluating.


----------



## SanAntone

RogerWaters said:


> This is certainly music for the initiated. May I ask, San Antone, if you are a musician or other participant in this musical world, or whether you enjoy purely as a casual listener?


I am a trained musician, with a degree in Music theory and Composition and have been a professional musician for 50 years, mainly in the jazz genre.



> More generally, I can't see how this kind of music would be viable if not for the 20th/21st-century state. I may be incorrect here, but I would be interested in learning more about the role of the state in supporting modernist music.


European countries often subsidize the arts and Beat Furrer is German national and may benefit from that kind of support. But he also has had much of his work recorded, and composers often teach or perform as conductors. Established composers such as Furrer most often will not begin to write a work without a commission, which can yield tens of thousands of dollars per work depending on the scale of the composition.



RogerWaters said:


> Another question I have about a lot of this is: why bother to notate it? The exact same type of effect could be achieved from getting two people together and getting them to 'jam' using the same kind of noises they are making from following the score...


The composer has specific intentions and the notated score is deliberate. While it may sound improvised, the composer has written exactly what he wishes the musicians to play. Without a score different musicians improvising would yield very different results from performance to performance. While that may have been fine for a composer such as John Cage, the majority of composers prefer to nail down the specifics.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> If you're listening in the hopes of enjoying, you're evaluating.


Only to the degree that it holds my interest enough to continue listening. I do not make any judgments whether a composer or work is good or bad relative to other composers or works. I also have no interest in whether a work is considered "great" or "bad" according to any authority.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Only to the degree that it holds my interest enough to continue listening. I do not make any judgments whether a composer or work is good or bad relative to other composers or works. I also have no interest in whether a work is considered "great" or "bad" according to any authority.


That's postmodern dogma. That is ultimately a nihilistic view. If everything is of equal value, then there is no such thing as value. If nothing is of any value, either relatively or otherwise, what's the point? Ultimately and inevitably some music by some composer is going to be enjoyed more than others because artistic products are simply not of the same quality. But the lack of sameness calls for postmodern leveling. Nothing is of intrinsic value. That viewpoint is rottenness. Not you, but the viewpoint.

We're told that this is musical "progress". In the first place "progress" implies a value judgement. What came before is supposedly being improved upon. "Progress" toward what, exactly?


----------



## Mandryka

The reason there’s progress is this: in the old days people who wrote music felt compelled to follow conventional consensual ideas about harmony, rhythm, duration, form etc. Today, they’re much freer. They can use common practice if they wish or they can create their own syntax. The progress is liberation.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> That's postmodern dogma. That is ultimately a nihilistic view. If everything is of equal value, then there is no such thing as value. If nothing is of any value, either relatively or otherwise, what's the point? Ultimately and inevitably some music by some composer is going to be enjoyed more than others because artistic products are simply not of the same quality. But the lack of sameness calls for postmodern leveling. Nothing is of intrinsic value. That viewpoint is rottenness. Not you, but the viewpoint.
> 
> We're told that this is musical "progress". In the first place "progress" implies a value judgement. What came before is supposedly being improved upon. "Progress" toward what, exactly?


I am not saying everything is of equal value. I am saying I am not interested in any consensus of relative values. I'll leave that to others to debate. But it is a debate I choose to ignore. My appreciation of a piece of music is not attached to any idea of its objective worth. It may be true that objective quality can be determined for one work over another one, using some kind of metrics. I am not interested.

If I am told Beethoven was a great composer and his 9th symphony is a masterpiece, it will not increase my enjoyment of it. In fact I hardly ever listen to it, nor do I listen to much orchestral music of any kind. No Mahler, no Sibelius, no Bruckner - and it does not matter how many experts consider them the among the greatest musical achievements in history. I don't care.

I only listen to music that interests me, and I don't need anyone to decide that for me. It's easy.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> The reason there's progress is this: in the old days people who wrote music felt compelled to follow conventional consensual ideas about harmony, rhythm, duration, form etc. Today, they're much freer. They can use common practice if they wish or they can create their own syntax. The progress is liberation.


Working within limits though is what demonstrates and hones artistic skill. Today, filmmakers are much freer than they were from the beginnings up until the 70s. Almost anything goes. However the quality of film, at least in the west, has not progressed at all. I think the same holds true for all the other arts. I would say that within a decade most of the examples that have been referenced here will be forgotten. But then again the postmodern attitude would probably be: so what? That perishability enhances the beauty of the work in the moment, which is all that matters. Although of course that doesn't apply to paychecks and tenured positions and whatnot. The liberation is a liberation from the obligation to demonstrate consistently a recognizable level of talent and mastery. It's liberation from having to live up to the great common practice composers. That was too tough, so the rules had to be changed.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Your deductive ineptitude is astonishing. No, I'm not a composer, and I've never pretended to be one. 0 for 2, buddy.
> 
> Critics most likely do not have a music degree, and general audiences of *course* are going to be savage with this stuff.


Completely agree on both points.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> I agree. I first became aware of Corigliano in the early '80s. I remember having a double LP of 20th century works with something of his. I wish I still had the record since I can't remember it well enough to find it.
> 
> Oh, btw, I didn't post anything by Wishart. I'd never heard of him before visiting this thread. But I am glad to know about him and his work.


I didn't suggest you'd posted the Wishart, merely mentioning that it was presented for us to hear. It's a good discussion to have, despite the venom which certain unhappy people mete out to others who have a different opinion. That, of course, is their problem and they should own it.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> I can't believe that I'm reading this in the year 2020. It's like reading the Taliban charter on what should be listened to. Shocking. And extremely worrying.
> 
> Saying "this kind of extreme nonsense" does not lend any credibility to your overall argument. You seem to be lost in life without "labels". And you seem to be rather an authoritarian type. Doesn't wash with me. I think you will be frustrated until the end of your life. Sad.


There you go again with the massive projections. When you accuse others you tell us all about yourself.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> Don't worry about me. I am fine. The only danger is perhaps if I hurt myself laughing too hard at the pretentious foolishness of people who fall for the kind of absurdities that Wishart is peddling.


Yes, but some people NEED to do this. You don't have to.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Consuono was to be an _amuse-bouche_ or a light dessert. Unfortunately, he had gone off in the fridge overnight; I had to bin him. You are quite the *fouille-merde*, aren't you?
> 
> An interesting visual interpretation. I can recommend to you a cheap psychologist (an ageing amateur active on this forum) to explore this issue with you. Send me a PM and you'll have her name by return post.


Pleased to be of service!!! :lol: And riotously funny altogether, especially coming from an over 60-something!!!!

It's possibly sinful to enjoy such frivolity at somebody else's expense!! Father, forgive me for my sins!!


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> I am not saying everything is of equal value.


No one here ever does say that (not even Strange Magic who seems to be the most ardent advocate for a subjective perspective). It's the default accusation by those who wish to insist that their absolute objective values are unassailable, and poor argumentation. There should be an internet law for it, like Godwin's.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Today, filmmakers are much freer than they were from the beginnings up until the 70s. Almost anything goes. However the quality of film, at least in the west, has not progressed at all.


Not progressed since...well, when is your starting point for comparison, and why is 'the 70s' some kind of marker?


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> No one here ever does say that (not even Strange Magic who seems to be the most ardent advocate for a subjective perspective). It's the default accusation by those who wish to insist that their absolute objective values are unassailable, and poor argumentation. There should be an internet law for it, like Godwin's.


No, I guess it takes fortitude to face up to the logical conclusion of your position, so no, few are going to come out and say it. Stop being mealy-mouthed and trying to have it both ways.
By the way, *"It's the default accusation by those who wish to insist that their absolute objective values are unassailable"* is poor argumentation. It's not an "accusation", it's a tenet of the Zeitgeist whether the faithful want to own up to it or not. Things like "excellence" are either passé remnants of some politically-incorrect elitist era or they're so (yep) subjective as to be meaningless. Or of course we can play Orwellian word games and turn "up" into "down". Merely saying that there are "absolute objective values" doesn't imply that I have a complete grasp of such values and that therefore my position and opinions are unassailable. 


> Not progressed since...well, when is your starting point for comparison, and why is 'the 70s' some kind of marker?


Well, by the 70s most of the taboos and formal artistic restrictions and traditions were gone. And the payoff is...SuperMarvelHeroes Part VIII or something... sequels, prequels, and indie political pamphleteering. As with many other arts, most of the interesting stuff is coming from somewhere other than "the West".


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> I am a trained musician, with a degree in Music theory and Composition and have been a professional musician for 50 years, mainly in the jazz genre.


Did you appreciate this kind of music before going through the institution?



SanAntone said:


> European countries often subsidize the arts and Beat Furrer is German national and may benefit from that kind of support. But he also has had much of his work recorded, and composers often teach or perform as conductors. *Established composers such as Furrer most often will not begin to write a work without a commission*, which can yield tens of thousands of dollars per work depending on the scale of the composition.


Who commissions these works, if I may ask further? Govt or private bodies/individuals?



SanAntone said:


> The composer has specific intentions and the notated score is deliberate. While it may sound improvised, the composer has written exactly what he wishes the musicians to play. Without a score different musicians improvising would yield very different results from performance to performance. While that may have been fine for a composer such as John Cage, the majority of composers prefer to nail down the specifics.


But if the composer has written something exactly as he wishes that could have been created by people making random noises, what is the point in the composer writing the thing exactly as he wishes?

Also, upon what does the distrinction between quality and rubbish rest, when the only rules of the game are to sound like there are no rules?


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> No, I guess it takes fortitude to face up to the logical conclusion of *your position*, so no, few are going to come out and say it. Stop being mealy-mouthed and trying to have it both ways.
> By the way, "It's the default accusation by those who wish to insist that their absolute objective values are unassailable" is poor argumentation. It's not an "accusation", it's a tenet of the Zeitgeist whether the faithful want to own up to it or not. Things like "excellence" are either passé remnants of some politically-incorrect elitist era or they're so (yep) subjective as to be meaningless. Or of course we can play Orwellian word games and turn "up" into "down". Merely saying that there are "absolute objective values" doesn't imply that I have a complete grasp of such values and that therefore my position and opinions are unassailable.
> Well, by the 70s most of the taboos and formal artistic restrictions and traditions were gone. And the payoff is...SuperMarvelHeroes Part VIII or something... sequels, prequels, and indie political pamphleteering. As with many other arts, most of the interesting stuff is coming from somewhere other than "the West".


Pointing out what amounts to a straw man is not poor argumentation. I may have overlooked someone saying something as plain as 'everything is of equal value', but in my time here, I've definitely seen that accusation many times, but the statement itself almost certainly none. Those who make the accusation have usually confirmed their position by such statements as 'the standard of music over the past 100 years has declined since Bach/Mozart' or 'modern music is trash'.

What is my position?

As for movies, it may be true that 'most of the taboos and formal artistic restrictions and traditions were gone', but technology has continued to improve and liberate filmmakers to achieve things that were not possible even in the 70s, never mind the 20s. It is true to observe that that comes with the freedom to misuse technology, but it doesn't also require the conclusion that we live in an era of poor filmmaking. Sequels, prequels, series of ever declining quality have been around for donkey's years. Mr Moto, for example, on screen long before James Bond. And how many times did Basil Rathbone play Holmes?


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Working within limits though is what demonstrates and hones artistic skill.


Absolutely. A modern composer defines ranges for some of the musical dimensions of the composition. By contrast, a composer in the past had those ranges imposed on him by convention and consensus.


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> Absolutely. A modern composer defines ranges for some of the musical dimensions of the composition. By contrast, a composer in the past had those ranges imposed on him by convention and consensus.


Was it such a bad thing a composer in the past had those ranges imposed on him by convention and consensus? Meant at least he had to have some affinity with the audience which many composers don't now.


----------



## mikeh375

Mandryka said:


> Absolutely. A modern composer defines ranges for some of the musical dimensions of the composition. By contrast, a composer in the past had those ranges imposed on him by convention and consensus.


Indeed, and additionally, look what happened to the common practice over the space of a few hundred years. The greats of yore broke through and beyond it with the same exploratory spirit evident in the 20th and 21stC.

Consuono implies in his post 682 that the New paradigms were as a result of composers not being good enough to compete with CP. This has no basis in actual events nor is it representative of the talent over the last 100 years or so. In fact modernity has many sides to it and many scores display a legacy from CP. I have given examples of post academic musical thought that displays tangible links to the past in other posts and am not going to go back over it. They balance the more extreme examples posted and hint at the incredible creative and stylistic diversity we are able to enjoy.


----------



## Mandryka

DavidA said:


> Was it such a bad thing a composer in the past had those ranges imposed on him by convention and consensus?


I think there was a lot of fine music produced under that hegemony so it wasn't such a bad thing.



DavidA said:


> Meant at least he had to have some affinity with the audience which many composers don't now.


A lot depends by what you mean by "affinity"

If it means _liking_, then no, it's not a necessary or sufficient condition. I personally have never felt any liking for middle period Beethoven or Handel for example, and it took me years and years to feel anything positive about Mozart; significant audiences have always been open to Schoenberg and Stockhausen.

If it means _understanding_, then the issue is more complex, and I believe that some uncomfortableness which surrounds the avant garde comes from a failure to grasp the structural coherence of the music through listening. The familiar syntax of tonality is no longer there to guide the listener. A good composer will make the composition readable anyway IMO, he will provide structural signposts in the music. It will be interesting to see what others have to say about this.


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> I think there was a lot of fine music produced under that hegemony so it wasn't such a bad thing.
> 
> A lot depends by what you mean by "affinity"
> 
> If it means liking, then no, it's not a necessary or sufficient condition. I personally have never felt any affinity for Beethoven or Handel for example, and it took me years and years to feel anything positive about Mozart; audiences have always been open to Schoenberg and Stockhausen.


Comparatively few people have been open to Schoenberg and still fewer to Stockhausen. Your reactions to Mozart and Beethoven are atypical of CM lovers.


----------



## Mandryka

DavidA said:


> Comparatively few people have been open to Schoenberg and still fewer to Stockhausen. Your reactions to Mozart and Beethoven are atypical of CM lovers.


Yes that's true. And what I wrote is true also. I added some things to that post and I'm keen to get your thoughts about them David.


----------



## mikeh375

RogerWaters said:


> But if the composer has written something exactly as he wishes that could have been created by people making random noises, what is the point in the composer writing the thing exactly as he wishes?


Ferneyhough is a rhythmic master. This short article (non specialist) gets to the nub of his approach Roger...

https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2012/sep/10/contemporary-music-guide-brian-ferneyhough


----------



## Kilgore Trout

mikeh375 said:


> Ferneyhough is a rhythmic master.


What reactions do you expect with this type of ludicrous statement? It's basic mathematics, not rhythmic mastery.


----------



## mikeh375

Kilgore Trout said:


> What reactions do you expect with this type of ludicrous statement? It's basic mathematics, not rhythmic mastery.


It's a professional opinion is all, perhaps I should have added 'imv' but then again it is pretty evident. Is that wrong, I mean to be a specialist and to recognise the creative and imaginative leap involved when composing in such a manner? 
Read the linked article for more info on his philosophy, especially the comments from the performers for more insight if you wish.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

mikeh375 said:


> It's a professional opinion is all, perhaps I should have added 'imv' but then again it is pretty evident..is that wrong, to be specialist? Read the linked article for more info on his philosophy, especially the comments from the performers for more insight if you wish.


I know the philosophy beyond Ferneyhough's music, and there is nothing in that article that says he is a "rhythmic master".


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> It's a professional opinion is all, perhaps I should have added 'imv' but then again it is pretty evident. Is that wrong, I mean to be a specialist and to recognise the creative and imaginative leap involved when composing in such a manner?
> Read the linked article for more info on his philosophy, especially the comments from the performers for more insight if you wish.


This is the problem with these things that they are all professional opinion. Music should be written for the people not professionals. It is played by professionals but heard by the people


----------



## mikeh375

Kilgore Trout said:


> I know the philosophy beyond Ferneyhough's music, and there is nothing in that article that says he is a "rhythmic master".


Like I say, it's my professional opinion just as your statement is your opinion. We cool now?


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> I think there was a lot of fine music produced under that hegemony so it wasn't such a bad thing.
> 
> A lot depends by what you mean by "affinity"
> 
> If it means _liking_, then no, it's not a necessary or sufficient condition. I personally have never felt any liking for middle period Beethoven or Handel for example, and it took me years and years to feel anything positive about Mozart; significant audiences have always been open to Schoenberg and Stockhausen.
> 
> If it means _understanding_, then the issue is more complex, and I believe that some uncomfortableness which surrounds the avant garde comes from a failure to grasp the structural coherence of the music through listening. The familiar syntax of tonality is no longer there to guide the listener. A good composer will make the composition readable anyway IMO, he will provide structural signposts in the music. It will be interesting to see what others have to say about this.


The uncomfortableness which surrounds the avant-garde comes because we just don't like listening to it because it sounds a racket. Period. It does not connect in any way with the listener outside of a very small clique. A good composer will make the composition listenable to an audience. I remember someone I knew going to a prom concert. He had booked in at the last minute because he was in London and didn't realise it was devoted to avant-garde music. He said the people all around him were literally laughing at what was going on and by the end a lot of people had walked out. The problem is that to most people this stuff is totally off the wall. Who was the listen to it when you can listen to the wonders of Mozart and Beethoven? Or if you want something more modern you can listen to the Sacre du Printemps. That at least connects with an audience


----------



## Kilgore Trout

mikeh375 said:


> Like I say, it's my professional opinion just as your statement is your opinion. We cool now?


What do you feel the need to state several times you're a professional? You implie I'm not a professional. That shows how contemptuous you are. Your "professional opinion" is ludicrous but I haven't got the time nor the patience to prove it. Moving on.


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> This is the problem with these things that they are all professional opinion. Music should be written for the people not professionals. It is played by professionals but heard by the people


David, I'm talking about just the one thing here. I'm not going to apologise for knowing my craft and how that informs my tastes.
The "problem with these things", is that one side (laypersons and/or professionals) likes something, the other does not. The real problem is not my or anyone's expertise, it's a lack of tolerance and a lack of tact.


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> David, I'm talking about just the one thing here. I'm not going to apologise for knowing my craft and how that informs my tastes.
> The "problem with these things", is that one side (laypersons and/or professionals) likes something, the other does not. The real problem is not my or anyone's expertise, it's a lack of tolerance and a lack of tact.


As has been said you keep stating you're a professional. My doctor is a professional but he does not expect me to know all about the workings of my insides. I am a professional too but I consider it my job to make what I teach and write about comprehensible to those who are non-professionals and non-experts. If they do not understand me I do not hide behind the smokescreen of the self righteous 'lack of tolerance / lack of tact / they are philistines' argument . I consider it might have something to do with my own lack of clarity in presentation.


----------



## mikeh375

Kilgore Trout said:


> What do you feel the need to state several times you're a professional? You implie I'm not a professional. That shows how contemptuous you are. Your "professional opinion" is ludicrous but I haven't got the time nor the patience to prove it. Moving on.


Jeeeesus Kilgore. I don't know you and so I phrased my post simply. I had absolutely no intention of dissing you and I'm sorry you interpreted what was a simple exchange in such a bad light. I'm quite shocked at your aggressiveness but will apologise anyway.
I see now that my opinion is "ludicrous', is that contemptuous?....just askin'..


----------



## norman bates

consuono said:


> Oh give me a break. They're * different media*. Comic book illustration, while a graphic art requiring skill, is not painting. Nor is etching, nor is a hand-painted foam rubber sculpture.


I was just showing as drawings and painterly works can coexist with collage. It's called mixed media. In any case sure, those are different media, but so what? I mean, the fact to belong to a media or another does not say about its value. Bob Ross is a painter and his work is not exactly unforgettable (let's put it this way), while the watercolors of an illustrator like Mirko Hanak is gorgeous. What difference should it make in terms of appreciation the fact that you keep saying "this is not a painting" or "this is not music"?


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> As has been said you keep stating you're a professional. My doctor is a professional but he does not expect me to know all about the workings of my insides. I am a professional too but I consider it my job to make what I teach and write about comprehensible to those who are non-professionals and non-experts. If they do not understand me I do not hide behind the smokescreen of the self righteous 'lack of tolerance / lack of tact / they are philistines' argument . I consider it might have something to do with my own lack of clarity in presentation.


I've stated that I'm professional twice on this page, I apologise if that has hurt or bothers you or anyone else, or it feels like I've said it 20 times, but I wont retract it. The second time was to clarify a query from kilgore T and not to ram home the fact.

I don't hide behind any smokescreens, I'm not even anonymous. I'm musically conservative by todays standards and have tried to tow the line of decent tact. In fact I got involved in this thread because I felt that lines where being crossed anyway that to me bordered on ad hominem. I may have failed occasionally to uphold said tact, such is the nature of exchanges, but do try most of the time.
Not for one minute have I felt superior in my career, which involved working with laypeople and musicians and composers who where not classically trained nor could read music. I have also mentored some composers, so I find your insinuations deeply upsetting and quite, quite wrong. 
I hope from now on you will consider this before you make more assumptions.

EDIT...Ok that's 3 times...give me a break.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

mikeh375 said:


> Jeeeesus Kilgore. I don't know you and so I phrased my post simply. I had absolutely no intention of dissing you and I'm sorry you interpreted what was a simple exchange in such a bad light.


You phrased your post so simply that you had to edit it three times to make everyone know you were a professional. :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> I've stated that I'm professional twice on this page, I apologise if that has hurt or bothers you or anyone else, or it feels like I've said it 20 times, but I wont retract it. The second time was to clarify a query from kilgore T and not to ram home the fact.
> 
> I don't hide behind any smokescreens, I'm not even anonymous. I'm musically conservative by todays standards and have tried to tow the line of decent tact. In fact I got involved in this thread because I felt that lines where being crossed anyway that to me bordered on ad hominem. I may have failed occasionally to uphold said tact, such is the nature of exchanges, but do try most of the time.
> Not for one minute have I felt superior in my career, which involved working with laypeople and musicians and composers who where not classically trained nor could read music. I have also mentored some composers, so I find your insinuations deeply upsetting and quite, quite wrong.
> I hope from now on you will consider this before you make more assumptions.


Sorry mate but I can only go by what you write.


----------



## mikeh375

Kilgore Trout said:


> You phrased your post so simply that you had to edit it three times to make everyone know you were a professional. :tiphat:


look Kilgore, I don't know what you are talking about, but how about climbing down, there is nothing here, there is no fight and one was never intended by my post. It's an opinion, ludicrous or not, it's my opinion and I'm stuck with it. I have no intention of getting into a slanging match with you over nothing at all.

So are you a music professional? If so, we have more in common than not.

EDIT...oh I think I know what you mean now re the editing. Wrong again I'm afraid, I'm not like that and don't even think like that.


----------



## norman bates

consuono said:


> Working within limits though is what demonstrates and hones artistic skill. Today, filmmakers are much freer than they were from the beginnings up until the 70s.


I'm not so sure about it. They are freer only in a certain way (like the abolition of the hays code or the possibilities of the digital). But the fact that unlike other media cinema is so expensive is an extremely constraining factor. Not to mention the fact that cinema is going to live a massive crisis, due not only to covid, but also to the fact that tvs are becoming de facto the new cinema, with larger and larger displays with a much higher picture quality, a thing that means also on the other hand that to make works that could have any kind of audience directors should make products that could be palatable by a netflix audience.


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> Sorry mate but I can only go by what you write.


well hopefully from now on, you will have something more informed to go on.


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> The uncomfortableness which surrounds the avant-garde comes because we just don't like listening to it because it sounds a racket. Period. It does not connect in any way with the listener outside of a very small clique. A good composer will make the composition listenable to an audience. I remember someone I knew going to a prom concert. He had booked in at the last minute because he was in London and didn't realise it was devoted to avant-garde music. He said the people all around him were literally laughing at what was going on and by the end a lot of people had walked out. The problem is that to most people this stuff is totally off the wall. Who was the listen to it when you can listen to the wonders of Mozart and Beethoven? Or if you want something more modern you can listen to the Sacre du Printemps. That at least connects with an audience


I'm broadly on this side of the fence, but how you express the point implies that more connection with audience = better music and by that standard schubert is a relatively bad artist next to kayne west or drake.

These issues are not so simple. To most people, Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is "totally off the wall".


----------



## Mandryka

DavidA said:


> The uncomfortableness which surrounds the avant-garde comes because we just don't like listening to it because it sounds a racket. Period. It does not connect in any way with the listener outside of a very small clique. A good composer will make the composition listenable to an audience.


You're missing my point. Not everyone perceives it as a racket. And that suggests to me that the problem is not in the music. Some listeners can follow, some listeners just haven't got the discernment to grasp the structure.

Like the person yesterday who was unable to discern the difference stylistically between Sciarrino and Rihm.


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> well hopefully from now on, you will have something more informed to go on.


This is it, you see, communication. You need to communicate to an audience rather than blaming them


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> This is it, you see, communication. You need to communicate to an audience rather than blaming them


David, I don't blame them. Why are you saying this to me? Please be more judicious when it comes to tarnishing me with brushes.


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> I'm broadly on this side of the fence, but how you express the point implies that more connection with audience = better music and by that standard schubert is a relatively bad artist next to kayne west or drake.
> 
> These issues are not so simple. To most people, Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is "totally off the wall".


Yeah.
I think one issue with spats of this type is the resort to the extreme. To give an example, someone will say that "quality is not a popularity contest" in order to defend something which is a niche interest, and someone else will say that it is "important to connect with a substantial audience" in order to question the merit of something which has only a niche audience.

Well they are both right. Numbers aren't everything, but they are something.

I object to any suggestion that something is inherently not of high quality because it has a large audience of non-specialists. That is patronising nonsense.
Equally, I object to the suggestion that something is inherently deficient because it only has a small audience. That smacks of a desire to impose uniformity, to remove diversity of opinion and taste.

I am interested here mainly in the question of public subsidy, and I would make a sporting parallel with Olympic sports. In the UK decisions are made concerning which sports will receive most support from the relevant public funding body by reference to a range of factors (such as a track record of recent success). Why does athletics get substantial support: because there is public interest among a wide population who would like to see the domestic competitors do well, which creates (arguably :lol a public good from the funding. If that wide audience is not there then you will struggle to get funding, because although the participants may love doing it, there is no real public good arising. You could get public funding for sports in schools on a health basis, but not the funding for elite training.

Avant-garde music needs to justify itself to a wide non-specialist audience or it should not receive public funding. I think that is the case which advocates need to make if they wish to receive such funding. On the other hand, if it does not seek public funding then no such case needs to be made.


----------



## Jacck

Mandryka said:


> You're missing my point. Not everyone perceives it as a racket. And that suggests to me that the problem is not in the music. Some listeners can follow, some listeners just haven't got the* discernment to grasp the structure*..


with some of these works, I have difficulty perceiving any meaningful structure. It sound like random angry fiddling, that the author for some reason felt compelled to write down into notation. Most of the modern string quartets sound like that to me. In previous epochs, if the composers were composing string quartets, they took great care, that the string quartets sound harmonious together. The modern string quartets sound as if each of the 4 instruments plays his own line composed of random angry outbursts and there is not synchronization or harmony with the other instruments. That is why it sounds mostly like cacophony

BTW: I like this cacophony sometimes. I listen to it for the same reason I listen to metal sometimes. It has a lot of negative, angry, agressive energy and sometimes I am in the mood for something like that


----------



## JAS

Eclectic Al said:


> . . . Avant-garde music needs to justify itself to a wide non-specialist audience or it should not receive public funding. I think that is the case which advocates need to make if they wish to receive such funding. On the other hand, if it does not seek public funding then no such case needs to be made.


And that is where the real damage gets done. More broadly, the promotion of the crazy stuff is just embarrassing to those of us with an interest in cultural matters, but who have not and are not interested in drinking the koolaid. The real problem is that whenever public funding of the arts comes up, this stuff gives far too much ammunition to those who want to defund it all. (Sometimes, it is almost as if it is actually designed specifically to accomplish that end.)


----------



## SanAntone

RogerWaters said:


> Did you appreciate this kind of music before going through the institution?


I didn't know it existed, so no. But I also didn't come to appreciate it in music school. I heard about Karlheinz Stockhausen (from The Beatles) and I began listening to contemporary classical music in the early '70s. Been at it ever since.



> Who commissions these works, if I may ask further? Govt or private bodies/individuals?


Operas are often commissioned by production institutions like the Met, and virtuosi also commission concertos, e.g. Some is government funded like IRCAM. Since I am not a composer I am just repeating what I remember reading somewhere.



> But if the composer has written something exactly as he wishes that could have been created by people making random noises, what is the point in the composer writing the thing exactly as he wishes?


Your question reminds me of one of those creationist disproofs of evolution: so, you're saying, "given long enough time a monkey would type out the entire works of Shakespeare?"



> Also, upon what does the distrinction between quality and rubbish rest, when the only rules of the game are to sound like there are no rules?


I don't know, nor do I care. I decide for myself if a piece of music is interesting as I listen, and don't care about the issue your question poses. But if I don't find something interesting I don't think of it as rubbish. That would be rude to the composer.

When I was a teenager I had a book, "Lives of the Great Composers." Now I don't think of composers as being "great" or not. Their music either interests me or not; either I enjoy listening to it, or not. The work of a few composers is so wonderful to my ears I think of them as my favorites. But other than that, I am very curious about new music. I am more interested in hearing a new work than in hearing a new performance of a work from the classical music canon.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> Your question reminds me of one of those creationist disproofs of evolution: so, you're saying, "given long enough time a monkey would type out the entire works of Shakespeare?"


I once read about a squillionnaire who wanted to test this hypothesis. He got a bunch of monkeys and a typewriter and locked them in a cage and waited for a while to see what happens. The thought was that if it was true, then after a while they should at least come up with a word or two of Shakespeare.

What happened was the monkeys played with the typewriter by tapping the same letter over and over again - hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - like that. They were never ever going to produce any Shakespeare.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> I once read about a squillionnaire who wanted to test this hypothesis. He got a bunch of monkeys and a typewriter and locked them in a cage and waited for a while to see what happens. The thought was that if it was true, then after a while they should at least come up with a word or two of Shakespeare.
> 
> What happened was the monkeys played with the typewriter by tapping the same letter over and over again - hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - like that. They were never ever going to produce any Shakespeare.


It really isn't a testable thesis, since it relies entirely on the infinite part, but the idea is certainly amusing.



SanAntone said:


> Your question reminds me of one of those creationist disproofs of evolution: so, you're saying, "given long enough time a monkey would type out the entire works of Shakespeare?"


I don't think I have ever heard it proposed as a disproof of evolution. I have generally heard of it in the sense of the possibility of infinite alternate realities.


----------



## Jacck

JAS said:


> It really isn't a testable thesis, since it relies entirely on the infinite part, but the idea is certainly amusing.


as soon as it comes to infinity, human reason just breaks down. George Cantor went insane when he tried to crack infinity. Given an infinite amount of time, it is 100% probable that a human brain could assemble out of random motion of atoms and mollecules. The problem is that no one can imagine infinity. And I am certainly not going to debate it with creationists.


----------



## JAS

Jacck said:


> as soon as it comes to infinity, human reason just breaks down. George Cantor went insane when he tried to crack infinity. Given an infinite amount of time, it is 100% probable that a human brain could assemble out of random motion of atoms and mollecules. The problem is that no one can imagine infinity. And I am certainly not going to debate it with creationists.


Edgar Allan Poe made this same point in 1848, in his cosmological essay _Eureka_. (It is getting closer to Halloween, so a reference to its patron saint, although he might not be happy at being so designated, is in order.)


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> with some of these works, I have difficulty perceiving any meaningful structure.


Perhaps it's not meant to have one. I'm not meaning to be flippant. As you go on to acknowledge, sometimes, just "noise" can be appealing (though the composer may not have intended it to be appreciated as 'noise' in any disparaging sense).


----------



## SanAntone

I am posting this hear from the Contemporary Listening thread. It is a fairly comprehensive list of where modern music (not all of it "new") can be heard.



calvinpv said:


> *Contemporary Music Youtube Channels*
> 
> So I just compiled a list of contemporary music youtube channels for all of you to bookmark. Some of these channels -- especially the first few and most especially the channel "grinblat" -- are literal goldmines that are worth exploring. I didn't include any channels that had just a couple of contemporary pieces, only those where contemporary music made up at least a sizable part of their videos. I also focused on channels dedicated to more recent contemporary music, not music from the post-war period (though there's a lot of that too).
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> grinblat
> gɹinblat
> 
> belanna000
> belanna111
> belanna999
> 
> Score Follower
> incipitsify
> Mediated Scores
> 
> Live New Music Channel
> 
> Contemporary Classical
> 
> Philip Mckelvey
> 
> Victor Alexander
> 
> hu
> 
> Sebastian Ars Acoustica
> 
> Pour ce que le langage a désertés
> 
> Silicua hibrido
> 
> OMaclac
> 
> Raúl
> 
> pelodelperro
> 
> art&music
> 
> Boris Sitnikoff (just Stockhausen's Klang)
> 
> Wellesz Theatre
> TheWelleszCompany
> Wellesz Modern
> Wellesz Opus
> Wellesz Rhapsody
> 
> George N Gianopoulos


----------



## SanAntone

*Kieran Timbrell - Penillion* (w/ score) (for 9 musicians) (2017)



> Echoshed ensemble. For Flute, Saxophone, Guitar, Piano, 2 Violins, Viola, Cello and double bass
> 
> Conductor: Mark Biggins


Timbrell mines a single motif with interesting results.


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> David, I don't blame them. Why are you saying this to me? Please be more judicious when it comes to tarnishing me with brushes.


Sorry mate but putting it kindly, you need to be more judicious in what you say rather than blaming everybody else. Incidentally my wife is also a well qualified professional musician and she doesn't appreciate the avant-garde either


----------



## DavidA

JAS said:


> It really isn't a testable thesis, since it relies entirely on the infinite part, but the idea is certainly amusing.
> 
> I don't think I have ever heard it proposed as a disproof of evolution. I have generally heard of it in the sense of the possibility of infinite alternate realities.


It is of course complete nonsense. The monkeys of course are intelligent agents when they are working the typewriter. They themselves do not typewright at random


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> Sorry mate but you need to be more judicious in what you say rather than blaming everybody else


...what, are we 10 years old? Please show me where I've blamed the audience for not liking modernity....or else stop.

re your wife, well there are plenty of musicians who do like modernity. Proves nothing. Does your wife know that you are happy to spread unfounded accusations about strangers? Let her read this thread and see if she can spot the point where I diss the audience.


----------



## SanAntone

We're not blaming the audience for not liking music from C20/21. But of course the same could be said for music from C14-C19. There are lot of people who simply don't like classical music. There are some on this thread who don't like classical music from C20/21.

The question always comes down to where is the problem: with the music or the listener. When I don't like a piece of music I don't blame the music. I don't blame myself either, but I am more likely to think there is a lack of appreciation on my part. I don't question the motives of the composer, thinking he is trying to con me with music he *knows* is garbage. I assume his motives are honest and he is writing something he believes in. It is just not my cup of tea.

I don't like to see the comments here calling the composer's integrity into question or referring to those of us who enjoy C20/21 music "dupes."

So who's blaming who?


----------



## premont

SanAntone said:


> The question always comes down to where is the problem: with the music or the listener. When I don't like a piece of music I don't blame the music. I don't blame myself either, but I am more likely to think there is a lack of appreciation on my part. I don't question the motives of the composer, thinking he is trying to con me with music he *knows* is garbage. I assume his motives are honest and he is writing something he believes in. It is just not my cup of tea.


Well put, I think.


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> ...what, are we 10 years old? Please show me where I've blamed the audience for not liking modernity....or else stop.
> 
> re your wife, well there are plenty of musicians who do like modernity. Proves nothing. Does your wife know that you are happy to spread unfounded accusations about strangers? Let her read this thread and see if she can spot the point where I diss the audience.


Sorry but I am old enough not to trade insults with you.


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> Sorry mate but putting it kindly, you need to be more judicious in what you say rather than blaming everybody else. Incidentally my wife is also a well qualified professional musician and she doesn't appreciate the avant-garde either


So incensed by this post, I decided to check every post of mine in this thread. So, for the record and because it matters to me, there is no reference by me to anything like a blaming of the audience for not liking modernity.

So there, I've saved you any trouble you weren't going to go to David. I doubt you'll retract the comment but it matters not, I'm clean and all can see that if they can be bothered. Have at it but don't falsely accuse, that's unacceptable.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> We're not blaming the audience for not liking music from C20/21. But of course the same could be said for music from C14-C19. There are lot of people who simply don't like classical music. There are some on this thread who don't like classical music from C20/21.
> 
> The question always comes down to where is the problem: with the music or the listener. When I don't like a piece of music I don't blame the music. I don't blame myself either, but I am more likely to think there is a lack of appreciation on my part. I don't question the motives of the composer, thinking he is trying to con me with music he *knows* is garbage. I assume his motives are honest and he is writing something he believes in. It is just not my cup of tea.
> 
> I don't like to see the comments here calling the composer's integrity into question or referring to those of us who enjoy C20/21 music "dupes."
> 
> So who's blaming who?


The answer is always that, technically, the blame falls _between_ the composer and the listener, but because the composer is the one producing it, the main action here, the bulk of responsibility necessarily falls there. It is never, never, never the fault of the listener, because it cannot be. There is nothing that the listener can do wrong in this transaction, since the listener has zero obligation in the matter. And let us admit that there is a huge difference between not feeling the appeal of a work, and someone saying that the kind of stuff that Ferneyhough and Wishart produce is serious music that you _should_ like if you give it a chance. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the vast majority of people who might give it a chance would still have a very negative reaction. It is also true that this same line of reasoning has had a long run and time has not helped it to be any more palatable.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> The answer is always that, technically, the blame falls _between_ the composer and the listener, but because the composer is the one producing it, the main action here, the bulk of responsibility necessarily falls there. It is never, never, never the fault of the listener, because it cannot be. There is nothing that the listener can do wrong in this transaction, and has zero obligation in the matter. And let us admit that there is a huge difference between not feeling the appeal of a work, and someone saying that the kind of stuff that Ferneyhough and Wishart produce is serious music that you _should_ like if you give it a chance. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the vast majority of people who might give it a chance would still have a very negative reaction. It is also true that this same line of reasoning has had a long run and time has not helped it to be any more palatable.


I agree with most of you wrote here. But, you leave out the alternative of, "the kind of stuff that Ferneyhough and Wishart produce is serious music that you _should_ like if you give it a chance." Which is, "since I don't get the kind of stuff that Ferneyhough and Wishart produce, the music is rubbish."

If you and others who don't like Ferneyhough and Wishart would simply limit your comments to "I don't like it." We have no debate.

Actually I wish we would leave Wishart out of it. His work is so off the radar of 99% of the living composers and what they write, it serves only as a distraction from the real issue. Which is: are living composers writing music that is a valid continuation of the classical tradition. I am 100% confident they are and only wish more people were curious about what they are doing.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> I agree with most of you wrote here. But, you leave out the alternative of, "the kind of stuff that Ferneyhough and Wishart produce is serious music that you _should_ like if you give it a chance." Which is, "since I don't get the kind of stuff that Ferneyhough and Wishart produce, the music is rubbish."
> 
> If you and others who don't like Ferneyhough and Wishart would simply limit your comments to "I don't like it." We have no debate.
> 
> Actually I wish we would leave Wishart out of it. His work is so off the radar of 99% of the living composers and what they write, it serves only as a distraction from the real issue. Which is: are living composers writing music that is a valid continuation of the classical tradition. I am 100% confident they are and only wish more people were interested in what they are doing.


I left that out because it is unreasonable for anyone producing something to be consumed by anyone else to make such a demand. A listener is perfectly entitled to say not only that he or she does not like it, but that it is utter garbage (or rubbish, which seems to be the British preference), or even not really music. That negative opinion gets more and more reasonable as the degree of strangeness increases, along with the number of people who share the response. It is essentially an expression of how negative the reaction is. No one who creates for someone else is entitled to even one ounce of respect, not one. (The presumption of validity may be reasonable right up to the moment of actually hearing it, or hearing enough by the same composer that a negative pattern has already formed.) Can't take it? Don't compose.

The reason I made the earlier comment about the man who thought that aliens were contacting him through the fillings in his teeth is that he was 100% sincere as well. He was just wrong . . . or was he? (We never did hear from the aliens to get their side of the story.)


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> I left that out because *it is unreasonable for anyone producing something to be consumed by anyone else to make such a demand.*


I have no idea what you are saying here.



> A listener is perfectly entitled to say not only that he or she does not like it, but that it is utter garbage (or rubbish, which seems to be the British preference), or even not really music.


Yes, you/they are are free to say that, but it is a subjective opinion that is irrelevant for anyone other than the speaker. It is also gratuitously rude and an example of someone lording their opinion around as if their opinion is an important statement about music. It lacks humility and appears to me as arrogant.



> That negative opinion *gets more and more reasonable as the degree of strangeness increases*, along with the number of people who share the response. It is essentially an expression of how negative the reaction is. No one who creates for someone else is entitled to even one ounce of respect, not one. (The presumption of validity may be reasonable right up to the moment of actually hearing it, or hearing enough by the same composer that a negative pattern has already formed.) Can't take it? Don't compose.


I don't think that kind of statement is ever valid. "Strangeness" is a relative quality; what you find strange I may not. Your negative assessment is a personal subjective response to music which you do not like the sound of. It is also irrelevant how many people share your reaction. Plenty of artists were rejected during their lifetimes by the majority whom we now consider produced masterpieces.

I think everyone is entitled to a baseline of respect. If you don't like the music, don't listen. In a free and open society an individual is free to create their music and listeners are free to dislike it. They are also free to claim that the music is trash. I just think that second opinion is unnecessary and rude. Taste police are ridiculous.



> The reason I made the earlier comment about the man who thought that aliens were contacting him through the fillings in his teeth is that he was 100% sincere as well. He was just wrong . . . or was he?


It doesn't matter since someone who believes in aliens has nothing to do with someone who enjoys the music Wishart produces.


----------



## SanAntone

*John Luther Adams: Everything That Rises · JACK Quartet

*


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> . . . Yes, you/they are are free to say that, but it is a subjective opinion that is irrelevant for anyone other than the speaker. It is also gratuitously rude and an example of someone lording their opinion around as if their opinion is an important statement about music. It lacks humility and appears to me as arrogant. . . .


While it is technically subjective, it isn't irrelevant to the many people who share the same opinion. ("Am I crazy?" "No, that really is truly terrible.") I learned long ago that tolerating nonsense just begets more nonsense, both in quantity and degree. My willingness to be considerate of others only goes so far.



SanAntone said:


> It doesn't matter since someone who believes in aliens has nothing to do with someone who enjoys the music Wishart produces.


From my perspective, they are almost exactly the same. That is how extreme what Wishart is peddling.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> While it is technically subjective, it isn't irrelevant to *1)* the many people who share the same opinion. ("Am I crazy?" "No, *2)* that really is truly terrible.") I learned long ago that *3)* tolerating nonsense just begets more nonsense, both in quantity and degree. *4)* My willingness to be considerate of others only goes so far.


1) how do you know the number of people share your opinion?

2) "is" it really terrible, or do you just _think_ it is terrible? Others may not share your opinion. You seem to have a blind spot when it concerns those who do not share your taste.

3) I think you overstate the importance of your opinion. Other than how you raise your children, your "not tolerating nonsense" is nothing more than expressing an opinion. I don't think you are advocating violence towards the composer.

4) Too bad. I think it is only a sign of good manners to be considerate of others.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> 1) how do you know the number of people share your opinion? . . .


Well, for one thing, you find out by sharing it with others, and seeing the responses you get. People who decry disagreement of this sort just want to set the playing field in their favor. They want the only strong opinions to be the favorable ones.

I do not overstate the importance of my opinion, because I don't think _any_ opinion, on its own, has any real importance, mine or yours. It gains a certain amount of importance as it merges with those of others, but Wishart isnt going to lose his academic position because I think what he is doing is silly, nor even a million others think so.

Part of being considerate to others is not to push nonsense on others. That level of consideration includes avoiding things like running mere sounds through programs and calling that music.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Well, for one thing, you find out by sharing it with others, and seeing the responses you get. People who decry disagreement of this sort just want to set the playing field in their favor. They want the only strong opinions to be the favorable ones.


How wide is your circle, a dozen, two dozen? whatever it is it is a small sample size and extrapolating too much into an echo chamber yields biased results.



> Part of being considerate to others is not to push nonsense on others. That level of consideration includes avoiding things like running mere sounds through programs and calling that music.


Oh, come on. You can easily avoid music you don't like. And to insist that a composer give up his career because you and others don't like his work is so silly I can't take it seriously.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> How wide is your circle, a dozen, two dozen? whatever it is it is a small sample size and extrapolating too much into an echo chamber yields biased results.


So what are you so worried about?



SanAntone said:


> Oh, come on. You can easily avoid music you don't like. And to insist that a composer give up his career because you and others don't like his work is so silly I can't take it seriously.


At the moment, I am primarily responding to comments made _about_ the kind of product that Wishart is making. A discussion usually has more than one side. I am not suggesting that he give up his career. I am just amazed that he has one. It probably shows how far gone the world of academia is, partially because too many tolerated nonsense for too long.


----------



## Jacck

JAS said:


> At the moment, I am primarily responding to comments made _about_ the kind of product that Wishart is making. A discussion usually has more than one side. I am not suggesting that he give up his career. I am just amazed that he has one. It probably shows how far gone the world of academia is, partially because too many tolerated nonsense for too long.


I quite like Wishart. I never heard about him before reading about him in this thread, but the Imago is a composition I like.


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> So incensed by this post, I decided to check every post of mine in this thread. So, for the record and because it matters to me, there is no reference by me to anything like a blaming of the audience for not liking modernity.
> 
> So there, I've saved you any trouble you weren't going to go to David. I doubt you'll retract the comment but it matters not, I'm clean and all can see that if they can be bothered. Have at it but don't falsely accuse, that's unacceptable.


I do not want to get into this business of slanging matches. Neither do I want you upsetting yourself. Please leave it.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> So what are you so worried about?


I'm not worried about new music and composers because of opinions like yours. My only concern is the level of discourse on threads like this one. I would prefer a more civil debate without the pejorative comments flung around so much.



> At the moment, I am primarily responding to comments made _about_ the kind of product that Wishart is making. A discussion usually has more than one side. I am not suggesting that he give up his career. I am just amazed that he has one. It probably shows how far gone the world of academia is, partially because too many tolerated nonsense for too long.


"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Your comments about Wishart are the opposite of clever. Saying the obvious never is. Yes, his music (or whatever) is far outside the mainstream, but I am happy he's out there doing his thing. Just as I am happy to see people living off the grid and refusing to pay their taxes. Iconoclasts are what make life interesting.


----------



## JAS

Jacck said:


> I quite like Wishart. I never heard about him before reading about him in this thread, but the Imago is a composition I like.


And you are perfectly within your rights to hold and express that opinion. I am not going to say that you are a bad person who should remain quiet merely because your reaction does not agree with mine.



SanAntone said:


> . . . Your comments about Wishart are the opposite of clever. Saying the obvious never is. Yes, his music (or whatever) is far outside the mainstream, but I am happy he's out there doing his thing. . . .


I don't consider them especially clever either, since I do consider them so obvious. But I also don't consider them rude or unreasonable, for precisely the same reason. This discussion has gone on as long as it has primarily because I felt compelled to defend the expression of the obvious.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> And you are perfectly within your rights to hold and express that opinion. I am not going to say that you are a bad person who should remain quiet merely because your reaction does not agree with mine.


Strawman. I haven't asked you to be quiet, only to use more tact as you express your opinion.



> I don't consider them especially clever either, since I do consider them so obvious. But I also don't consider them rude or unreasonable, for precisely the same reason.


The opinion itself is not rude, however, IMO, some of your word choices have displayed disrespect, which is rude.

Which is entirely your right. I just think it lowers the level of the discussion, and I feel it is a discussion worth having.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> Strawman. I haven't asked you to be quiet, only to use more tact as you express your opinion.
> 
> The opinion itself is not rude, however, IMO, some of your word choices have displayed disrespect, which is rude.
> 
> Which is entirely your right. I just think it lowers the level of the discussion, and I feel it is a discussion worth having.


But only on _your_ terms, which give your position a serious head start. Feel free to proceed. For now, I have said all that I wish to on the topic.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Maybe it's because I haven't been posting around these parts for very long, but I see way more petty spats and tit-for-tats between people than I do civil, constructive, debates where people don't take things so awfully personally and remember they're just on an online forum about classical music.


----------



## Jacck

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Maybe it's because I haven't been posting around these parts for very long, but I see way more petty spats and tit-for-tats between people than I do civil, constructive, debates where people don't take things so awfully personally and remember they're just on an online forum about classical music.


I think these debates get repeated every couple of years as some old users depart and new users come. I heard that before I came here, there was some huge battle between the traditionalists and modernists, which ultimately led to an exodus of many modernists from this site. I dont really have an extreme opinion on these matters. I think both sides have actually somewhat valid arguments.


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> I do not want to get into this business of slanging matches. Neither do I want you upsetting yourself. Please leave it.


Actually I didn't upset myself, you angered me. If you don't want slanging matches, get your facts straight. An apology would sort it very quickly, the fact that it's not forthcoming, nor likely to do so, is a disgrace to your generation who should know better. Just bear in mind that hurling false accusations around in a public forum can easily turn into a 2 player game.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I'm thinking this. I've found a lot of contemporary music by likes of Rihm and Ferneyhough rewarding, I agree it was a rough unpleasant journey at the beginning. If some don't want to delve further I can understand that. If they say it's garbage, I can understand also, even though I can't agree, I know where they are coming from. Is the "difficult" type of contemporary Classical demanding? Heck yeah! It's asking the listener to suspend belief what was considered bad taste, like unresolved dissonant harmony and dissonant rhythm (what I recall Gubaidulina calling it before in an interview). If it was an end in itself, like I suspect most that don't like the music believe, then it wouldn't be anything worthy. But it outlines structures out of it, and goes somewhere, not much different than more traditional music in some ways, in less recognizable fashion. That's my unprofessional opinion.


----------



## Guest

mikeh375 said:


> Actually I didn't upset myself, you angered me. If you don't want slanging matches, get your facts straight. An apology would sort it very quickly, the fact that it's not forthcoming, nor likely to do so, is a disgrace to your generation who should know better. Just bear in mind that hurling false accusations around in a public forum can easily turn into a 2 player game.


Mike, the fellow is a major pain in the proverbial, and slippery to boot. He rattles the bear cage and then acts all offended when he gets growled at.


----------



## Bulldog

mikeh375 said:


> Actually I didn't upset myself, you angered me. If you don't want slanging matches, get your facts straight. An apology would sort it very quickly, the fact that it's not forthcoming, nor likely to do so, is a disgrace to your generation who should know better


What are you talking about? DavidA is not a representative of any generation; he only represents himself.


----------



## mikeh375

Bulldog said:


> What are you talking about? DavidA is not a representative of any generation; he only represents himself.


fair enough, a careless turn of phrase. I really mean he should be more mature in his responses, sorry Bulldog and all folk one G above me.


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> What are you talking about? DavidA is not a representative of any generation; he only represents himself.


Quite right!


----------



## DavidA

TalkingHead said:


> Mike, the fellow is a major pain in the proverbial, and slippery to boot. He rattles the bear cage and then acts all offended when he gets growled at.


Sorry mate. Not playing your game! Name calling is out! So is taking offence!

Have a good day!


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> But only on _your_ terms, which give your position a serious head start. Feel free to proceed. For now, I have said all that I wish to on the topic.


I guess if you can't express your opinion without showing disrespect for the composers of new music and its audience, silence, unfortunate as that is, is preferable.

Some interesting music here:






*Anna Clyne ‎- Blue Moth* (2012)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> I think these debates get repeated every couple of years as some old users depart and new users come. I heard that before I came here, there was some huge battle between the traditionalists and modernists, which ultimately led to an exodus of many modernists from this site. I dont really have an extreme opinion on these matters. I think both sides have actually somewhat valid arguments.


This is pretty funny:
Mozart vs Modernism



neoshredder said:


> Finally this thread is available to those wanting to talk about the conflict between fans of Modern Composers vs. fans of Mozart. They are basically the opposites. And if you ask me, I prefer Modern Composers. Baroque was my favorite Era but things started to change for the worse by the late Classical Era. Beethoven finally fixed things with his less Mozartian later Symphonies. Music returned back to what was tolerable in the Baroque Era with the Beethovian Era. And we know Modern Composers are way more enjoyable than Mozart.


----------



## Jacck

I forgot Cerha. I saw him mentioned by Trout in a neighboring thread. This is another modern composer I quite enjoy, he does not sound as cacophonic as the New Complexity composers




sounds almost like something Jerry Goldsmith might have composed for some of his more avantgarde scores


----------



## SanAntone

My list of 25 favorite composers includes mostly composers from the traditional classical canon. While I listen to a lot of new music, it is something I really enjoy hearing, it is usually one-offs. I've not had a composer under 50 to knock one of these traditional composers off the list. But I've heard some wonderful work.

But new music written by young composers is the music of our time and for that reason alone I wish to hear what they are doing.

Some I like, much of it I can live without. But I find it a rewarding process. And mostly entertaining.

The problem is that so much of the music is so new it is hard to find examples of a variety of a composer's work. I fully expect that some among these living composers born after 1970 will join the canon in decades to come, but I may not be around to see it.

In the meantime, I am fascinated by works such as this one:






*Adrien Trybucki: "Raíces"*
for seven musicians and electronics (2015)



> Adrien Trybucki, born in Toulouse (France) in 1993, devotes his activity as a composer to acoustic, electroacoustic and electronic music.
> 
> The obsessive nature of his writing can be found in his firsts opuses for which he received the Île de créations awards in 2014, the award of the Francis and Mica Salabert foundation in 2018 and the Nadia and Lili Boulanger award of the Academy of Fine Arts (Intitute of France) in 2019.
> 
> Trybucki is the author of more than thirty works, marked by an impulsive and obsessive energy, mostly published by BabelScores and Durand editions (Universal Music Publishing).
> In residence at the Cité internationale des arts in Paris in 2018-2019, he receives commissions from various performers and ensembles, as well as from Ircam - Center Pompidou, Radio France, Grame, Musique Nouvelle en Liberté, the Hochschule für Musik und Theater Hamburg, the Institut d'études occitanes de Haute-Garonne and the Italian Pavilion at the 2015 Universal Exhibition in Milan.
> 
> Trybucki collaborates with many performers of his generation such as the National orchestra of Île-de-France, the ensembles Intercontemporain, Court-circuit, Talea, L'Itinéraire, Divertimento, Switch, Taller Sonoro, Zellig, Musicatreize, the Atelier XX-21, the Maîtrise de Toulouse, the Diotima quartet and the soloists of the National orchestra of the Capitole of Toulouse.
> His next projects will lead him to work with the ensemble orchestral contemporain, Jérôme Comte, Juliet Fraser, KDM trio and XAMP duo. (Babelscores)


----------



## DavidA

Mind you I think this piece is fun with the fair Ms Glennie


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> Pointing out what amounts to a straw man is not poor argumentation. I may have overlooked someone saying something as plain as 'everything is of equal value', but in my time here, I've definitely seen that accusation many times, but the statement itself almost certainly none. Those who make the accusation have usually confirmed their position by such statements as 'the standard of music over the past 100 years has declined since Bach/Mozart' or 'modern music is trash'.


The straw man here was your "there are those who think their objective values are unassailable". No, it's the belief that there are objective values to begin with that upsets the modernist applecart. As for decline, is it scientifically, mathematically provable? No. Is it palpable to anyone who's honest? Yes.



> Sequels, prequels, series of ever declining quality have been around for donkey's years.


True, but along with the sequels and prequels and serials and B westerns you had Grand Illusion, Citizen Kane, Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood, The Best Years of Our Lives, Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Asphalt Jungle, The Searchers, Fort Apache...


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> No, it's the belief that there are objective values to begin with that upsets the modernist applecart.


What are these objective values and on whose authority?


----------



## SanAntone

*Eric Wubbels - Katachi Part 2*

.. played by the Wet Ink Ensemble

Erin Lesser - flutes
Alex Mincek - saxophone, bass clarinet
Kate Soper - voice, objects
Ian Antonio - percussion
Josh Modney - violin
Eric Wubbels - piano
Sam Pluta - electronics



> Eric Wubbels (b.1980) is a composer and pianist, and a Co-Director of the Wet Ink Ensemble.
> 
> His music has been performed throughout Europe, Asia, Australia, and the U.S., by groups such as Wet Ink Ensemble,
> Mivos Quartet, yarn|wire, Splinter Reeds, Kupka's Piano (AUS), SCENATET (DK), Hong Kong New Music Ensemble,
> and featured on festivals including Huddersfield Festival, Chicago Symphony MusicNOW, New York Philharmonic CONTACT,
> MATA Festival, and Zurich Tage für Neue Musik.
> 
> Wubbels has been awarded grants and fellowships from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, NYFA, NYSCA, Fromm Foundation,
> Chamber Music America, ISSUE Project Room, MATA Festival, Barlow Endowment, Jerome Foundation, and Yvar Mikhashoff Trust,
> and residencies at the MacDowell Colony ('11, '16, '20), Copland House, L'Abri (Geneva), Djerassi Resident Artists Program,
> and Civitella Ranieri Center (Italy).
> 
> As a performer, he has given U.S. and world premieres of works by major figures such as Peter Ablinger, Richard Barrett,
> Beat Furrer, George Lewis, and Mathias Spahlinger, as well as vital young artists such as Rick Burkhardt, Francesco Filidei,
> Erin Gee, Bryn Harrison, Clara Iannotta, Darius Jones, Cat Lamb, Ingrid Laubrock, Charmaine Lee, Alex Mincek, Sam Pluta,
> Katharina Rosenberger, and Kate Soper.
> 
> He has recorded for Carrier Records, hatART, Intakt, New Focus, Spektral (Vienna), quiet design, and Albany Records, among others,
> and has held teaching positions at Amherst College and Oberlin Conservatory.


The Wet Ink Ensemble first came to my attention when I interviewed *Kate Soper*. Consistently intriguing new music by some creative and talented folks.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> What are these objective values and on whose authority?


Beauty, for one. Have at it. On whose authority? The question itself assumes there is no "authority", or that it's all relative and subjective and up to each and every individual... and so there you are. Postmodern.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Beauty, for one. Have at it. On whose authority? The question itself assumes there is no "authority", or that it's all relative and subjective and up to each and every individual... and so there you are. Postmodern.


Have you never heard "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" Or in this case the ear of the behearer.

You keep mentioning "post-modernism." Is that your parachute out of any discussion?

Are you presenting yourself as The Authority that tells us what is beautiful?

:lol:


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> The straw man here was your "there are those who think their objective values are unassailable". No, it's the belief that there are objective values to begin with that upsets the modernist applecart. As for decline, is it scientifically, mathematically provable? No. *Is it palpable to anyone who's honest?* Yes.
> 
> True, but along with the sequels and prequels and serials and B westerns you had Grand Illusion, Citizen Kane, Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood, The Best Years of Our Lives, Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Asphalt Jungle, The Searchers, Fort Apache...


Stop insinuating I'm dishonest, please. Thanks.


----------



## DavidA

Let's go easy guys and play the ball and not the man.

Here's something we can all agree on


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> You keep mentioning "post-modernism." Is that your parachute out of any discussion?


Look it up. You might as well know the origins of what you advocate.


> Stop insinuating I'm dishonest, please. Thanks.


Whereas you can toss around insinuations at will? Suck it up, buttercup.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Look it up. You might as well know the origins of what you advocate.
> Whereas you can toss around insinuations at will? Suck it up, buttercup.


What am I insinuating?


----------



## consuono

MacLeod said:


> What am I insinuating?


What am I? Did I say you're an essentially dishonest person? There is such a thing as self-deception and intellectual dishonesty though. If the shoe fits...


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Are you presenting yourself as The Authority that tells us what is beautiful?
> 
> :lol:


Myself alone? No. But what authority determines what is "just"? What authority determines what is a "human right"?


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Look it up. You might as well know the origins of what you advocate.


I know what post-modernism is; you act as though by flinging that term you are making a devastating attack. I couldn't care less care how you label my views, at least I can explain them. You on the other hand, repeat platitudes and say nothing:

1) You still have not told me how beauty is determined objectively

2) And, by what authority are we to accept the objective criteria


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Myself alone? No. But what authority determines what is "just"? What authority determines what is a "human right"?


Those are determined by a justice system. Beauty is not. Try again.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Those are determined by a justice system. Beauty is not. Try again.


They're equally metaphysical, unprovable concepts. Try again. And answer the question.


----------



## consuono

By the way, postmodernism:


> A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.


https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/postm-body.html

A refutation of postmodernism:


> The end result of four decades of postmodernism permeating the art world is that there is very little interesting or important work being done right now in the fine arts. Irony was a bold and creative posture when Duchamp did it, but it is now an utterly banal, exhausted, and tedious strategy. Young artists have been taught to be "cool" and "hip" and thus painfully self-conscious. They are not encouraged to be enthusiastic, emotional, and visionary. They have been cut off from artistic tradition by the crippled skepticism about history that they have been taught by ignorant and solipsistic postmodernists. In short, the art world will never revive until postmodernism fades away. Postmodernism is a plague upon the mind and the heart.


https://faustomag.com/camille-paglia-postmodernism-is-a-plague-upon-the-mind-and-the-heart/


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> By the way, postmodernism:
> 
> https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/postm-body.html
> 
> A refutation of postmodernism:
> 
> https://faustomag.com/camille-paglia-postmodernism-is-a-plague-upon-the-mind-and-the-heart/


Dr. Paglia is an authentic, independently-minded academic who is going to speak her own mind, no matter what. There aren't too many of these brave individuals about today as most have succumbed to the bullying of group-think. She speaks from a position of authority and with real intellectual heft and she will call out the arid ideologies behind post-modernism and its concatenations.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I know what post-modernism is; you act as though by flinging that term you are making a devastating attack. I couldn't care less care how you label my views, at least I can explain them. You on the other hand, repeat platitudes and say nothing:
> 
> ...


No, *this* is a platitude:


SanAntone said:


> Only to the degree that it holds my interest enough to continue listening. I do not make any judgments whether a composer or work is good or bad relative to other composers or works. I also have no interest in whether a work is considered "great" or "bad" according to any authority.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> No, *this* is a platitude:


That is merely my view, you can take it or leave it, matters not to me.

Now, when will you provide _your view _as to the objective criteria for assessing beauty and by what authority.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> They're equally metaphysical, unprovable concepts. Try again. And answer the question.


Justice is arrived at in courts of law; violations are proved because there are codes of law making plain what they are and how they are violated. Human rights are outlined in most government's basic laws, e.g. in the US the Bill of Rights and the other amendments to our constitution. These are clearly articulated and violations of a person's rights can be demonstrated and proved.

A legal system is not metaphysical. I know of no court of beauty, no laws of beauty for which it can be demonstrated and proven they have been violated.



consuono said:


> By the way, postmodernism:
> 
> https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/postm-body.html
> 
> A refutation of postmodernism:
> 
> https://faustomag.com/camille-paglia-postmodernism-is-a-plague-upon-the-mind-and-the-heart/


Why do you go on about post-modernism. It has nothing to do with your inability to cite objective criteria that provides the basis for assessing beauty.



Christabel said:


> Dr. Paglia is an authentic, independently-minded academic who is going to speak her own mind, no matter what. There aren't too many of these brave individuals about today as most have succumbed to the bullying of group-think. She speaks from a position of authority and with real intellectual heft and she will call out the arid ideologies behind post-modernism and its concatenations.


I want you to tell me *your view* about assessing beauty. You were the one who brought it up as a standard to judge art.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> Look it up. You might as well know the origins of what you advocate.
> Whereas you can toss around insinuations at will? Suck it up, buttercup.


I'm no postmodernist in most of my artistic choices, nor in my philosophy, but to express the utterly controversial claim there are objective standards of judging music in such a self-assured and rude way is unbecoming.

You've been skim-reading too much Roger Scruton without critically analysing it.


----------



## consuono

> A legal system is not metaphysical.


It is based on the metaphysical ideal of "justice" which can not be scientifically proven.


> Why do you go on about post-modernism.


Why do you object to it?


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> By the way, postmodernism:
> 
> https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/postm-body.html
> 
> A refutation of postmodernism:
> 
> https://faustomag.com/camille-paglia-postmodernism-is-a-plague-upon-the-mind-and-the-heart/


Most contemporary music is not postmodern as in fragmented and detached, that requires interpretation to connect the dots. Again I was guilty of associating the 2 together myself in my old posts, because I couldn't connect the dots and didn't believe the composer did either. It also doesn't help that some advocates of postmodernism and Contemporary music fans suggest that it is music of isolated sounds and colours to be experienced "in the moment", that there is no narrative or unity.

Here is what is generally considered the clearest example of postmodern music. The people talking are intended to be independent from the music and other speakers. There is no unity in flow nor counterpoint in many parts (like in say 14:30 to 15:15), there is a washed out effect.






While here the individual players are locked in with each other. There is a lot of interaction and consideration of the unity as a whole. From 2:45 to 6:45 is probably my favourite part. There is no room for interpretation. The composer realized the music fully, as much as say, Shostakovich.


----------



## Gallus

"Thread: What is so great about the 20th century's music?"

How about its extreme variety? Everything from the lush romanticism of Rachmaninoff to the electronic soundscapes of Xenakis, the neoclassicism of Stravinsky, the minimalism of Glass, Bartok balancing on the edge of tonality and everything in between.


----------



## RogerWaters

Phil loves classical said:


> Most contemporary music is not postmodern as in fragmented and detached, that requires interpretation to connect the dots.


Not sure why this is your criterion. Minimalism is paradigmatic postmodern music, and it's certainly not fragmented and detached.

A big part of postmodernism, as opposed to modernism, is a return to 'home' and 'authenticity' after the interruption, abstractness and artificiality of modernism: think farmers markets, repetitive melodic waves of music, and also mixing high and low culture (reversing the alienating elitism of modernism).

I agree that postmodernism is quite contradictory, though, it's philosophy (of history/science) is very much about fragmentation, interruption, and relativism - and no doubt this is reflected in much contemporary 'music'.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> It is based on the metaphysical ideal of "justice" which can not be scientifically proven.
> 
> Why do you object to it?


I don't object to it [post-modernism], if you want to think of me as a post-modernist I don't care.

Now back to the subject: you have still not shown me any objective criteria for judging art. You first said, "beauty." I then asked you to show me the objective criteria for assessing beauty. That question you keep avoiding.

Because .... there is no objective criteria to assess beauty.

But, wait, you have indicated an answer by comparing beauty to the "metaphysical ideal of "justice" which can not be scientifically proven." So, I must assume you think that beauty also cannot be scientifically proven.

Which puts us right back in the subjective tent of appreciating art or music.

This will end my dialog, such as it is, with you.


----------



## Phil loves classical

RogerWaters said:


> Not sure why this is your criterion. Minimalism is paradigmatic postmodern music, and it's certainly not fragmented and detached.
> 
> A big part of postmodernism, as opposed to modernism, is a return to 'home' and 'authenticity' after the interruption, abstractness and artificiality of modernism: think farmers markets, repetitive melodic waves of music, and also mixing high and low culture (reversing the alienating elitism of modernism).
> 
> I agree that postmodernism is quite contradictory, though, it's philosophy (of history/science) is very much about fragmentation, interruption, and relativism - and no doubt this is reflected in much contemporary 'music'.


The fragmentation is not my criterion, but what I read from others. Deconstruction is also a criteria which is in Minimalism. Fragmentation could also be in the way that it's small fragments being repeated.


----------



## consuono

> Now back to the subject: you have still not shown me any objective criteria for judging art. You first said, "beauty."


As I said, show me objective criteria for judging "justice".

I think what gets "Newists" panties in a wad is that they think they are individual, discerning thinkers and don't like to be shown that what they're doing is just spouting what they've absorbed through the educational establishment and other influencers. If it looks, walks and sounds like a duck...


----------



## SanAntone

*LUCA FRANCESCONI COBALT SCARLET, two colors of dawn* ( 2000)
Finnish Radio Symphony RFO
Hannu Lintu conductor

Francesconi has been a composer I've followed for several years now.


----------



## SanAntone

*Christopher Cerrone - Memory Palace*
performed by Ian Rosenbaum

Solo percussion (including struck guitar) and electronics - done well.


----------



## RogerWaters

Phil loves classical said:


> The fragmentation is not my criterion, but what I read from others. Deconstruction is also a criteria which is in Minimalism. *Fragmentation could also be in the way that it's small fragments being repeated.*


Yes, Good point: an eternal present, with no connection to past or future.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> As I said, show me objective criteria for judging "justice".
> 
> I think what gets "Newists" panties in a wad is that they think they are individual, discerning thinkers and don't like to be shown that what they're doing is just spouting what they've absorbed through the educational establishment and other influencers. If it looks, walks and sounds like a duck...


There is no objective criteria for judging justice. Just like there is no objective criterion for judging music.

What's your point?

Do you suggest we impose a basically arbitrary system of musical judgement in the way we do with justice, backed by a mix of a bit of power and a bit of community consensus?


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> There is no objective criteria for judging justice. Just like there is no objective criterion for judging music.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Do you suggest we impose a basically arbitrary system of musical judgement in the way we do with justice, backed by a mix of a bit of power and a bit of community consensus?


So then are we going to say that Justice, like Beauty, is in the eye of the individual beholder and that therefore each of us can be judge, jury and executioner?


----------



## hammeredklavier

norman bates said:


> yes I've listened to Bach's contemporaries. But why you're asking? I love the Art of the fugue.


I meant that the Art of the fugue is written in the same idiom as the work of Bach's own contemporaries, albeit more skillfully and throughly-composed fugally.
You talk as if, in composing the work, Bach was having the same mindset as John Cage would have had in the 20th century. He was not. Once you're familiar with general 17~18th century fugal writing, it won't sound all that "strange" and "cold" as you might think. None of the common practice masters would have agreed with the philosophy "everything we do is music".


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> So then are we going to say that Justice, like Beauty, is in the eye of the individual beholder and that therefore each of us can be judge, jury and executioner?


Well, we don't say Justice is in the eye of the beholder, but that doesn't make it 'objective', in the sense that 1+1=2 is objective. What is just vs unjust is determined by politics, legal debate and moral debate. But what they are getting at aren't objective truths, but rather a set of behavioural standards that balance individuals' moral intuitions (themselves arbitrary on a cosmic level) with social utility.

When it comes to music, just like with justice there is no cosmically-correct standard of judgement. But I doubt there is as much need for pragmatic standards of judgement as there is with justice. I agree there is *some* need, as without it you get the kind of music that is being posted here which is incredibly underwhelming, to me and to most. However, this felt need that you and I might share - that standards are required to preclude random-sounding noise that is pleasing only to modern music academics and the odd dilettante - is not objective.

TL;DR: The comparison with justice isn't very useful. There is a huge (purely pragmatic/non-objective) need to punish rape, murder and theft that finds no correspondence with the need you and I might feel to discourage 'bad' music. As a result, you're simply not gonna get the critical mass of people, power and institutions required to enforce pragmatic musical judgements as we have with legal judgements.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Although I would not dismiss 20th century avant-garde stuff as objectively being "anti-music", "trash", (I understand some people are into this sort of "modern art" philosophy) - I still think a lot of it is too far removed from general classical music in terms of philosophy. I've always wanted to be in a community where people only discuss "old European music" such as Handel and Wagner. But with avant-garde stuff in the mix, I feel like a jazz fan who has to share his community with heavy metal fans. 
Here's a suggestion, why don't we have separate forums, "old classical music", "new classical music". The OCM forum would be where people discuss traditional classical music such as Bach and Mahler, the NCM forum would be where people discuss 20th century music such as Xenakis and Stockhausen.
Wouldn't we be all happy then?


----------



## consuono

> The comparison with justice isn't very useful.


OK, use "inherent rights" then.


> Well, we don't say Justice is in the eye of the beholder


And why is that?


> There is a huge (purely pragmatic/non-objective) need to punish rape, murder and theft


We've had artists who at one time or another praise to some degree all the above, or who've said that those "purely pragmatic" reasons are hogwash.


> Here's a suggestion, why don't we have separate forums, "old classical music", "new classical music". The OCM forum would be where people discuss traditional classical music such as Bach and Mahler, the NCM forum would be where people discuss 20th century music such as Xenakis and Stockhausen.


Sounds like a good idea, but eventually even for this forum such a split would demonstrate the reason why orchestras have to have the "new" open for the old, or sandwiched in there somewhere.


----------



## RogerWaters

Justice isn't in the eye of the beholder because we have a conventional system that decides what actions are just or unjust. But this conventional system does not mean a 'just' action is just in-itself, independent of the convention. 

As I said above, we could have a conventional system within which atonal music is 'bad' music - but i'll leave that upto you to institutionalise, in a similar way to which the justice system has been institutionalised. 

Good luck with that.


----------



## DavidA

Well here's one of my favourite pieces of 20th century music. Enjoy the fair Ms Wang play it for us!


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> What are these objective values and on whose authority?


On the question of objective values in relation to music, I don't think "values" is the right term, but I think there are some objective matters floating around in the background.

The harmonic truths which the Greeks and others were aware of are, I think, objective: ideas of tonics, dominants, and the whole harmonic shebang. Part of the joy of traditional music derives from the way in which games are played with these physical realities to achieve uncertainty, resolution, etc. Those create interest, and if you abandon tonality then you are going to have to find a different way of achieving comparable interest.

Then you have rhythm. A steady pulse is objectively meaningful as a concept, as are patterns of variation around that. Now avant garde and traditional music can both play games with rhythm. If you have no recognisable pattern, though, then I think you have an "effect" rather than something which the brain can recognise (tautologically). If the brain can't recognise a pattern than I think you are, objectively, at least moving away from music if not abandoning it.

For matters such as timbre I think that objectively there is a tradition of which sounds are musical, and there is a tradition of musical instruments developing hand-in-hand with that. A cello is what it is in order that it can generate "musical" sounds by using it appropriately, where "musical" has meaning within the context of a tradition. Using the cello in a non-traditional way to make other sounds, say by thinking it would be interesting to drop tennis balls on the strings, is not exciting experiment, but is just a matter of using a cultural artefact in a way which is objectively contrary to the tradition which gave birth to it. It could be interesting as an "effect", on occasion, but it also smacks of being a bit juvenile.

I suspect the objective reality is thus:
- harmonic relationships are objectively present between notes
- rhythm can be analysed mathematically in an objective way
- a tradition is an objective reality which could be traced by musical historians.

The missing piece of the jigsaw is then the brain. I am sure there are objective facts about the functioning of a "normal" brain, and that these are susceptible to being discovered by experiment. These are likely to dictate how people are affected by different sounds and patterns of sound, and some will be innate whereas some will be shaped by experience. At this point the analysis is likely to become a bit of a numbers game: the experiments would need to involve a degree of consistency between the reactions of a sufficient sample of individuals of you may just have a few outliers in your sample. My expectation is that you would find that most brains innately recognise harmonic relationships like tonic/dominant, repetitive rhythmic patterns, and sounds which are not overloaded with "dirty" overtones in the way of noise. I guess you will also find that people who have listened to a lot of a certain style of music will react somewhat differently to others who have not.

Music for me is the tasteful structuring of sounds around the basic realities of the above objective aspects, using deviations and patterns to create interest, with cultural expectations important in shaping the expectations from which the deviations and patterns derive, from which the interest then derives. I use the word "taste" advisedly, as I think great music is primarily a matter of good taste in the choices made by the composer, and "taste" will be part of a tradition. It is important also to note that a tradition only arises if enough people participated in it over a long enough period, so we again have a bit of a numbers game arising.

None of this says traditional or avant-garde music is better, but I think it suggests that, objectively, if you get a long way away from both innate and culturally derived norms in the sounds and patterns that you employ then you are moving further away from a central point which is objectively "music" within a particular tradition (and I think "music" only exists as part of a tradition). At some point you will no longer have music, but there will be no point at which you could say, "that is not music, but if you change the B to a B flat then it would be music".


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> On the question of objective values in relation to music, I don't think "values" is the right term, but I think there are some objective matters floating around in the background.
> 
> The harmonic truths which the Greeks and others were aware of are, I think, objective: ideas of tonics, dominants, and the whole harmonic shebang. Part of the joy of traditional music derives from the way in which games are played with these physical realities to achieve uncertainty, resolution, etc. Those create interest, and if you abandon tonality then you are going to have to find a different way of achieving comparable interest.
> 
> Then you have rhythm. A steady pulse is objectively meaningful as a concept, as are patterns of variation around that. Now avant garde and traditional music can both play games with rhythm. If you have no recognisable pattern, though, then I think you have an "effect" rather than something which the brain can recognise (tautologically). If the brain can't recognise a pattern than I think you are, objectively, at least moving away from music if not abandoning it.
> 
> For matters such as timbre I think that objectively there is a tradition of which sounds are musical, and there is a tradition of musical instruments developing hand-in-hand with that. A cello is what it is in order that it can generate "musical" sounds by using it appropriately, where "musical" has meaning within the context of a tradition. Using the cello in a non-traditional way to make other sounds, say by thinking it would be interesting to drop tennis balls on the strings, is not exciting experiment, but is just a matter of using a cultural artefact in a way which is objectively contrary to the tradition which gave birth to it. It could be interesting as an "effect", on occasion, but it also smacks of being a bit juvenile.
> 
> I suspect the objective reality is thus:
> - harmonic relationships are objectively present between notes
> - rhythm can be analysed mathematically in an objective way
> - a tradition is an objective reality which could be traced by musical historians.
> 
> The missing piece of the jigsaw is then the brain. I am sure there are objective facts about the functioning of a "normal" brain, and that these are susceptible to being discovered by experiment. These are likely to dictate how people are affected by different sounds and patterns of sound, and some will be innate whereas some will be shaped by experience. At this point the analysis is likely to become a bit of a numbers game: the experiments would need to involve a degree of consistency between the reactions of a sufficient sample of individuals of you may just have a few outliers in your sample. My expectation is that you would find that most brains innately recognise harmonic relationships like tonic/dominant, repetitive rhythmic patterns, and sounds which are not overloaded with "dirty" overtones in the way of noise. I guess you will also find that people who have listened to a lot of a certain style of music will react somewhat differently to others who have not.
> 
> Music for me is the tasteful structuring of sounds around the basic realities of the above objective aspects, using deviations and patterns to create interest, with cultural expectations important in shaping the expectations from which the deviations and patterns derive, from which the interest then derives. I use the word "taste" advisedly, as I think great music is primarily a matter of good taste in the choices made by the composer, and "taste" will be part of a tradition. It is important also to note that a tradition only arises if enough people participated in it over a long enough period, so we again have a bit of a numbers game arising.
> 
> None of this says traditional or avant-garde music is better, but I think it suggests that, objectively, if you get a long way away from both innate and culturally derived norms in the sounds and patterns that you employ then you are moving further away from a central point which is objectively "music" within a particular tradition (and I think "music" only exists as part of a tradition). At some point you will no longer have music, but there will be no point at which you could say, "that is not music, but if you change the B to a B flat then it would be music".


I'm not convinced by much of this, with respect. Just because there is a relatively straightforward set of proportions that make up the notes and rhythms in the western tradition, this does not make the use of such notes and rhythms objective, whatever that means.


----------



## mikeh375

Al, I don't see anything juvenile in exploring unusual timbres less known (or even less friendly) or for that matter, unusual compositional procedures across the board. I believe exploration is a creative imperative, necessary for searching and finding the nuggets. Harmony and orchestration have altered over time for the very same reason. The same paradigm of exploration holds for the loosening of the gravitational hegemony of the overtone scale. I agree with you that nature firmly implants the tonic, dominant and the major third as prime movers in harmony which could be interpreted as objective, but it's not enough for adventurous ears, which all good composers have. 
You might be surprised at how easily good common practice pastiche can be written by a competent student of harmony and counterpoint. But to some questing, restless and contemporary spirits, it's not enough to merely operate within confines that are so old and ubiquitous and yes, easily learnt with talent. The challenge as a composer should be greater once the past has been assimilated.

No doubt about it though, the composer has a choice to either alienate listeners further with a disregard for the familiar musical signposts or he can maintain clear links with conventionality. The spectrum of consideration to a typical listener from a composer's perspective whilst writing, is broad and incredibly nuanced. Pastiche is a danger at one end of the spectrum and radical, uncomprehending sound at the other end can meet with derision.
For virtually all contemporary composers, anachronistic pastiche is not a serious viable solution to restore communications and hasn't really been since the early 20thC. I am not saying that about tonality per se, as that, in it's myriad and extended manipulations, can still bear easily original thought imv. Thought that can be grasped by ears willing to listen.

****edited several times for the sake of clarity over crap English that included a split infinitive*****


----------



## janxharris

mikeh375 said:


> ..........................


i couldn't find your response to my extended harmony post - but, yes, more than just compound harmony.


----------



## SanAntone

*What is so great about the 20th century's music?*

It drives the "old guard" crazy. It's the punk rock of the classical thing.

And then there's music like this:


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> *What is so great about the 20th century's music?*
> 
> It drives the "old guard" crazy. It's the punk rock of the classical thing.
> 
> And then there's music like this:


I can remember playing some Webern many years ago. My son was a little boy at the time and he remarked, "That's funny music, Dad!" :lol:


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> I'm not convinced by much of this, with respect. Just because there is a relatively straightforward set of proportions that make up the notes and rhythms in the western tradition, this does not make the use of such notes and rhythms objective, whatever that means.


To be briefer, I think I was making two points:
- There are objective matters which are relevant (eg harmonic relations, and probably some brain structure)
- There are matters which are "objective about a tradition".

The latter type of things are not absolutely objective. However, I think they are important because all music (I would claim) operates within, or off the back of, a tradition. Once you are taking account of that tradition then certain matters are (if you like) contingently objective.

As I made clear, though, I don't think that gets you to better or worse.


----------



## Eclectic Al

mikeh375 said:


> Al, I don't see anything juvenile in exploring unusual timbres less known (or even less friendly) or for that matter, unusual compositional procedures across the board. I believe exploration is a creative imperative, necessary for searching and finding the nuggets. Harmony and orchestration have altered over time for the very same reason. The same paradigm of exploration holds for the loosening of the gravitational hegemony of the overtone scale. I agree with you that nature firmly implants the tonic, dominant and the major third as prime movers in harmony which could be interpreted as objective, but it's not enough for adventurous ears, which all good composers have.
> You might be surprised at how easily good common practice pastiche can be written by a competent student of harmony and counterpoint. But to some questing, restless and contemporary spirits, it's not enough to merely operate within confines that are so old and ubiquitous and yes, easily learnt with talent. The challenge as a composer should be greater once the past has been assimilated.
> 
> No doubt about it though, the composer has a choice to either alienate listeners further with a disregard for the familiar musical signposts or he can maintain clear links with conventionality. The spectrum of consideration to a typical listener from a composer's perspective whilst writing, is broad and incredibly nuanced. Pastiche is a danger at one end of the spectrum and radical, uncomprehending sound at the other end can meet with derision.
> For virtually all contemporary composers, anachronistic pastiche is not a serious viable solution to restore communications and hasn't really been since the early 20thC. I am not saying that about tonality per se, as that, in it's myriad and extended manipulations, can still bear easily original thought imv. Thought that can be grasped by ears willing to listen.
> 
> ****edited several times for the sake of clarity over crap English that included a split infinitive*****


I "liked" your post, but I do continue to believe that dropping tennis balls on a cello would be juvenile. :tiphat:


----------



## mikeh375

Eclectic Al said:


> I "liked" your post, but I do continue to believe that dropping tennis balls on a cello would be juvenile. :tiphat:


oh all right then...perhaps.... i
I have a cello here in my studio and our cat plays with a tennis ball....hmmm.


----------



## SanAntone

*John Cage: Seven2* (1990)
for Bass flute, bass clarinet, bass trombone, two percussionists (instruments not specified), violoncello and contrabass

Ives Ensemble


----------



## SanAntone

My basic point of view is 

1) freedom of expression
2) don't get hung up on labels
3) let the test of time sort things out

Most of my time in this thread will be posting clips of music I think is worthwhile from C20/21. It would be great if others would do the same.


----------



## mikeh375

...what do you think Al?...


----------



## Eclectic Al

mikeh375 said:


> ...what do you think Al?...
> 
> View attachment 143735


Inspired creativity: a prepared cello.


----------



## JAS

mikeh375 said:


> . . .
> ****edited several times for the sake of clarity over crap English that included a split infinitive*****


Just as a note, there really is no prohibition on split infinitives in English, unless it actually makes a particular usage awkward. In many cases, a split infinitive is the preferred form, the classic example being the Star Trek directive "to boldly go . . . " This whole kerfuffle is an error made by imposing a Latin impossibility on English. I can provide authoritative sources to support my contention.


----------



## mikeh375

Eclectic Al said:


> Inspired creativity: a prepared cello.


indeed, will it produce a _racket_ or music....Thought I'd get that in first.


----------



## SanAntone

Erik Satie ~1915~ Avant-Dernières Pensées


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> My basic point of view is
> 
> 1) freedom of expression
> 2) don't get hung up on labels
> 3) let the test of time sort things out
> 
> Most of my time in this thread will be posting clips of music I think is worthwhile from C20/21. It would be great if others would do the same.


That would be interesting, and I guess it's a valid interpretation of the OP. However, the 21st Century is out of scope.


----------



## mikeh375

Following SanAntone's plea, here's some less extreme pieces all with clear links to tradition. The last piece, Rorem's 2nd piano concerto, is very beautiful.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> *What is so great about the 20th century's music?*
> 
> It drives the "old guard" crazy. It's the punk rock of the classical thing.
> 
> And then there's music like this:


Who is the "old guard"? The ones who have been "driven crazy" by 20th century music are probably all dead and gone. The "old guard" is now the establishment that generally adores Webern et al. The views that I've been expressing are the dissident ones.

Btw I enjoy Webern's original music -- can't really take his Bach transcription anymore -- but oddly enough he's a composer I enjoy reading more than hearing.


----------



## SanAntone

I guess I should have said "drove" the old guard crazy. But C21 music is still driving some people crazy, "The views that I've been expressing are the dissident ones." What happened to the majority who shared them?

Wishart is the new Webern.

*mikeh375*- some good music there in your post.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> I guess I should have said "drove" the old guard crazy. But C21 music is still driving some people crazy, "The views that I've been expressing are the dissident ones." What happened to the majority who shared them?
> 
> Wishart is the new Webern.
> 
> *mikeh375*- some good music there in your post.


Avant-garde music doesn't drive me crazy because I just don't listen to it! My opinion of it seems to drive other people crazy


----------



## SanAntone

*Luigi Nono: La Lontananza Nostalgica Utopica Futura* (1988-1989)
con Gidon Kremer, per violino e otto nastri magnetici


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> Avant-garde music doesn't drive me crazy because I just don't listen to it! My opinion of it seems to drive other people crazy


Nothing you or your fellow travelers has said has bothered me, it's nothing new. You tell yourself you are guarding music from the infidels. But in reality you are just the latest version of the Salem witch trials, or the Taliban, or the Nazi's attempt to discredit, discourage, or ban degenerate music.

You never win. Freedom will out.

If anything I see your opinion as a mild form of insanity: railing against something which you have no control over in the hope it will go away. You (in the general sense) try using philosophical alchemy to prove that it isn't music. All of these efforts are futile, you can't argue someone out of enjoying the music they like.

Now for some music:






*Varese - Deserts*
Members of the Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra
Cristopher Lyndon-Gee


----------



## mikeh375

Some more composers who know or knew their musical onions...


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I guess I should have said "drove" the old guard crazy. But C21 music is still driving some people crazy, "The views that I've been expressing are the dissident ones." What happened to the majority who shared them?


The majority who aren't part of/ influenced by the establishment, yeah. That's your new old guard: the radicals became the establishment. And no, it's not driving anybody crazy. Most hear a few seconds of most of this and then proceed to ignore it.



> Wishart is the new Webern.


He's nothing of the kind.


----------



## SanAntone

Morton Feldman Palais de Mari (Aki Takahashi)



> The Palais de Mari is American composer Morton Feldman's last solo piano composition, written in 1986. The piece was commissioned by Feldman's close friend Bunita Marcus and dedicated to the painter Francesco Clemente. Marcus performed the Palais de Mari for its premiere at Clemente's New York residence.
> 
> The piece is named for the ruins of a forgotten Mesopotamian royal palace, of which a photograph is situated in the Louvre Museum. That photograph inspired Feldman to conceive this work. A work in which 40 centuries peer down upon the listener.
> 
> The entire piece is very much subdued and lasts only 20-25 minutes, which, relatively speaking, is a rather short duration for Feldman. In the beginning, an iconic four note motif fades into being and decays like a specter. The motif materializes and vanishes a few more times, with slight variation in the rhythm, order, and register. Each tone, each chord, each entity is carefully considered by the player. Each idea is not simply developed or repeated, but intermittently exists and persists. This conjures an entire new world separate from the real world, creating a timeless dimension that can be difficult to perceive in a linear fashion.


----------



## SanAntone

*What is so great about the 20th century's music?*

Music from C20 offered the widest spectrum of stylistic extremes. From Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Sibelius and other who were really an extension of C19 to Stockhausen, Schoenberg, Boulez, and then the experimenters John Cage, Harry Partch, Cowell, Ives.

*Dodecaphony* ushered in *Neo-Classicism* which gave birth to *Serialism*. Onto the *New Romanticism* and *Minimalism* which then prepared the ground for the *New Complexity*, then *Spectral music*. It seems every decade offered a new way of writing music. It was the opposite of Common Practice.

*Erik Satie* started the ball rolling with his work _Vexations_. So here it is, abridged of course. Satie wanted it to be played 840 times, lasting about 24 hours.






Technically it was written sometime 1890s, but I think it exhibits a C20 attitude.



> Vexations appears to have had no performance history before the idea gained ground that the piece was required to be played 840 times. The first of the marathon performances of the work in this way was produced by John Cage and Lewis Lloyd at the Pocket Theatre in Manhattan by the Pocket Theatre Piano Relay Team, organized by Cage. Pianists included: John Cage, David Tudor, Christian Wolff, Philip Corner, Viola Farber, Robert Wood, MacRae Cook, John Cale, David Del Tredici, James Tenney, Howard Klein (the New York Times reviewer, who coincidentally was asked to play in the course of the event) and Joshua Rifkin, with two reserves, on September 9, 1963. Cage set the admission price at $5 and had a time clock installed in the lobby of the theatre. Each patron checked in with the clock and when leaving the concert, checked out again and received a refund of a nickel for each 20 minutes attended. "In this way," he told Lloyd, "People will understand that the more art you consume, the less it should cost." But Cage had underestimated the length of time the concert would take. It lasted over 18 hours. One person, an actor with The Living Theater, Karl Schenzer, was present for the entire performance.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

SanAntone said:


> *What is so great about the 20th century's music?*
> 
> Music from C20 offered the widest spectrum of stylistic extremes. From Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Sibelius and other who were really an extension of C19 to Stockhausen, Schoenberg, Boulez, and then the experimenters John Cage, Harry Partch, Cowell, Ives.
> 
> *Dodecaphony* ushered in *Neo-Classicism* which gave birth to *Serialism*. Onto the *New Romanticism* and *Minimalism* which then prepared the ground for the *New Complexity*, then *Spectral music*. It seems every decade offered a new way of writing music. It was the opposite of Common Practice.
> 
> *Erik Satie* started the ball rolling with his work _Vexations_. So here it is, abridged of course. Satie wanted it to be played 840 times, lasting about 24 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically it was written sometime 1890s, but I think it exhibits a C20 attitude.


Because of the above - and because it embraced, investigated, and appreciated like never before music that was created in other centuries - the 20th is arguably humankind's most impressive musical century to date.


----------



## SanAntone

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> Because of the above - and because it embraced, investigated, and appreciated like never before music that was created in other centuries - the 20th is arguably humankind's most impressive musical century to date.


Yes! The 20th century also produced the HIP movement, which Richard Taruskin has called a post-modernist conceit.

Now, don't get me wrong I am a big fan of period instrument performance and HIP practice, but just because we use period instruments it does not follow that we know how the music of the C14-C16 sounded. We still play the music *as we wish to hear it*.

Yes, yes, we know _a lot_ about performance practice and there are many music treatises guiding us in our performance of early music - however, we are interpreting Machaut after knowing Beethoven, after Wagner, after Schönberg. We can never inhabit the world Machaut lived in, we cannot begin to understand the 14th century's mores concerning romantic love, which much of his music/poetry concerned itself.

The HIP movement is a particularly 20th century phenomenon.


----------



## SanAntone

Thomas Adès - Traced Overhead (1995-96)


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> Wishart is the new Webern.
> 
> .


Andrew Lloyd Webern?


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> Nothing you or your fellow travelers has said has bothered me, it's nothing new. You tell yourself you are guarding music from the infidels. But in reality you are just the latest version of the Salem witch trials, or the Taliban, or the Nazi's attempt to discredit, discourage, or ban degenerate music.
> 
> You never win. Freedom will out.
> 
> If anything I see your opinion as a mild form of insanity: railing against something which you have no control over in the hope it will go away. You (in the general sense) try using philosophical alchemy to prove that it isn't music. All of these efforts are futile, you can't argue someone out of enjoying the music they like.
> 
> Now for some music:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Varese - Deserts*
> Members of the Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra
> Cristopher Lyndon-Gee


You guys absolutely crack me up! Or are you somehow paranoid? We are just saying on TC we do not like certain types of what some people call music and we are aligned with the Nazis and the Taliban. We are not trying to 'ban' anything. Just saying that if you must play it don't do so when we are in listening range. Oh come off it. Please get back on the tablets! :lol:


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> Just saying that if you must play it don't do so when we are in listening range.


If you don't want to hear it don't come to a thread about 20th century music.






*Peter Kramer - Pietà*
performed by Longleash Trio


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SanAntone said:


> *Varese - Deserts*
> Members of the Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra
> Cristopher Lyndon-Gee


This took a very different turn around the 5 minute mark then I was expecting. I'm not sure how I feel about that segment honestly. Part of me likes it , and another part of me is reminded of random banging on the auxiliary sounds on a Yamaha keyboard (gunshot, train tracks, thunder rumbling, cat screech etc.) Despite it being explicitly programmatic, I get a very different vibe from it than a desert. I like the rest of it a lot though. The iterations between the winds kind of remind of me Webern's Symphony Op. 21 but without the sparse minimalist atmosphere.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Have you folk noticed the Game of 21st century symphonies on another thread? You might have some suggestions.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> Have you folk noticed the Game of 21st century symphonies on another thread? You might have some suggestions.


I looked at it, but my interest is in chamber music.


----------



## Bulldog

SanAntone said:


> I looked at it, but my interest is in chamber music.


There could well be a game of 21st century chamber works by Christmas time or earlier.

SanAntone:

Although you've done plenty of voting in my games, I never noticed your preference for chamber music. Sometimes, I'm not very observant. A few days ago, I noticed a new plant sitting in our dining room. It looked good, so I congratulated my wife on the new purchase. She laughed and told me that plant has been sitting in the same spot for 4 months.


----------



## SanAntone

Bulldog said:


> There could well be a game of 21st century chamber works by Christmas time or earlier.
> 
> SanAntone:
> 
> Although you've done plenty of voting in my games, I never noticed your preference for chamber music. Sometimes, I'm not very observant. A few days ago, I noticed a new plant sitting in our dining room. It looked good, so I congratulated my wife on the new purchase. She laughed and told me that plant has been sitting in the same spot for 4 months.




I listen almost exclusively to chamber music, solo piano, but I also like sacred choral music which often includes an orchestra. The Poulenc _Stabat Mater_ is a favorite work of mine. And then there's opera, Mozart and Verdi mainly.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Mike, the fellow is a major pain in the proverbial, and slippery to boot. He rattles the bear cage and then acts all offended when he gets growled at.


Not like you, aye.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> Not like you, aye.


That's right, Grandma "Dr" Freud. You're usual fee is in the post.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> Nothing you or your fellow travelers has said has bothered me, it's nothing new. You tell yourself you are guarding music from the infidels. But in reality you are just the latest version of the Salem witch trials, or the Taliban, or the Nazi's attempt to discredit, discourage, or ban degenerate music.


Well said!



SanAntone said:


> You never win. Freedom will out.
> Now for some music:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Varese - Deserts*
> Members of the Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra
> Cristopher Lyndon-Gee


I've always been a big fan of *Varèse*, his _*Octandre*_ in particular:


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> Yes! The 20th century also produced the HIP movement, which *Richard Taruskin* has called a post-modernist conceit.
> 
> Now, don't get me wrong I am a big fan of period instrument performance and HIP practice, but just because we use period instruments it does not follow that we know how the music of the C14-C16 sounded. We still play the music *as we wish to hear it*.
> 
> Yes, yes, we know _a lot_ about performance practice and there are many music treatises guiding us in our performance of early music - however, we are interpreting Machaut after knowing Beethoven, after Wagner, after Schönberg. We can never inhabit the world Machaut lived in, we cannot begin to understand the 14th century's mores concerning romantic love, which much of his music/poetry concerned itself.
> 
> *The HIP movement is a particularly 20th century phenomenon.*


Yes, I read that Taruskin essay some years ago. You're quite right, the HIP movement is very much a 20th-century development. Still, I too love listening to music from "the imaginary museum of musical works" on period instruments. I was once lent a baroque 'cello (I used to play in a "full-costume" baroque ensemble) and loved it!


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> That's right, Grandma "Dr" Freud. You're usual fee is in the post.


And I've got so much fodder to deal with I'm growing very rich indeed.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> Nothing you or your fellow travelers has said has bothered me, it's nothing new. You tell yourself you are guarding music from the infidels. But in reality you are just the latest version of the Salem witch trials, or the Taliban, or the Nazi's attempt to discredit, discourage, or ban degenerate music.
> 
> You never win. Freedom will out.
> 
> If anything I see your opinion as a mild form of insanity: railing against something which you have no control over in the hope it will go away. You (in the general sense) try using philosophical alchemy to prove that it isn't music. All of these efforts are futile, you can't argue someone out of enjoying the music they like.
> 
> Now for some music:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Varese - Deserts*
> Members of the Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra
> Cristopher Lyndon-Gee


For someone not bothered by the opinions of others you seem to have an awful lot to say about it!!!!


----------



## Guest

And here is a live performance of _*Anticredos*_, one of my favourite compositions by *Trevor Wishart*. Hope you like it (Mandryka perhaps in particular).


----------



## Mandryka

TalkingHead said:


> And here is a live performance of _*Anticredos*_, one of my favourite compositions by *Trevor Wishart*. Hope you like it (Mandryka perhaps in particular).


oooooh very good! Much appreciated.

I like experimental vocal works -- parts of this make me think a little of Sciarrino, more so than Vox -- and that's a good thing.


----------



## SanAntone

TalkingHead said:


> And here is a live performance of _*Anticredos*_, one of my favourite compositions by *Trevor Wishart*. Hope you like it (Mandryka perhaps in particular).


Wonderful, thanks for posting this. The work seems to be coming out of Stockhausen's _Stimmung_ (not entirely of course, but I heard some snatches that immediately brought _Stimmung_ to mind), which was a work I remember being very taken with in the '70s. (I should probably listen to it (or try to) again.)

If for no other reason than bringing Trevor Wishart to my attention, I am grateful for this thread.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> Wonderful, thanks for posting this. The work seems to be coming out of Stockhausen's _Stimmung_ (not entirely of course, but I heard some snatches that immediately brought _Stimmung_ to mind), which was a work I remember being very taken with in the '70s. (I should probably listen to it (or try to) again.)
> 
> *If for no other reason than bringing Trevor Wishart to my attention, I am grateful for this thread*.


I'm grateful for this thread because it has allowed some of us to take - once again - a stand against the knuckle-dragging, uncomprehending bean-counters and suits who have problems with music that falls outside of the mainstream. I feel very sad for them: booh-hooh, booh-hooh [peels an onion]. I think you have answered -clearly and calmly - the OP and have done so with tact and great patience. 
I was going to reply to earlier posts (notably by 1996D/consuono) but you have done a much better job and saved me the irksome chore, thanks!!


----------



## Jacck

TalkingHead said:


> I'm grateful for this thread because it has allowed some of us to take - once again - a stand against the knuckle-dragging, uncomprehending bean-counters and suits who have problems *with music that falls outside of the mainstream*. I feel very sad for them: booh-hooh, booh-hooh [peels an onion]. I think you have answered -clearly and calmly - the OP and have done so with tact and great patience.
> I was going to reply to earlier posts (notably by 1996D/consuono) but you have done a much better job and saved me the irksome chore, thanks!!


avantgarde has been the mainstream for the last 80 years or so.


----------



## Bourdon

TalkingHead said:


> And here is a live performance of _*Anticredos*_, one of my favourite compositions by *Trevor Wishart*. Hope you like it (Mandryka perhaps in particular).


Thank you for posting this


----------



## Guest

Bourdon said:


> Thank you for posting this


My pleasure! Thank you for your positive response to the music. I repeat: *the music*.


----------



## Jacck

TalkingHead said:


> My pleasure! Thank you for your positive response to the music. I repeat: *the music*.


the music is too little avantgarde. They should use also other orifices, not limit themselves to the mouth when producing all those funny sounds :lol:


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> the music is too little avantgarde. *They should use also other orifices, not limit themselves to the mouth when producing all those funny sounds* :lol:


Oh dear, oh dear. _Allez_, get back to your Dvořák!


----------



## SanAntone

For me, I enjoy new music, during some periods it is all I listen to. I sometimes feel that the music of our time captures my interest in a way music by long dead composers does not. Old music often serves as background music whereas new music is something that engages my senses in a more vibrant and visceral way.

However, I feel just the opposite with jazz. I *hate* avant-garde jazz, in fact I don't even consider it jazz (with the exception of Ornette Coleman, who at heart is a country blues musician). It is improvised music trying to be new classical music. 

When I want to hear jazz, I want the old greats, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis (prior to his electric period), Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, and many others, all the way up to the present with the neo-traditionalists like Wynton Marsalis and others.

So I get where the classical conservatives are coming from.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> So I get where the classical conservatives are coming from.


OK, fine. So let's stop the dissing of other genres, styles and conceptual approaches in a negative way.
Intelligent critique, by all means, not the old 'n tired knee-jerk idiocy we have seen in this thread.


----------



## Luchesi

TalkingHead said:


> OK, fine. So let's stop the dissing of other genres, styles and conceptual approaches in a negative way.
> Intelligent critique, by all means, not the old 'n tired knee-jerk idiocy we have seen in this thread.


These naysayers will say the same things about works which 'disturb' them in the other arts too. So I always wonder what it is that they actually want? No changes in the arts since 1900? Has any of them said what they want?


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> These naysayers will say the same things about works which 'disturb' them in the other arts too. So I always wonder what it is that they actually want? No changes in the arts since 1900? Has any of them said what they want?


I think they see new music that is experimental or using extended techniques for the instruments as barbarians storming the castle gates. There are conservative composers like Jennifer Higdon, Jay Kernis, even John Adams, who I suppose they see as carrying on the tradition of the previous generations of composers that the more avant-garde (for lack of a better term) do not.

For me Higdon and Kernis don't hold my interest as do the more adventurous composers. If I want conservative classical music I'll choose Beethoven, Liszt, Brahms or Debussy, or even Schoenberg.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> I think they see new music that is experimental or using extended techniques for the instruments as barbarians storming the castle gates. .


Like Hitler's Entartete Musik.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> These naysayers will say the same things about works which 'disturb' them in the other arts too. So I always wonder what it is that they actually want? *No changes in the arts since 1900? Has any of them said what they want?*


They want, perhaps, an _*imaginary museum of musical works*_? A familiar parcours where their tongues in their monkey-mouths can touch base with their easy-to-find molars?


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> I think they see new music that is experimental or using extended techniques for the instruments as barbarians storming the castle gates. . . .


More like the lunatics wanting to run the asylum, or waiters spitting in our food and laughing on their way back to the kitchen. It feels like a complete con-job, and somehow we are expected to be okay with it and go along because _their_ feelings might be hurt.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> More like the lunatics wanting to run the asylum, or waiters spitting in our food and laughing on their way back to the kitchen. It feels like a complete con-job, and somehow we are expected to be okay with it and go along because _their_ feelings might be hurt.


It may feel like a con-job to you, but not to me. I don't expect anything from you. For me I am overall silent about music I don't care for, and would not visit a thread about it only to bad mouth it. But that's me and I understand that the Internet is a free-wheeling, Wild West, kind of place.


----------



## JAS

It is more than a little funny to see intentionally insulting posts about what people who, like me, don't like this stuff must think, and then outrage when someone who actually knows what we think corrects your mistaken impressions. When you have so utterly lost perspective, it is sometimes useful to get a new guidebook. 

It is part of why I think that it is clear that it just needs to be recognized as its own thing, and not a continuation of classical music.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> It is more than a little funny to see posts about what people who, like me, don't like this stuff must think, and then outrage when someone who actually knows what we think corrects your mistaken impressions.
> 
> It is part of why I think that it is clear that it just needs to be recognized as its own thing, and not a continuation of classical music.


I didn't correct you (and did not express outrage), I just said your opinion differs from mine and then I made a distinction between how we respond to music we don't like. Of the three descriptions, my "barbarians storming the gates" is maybe a bit kinder than "lunatics wanting to run the asylum" and "waiters spitting in our food and laughing on their way back to the kitchen."

But I am not here to argue with you about your assessment of <some> <most> <all> new music.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> These naysayers will say the same things about works which 'disturb' them in the other arts too. So I always wonder what it is that they actually want? No changes in the arts since 1900? Has any of them said what they want?


What on earth are you talking about? There are plenty of great 20th century works people can appreciate. Just take:
















That do for a start? Not all of us inhabit a narrow little band of appreciation. Some of us look a little wider.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> More like the lunatics wanting to run the asylum, or waiters spitting in our food and laughing on their way back to the kitchen. It feels like a complete con-job, and somehow we are expected to be okay with it and go along because _their_ feelings might be hurt.


Good lord, how do you go about your life when you leave your front door, may I ask?


----------



## JAS

TalkingHead said:


> Good lord, how do you go about your life when you leave your front door, may I ask?


I lock it behind me, and take the key. It is even more bizarre to see the implication that the position that what Wishart is doing is music is somehow perfectly normal (even with some admission that it is not just out of the mainstream but far out of the mainstream), and that saying otherwise is the crazy position. If that were true, the world really would be upside-down.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> It is part of why I think that it is clear that *it just needs to be recognized as its own thing, and not a continuation of classical music*.


I see, finally, where you are coming from. Taking the music of *Wishart* as an example and his *Anicredos* in particular, it is very much its own thing (a totally new and innovative work, although 30+ years old!). Our disagreement will be the extent to which it is a continuation of classical music.
Clearly, it is _not_ 'classical' music in the sense you use the term; however, I can see and hear how it links back to that tradition in fairly obvious ways. I am prepared to go further but I don't want to go further if I'm talking to a brick wall.


----------



## JAS

I am not a brick wall, but I am also not at all ignorant of the history of the "music" world over the last century plus. (I also do not see why you are just now seeing this as I made the identical point may posts ago, but perhaps it was not on this thread, and I am not going to go back looking for it.) I very much doubt that you would produce a case that I would find at all convincing. Feel free to attempt it if you like. I will not reply unless you specifically ask me a question or for a response, or make a clear misstatement that I think warrants correction.


----------



## DavidA

Another20th century work to go


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> I am not a brick wall, but I am also not at all ignorant of the history of the "music" world over the last century plus. (I also do not see why you are just now seeing this as I made the identical point may posts ago, but perhaps it was not on this thread, and I am not going to go back looking for it.) I very much doubt that you would produce a case that I would find at all convincing. Feel free to attempt it if you like. I will not reply unless you specifically ask me a question or for a response, or make a clear misstatement that I think warrants correction.


I am not a follower of your posts in general (you are not on my radar of interest) so I have no idea if you have made your point elsewhere, and I am not inclined in the least to search them out. If we are to engage, I expect it to be on the point mentioned above, _viz_: *the music of Wishart as a continuation of classical music*.


----------



## DavidA

Another 20th century work


----------



## SanAntone

I think I have treated those of you who have spoken out against music of the avant-garde new music with respect. I don't think I've expressed outrage, that was not my intention since I am not outraged. 

Trevor Wishart is certainly not an example I would promote, but he seems to have become the stalking horse. So, I guess I am stuck with him. My feeling is he has the right to compose the music that he chooses. He appears to have made a career in academia, and apparently has an audience sufficient to support him in his chosen profession. All of which I applaud even though his music is not something I would advance as a favorite of mine.

But I am a little confused. If you believe you are "the mainstream" and Mr. Wishart and others who compose music similar to his, and the people who like it, constitute a fringe and small group: Why are you worked up about this fringe avant-garde?

As DavidA has posted some examples of 20th century music he considers good, and there are more recent examples - it would seem there is music enough for you to be happy as well as those who like Mr. Wishart. 

Win-win.


----------



## SanAntone

Btw, I am more interested in music of the 21st century, and now that it is two decades old, there is a considerable amount of new music. Music that is more than 30 years old is no longer "new" to me. 

So when I say new music, you'll know what I am talking about. Some of Mr. Wishart's stuff doesn't make the cut.

I should probably ignore this thread, since as I said, the music of our time is what I am focused on - not so much that of 50 or 100 years ago. That music is still nice to listen to now and then, but it is no different than my interest in Romantic, Classical, Baroque and Early music.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> I think I have treated those of you who have spoken out against music of the avant-garde new music with respect. I don't think I've expressed outrage, that was not my intention since I am not outraged.
> 
> Trevor Wishart is certainly not an example I would promote, but he seems to have become the stalking horse. So, I guess I am stuck with him. My feeling is he has the right to compose the music that he chooses. He appears to have made a career in academia, and apparently has an audience sufficient to support him in his chosen profession. All of which I applaud even though his music is not something I would advance as a favorite of mine.
> 
> But I am a little confused. If you believe you are "the mainstream" and Mr. Wishart and others who compose music similar to his, and the people who like it, constitute a fringe and small group: Why are you worked up about this fringe avant-garde?
> 
> As DavidA has posted some examples of 20th century music he considers good, and there are more recent examples - it would seem there is music enough for you to be happy as well as those who like Mr. Wishart.
> 
> Win-win.


Absolutely. So the half-dozen who like to listen to Mr Wishart can do so with pleasure


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> But I am a little confused. If you believe you are "the mainstream" and Mr. Wishart and others who compose music similar to his, and the people who like it, constitute a fringe and small group: Why are you worked up about this fringe avant-garde?


Most of us don't worked up about it at all. The acrimony comes when that kind of stuff is criticized and then the proponents don't feel secure enough in the "music" to let it speak for itself. The "mainstream" refers to normal listeners who aren't inclined to find noise to be music. You certainly have academia, the music establishment and probably most of the press in your corner, so this "avant garde against the world" thing is a myth. Avant garde has become cliché anyway. It's that group vs the average listener.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Most of us don't worked up about it at all. The acrimony comes when that kind of stuff is criticized and then the proponents don't feel secure enough in the "music" to let it speak for itself. The "mainstream" refers to normal listeners who aren't inclined to find noise to be music. You certainly have academia, the music establishment and probably most of the press in your corner, so this "avant garde against the world" thing is a myth. Avant garde has become cliché anyway. It's that group vs the average listener.


Yeah, well, for lack of a better term I usually just say new music.

And remaining silent is difficult while something you are enthusiastic about is ridiculed, and you along with it, compared to a lunatic who is being conned and has imbibed the Kool-Aid.

Why don't you remain silent?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Playing devil's advocate here, in case there is any running out of fuel for the fire. Prokofiev, who is not such an anti-progressive, says the following. He does have a point in the 2nd quote.

“I have never doubted the importance of melody. I like melody very much, and I consider it the most important element in music, and I labor many years on the improvement of its quality in my compositions."

“Of course I have used dissonance in my time, but there has been too much dissonance. Bach used dissonance as good salt for his music. Others applied pepper, seasoned the dishes more and more highly, till all healthy appetites were sick and until the music was nothing but pepper."


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I don't think the split between the avant-garde and reactionary traditionalists is all that dichotomous. Ives is generally well respected in the classical music realm and was extremely cutting edge and avant-garde for his time. And besides, people _literally _rioted at the Rite of Spring premiere and now Stravinsky is a household name.


----------



## SanAntone

Prokofiev died in 1953, 67 years ago. Music has moved on. And composers still write melodies, just not ones Prokofiev might have written. But then again, Liszt wrote a 12-tone melody.


----------



## consuono

> people literally rioted at the Rite of Spring premiere


I think I read somewhere that that's also an embroidered myth.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> You really must be some reanimated booted commenter. The projection here is coming on pretty strong.
> 
> I didn't say you have to remain silent. Demonstrate the brilliance of this music with something other than a flood of YT posts. If somebody criticizes or even ridicules Bach I don't have to go into self-defensive apoplexy.


First you said, "let the music speak for itself" now you want me to provide a lecture on it, proving through some kind of exegesis that it is worthy of your admiration.

Sorry, I don't do that - not for myself and certainly not for you.

And I don't remember displaying, "self-defensive apoplexy."


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

consuono said:


> I think I read somewhere that that's also an embroidered myth.


I thought that was pretty well substantiated and not apocrypha, but I could just as easily be wrong. I remember reading a pretty detailed account in a history book, but people do have a natural tendency to embellish things whether they do it intentionally or not. Everyone loves a good story right?

"If that's a bassoon, well I'm a baboon!"


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I think I read somewhere that that's also an embroidered myth.


I think they were more outraged at the dancing, not the music.


----------



## DavidA

consuono said:


> I think I read somewhere that that's also an embroidered myth.


Stravinsky likeD to embroider it somewhat. There was quite a scene in the audience but it wasn't a riot


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> What on earth are you talking about? There are plenty of great 20th century works people can appreciate. Just take:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That do for a start? Not all of us inhabit a narrow little band of appreciation. Some of us look a little wider.


I'm wondering what you would have thought of them when they debuted.

I'm wondering what I would have thought of them without the intervening years of experience.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> Prokofiev died in 1953, 67 years ago. Music has moved on. And composers still write melodies, just not ones Prokofiev might have written. But then again, Liszt wrote a 12-tone melody.


I see some definitions of melody as this: a sequence of single notes that is musically satisfying. What is musically satisfying can be subjective, but what is used by some advocates of ultra-modern music doesn't stand. The melodies now (or more accurately, sequence of notes) are used for different purposes than before, so I believe the very definition of melody has changed. I can hear melodies in Schoenberg as here, but not these others.
















So I do believe the importance of melody in music has declined as Jackk mentioned before.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> I see some definitions of melody as this: a sequence of single notes that is musically satisfying. What is musically satisfying can be subjective, but what is used by some advocates of ultra-modern music doesn't stand. The melodies now (or more accurately, sequence of notes) are used for different purposes than before, so I believe the very definition of melody has changed. I can hear melodies in Schoenberg as here, but not these others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I do believe the importance of melody in music has declined as Jackk mentioned before.


I am not sure I agree, although I see where you are coming from. However, think about this.

One of the hallmarks of 20th century music, especially atonal music, and now the 21st century, has been a flourishing of polyphonic writing. Since harmonic attributes became less important, i.e. harmonic happenstances in 12-tone works resulted from the vertical alignment of the linear strands of the melodic polyphony - not as harmonic progressions found in a tonal work. And similar to how the polyphony worked during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, prior to the development of the major-minor system of tonality.

One could argue that the music of C20/21 has focused more intently on melody.


----------



## Guest

PLC, I very much enjoy those Op.11 pieces by Schoenberg. Thanks for posting these and reminding me. Pollini's playing is rather hard-driven at times, but I think it suits this repertoire. It's hardly modern music, though, is it!!!


----------



## Luchesi

Luchesi said:


> I'm wondering what you would have thought of them when they debuted.
> 
> I'm wondering what I would have thought of them without the intervening years of experience.


My wife corrected me with this;

 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) accept "*debut*" as a verb for a first appearance, but the Times apparently still has misgivings. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage has this entry: "*debut*. *Use* it as a noun (made a *debut*) or a modifier (*debut* recital), never as a verb (*debuted*)."

..but she runs 2 art galleries


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> I'm wondering what you would have thought of them when they debuted.
> 
> I'm wondering what I would have thought of them without the intervening years of experience.


I'll let you into a secret. These composers already had made contact with their audiences. They were not university types with their heads in a bubble. Beethoven's late quartets were pretty radical for the day and even 100 years later but he had already established himself with his audience.


----------



## Jacck

Phil loves classical said:


> Playing devil's advocate here, in case there is any running out of fuel for the fire. Prokofiev, who is not such an anti-progressive, says the following. He does have a point in the 2nd quote.
> 
> "I have never doubted the importance of melody. I like melody very much, and I consider it the most important element in music, and I labor many years on the improvement of its quality in my compositions."
> 
> "Of course I have used dissonance in my time, but there has been too much dissonance. Bach used dissonance as good salt for his music. Others applied pepper, seasoned the dishes more and more highly, till all healthy appetites were sick and until the music was nothing but pepper."


I absolutely agree with Prokofiev. I do not mind dissonance, but it should be salt to spice to music, not the main thing. Anyone who thinks that music based solely on disonance will find wide appeal is deluding himself. 80 years of avantgarde music prove the point



SanAntone said:


> Prokofiev died in 1953, 67 years ago. Music has moved on. And composers still write melodies, just not ones Prokofiev might have written. But then again, Liszt wrote a 12-tone melody.


music has moved on, but the audiences and their tastes have not.


----------



## DavidA

Christabel said:


> PLC, I very much enjoy those Op.11 pieces by Schoenberg. Thanks for posting these and reminding me. Pollini's playing is rather hard-driven at times, but I think it suits this repertoire. It's hardly modern music, though, is it!!!


I thought this thread was about 20thcentury music!


----------



## SanAntone

Jacck said:


> I absolutely agree with Prokofiev. I do not mind dissonance, but it should be salt to spice to music, not the main thing. Anyone who thinks that music based solely on disonance will find wide appeal is deluding himself. 80 years of avantgarde music prove the point


As I've heard, "size doesn't matter." As long as there are some people who enjoy even the most avant-garde music the composer(s) will have an audience. No problem.



> music has moved on, but the audiences and their tastes have not.


Some audiences have moved on, as well (otherwise there wouldn't be dozens of YouTube channels (with thousands of followers) devoted to modern music. The fact that you and others have not is fine, I can live with that. My favorite saying is, "live and let live."


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> I'll let you into a secret. These composers already had made contact with their audiences. They were not university types with their heads in a bubble. Beethoven's late quartets were pretty radical for the day and even 100 years later but he had already established himself with his audience.


I don't know why you think that someone like Trevor Wishart has not established an audience. The fact that his audience is not as large as other composers is irrelevant. Or it is to me. The alternative, a world where composers like Wishart do not exist is a much less interesting world.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> First you said, "let the music speak for itself" now you want me to provide a lecture on it, proving through some kind of exegesis that it is worthy of your admiration.
> 
> Sorry, I don't do that - not for myself and certainly not for you.


Yeah, that's true. There's nothing wrong with posting videos of your favorite music. A few of the ones you've posted sound vaguely interesting, some like cacophony. I don't recall though ever saying anything against being able to describe intellectually as closely as possible the music. It's music that doesn't need much defense that can stand on its own.



> Sorry, I don't do that - not for myself and certainly not for you.


 Cool beans.



> And I don't remember displaying, "self-defensive apoplexy."


This whole thread has been one. :lol:


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Yeah, that's true. There's nothing wrong with posting videos of your favorite music. A few of the ones you've posted sound vaguely interesting, some like cacophony. I don't recall though ever saying anything against being able to describe intellectually as closely as possible the music. It's music that doesn't need much defense that can stand on its own.


I don't think new music needs a defense. One is either curious about new music, listen to some, or you're not curious about new music. Curiosity is my main thing. Liking it or not is secondary and unnecessary. Hearing the extraordinary brightens the world, IMO.



> This whole thread has been one. :lol:


For me this thread has been, variously, enlightening ... depressing ... funny .... tedious. But not really apoplectic.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> One of the hallmarks of 20th century music, especially atonal music, and now the 21st century, has been a flourishing of polyphonic writing. Since harmonic attributes became less important, i.e. harmonic happenstances in 12-tone works resulted from the vertical alignment of the linear strands of the melodic polyphony - not as harmonic progressions found in a tonal work. And similar to how the polyphony worked during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, prior to the development of the major-minor system of tonality.
> 
> One could argue that the music of C20/21 has focused more intently on melody.


 I'm not so sure. One of the things that irks me a little about modern music is that there's really no way to get it wrong. I don't think there's any way a degreed, connected composer in this day and age is going to write polyphony and have it called clumsy and inept by a modern-music-fan audience. Bach, Handel or Mozart didn't have that luxury. They could've fallen flat on their musical faces any time. They demonstrated their superb skill by doing the opposite.


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> I don't know why you think that someone like Trevor Wishart has not established an audience. The fact that his audience is not as large as other composers is irrelevant. Or it is to me. The alternative, a world where composers like Wishart do not exist is a much less interesting world.


Yeah. I don't have a problem with any of these compositions in themselves.

The only thing I would want to be confident about is that any support for them is derived from people who are themselves sympathetic to this style of music spending their own money or time. To the extent that funding comes from more general sources (including public funds) then I would hope that the decision-making bodies do not contain people who are themselves involved in the field. What for me would be unacceptable would be for fans of something to be able to allocate other people's money to support that thing, with no reference to whether the people whose money it is gain any benefit.

Your point that " a world where composers like Wishart do not exist is a much less interesting world" is a good one. I think that is precisely the point that advocates of Wishart should have to make to independent decision-takers in order to obtain funding for commissions or to support performances. There are plenty of things that I personally do not appreciate, but where I accept it is generally desirable for them to exist.

With that proviso then, as you say, it doesn't matter if his audience is small.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Christabel said:


> PLC, I very much enjoy those Op.11 pieces by Schoenberg. Thanks for posting these and reminding me. Pollini's playing is rather hard-driven at times, but I think it suits this repertoire. It's hardly modern music, though, is it!!!


Sure, it's Modern (1890-1975), but not Contemporary period (from 1945-). There were and still are composers that have strong ties to the older traditions, against the popular trend (among serious composers). Malcolm Arnold was a notable one, who fought against the music establishment that felt his music was too Romantic.

I do wonder though, what is gained in music such as this by this award winning composer. In her program text she said there was a "specific timbral palette of sounds for the piano", but they're not sounds I haven't heard before or that capture my imagination. She seems to put a lot of attention into distinguishing some larger tone clusters from smaller clusters, but it's like splitting hairs, and doesn't really have meaningful implications to me. I would say this is making the listener pay attention to small differences in detail from the sake of small differences in detail.


----------



## consuono

> In her program text she said there was a "specific timbral palette of sounds for the piano", but they're not sounds I haven't heard before or that capture my imagination.


I didn't really care to sit through all 18 minutes of that, but I skimmed through it and I noticed at one point the player slams the piano lid or hits it or something or other. Somewhere near that spot in the video the player also does something or other with the pedal as I recall. Or maybe the strings, or maybe both. I don't what effect these things were supposed to have, but I suspect it's because that's a modern and edgy thing to do.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I'm not so sure. One of the things that irks me a little about modern music is that there's really no way to get it wrong. I don't think there's any way a degreed, connected composer in this day and age is going to write polyphony and have it called clumsy and inept by a modern-music-fan audience. Bach, Handel or Mozart didn't have that luxury. They could've fallen flat on their musical faces any time. They demonstrated their superb skill by doing the opposite.


For sure, restriction is the mother of invention; obstacles inspire creativity to surmount. But just because a composer chooses to write in an non-tonal style does not mean he has no restrictions. Most often they are self-imposed. The Schönberg 12-tone method had its "rules" (although most composers used them mostly as principles), and John Cage had his own self-imposed restrictions when he approached a new work. Any artist worthy of the term knows this and creates accordingly.

I've got a book, _Twentieth Century Counterpoint: A Guide for Students_ by Humphrey Searle, where he does provide some concepts for writing counterpoint outside the context of tonality.

It's not playing tennis without a net.


----------



## consuono

> I've got a book, Twentieth Century Counterpoint: A Guide for Students by Humphrey Searle, where he does provide some concepts for writing counterpoint outside the context of tonality.


And what is his authority in this? Has this authority been used to judge modern polyphony?



> It's not playing tennis without a net.


Sure seems like it to me.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> . . . It's not playing tennis without a net.


No, but it is playing tennis where you hit the racket with the ball (rather than the other way around), or your feet, or a chair, or whatever, or the ball is replaced by a can of soda, or a hedgehog (preferably one that is already deceased).

The issue with audience size is just that it is ridiculous for the small audience to mock the far larger body of people who have no interest in being part of that audience. The size of the audience is just a reflection of the very narrow niche for this sort of thing.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> I'm not so sure. One of the things that irks me a little about modern music is that there's really no way to get it wrong. I don't think there's any way a degreed, connected composer in this day and age is going to write polyphony and have it called clumsy and inept by a modern-music-fan audience. Bach, Handel or Mozart didn't have that luxury. They could've fallen flat on their musical faces any time. They demonstrated their superb skill by doing the opposite.


This is much harder to refute to ears that aren't prepared to venture into new sonic areas and get to know the genre. But make no mistake, you might not hear it, or want it, but the compositional skill is there and as hard won by the composer as it was for the wigged gentlemen..
The discipline/technique has to be there as a counter-balance and foothold or support for the increased freedom in imagination, just like it has always been.
EDIT...I see SA beat me to it...


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> This is much harder to refute to ears that aren't prepared to venture into new sonic areas and get to know the genre. But make no mistake, you might not hear it, or want it, but the compositional skill is there and as hard won by the composer as it was for the wigged gentlemen..
> The discipline/technique has to be there as a counter-balance and foothold or support for the increased freedom in imagination, just like it has always been.
> EDIT...I see SA beat me to it...


Ok, here's where a score demonstration would be helpful. And also it would help to impart the sense that the music could not have been written otherwise without falling apart in some way. When I have to take you at your word as a scholar and a gentleman that this is a work of the most disciplined scholarship then something is amiss. Now I will say there is considerable "craft" in Schoenberg, Webern and Berg, and it's often quite visual. As I said I enjoy reading their scores more than hearing them. But I don't really get the feeling of disciplined polyphony there, either.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> And what is his authority in this? Has this authority been used to judge modern polyphony?





> Humphrey Searle [b. Oxford (England), 1915 - d. London, 1982] was an English twelve-tone and serialist composer active from the Second World War onwards… a contemporary of Benjamin Britten and Bernard Stevens; younger than Edward Elgar, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Havergal Brian, Edmund Rubbra, William Walton and Michael Tippett; older than Malcolm Arnold, Robert Simpson, Peter Maxwell Davies, Alexander Goehr, Harrison Birtwhistle, etc. A distinguished writer and teacher, Searle also cataloged the music of Franz Liszt.


Judge? Not really, he has written both works and treatises about serial music, in an accessible style, and been an advocate for modern music.



> Sure seems like it to me.


Everyone has an opinion.



JAS said:


> No, but it is playing tennis where you hit the racket with the ball (rather than the other way around), or your feet, or a chair, or whatever.


Or whatever.



> The issue with audience size is just that it is ridiculous for the small audience to mock the far larger body of people who have no interest in being part of that audience. The size of the audience is just a reflection of the very narrow niche for this sort of thing.


I haven't mocked anyone and don't think anyone should mock any music or audience since it is a sign of disrespect. I think I've made that plain to you.

A very narrow niche is not a bad thing, of itself. Most things that appeal to the masses are usually operating at the lowest common denominator level. Billie Eilish comes to mind. One could say that classical music occupies a very narrow niche. So a niche within a niche is not a difference of kind but of degree.

No problem.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Ok, here's where a score demonstration would be helpful. And also it would help to impart the sense that the music could not have been written otherwise without falling apart in some way.


consuono I think you can find that for yourself. A quick search on 'Boulez analysis' yielded this.....

https://www.explorethescore.org/pierre-boulez-douze-notations---english.html

I'm betting SanA will know of other resources. 
Inevitability in a piece is open to many interpretations as you know. Inevitability in modernity is greatly increased with new sound fields which I understand adds to perplexity in the lay listener, it is also one of the most exciting traits in the new.
More inevitable outcome does not equate to lack of technique.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Phil loves classical said:


> Sure, it's Modern (1890-1975), but not Contemporary period (from 1945-). There were and still are composers that have strong ties to the older traditions, against the popular trend (among serious composers). Malcolm Arnold was a notable one, who fought against the music establishment that felt his music was too Romantic.
> 
> I do wonder though, what is gained in music such as this by this award winning composer. In her program text she said there was a "specific timbral palette of sounds for the piano", but they're not sounds I haven't heard before or that capture my imagination. She seems to put a lot of attention into distinguishing some larger tone clusters from smaller clusters, but it's like splitting hairs, and doesn't really have meaningful implications to me. I would say this is making the listener pay attention to small differences in detail from the sake of small differences in detail.


OK, I listened to it. I must admit my mind wandered an awful lot, and I can't see why one would want to listen to it again.

With this idea of a "timbral palette of sounds for the piano", well fine, and there were some nice sounds. However, why not build those into a structure which can be appreciated for so much else as well at the same time? I immediately put on Gaspard de la Nuit to hear how it should be done.

There you have a master who is exploiting the "timbral palette of sounds for the piano" in conjunction with much else, and doing so in a way which is in sympathy with the piano. Nice sounds, but also adding up to something as part of an appreciable structure. I got no sense of wholeness from Crimson.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Now I will say there is considerable "craft" in Schoenberg, Webern and Berg, and it's often quite visual. As I said I enjoy reading their scores more than hearing them. But I don't really get the feeling of disciplined polyphony there, either.


_"Schoenberg gets a bad rep because of his atonal music. But if you listen to Schoenberg, sometimes when he's writing contrapuntal music, it's a revelation."_

*[ 5:15 ]*






I also get the impression that you think "disciplined polyphony = craftsmanship", but that's the way to think music in the 18th century and prior, the period when music education began with species counterpoint. Look at later composers such as Debussy who favored parallel chords and "overrode" contrapuntal rules to achieve the kind of harmony he wanted. How would the logic "disciplined polyphony = craftsmanship" apply in this case?


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> *I don't know why you think that someone like Trevor Wishart has not established an audience. *The fact that his audience is not as large as other composers is irrelevant. Or it is to me. The alternative, a world where composers like Wishart do not exist is a much less interesting world.


Maybe the good sense of audiences?


----------



## caracalla

Jacck said:


> music has moved on, but the audiences and their tastes have not.


Music has indeed moved on, and while I agree that the bulk of the CM audience hasn't moved with it, it's certainly not true that tastes haven't changed or at least diversified.

Prokofiev died shortly before the Baroque boom got underway, and I very much doubt that either he or anyone else in 1953 could have anticipated that, still less the Early Music boom which followed in its wake. Moreover, I think that any outsider observing the CM world from the latter decades of the 20thC through to the present day would say its most remarkable feature has been the dramatic expansion of the repertoire back through time. Antiquarianism has sometimes been a major force in other arts (for example the Gothic and Renaissance Revivals in 19thC architecture), but as far as I know this phenomenon is unprecedented in music.

Why did it happen? Why did interest in the Baroque and EM rather rapidly cease to be an esoteric academic pursuit and start galvanising legions of new performers and listeners? I would say because it supplied many of the benefits normally associated with new music and could act as a surrogate for it. Conservative music lovers who rejected the new music as impenetrable and rebarbative might be content to stick with the same canon their parents had listened to, but many others were not. While they might share the conservatives' discontent with the genuinely new music on offer, they were still eager to listen to new things and explore new musical landscapes.

The unearthing of vast tracts of music buried and unheard for centuries satisfied those needs while providing an escape route from the contemporary. Moreover it still does. Even after decades of energetic revivalism, the flow of new/ancient works and new/ancient composers shows little sign of diminishing, and new approaches to the performance of this music keep coming. Stasis and stagnation are not issues, at least not yet. This is a competitive challenge which I believe contemporary music never had to face in earlier times. People hungering after novelty and the unfamiliar had nowhere else to go. Now they do.


----------



## DavidA

consuono said:


> I didn't really care to sit through all 18 minutes of that, but I skimmed through it and I noticed at one point the player slams the piano lid or hits it or something or other. Somewhere near that spot in the video the player also does something or other with the pedal as I recall. Or maybe the strings, or maybe both. I don't what effect these things were supposed to have, but I suspect it's because that's a modern and edgy thing to do.


I left the vacuum cleaner on during one of the performances of some of the stuff and could tell no difference. I remember a 'performance' which included singers belching into the microphone. I know a bunch of lads in the local who could make a great choir! :lol:

Let's face it, this sort of stuff only exists because of the uninventiveness of the so-called 'composers' and the gullibility of listeners.


----------



## consuono

Well then could someone point out to me less-than-stellar, maybe humdrum or awkwardly-written modern polyphony? Or something fitting that description of any type among modern music.


> Look at later composers such as Debussy who favored parallel chords and "overrode" contrapuntal rules to achieve the kind of harmony he wanted. How would the logic "disciplined polyphony = craftsmanship" apply in this case?


No, I didn't say "x=y". Craftsmanship can lie in a single melodic line. But you prove my point in a way: there's no way Debussy could've gone wrong, since he was "overriding" or making the rules. Of course if the result is affecting enough, fine and dandy. But that doesn't hold true for most modern music, as we all know.


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> I absolutely agree with Prokofiev. I do not mind dissonance, but it should be salt to spice to music, not the main thing. Anyone who thinks that music based solely on disonance will find wide appeal is deluding himself. 80 years of avantgarde music prove the point
> 
> *music has moved on, but the audiences and their tastes have not.*


Absolutely. The only thing I would question is whether music has really 'moved on'. As music is supposed to be an enjoyable experience I don't believe it has moved on as far as most people are concerned.


----------



## SanAntone

caracalla said:


> Music has indeed moved on, and while I agree that the bulk of the CM audience hasn't moved with it, it's certainly not true that tastes haven't changed or at least diversified.
> 
> Prokofiev died shortly before the Baroque boom got underway, and I very much doubt that either he or anyone else in 1953 could have anticipated that, still less the Early Music boom which followed in its wake. Moreover, I think that any outsider observing the CM world from the latter decades of the 20thC through to the present day would say its most remarkable feature has been the dramatic expansion of the repertoire back through time. Antiquarianism has sometimes been a major force in other arts (for example the Gothic and Renaissance Revivals in 19thC architecture), but as far as I know this phenomenon is unprecedented in music.
> 
> Why did it happen? Why did interest in the Baroque and EM rather rapidly cease to be an esoteric academic pursuit and start galvanising legions of new performers and listeners? I would say because it supplied many of the benefits normally associated with new music and could act as a surrogate for it. Conservative music lovers who rejected the new music as impenetrable and rebarbative might be content to stick with the same canon their parents had listened to, but many others were not. While they might share the conservatives' discontent with the genuinely new music on offer, they were still eager to listen to new things and explore new musical landscapes.
> 
> The unearthing of vast tracts of music buried and unheard for centuries satisfied those needs while providing an escape route from the contemporary. Moreover it still does. Even after decades of energetic revivalism, the flow of new/ancient works and new/ancient composers shows little sign of diminishing, and new approaches to the performance of this music keep coming. Stasis and stagnation are not issues, at least not yet. This is a competitive challenge which I believe contemporary music never had to face in earlier times. People hungering after novelty and the unfamiliar had nowhere else to go. Now they do.


It is common to find that someone who likes new music also enjoys early music, but often will ignore music from the 18th-19th centuries. One thing new music and early music share is an absence of tonality and a more linear style, polyphonic blending of individual strands of melody, as opposed to the homophonic style of melody with accompaniment.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Well then could someone point out to me less-than-stellar, maybe humdrum or awkwardly-written modern polyphony? Or something fitting that description of any type among modern music.


I don't keep track of that sort of thing, for modern music or music from previous periods.



> No, I didn't say "x=y". Craftsmanship can lie in a single melodic line. But you prove my point in a way: there's no way Debussy could've gone wrong, since he was "overriding" or making the rules. Of course if the result is affecting enough, fine and dandy. But that doesn't hold true for most modern music, as we all know.


I don't "know that." I think much of new music is affecting, interesting, and often beautiful. Just my subjective opinion, of course, as is your assessment.



DavidA said:


> Absolutely. The only thing I would question is whether music has really 'moved on'. As music is supposed to be an enjoyable experience I don't believe it has moved on as far as most people are concerned.


I find new music very entertaining, and what most people think has never much mattered to me. I guess you could say I chart my own path.


----------



## hoodjem

Favorite 20th-Century Composers:
Prokofiev 
Shostakovich 
Sibelius 
Vaughan Williams
Finzi 
Stravinsky 
Mahler
R Strauss
Debussy
Ravel
Hovhaness
Panufnik 
Gorecki 
Rachmaninov
Glazunov 
Scriabin
Copland
Gershwin
Diamond
Delius 
Holst
Khachaturian
Szymanowski
Penderecki 
Lutoslawski
Part
Reich
Riley
Satie
Varese
Messiaen
Milhaud
Brian
Bax 
Howells
Tippett
Skempton
Henze
Zemlinsky
Barber
Ives
Hanson
Lauridsen 
Martinu 
Respighi 
Mompou 



There's a lot to like . . .


----------



## hammeredklavier

Plenty of music that alludes to classical music is not considered classical music these days, an argument can be made this has Chopinesque elements:






There's also fusion/cross-over jazz that contains classical music elements, and some say Piazolla is not classical music. (David Wright wrote an essay on this). Likewise, I think, even if a composer/musician in the modern era is classically-trained, it's not good enough a reason to automatically regard him as being a part of classical music.* (I don't know why some people are so generous about avant-gardists but use strict criteria on film-composers, on what can be considered classical and what can't be.)

*As I said earlier, I think he has to prove his relation with close and distant predecessors in the classical music tradition, and must not believe in philosophies like "noise can also be music", "everything we do is music", "who cares if you listen". 
The logic "noise can also be music" opens the door to "all kinds of possibilities" (as the avant-garde music advocates say), validating any argument this is also classical music:






Whether or not this is classical music just depends on how you market or image-brand it.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Plenty of music that alludes to classical music is not considered classical music these days ... Whether or not this is classical music just depends on how you market or image-brand it.


I think what matters most is the intention of the composer: did s/he intend to write music that is generally considered classical music and for that audience, or more likely, a sub-set of it.


----------



## Fabulin

SanAntone said:


> I think what matters most is the intention of the composer: did s/he intend to write music that is generally considered classical music and for that audience, or more likely, a sub-set of it.


Identity is a declaration instead of a matter of fact?


----------



## SanAntone

Fabulin said:


> Identity is a declaration instead of a matter of fact?


Musical genres are not an identity choice. Composers choose the genre in which they wish their work to be considered.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Eclectic Al said:


> OK, I listened to it. I must admit my mind wandered an awful lot, and I can't see why one would want to listen to it again.
> 
> With this idea of a "timbral palette of sounds for the piano", well fine, and there were some nice sounds. However, why not build those into a structure which can be appreciated for so much else as well at the same time? I immediately put on Gaspard de la Nuit to hear how it should be done.
> 
> There you have a master who is exploiting the "timbral palette of sounds for the piano" in conjunction with much else, and doing so in a way which is in sympathy with the piano. Nice sounds, but also adding up to something as part of an appreciable structure. I got no sense of wholeness from Crimson.


From 9:00 to around 10:15, I found the most interesting as far as my attention span could allow. There are some pretty interesting sounds with the metal strings of the piano, and that elbow/arm thing around 9:16. I don't get much of a sense of inevitability.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> From 9:00 to around 10:15, I found the most interesting as far as my attention span could allow. There are some pretty interesting sounds with the metal strings of the piano, and that elbow/arm thing around 9:16. I don't get much of a sense of inevitability.


I am about finished listening and found the work interesting in the variety of gestures Saunders employed. I think she was conditioning the listener with the first few minutes of tone clusters in order to have our ears find the melody of the clusters. Then she brought in the contrasting softer, more single line motifs, and then the percussive qualities.

All in all a successful work, IMO.


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> All in all a successful work, IMO.


I suppose that raises the question of how a work of music "succeeds".

I think that must relate to the music acquiring an audience who value it for something.

I agree that the size of the audience is not very important. However, I don't think it can be ignored either. At the extreme, if I produce a piece of "music" which only I appreciate, then I don't really think that is music, as I believe that music is communication and has to have a social element. There needs to be a community of some sort who agree that it is music.

If the community is very small then that's OK, but I can't escape the feeling that it means that the music is not very "successful", as it does not communicate meaningfully to many.

I then think that there is a law of diminishing returns, and once a piece of music has a significant audience then it does not make it significantly more "successful" if the audience grows larger and larger.

Obviously I cannot quantify small or significant, but that's my sense.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Eclectic Al said:


> I suppose that raises the question of how a work of music "succeeds".
> 
> I think that must relate to the music acquiring an audience who value it for something.
> 
> I agree that the size of the audience is not very important. However, I don't think it can be ignored either. At the extreme, if I produce a piece of "music" which only I appreciate, then I don't really think that is music, as I believe that music is communication and has to have a social element. There needs to be a community of some sort who agree that it is music.
> 
> If the community is very small then that's OK, but I can't escape the feeling that it means that the music is not very "successful", as it does not communicate meaningfully to many.
> 
> I then think that there is a law of diminishing returns, and once a piece of music has a significant audience then it does not make it significantly more "successful" if the audience grows larger and larger.
> 
> Obviously I cannot quantify small or significant, but that's my sense.


I think that piece by Saunders is very deconstructive, taking away other musical elements, so the listener can focus on the timbral stuff. But to many as I take it (including me), she took away what makes music enjoyable itself. I get what you're saying about the comparison to Ravel's Gaspard. I think there is already a wide range of timbre there, as much as I care to really delve into, and it is utilized to better extent as part of something bigger, rather than isolating it. I think what Saunders did is take a magnifying glass and look at the very subtle timbral differences and stuff that more traditional music "took for granted" (yes, some sarcasm there).


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> I suppose that raises the question of how a work of music "succeeds".
> 
> I think that must relate to the music acquiring an audience who value it for something.
> 
> I agree that *the size* of the audience is not very important. However, I don't think it can be ignored either. At the extreme, if I produce a piece of "music" which only I appreciate, then I don't really think that is music, as I believe that music is communication and has to have a social element. There needs to be a community of some sort who agree that it is music.
> 
> If the community is *very small* then that's OK, but I can't escape the feeling that it means that the music is not very "successful", as it does not communicate meaningfully *to many*.
> 
> I then think that there is a law of *diminishing returns*, and once a piece of music has a significant audience then it does not make it significantly more "successful" if the audience grows *larger and larger*.
> 
> Obviously I cannot *quantify* small or significant, but that's my sense.


You are quite the beancounter, aren't you? I am utterly uninterested in your argument. That said, even Beethoven was "a bit of an accountant" when he counted out his daily 60 beans of coffee.
Come the revolution, priests and accountants against the wall first. Bang, bang!


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

consuono said:


> Well then could someone point out to me less-than-stellar, maybe humdrum or awkwardly-written modern polyphony? Or something fitting that description of any type among modern music.


I'm also curious to hear what some people think fall into this category - the Wellington's Victory of the avant-garde (_was ich scheiße ist viel besser als was du je gedacht!_), if you will. As someone who enjoys both 20th century and contemporary avant-garde, I've definitely heard some pieces I don't care for (and don't care enough to remember their names because I'm so indifferent to them), but of course one can never draw objective value statements. I just don't think the ability to judge the level of craftsmanship suddenly falls into some nebulous, fuzzy no-man's land just because it's written in an avant-garde style,for there's still qualities that can be discerned that set a well-crafted piece apart from a bad piece. I'll be the first to admit I don't have the know-how to tell you what exactly from a theoretical/compositional standpoint as I have zero theory expertise beyond common practice, but for a listener these discernible qualities are there. A listener can absolutely compare the quality between a pretentious, poorly crafted avant-garde piece to George Crumb's Black Angels just fine.

While of course the value of music is subjective, (which I think is something that's so obvious it's tacitly implied and doesn't bear repeating), craftsmanship is something one can totally measure objectively. For example, I can write a string quartet with awkward voice leading, voice crossings all over the place without adequate prep, and no attention paid to musicality, and when someone rightfully criticizes its sloppiness, sure I can say "Buh buh buh buh music is sUbJeCtiVe !!!" and technically I'll be right, but everyone in their hearts and minds know that in reality, I'm not. This applies to common practice, and I don't see why it should suddenly get thrown out the window for 20th century music or contemporary avant-garde. There's still rules of the craft you have to know, and have the expertise to justify why you break those rules when you do it: like DeBussy being mentioned above for using parallel chords and breaking from standard rules of polyphony, for he knew what kind of sound he wanted to achieve and knew what he was doing.

This is somewhat tangential to the topic, but I don't think craftsmanship necessarily always translates to quality, which serves to illustrate the beautiful mystery of music's subjectivity and ability to move the listener. To use a popular music example, Dream Theater is a band made up of instrumental virtuosi who shred really fast and seamlessly change between outlandish time signatures and no one can deny their skill or virtuosity. Yet I think their music is soulless and pedantic and have no desire to listen to it. Joy Divison, on the other hand, was a group of ragtag musicians who hadn't been playing their instruments for more than a year, fronted by a singer who couldn't sing in tune to save his life. Yet with all that in mind, I find Joy Division's music a million times more expressive and profound than Dream Theater.


----------



## SanAntone

Rules of counterpoint were established, first, for 16th century counterpoint; which was basically taking the work of Palestrina and creating a pedagogical system of exercises modeled on his music. What Palestrina did was the convention and all students must demonstrate a mastery of that style before they could be considered schooled composers. This is where the rules of no parallel fifths and octaves originated. Melodic motion was to be mostly step-wise, with leaps no larger than a sixth, smaller were preferred, and after a leap up the melody must go down in the opposite direction, step-wise usually.

Second species (two parts); Third species (three parts), Fourth species (four parts). Parallel motion, contrary motion, note against note, one note moves while the other holds a long tone, etc. Every possible combination was to be worked out. Consonances only. Interestingly, the interval of the fourth was considered a consonance. That changed with time.

The next pedagogical landmark is concerning counterpoint of the 18th century. The same thing occurred here but instead using Palestrina the model was Bach. Most of the previous rules were still in place, but what was added were the principles of fugal writing. Subject, counter-subject a fourth higher, answer and so on.

When I was in music school these texts were still taught. The problem was they were learned in a vacuum, music had moved so far along this kind of writing was alien to the music we wished to write. But, and here is the important thing - it was a discipline and was how composers learned the craft of musical composition. Hindemith's texts on composition were basically _Gradus ad Parnassum_ (Fux) using modes. Nadia Boulanger insisted on all her students begin their study with her rigorous training on 16th century counterpoint. Probably somewhere on the web you can find Aaron Copland's exercises.

I have no doubt that modern composers trained at a conservatory have perfected the skill of writing 16th and 18th century counterpoint, and the counterpoint they write in an atonal style will be informed by what they perfected in the style of Palestrina and Bach.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Well then could someone point out to me less-than-stellar, maybe humdrum or awkwardly-written modern polyphony? Or something fitting that description of any type among modern music.


Lachenmann Marche Funèbre, Finnissy's Gershwin Transcriptions, Xenakis Ergma, Stockhausen Urantia, Howard Skempton's preludes and fugues. I don't have a lot of patience for anything by Louis Andriessen myself, maybe a blind spot.

If you're specifically curious about counterpoint, then a name to explore is Brice Pauset. I leave it to others to comment on how well crafted his canons are.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern




----------



## Luchesi

TalkingHead said:


> You are quite the beancounter, aren't you? I am utterly uninterested in your argument. That said, even Beethoven was "a bit of an accountant" when he counted out his daily 60 beans of coffee.
> Come the revolution, priests and accountants against the wall first. Bang, bang!


You think in the concepts of a young creative artist. It's quite impractical, but I think it's a good way to exist.

Compared to all the other approaches we've heard about in this thread - they all have their advantages and disadvantages for living the examined life, I guess. I've lived halfway between the world of science and the world of music, and I think they temper each other just about right..


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> I have no doubt that modern composers trained at a conservatory have perfected the skill of writing 16th and 18th century counterpoint, *and the counterpoint they write in an atonal style will be informed *by what they perfected in the style of Palestrina and Bach.


..exactly. A point missed by those who may disparage and cast doubt on academia's purpose.


----------



## DavidA

TalkingHead said:


> You are quite the beancounter, aren't you? I am utterly uninterested in your argument. That said, even Beethoven was "a bit of an accountant" when he counted out his daily 60 beans of coffee.
> Come the revolution, priests and accountants against the wall first. Bang, bang!


Interesting as you have no argument whatsoever!


----------



## SanAntone

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I'm also curious to hear what some people think fall into this category - the Wellington's Victory of the avant-garde (_was ich scheiße ist viel besser als was du je gedacht!_), if you will. As someone who enjoys both 20th century and contemporary avant-garde, I've definitely heard some pieces I don't care for (and don't care enough to remember their names because I'm so indifferent to them), but of course one can never draw objective value statements. I just don't think the ability to judge the level of craftsmanship suddenly falls into some nebulous, fuzzy no-man's land just because it's written in an avant-garde style,for there's still qualities that can be discerned that set a well-crafted piece apart from a bad piece. I'll be the first to admit I don't have the know-how to tell you what exactly from a theoretical/compositional standpoint as I have zero theory expertise beyond common practice, but for a listener these discernible qualities are there. A listener can absolutely compare the quality between a pretentious, poorly crafted avant-garde piece to George Crumb's Black Angels just fine.
> 
> While of course the value of music is subjective, (which I think is something that's so obvious it's tacitly implied and doesn't bear repeating), craftsmanship is something one can totally measure objectively. For example, I can write a string quartet with awkward voice leading, voice crossings all over the place without adequate prep, and no attention paid to musicality, and when someone rightfully criticizes its sloppiness, sure I can say "Buh buh buh buh music is sUbJeCtiVe !!!" and technically I'll be right, but everyone in their hearts and minds know that in reality, I'm not. This applies to common practice, and I don't see why it should suddenly get thrown out the window for 20th century music or contemporary avant-garde. There's still rules of the craft you have to know, and have the expertise to justify why you break those rules when you do it: like DeBussy being mentioned above for using parallel chords and breaking from standard rules of polyphony, for he knew what kind of sound he wanted to achieve and knew what he was doing.
> 
> This is somewhat tangential to the topic, but I don't think craftsmanship necessarily always translates to quality, which serves to illustrate the beautiful mystery of music's subjectivity and ability to move the listener. To use a popular music example, Dream Theater is a band made up of instrumental virtuosi who shred really fast and seamlessly change between outlandish time signatures and no one can deny their skill or virtuosity. Yet I think their music is soulless and pedantic and have no desire to listen to it. Joy Divison, on the other hand, was a group of ragtag musicians who hadn't been playing their instruments for more than a year, fronted by a singer who couldn't sing in tune to save his life. Yet with all that in mind, I find Joy Division's music a million times more expressive and profound than Dream Theater.


Craftmanship alone will produce orchestrators, arrangers, singers, conductors, instrumentalists, copyists, librarians - but not composers. Composers need the creative spark to write music which doesn't exist. Composers need craft, too, but some composers are better at orchestration than others.

But for you to assume that new composers writing modern music do not know their craft, you underestimate them. Most have music degrees and have learned the craft of composition.

Your example of "I can write a string quartet with awkward voice leading, voice crossings all over the place without adequate prep, and no attention paid to musicality, and when someone rightfully criticizes its sloppiness, sure I can say 'Buh buh buh buh music is sUbJeCtiVe !!!'"

This is not a good example since when I say judging music is subjective I am not talking about saying badly written works are good. I am describing listening to Masterpiece A vs. Masterpiece B and one person likes A but not B.

My subjective opinion of Wagner is that his music sucks, but Erik Satie's music is sublime.


----------



## consuono

> This is not a good example since when I say judging music is subjective I am not talking about saying badly written works are good.


What is this "badly written" of which you speak?


> I am describing listening to Masterpiece A vs. Masterpiece B and one person likes A but not B.


Who determines what is a "masterpiece"? How do you know your A and B are masterpieces to begin with?

With all these individual standards out there, I don't know why you cling to such arbitrary artistic hierarchies.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SanAntone said:


> Craftmanship alone will produce orchestrators, arrangers, singers, conductors, instrumentalists, copyists, librarians - but not composers. Composers need the creative spark to write music which doesn't exist. Composers need craft, too, but some composers are better at orchestration than others.
> 
> *But for you to assume that new composers writing modern music do not know their craft, you underestimate them. Most have music degrees and have learned the craft of composition.*
> 
> Your example of "I can write a string quartet with awkward voice leading, voice crossings all over the place without adequate prep, and no attention paid to musicality, and when someone rightfully criticizes its sloppiness, sure I can say 'Buh buh buh buh music is sUbJeCtiVe !!!'"
> 
> This is not a good example since when I say judging music is subjective I am not talking about saying badly written works are good. I am describing listening to Masterpiece A vs. Masterpiece B and one person likes A but not B.
> 
> My subjective opinion of Wagner is that his music sucks, but Erik Satie's music is sublime.


You're actually preaching to the choir here, I agree with you and that was the point I was trying to illustrate. 

"This applies to common practice, and I don't see why it should suddenly get thrown out the window for 20th century music or contemporary avant-garde. There's still rules of the craft you have to know, and have the expertise to justify why you break those rules when you do it", challenging the idea suggested in this thread that judging aesthetics in avant-garde music is somehow wishy-washy and everyone gets a participation trophy


----------



## hammeredklavier

^I've wondered about that too. Are there any poorly written pieces of contemporary music? Surely they can't all be good, right?


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> What is this "badly written" of which you speak?
> Who determines what is a "masterpiece"? How do you know your A and B are masterpieces to begin with?
> 
> With all these individual standards out there, I don't know why you cling to such arbitrary artistic hierarchies.


I was just using the term "masterpiece" to make the point. You keep questioning the premise of subjectivity as the method for judging art, and implying that there is an objective standard. But you haven't described that objective standard.

I would love to hear about it.


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> ^I've wondered about that too. Are there any poorly written pieces of contemporary music? Surely they can't all be good, right?


I am slightly annoyed by this, not just your post but others too. I've given you a list which is my shot at answering that question positively. If you think that the list is misconceived, fair enough, but just repeating the question when you've been given a very clear answer is disingenuous at best.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> ^I've wondered about that too. Are there any poorly written pieces of contemporary music? Surely they can't all be good, right?


When I listen to something I don't ask whether a piece of music written by a professional composer, either common practice or contemporary, is "good" or "bad" since these are subjective assessments. Student or composers still perfecting their craft will write under-developed works. They do not handle their materials in a skillful way. There may be some wonderful ideas there, or musical themes or gestures, but most often they do not maximize the development and the work will bog down at a certain point, or not land solidly.

Of course talent plays a role.

When I made the comment that I thought the piano work by Rebecca Saunders was "a successful work" I was alluding to my opinion of how she handled the elements and methodology she used to create the piece.


----------



## Haydn70

SanAntone said:


> Second species (two parts); Third species (three parts), Fourth species (four parts). Parallel motion, contrary motion, note against note, one note moves while the other holds a long tone, etc. Every possible combination was to be worked out. Consonances only. Interestingly, the interval of the fourth was considered a consonance. That changed with time.


Mistakes in the above quote:

Second species is not two parts it is 2 notes against 1, e.g. two quarter notes in one voice against one half note.
Third species is not three parts it is 4 notes against 1
Fourth species is not four parts it is suspensions
The fourth is NOT a consonance, it is a dissonance in both 16th and 18th century counterpoint.


----------



## SanAntone

Haydn70 said:


> Mistakes in the above quote:
> 
> Second species is not two parts it is 2 notes against 1, e.g. two quarter notes in one voice against one half note.
> Third species is not three parts it is 4 notes against 1
> Fourth species is not four parts it is suspensions
> The fourth is NOT a consonance, it is a dissonance.


Sorry, it's been a long time - I remember starting with two parts, then moving on to three parts, and four. I also remember writing one note against one note, then two against one, etc. But . But I am pretty sure that in early music the fourth started out as a consonance but was later changed to a dissonance.

Thanks for correcting my post. My point remains that composition students learn this stuff and the skill doesn't go away.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Interesting as you have no argument whatsoever!


The people who hate bean counters are largely those who don't have any to count for themselves!!


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> Btw, I am more interested in music of the 21st century, and now that it is two decades old, there is a considerable amount of new music. Music that is more than 30 years old is no longer "new" to me.
> 
> So when I say new music, you'll know what I am talking about. Some of Mr. Wishart's stuff doesn't make the cut.
> 
> I should probably ignore this thread, since as I said, the music of our time is what I am focused on - not so much that of 50 or 100 years ago. That music is still nice to listen to now and then, but it is no different than my interest in Romantic, Classical, Baroque and Early music.


Keep posting the things which interest you from the contemporary repertoire; the objection I have to some of it (Wishart, just as one example) is that it's sound design and not music per se. Sound design is perfectly fine for what it is. Perhaps we could focus on 'concert hall' music and not studios/computers which manufacture sound design? Adams, Corigliano etc? There are many.


----------



## Haydn70

SanAntone said:


> Sorry, it's been a long time - I remember starting with two parts, then moving on to three parts, and four. I also remember writing one note against one note, then two against one, etc. But . But I am pretty sure that in early music the fourth started out as a consonance but was later changed to a dissonance.
> 
> Thanks for correcting my post. My point remains that composition students learn this stuff and the skill doesn't go away.


The fourth was considered a consonance in pre-Renaissance music, such as Machaut. Some time in the 15th century that changed and it was considered a dissonance.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Most of the previous rules were still in place, but what was added were the principles of fugal writing. Subject, counter-subject a fourth higher, answer and so on.


You mean the answer for a subject enters at a fifth higher, or fourth lower than the original statment the subject


----------



## SanAntone

Christabel said:


> Keep posting the things which interest you from the contemporary repertoire; the objection I have to some of it (Wishart, just as one example) is that it's sound design and not music per se. Sound design is perfectly fine for what it is. Perhaps we could focus on 'concert hall' music and not studios/computers which manufacture sound design? Adams, Corigliano etc? There are many.


Purely electronic music does not interest me, I really prefer music that is entirely made with acoustic instruments. Some electro-acoustical music is interesting, but some bothers me. I listened to work the other day that was written for piano and violin or something like that but with the addition of a sine wave - which ruined it for me.

Neither Adams, nor Corigliano, are in my current listening - but why don't you post some clips. I am almost exclusively listening to music written after 2000.

Like this one, which I like a lot:






*Marti Epstein - Troubled Queen* (2011)
performed by Callithumpian Consort


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> You mean the answer for a subject enters at a fifth higher, or fourth lower than the original statment the subject


If that was the common practice. I studied this stuff almost 50 years ago, so while I remember the concepts the specifics often escape me.


----------



## Luchesi

If CM fans generally listen for a succession of works in the recognizable style of a composer, that will be harder to find in modern music (after 1960?). Something subtly recognizable and consciously or unconsciously reinforcing.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> Rules of counterpoint were established, first, for 16th century counterpoint; which was basically taking the work of Palestrina and creating a pedagogical system of exercises modeled on his music. What Palestrina did was the convention and all students must demonstrate a mastery of that style before they could be considered schooled composers. This is where the rules of no parallel fifths and octaves originated. Melodic motion was to be mostly step-wise, with leaps no larger than a sixth, smaller were preferred, and after a leap up the melody must go down in the opposite direction, step-wise usually.
> 
> Second species (two parts); Third species (three parts), Fourth species (four parts). Parallel motion, contrary motion, note against note, one note moves while the other holds a long tone, etc. Every possible combination was to be worked out. Consonances only. Interestingly, the interval of the fourth was considered a consonance. That changed with time.
> 
> The next pedagogical landmark is concerning counterpoint of the 18th century. The same thing occurred here but instead using Palestrina the model was Bach. Most of the previous rules were still in place, but what was added were the principles of fugal writing. Subject, counter-subject a fourth higher, answer and so on.
> 
> When I was in music school these texts were still taught. The problem was they were learned in a vacuum, music had moved so far along this kind of writing was alien to the music we wished to write. But, and here is the important thing - it was a discipline and was how composers learned the craft of musical composition. Hindemith's texts on composition were basically _Gradus ad Parnassum_ (Fux) using modes. Nadia Boulanger insisted on all her students begin their study with her rigorous training on 16th century counterpoint. Probably somewhere on the web you can find Aaron Copland's exercises.
> 
> I have no doubt that modern composers trained at a conservatory have perfected the skill of writing 16th and 18th century counterpoint, and the counterpoint they write in an atonal style will be informed by what they perfected in the style of Palestrina and Bach.


Agree. I used to think atonal music would be easier to write than tonal, but no. It is equally as hard or even harder. With tonal music you can rest on certain harmonic patterns, which is why any pop songwriter can do it. With atonal, or highly chromatic music, you have to forge your own path. Counterpoint becomes more important than ever to make it intelligible.


----------



## Haydn70

SanAntone said:


> I have no doubt that modern composers trained at a conservatory have perfected the skill of writing 16th and 18th century counterpoint, and the counterpoint they write in an atonal style will be informed by what they perfected in the style of Palestrina and Bach.


Not to go too off topic but I thought I would do an FYI response to this as a college/university trained composer (BM/MA/PhD all in composition).

As for 16th and 18th century counterpoint, they were lower division courses that ALL music majors had to take. All composition majors had to take 20th century counterpoint. We started with composing a piece in the style of Debussy and worked our way through various 20th century styles/techniques: polytonal, Hindemithian, free atonal, strict 12-tone, total serial, etc.


----------



## SanAntone

Haydn70 said:


> Not to go too off topic but I thought I would do an FYI response to this as a college/university trained composer (BM/MA/PhD all in composition).
> 
> As for 16th and 18th century counterpoint, they were lower division courses that ALL music majors had to take. All composition majors had to take 20th century counterpoint. We started with composing a piece in the style of Debussy and worked our way through various 20th century styles/techniques: polytonal, Hindemithian, free atonal, strict 12-tone, total serial, etc.


Interesting. When I was at school, we just did the 16th and 18th and then went into private composition classes, but my college was a rather small school in Louisiana. I mentioned the Humphrey Searle book on 20th Century Counterpoint, but would be interested if you are familiar with any others.

I started a thread on 21st century chamber music. If you have any works you'd like to post, or works you think are interesting, your participation would be welcome.


----------



## SanAntone

Haydn70 said:


> The fourth was considered a consonance in pre-Renaissance music, such as Machaut. Some time in the 15th century that changed and it was considered a dissonance.


I've studied Machaut and his period quite a bit, and is probably where I got that information about the interval of the fourth.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree. I used to think atonal music would be easier to write than tonal, but no. It is equally as hard or even harder. With tonal music you can rest on certain harmonic patterns, which is why any pop songwriter can do it. With atonal, or highly chromatic music, you have to forge your own path. Counterpoint becomes more important than ever to make it intelligible.


That's a sweeping values-based statement. Modern music has "perfected' the contrapuntal techniques of Bach? Are there some samples of this for comparison?

By the way it would seem to me that if you "forge your own path", you're essentially under only the constrictions you place on yourself.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> That's a sweeping values-based statement. *Modern music has "perfected' the contrapuntal techniques of Bach?* Are there some samples of this for comparison?
> 
> By the way it would seem to me that if you "forge your own path", you're essentially under only the constrictions you place on yourself.


Nope, never implied that. But they do follow certain earlier contrapuntal techniques. Here is a good example. My favourite piece is at 9:52.

But the constrictions you place on yourself has to be intelligible to the listener. That part is harder with atonal to do than to rely on traditional harmony.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> Nope, never implied that. But they do follow certain earlier contrapuntal techniques. ...


Yes, you agreed with the following:


> I have no doubt that modern composers trained at a conservatory have perfected the skill of writing 16th and 18th century counterpoint


I would like to hear examples. You make can't make such grandiose statements about modern music and then retreat into Subjectiveland when asked for demonstrations. Yes loads of modern composers have used the old forms. But I can say that I've perfected the electric car engine...but if it can't get a car out of the driveway, I've done no such thing.


----------



## SanAntone

*Hindemith*'s _Ludus Tonalis _I think is one of the best examples of 20th century contrapuntal composition that is coming straight out of Bach.






Also *Shotakovich*'s _24 Preludes & Fugues_






Another good example of atonal counterpoint is *Schoenberg*'s _Third String Quartet_






And one my personal favorites is *Krzysztof Meyer*'s _String Quartet No. 6_


----------



## consuono

But none of the above are really improvements on Bach, let alone the perfection of Bach's medium.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> But none of the above are really improvements on Bach, let alone the perfection of Bach's medium.


Sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement. Bach is Bach, never to be bettered. But composers from C20/21 have written some very compelling contrapuntal music which I enjoy as much as Bach.

You may wish to ignore music from the 20th century and listen only to music from the 18th-19th centuries. Nothing wrong with that. But for myself there's a lot of music both before and after those periods which I listen to and enjoy and would never live without.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> But none of the above are really improvements on Bach, let alone the perfection of Bach's medium.


Well, isn't it also funny all the examples they're giving are from guys like Bartok, Shostakovich, Ravel, Schoenberg, Hindemith.
And never guys like Cage, Xenakis, Babbitt, Stockhausen, Boulez.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, isn't it also funny all the examples they're giving are from guys like Bartok, Shostakovich, Ravel, Schoenberg, Hindemith.
> And never guys like Cage, Xenakis, Babbitt, Stockhausen, Boulez.


I could've given those examples but wanted to pick things that reflected more of an obvious link to Bach. A lot of 20th century music is contrapuntal - all of the composers you mentioned have it.

But I'm not sure what is the point of this exchange.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> Yes, you agreed with the following:
> 
> I would like to hear examples. You make can't make such grandiose statements about modern music and then retreat into Subjectiveland when asked for demonstrations. Yes loads of modern composers have used the old forms. But I can say that I've perfected the electric car engine...but if it can't get a car out of the driveway, I've done no such thing.


I agreed in with the general concept, that's all. If you find fault with that, I can disagree with you.



hammeredklavier said:


> Well, isn't it also funny all the examples they're giving are from guys like Bartok, Shostakovich, Ravel, Schoenberg, Hindemith.
> And never guys like Cage, Xenakis, Babbitt, Stockhausen, Boulez.


How about this from Carter and Babbitt? But there is no way they can be compared to Bach. They used free counterpoint (which despite the name is still based on some general rules). They achieve different goals. No doubt Consuoso would say Bach was better. Sure, he was better at writing in his style.


----------



## Haydn70

SanAntone said:


> Interesting. When I was at school, we just did the 16th and 18th and then went into private composition classes, but my college was a rather small school in Louisiana. I mentioned the Humphrey Searle book on 20th Century Counterpoint, but would be interested if you are familiar with any others.
> 
> I started a thread on 21st century chamber music. If you have any works you'd like to post, or works you think are interesting, your participation would be welcome.


The only text we used was one for our 12-tone writing, Krenek's _Studies in Counterpoint_. For every other style we analyzed scores.


----------



## consuono

> Sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement. Bach is Bach, never to be bettered. But composers from C20/21 have written some very compelling contrapuntal music which I enjoy as much as Bach.


That's true, but that's a far cry from "perfecting" Bach's primary idiom.


----------



## Roger Knox

SanAntone said:


> I have no doubt that modern composers trained at a conservatory have perfected the skill of writing 16th and 18th century counterpoint, and the counterpoint they write in an atonal style will be informed by what they perfected in the style of Palestrina and Bach.


Yes, I learned 16th- and 18th-century counterpoint back in the day as you did. My composition teacher insisted that these skills were ways of understanding what a style is and what writing in a style involves. But too much dwelling on 16th- or 18th-century counterpoint (as may happen to composers who teach music theory) can take over a composer's ear to the detriment of creating music in our time; Schoenberg or Hindemith models are considered old hat now too.

I hear rigor in 20th-century string quartets, etc. by Aldo Clementi and Krystof Meyer though I don't know exactly what they do. Boulez and Ligeti wrote (very different) rigorous music, as do many others. It isn't necessarily my favourite music though; you have to consider taste and aesthetics as well. Still in my opinion taste and aesthetics are linked to theoretical matters as is a house to foundations. Nowadays we have a difficult time composing, hemmed in by taboos, received opinions, strategic considerations that have nothing to do with either musical rigor or taste.


----------



## Luchesi

Roger Knox said:


> Yes, I learned 16th- and 18th-century counterpoint back in the day as you did. My composition teacher insisted that these skills were ways of understanding what a style is and what writing in a style involves. But too much dwelling on 16th- or 18th-century counterpoint (as may happen to composers who teach music theory) can take over a composer's ear to the detriment of creating music in our time; Schoenberg or Hindemith models are considered old hat now too.
> 
> I hear rigor in 20th-century string quartets, etc. by Aldo Clementi and Krystof Meyer though I don't know exactly what they do. Boulez and Ligeti wrote (very different) rigorous music, as do many others. It isn't necessarily my favourite music though; you have to consider taste and aesthetics as well. Still in my opinion taste and aesthetics are linked to theoretical matters as is a house to foundations. Nowadays we have a difficult time composing, hemmed in by taboos, received opinions, strategic considerations that have nothing to do with either musical rigor or taste.


Of course, the goal of modern composers is not to have you like their works. Somehow this is the first thing posters think about, it seems.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Of course, the goal of modern composers is not to have you like their works. Somehow this is the first thing posters think about, it seems.


Like their music? Since when did that come into the equation? :lol:

I think this is the problem with a lot of modern composers in that they are grown up in the world where they have not needed to be attached to listener and his texts and have therefore been allowed to run wild with their music which means nothing to the vast majority of people. If they had had to make a living from their music rather than from a university for example they would've had to have written stuff which people appreciated and which connected with an audience


----------



## Eclectic Al

Luchesi said:


> Of course, the goal of modern composers is not to have you like their works.


That is quite an extraordinary statement.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgjEv3G8LvM


Ok. Now, show us some examples of "bad, poorly-written counterpoint" in these composers.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

hammeredklavier said:


> Ok. Now, show us some examples of "bad, poorly-written counterpoint" in these composers.


Show us some examples of "bad, poorly-written counterpoint" by Bach.


----------



## JAS

Luchesi said:


> Of course, the goal of modern composers is not to have you like their works. Somehow this is the first thing posters think about, it seems.


Then, in that they have been successful!


----------



## Guest

The Babbitt and the Carter posted above; I wouldn't listen to these at my stage of life. They are just too stressful for me when I need to be uplifted and stimulated beyond the quotidian. I've felt, and still do feel, that most of the 'art' resides in putting it onto paper. Anyone can sit at a piano and create a sound world similar to these two works, without any musical training. Let's be honest about this. But few people can transpose that experience into readable and logical musical language.


----------



## consuono

> Anyone can sit at a piano and create a sound world similar to these two works, without any musical training. Let's be honest about this.


Bingo, my feelings exactly.


----------



## mikeh375

Carter was highly skilled and disciplined composer as the link proves. He developed beyond this work below, into a more personal style but to suggest that anything later in his life had no discipline or skill is risible and insulting to the man's highly evolved and personal musical integrity.

He is rightly hailed as one of the giants in the modern age, with, I might add, clear links to tradition.


----------



## consuono

Kilgore Trout said:


> Show us some examples of "bad, poorly-written counterpoint" by Bach.


Well, since the modern era perfected the art of writing counterpoint, maybe a modern music advocate could answer that one and supply a contrasting, better example of a more recent date.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

consuono said:


> Well, since the modern era perfected the art of writing counterpoint, maybe a modern music advocate could answer that one and supply a contrasting, better example of a more recent date.


My point was that it might be difficult to find "poorly-written counterpoint" in the music of a composer you appreciate (for the record, I consider a lot of new music to be badly written, and if I find the time I will give examples).


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Well, since the modern era perfected the art of writing counterpoint, maybe a modern music advocate could answer that one and supply a contrasting, better example of a more recent date.


Just listen to the decorative counterpoint of the piano in this glorious piece by Finnissy






But you were after more formal counterpoint. Explore these

Michael Finnissy's coda for Cpt 19 
Webern op 21, first movement
Michael Finnissy's coda for Cpt 19
Brice Pauset Perspectivæ Sintagma

Kurtag's Fog canon


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> Carter was highly skilled and disciplined composer as the link proves. He developed beyond this work below, into a more personal style but to suggest that anything later in his life had no discipline or skill is risible and insulting to the man's highly evolved and personal musical integrity.
> 
> He is rightly hailed as one of the giants in the modern age, with, I might add, clear links to tradition.
> ...


The fact that you have to go into a defense of Carter's skill, education and discipline *after* someone has heard one of his pieces may suggest a problem...and that problem just may not be with the listener.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Ok. Now, show us some examples of "bad, poorly-written counterpoint" in these composers.


Not sure about those composers, but offhand I feel this is badly written, at least Metamorphosis I. I wonder what the pros here think about it. It sounds like there is a bad mix of tonality and atonality to me.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> The fact that you have to go into a defense of Carter's skill, education and discipline *after* someone has heard one of his pieces may suggest a problem...and that problem just may not be with the listener.


I see it as the opposite, that the listener just could be not there yet. When Carter can write perfectly in an older idiom.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> The fact that you have to go into a defense of Carter's skill, education and discipline *after* someone has heard one of his pieces may suggest a problem...and that problem just may not be with the listener.


What utter nonsense. There is no problem, but sometimes the facts would be helpful as opposed to subjective ranting. So I'm just pushing back against judgements that fail to take into account the musical provenance and skill of the composer and result in unfounded remarks that imply there is little or no ability. There's no obligation to like any music of course, just as there's no justification surely, in casting aspersions on the composer - that just looks bad imv.

If you listen to that symphony, Carter's conservative musicality, his mastery and sense of tradition is clear to hear. I find it ludicrous that naysayers are happy to imply incompetence or lack of skill, based on an "I don't like it", without a clearer picture of the artist, especially when nothing could be further than the truth. That's why I posted.

People might not like Carter, fine, but does anyone really think he lost his hard won musical artistry as he developed and explored his own aesthetics beyond the conservative? Well, It doesn't work like that if you do think so.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Yes, you agreed with the following:
> 
> I would like to hear examples. You make can't make such grandiose statements about modern music and then retreat into Subjectiveland when asked for demonstrations. Yes loads of modern composers have used the old forms. But I can say that I've perfected the electric car engine...but if it can't get a car out of the driveway, I've done no such thing.


You are misconstruing what I wrote, i.e. "perfecting" 16th and 18th century counterpoint. I meant mastering the skill of writing it in exercises. I doubt any of those are available, nor should they be. They were school work.

Regarding Bach: Bach cannot be improved, his music represents, to me, the apogee of 18th century counterpoint (some people might argue whether it was Bach or Handel). But, and I may have written this before, I enjoy examples of C20/21 counterpoint as much as I enjoy Bach's music. I've posted some.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> The fact that you have to go into a defense of Carter's skill, education and discipline *after* someone has heard one of his pieces may suggest a problem...and that problem just may not be with the listener.


You sound as though you are not aware that Elliott Carter was held in very high esteem by the classical music community. I cannot think of a modern era composer whose new work was anticipated with the same kind of enthusiasm.

Maybe the problem is that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## SanAntone

*Georg Friedrich Haas - Sextet, for 3 violas and 3 cellos* (1982)

Solistenensemble Kaleidoskop 
Tammin Julian Lee (conductor)


----------



## JAS

Christabel said:


> . . . Anyone can sit at a piano and create a sound world similar to these two works, without any musical training. . . .


Training might actually be a hindrance . . . or perhaps not. It is interesting to me to see how many of the advocates for this kind of thing are professional musicians or composers, or have gone through formal indoctrination . . . er . . education in music. That is a pattern that is too strong for me to simply ignore.

It is also amazing how absolutely certain some people seem to be about what is clear in this kind of stuff, and what others simply _must_ be able to hear as well, when it should be quite obvious that it is not clear at all.


----------



## mikeh375

JAS said:


> Training might actually be a hindrance . . . or perhaps not. It is interesting to me to see how many of the advocates for this kind of thing are professional musicians or composers, or have gone through* formal indoctrination .* . . er . . education in music. That is a pattern that is too strong for me to simply ignore.


give it up JAS, ignorant button pushing isn't helpful....but whatever, I'm not your internet dad.


----------



## JAS

mikeh375 said:


> give it up JAS, ignorant button pushing isn't helpful....but whatever, I'm not your internet dad.


At the very least, advocates of this stuff have completely lost any sense of perspective. Merely asserting the presence of things that we simply do not hear in this stuff convinces us of no merits. It is precisely why the concept of the emperor's clothes is so often invoked.


----------



## mikeh375

JAS said:


> ............
> .........
> It is also amazing how absolutely certain some people seem to be about what is clear in this kind of stuff, and what others simply _must_ be able to hear as well, when it should be quite obvious that it is not clear at all.


...and yet it doesn't stop some denouncing it and dismissing it out of hand.


----------



## Jacck

Carter is one of those modern compors who I find unique, talented and enjoyable. My entry for him was the first string quartet (composed in the Sonaran Desert). The quartet contains many disonant passages, but also some genuinly enjoyable passages that are beautiful. I think his piano sonata also contains some almost romantic sounding passages. He is difficult to get into, but worthwhile in my opinion.


----------



## JAS

mikeh375 said:


> ...and yet it doesn't stop some denouncing it and dismissing it out of hand.


Because the evidence of our own ears assures us that it is not there, and this is backed up by widely shared experience. Maybe it is there, and maybe it isn't. If someone tells me that he has been to the zoo and seen an elephant, I don't need much evidence to support the claim because in my own experience, I have seen zoos and I know that they often have elephants. But these advocates are telling me that they have seen an elephant in my garage, and I was just in my garage and did not see an elephant. More evidence in this case is required.

But I have had my say, and I now go back to more productive things. Rant away.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^naah I'll leave it there thanks...point made.


----------



## Phil loves classical

JAS said:


> At the very least, advocates of this stuff have completely lost any sense of perspective. Merely asserting the presence of things that we simply do not hear in this stuff convinces us of no merits. It is precisely why the concept of the emperor's clothes is so often invoked.


I can understand your point if those advocates are not fans of Bach, Beethoven, etc. But all (or almost all) of these advocates appreciate traditional music as well, and many know traditional music better than the lay listener. It doesn't sound plausible that these advocates can lose perspective in the contemporary style, but not in the other. That was what convinced me to keep pushing forward before. I believe that is the point SanAntone, MikeH are making.


----------



## JAS

^^^ a brief interruption only to reply. The loss of perspective is entirely evident in their actual comments. (Ignorance runs both ways.) No further evidence is necessary. (It is at least theoretically possible the way that they appreciate traditional music is unlike those of us who have not drunk the koolaid on modern stuff.)


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> If you listen to that symphony, Carter's conservative musicality, his mastery and sense of tradition is clear to hear. I find it ludicrous that naysayers are happy to imply incompetence or lack of skill, based on an "I don't like it", without a clearer picture of the artist, especially when nothing could be further than the truth. That's why I posted.


You say this as if he had climbed the top of the heap before he decided that he had to explore something else. Meanwhile this Symphony No. 1 of his is just... very boring when compared to the works of Ives, Khachaturian, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Hanson, or Hovhaness... to name a few. It's not like with Schoenberg, whose tonal works indeed do show a good mastery of the tonal world.

at least to me, but I see that to some other listeners as well


----------



## Phil loves classical

JAS said:


> ^^^ a brief interruption only to reply. The loss of perspective is entirely evident in their actual comments. (Ignorance runs both ways.) No further evidence is necessary. (*It is at least theoretically possible the way that they appreciate traditional music is unlike those of us who have not drunk the koolaid on modern stuff.*)


But what about how some of them actually write traditional music well? It is more evident of their understanding of tonality than the lay listener who could at most make their list of favourite composers and works to show their knowledge. The lay listener can't write a traditional fugue, while many of those trained composers can.

I've made certain value judgements, like melody (as traditional perceived and as I take it myself) has declined. Some more attractive elements of music have been stripped in a lot of contemporary music. But to say something there is no skill or merit is wrong. If those highly trained composers, who can write fugues/etc., hear merit in each others works, then that is saying something. Maybe they are a bunch of nerds communicating in some alien language to each other and a select few listeners, and that have no merit to most, but it can't be a generalization, when they are leaders in the field of Music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Some fugues (by common practice masters) I find "weak".










So with common practice masters, you can actually tell if they were inspired or skillful.
With guys like Cage, Babbitt, you can't tell because they thought in terms of philosophies like " everything we do is music", "who cares if you listen?"

Is Cage's way of composing really that difficult compared to those of common practice masters? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Is Cage's way of composing really that difficult compared to those of common practice masters? I seriously doubt it.


Cage is a bad example. Schoenberg basically denounced him (in private to Cage). But think here, even he can write decent melody. I think Rihm and Ferneyhough have way more talent than he does.


----------



## Haydn70

Roger Knox said:


> Yes, I learned 16th- and 18th-century counterpoint back in the day as you did. My composition teacher insisted that these skills were ways of understanding what a style is and what writing in a style involves. *But too much dwelling on 16th- or 18th-century counterpoint (as may happen to composers who teach music theory) can take over a composer's ear to the detriment of creating music in our time;* Schoenberg or Hindemith models are considered old hat now too.
> 
> I hear rigor in 20th-century string quartets, etc. by Aldo Clementi and Krystof Meyer though I don't know exactly what they do. Boulez and Ligeti wrote (very different) rigorous music, as do many others. It isn't necessarily my favourite music though; you have to consider taste and aesthetics as well. Still in my opinion taste and aesthetics are linked to theoretical matters as is a house to foundations. *Nowadays we have a difficult time composing, hemmed in by taboos, received opinions, strategic considerations that have nothing to do with either musical rigor or taste*.


My studies of 16th and 18th century counterpoint were and are (as I continue to study them) far from being detrimental to me as I compose in a tonal/modal style. (I composed in an atonal style while in college...long time ago.)

And I have no problem composing these days because I couldn't care less about *taboos, received opinions, strategic considerations*. It's simple: I compose music I want to hear and don't give a damn about current trends, manifestos, dictums, tastes, especially those that oppose composing in a more conservative style such as I do.


----------



## Mandryka

Haydn70 said:


> And I have no problem composing these days because I couldn't care less about *taboos, received opinions, strategic considerations*. It's simple: I compose music I want to hear and don't give a damn about current trends, manifestos, dictums, tastes, especially those that oppose composing in a more conservative style such as I do.


Like Babbitt, you don't care if they listen.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> I think Rihm and Ferneyhough have way more talent than he does.


More talent for what?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mandryka said:


> More talent for what?


For writing music that is not by chance. Compare this with any of the others' quartets.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> For writing music that is not by chance. Compare this with any of the others' quartets.


Ok, you win you sly dog. I'll get my revenge soon.


----------



## SanAntone

Christabel said:


> The Babbitt and the Carter posted above; I wouldn't listen to these at my stage of life. They are just too stressful for me when I need to be uplifted and stimulated beyond the quotidian. I've felt, and still do feel, that most of the 'art' resides in putting it onto paper. Anyone can sit at a piano and create a sound world similar to these two works, without any musical training. Let's be honest about this. But few people can transpose that experience into readable and logical musical language.


Improvising usually produces what a person has in their muscle memory. IF they mainly play conventional works, then that is what will come out of a improvisation. So I can honestly say that I don't buy what you're peddling in this post. I do agree that it takes trainging to notate complex music and some of the extended techniques composers ask from performers with much new music.



JAS said:


> Training might actually be a hindrance . . . or perhaps not. It is interesting to me to see how many of the advocates for this kind of thing are professional musicians or composers, or have gone through formal indoctrination . . . er . . education in music. That is a pattern that is too strong for me to simply ignore.
> 
> It is also amazing how absolutely certain some people seem to be about what is clear in this kind of stuff, and what others simply _must_ be able to hear as well, when it should be quite obvious that it is not clear at all.


I think some trained musicians are more open to music that is outside the conventional norms, but many trained musicians are the most conservative guardians of the tradition. It all depends.

The only thing clear about "this stuff" is that I enjoy listening to much of it. I am not an advocate, other than sharing with a forum what I'm listening to and commenting on it. I don't care whether you like it or think its trash.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> At the very least, advocates of this stuff have completely lost any sense of perspective. Merely asserting the presence of things that we simply do not hear in this stuff convinces us of no merits. It is precisely why the concept of the emperor's clothes is so often invoked.


The fact that you don't hear what I hear is on you. I am not responsible for what you are able to take away from listening to new music. Nor is it my obligation to explain it to you. Since I don't care whether you like it or not I also do not care if you even listen to it. I will answer you when you make statements which I think you have a misunderstanding of what motivates a composer or a listener concerning new music.


----------



## SanAntone

There's seems to be a disconnect in this discussion or an expectation from some posters who question the value of new music that they are entitled to an explanation. 

Speaking for myself:

1. I am not an advocate for new music
2. I have no interest in trying to explain new music to you
3. I do not think new music requires a defense
4. I am uninterested in how many people listen to it or like it
5. It matters not to me if the music from previous periods is embraced by the classical music community and new music is shunned
6. Finally, I don't care if you listen.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> You say this as if he had climbed the top of the heap before he decided that he had to explore something else. Meanwhile this Symphony No. 1 of his is just... very boring when compared to the works of Ives, Khachaturian, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Hanson, or Hovhaness... to name a few. It's not like with Schoenberg, whose tonal works indeed do show a good mastery of the tonal world.
> 
> at least to me, but I see that to some other listeners as well


The inference that has cropped up several times here, that 20th and 21stC composers where or are, not up to the techniques before their time and the inference that academia/technique is detrimental is wrong. This work was chosen in response to a poster. Read the exchanges if you want as I'm not going over it again. That should give you the context for my post. I've also posted on other pages more examples of composer's who went through academia and came out the other end as gifted artists with clear links to tradition as a balance to San Antones excellent, but more extreme postings.

I offer no value judgement as to worth within the canon on Carter's 1st other than to say it shows craftsmanship and musicality and disproves perceptions some might have about him and his integrity. Which in turn, might give pause for thought in future before disparaging someone outright because there are no tunes or no immediacy in appeal.

You don't like it Fabulin, fine but I and others do. As always in these matters YMMV, but it doesn't mean anybody is right or wrong.


----------



## SanAntone

Three works for piano and string quartet, Feldman (1985), Carter (1997) and Furrer (1998)

*Feldman - Piano and String Quartet*
Ives Ensemble






*Elliott Carter - Quintet for piano and strings*
Performed by Marc-André Hamelin and the Arditti Quartet, in 2001.






*Beat Furrer - spur*
Performed by kammerensemble neue musik berlin


----------



## Luchesi

Eclectic Al said:


> That is quite an extraordinary statement.


Picture Beethoven stomping around, getting his thoughts together to begin composing the Grosse Fuge. "I'm going to compose a large work people will like." 
Nope.
But offering an artistic experience to listeners and hopefully a long enduring work, describing something in human experience (chaos) or a atate of mind (or a lashing out in Beethovenian terms).


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> There's seems to be a disconnect in this discussion or an expectation from some posters who question the value of new music that they are entitled to an explanation.
> 
> Speaking for myself:
> 
> 1. I am not an advocate for new music
> 2. I have no interest in trying to explain new music to you
> 3. I do not think new music requires a defense
> 4. I am uninterested in how many people listen to it or like it
> 5. It matters not to me if the music from previous periods is embraced by the classical music community and new music is shunned
> 6. Finally, I don't care if you listen.


All your points are taken. Point No. 3, though, I'd have to disagree with to the extent that 'new music' covers many disparate elements now from sound design right through to actual music. Ergo, 'new music' a problematic area mostly because people like myself reject the idea that sound design *IS* music - when that latter label would seem adequate in the first place. But we live in the age of 'no prisoners' where people (not you!) insist that something is the way THEY say it is - and they've got the baseball bats to prove it.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> You sound as though you are not aware that Elliott Carter was held in very high esteem by the classical music community. I cannot think of a modern era composer whose new work was anticipated with the same kind of enthusiasm.
> 
> Maybe the problem is that you don't know what you are talking about.


I'm quite aware of who Carter was, and Sessions and Diamond and on and on. Maybe the problem is you know less than you assume. Having pompous asses trying to convince audiences that they should be hearing something they don't won't help the cause.

By the way I couldn't care less how esteemed Carter was by the "community".


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I'm quite aware of who Carter was, and Sessions and Diamond and on and on. Maybe the problem is you know less than you assume. Having pompous asses trying to convince audiences that they should be hearing something they don't won't help the cause.
> 
> By the way I couldn't care less how esteemed Carter was by the "community".


I never claimed to know more than what music I found interesting. If by my being interested in music that you find intolerable, I can't help you out with that. You're on your own, and I'm sure there is music you do like you can listen to.

I am curious who are these "pompous asses trying to convince audiences that they should be hearing something they don't?"

My position all along has been that if an audience doesn't hear something that I hear, I won't try to convince them otherwise. I believe that people are capable of listening to music and deciding for themselves if they find it interesting or not. If they like something different from me, that's great. And if they tell me they don't like the music I like, I won't try to get them to change their minds.

We all like what we like.


----------



## SanAntone

Christabel said:


> All your points are taken. Point No. 3, though, I'd have to disagree with to the extent that 'new music' covers many disparate elements now from sound design right through to actual music. Ergo, 'new music' a problematic area mostly because people like myself reject the idea that sound design *IS* music - when that latter label would seem adequate in the first place. But we live in the age of 'no prisoners' where people (not you!) insist that something is the way THEY say it is - and they've got the baseball bats to prove it.


I admit to using the term "music" as a convenience. I happen to think that now in the 21st century the concept of music has been broadened after decades of composers like John Cage, Pierre Schaeffer, Luc Ferrari, and a whole host of other composers who have stepped outside the framework that for centuries defined music.


----------



## Fabulin

Had Beethoven composed only Grosse Fugue, late quartets, and more works in a similar vein, instead of his symphonies and most famous classical/romantic piano pieces, he wouldn't be the No.1 composer in the world's mind he is right now.

I wonder where would the proponents of the relative greatness (say: relative to sugar daddy Tchaikovsky) of recent... beauty-challenged music go from there? Would they turn against Eroica and the choral symphony, calling their fans unsophisticated for preferring those over the late quartets?


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

SanAntone said:


> *Hindemith*'s _Ludus Tonalis _I think is one of the best examples of 20th century contrapuntal composition that is coming straight out of Bach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also *Shotakovich*'s _24 Preludes & Fugues_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good example of atonal counterpoint is *Schoenberg*'s _Third String Quartet_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And one my personal favorites is *Krzysztof Meyer*'s _String Quartet No. 6_


THANK YOU for posting the Meyer SQ :tiphat:, I quite enjoyed it; my intro to this Polish composer - _holy frijoles_, I see he's penned 15 SQs.


----------



## SanAntone

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> THANK YOU for posting the Meyer SQ :tiphat:, I quite enjoyed it; my intro to this Polish composer - _holy frijoles_, I see he's penned 15 SQs.


I think he should be included in the ranks of the 20th century SQ masters: Bartok, Shostakovich, and Carter. I think the 15th premiered in 2018, so he is very current.


----------



## SanAntone

*Klaus Lang: parthenon* (2018)
Cikada Ensemble
Christian Eggen (conductor)


----------



## SanAntone

*Sofia Gubaidulina - String Quartet No. 2*
Danish Quartet


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I never claimed to know more than what music I found interesting. If by my being interested in music that you find intolerable, I can't help you out with that. You're on your own, and I'm sure there is music you do like you can listen to.
> 
> I am curious who are these "pompous asses trying to convince audiences that they should be hearing something they don't?"
> 
> My position all along has been that if an audience doesn't hear something that I hear, I won't try to convince them otherwise. I believe that people are capable of listening to music and deciding for themselves if they find it interesting or not. If they like something different from me, that's great. And if they tell me they don't like the music I like, I won't try to get them to change their minds.
> 
> We all like what we like.


Maybe not so much "pompous" as "elitist", and it made the predictable appearance early on in this thread. Whether or not I know who Carter was should and really does not make any difference whatsoever. That was *your* reflexive response, an appeal to authority. "But the conservatories...the Pulitzers...the degrees...this critic..." That's all a self-validating "in" circle anyway, and miniscule and probably getting smaller by the minute. 
As for your clarification on the counterpoint issue, it's good to know our academics then can write counterpoint with the skill of Bach. I haven't heard it though.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Maybe not so much "pompous" as "elitist", and it made the predictable appearance early on in this thread. Whether or not I know who Carter was should and really does not make any difference whatsoever. That was *your* reflexive response, an appeal to authority. "But the conservatories...the Pulitzers...the degrees...this critic..." That's all a self-validating "in" circle anyway, and miniscule and probably getting smaller by the minute.
> As for your clarification on the counterpoint issue, it's good to know our academics then can write counterpoint with the skill of Bach. I haven't heard it though.


I think it was a natural response to (maybe it was) you questioning the skill or expertise of contemporary composers that caused me and others to cite their education and/or C.V. I remember posts where people said something like, "how do we know these composers really know what they are doing since the music sounds like what anybody could make-up." That kind of comment would cause us to attempt to buttress the composer's cred by showing that indeed he has been educated and is trained in musical composition.

That's a genuine attempt to answer your accusation. As far as my "appeal to authority" regarding Carter, again, in the post I was answering you sounded like you didn't have a grasp of his stature and standing among classical conductors, performers, other composers, and the general classical community. Often I have seen you attempt to speak for the majority of the classical audience. But I when cite it, you accuse me of "appealing to authority."

For this and other reasons I must conclude you are not genuinely interested in a true exchange of ideas but seem to be more interested in "scoring points" and playing gotcha. Neither of which are worth my time.

You may have missed it but in a post about counterpoint (which contained many errors), but one thing I wrote that was accurate is that while composition students had to take courses in 16th and 18th century counterpoint - completing the exercises were remote from the kind of music we wanted to write. But we did benefit from the discipline. I found out later that composition students now study 20th century counterpoint and atonal scores as additional preparation for learning the craft of musical composition.


----------



## consuono

> As far as my "appeal to authority" regarding Carter, again, in the post I was answering you sounded like you didn't have a grasp of his stature and standing among classical conductors, performers, other composers, and the general classical community.


And, again, that is totally irrelevant. You're big on "letting the music speak for itself", but yet grab for that c.v. when one of the groundlings says something disrespectful.


> Often I have seen you attempt to speak for the majority of the classical audience.


I don't have to speak for the majority of the classical audience. Playlists, sales and general interest levels do that vividly enough. And lest we forget, the audience doesn't really matter anyway. The ones that matter are academics, specialists, civilian initiates and Pulitzer committees.


> For this and other reasons I must conclude you are not genuinely interested in a true exchange of ideas but seem to be more interested in "scoring points" and playing gotcha. Neither of which are worth my time.


The usual refuge of someone caught in an inconsistency.


> I think it was a natural response to (maybe it was) you questioning the skill or expertise of contemporary composers that caused me and others to cite their education and/or C.V.


The natural response is to highlight the music. If someone criticizes Bach I don't have to say "look, the guy was Thomaskantor and had a library of manuscripts. And he knew Latin, so there."


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> And, again, that is totally irrelevant. You're big on "letting the music speak for itself", but yet grab for that c.v. when one of the groundlings says something disrespectful.
> I don't have to speak for the majority of the classical audience. Playlists, sales and general interest levels do that vividly enough. And lest we forget, the audience doesn't really matter anyway. The ones that matter are academics, specialists, civilian initiates and Pulitzer committees.
> 
> The usual refuge of someone caught in an inconsistency.
> The natural response is to highlight the music. If someone criticizes Bach I don't have to say "look, the guy was Thomaskantor and had a library of manuscripts. And he knew Latin, so there."


What is it that you would rather have in the music of today? Do you have an interesting concept?


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> What is it that you would rather have in the music of today? Do you have an interesting concept?


I don't know. That's a difficult question. It seems that what we've had is common practice, and then a Tower of Babel that succeeded it, none of the resulting languages being really satisfactory. If common practice had continued, I don't see how the rut of endless emulation and derivative stuff would've been avoided.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Did the haters vote on the poll? It's starting to look like a minority of listeners here 'don't get' the difficult atonal stuff. And more listeners here see the emperor's new clothes. Notice I tried prodding the haters to come out, I figured those in support don't need the prodding. The numbers don't matter to me, I was just curious to where the majority of the demographic stands.

The reason people don't go to concerts may be that they prefer the old stuff regardless of how difficult the music is nowadays. Personally I wouldn't pay to hear any living composer's music, tonal or atonal, when I can listen for free from Spotify and Youtube (and likely even if I couldn't). But of Contemporary music, I choose to listen to the more challenging stuff (which is more unique). For the tonal stuff, I would go to the Masters.

When I listened to the David Matthews symphony MikeH posted, it didn't strike me as something that interesting. I read his bio, and noted he was a huge advocate of Tippett. I listened to Tippett again (his 2nd and 3rd symphonies), and I was really into it, I found it many times more interesting than the David Matthews.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^yeah, Tippett has the edge for me too Phil, but I do like Matthews. That 2nd symphony is a tour de force and a swine to play for the strings. Tippett was a brilliant composer with considerable contrapuntal skill. 
Anyone come across Danielpour? This movt. is comprised of very beautiful counterpoint...(n.b. consuono... ). Heaven forfend, not another composer who went through academia and writes, you know, music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^yeah, Tippett has the edge for me too Phil, but I do like Matthews. That 2nd symphony is a tour de force and a swine to play for the strings. Anyone come across Danielpour? This is very beautiful counterpoint...(n.b. consuono... ).


Even the much lauded Dr. David Wright was a fan of Tippett despite his sexual orientation or conduct (he seems to use that against composers he doesn't like, like Britten).

Yup the Danielpour is nice, but I feel I'm listening to something from the 19th/ early 20th Century, which I would rather do.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> And, again, that is totally irrelevant. You're big on "letting the music speak for itself", but yet grab for that c.v. when one of the groundlings says something disrespectful.


Yes, it is hard to remain silent when something you are enthusiastic about is being disrespected.

But my baseline position regarding new music is as I stated a some posts earlier:

1. I am not an advocate for new music
2. I have no interest in trying to explain new music to you
3. I do not think new music requires a defense
4. I am uninterested in how many people listen to it or like it
5. It matters not to me if the music from previous periods is embraced by the classical music community and new music is shunned
6. Finally, I don't care if you listen.

So you can expect no more back and forth from me.


----------



## mikeh375

@Phil....I believe Britten suggested they sleep together one time, but Tippett declined. He was a maverick and very distinctive. Did you know he returned to the Royal College some years after he had left, to continue advancing his contrapuntal studies?


----------



## Phil loves classical

mikeh375 said:


> @Phil....I believe Britten suggested they sleep together one time, but Tippett declined. He was a maverick and very distinctive. Did you know he returned to the Royal College some years after he had left, to continue advancing his contrapuntal studies?


I didn't really want to hear the first part, but it's kind of interesting nonetheless (they'd make beautiful music together). Ya, you mentioned the 2nd part before, was that after the 2nd symphony? What year did he go back?


----------



## mikeh375

Phil loves classical said:


> I didn't really want to hear the first part, but it's kind of interesting nonetheless. Ya, you mentioned the 2nd part before, was that after the 2nd symphony? What year did he go back?


lol. I'd have to dig, but no, I think he was in his early 30's and therefore before he found his original voice. I think he felt he needed to reinforce his technique a little more. It would have been pre 'Child of Our Time' iirc.

EDIT...I recalled incorrectly (iiri?), he was 25 when he went back. That was to study 16thC vocal technique. interestingly for me, it was with R.O.Morris, whose book on 16thC technique was my bible for that particular period's study. I also met him once - Tippett that is..


----------



## Phil loves classical

mikeh375 said:


> lol. I'd have to dig, but no, I think he was in his early 30's and therefore before he found his original voice. I think he felt he needed to reinforce his technique a little more. It would have been pre 'Child of Our Time' iirc.


Ok, that makes sense. I couldn't imagine anyone needing to go back after that 2nd symphony.


----------



## SanAntone

> Did the haters vote on the poll? It's starting to look like a minority of listeners here 'don't get' the difficult atonal stuff. And more listeners here see the emperor's new clothes. Notice I tried prodding the haters to come out, I figured those in support don't need the prodding. The numbers don't matter to me, I was just curious to where the majority of the demographic stands.


As far as I can tell there's only one stridently "anti-new music" person, *consuomo*. And for the life of me I can't figure out why he is so worked up about new music.


----------



## SanAntone

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^yeah, Tippett has the edge for me too Phil, but I do like Matthews. That 2nd symphony is a tour de force and a swine to play for the strings. Tippett is a brilliant composer with considerable contrapuntal skill.
> Anyone come across Danielpour? This movt. is comprised of very beautiful counterpoint...(n.b. consuono... ). Heaven forfend, not another composer who went through academia and writes, you know, music.


*Danielpour* is a composer I have been enthusiastic about, but I haven't kept up with what he's done recently.

I go in and out listening to modern era music. Dipping my toe in for six months and then not listening to it at all for six months or a year. But, I almost always listen to the newest stuff I can find and don't go back beyond 20 years or so, unless it is for a composer I know and love, like Carter, or Weinberg, or Webern.

Oddly the music I write is nothing like what I've been posting: Roots music based story songs.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> As far as I can tell there's only one stridently "anti-new music" person, *consuomo*. And for the life of me I can't figure out why he is so worked up about new music.


I'm not worked up at all. I just gave my opinion. You might want to read back through the thread and see which "side" was the one flinging the insults and taking the ad hominem approach. It wasn't me.


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> *Danielpour* is a composer I have been enthusiastic about, but I haven't kept up with what he's done recently.
> 
> I go in and out listening to modern era music. Dipping my toe in for six months and then not listening to it at all for six months or a year. But, I almost always listen to the newest stuff I can find and don't go back beyond 20 years or so, unless it is for a composer I know and love, like Carter, or Weinberg, or Webern.
> 
> Oddly the music I write is nothing like what I've been posting: Roots music based story songs.


Your posts have been an education. I loved the Beat Furrer Concerto in particular, it was a riveting ride. Danielpours 4tets are an enviable body of work and worth the effort if you don't already know them. 
I too am different on the ms to my listening, perhaps it's a thing...


----------



## SanAntone

mikeh375 said:


> Your posts have been an education. I loved the Beat Furrer Concerto in particular, it was a riveting ride. Danielpours 4tets are an enviable body of work and worth the effort if you don't already know them.
> I too am different on the ms to my listening, perhaps it's a thing...


You should post his SQ in the new thread I started on *SQ since 1970*.


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> I go in and out listening to modern era music. Dipping my toe in for six months and then not listening to it at all for six months or a year. But, I almost always listen to the newest stuff I can find and don't go back beyond 20 years or so, unless it is for a composer I know and love, like Carter, or Weinberg, or Webern.
> 
> Oddly the music I write is nothing like what I've been posting: Roots music based story songs.


I've noticed a few of your posts in some of the games (for example the current one on piano pieces that aren't sonatas), where you recently gave 6 to Liszt's Annees Yr 3 and 4 to Brahms' Op 119, which is very much up my street.

You've certainly got good taste when it comes to late 19th century piano music. :tiphat:

I'm less convinced about the modern stuff, but each to his own.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> I've noticed a few of your posts in some of the games (for example the current one on piano pieces that aren't sonatas), where you recently gave 6 to Liszt's Annees Yr 3 and 4 to Brahms' Op 119, which is very much up my street.
> 
> You've certainly got good taste when it comes to late 19th century piano music. :tiphat:
> 
> I'm less convinced about the modern stuff, but each to his own.


In the games I vote fairly conservatively favoring certain composers, Liszt, Poulenc, Haydn, Beethoven, and Brahms over some more contemporary works. It's a game, right, and I want to vote for works that I like and also have a chance of winning.


----------



## Guest

Haydn70 said:


> Mistakes in the above quote:
> 
> Second species is not two parts it is 2 notes against 1, e.g. two quarter notes in one voice against one half note.
> *Third species is not three parts it is 4 notes against 1*
> Fourth species is not four parts it is suspensions
> The fourth is NOT a consonance, it is a dissonance in both 16th and 18th century counterpoint.


*Mistake* in the above post, *bolded*: it depends on the period and the pedagogue. In polyphonic writing it is the case; in later contrapuntal styles *Third species* is 3:1, 4:1 & 6:1.


----------



## Haydn70

TalkingHead said:


> *Mistake* in the above post, *bolded*: it depends on the period and the pedagogue. In polyphonic writing it is the case; in later contrapuntal styles *Third species* is 3:1, 4:1 & 6:1.


Ya got me! Yes, I knew about the 3:1, 6:1, etc. when I wrote the response...was just typing quickly...


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> Keep posting the things which interest you from the contemporary repertoire; *the objection I have to some of it (Wishart, just as one example) is that it's sound design and not music per se*. Sound design is perfectly fine for what it is. Perhaps we could focus on 'concert hall' music and not studios/computers which manufacture sound design? Adams, Corigliano etc? There are many.


I suppose for some of you the word "music" is too-loaded a term. Is this the sticking point in this thread?
For me, the term 'sound design' encompasses sounds/music whose function is intended as background, such as the sounds/music put together for an installation. An example of this would be the 'Sound & Light' show put on every summer in my cathedral city, where very lovely light projections on the cathedral façade are accompanied by a pre-recorded combination of sounds (environmental) and snippets from the "classics".
As regards most of the works of *Trevor Wishart*, they are concert pieces in the sense of ticket-paying bums-on-seats in an listening venue.
To take the example of Wishart's *Anticredos *in particular, I fail to see how this can be understood as 'sound design' given that it is a through-composed piece for six amplified voices and percussion instruments, using a score that is as thorough and as open to different interpretations as any from the _imaginary museum of musical works_.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> As I've heard, "size doesn't matter." *As long as there are some people who enjoy even the most avant-garde music the composer(s) will have an audience. No problem*.


This is absolutely the case. Where I live there is a yearly, well-attended *contemporary music* festival that attracts a large international audience. It's the same in other centres across Europe. I really can't speak for the Americas and Australasia. The continuation of music that _exercises_ the minds and ears of certain posters on this forum is assured and is not going away anytime soon.


----------



## Guest

Haydn70 said:


> *Ya got me!* Yes, I knew about the 3:1, 6:1, etc. when I wrote the response...*was just typing quickly*...


You will extend the same courtesy to the original poster I hope.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> The people who hate bean counters are largely those who don't have any to count for themselves!!


Oh, what a silly billy! I don't hate beancounters but I do get ever so slightly annoyed by those with a 'beancounter' approach to life (Covid deaths, pride in identifying II chords and their inversions...). Keep it up!


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> *Georg Friedrich Haas - Sextet, for 3 violas and 3 cellos* (1982)
> 
> Solistenensemble Kaleidoskop
> Tammin Julian Lee (conductor)


May I just say that I'm a big fan of *GF Haas*. His concerto for six pianos was premiered in my city 2 or 3 years ago, absolutely knock-out stuff!


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> That is quite an extraordinary statement.


Not really. Let's put it back to the 19th century. You think LvB gave a fig? Let's fast forward to this century: you think a composer today gives a fig? You think Boulez gave a fig? You think he would change one drop of the ink on his manuscript paper because of what _you_, JAS, 1996/Sunami or I would think? Stop your commercial/accountant reasoning. Go and listen to André Rieu and be satisfied.


----------



## SanAntone

Can we nail down some terms or periods regarding 20th century music? 

Here's my idea, none of which is in cement:

Modern - 1900-1945
Post-War - 1945-1965
Post-Modern - 1965-1985
Contemporary - 1985-present

We seem to throw these terms around and often I don't know the kind of music people are referring to.

Your ideas are very much encouraged.


----------



## DavidA

TalkingHead said:


> Not really. Let's put it back to the 19th century. You think LvB gave a fig? Let's fast forward to this century: you think a composer today gives a fig? You think Boulez gave a fig? You think he would change one drop of the ink on his manuscript paper because of what _you_, JAS, 1996/Sunami or I would think? Stop your commercial/accountant reasoning. Go and listen to André Rieu and be satisfied.


I don't think they care a fig what you say either actually! :lol:


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> Not really. Let's put it back to the 19th century. You think LvB gave a fig? ...


The man who inscribed one work "Von Herzen--möge es wieder zu Herzen gehn!" probably did.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> It matters not to me if the music from previous periods is embraced by the classical music community and new music is shunned


I don't think "new music" is "trash". I sort of understand why some people are interested in this stuff. But, there are also lots of people who want to focus mainly the common practice, even that's almost a 300 year period of musical variety. We could expand our point of focus to include other periods, but that would feel like "having too much of good things". Life is short, we can only concentrate on few certain things. This is a problem jazz, metal, rock fans don't need to deal with. Only classical music fans do, as of now.

I also think it's one way to avoid conflict. - If we have seperate forums for "old music" and "new music", (maybe create a subforum for "new music") and discourage creation of "anti-new-music threads" in the main forum, -I think it would make everyone happier.

I personally think "Talkclassical's Most highly Recommended Works" a big load of mess, with too much music of different types placed together. I also haven't heard any convincing argument Joseph Lamb, Yuhki Kuramoto, or Yiruma should not be included the list.


----------



## consuono

> Not really. Let's put it back to the 19th century.


By the way, that's exactly where you are with this warmed-over "artist vs the bourgeoisie" garbage.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> *By,* that's exactly where you are with this warmed-over "artist vs the bourgeoisie" garbage.


* By?* By what? Bye? OK, bye-bye.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> *By the way*, that's exactly where you are with this warmed-over "artist vs the bourgeoisie" garbage.


OK, Roger Scruton, you got me.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think "new music" is "trash". I sort of understand why some people are interested in this stuff. But, there are also lots of people who want to focus mainly the common practice, even that's almost a 300 year period of musical variety. We could expand our point of focus to include other periods, but that would feel like "having too much of good things". Life is short, we can only concentrate on few certain things. This is a problem jazz, metal, rock fans don't need to deal with. Only classical music fans do, as of now.
> 
> I also think it's one way to avoid conflict. - If we have seperate forums for "old music" and "new music", (maybe create a subforum for "new music") and discourage creation of "anti-new-music threads" in the main forum, -I think it would make everyone happier.


Creating a ghetto just for new music? Nah. Or we can have sub-forums for all the periods: early music, baroque, classical, romantic, modern, contemporary. That would be cool, IMO.



> I personally think "Talkclassical's Most highly Recommended Works" a big load of mess, with too much music of different types placed together. I also haven't heard any convincing argument Joseph Lamb, Yuhki Kuramoto, or Yiruma should not be included the list.


These videos you posted present music which sounds old but was composed recently (when?). I don't see the point. We already have Chopin and Sibelius. What is the purpose. The Joseph Lamb rags are okay. There is a whole new generation of ragtime pianists, there's even a convention/competition every year. Although I've often included Scott Joplin on a list of my favorite composers, I think ragtime fits more comfortably in the jazz genre rather than classical.


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> OK, Roger Scruton, you got me.


Who's Roger Scruton? Some attempt at bringing out the "poison well" from your stock of logical fallacies? And it's "by the way", aka a typo.

(edit) Ahhh OK, I looked him up. Never had heard of him before. I guess he's a sort of bugaboo for left-wing artiste types. Never had heard of Wishart before either, and I probably never will again. :lol:


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> Sounds clever; sounds like it could be a masterful put-down; trouble is, it's meaningless. Care to rephrase?


Yes, I do need to rephrase. Since you didn't bring up Scruton pre-emptively, it wasn't really "poisoning the well". The particular fallacy you pulled out this time is the old "guilt by association". Yell "Scruton!!" and apparently the artistes are aroused.



> Never heard of Scruton? Well, get to it, laddie and be a wide reader and post pompously about it on this forum! :lol:


Nah, not interested.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Yes, I do need to rephrase. Since you didn't bring up Scruton pre-emptively, it wasn't really "poisoning the well". The particular fallacy you pulled out this time is the old "guilt by association". Yell "Scruton!!" and apparently the artistes are aroused.


Lost me there, bruh. Try again.



consuono said:


> Nah, not interested.


Yeah, figures.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> This is absolutely the case. Where I live there is a yearly, well-attended *contemporary music* festival that attracts a large international audience. It's the same in other centres across Europe. I really can't speak for the Americas and Australasia. The continuation of music that _exercises_ the minds and ears of certain posters on this forum is assured and is not going away anytime soon.


Pity that same approach doesn't apply to wide reading and intellectual inquiry. I wonder why? (I wonder if I wonder.)

TH: you're embarrassing yourself (again) with your runaway train rants and incoherence. Put a lid on it, mate.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Oh, what a silly billy! I don't hate beancounters but I do get ever so slightly annoyed by those with a 'beancounter' approach to life (Covid deaths, pride in identifying II chords and their inversions...). Keep it up!


Nobody cares about what annoys you. Nobody at all.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> Pity that same approach doesn't apply to wide reading and intellectual inquiry. I wonder why? (I wonder if I wonder.)
> 
> TH: you're embarrassing yourself (again) with your runaway train rants and incoherence. Put a lid on it, mate.


Sorry kiddo, I don't follow you at all. Have a quick chat with DavidA to sort out what you're struggling to say and get back to us ASAP.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Yes, I read the news.


Just in the one rag, though.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> Nobody cares about what annoys you. Nobody at all.


Oh really? You do. X Kiss (à la DavidA)


----------



## Botschaft

Recent discussion in this thread has been as pointless as a piece of contemporary music.


----------



## Guest

Returning to the OP, another great thing about 20th century music is *music* like this:
_*Pentes*_, an electroacoustic work by *Denis Smalley*
https://electrotheque.com/oeuvre/13816


----------



## Guest

Waldesnacht said:


> Recent discussion in this thread has been as pointless as a piece of contemporary music.


The trouble is, it grows increasingly pointless. There's always beans - if you've got any!!


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> The trouble is, it grows increasingly pointless. There's always beans - if you've got any!!


What on earth is this supposed to mean?


----------



## Guest

Back to the OP, another great thing about 20th century music is *music* like this:
_*Pentes*_, an electroacoustic work by *Denis Smalley
https://electrotheque.com/oeuvre/13816
*


----------



## Guest

For those who think this is "sound design", let me disabuse them: it has a clear narrative arch, there are strong tonal elements and a very enjoyable "nod" to tonality via the Northumbrian pipes.


----------



## Guest

Plus the composer intended this to be a concert piece, i.e. ticket-paying bums-on-seats in a formal concert setting; a very powerful one, I may add. I am a big fan of this sort of *music*.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Plus the composer intended this to be a concert piece, i.e. ticket-paying bums-on-seats in a formal concert setting; a very powerful one, I may add. I am a big fan of this sort of *music*.


Absolutely risible. It would sound good in a horror film. Clear narrative arc? Priceless.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

The growing toxicity of this thread is something else.


----------



## Guest

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> The growing toxicity of this thread is something else.


I would ask Talking Head to describe in detail the narrative arc to which he refers. He insults people who have a different opinion, throws around terms and is yet to define precisely what these mean and the evidence in each example. I ask again for explicit details of the narrative arc in the work he's cited, chapter and verse, otherwise we can assume this is merely rhetoric.


----------



## Phil loves classical

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> The growing toxicity of this thread is something else.


Good place for both sides to vent.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> I would ask Talking Head to describe in detail the narrative arc to which he refers. He insults people who have a different opinion, throws around terms and is yet to define precisely what these mean and the evidence in each example. I ask again for explicit details of the narrative arc in the work he's cited, chapter and verse, otherwise we can assume this is merely rhetoric.


You listen to it first, then we can talk. I call your bluff on this.


----------



## Guest

Make sure you have the right recording. Get to it.


----------



## Guest

When you confirm that you have listened to it we will talk again.


----------



## Guest

Tomorrow. I have a full day. Later!


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Tomorrow. I have a full day. Later!


How many times have I heard THAT before, followed by the sound of crickets. Ha!


----------



## Guest

OK, tomorrow, then.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> OK, tomorrow, then.


That should give you enough time to research on the internet!! LOL

This is vintage TH: when called upon to stump up the evidence he's too busy, or having to go away (oh, if only!) or other such disingenuous verbiage.

It has made for an enjoyable and funny Sunday morning in sunny Australia.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> That should give you enough time to research on the internet!! LOL
> This is vintage TH: when called upon to stump up the evidence he's too busy, or having to go away (oh, if only!) or other such disingenuous verbiage.
> It has made for an enjoyable and funny Sunday morning in sunny Australia.


No girl, I'm off to bed, so that leaves _*you*_ plenty of time to research the web. I know this piece, so no sweat for me. We'll see what you come up with tomorrow. I'll be here tomorrow, no way am I going to miss this! For me, my aim will be to show a clear narrative arc and why this piece is not sound design. Do we agree to these parameters of our debate? Hurry now and reply! Enjoy your sunny Sunday in Australia whilst I take my beauty sleep here in Europe.


----------



## Guest

I'm waiting for confirmation from you of the terms of our debate. Do you wish to change them? Quickly now, I'm tired and have to go to bed.


----------



## Guest

Still waiting...


----------



## Botschaft

TalkingHead said:


> For those who think this is "sound design", let me disabuse them: it has a clear narrative arch, there are strong tonal elements and a very enjoyable "nod" to tonality via the Northumbrian pipes.


While I admittedly found it strangely pleasing sound-wise I failed to discern any overarching, coherent narrative-much less a clear one. The overall composition seemed rather gratuitous.


----------



## Guest

So, why Christabel has gone AWOL, I will assume the scope of our debate will be to cover the concept of a "narrative arc" in electroacoustic music, with particular reference to "Pentes" by Denis Smalley.


----------



## Guest

See you tomorrow and goodnight!


----------



## mmsbls

Please return to discussing 20th century music rather than making personal comments or chiding others.


----------



## consuono

> For me, my aim will be to show a clear narrative arc and why this piece is not sound design.


If you have to demonstrate a "clear narrative arc", then it must not be very clear.


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> For those who think this is "sound design", let me disabuse them: it has a clear narrative arch, ....


That's narrative "arc", by the way. And so what if it does? A children's book has the same.


----------



## consuono

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> The growing toxicity of this thread is something else.


Befitting the subject matter.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> If you have to demonstrate a "clear narrative arc", then it must not be very clear.


Yes, this is quite correct. But you'll find it's TH using a rhetorical flourish that amounts to nothing.


----------



## Guest

Waldesnacht said:


> While I admittedly found it strangely pleasing sound-wise I failed to discern any overarching, coherent narrative-much less a clear one. The overall composition seemed rather gratuitous.


That's why it NEEDS defending. I have visions of Alan Ginsberg look-alikes sitting around throwing papier mache darts at images of Bach and Beethoven and then justifying that as 'modern' and 'meaningful'. Cage did that long ago and he's hardly in the pantheon of memorable composers.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Who's Roger Scruton? Some attempt at bringing out the "poison well" from your stock of logical fallacies? And it's "by the way", aka a typo.
> 
> (edit) Ahhh OK, I looked him up. Never had heard of him before. I guess he's a sort of bugaboo for left-wing artiste types. Never had heard of Wishart before either, and I probably never will again. :lol:


Your second question nails it. Sir Roger Scruton (the late, great) was a British philosopher and man of letters. He was very interested in what constituted beauty and aestheticism; he never mentioned sound design. Or sonic art. You might find this interesting:






Sir Roger said that ugliness had crept into every niche and corner of our lives. How true that is. Sir Roger died in January of this year; if he was here I would give him a big hug. "*The Uglification of Modern Life". *Never a truer phrase was spoken.

The Catholic University of America sponsored this debate/discussion. Three cheers to our wonderful American friends for their advocacy with all these things and particularly their enthusiastic engagement with Sir Roger Scruton and his ideas. I live in hope...!!


----------



## Guest

Finally, we do await the 'narrative arc' analysis which TH is going to provide.


----------



## SanAntone

Here's something I read this morning which I think applies to both sides of this discussion. The speaker is Albert Murray.

"AM: _I think it's a mistake to think of any art form in terms of progress. I think the word progress when you're talking about aesthetics can only be applied practically to a given effort at stylization-some special approach might start out of as something new and develop to a certain point. But then it joins the ongoing process of the music-which is not necessarily a progression. Any time you say progression you ought to be thinking regression. Any time you're talking about extension, elaboration, and refinement-that can lead you to decadence and degeneration. There's a certain optimum point where you get masterpieces. But it can lead to attenuation. It can degenerate into nothingness.

I agree with André Malraux, who talks about the tradition of art. Each aesthetic effort is an attempt to join an ongoing dialogue with the form. Each time you succeed, you alter the existing emotional scale of the form. But that doesn't mean progress. It just means that the form that you're in continues. But it doesn't necessarily get better. How many contemporary writers are better than Shakespeare, or Goethe? How many young writers are better than Thomas Mann or Hemingway? Fiction hasn't improved, it just changes to keep up with the sensibility of the time._"

- *Murray Talks Music: Albert Murray on Jazz and Blues by Albert Murray*


----------



## mikeh375

...another quote that I've always felt suits in particular, the modern musical zeitgeist. Anaximander's only surviving words, his meaning is easily relatable to art music.

Things are transformed one into another according to necessity, 
and render justice to one another according to the order of time.


----------



## EdwardBast

Christabel said:


> Finally, we do await the 'narrative arc' analysis which TH is going to provide.


Apparently, if you want the analysis you must confirm that you've listened to the piece. Have you?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Waldesnacht said:


> While I admittedly found it strangely pleasing sound-wise I failed to discern any overarching, coherent narrative-much less a clear one. The overall composition seemed rather gratuitous.


I'm into electronic music and how they can generate interesting sounds and interact with each other too. But I also can't find a narrative arc. I suspect if there is one, it's not necessarily what others would get from the music, and is strongly a matter of interpretation. But how important is it to appreciating that piece, I'm wondering.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Christabel said:


> Your second question nails it. Sir Roger Scruton (the late, great) was a British philosopher and man of letters. He was very interested in what constituted beauty and aestheticism; he never mentioned sound design. Or sonic art. You might find this interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir Roger said that ugliness had crept into every niche and corner of our lives. How true that is. Sir Roger died in January of this year; if he was here I would give him a big hug. "*The Uglification of Modern Life". *Never a truer phrase was spoken.
> 
> The Catholic University of America sponsored this debate/discussion. Three cheers to our wonderful American friends for their advocacy with all these things and particularly their enthusiastic engagement with Sir Roger Scruton and his ideas. I live in hope...!!


I don't get this. What about Messiaen? If Scruton or anyone listened to his music without knowing his religious background, would they find the music beautiful, or a 'light to the Divine'? One of his piano pieces inspired total serialism. Didn't Messiaen propagate 'ugliness'? Who determines the line between beauty and ugliness? Did I relativize the word beauty here?

I do believe there is a lot of ugly Contemporary Music, but as long as it has structure, organization, that ugliness is superficial. On the flip side, though I don't particularly want to dwell in that kind of music too much (Ferneyhough is not my favourite composer). I would still rather listen to Ravel, who's music I think is beautiful (more than Messiaen's at least). BTW, I like Messiaen's music, but I just don't find it beautiful including Quartet for End of Time (Boulez called the Turangalia Symphony 'brothel music') Having value judgements is ok, but where do you draw the line? I think double standards can't be avoided if Messiaen's music is to be praised as not ugly, while others are so condemned.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

SanAntone said:


> "AM: _I think it's a mistake to think of any art form in terms of progress. I think the word progress when you're talking about aesthetics can only be applied practically to a given effort at stylization-some special approach might start out of as something new and develop to a certain point. But then it joins the ongoing process of the music-which is not necessarily a progression. Any time you say progression you ought to be thinking regression. Any time you're talking about extension, elaboration, and refinement-that can lead you to decadence and degeneration. There's a certain optimum point where you get masterpieces. But it can lead to attenuation. It can degenerate into nothingness.
> 
> I agree with André Malraux, who talks about the tradition of art. Each aesthetic effort is an attempt to join an ongoing dialogue with the form. Each time you succeed, you alter the existing emotional scale of the form. But that doesn't mean progress. It just means that the form that you're in continues. But it doesn't necessarily get better. How many contemporary writers are better than Shakespeare, or Goethe? How many young writers are better than Thomas Mann or Hemingway? Fiction hasn't improved, it just changes to keep up with the sensibility of the time._"


This quote is quite contradictary. Murray says it's a mistake to think of any art form in terms of progress, then goes on -it seems- to say that phases of progress and regression alternate in art, and the phases of progress leads to "optimum points where you get masterpieces" (Unless Thomas Mann or Shakespeare aren't better than the best "young writers", and only echoes the sensibilities of their times). I think I agree with what Muray is trying to say (that there isn't general progress in art, but specific phases of progress inside traditions or tendencies, that lead to moments where it gets impossible to do better in a particular form of a tradition), but the way he says it is very unclear.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Who determines the line between beauty and ugliness?


I think each of us do this for ourselves. I recognize no authority whose opinion about what is ugly or beautiful which can trump my own subjective taste.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> I think each of us do this for ourselves. I recognize no authority whose opinion about what is ugly or beautiful which can trump my own subjective taste.


You must be a philosopher!


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> You must be a philosopher!


Far from it. You need not be a philosopher to figure out for yourself what is ugly or beautiful. As far as I am concerned philosophy is unnecessary baggage.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> Finally, we do await the 'narrative arc' analysis which TH is going to provide.


So, here I am! I would have replied sooner but today was a glorious Sunday so we did a 44-km round cycle trip along *Old Father Rhine*. At the halfway point we (my significant other and I) stopped at an eatery and had _flammkuchen_ (_tarte flambée_, or Alsace pizza, for want of a better term!). I hope no gulls here thought I'd waste such a day in front of my computer screen.
But anyway, now it's the evening and I'm looking forward to dealing with the posts that have been made during my Rhine bicycle trip. I'll take them one by one before I get to the narrative arc in *Smalley's* electroacoustic piece _*Pentes*_. Stay tuned...


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> The fact that you don't hear what I hear is on you. I am not responsible for what you are able to take away from listening to new music. Nor is it my obligation to explain it to you. Since I don't care whether you like it or not I also do not care if you even listen to it. I will answer you when you make statements which I think you have a misunderstanding of what motivates a composer or a listener concerning new music.


SanAntone, if you don't mind me saying, give it up, you really are wasting your time. What the poster you are replying to is engaged in is a form of trolling, which is, I imagine, why the poster 1996D got banned.


----------



## Jacck

TalkingHead said:


> SanAntone, if you don't mind me saying, give it up, you really are wasting your time. What the poster you are replying to is engaged in is a form of trolling, which is, I imagine, why the poster 1996D got banned.


the thread has run its course. Everyone who had something to say already said it. Now it is just repetition, trolling and arguments


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> [...] *My position all along has been that if an audience doesn't hear something that I hear, I won't try to convince them otherwise*[...]


Well, maybe you have never taught *ear-training*, SanAntone! I suspect a couple of right-royal gulls on this forum would benefit from my course, aye?


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> *the thread has run its course*. Everyone who had something to say already said it. Now it is just repetition, trolling and arguments


We're nearly done, Jacck. I'm just catching up on today's posts and replying to those that need to be replied to as far as they apply to me. Then I will address the question of narrative arc in a specific piece of *music*, and then I'll be done. Bear with me, please.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> *How many times have I heard THAT before*, followed by the sound of crickets. Ha!


Once, I would venture. Caw!


----------



## Guest

Waldesnacht said:


> While I admittedly found it strangely pleasing sound-wise I failed to discern any overarching, coherent narrative-much less a clear one. *The overall composition seemed rather gratuitous*.


Well, that's a fair comment. I don't agree, of course, as I find plenty of aural pointers throughout the piece. I'll address this shortly. Thank you, though, for not being yobbish about it.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> So, *while* Christabel has gone AWOL, I will assume the scope of our debate will be to cover the concept of a "narrative arc" in electroacoustic music, with particular reference to "Pentes" by Denis Smalley.


Auto-correction. Good lord, how could I have made that mistake? It happens. But not often, aye?


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> That's narrative "arc", by the way. *And so what if it does?* A children's book has the same.


Well, a narrative arc just like in any *Beethoven sonata*; just like in most WAM (Western Art Music); *just like in Wishart*. and in *electroacoustic music*. Geddit?


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> That's why it NEEDS defending [...]


What? The work needs no defending from two unknown posters on an internet forum. The onus is on *you* really to explain why you have problems with such music. But I'm going to try and help you. Later!


----------



## Coach G

SanAntone said:


> I think each of us do this for ourselves. I recognize no authority whose opinion about what is ugly or beautiful which can trump my own subjective taste.


It's not a question of beauty vs. ugliness, it's a question of how well the artist can convey both at the same time. Schoenberg's _Survivor from Warsaw_ and Gorecki's _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs_ are both 20th century works that vividly recall the ugliness of war (specifically, World War II). Schoenberg's is twelve-tone and Gorecki's is minimalist, but each work conveys the human capacity to love. In _Survivor from Warsaw_, it is the love people have for their fellowship, and their God. In _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs_, it's the love between a mother and child. And yet, the ugliness of war is the backdrop, just as in the human condition.

It's also what makes the Bible speaks to people across all times, social, cultural, and linguistic groups; and also makes the Bible very fine literature. The whole human condition is contained therein. No Bible saint is all good, and no Bible sinner is all bad. The characters are flawed; and war, violence, betrayals, family strife, all measure of doubt, shame, and tragedy are part of the story. If we took out all the ugliness from the Bible and then just left in the beautiful "Love thy neighbor" parts, then the Bible would lose it's humanity and no longer speak to people and be a great work of literature.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> Finally, we do await the 'narrative arc' analysis which TH is going to provide.


Sure, it will be a pleasure. Have you listened to the piece in the meantime, though?


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Apparently, if you want the analysis y*ou must confirm that you've listened to the piece*. *Have you?*


Well, Christabel, have you? Not going to waste my expensive time on you if not. Get to it.


----------



## SanAntone

Coach G said:


> It's not a question of beauty vs. ugliness, it's a question of how well the artist can convey both at the same time. Schoenberg's _Survivor from Warsaw_ and Gorecki's _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs_ are both 20th century works that vividly recall the ugliness of war (specifically, World War II). Schoenberg's is twelve-tone and Gorecki's is minimalist, but each work conveys the human capacity to love. In _Survivor from Warsaw_, it is the love people have for their fellowship, and their God. In _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs_, it's the love between a mother and child. And yet, the ugliness of war is the backdrop, just as in the human condition.
> 
> It's also what makes the Bible speaks to people across all times, social, cultural, and linguistic groups; and also makes the Bible very fine literature. The whole human condition is contained therein. No Bible saint is all good, and no Bible sinner is all bad. The characters are flawed; and war, violence, betrayals, family strife, all measure of doubt, shame, and tragedy are part of the story. If we took out all the ugliness from the Bible and then just left in the beautiful "Love thy neighbor" parts, then the Bible would lose it's humanity and no longer speak to people and be a great work of literature.


The comment that I responded to was in this post by Phil. I did not address his overall point, which is more complex, but snatched the one sentence out of it that I wished to address:



Phil loves classical said:


> I don't get this. What about Messiaen? If Scruton or anyone listened to his music without knowing his religious background, would they find the music beautiful, or a 'light to the Divine'? One of his piano pieces inspired total serialism. Didn't Messiaen propagate 'ugliness'? *Who determines the line between beauty and ugliness? *Did I relativize the word beauty here?
> 
> I do believe there is a lot of ugly Contemporary Music, but as long as it has structure, organization, that ugliness is superficial. On the flip side, though I don't particularly want to dwell in that kind of music too much (Ferneyhough is not my favourite composer). I would still rather listen to Ravel, who's music I think is beautiful (more than Messiaen's at least). BTW, I like Messiaen's music, but I just don't find it beautiful including Quartet for End of Time (Boulez called the Turangalia Symphony 'brothel music') Having value judgements is ok, but where do you draw the line? I think double standards can't be avoided if Messiaen's music is to be praised as not ugly, while others are so condemned.


So, your idea of both attributes being present in a piece of music or a Biblical character, or a saint, would appear to be a non sequitur (although I agree with most of it), but you do not address my comment at all.

So why did you quote my post and not Phil's?


----------



## Coach G

SanAntone said:


> ...So why did you quote my post and not Phil's?


Because I don't know how to quote two people in one post the way that you just did.


----------



## consuono

TalkingHead said:


> Well, a narrative arc just like in any *Beethoven sonata*; just like in most WAM (Western Art Music); *just like in Wishart*. and in *electroacoustic music*. Geddit?


No, not really...there isn't a "narrative arc" as much as a thematic progression and development. You're confusing music and literature, unless you're talking about operas, oratorios etc. And there isn't any such in the Wishart examples I've seen in the thread. An overarching concept isn't really a "narrative arc". And a few blips of tone or a "nod to tonality" would make my microwave a musical instrument.


----------



## Guest

*I'm waiting* for poster Saint *Christabel* to *confirm she has listened* to the *musical* work *Pentes* by composer *Denis Smalley* before we continue to discuss its *narrative arc*. Waiting and waiting...


----------



## mmsbls

We've unapproved a large number of posts that insult, chide, or disparage other members. The staff will decide howto proceed. Please refrain from personal comments.


----------



## consuono

EdwardBast said:


> Apparently, if you want the analysis you must confirm that you've listened to the piece. Have you?


Wait...that isn't the way Bernstein did it on TV. He didn't say "show that you've listened to it first and then I'll explain what you've just heard". He took the new listener step by step through a piece. I haven't seen any of these acerbic Mod advocates do anything of the sort for all their YT postings and lectures on how unworthy we trogs are of their analysis.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Wait...that isn't the way Bernstein did it on TV. He didn't say "show that you've listened to it first and then I'll explain what you've just heard". *He took the new listener step by step through a piece.* I haven't seen any of these acerbic Mod advocates do anything of the sort for all their YT postings and lectures on how *unworthy we trogs are of their analysis*.


First bolded part: his lectures assumed the listener had already heard the piece. That's how it works. Jeez, do I need to point this out to you?
Second bolded part: plenty of explanations out there on the Web for the trogs and pros. Get with the programme and find your own level. Do I have to take you by the hand at every moment of your ongoing musical education?


----------



## Guest

Still no news from planetary-sized-brain-Paglia-and-Peterson lover Christabel! Not looking very credible, kiddo! I'm off to bed because tomorrow I need to be fresh and on the ball to teach harmonization of Bach chorales and secondary sevenths. Maybe I'll slip in some perverse modern stuff to pollute their young minds, aye? In the meantime, listen to the work in question, and then we can talk.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Wait...that isn't the way Bernstein did it on TV. He didn't say "show that you've listened to it first and then I'll explain what you've just heard". He took the new listener step by step through a piece. I haven't seen any of these acerbic Mod advocates do anything of the sort for all their YT postings and lectures on how unworthy we trogs are of their analysis.


As for myself, I do not aspire to be Bernstein and teach a new music appreciation class. I listen to the music and often like what I hear. If you wish to engage me about my liking this music I will tell you what about a work I like, but beyond that I have nothing to say.


----------



## consuono

> First bolded part: his lectures assumed the listener had already heard the piece. That's how it works. Jeez, do I need to point this out to you?


Well, no, that's...not how it worked.


> Do I have to take you by the hand at every moment of your ongoing musical education?


You're pretty much the last one I'd turn to for such.


> Still no news from planetary-sized-brain-Paglia-and-Peterson lover Christabel! Not looking very credible, kiddo!


Is that supposed to be some kind of artiste insult? I dunno. I'll take Paglia and Peterson over Lyotard, Adorno, Derrida and Foucault any day.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> Well, no, that's...not how it worked.
> You're pretty much the last one I'd turn to for such.
> I dunno. I'll take Paglia and Peterson over Lyotard, Adorno, Derrida and Foucault any day.


Yes, you are dead right about Paglia and Peterson.

We await the 'narrative arc' analysis from Talking Head over the Roger Smalley piece. Everybody here would like to read it, I imagine, especially those interested in sound design and familiar with the work in question.


----------



## atsizat

Aren't they great? They are all 20th century music.


----------



## atsizat

As far as I am concered, even Adagio in G Minor is from 20th century.


----------



## SanAntone

*Mark Andre - durch* 
for saxophone, percussion and piano (2004/5)

Trio Accanto


----------



## hammeredklavier

atsizat said:


> As far as I am concered, even Adagio in G Minor is from 20th century.


A Neo-baroque composition


----------



## DavidA

I am always amazed that people must advocate obscure avant-garde music on this thread when there is plenty of accessible 20th century masterpieces that are accessible


----------



## Roger Knox

DavidA said:


> I am always amazed that people must advocate obscure avant-garde music on this thread when there is plenty of accessible 20th century masterpieces that are accessible


Funny, I just voted Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste up on a Classical Music Discussion poll. Bartok's work is an enduring classic. So I think is his Second Violin Concerto, which I believe he wrote a few years later. The second movement Theme and Variations makes my heart melt, while the opening movement opens with (gulp!) a twelve-note row, harmonized in tonal style.

As for advocating obscure avant-garde music, I think we have egotistical tendencies, each trying to be the smartest one in the room, with a compulsive need to show off our connectedness with the latest thing. At least that would have described me, although I hope I'm improving.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

consuono said:


> I'll take Paglia and Peterson over Lyotard, Adorno, Derrida and Foucault any day.


Well, that says it all, doesn't it?
(and why does far-right people, especially Americans, always put Adorno with Derrida and Foucault? Really shows they don't **** about what they're talking about)

There have been a number of posts on this forum in later days that really show how a strong part of the classical music audience stinks.


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> I am always amazed that people must advocate obscure avant-garde music on this thread when there is plenty of accessible 20th century masterpieces that are accessible


I am more interested in newer works, so those are the ones I post. I would hope you and others will post the works from C20 that you think are worthy. However, I am not advocating for any music when I post something. Just offering something for people to give a listen that had caught my interest.

Posting music is so much more interesting than arguing about it.


----------



## mikeh375

Lights out, headphones on, close your eyes....


----------



## Phil loves classical

Roger Knox said:


> Funny, I just voted Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste up on a Classical Music Discussion poll. Bartok's work is an enduring classic. So I think is his Second Violin Concerto, which I believe he wrote a few years later. The second movement Theme and Variations makes my heart melt, while the opening movement opens with (gulp!) a twelve-note row, harmonized in tonal style.
> 
> As for advocating obscure avant-garde music, *I think we have egotistical tendencies, each trying to be the smartest one in the room, with a compulsive need to show off our connectedness with the latest thing. At least that would have described me,* although I hope I'm improving.


Interesting perspective. I was more eager to dismiss that sort of music, and played devil's advocate to find support for doing so. I believe SanAntone is right when he said a listener needs curiosity to 'get' the music. I only started appreciating it when I really had that curiosity from experimenting around with music, and opened up *in earnest.*


----------



## SanAntone

Roger Knox said:


> Funny, I just voted Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste up on a Classical Music Discussion poll. Bartok's work is an enduring classic. So I think is his Second Violin Concerto, which I believe he wrote a few years later. The second movement Theme and Variations makes my heart melt, while the opening movement opens with (gulp!) a twelve-note row, harmonized in tonal style.
> 
> *As for advocating obscure avant-garde music, I think we have egotistical tendencies, each trying to be the smartest one in the room, with a compulsive need to show off our connectedness with the latest thing. *At least that would have described me, although I hope I'm improving.


Yes, that might describe you - but is not what motivates my posting new music.

I am not trying to be "the smartest one in the room" since I don't equate liking new music with being smart, nor preferring older music with being dumb. Since I like both, where does that put me? And I don't have "a compulsive need to show off [my] connectedness with the latest thing." I am simply curious about the music being written today.

What is a mystery to me is why it seems to bother you so much that I wish to share the music I discover which I think is interesting.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

SanAntone said:


> Posting music is so much more interesting than arguing about it.


Not for all of us, judging from the evidence in this thread!  Disputatiousness vis à vis music has been around a very long time and not likely to diminish in our argumentative age. There are many examples of this; my favorite is Vincenzo Galilei (the astronomer's dad), who in 1561, wrote re contemporary composers: "there is not seen or heard today the slightest sign of what ancient music accomplished...their ignorance and lack of consideration is one of the most potent reasons why the music of today does not cause in listeners any of those virtuous and wonderful effects that ancient music could." (_Dialogo della musica antica e della moderna_)

Vocal detractors of _avant garde music_ or of any work that challenges their preconceived notions of what music is need to do some soul searching as to just why such works trouble them so. They just might discover that it has more to do with _them_ than the music in question.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> There are lots of composers in the modern era that I would not consider as "classical music composers". It doesn't mean they're artistically inferior to classical music - it's just that they follow different philosophies from those of classical music, -they're as far removed from classical music as today's horror film music composers are. Putting everything from classical music to avant-garde music in the same camp is like putting heavy metal and jazz in the same camp. An inconvenient truth for some people, but it's not hard to see that insects and crustaceans aren't the same species.


Contrary to your view, I prefer not categorizing music according to labels, but quality according to my taste (my list would not be a definitive objective list of the "greatest" composers). If asked about the composers I considered important from the 20th century, I would come up with a list of some classical composers, some jazz composers, some theater composers, maybe some blues and rock composers.

I consider Thelonious Monk as important a composer as Béla Bartók; Duke Ellington as Igor Stravinsky, and Charles Mingus as Arnold Schönberg. John Cage as important as Ornette Coleman. Stephen Sondheim as important as Maurice Ravel. Robert Johnson:Morton Feldman. (These comparisons are just examples.)

When a musician achieves the highest artistic level in his chosen field, I don't see one genre being higher than another.


----------



## JAS

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> . . . Vocal detractors of _avant garde music_ or of any work that challenges their preconceived notions of what music is need to do some soul searching as to just why such works trouble them so. They just might discover that it has more to do with _them_ than the music in question.


Soul searched and checked out okay. The problem is elsewhere, and mostly, I suspect, in what is being offered as music, which seems to be the consistent element in question. This issue is not nearly as complicated as advocates seem to prefer to present it. What this movement proposes is radically different from what I, and many others, want. That may be fine for those who actually appreciate this sort of stuff, for whatever reason, but let us not pretend that it is, in any meaningful sense, a continuation of a tradition that it no longer resembles. As its own thing, it is what it is. It just needs to acknowledge its inherent difference. The failure to acknowledge this simple and observable aspect is the root of most of the arguments.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Soul searched and checked out okay. The problem is elsewhere, and mostly, I suspect, in what is being offered as music, which seems to be the consistent element in question.


I once heard that if in the course of your day you run into an a$$hole, okay, that's a drag. But if you ran into ten, then chances are, you're the a$$hole.

How many works must you hear that you don't consider music before it dawns on you that it is your definition that is "the problem?"


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> I once heard that if in the course of your day you run into an a$$hole, okay, that's a drag. But if you ran into ten, then chances are, you're the a$$hole.


Fortunately, I run into far more people who do not fit that description, and I suspect that it is the percentage that makes the meaning.



SanAntone said:


> How many works must you hear that you don't consider music before it dawns on you that it is your definition that is "the problem?"


There is no number since the proposition is inherently flawed. It is very strange to me that advocates of this stuff are clearly so captivated by its very newness, and yet determined to present it as part of a tradition that it so clearly dismisses. It is a blatant example of wanting to have your cake, and eat it too.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> There is no number since the proposition is inherently flawed. It is very strange to me that advocates of this stuff are clearly so captivated by its very newness, and yet determined to present it as part of a tradition that it so clearly dismisses. It is a blatant example of wanting to have your cake, and eat it too.


It doesn't take a proposition to accept that a work composed for an audience in a concert venue is, in fact, an example of music, and part of the long tradition of other works composed for the same purpose.

The question is why are you incapable of the same conclusion.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> It doesn't take a proposition to decide that a work composed for an audience in a concert venue to accept that it is, in fact, an example of music, and part of the long tradition of other works composed for the same purpose.
> 
> The question is why are you incapable of the same conclusion.


Again, you are confusing a venue with a tradition. If you appreciate barking dogs and mere sounds run thorough and distorted by a computer program, that is your business, but if you claim this as the inheritor of the tradition of Beethoven, I call it what it is, which is that such an idea is utter nonsense. It does not require a proposition, merely a total denial of what anyone with ears can hear. The differences are clear, even while the appreciation of them (or not), is justifiably a matter of personal opinion. All I ask is that the obvious be acknowledged. This stuff is its own thing, and not, in any meaningful sense, classical music (as it is broadly defined). It is, chiefly, the product of academics, made by academics and for people who like to associate themselves with that aura of intellectualism.

I listen to, roughly, a thousand years of music that is essentially a continuation of a long tradition, in spite of the evident changes it has undergone over that span. And I still listen to music composed right up to today that continues in that tradition. Clearly, we reach different conclusions about the value of the modern stuff that you advocate, and that difference is subject to debate.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Again, you are confusing a venue with a tradition. If you appreciate barking dogs and mere sounds run thorough and distorted by a computer program, that is your business, but if you claim this as the inheritor of the tradition of Beethoven, I call it what it is, which is that such an idea is utter nonsense.


I am not making that comparison. What I am saying is that Beethoven was a composer plying his trade; so is Trevor Wishart. They both write music for a certain kind of audience and venue, contrary to Led Zeppelin who wrote music for a different audience and venue. Led Zeppelin is part of a different tradition than Beethoven, but Trevor Wishart is a continuation of the same tradition of Beethoven.



> It does not require a proposition, merely a total denial of what anyone with ears can hear. The differences are clear, even while the appreciation of them (or not), is justifiably a matter of personal opinion. All I ask is that the obvious be acknowledged. This stuff is its own thing, and not, in any meaningful sense, classical music (as it is broadly defined).


My ears hear that Trevor Wishart is producing music, of a different style than Beethoven, but with the same intention and seriousness of purpose, and deliberate goal to compose music as part of the classical music tradition. But I do not wish to speak for someone like Trevor Wishart. He may not want to be lumped into the tradition of Beethoven, or consider it important one way or the other. But he does enjoy an audience among the classical music world, so I do not argue that's where he belongs.



> It is, chiefly, the product of academics, made by academics and for people who like to associate themselves with that aura of intellectualism.


Do you consider what Milton Babbitt did music? His music fits your description.



> I listen to, roughly, a thousand years of music that is essentially a continuation of a long tradition, in spite of the evident changes it has undergone over that span. And I still listen to music composed right up to today that continues in that tradition. Clearly, we reach different conclusions about the value of the modern stuff that you advocate, and that difference is subject to debate.


I am not sure what a debate over a difference of appreciation and taste is worth.


----------



## JAS

Beethoven's music does not depend on its connection with the tradition of Mozart, nor Mozart's on its connection to the tradition of Bach, etc. Each set of music produced by these and many other composers can exist on its own, and also as part of a tradition. What strikes me as very curious is that once Schoenberg decided that traditional music had reached its limit and exhausted its potential (which is not true, by the way), it did not simply go off entirely on its own and do something new and recognize that thing as something new. Instead, it has clung to a thread of legitimacy that depends entirely on a tradition that it is, ironically, a reaction _against_. No other form of music seems to require this crutch of association to create a sense of legitimacy. It is, I suspect, precisely this sense that is at the heart of the debate. Modern music, at the same time that it captured the academies, has mostly lost a broader audience, and that has apparently hurt its feelings and shaken its confidence, even as it just gets farther and farther away from the tradition that it desperately needs to be seen as a part of. It is clear to me that it simply does not have the confidence to stand on its own (and I can see, or hear, why).


----------



## SanAntone

What Wishart composes is not:

Jazz
Popular music
Blues
Folk
Rock
Country
Alt-Rock
Rap
Indie rock
Funk
Soul
Broadway musical

It falls most comfortably in the Classical music bucket.


----------



## JAS

Why not just be its own thing? Why does it need a bucket that already exists? Why is it necessarily seen as such a negative criticism that it is just a new thing, apart from classical music? Be bold. Be proud of independence. Make a new bucket.

This modern stuff is like the young man who insists on being recognized as independent, but lives in his parent's basement, takes the family car when he wants to go somewhere, and regularly raids the fridge and cupboards when he is hungry. Most people just laugh at the pretensions, or feel pity. If one wants to be independent, one only needs the means and courage to be independent. Clearly, this modern stuff has neither.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Beethoven's music does not depend on its connection with the tradition of Mozart, nor Mozart's on its connection to the tradition of Bach, etc. Each set of music produced by these and many other composers can exist on its own, and also as part of a tradition. What strikes me as very curious is that once Schoenberg decided that traditional music had reached its limit and exhausted its potential (which is not true, by the way), it did not simply go off entirely on its own and do something new and recognize that thing as something new. Instead, it has clung to a thread of legitimacy that depends entirely on a tradition that it is, ironically, a reaction _against_. No other form of music seems to require this crutch of association to create a sense of legitimacy. It is, I suspect, precisely this sense that is at the heart of the debate. Modern music, at the same time that it captured the academies, has mostly lost a broader audience, and that has apparently hurt its feelings and shaken its confidence, even as it just gets farther and farther away from the tradition that it desperately needs to be seen as a part of. It is clear to me that it simply does not have the confidence to stand on its own (and I can see, or hear, why).


I think what separates all classical music from popular styles is a sense of seriousness about its purpose. Pop is written for short term consumption and to make money. Other genres, have higher aspirations, and the commercial aspect takes a back seat to artistic priorities.

While stylistically classical music has changed over time, its seriousness of purpose has remained constant. It is that which I think is the tradition and the primary aspect which avant-garde composers share.


----------



## ManateeFL

SanAntone said:


> What Wishart composes is not:
> 
> Jazz
> Popular music
> Blues
> Folk
> Rock
> Country
> Alt-Rock
> Rap
> Indie rock
> Funk
> Soul
> Broadway musical
> 
> It falls most comfortably in the Classical music bucket.


Actually, I would say it fits quite nicely in the noise music bucket.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Why not just be its own thing? Why does it need a bucket that already exists? Why is it necessarily seen as such a negative criticism that it is just a new thing, apart from classical music?


Because some of the same people who listen to Beethoven also wish to listen to the avant-garde, and consider it classical music. I think you are being too restrictive and discriminating against people who might have a more open mind about the issues that bother you.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> I think what separates all classical music from popular styles is a sense of seriousness about its purpose. Pop is written for short term consumption and to make money. Other genres, have higher aspirations, and the commercial aspect takes a back seat to artistic priorities.
> 
> While stylistically classical music has changed over time, its seriousness of purpose has remained constant. It is that which I think is the tradition and the primary aspect which avant-garde composer share.


I do not know for certain, but I suspect that few who are active in any of these alternate forms you list would agree with your assessment.


----------



## SanAntone

ManateeFL said:


> Actually, I would say it fits quite nicely in the noise music bucket.


However, some of the composers listed as writing noise music are indeed included in the classical bucket as well: Iannis Xenakis, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Helmut Lachenmann.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> Because some of the same people who listen to Beethoven also wish to listen to the avant-garde, and consider it classical music. I think you are being too restrictive and discriminating against people who might have a more open mind about the issues that bother you.


I like swimming and eating chicken cheese-steak subs. That does not make them in any way similar, or compatible. I think you are being too open and insufficiently discriminating to see the distinctions. And you are too quick to demand understanding from those who simply do not agree with you. I don't share your appreciation for most of what you have posted. We don't need to have the same tastes or interests. Again, all I ask is that you make your own bucket. Show enough confidence to go out on your own.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> I do not know for certain, but I suspect that few who are active in any of these alternate forms you list would agree with your assessment.


I didn't list any alternate forms. I defined the classical tradition as one of seriousness of purpose where artistic priorities are given more weight than commercial goals.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> I like swimming and eating chicken cheese-steak subs. That does not make them in any way similar, or compatible. I think you are being too open and insufficiently discriminating to see the distinctions. And you are too quick to demand understanding from those who simply do not agree with you. Again, just make your own bucket.


I am not demanding anything; I am offering my opinion about new music. But you are demanding that the classical avant-garde be excluded from being considered classical music.


----------



## JAS

As I suspected. My suspicions are confirmed.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> I like swimming and eating chicken cheese-steak subs. That does not make them in any way similar, or compatible. I think you are being too open and insufficiently discriminating to see the distinctions. And you are too quick to demand understanding from those who simply do not agree with you. I don't share your appreciation for most of what you have posted. We don't need to have the same tastes or interests. Again, all I ask is that you make your own bucket. Show enough confidence to go out on your own.


I don't care about buckets. It is you who should mentally make a bucket where you deposit all the composers whom you don't consider in the classical tradition.


----------



## ManateeFL

SanAntone said:


> However, some of the composers listed as writing noise music are indeed included in the classical bucket as well: Iannis Xenakis, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Helmut Lachenmann.


Included by some.



SanAntone said:


> I defined the classical tradition as one of seriousness of purpose where artistic priorities are given more weight than commercial goals.


By that defintion, a number of artists in every genre of music known to man, from blues to dubstep, from indie rock to jazz are a part of the classical tradition.


----------



## SanAntone

ManateeFL said:


> By that defintion, a number of artists in every genre of music known to man, from blues to dubstep, from indie rock to jazz are a part of the classical tradition.


No. They are a part of a separate genre, but one which also shares a seriousness of purpose. But what the classical avant-garde has in common with the rest of classical music is the audience. The audience for "blues to dubstep, from indie rock to jazz" does not go to classical music concerts as often as they do for their primary genre.

However, as for myself I don't lump music into categories. I gravitate towards the music I enjoy from a variety of genres and styles. I wrote a post earlier about different composers I placed on the same artistic plane from jazz and classical genres.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> However, some of the composers listed as writing noise music are indeed included in the classical bucket as well: Iannis Xenakis, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Helmut Lachenmann.


And wiki says noise is



> Noise is unwanted sound considered unpleasant, loud or disruptive to hearing


and a noise music as



> a category of music that is characterised by the expressive use of noise within a musical context


Hence Bach is a noise musician


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Can somebody tell me who is this Wishart?


----------



## OperaChic

SanAntone said:


> But what the classical avant-garde has in common with the rest of classical music is the audience.


I'm not sure that they do. It seems to me that there is an audience for noise music and the avant garde, wheter it be Xenakis or Stockhausen or Glenn Branca or Merzbow, but that there really isn't an overlap between that audience and the classical music audience at large. Most people who attend a Beethoven symphony or a Mozart concerto or an oratorio by Handel would not be caught dead at a concert of music by La Monte Young or John Cale.


----------



## SanAntone

OperaChic said:


> I'm not sure that they do. It seems to me that there is an audience for noise music and the avant garde, wheter it be Xenakis or Stockhausen or Glenn Branca or Merzbow, but that there really isn't an overlap between that audience and the classical music audience at large. Most people who attend a Beethoven symphony or a Mozart concerto or an oratorio by Handel would not be caught dead at a concert of music by La Monte Young or John Cale.


I would. And I doubt I'm the only one.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> I don't care about buckets. It is you who should mentally make a bucket where you deposit all the composers whom you don't consider in the classical tradition.


I do, at least for this modern stuff. That bucket is painted with a large label of noise. (I only keep calling it modern stuff because its advocates won't give it a name, although much of it isn't necessarily even modern anymore. I would use my preferred label, but advocates object.)



SanAntone said:


> But what the classical avant-garde has in common with the rest of classical music is the audience.


It wishes, but it is mostly an illusion of credibility (even though it claims to disdain the mere interests of an audience). At best, they share a portion of the audience, but lots of people here who appreciate classical music also appreciate rock, and other forms. (Generally, I do not.) What they don't do is insist on lumping it all together as one thing, when it isn't.


----------



## Mandryka

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Can somebody tell me who is this Wishart?


FFS, why don't you just type his name into the interweb?!


----------



## OperaChic

SanAntone said:


> I would. And I doubt I'm the only one.


Sure, and even more classical music fans might also attend a Paul McCartney concert. I don't think defining a tradition or a musical genre by its audience gets us anywhere.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> I do, at least for this modern stuff. That bucket is painted with a large label of noise. (I only keep calling it modern stuff because its advocates won't give it a name, although much of it isn't necessarily even modern anymore. I would use my preferred label, but advocates object.)
> 
> At best, they share a portion of the audience, but lots of people here who appreciate classical music also appreciate rock, and other forms. (Generally, I do not.) What they don't do is insist on lumping it all together as one thing, when it isn't.


You know it just struck me that I don't even care. I guess I was arguing over it because I sensed a disrespect directed at new music and felt compelled to offer some resistance. But I don't care what you call it.

So if you want to consider that you've won this debate, I'm okay with that.


----------



## SanAntone

OperaChic said:


> Sure, and even more classical music fans might also attend a Paul McCartney concert. I don't think defining a tradition or a musical genre by its audience gets us anywhere.


Well, I wouldn't. I don't go to rock concerts. But I would go out to hear classical, jazz, old-time/bluegrass and when the opportunity presented itself, avant-garde concerts.


----------



## SanAntone

But if it came to being denied to post some of this music at TC, that might present a problem.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Mandryka said:


> FFS, why don't you just type his name into the interweb?!


There are several...First name, please?


----------



## SanAntone

Trevor Wishart .................


----------



## Phil loves classical

JAS said:


> It wishes, but it is mostly an illusion of credibility (even though it claims to disdain the mere interests of an audience). At best, they share a portion of the audience, but lots of people here who appreciate classical music also appreciate rock, and other forms. (Generally, I do not.) What they don't do is insist on lumping it all together as one thing, when it isn't.


The Classical Avant-Garde thrives on challenging/expanding specific elements in Classical Music, so as long as a portion of the audience, however small, can appreciate those links, then I say it can and should belong under the same umbrella as Classical Music. Rock music has no such targets pertaining to Classical Music, and the audience in mind is completely different. Most Classical audiences now wouldn't question Stravinsky's Rite of Spring's and Schoenberg's place in Classical Music. Schoenberg basically threw out tonal harmony, but maintained all the other elements as before, so his link to tradition is clear. Others took Schoenberg as a starting point. It evolved at a rapid pace (similar to technology at the time in the 20th Century), that the link to tradition from Ferneyhough to Brahms is no longer apparent when put side by side.

Did they go too far? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to that. If you ask Prokofiev, he'd say yes, based on those quotes I put earlier. Would Schoenberg think so? I suspect yes, he never had the inclination to serialize rhythm. Also I think Cage went too far with 4'33". That didn't challenge specific elements of Classical Music, it challenged everything about Classical and other kinds of music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> The Classical Avant-Garde thrives on challenging/expanding specific elements in Classical Music, so as long as a portion of the audience, however small, can appreciate those links, then I say it can and should belong under the same umbrella as Classical Music. Rock music has no such targets pertaining to Classical Music, and the audience in mind is completely different. Most Classical audiences now wouldn't question Stravinsky's Rite of Spring's and Schoenberg's place in Classical Music. Schoenberg basically threw out tonal harmony, but maintained all the other elements as before, so his link to tradition is clear. Others took Schoenberg as a starting point. It evolved at a rapid pace (similar to technology at the time in the 20th Century), that the link to tradition from Ferneyhough to Brahms is no longer apparent when put side by side.


Being anti-pop for the sake of being anti-pop was never the goal of classical music. In fact, it could be argued "using folk music elements is an inherent part of classical music, so jazz is closer ro classical music in nature than avant-garde music is."

I proposed these criteria on what I think can be considered classical and what can't be. By these, Stravinsky and Shoenberg were perfectly classical from the start.


"In my view, a "music composer" has to satisfy these 3 requirements in order to genuinely considered be part of "classical music":

1. must make relation with his close/direct predecessors in western music
2. must make relation with his distant predecessors in western music
3. must not have philosophies like "noise is also music", "who cares if you listen"

Take Beethoven, for example, he paid homage to Haydn (a close predecessor of his), and also paid homage to Palestrina (a distant predecessor of his). He had strong personal expressions in works like the grosse fugue, but he never had the attitude "noise is music". I think in the grosse fuge, Beethoven expanded on the ideas of his previous works, the 9th symphony scherzo and the serioso quartet first movement - he wasn't really "trolling" his audience.

John Cage, on the other hand, disowned his distant predecessors by saying "If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same. But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different."

I'm not saying contemporary stuff like avant-garde music is "bad art" per se, - I just wonder how much of it philosophically adheres to "classical music". It feels more like a genre on its own. I guess a composer can still make interesting effects even if he adheres to the philosophy "noise is music" - as long as a piece of music has its audience, it has its worth. (And as I pointed out in other threads, certain types of contemporary music may have practical application as soundtrack for horror films). But again, in order for something to be considered "classical music", there has to definitive proof that it is.
I feel guys like J. Williams or Y. Kuramoto are closer in philosophy to "classical music".
Being "innovative" or "experimental" is not something a composer must have, to be considered classical (ex. J. Strauss II, as JAS pointed out)"


----------



## SanAntone

> 1. must make relation with his close/direct predecessors in western music
> 2. must make relation with his distant predecessors in western music
> 3. must not have philosophies like "noise is also music", "who cares if you listen"


Some composers, tell me if they qualify:

Henry Cowell
Harry Partch
Giacinto Scelsi
Alvin Lucier
Philip Glass
Francis Dhomont
Morton Feldman

They are all described as composers by Wikipedia. Is that an important descriptor?


----------



## SanAntone

> I feel guys like J. Williams or Y. Kuramoto are closer in philosophy to "classical music".
> Being "innovative" or "experimental" is not something a composer must have, to be considered classical


If you'd prefer to include John Williams (a movie music composer) and Yuhki Kuramoto (an easy listening a derivative pianist) but exclude John Cage (whom critics have lauded as one of the most influential composers of the 20th century), I think you have just cheapened Classical music quite a bit.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I let oxfordmusiconline.com be my guide when I'm in need of a thorough article on a topic or composer. I subscribe for 3 months once in a while and sometimes get lost in all its writings...I have one going now until December. The site is fantastic


----------



## consuono

JAS said:


> ...
> It wishes, but it is mostly an illusion of credibility (even though it claims to disdain the mere interests of an audience). At best, they share a portion of the audience, but lots of people here who appreciate classical music also appreciate rock, and other forms. (Generally, I do not.) What they don't do is insist on lumping it all together as one thing, when it isn't.


I sometimes wonder if even advocates for this kind of thing really really truly do enjoy it. I mean, do they really listen to Ferneyhough or something like Rebecca Saunders' "Crimson" when they're driving along? Or is it something that you have to talk yourself into enjoying and admiring for the sake of some kind of philosophical consistency? If you come across some noisy piece that you might actually like in some way, then you have to concede that any piece of noise is also "music". At any rate I imagine that all of those globally who *do* listen casually and with enjoyment to the likes of Ferneyhough and Saunders is *extremely* small. If it weren't riding piggy-back on "classical culture" it would be something like RPGs. It would probably have even fewer enthusiasts.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> If you'd prefer to include John Williams (a movie music composer) and Yuhki Kuramoto (an easy listening a derivative pianist) but exclude John Cage (whom critics have lauded as one of the most influential composers of the 20th century), I think you have just cheapened Classical music quite a bit.


Haven't you been saying all along "music is subjective"? Define "cheap music" please. I don't think avant-garde music is "objectively" cheap, (even though the composers were deliberately using noise elements) the same way I don't think Williams or Kuramoto are "cheap".


----------



## hammeredklavier

Again, I don't think avant-garde music is objectively inferior to classical music, but I keep noticing on this forum that avant-garde enthusiasts are judging classical music by their own standards, while classical music enthusiasts are judging avant-garde music by their own standards. I think there should be separate forums for these two types of people. It's one way to reduce unnecessary conflict.
Perfect form?


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I sometimes wonder if even advocates for this kind of thing really really truly do enjoy it. I mean, do they really listen to Ferneyhough or something like Rebecca Saunders' "Crimson" when they're driving along? Or is it something that you have to talk yourself into enjoying and admiring for the sake of some kind of philosophical consistency? If you come across some noisy piece that you might actually like in some way, then you have to concede that any piece of noise is also "music". At any rate I imagine that all of those globally who *do* listen casually and with enjoyment to the likes of Ferneyhough and Saunders is *extremely* small. If it weren't riding piggy-back on "classical culture" it would be something like RPGs. It would probably have even fewer enthusiasts.


I don't listen to avant-garde other than to devote an hour or two to listening to new works at my desk. When I am driving I listen to jazz or bluegrass music.



hammeredklavier said:


> Haven't you been saying all along "music is subjective"? Define "cheap music" please. I don't think avant-garde music is "objectively" cheap, (even though the composers were deliberately using noise elements) the same way I don't think Williams or Kuramoto are "cheap".


It is subjective. And apparently your subjective opinion of John Williams (a movie music composer) and Yuhki Kuramoto (an easy listening and derivative pianist) is higher than John Cage, a composer lauded as one of the most important of the 20th century.

I used the word in reference to the level of quality in your Classical Music, which I think would be lowered, or cheapened, by excluding Cage but including composers like Williams and Kuramoto.



hammeredklavier said:


> Again, I don't think avant-garde music is objectively inferior to classical music, but I keep noticing on this forum that avant-garde enthusiasts are judging classical music by their own standards, while classical music enthusiasts are judging avant-garde music by their own standards. I think there should be separate forums for these two types of people. It's one way to reduce unnecessary conflict.
> Perfect form?


Fine with me. Just like the Non-Classical Forum you don't have to enter. But you also did not have to visit the threads about 20th or 21st century music, but you did. A separate forum could be transgressed just as easily.


----------



## Luchesi

It's a curious phenomenon due to the passion on both sides - that some folks will go through.a slight withdrawal (feeling) when this thread dies away. I'll feel it to some extent. It's great that such a discussion can have an impact.

Composers should be doing this variety of explorations. That's their calling. 
I'm not clear about what the challengers would want instead.


----------



## SanAntone

Just curious: is anyone going to take a stab at my question about the composers I listed, whether they would be included in your classical music group.

Some composers, tell me if they qualify:

Henry Cowell
Harry Partch
Giacinto Scelsi
Alvin Lucier
Philip Glass
Francis Dhomont
Morton Feldman

They are all described as composers by Wikipedia. Is that an important descriptor?


----------



## Roger Knox

SanAntone said:


> Yes, that might describe you - but is not what motivates my posting new music.
> 
> I am not trying to be "the smartest one in the room" since I don't equate liking new music with being smart, nor preferring older music with being dumb. Since I like both, where does that put me? And I don't have "a compulsive need to show off [my] connectedness with the latest thing." I am simply curious about the music being written today.
> 
> What is a mystery to me is why it seems to bother you so much that I wish to share the music I discover which I think is interesting.


Rather than "we have egotistical tendencies," I should have said, "some of us have egotistical tendencies," including myself but not referring to you personally. And "sharing the music" you discover is fine with me, but I would describe what you do as a program of highly argumentative advocacy for obscure avant-garde music that shows no sign of abating, on a thread that already has reached over 1,150 posts.


----------



## SanAntone

Roger Knox said:


> Rather than "we have egotistical tendencies," I should have said, "some of us have egotistical tendencies," including myself but not referring to you personally. And "sharing the music" you discover is fine with me, but I would describe what you do as a program of highly argumentative advocacy for obscure avant-garde music that shows no sign of abating, on a thread that already has reached over 1,150 posts.


I am responding to other posters who think that a entire style of classical music, avant-garde, has no place within the broad category of classical music. At least three posters have been attacking the kind of music I share, and yet you accuse me of "a program of highly argumentative advocacy for obscure avant-garde music that shows no sign of abating, on a thread that already has reached over 1,150 posts."

If this thread is not something you approve of, just stay away.


----------



## Roger Knox

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> Vocal detractors of _avant garde music_ or of any work that challenges their preconceived notions of what music is need to do some soul searching as to just why such works trouble them so. They just might discover that it has more to do with _them_ than the music in question.


People who do not care for a work do not necessarily have "to do some soul searching as to just why such works trouble them so." I'm retired from the music field now; my education and experience over 40+ years as a professional composer, performer, theory teacher, writer, and concert organizer included a lot of work in new music, particularly during the first two decades. You shouldn't assume that readers on this site will accept your patronizing remarks. True, you may be influenced by a conceit of some composers that their work can prod listeners to examine themselves, but that argument is self-serving and without validity. I attended the premiere by the Kronos Quartet of Morton Feldman's String Quartet No. 2. There was some uncertainty beforehand about long the piece was but, anyway, after two long slow unbroken hours I decided, angrily, to leave; the friends I went with stuck it out to the end, approximately four hours I think. I hold the unpopular opinion that this tedious work is disrespectful to the audience and to the exhausted performers, but Feldman's supporters won't have any of this. Maybe they'd think that I need Anger Management!


----------



## SanAntone

michael pisaro - fields have ears

The folks at Another Timbre say this about this work:



> Extract from Michael Pisaro's composition 'Fields Have Ears 1' for piano and tape, performed by Philip Thomas. The piece is a rich mix of piano sounds with field recordings, sine waves, and white and pink noise. The complete 20-minute piece appears on a CD 'Fields Have Ears' along with two other compositions by Michael Pisaro: Fade (for solo piano), and Fields Have Ears 4 (for small ensemble)


----------



## Roger Knox

SanAntone said:


> If this thread is not something you approve of, just stay away.


The bit about which music can or can't be called "classical" is just a digression from the OP, which is about the worth of 20th-century classical music. My comments are pertinent to the OP. I have mentioned Morton Feldman's String Quartet No. 2 as an example of a piece whose deficiencies are the fault of the composer, and the audience should not be blamed for not appreciating it.

I do not disapprove of this thread. And you can't tell me to stay away.


----------



## SanAntone

Morton Feldman created works of long duration in order for the listener to have an extrasensory experience which could not be achieved if the work were shorter. What you cite as a deficiency was the crucial aspect to Feldman's conception for the string quartet.

I have not had the opportunity to attend a concert of the work but know people who have. Some have had the same reaction as yours. But for those who remained until the end and experienced the work as intended, they reported an experience that they were grateful for having undergone and considered it one of the most important concert experiences of their lives.


----------



## Bulldog

Roger Knox said:


> I do not disapprove of this thread. And you can't tell me to stay away.


Let's all stay away, and the thread can drag itself off into the sunset.

It's obvious that a reasoned back-and-forth about 20th Century music is not viable on TC. The only feature worth anything on the thread has been San Antone's embedded videos - pertinent presentations without bickering.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> Yes, you are dead right about Paglia and Peterson.
> 
> We await the 'narrative arc' analysis from Talking Head over the *Roger Smalley* piece. Everybody here would like to read it, I imagine, especially those interested in sound design and familiar with the work in question.


You can't even get that right, can you? It's *Denis Smalley*. For the fourth time: have you listened to the piece of music in question?


----------



## Eclectic Al

There is more music than I will ever find the time to listen to.
I listen repeatedly to pieces I already know (sometimes favourite performances, sometimes new performances). This takes time.
I have plenty of pieces to seek out by composers I like which I have not yet heard (eg Dvorak string quartets, Schubert early string quartets and symphonies, etc, etc). This takes time.
I have plenty of pieces to seek out where I can glean (from sites like TC) that the composer will create music in a style similar to another composer who I do know. This takes time.

The point is that I seek out music I do not know with expectations of what it might be like - because I have only limited time on this earth. Those expectations shape my searches.

This thread has been useful to me because I am not familiar with avant-garde music, so it has given me an indication of the sort of sounds that I can expect if I seek out music under that label (or related ones like contemporary).

Unfortunately it has put it pretty well at the back of the queue. In terms of styles of music I am now more likely to seek out more traditional styles of "classical", Western popular music styles, world music of various sorts than "avant-garde classical". Why??

I think the answer is that the Western avant-garde is over-intellectualised. It seems to want to prioritise the concept over the content. In other words, with avant-garde music if I can explain what I am seeking to achieve in my composition then that is the important part, and the experience of listening is less important: the explanatory words have become dominant. I guess that is because if you are seeking musical qualifications then explaining what you have done or someone else has done is more important than pure enjoyment and the subjective experience of listening.

The music I seek out moves me in a way which does not require explanation. I seem to find that in music which stays close to a long-standing tradition - evolving it but not abandoning it - and I don't find that surprising, as the tradition persists for a reason. If you abandon a tradition for something else then I guess you are likely to find it necessary to explain what you are up to, and that takes you back in the direction of prioritising explanatory words over the subjective experience. But what matters most about music is (wait for it) ineffable.


----------



## Jacck

Eclectic Al said:


> This thread has been useful to me because I am not familiar with avant-garde music, so it has given me an indication of the sort of sounds that I can expect if I seek out music under that label (or related ones like contemporary).
> Unfortunately it has put it pretty well at the back of the queue. In terms of styles of music I am now more likely to seek out more traditional styles of "classical", Western popular music styles, world music of various sorts than "avant-garde classical". Why??
> .


I think you can safely forget most of the avantgarde composers mentioned in this thread. There are only 7or so I would concentrate on - Schoenberg, Bartok, Messiaen, Carter, Boulez, Martinů, Hindemith. They have created music which at first sounds very alien, but if you give it time, you might find some value in it.


----------



## SanAntone

*Preludes (Auerbach) from "24 Preludes" *

Dina Nesterenko, violin. Ko-Eun Yi, piano. 
From Lera Auerbach's "24 Preludes" - 1, 12, 13, 17, 19, 21, 24. 
Doctor of Musical Arts recital September 27, 2016. Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY


----------



## caracalla

SanAntone said:


> I used the word in reference to the level of quality in your Classical Music, which I think would be lowered, or cheapened, by excluding Cage but including composers like Williams and Kuramoto.


Well, there you go. You want to include x and exclude y to avoid lowering or 'cheapening' the concept of classical music. Isn't that exactly what those who agitate for the exclusion of avant-garde music they consider trash also want to do? Keep the shrine pristine and free of excrescences?

The solution is not to give a fig about the standing of CM. It is convenient to bundle disparate musics down the ages into this rag-bag, but there's no need to to put the bag as such on a pedestal. Some of its contents, maybe, according to taste. On that principle, I'm as happy to admit Williams as Wishart without wishing to listen to either, or to a good deal of other CM whose status as such is undisputed.


----------



## Guest

*Narrative arc in Pentes*
When a person listens to a piece of music, say the first movement of Beethoven's Piano Sonata N° 1 (Op. 2, n° 1) in F minor [



] how does that person grasp the structure? How does he or she perceive the 'narrative arc' and get that satisfying feeling that the movement has developed organically from its opening Mannheim Rocket to the final cadence?

Familiarity with the style and a pair of sensitive ears will certainly allow such a person an easier entry into the work than a novice listener but even the novice listener's natural musicality and curiosity will help.

A work such as the Beethoven sonata has a clear narrative arc (or narrative progress or narrative curve) that is manifested in its unfolding via the use, development and cross-referencing of melodic materials and by the tensions and releases generated by classical harmonic practice.

The above is an absurdly reductionist explanation of Classical sonata form but it serves my purpose, which is to show that a work's narrative arc is evidently based on the composer's skill at creating and developing musical material that gives the listener that feeling of satisfaction that the materials have been 'worked through', that we have travelled 'from A to B' so to speak and that we are satisfied that the materials have been fully exploited. This is exactly how I feel about the electroacoustic work *Pentes* composed by *Denis Smalley*.

Giving an analysis of an electroacoustic work is notoriously difficult given there is no score to which we can refer; I cannot say, for example, "Take a look at bar 47 ")! Instead, to make my point I will be referring to the work found here [



] and will use timings to provide aural pointers.

So, how is the narrative arc in _Pentes_ perceived given that we do not have the traditional pointers? 
Just as in the Beethoven work, it has clearly delineated sections where the materials are treated in a number of different ways; there is the clear development from the opening noise-based material to more pitch-based material through to the use of a traditional bagpipe melody (Northumbrian pipes, in fact); there is the use of "spaciousness" in the work (the music seems at times distant, middle-ground and "in-your-face"!); there is much made of close (local) textural activity set against more "directional" activity by which I mean strong gestures giving the sense of moving on to new material or a new section; there are, finally, clear moments of excitement and repose, of climax and resolution. 
Also worth mentioning is the notion of "landscape" (a point made on the jacket cover of the CD I have) suggested by the title (_Pentes_ in French and Latin means 'slopes' or 'inclines') and the rising and falling gestures that punctuate the work. And I'll make one more point here about how at the end of the narrative arc one becomes aware of the basic sound material, the sound source that inspires the piece: human breath.

I'll give now a brief overview of the work's unfolding, referring to the YouTube video and its timings. The timings are not exact to the nearest millisecond so perhaps you will indulge me if I identify a section too early or too late.

0"-32": the piece opens mysteriously with repeated "breathless" sounds that fade in and out, at times up close, at others more distant. There is already the feeling of expectation (just as in the opening of a Beethoven sonata): What's going to happen! The breathless _circular_ sounds (they seem to be spinning on themselves) gradually give way short electronic beeps suggestive of insect buzzing, perhaps like the sawing of cicadas. There is an intensification of these short gestures and rising dynamic level, leading to…

45": a terrifying sonic explosion with material flying off in all directions. A new section has been opened, continuing with the breathless gestures, insect buzzing and a series of these explosions that fade in and out - a _decrescendo_ - leading up to the next section.

2'55-3'56: a sudden onset of a sustained ascending pitch-slide (like the sound of an Airbus jet beginning its take-off thrust). These "jet-like" acceleration/de-acceleration sounds continue in rising and falling patterns; the composer is no doubt trying to portray the slopes in his landscape. 
4'25-5'47: there now comes a series of ascending/falling swooshing gestures playing off the "jet" slopes.

4'25-7'10: a new section begins with dense textures spinning wildly across the acoustic space (the ear can barely track them, that is, track their morphological behaviour), with interspersed "slopes".

7'13: a new section opens as we seem to be getting closer and closer to pitch-based material; there is a feeling of an acoustic 'ceiling' and 'ground', an upper and lower framing. As this develops we hear references to the opening 'breath' and 'cicada' textures…

8'10; now begins the next section that is marked by the emergence of sustained drones on the pitch of F. These sustained drone-like pitches oppose the "broken" fragmentary gestures that opened the work. Another pitch (drone) enters a perfect 5[SUP]th[/SUP] higher on C. It's definitely getting to sound more bagpipe-ish as we proceed…

9'06: wow, a tense moment begins as the drone sounds continue to frame the 'cicada' gestures; the feeling of expectation grows as we are evidently approaching a climax of some sort. The apogee hits us at…

9'22": a traditional melody on bagpipes emerges magically and is treated in "canon effect" with strong reverb.

10'37: the canon fades out and we get a return to the opening section of the work though this time they are much closer up, more urgent-sounding, more aggressive. The "slopes", "whooshes" and "cicadas" continue…

11'06: we are entering the final section, with a feeling of the structure winding down as we hear soft noise-based gestures being injected into the F-C framing.

11'24": glass-like sustained pitches with short gestures continue to punctuate the acoustic space where we still have that feeling of "sky" and "ground", which is suggestive once more of being in a landscape.

11'24": the pitches gradually fade out over an extended decrescendo punctuated by the 'cicada' sounds we heard at the outset, disappearing into the far distance as the piece comes to its close.


----------



## SanAntone

caracalla said:


> Well, there you go. You want to include x and exclude y to avoid lowering or 'cheapening' the concept of classical music. Isn't that exactly what those who agitate for the exclusion of avant-garde music they consider trash also want to do? Keep the shrine pristine and free of excrescences?
> 
> *The solution is not to give a fig about the standing of CM.* It is convenient to bundle disparate musics down the ages into this rag-bag, but there's no need to to put the bag as such on a pedestal. Some of its contents, maybe, according to taste. On that principle, I'm as happy to admit Williams as Wishart without wishing to listen to either, or to a good deal of other CM whose status as such is undisputed.


I agree with you. I do not wish to posture myself as part of a taste brigade enforcing my ideas of what music should be in or out.

I was _responding_ to *hammeredklavier* who suggested excluding avant-garde composers from the genre "classical music" (curiously he has so far refused to respond to a short list of other composers: in or out?).

I am happy to live with the broad classification of classical music which includes Cage, Wishart and of course all of the old masters - and even John Williams or any composer that can be loosely fitted into the idea of classical music. *It is others who wish to exclude* music from the category classical music. It's all subjective, so my position is more is more, and *we can choose which music to listen to*.

The thread asked what's so great about 20th century music.

*One the marvelous things about the 20th century was the plethora of styles in which composers wrote*. If the experimental styles are excluded, I think the 20th century classical musical landscape would be poorer. When new music is denied entry it won't be long until the entire genre becomes stagnant.


----------



## atsizat

I still don't get what is wrong with 20th century.


----------



## JAS

Jacck said:


> I think you can safely forget most of the avantgarde composers mentioned in this thread. There are only 7or so I would concentrate on - Schoenberg, Bartok, Messiaen, Carter, Boulez, Martinů, Hindemith. They have created music which at first sounds very alien, but if you give it time, you might find some value in it.


Or you might not. I certainly haven't, but your mileage may vary.


----------



## Phil loves classical

TalkingHead said:


> Just as in the Beethoven work, it has clearly delineated sections where the materials are treated in a number of different ways; there is the clear development from the opening noise-based material to more pitch-based material through to the use of a traditional bagpipe melody (Northumbrian pipes, in fact); there is the use of "spaciousness" in the work (the music seems at times distant, middle-ground and "in-your-face"!); there is much made of close (local) textural activity set against more "directional" activity by which I mean strong gestures giving the sense of moving on to new material or a new section; there are, finally, clear moments of excitement and repose, of climax and resolution.
> Also worth mentioning is the notion of "landscape" (a point made on the jacket cover of the CD I have) suggested by the title (_Pentes_ in French and Latin means 'slopes' or 'inclines') and the rising and falling gestures that punctuate the work. And I'll make one more point here about how at the end of the narrative arc one becomes aware of the basic sound material, the sound source that inspires the piece: human breath.


As I suspected, I think the narrative arc is highly interpretive. A lot of music, electronic and in traditional Classical instruments, have rising and falling gestures, and contrast in intensity between excitement and repose. Like Smetana's La Moldau, Flight of Bumblebee or even more abstract music like Bartok's Music for Percussion, Celesta, Strings. Changes and sudden shifts in momentum is a general guide to any sort of music.

The Doppler effect say around 4:45 is one of the most used effects in electronic music and a lot of pop and hip hop music, also in movies like in Hal's decommissioning in 2001. It can suggest the rise and fall of anything. The ebb and flow is what makes electronic music like this, not any specific narrative arc.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> You can't even get that right, can you? It's *Denis Smalley*. For the fourth time: have you listened to the piece of music in question?


You started an argument about narrative arc. I don't have any responsibility whatsoever in making a case; that belongs entirely to you. It is a total red herring. Again.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> That's a description of what is heard, not a "narrative arc". But hey, if you enjoy this, more power to you.


My thoughts exactly. A narrative arc is the logical movement, in time, with cause and effect, from one clear place to another - typically with a denouement and/or closure. In the work of Beethoven, for example, the narrative arc in say Symphony No. 3 is the 'heroic' element of the music and the way this is expressed with musical rhetoric and form. The piece moves from one place - of setting the scene in the first movement/interaction with the sections of the orchestra, to sadness, ominousness (March Funebrae), to final exultation and triumph. But each stage of the 'narrative' is moderated by what went before; and it did have, initially at least, a programmatic inspiration. The narrative arc in the "Eroica" would also involve key relationships, themes, drama and 'characters' in the form of phrases etc. Without these it cannot be considered 'narrative'.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Roger Knox said:


> People who do not care for a work do not necessarily have "to do some soul searching as to just why such works trouble them so." I'm retired from the music field now; my education and experience over 40+ years as a professional composer, performer, theory teacher, writer, and concert organizer included a lot of work in new music, particularly during the first two decades. You shouldn't assume that readers on this site will accept your patronizing remarks. True, you may be influenced by a conceit of some composers that their work can prod listeners to examine themselves, but that argument is self-serving and without validity. I attended the premiere by the Kronos Quartet of Morton Feldman's String Quartet No. 2. There was some uncertainty beforehand about long the piece was but, anyway, after two long slow unbroken hours I decided, angrily, to leave; the friends I went with stuck it out to the end, approximately four hours I think. I hold the unpopular opinion that this tedious work is disrespectful to the audience and to the exhausted performers, but Feldman's supporters won't have any of this. Maybe they'd think that I need Anger Management!


Takes a strong bladder to get through the work! I recall reading Puccini was heavily criticised for the length of his Act 2 in Madame Butterfly. He added a break afterwards.


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> Takes a strong bladder to get through the work! . . .


Or strong locks on the doors, and bars on the windows.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Jacck said:


> I think you can safely forget most of the avantgarde composers mentioned in this thread. There are only 7or so I would concentrate on - Schoenberg, Bartok, Messiaen, Carter, Boulez, Martinů, Hindemith. They have created music which at first sounds very alien, but if you give it time, you might find some value in it.


Yes. This thread was supposed to be about 20th century music, but it seems to have shifted towards an excessive focus on a particular niche in the latter part of the century, and indeed drifted into the 21st.

I am a big fan of Bartok in particular, of those you list. It has always seemed to me that Bartok showed how it was possible to be unapologetically modern, while also remaining recognisably part of a tradition. I think the thing he had which enabled this was prodigious talent as a composer. I also like quite a lot of Martinu (who has a very distinctive voice), and some Schoenberg, Messiaen and Hindemith. Boulez, I've not found anything yet, but I haven't looked hard.

One of the arguments in this thread seems to have been that classical music will stagnate without going in the direction of such as Wishart and Saunders. I don't believe that is true, on the basis that the thing which will prevent the stagnation is the existence of composers of genius, and I have faith that they will continue to emerge, and produce great works recognisably in the classical tradition. And I mean recognisable to the non-professional audience.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> One of the arguments in this thread seems to have been that classical music will stagnate without going in the direction of such as Wishart and Saunders.


You may be referring to a comment I made in a recent post. But I did not offer examples of the kind of avant-garde, and if I were I wouldn't pick Trevor Wishart. What I said was, that if the classical avant-garde was denied entry into the body of classical music, then the genre would stagnate. Experimentation produces a lot of dreck, but it also opens a door to allow that composer of genius to walk through and create some wonderful new music. A number of composers of the 20th century have cited John Cage as "giving them permission" to write without the shadow of previous generations inhibiting their composing.

Some critics of any kind of music will point to the worst examples in order to denounce an entire genre. I ignore those kinds of arguments because I have listened to a lot of new music and know that a good bit of it, I find, is worthwhile and interesting.

But as is often said, YMMV.


----------



## Taggart

Please avoid personal comments. This thread is closed for moderator consideration.


----------

