# Oppression in music



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

There is some controversy over whether the serialists and other "modernists" really did overrun the music schools in the mid-1900s. Here's a very interesting NY Times article by composer Robert Beaser (Mountain Songs, etc.) Excerpt:

"Here were the rules from the dark heart of 1970s orthodoxy:
No octaves. Ever.
Pre-compositional charting: required.
Never repeat anything.
Nothing linear. 
Continuity or atmosphere verboten.
Basically, if you want to sing, join a choir.

Don't let any revisionist historian tell you otherwise - it was a closed system."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/the-reconstruction-of-rome/?pagewanted=all


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well yes, a kind of orthodoxy developed after 1945. I'd hasten to add that it had little or nothing to do with the actual music of the Viennese atonalists, it was mainly ideological (or even pseudo religious, dogmatic). It became enshrined and kind of fossilised in the world of academia, and it was a turf war over the ever decreasing turf and wider relevance of new music after 1945. I've written and ranted on this forum a lot about this over the years, and its largely been a waste of time. I can dig up some threads on this, but my 'investigations' into this started with a lecture by a prominent writer & broadcaster on music here, Andrew Ford. Himself a composer, and fan of new/newer music, he questions the ideologies underpinning a lot of it. IMO, lot of it is jargon and kind of arty farty psycho/philosophical babble. Inevitably in online discussions of this, people start talking this language, which I see as equivalent to the 'weasal words' of politicians and lawyers. Just say it straight for God's sakes, or are you desperately trying to cover an agenda?

Anyway, this thread I did based on a lecture of his I attended:
http://www.talkclassical.com/10930-second-viennese-school-21st.html

Basically, the issue is that anyone is free to compose as they like. That might be something quite obvious now, but guys like Boulez and Adorno especially did not have that kind of inclusive approach. It was all about the so-called 'future' of music. Funny how the 'future' did not pan out as they predicted. There isn't any composer I know of who calls himself a serialist today. Of course, the likes of Carter and many others incorporated aspects of serialism into their personal style and where influenced by the Viennese guys, but they did not just rehash it.

So where's all that dogma now? I hope its gone. Serialism is being taught at music schools now, has been for a long time. That's good, but I see the dogma that went along with it in the immediate post war decades (from about 1940's to the '60's) as basically a lesson of ways not to think about Modern/contemporary music. Its just a kind of fascistic and Stalinistic attitude, basically. Its anathema to artistic freedom, which is for me the basis from which all composers should be able to work from.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Re the article, this quote from it below is basically saying what Michael Tippett said when asked by young composers what to do, how to find their 'voice,' etc. He just simply said to them to 'use your ears' and listen to their own music, hear how it actually sounds, forget the jargon & rationalisation.



> ...Why do I need to learn counterpoint? I write it this way because I like the way it sounds. How do you answer that?
> ...


& re the quote below, it talks to 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater.' Now that 'anything goes,' if you do something leaning towards tradition, there's nothing wrong with it, right? Just as there's nothing wrong with more experimental (even extremely so) music. If anything goes, then everything is allowed. Plurality is the name of the game (not the dogmas of the past).



> ...For centuries composers have been reacting to the prevailing orthodoxies and shifting paradigms in response to them. *What do we do now that there are no windmills to tilt at?*...


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I don't know whether this can dovetail with Sid and Ken's posts but one of the more soul-destroying articles I read was from a musicologist whose name I forget saying that compositions based on mathematical and other eggheaded principles (Xenakis etc) should be listened to ONLY by people who fully understand and can explain the intellectual process that went into their construction. Rules out plebs like me, then. I wouldn't like to say if he was a Darmstadt or IRCAM man - we can't blame them for everything...


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

In the last paragraph of that same article, though, Beaver concludes that arguments about tonality vs. atonality possess less meaning than during 1970s especially since technology and information storage/retrieval over the past dozen years of the 21st century have fundamentally altered music composition and an individual's attitude towards aesthestics.

"Orchestras have been dropping off the map at an alarming rate in the States. In Italy there are hardly any left at all. All those old arguments from the '70s - tonality versus atonality - have oddly less meaning now. My hearing seems to have changed. All sounds are tonal and euphonious to me - no matter if it's Bjork, Babbitt or the New York City subway. Whether or not it is possible to find a way into the large-scale symphony might be less about external conditions, or new ways of ideation, and more about internal ones. Nothing is impossible: we just need to question everything, imagine strongly."

Beaver's article illustrates the contrast between the _milieu_ of academia as it was in 1977 and now in 2012. There may have been less choices regarding artistic paths during the decades of dominanant dodecaphony (the "black" and the "white"), however, the environment today allows so much more latitude for the student that he/she rebukes the instructor! ("why do I need to listen to Toru Takemitsu?")

Which do you prefer? The so-called "oppression" of a professor or the "oppression" of the student who may reject aspects or areas of music which are part of curriculum?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^WEll, elgars ghost, that 'egghead's' view definitely conflicts with something Xenakis himself said. I've put this quote on this forum before. Its a great quote, and its why I like a good deal of his music that I've heard. It has this visceral gut effect on me. & judging from this quote, it was among his artistic aims or the way he saw music.

Xenakis said "the listener must be gripped and - whether he likes it or not - drawn into the path of the sounds, without special training being necessary. The sensual shock must be just as forceful as when one hears a clap of thunder or looks into a bottomless abyss."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Prodromides said:


> ...Which do you prefer? The so-called "oppression" of a professor or the "oppression" of the student who may reject aspects or areas of music which are part of curriculum?


I really prefer no "oppression" but this kind of power imbalance is inevitably going to occur. I put it straight that although I did not study music but another area in uni, to think that classrooms are anywhere near democratic is unfortunately an illusion. Anyway, not to derail this thread, but its an issue, and inevitably it comes down to one man's ideology against another (or many others, the so-called 'silent majority?'). Just as on online discussions of music or anything else.

I related my experiences of this, bitter experiences, on another thread:
http://www.talkclassical.com/21910-bullying-victimisation-classical-music.html#post370913

Intellectual oppression can be the worse kind. Ideology can justify the worst behaviours. Unfortunately history is replete with examples of this type of thing.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I really prefer no "oppression" but this kind of power imbalance is inevitably going to occur. I put it straight that although I did not study music but another area in uni, to think that classrooms are anywhere near democratic is unfortunately an illusion. Anyway, not to derail this thread, but its an issue, and inevitably it comes down to one man's ideology against another (or many others, the so-called 'silent majority?'). Just as on online discussions of music or anything else.


Oh yes - I agree. No oppression is preferable.

Nonetheless, Beaver asks how could he respond to the student who questions "why do I need to listen to Toru Takemitsu".
The article does not reveal to the reader if Beaver had indeed a reply (did Beaver respond with silence to this inquiry?).

I can think of one answer: "to get familiar with it" 

After all, people are not forced to love the music of Toru Takemitsu (or any composer). One may not care for Takemitsu's compositions, but one's dislike should not lead to a refusal to learn about TT's music.

[I, too, never studied music. Regardless of the field, though, students receive grades commensurable with their understanding of the course material - not limited to only that which appeals to them.]


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2012)

I have always been able to listen to Xenakis with pleasure, without ever being able to or even interested in being able to understand or explain the intellectual processes that went into their construction.

And if I were to have read an article claiming that compositions of that type should only be listened to by that type of person, I would have just shrugged and kept on listening. My soul would certainly not have been destroyed. It wouldn't have even been inconvenienced.

I attended university and taught in same from 1970 to the early nineties. I know as both a student and an instructor that students can very easily feel oppressed by just about anything that goes on in a school. After all, if you don't obey, you could get a bad grade, right? So even if there were serial oppression, it was not specific to serialism but simply to an overall sense that in school there's a power structure and that structure does not (did not) include students. Any student in any class in any school could have felt oppressed, just because. The narrative that singles out serialism as _the_ oppressor excludes all that other oppressiveness.

And there is some evidence that that oppression was not nearly so powerful or so universal as the narrative claims. Joseph Straus, "The Myth of Serial 'Tyranny' in the 1950s and 1960s," The Music Quarterly, Fall, 1999 is the attempt to replace the narrative with verifiable fact that is the most often reacted to. Unfortunately, what you can easily find for free online is all the reactions, not the original article. That you have to pay for. Or do you?

Here's a link to the article for free: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36533412/The-Myth-of-Serial-Tyranny-in-the-1950s-and-1960s-J-Straus

Easy.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

Over history it has become apparent that the currently innovative musical trends will always take over. People will destroy the "oppression", build their own form of innovation, and then people will continue to revise and destroy the systems to input their own. This isn't bad, because music needs to be changed to thrive. It's not something we can control, and the only way to get past the "oppression" is to not adhere to the current innovative trends. We're in a modern age where we can do this (as opposed to the medieval times where music was very linear for any composer).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> And there is some evidence that that oppression was not nearly so powerful or so universal as the narrative claims. Joseph Straus, "The Myth of Serial 'Tyranny' in the 1950s and 1960s,"...


Dr. Straus's statistical analysis has been brought up before, but I have never found it convincing. His conclusion: "Serialism emerged as a viable compositional alternative in this period, but only one among many. Serialism and serial composers had no power to coerce or compel. What they did have the power to do was to offer an alternative..." This ignores of course that the student may want to get a passing grade!

Recollections of at least some individuals are quite different. In addition to Robert Beaser, here's John Adams being interviewed by Alex Ross:

"In 1965, Adams went to Harvard on a scholarship and heard the surprising news that tonal music could no longer be written. Along with many other young composers of the day, he was led to believe that Schoenberg's twelve-tone method was the only way forward. He even wrote a letter telling Leonard Bernstein that his 'Chichester Psalms' was in the 'wrong' style. Adams's teacher was Leon Kirchner, who had studied with Schoenberg himself, and who held sway over Harvard composition students for many years. 'I respected Kirchner deeply,' Adams said, 'but my relationship with him was complicated. He was very severe with me early on. He would tell me "Don't bother to bring that kind of thing in."' "


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Dr. Straus's statistical analysis has been brought up before, but I have never found it convincing. His conclusion: "Serialism emerged as a viable compositional alternative in this period, but only one among many. Serialism and serial composers had no power to coerce or compel. What they did have the power to do was to offer an alternative..." This ignores of course that the student may want to get a passing grade!
> 
> Recollections of at least some individuals are quite different. In addition to Robert Beaser, here's John Adams being interviewed by Alex Ross:
> 
> "In 1965, Adams went to Harvard on a scholarship and heard the surprising news that tonal music could no longer be written. Along with many other young composers of the day, he was led to believe that Schoenberg's twelve-tone method was the only way forward. He even wrote a letter telling Leonard Bernstein that his 'Chichester Psalms' was in the 'wrong' style. Adams's teacher was Leon Kirchner, who had studied with Schoenberg himself, and who held sway over Harvard composition students for many years. 'I respected Kirchner deeply,' Adams said, 'but my relationship with him was complicated. He was very severe with me early on. He would tell me "Don't bother to bring that kind of thing in."' "


[And Charles Ives had to 'put up with' Horatio Parker and all that Germanic / Brahms stuff. (was that too, at Harvard, or Yale? ... hmmm. _What a horror!_] You can bet your booty prior that era, in the 1910's-20's, the students were told that primitivism was passe, that modernism, _(put 'recent development in music comp in this blank _____) _, and neoclassicism were the way to write, and those aesthetics, as well, were 'imposed,' ... yet another academic dogma is born, made solely as the whip to keep all the talented truly imaginative young music students in line and in shape, and 'oppressed.']

A little digging and you will find the student John Adams later become known as a fine composer, a student who evidently did not stay with / put up with that "evil oppressive educational agenda."

B.T.W. re: Serialism:
Elliott Carter was asked why he hadn't written anything using the serial method: "You, know, I looked into it, but the more I looked into it the more it seemed like all that old Brahms stuff." He then went his own way 

There is always fashion in music: second stringers, those with weaker wills and lesser imaginations will follow, not having their clear inner voice and drive. Most others seem to be able to get through these 'dictatorships' readily enough, too.

Clearly, this highly oppressive academic atmosphere did not shape John Adams into anything but the John Adams who makes the works we know, who is one of the few classical composers on the planet who makes a full time living solely from composing, his livelihood the usual bundle of commissions, guest conducting his own works, and royalties from performance and recordings.

After all, Beethoven studied with Haydn, who taught music as Haydn saw it -- all theoretic and aesthetic elements, and not as Beethoven would later see it. Haydn was teaching the student the contemporary music of the day, of the most recent moment. 
Beethoven did not have for a private tutor a "You can be all the Beethoven you want to be." coach....


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> There is some controversy over whether the serialists and other "modernists" really did overrun the music schools in the mid-1900s.


I don't know how many times I've heard this. It doesn't matter what anecdotal evidence. John Adams said about the tyranny of serialism. Here are the facts:

Another interpretation was proposed by Joseph N. Straus (1999). Straus conducted a research study that considered five questions about American compositional activity from the 1950s and 1960s: (1) who controlled the academy? (2) whose music got published? (3) whose music got performed? (4) whose music got recorded? (5) who got the prizes, awards, and fellowships? (6) whose music got reviewed? From this evidence the author concluded, "As the period drew to a close, the American academy was dominated, as it had been throughout the 1950s and 1960s, by tonally oriented composers" (Straus 1999, 307).

This was a scientific, statistical study based on something that could be examined and organized statistically. There's no opinion on the matter. It's a myth.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Beethoven did not have for a private tutor a "You can be all the Beethoven you want to be." coach....




If I want to be good, is this a good thing to have, a teacher who imposes dogma so I either sink or swim? This is pretty much a sincere question.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ^^WEll, elgars ghost, that 'egghead's' view definitely conflicts with something Xenakis himself said. I've put this quote on this forum before. Its a great quote, and its why I like a good deal of his music that I've heard. It has this visceral gut effect on me. & judging from this quote, it was among his artistic aims or the way he saw music.
> 
> Xenakis said "the listener must be gripped and - whether he likes it or not - drawn into the path of the sounds, without special training being necessary. The sensual shock must be just as forceful as when one hears a clap of thunder or looks into a bottomless abyss."


Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. While I believe all music is first a visceral experience, and that 'follow your own ear" is some of the most excellent lesson advice you could ever get in any area of music, I think the notion of all that is too heartily embraced and arch-romanticised.

Most every pair of lips who have been quoted as uttering this seem to be the lips of a composer who did train their ear and technical ability to the maximum, including having studied all the old and the newest technical developments in the field, after which they could readily utter, "Trust your ear." Mssrs. Tippet and Xenakis' lips a case in point.
The 'instinct' they are talking about is part of a mind so educated and practiced in theory, clear on aesthetic and intent, that those aspects are then equal parts of instinctual musical thought.

Those statements, from those sources, omit the little bit about all the talent, work and learning -- since it is a given, dismissed as understood -- so what is unstated, mention of all that prior training, does not get attached to 'trust your ear.' Trust your ear after it is trained, experienced -- that is when you trust your conscious and developed aesthetic, technical aesthetic, and 'your sound.' _(On its own, 'trust your ear' can have many a younger musician stabbing at things for years they could have gotten down pat in months.)_

It was Schoenberg who is famous for the 'plenty of good pieces left to be written in c major,' statement, as well as when once questioned by the 'cellist of the Schoenberg Quartet about a B-natural in the 'cello part, "Shouldn't that be a B-flat there?" ... answered, "If I had wanted a B-flat there I would have written one."
Any 'Schoenbergian' knows those things, i.e. 'the method' is not all that methodical.

From the many varied composers who were using serial methods in the mid 20th century, a lot of the music from that time sounds no more the same / no more dissimilar than say, the music of Mozart and Salieri.

I think the 20th century has begun to label very typical, _extremely human,_ trends, and the decades those trends hold general sway, and turned them into conspiracies and draconian 'oppressions.'


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> After all, Beethoven studied with Haydn, who taught music as Haydn saw it -- all theoretic and aesthetic elements, and no Beethoven. Haydn was teaching the student the contemporary music of the day, of the most recent moment.


I think this is not quite accurate. The only music theory that Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven studied (so far as I know) was Fux's _Gradus ad Parnassum_, based on music that was not contemporary at all and in fact had gone out of style for quite a few years. Nonetheless it was accepted as consonant with musical tradition.

In the 20th century, students were being told to discard musical tradition and to study, prepare exercises, and be graded on music based on more recently-derived theoretical constructs. Diatonic music was not allowed. You can almost hear the instructor saying, "If you want to get a decent grade in this class..."

The two situations are not at all parallel. One honored tradition, the other suppressed it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SottoVoce said:


> This was a scientific, statistical study based on something that could be examined and organized statistically. There's no opinion on the matter. It's a myth.


Well, there *is* opinion -- see my prior post. And read what Disraeli (wisely) said of statistics.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Well, there *is* opinion -- see my prior post. And read what Disraeli (wisely) said of statistics.


You can't use anecdotal evidence to justify a scientific claim. What Adams had was a bad teacher. That doesn't naturally equate with "modernists" ruling the creativity of young composers. I'm sure there were an equal number of tonal teachers doing the same, as in all walks of life.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SottoVoce said:


> You can't use anecdotal evidence to justify a scientific claim.


I might cavil at a "scientific claim." Just because an analysis is based on data and uses statistical methods hardly means it's valid. I spent my entire working life in analysis (both determinate and stochastic) and computer simulations based on those. Want something "proved"? Let me know what it is and believe me, I can do it! Disraeli was quite right.

I'm not going to spend the time to pick apart Straus's analysis, but initial questions would certainly involve his sample selection, his assignment of musical works to this or that category, and (in short) his overall survey methodology. From the language he uses, I naturally suspect a prior prejudice.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

some guy said:


> I have always been able to listen to Xenakis with pleasure, without ever being able to or even interested in being able to understand or explain the intellectual processes that went into their construction.
> 
> And if I were to have read an article claiming that compositions of that type should only be listened to by that type of person, I would have just shrugged and kept on listening. My soul would certainly not have been destroyed. It wouldn't have even been inconvenienced.


I found it soul-destroying insofar as there were probably people who agreed with him. I can listen to the sort of music he was referring to despite the fact that my level of 'understanding' would obviously fall short of his elitist expectations.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2012)

SottoVoce said:


> I'm sure there were an equal number of tonal teachers doing the same, as in all walks of life.


Maybe even more.

I know I studied under some myself, taught along side a few.

Plus, realistically, if I'm in a theory one class, I expect to have to learn about Neapolitan sixths. And to be held responsible for learning about them.

If I'm in a composition class, I expect to have to learn about the latest trends. I'm in school. And school is where you learn about things. Even about things that you might not particularly like. If you're in a composition class post-WW II and are NOT learning about serialism, then you might have a legitimate complaint.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

KenOC said:


> There is some controversy over whether the serialists and other "modernists" really did overrun the music schools in the mid-1900s. Here's a very interesting NY Times article by composer Robert Beaser (Mountain Songs, etc.) Excerpt:
> 
> "Here were the rules from the dark heart of 1970s orthodoxy:
> No octaves. Ever.
> ...


*QFT!*

Now I'm glad that I haven't studied academic art. Radical Innovation or GTHO? no thanks.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

"I still write with a pencil, still use notes." - this is Mr. Beaver describing himself.

Could not the act of writing with pencil and paper be today's equivalent of the plight of the tonalist in 1962?

"Recently I have started playing around with Logic Pro, using it primitively, to retest my comfort zones. I am going to back to improvising more, something that I used to do for hours alone at the piano - but now using soft midi patches, creating layers that I can manipulate and prune. It helps to stretch my hearing and break some of my old habits in construction, timing and continuity; but I still write everything down on paper."

Notation software programs ... algorithms ... MIDI playbacks ... LogicPro.

At the risk of inciting the ire of all the nerdy IT geeks out here in TC land, 21st century technology is a much greater and far-reaching oppressor than a serialist instructor. Dodecaphony has been, for the most part, in the realm of the "ivory towers" and barely assimulated into the pop culture at large. In comparison, current technology affects all aspects of our lives in any given field not only music. Young and new practioners in the medical profession are required to be computer savvy _before_ completing their medical training & certifications.

A fledgling composer who, in 2012, wishes to write musical notes onto manuscript paper with a pencil suffers a greater oppression (though, admittedly, a different sort of oppression) than the tonalist composer from 50 years ago who was required to learn 12-tone techniques (which could be - and was for some people - abandoned later in life, after a successful graduation from any given institution).

It's possbile to personally reject a particular aesthetic which does not resonate with your own sensibilities (although it may not be the wisest thing to declare such in public if it's going against the grain of any fashionable trend). Learn it - master it - get a good grade - then years after graduation a composer could reject that which is not suitable (all the while holding a degree!).

However, is it possible to obtain passing grades and attain an eventual degree if one shuns current technology?
Maybe the guy who wants to write music in year 2015 using pencil & paper has even less options available to him than any young John Adams from 1965 grappling tonality vs. atonality with Leon Kirchner.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> There is some controversy over whether the serialists and other "modernists" really did overrun the music schools in the mid-1900s. Here's a very interesting NY Times article by composer Robert Beaser (Mountain Songs, etc.) Excerpt:
> 
> "Here were the rules from the dark heart of 1970s orthodoxy:
> No octaves. Ever.
> ...


_Serialists and the other modernists?_ Then what's left?

*This is a distortion, an oversimplification.* At the beginning of the twentieth century, all kinds of ideas were flying about, all of which dealt with the "expansion" of tonality and musical thinking, not just serialism. These ideas (symmetry, local pitch cells, bitonality, interval stacking and projection) were being applied *tonally* by Stravinsky, Howard Hanson, Charles Ives, Bartók, Debussy, and many others. These ideas were applied to tone-rows, but *they originated in the materials of music itself, meaning the 12-note scale.* Instead of writing more diatonic music, composers started looking at the chromatic scale as the starting point, and dividing it equally.

*YOU CAN'T REJECT SERIALISM WITHOUT DISCARDING ALL THE ADVANCED TONAL THOUGHT THAT CONTRIBUTED TO IT! DON'T THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH-WATER!*

A stricter "orthodoxy" might have been present in pockets of academia, like Babbitt/Wuourinen/Allan Forte/Yale. or Roger Sessions/Princeton, but they were the absolute front-runners of advanced musical thought. If you wanted to write "advanced tonal music," then you could have gone to Eastman or Illinois, or majored in harpsichord, for Christ's sake. Or if you were Elliott Carter or Wuorinen or George Perle, you'd invent your own system.

*What is wanted here by tonalists, more Mozart/Beethoven 18th century common practice? *Things have changed, expanded, evolved, and _*it's STILL TONAL.*_

*GET UP, YOU TRADITIONALIST BUMS!! DUST YOURSELF OFF, GET OUT OF THE MUSEUM! NO VAGRANCY, NO LOITERING! MOVE ON! YOU SMELL BAD!!*


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

John Williams ... anyone?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> John Williams ... anyone?


Sure, I like me some John Williams every now and then. I loved his "Simple Gifts" at Obama's inauguration. But even John Williams has been influenced by the same modernist pool of ideas that found full development in serialism. Schoenberg started it all, when he "applied ideas" to his transitional-tonal and early 12-tone works.

Blame the chromatic scale, if you're looking for a culprit. 18th century common-practice tonality was diatonic-based, and its division of the octave was the 4th and 5th scale degrees. With the chromatic scale, the division became equal: the tritone. Thus, symmetries began creeping in which were not "tonal" in nature...but this always existed! Even Bach saw it! Late Beethoven reflects it!

I believe in "historical inevitability" because the chromatic scale always existed. _The only thing really "enduring" and permanent about common-practice 18th century tonality is its conceptual artifacts: _the key signature system, its accompanying notation of sharps and flats, and the physical layout of the keyboard. Bartók pushed for a new chromatic notation system to reflect this.

To blame "serialism" or "modern musical thinking" is to discard all tonal music which came after the 19th century: advanced chromatic tonal music, Bartok, Stravinsky, Debussy.

Serialism is simply one application of these modernist ideas. It's time we stopped taking such simplistic notions as quoted in the OP seriously.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> To blame "serialism" or "modern musical thinking" is to discard all tonal music which came after the 19th century: advanced chromatic tonal music, Bartok, Stravinsky, Debussy.


I vigorously REJECT serialism and urge all right-minded revolutionary people eveywhere to resolutely struggle against it!

But I happily accept Bartok, Debussy, and a good deal of Stravinsky.

There. And you said it couldn't be done!


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

We are practically in a post-serialism era and we seem to have survived, albeit with classical music a little dented, perhaps mortally wounded and lot long for this world perhaps. But was that serialism's fault? I think it was far more popular music that is to blame for the decline of classical, if there is such a decline.

It just seems strange to me that people are resurrecting the battles of the 70s as if serialism is still a spectre haunting the musical landscape doing mischief to the cause of classical music. It just reminds me of little more than a witch-hunt, let's burn Boulez at the stake and classical can reign supreme once more. You won't find a totem to blame for the changes in classical music. You may as well blame The Beatles, Bill Haley or Chuck D for being trendsetters which people gladly followed.

In summary: I forget.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

quack said:


> ...
> 
> It just seems strange to me that people are resurrecting the battles of the 70s as if serialism is still a spectre haunting the musical landscape doing mischief to the cause of classical music. It just reminds me of little more than a witch-hunt, let's burn Boulez at the stake and classical can reign supreme once more. You won't find a totem to blame for the changes in classical music. You may as well blame The Beatles, Bill Haley or Chuck D for being trendsetters which people gladly followed.
> 
> ...


Its less about blame and more about avoiding the mistakes of the past. Eg. a kind of aggressive ideological view, of whatever kind. I suppose Boulez is the best example, and the most targeted, because he's so famous basically.

But he's changed his attitude, he did that decades ago. But I think its more a case of the world changing and Pierre adapting. This article talks to this issue a bit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...erre-Boulez-I-was-a-bully-Im-not-ashamed.html


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I vigorously REJECT serialism and urge all right-minded revolutionary people eveywhere to resolutely struggle against it!
> 
> But I happily accept Bartok, Debussy, and a good deal of Stravinsky.
> 
> There. And you said it couldn't be done!


Okay, but you can't reject the ideas which led to the expansion of tonality, and these same ideas which led to serialism, without also rejecting "Bartok, Debussy, and a good deal of Stravinsky."

Ideas such as: bitonality, tritone substitution, symmetrical division of the octave, interval multiplication, localized areas of tone-centric pitch cells, etc.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> John Williams ... anyone?


Substituting and trying to elevate the slickest most highly derivative (barely original) non-developed little snippets of film score to get away from 'contemporary' classical vocabulary is nominating a highly polished yet completely bland and mediocre craftsman as a candidate for the heights of the fine arts... it is a proposal to flat out just instate _mediocrity_ as the high standard of the day.

Feel free to disembark from the classical music vessel, take that tender back to shore, and go to film score land if you care to dwell there instead.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Its less about blame and more about avoiding the mistakes of the past. Eg. a kind of aggressive ideological view, of whatever kind. I suppose Boulez is the best example, and the most targeted, because he's so famous basically.
> 
> But he's changed his attitude, he did that decades ago. But I think its more a case of the world changing and Pierre adapting. This article talks to this issue a bit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...erre-Boulez-I-was-a-bully-Im-not-ashamed.html


Boulez might well be so, bt he is one of the more successful composer and artist from that school today, which is fact.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Re: John Williams



PetrB said:


> Substituting and trying to elevate the slickest most highly derivative (barely original) non-developed little snippets of film score to get away from 'contemporary' classical vocabulary is nominating a highly polished yet completely bland and mediocre craftsman as a candidate for the heights of the fine arts... it is a proposal to flat out just instate _mediocrity_ as the high standard of the day.
> 
> Feel free to disembark from the classical music vessel, take that tender back to shore, and go to film score land if you care to dwell there instead.


Largely true, but he has written other music. Are such comparisons even feasible? It seems to me that "traditional classical" listeners are content with historical figures. What are they saying "got attacked" by serialism, Broadway musicals? 
Where is this "continuation of the tonal tradition" if not in the movies and Broadway?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*oppression*

I am not a 'revisionist historian'. All I can say is that as a music student, even with my limited background, I have never experienced the type of 'oppression' Mr. Beaser is talking about in his article in the OP.

Now maybe if I was an extremely talented composition student that could have gotten into a super prestigious northeastern music conservatory other that Eastman back in 1970...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> Now maybe if I was an extremely talented composition student that could have gotten into a super prestigious northeastern music conservatory other that Eastman back in 1970...


Are you saying you studied at Eastman? I've always considered that a "super prestigious" school! Though I'd think any ideological prejudice you might find there would be of the opposite sort from Harvard...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Are you saying you studied at Eastman? I've always considered that a "super prestigious" school! Though I'd think any ideological prejudice you might find there would be of the opposite sort from Harvard...


I did not study at Eastman!!! I went to a university in North Carolina. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I went to Eastman. The reason I mentioned Eastman is because the composition department there was established by Howard Hanson and to the best of my recollection that department was a champion of American neoromaticism.

I will repeat myself one more time. This type of oppression may have occurred at other schools, but based on my personal experiences I did not see or experience it.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Substituting and trying to elevate the slickest most highly derivative (barely original) non-developed little snippets of film score to get away from 'contemporary' classical vocabulary is nominating a highly polished yet completely bland and mediocre craftsman as a candidate for the heights of the fine arts... it is a proposal to flat out just instate _mediocrity_ as the high standard of the day.
> 
> Feel free to disembark from the classical music vessel, take that tender back to shore, and go to film score land if you care to dwell there instead.


Added to ignore list...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> The reason I mentioned Eastman is because the composition department there was established by Howard Hanson and to the best of my recollection that department was a champion of American neoromaticism.


My point exactly. I think the accuser quoted in the OP, just like I've seen here, is insecure, and probably voted for Nixon.:lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

My understanding is that under the guidance of Howard Hanson, some of the latest techniques of that time where taught at the Eastman school. He also conducted and made recordings of major American composers of his day and of the 20th century generally. From what I've read about him, yes his style was not radical by any means, but as a teacher he taught everything that needed to be taught (incl. serialism and post-1945 trends). Its the same story here in Australia. Peter Sculthorpe, one of our leading composers, had little time for serialism in his own music, but when he taught at Sydney Conservatorium of Music he included serialism in the curriculum. He said it needed to be taught, simple as that.

Quite frankly, we can go on playing these ideological games and replicate the pathetic turf wars of the post 1945 decades (which guys like Hanson and Sculthorpe, and also Messiaen, Carter, Xenakis stood aloof from). Or we can acknowledge that harm was done by extreme ideology. Of course, prior to 1945 there was a fossilised conservatism in many music schools, and no wonder composers from all over the world went to study with Nadia Boulanger, who was ahead of the game when it came to teach newer techniques in the inter-war period and beyond. Elliott Carter said he went to study music with her partly because in America, he would have gotten a very conservative and rigid music education if he'd studied there. In Australia, the cobwebs where cleared in around the 1960's, with Sculthorpe's generation entering our major music schools. Prior to that, in the 1940's and '50's, some conservative professors thought music literally stopped and peaked with Beethoven's middle period. Sculthorpe said he grew to hate Beethoven after he was given exercises in music school to write string quartets in the style of Beethoven. He got over that hatred, but this shows how outmoded the system was before the 1960's here.

& a big reason for Boulez and others throwing out the baby with the bathwater was that the Nazis used old music - esp. German & AUstrian music, of course - as a tool for their evil ideology. So after the war, those like Boulez who lived through it, some of them totally turned against any remnant of tonality. Its probably understandable but looking back, a bit extreme to say the least. Ironically, Webern became some of that generation's idol, a man who tried without much luck to toady to the Nazis (but that did not work, and he lived in poverty throughout the war years, and of course his 'martyrdom' added to his mystique, no doubt).

So there's all these factors that come into play & then some. & in the 1960's and 1970's, with the emergence of Minimalism and neo-Romanticism, esp. in America, you got some new directions forming, which have continued to be strong directions. & I'd say equally valid to more experimental directions. Its about diversity now. It was even before that, as Beaser's article mentions, you had people like Cage, Xenakis and Partch who where hardly serilaists (not at all, actually).

As for Beaser, I do have his _Mountain Songs _for flute and guitar. It is a work firmly in the new repertoire for the flute. I quite like this work. But I equally like more radical things I know for the instrument, eg. Varese's piece called_ Density 21.5_. Or Piazzolla's stuff for the instrument, or other composers. There's no reason why composers would not and do not think the same, unless they see music as some type of religion (which I think is the wrong way to go about it).


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ...as a teacher he taught everything that needed to be taught.


Exactly what you want from your teachers.



Sid James said:


> we can go on playing these ideological games


Who's "we" for cryin' out loud? And to what does "these ideological games" refer?



Sid James said:


> & a big reason for Boulez and others throwing out the baby with the bathwater


Is this at all an appropriate or even accurate portrayal of what Boulez and the infamous (and anonymous) "others" were doing?



Sid James said:


> was that the Nazis used old music - esp. German & AUstrian music, of course - as a tool for their evil ideology. So after the war, those like Boulez who lived through it, some of them totally turned against any remnant of tonality. Its probably understandable but looking back, a bit extreme to say the least.


The point being that the so-called turning happened when it happened. So no looking back was possible. Only looking _at._ This just Monday morning quarterbacking.



Sid James said:


> Ironically, Webern became some of that generation's idol, a man who tried without much luck to toady to the Nazis (but that did not work, and he lived in poverty throughout the war years


Aside from "toady" being more defamation than description, I don't think this is ironic at all. In fact, it seems to demonstrate that Boulez (and others) were able to separate musical issues from political ones, and _not_ making musical decisions in reaction to politics.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> There is some controversy over whether the serialists and other "modernists" really did overrun the music schools in the mid-1900s. Here's a very interesting NY Times article by composer Robert Beaser (Mountain Songs, etc.) Excerpt:
> 
> "Here were the rules from the dark heart of 1970s orthodoxy:
> No octaves. Ever.
> ...


Right when Stravinsky was writing some of the more expressive serial music, and using octaves, etc. as he saw fit.
You are talking the pettiest of petty academia here, and serial music or not, every generation of students in every discipline taught at universities, has run into one or more of those -- and survived.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> You are talking the pettiest of petty academia here, and serial music or not, every generation of students in every discipline taught at universities, has run into one or more of those -- and survived.


Uh...I am talking nothing. I've never been to a music school nor taken a single course in music. You may be thinking of Robert Beaser, and may find the full article interesting.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> Added to ignore list...


That fits right in with your cut off line of ignoring most anything past the mid-high romantic era. You are consistent!


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I am not being taught serial music. I might be over the next couple of years, but it is by no means being thrust upon me.

Certainly, however, I can't write what I want to write.

It seems to be a kind of post-serial world. Serialism is almost discouraged, in the favour of the devices which came after it. If I add odd gimmicks to my music, then it suddenly becomes exciting to my tutor. Strange world.

I never really expected to be able to submit what I wanted to write. Nor have I ever seen myself as being able to go into academia as a composer, because of what I want to write. I expected to learn about more modern trends, and perhaps be able to extract what I found interesting from them and apply it to what I am interested in.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Quite frankly, we can go on playing these ideological games and replicate the pathetic turf wars of the post 1945 decades ...Or we can acknowledge that harm was done by extreme ideology...


I hope that by "extreme ideology" you are including reactionary conservatives. Ideology, if it defines an approach to art and music, is not bad in itself; but if ideology is used to promote a politico/cultural agenda, or within art, to "squelch" forms of music like serialism, it is dangerous.



Sid James said:


> Of course, prior to 1945 there was a fossilised conservatism in many music schools...
> & a big reason for Boulez and others throwing out the baby with the bathwater was that the Nazis used old music - esp. German & Austrian music, of course - as a tool for their evil ideology...


...or maybe Boulez was trying to preserve serialism's rightful place in history. The "fossilized conservatism" mentioned did not end with the fall of the Nazis, either.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> I hope that by "extreme ideology" you are including reactionary conservatives. Ideology, if it defines an approach to art and music, is not bad in itself; but if ideology is used to promote a politico/cultural agenda, or within art, to "squelch" forms of music like serialism, it is dangerous.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...or maybe Boulez was trying to preserve serialism's rightful place in history. The "fossilized conservatism" mentioned did not end with the fall of the Nazis, either.


What I'm saying is that its not good to replace one form of opression with another. Doesn't matter what extreme end of the spectrum its at - either conservative or radical - the end does not justify the means. If a person wants to promote something, or argue for its validity, there is no need to do it using tactics that set up a kind of war. The Nazis had many scapegoats in music and beyond, and so too did those pushing various agendas after the war. You don't fix one thing by applying the tactics of those you're trying to fix.

But of course there are examples of people who did not have aggressive near-religious attitudes to all this. John Cage comes across as like that in some respects, eg. him being on friendly terms with and influencing Alan Hovhaness, whose music Cage said was like "inner singing." There are other stories like this, it may well be that the likes of Adorno and Boulez where a minority, albeit a vocal one. As I said above, Peter Sculthorpe is much like this, he is a gentleman and I talk from experience of attending a premiere of his music where he talked about it beforehand. & the labels of conservative and radicals is of little use today in some ways, look at Sculthorpe, who early on was innovating in sonority like Penderecki, his influences being Messiaen, Varese and music of Australia and Asia. But since the 1980's, Sculthorpe has incorporated aspects of tradition into his music, such as more flowing melody and some counterpoint. So what do we call composers like him? He certainly does not come across as an ideologue in his autobiography, _Sun Music_, more a pragmatist in terms of his teaching (as I said above). & that's as it should be.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> ...
> Aside from "toady" being more defamation than description,
> ...


Well then let the descendants of Webern start a lawsuit against me for defamation.



> ...
> I don't think this is ironic at all. In fact, it seems to demonstrate that Boulez (and others) were able to separate musical issues from political ones, and _not_ making musical decisions in reaction to politics.


do you really think that things that Boulez said back then, which have become notorious (eg. blow up the opera houses) show a kind of neutral or objective, non-political view? What if someone said today to blow up IRCAM, which many see as a white elephant? Is that not equally extreme to what Boulez said of opera houses built in the 19th century, which he undoubtedly saw as symbols of the ancien regime (of both music and politics, etc.)? What about him doing an about face and now for decades conducting opera (even Wagner)?

Its your ideology against mine, yet again. That's just it, no right or wrong. Just ideology. I actually think issues like this can be very 'political' whether we like it or not.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> ...or maybe Boulez was trying to preserve serialism's rightful place in history.


There is no doubt that serialism will find its rightful place in history. It is close to doing so already.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> There is no doubt that serialism will find its rightful place in history. It is close to doing so already.


Ha ha. That's very logical.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> There is no doubt that serialism will find its rightful place in history. It is close to doing so already.


You mean becoming enshrined as part of the Western Classical Tradition? Look at all of these performances.

http://www.universaledition.com/performances-and-calendar#composer=88
http://www.universaledition.com/performances-and-calendar#composer=762
http://www.universaledition.com/performances-and-calendar#composer=54


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> You mean becoming enshrined as part of the Western Classical Tradition? Look at all of these performances.
> 
> http://www.universaledition.com/performances-and-calendar#composer=88
> http://www.universaledition.com/performances-and-calendar#composer=762
> http://www.universaledition.com/performances-and-calendar#composer=54


I could not just give this great post a LIKE!!!!!

Unfortunantly most of these are in Europe.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> You mean becoming enshrined as part of the Western Classical Tradition? Look at all of these performances.


...and like I keep saying, you can't simply 'throw away' the 20th century, because serial thought has permeated the aquifer. This would mean dismissing all modern music: Stravinsky, Copland, Debussy, etc


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Oppression isn't really the right term for this whole kerfuffle . It's true that dogmatic serialists like Boulez have arrogantly stated that theirs is the only valid way to write music in our time, but they were never able to stop more conservative composers from getting performed . In fact, those conservative composers were actually performed a lot more than the rigorous serialists . 
Of course there were, because audiences preferred their music and it was not so difficult for orchestras solo performers, chamber ensembles and singers to perform, and for conductors to conduct .
But more than a few conservative composers and critics were also guilty of their own form of dogmatism, 
dismissing anything that was not tonal out of hand, even works which had genuine success with audiences, such as Berg's Wozzeck and Lulu .
Have you read the controversial book "The Agony of Modern Music" by the late musicologist Henry Pleasants, which angrily dismisses virtually all challenging contemporary music as worthless , and longs for the good old days when composers wrote music to please audiences ? It's an interesting book, but its arguments are totally specious . 
Pleasants throws the baby out with the bathwater, dogmatically pooh-poohing anytrhing which does not meet his standards of accesibility . He makes it sound as though 20th century music as a whole was in decline because composers abandoned tonality . Even worse, he stupidly uses popular music and Jazz as an excuse to dismiss contemporary classical music as a whole , comparing apples and oranges .
Ultimately, you have to judge each work on its own merits, not by some procrustean bed .


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

superhorn said:


> Oppression isn't really the right term for this whole kerfuffle . It's true that dogmatic serialists like Boulez have arrogantly stated that theirs is the only valid way to write music in our time, but they were never able to stop more conservative composers from getting performed . In fact, those conservative composers were actually performed a lot more than the rigorous serialists .
> Of course there were, because audiences preferred their music and it was not so difficult for orchestras solo performers, chamber ensembles and singers to perform, and for conductors to conduct .
> But more than a few conservative composers and critics were also guilty of their own form of dogmatism,
> dismissing anything that was not tonal out of hand, even works which had genuine success with audiences, such as Berg's Wozzeck and Lulu .
> ...


You're misrepresenting Pleasants. He doesn't condemn atonality, he condemns _all_ 20th century music past Debussy and Strauss. The Neoclassicism of Stravinsky and Milhaud, among others, is placed alongside Schoenberg and co. as part of that agony. In fact, he doesn't really support Debussy, Strauss, or early Stravinsky that strongly either, seeing them as part of the decline that led to where composers were at present.

I'd recommend everyone here read Pleasants' screed if they get the chance. If nothing else, it shows how much "what is acceptable" has changed significantly over the years. It's also good for a laugh.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> You mean becoming enshrined as part of the Western Classical Tradition? Look at all of these performances.
> 
> http://www.universaledition.com/performances-and-calendar#composer=88
> http://www.universaledition.com/performances-and-calendar#composer=762
> http://www.universaledition.com/performances-and-calendar#composer=54


If you consider the size of the ensemble required for and the length of those pieces, even without considering the fact that these numbers are inflated by the promotion of these works by influential modernist composers who are still alive, these performance statistics are not triumphant by any means.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

You also need to consider the amount of effort involved in rehearsal and preparation for many of them. And they are for all different size ensembles and run for varying amounts of time. And those lists are not exhaustive. They only list performances with works licensed by Universal Edition themselves. By "influential modernist composers", you mean Boulez, right? I didn't notice any other composer-conductors mentioned. All Classical music is sponsored in one way or another by patrons, and has been for its history.

Lastly, you don't think that a composer having his works performed more than 60 years after his death, despite being near-completely unknown at that time, is a sign of his being slowly introduced into the canon?

I will admit that the majority of the works listed are not serial. There are many performances of Berio's Rendering, based on Schubert, and his Folk Songs, as well as Webern's Passacaglia in D minor. But there are also numerous performances of Berio's Sinfonia and several of Webern's 12-tone works.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> You mean becoming enshrined as part of the Western Classical Tradition? Look at all of these performances.


The apparent "popularity" of modernist music in Europe may be due more to government funding than audience demand. I went to a concert by the Concerto Malaga the other day, and they seemed quite proud of their generous allowance from the Spanish government. One leading performer of serialist/avant-garde music in France is Ensemble InterContemporain, which was founded by Boulez "in association with" the French Minister of Culture, so I assume they have similar support. And so on, from all that I've heard or read.

In the US things are different. Government subsidies for performing groups are for the most part non-existent. There are only tickets and voluntary donations. And even donors want to see the hall filled before breaking out their checkbooks. It's little wonder that the works played in Mahlerian's lists are far less likely to be encountered here!

The point being, the relatively higher frequency of performances in Europe doesn't necessarily mean that this music is "becoming enshrined as part of the Western Classical Tradition." Only that its enthusiasts are being subsidized by the public treasuries.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I claimed neither popularity nor widespread audience demand. I am aware of the support provided by European governments to institutions such as the Ensemble InterContemporain or the Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna. But are musicians forced into performing these works? It takes dedication to learn difficult music, especially if one cannot reasonably expect mass adulation as a reward. If musicians continue to learn serial, 12-tone, or atonal music, it will be played into the future.

Here is an upcoming Chicago Symphony concert (conducted by Boulez) including Schoenberg's Violin Concerto together with Wagner and Mahler.

http://cso.org/TicketsAndEvents/EventDetails.aspx?eid=4841

Here is a Youtube video of a young girl who learned a movement from Schoenberg's Suite for Piano.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> I claimed neither popularity nor widespread audience demand. I am aware of the support provided by European governments to institutions such as the Ensemble InterContemporain or the Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna. But are musicians forced into performing these works? It takes dedication to learn difficult music, especially if one cannot reasonably expect mass adulation as a reward. If musicians continue to learn serial, 12-tone, or atonal music, it will be played into the future.


Well, it will continue to be played so long as taxpayers are footing the bill! Whether this means that it will become "enshrined as part of the Western Classical Tradition" is another question entirely.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> You're misrepresenting Pleasants. He doesn't condemn atonality, he condemns _all_ 20th century music past Debussy and Strauss. The Neoclassicism of Stravinsky and Milhaud, among others, is placed alongside Schoenberg and co. as part of that agony. In fact, he doesn't really support Debussy, Strauss, or early Stravinsky that strongly either, seeing them as part of the decline that led to where composers were at present.
> 
> I'd recommend everyone here read Pleasants' screed if they get the chance. If nothing else, it shows how much "what is acceptable" has changed significantly over the years. It's also good for a laugh.


He sounds like one of the more severe retro-reactionaries defending the walls of Jericho, an interesting footnote of an arch-conservative period piece, and more than good for a laugh, a laugh riot.

Books like that make me wonder who on earth would think to even publish them -- but perhaps they do publish with an eye on the sales, knowing the kerfuffle that such a retro-reactionary book would make.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Well, it will continue to be played so long as taxpayers are footing the bill! Whether this means that it will become "enshrined as part of the Western Classical Tradition" is another question entirely.


Please... Taxpayers footing which bill(s), exactly?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Serving on Boards*



KenOC said:


> The apparent "popularity" of modernist music in Europe may be due more to government funding than audience demand.


Along with performing I have served on the boards of two community groups. Even if we sold out the tickets of every concert, we could not survive without the subsidies we receive from private corporations, the State of Virginia and the County of Fairfax. In all my years, corporate and government sponsors never made their support contingent on our programming.

With the community band I play with we backed off some of the more adventuresome programing and we now play more accessible works. Ken, if I recall you are a fan of Holst's _Hammersmith_. Our community band performed it once. Many in the audience hated it and about half got mad and walked out. In spite of our change in programming our attendance has not improved.

As a matter of fact some of the better musicians have quit and moved on to play with other groups. (Note: These are volunteer organizations and the musicians are not paid.) This is particularly true with the oboes and the bassoons. We lost a real good bassoon player and it took us over 18 months to find an adequate replacement.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Please... Taxpayers footing which bill(s), exactly?


Governmental subsidies (or coporate donations, or ticket revenues for that matter) generally go into a common pot of revenues that are used to defray expenses. There is no specific "matching" unless an activity is singled out for support, such as a tour.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

That's ugly...Paying "artists" to mutilate art...to bring a plus of chaos and misery in the word...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> He sounds like one of the more severe retro-reactionaries defending the walls of Jericho, an interesting footnote of an arch-conservative period piece, and more than good for a laugh, a laugh riot.
> 
> Books like that make me wonder who on earth would think to even publish them -- but perhaps they do publish with an eye on the sales, knowing the kerfuffle that such a retro-reactionary book would make.


Judging by what I've encountered on the internet, there are still people who feel that they agree with Pleasants, even if they distort his arguments so that they can agree with them.

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/25566860
http://www.compactdiscoveries.com/CompactDiscoveriesArticles/Schoenberg.html

Just reading those, you'd think that the book is primarily about the decline of Western Classical music through the Second Viennese School, but it's far broader than that. On top of that, the second of those links has a whole bunch of misinformation throughout, conflating 12-tone composition with atonality, and saying that Schoenberg renounced them at the end of his life (not true!), not to mention his assertion that tonal composers were not performed or recorded until the 90s, which is utter nonsense. The following is a little more indicative of the book's content, and note how the author, while sympathizing with Pleasants' views on the whole, cannot endorse them as regards certain "accepted" 20th century composers.

http://kafalas.com/urbcol72.htm

Pleasants certainly saw himself as representing the "average" concertgoer when he made his claims. I can attest that there are still a few who find Stravinsky's Neoclassicism to be challenging. I overheard a young woman, after a performance by Peter Serkin of his Concerto for Piano and Winds, complaining about how "difficult" the music was. It seemed strange to me, though, that something so lively and good-natured could be seen as severe and forbidding.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> It seemed strange to me, though, that something so lively and good-natured could be seen as severe and forbidding.


I remember going with a friend to a chamber music concert that included Shostakovich's Piano Quintet. After the concert, she said she didn't really like it. "I can't understand why he put all those wrong notes in there!"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> That's ugly...Paying "artists" to mutilate art...to bring a plus of chaos and misery in the word...


No, that's beautiful; having a government that cares about "real" art.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I remember going with a friend to a chamber music concert that included Shostakovich's Piano Quintet. After the concert, she said she didn't really like it. "I can't understand why he put all those wrong notes in there!"


I don't care what that woman thinks about Shostakovich, as long as she doesn't campaign to outlaw cigars, bars, and dissonant music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

That's the way the cookie crumbles!


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Just wait until you see this. It should add greatly to this serious discussion, without being distracting.


Are you _trying_ to get yourself banned?

EDIT: read elsewhere that million's account was hacked.

EDIT 2: I read millionrainbows saying so, though his post no longer says so at the time of me writing this.


----------

