# What do you think of Beat Furrer's Piano Concerto?



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

It came in at no. 1 place in Art Rock's game of works by living composers.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Art Rock please. Not Art Music.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

Art Rock said:


> Art Rock please. Not Art Music.


Pardon my error


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I could compare it to the image in the video - there are some striking colors there, but (to me) the over all image is not very good to look at. Rather ugly in an abstract and meaningless way. Some of the uses of sound effects, dynamics and orchestration show skill, but harmonically I find it weak and it lacks range and expressivity. It seems to be primarily driven by rhythms for expression. Kind of a stifled constipated rhythmic feel, which creates a feel of impeded movement. Start and stop motion and tension. Kind of interesting, but it becomes a little tiring after a while and the piece never really breaks into different territory.

Over all this work doesn't do that much for me due to the reasons I've stated. It does have some redeemable qualities but I would have voted for something else.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I've listened to it a couple of times after it started doing really well in the game. As a concerto, it doesn't do much for me, but it is clearly loved by a number of people here. I like the orchestral parts better than the piano.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

tdc said:


> I could compare it to the image in the video - there are some striking colors there, but (to me) the over all image is not very good to look at.


Here we disagree though - Gerhard Richter is my favourite living painter.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I listened to it as a result of the game and subsequently gave it a good few votes. It is an easy work to like - much of it is quite playful. It beat a good few pieces in that game that I love more but it is a good game winner.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I listened to it as a result of the game and subsequently gave it a good few votes. It is an easy work to like - much of it is quite playful. It beat a good few pieces in that game that I love more but it is a good game winner.


I agree. Actually it wouldn't have been my personal top pick on the list, not even one of my favourite Furrer compositions (his operas are much more interesting to me). But it _is_ fun, and when something can be both 'modernist' and really fun to listen to, then it is probably going to turn out to be fairly popular for the kind of music Furrer writes.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

Based on one listening of this video, I didn't dislike it, it seemed at times very alive and there were some nice moments, but there seemed some longueurs too and I didn't get the feeling there was a lot I was missing I that would bring me back for a second listening. 

Overall I did not feel particularly excited I guess, though in the right mood I can imagine the 'fun' description fitting.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Well designed piece. The sections of repose always came in just at the right moment. Each fast section offered continuous subtle changes of the essential idea that kept my attention.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I find it ok, but tend to have the same reservations as post #4 here.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Since the OP is asking what we think of it: IMO, it is just awful. I’m not sure why it is called a Concerto. I don’t hear much in the way of an orchestra. I’m not sure how it falls under the category of classical music. Perhaps a classification of sound effects would be better.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

It's an excellent piece of the previous decade and I would recommend it to anyone interested in knowing about the contemporary repertoire. Is top 1, top 10? Meh, who cares, I never do that kind of lists to be honest.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

Pretty much as good as any piano concerto I can think of, save maybe a couple of Mozart’s.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Pretty much as good as any piano concerto I can think of, save maybe a couple of Mozart's.


So let me get this straight. This Beat Furrer work is comparable to the Beethoven concertos?


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

DaveM said:


> So let me get this straight. This Beat Furrer work is comparable to the Beethoven concertos?


Sure. That's a logical extrapolation of my statement, yes.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

It is quite catchy, and holds the attention well to me. I don't think it tries to be anything more deep. So I say "Well done.." like Ramsay. I wouldn't compare it with 18th or 19th century concertos though.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Sure. That's a logical extrapolation of my statement, yes.


The problem with someone elevating this to the level of the top concertos of the 19th century raises the question of what the parameters are that are being used for comparison. In the Furrer work there are no melodies and nothing predictable to the point that you could even tell if the players had made a mistake or even if the instruments are in tune. Not to mention that no where near a full orchestra is being used. What is there to compare with a Beethoven Concerto. It stretches credulity.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> The problem with someone elevating this to the level of the top concertos of the 19th century raises the question of what the parameters are that are being used for comparison. In the Furrer work there are no melodies and nothing predictable to the point that you could even tell if the players had made a mistake or even if the instruments are in tune. Not to mention that no where near a full orchestra is being used. What is there to compare with a Beethoven Concerto. It stretches credulity.


It doesn't stretch anything. The Furrer is a modernist work, and plenty of TC members appreciate and love a lot of modernist music. That's all you need to know. I'd wager that we have a few members who much prefer the Furrer concerto to those by Beethoven. You have your parameters; others have their own.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

DaveM said:


> The problem with someone elevating this to the level of the top concertos of the 19th century raises the question of what the parameters are that are being used for comparison. In the Furrer work there are no melodies and nothing predictable to the point that you could even tell if the players had made a mistake or even if the instruments are in tune. Not to mention that no where near a full orchestra is being used. What is there to compare with a Beethoven Concerto. It stretches credulity.


There are lots of melodies and patterns in the piece, but those aren't the parameters I'm applying here.

The standard I applied is how much I like how it sounds. Because we're talking about music.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Not to mention that no where near a full orchestra is being used.


The composer for the most part doesn't use the full force of his entire instrumentation, but below is the publisher's (Baerenreiter) listing for the concerto

Besetzung: 2 (beide auch Picc), 1, 3 (2. und 3. auch BKlar), 1 TSax, 2 (2. auch Kfag) - 2,2,2,0 - Schlg (3) - Orchesterklavier, Akk - Str (1, 2, 2, 2, 1)

Translation= 2 Flutes with one doubling piccolo, 1 oboe, 3 clarinets (two doubling bass clarinet), 1 tenor saxophone, 2 bassoons (one doubling contrabassoon) 2 French horns, 2 trumpets, 2 trombones, 3 percussionists, 1 piano (not the soloist)* and strings. Not the biggest, but not chamber

* there was one cool spot where you can hear the orchestra's piano interacting with the piano solo.

https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/shop/product/details/BA9727_72/


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

I didn't have time to listen to the piece, but how can it be a "problem" if some people like it as much or more than Beethoven?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

nathanb said:


> There are lots of melodies and patterns in the piece, but those aren't the parameters I'm applying here.
> 
> The standard I applied is how much I like how it sounds. Because we're talking about music.


If you are saying that you like it as much as a Beethoven Concerto then that's your right. But that is different than saying _'Pretty much as good as any piano concerto I can think of, save maybe a couple of Mozart's_.' which is what you originally said.

To everybody else: I reserve the right to question when someone says that one composer is as good as (especially if it's a composer at the level of a Beethoven) or better than another as opposed to liking a composer or preferring one more than another. If you don't see the difference or don't read the difference before jumping down my throat then that's your problem.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

DaveM said:


> If you are saying that you like it as much as a Beethoven Concerto then that's your right. But that is different than saying _'Pretty much as good as any piano concerto I can think of, save maybe a couple of Mozart's_.' which is what you originally said.
> 
> To everybody else: I reserve the right to question when someone says that one composer is as good as (especially if it's a composer at the level of a Beethoven) or better than another as opposed to liking a composer or preferring one more than another. If you don't see the difference or don't read the difference before jumping down my throat then that's your problem.


Logically speaking, because all value judgements in regards to music are subjective, "I like as much as" and "it is as good as" are equivalent statements.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Logically speaking, because all value judgements in regards to music are subjective, "I like as much as" and "it is as good as" are equivalent statements.


No they aren't. One is open to question; one is not. There are objective reasons why the greatest composers are the greatest composers. And why many don't rise to that level.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

nathanb said:


> There are lots of melodies and patterns in the piece, but those aren't the parameters I'm applying here.
> 
> The standard I applied is how much I like how it sounds. Because we're talking about music.


For the record, I'm with nathanb here. I think of music by how much I like how it sounds. And tbh I prefer Furrer to Beethoven, but there are a few Mozart concertos I like more than the Furrer concerto.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

DaveM said:


> No they aren't. One is open to question; one is not. There are objective reasons why the greatest composers are the greatest composers. And why many don't rise to that level.


I once tried to subscribe to such an ideology. Subjectivity can be so irritating after all. But I have never once seen anyone here make a sound argument for objective musical value. Some people go a few long posts before making appeals to popularity, appeals to authority, etc... but that's about as good as it gets.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

Beat Furrer is a better composer than Mozart when it comes to writing a piano part that involves a hierarchy of 'how distinct it sounds from the ensemble' versus 'how blended it sounds with the ensemble' and the gradations between them. I like how the piano sometimes emerges from the texture but then rejoins it, and I like how the pianist plays sudden loud staccato chords against soft, sustained notes in the ensemble. This type of treatment of the soloist versus everyone else or the soloist in dialogue with everyone else or the soloist as part of everyone else is what I like most about concertos. So it's without question that I think Furrer is better at it in this concerto than a composer who doesn't write a concerto in that way.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

nathanb said:


> I once tried to subscribe to such an ideology. Subjectivity can be so irritating after all. But I have never once seen anyone here make a sound argument for objective musical value. Some people go a few long posts before making appeals to popularity, appeals to authority, etc... but that's about as good as it gets.


When it comes to the subject of objective reasons why a Bach, a Mozart and a Beethoven rose to the level they did and why they are almost always in a top 3 list, you can't rely on TC posters. There are countless books on the subject and the books do not begin and end with 'He was great because he was so popular.'

On my part, fwiw, I always look to the influence that these composers had on the many top tier composers that followed. The composers that were influenced by Bach, Mozart or Beethoven were, more than not, experts in their craft. They knew innovations in orchestration and the original use of individual instruments (among other things), more than probably anyone else, when they saw them.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

shirime said:


> Beat Furrer is a better composer than Mozart when it comes to writing a piano part that involves a hierarchy of 'how distinct it sounds from the ensemble' versus 'how blended it sounds with the ensemble' and the gradations between them. I like how the piano sometimes emerges from the texture but then rejoins it, and I like how the pianist plays sudden loud staccato chords against soft, sustained notes in the ensemble. This type of treatment of the soloist versus everyone else or the soloist in dialogue with everyone else or the soloist as part of everyone else is what I like most about concertos. So it's without question that I think Furrer is better at it in this concerto than a composer who doesn't write a concerto in that way.


What you are describing is basically an element of orchestration, no? Essentially it sounds like you are saying orchestration is more important to you in a concerto than harmony, melody or form.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

It is an illusion to say that there is such a thing as an objective evaluation of music. Sometimes it is entirely subjective (I hated it, etc) sometimes there is clear objective content, but at best it is a blend of objective and subjective judgment. I can say that Bach was the greatest master of counterpoint, and give objective evidence such as the unsurpassed complexity of the Ricercar a 6 from the Musical Offering, but in the end you have to listen to it and decide if it is successful. The most complex counterpoint is not good music if it doesn't sound good.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

DaveM said:


> When it comes to the subject of objective reasons why a Bach, a Mozart and a Beethoven rose to the level they did and why they are almost always in a top 3 list, you can't rely on TC posters. There are countless books on the subject and the books do not begin and end with 'He was great because he was so popular.'
> 
> On my part, fwiw, I always look to the influence that these composers had on the many top tier composers that followed. The composers that were influenced by Bach, Mozart or Beethoven were, more than not, experts in their craft. They knew innovations in orchestration and the original use of individual instruments (among other things), more than probably anyone else, when they saw them.


You still aren't making an argument for objectivity. Objectivity requires an airtight definition. Like Newton's Laws or the wording in a legal document. If your judgements are truly objective, then Furrer's inferiority needs to be made as clear and irrefutable to me as the fact that the Earth is not a flat disc.

Thankfully, because I have never seen such an argument, I will not actually be requiring it of you. Go in peace.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2018)

DaveM said:


> On my part, fwiw, I always look to the influence that these composers had on the many top tier composers that followed. The composers that were influenced by Bach, Mozart or Beethoven were, more than not, experts in their craft. They knew innovations in orchestration and the original use of individual instruments (among other things), more than probably anyone else, when they saw them.


Pretty sure Beat Furrer can be considered an expert because he is a professor in composition and music theory in one of the leading music universities in the world in Graz. If you have any questions for him about the things he knows about orchestration, counterpoint, harmony, set theory, serialism, Schenkerian analysis, Neo-Riemannian analysis etc I guess you could contact him for yourself: [email protected] [email protected]


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Baron Scarpia said:


> It is an illusion to say that there is such a thing as an objective evaluation of music.


True, but that hasn't stopped us yet! Never will. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

tdc said:


> What you are describing is basically an element of orchestration, no? Essentially it sounds like you are saying orchestration is more important to you in a concerto than harmony, melody or form.


Yes, I guess you are right.
I've always been attracted to the timbre of music far more than I have been attracted to a good melody or chord progression to tell you the truth. Timbre itself _needs_ to be conveyed with pitch and harmony anyway, so melody and harmony is going to be part of that. Form is hardly important at all to me, besides from the idea of how it affects the memory we have of a composition as it is being played.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

KenOC said:


> True, but that hasn't stopped us yet! Never will. :lol:


Did you just agree with me?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

nathanb said:


> Did you just agree with me?


Of course. That occasionally happens when you're right.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

As the OP is asking what I think of it I'll reply. It sounds like a group of cats plodding and then scampering around a piano keyboard backed by a bunch of drunken two-year olds having their first tries on a selection of musical instruments but I realise that I'm being flippant and this kind of stuff is not my bag, in the same way that others wouldn't appreciate some of the noisy tosh I listen to. If people like it then great. Would be a dull world if we were all into the same stuff. Vive la difference.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

KenOC said:


> True, but that hasn't stopped us yet! Never will. :lol:


Shouldn't stop us from making judgements, but perhaps should stop us form claiming they are entirely "objective."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

shirime said:


> Pretty sure Beat Furrer can be considered an expert because he is a professor in composition and music theory in one of the leading music universities in the world in Graz. If you have any questions for him about the things he knows about orchestration, counterpoint, harmony, set theory, serialism, Schenkerian analysis, Neo-Riemannian analysis etc I guess you could contact him for yourself: [email protected] [email protected]


What does that have to do with absolutely anything I've been saying? None of that makes him a Beethoven. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if he were to read this thread he would laugh at the comparison with Beethoven. I'm pretty sure at the very least he would say that what he is composing is so different that qualitative comparisons to the great composers of the 19th century is ridiculous.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

shirime said:


> Yes, I guess you are right.
> I've always been attracted to the timbre of music far more than I have been attracted to a good melody or chord progression to tell you the truth. Timbre itself _needs_ to be conveyed with pitch and harmony anyway, so melody and harmony is going to be part of that. Form is hardly important at all to me, besides from the idea of how it affects the memory we have of a composition as it is being played.


I think of how a piece of music stirs the heart. Can you honestly say you get that from this piece, or is it intellectual only for you? Without an intricate, dynamic and sensitive use of harmony (which I don't think the piece in the OP displays), this is difficult to achieve. We have a collection of sounds that may be interesting and intellectually stimulating, but falls short of being really 'moving'.

I think the aspects of orchestration you have described are certainly impressive and a result of building on and improving orchestral techniques passed down through the centuries, but to me it is technical minutia relative to the merits of the best Mozart or Beethoven concertos. Its like saying you like a shiny package, but couldn't care less about the inner content.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

My totally objective view: It floateth not my boateth.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

DaveM said:


> What does that have to do with absolutely anything I've been saying? None of that makes him a Beethoven. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if he were to read this thread he would laugh at the comparison with Beethoven. I'm pretty sure at the very least he would say that what he is composing is so different that qualitative comparisons to the great composers of the 19th century is ridiculous.


Well, you did bring up Beethoven, technically. And I agree that it's a bit ridiculous to try to draw parallels between the two. And if we can't even comment on two pieces of music using the same metrics, that only brings up more questions about the idea that music falls somewhere in this linear spectrum of bad-good-better-best rather than just different-different-different-different.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

tdc said:


> I think of how a piece of music stirs the heart. Can you honestly say you get that from this piece, or is it intellectual only for you?


Listening to the music of Beat Furrer is generally a very visceral, emotionally moving experience for me. Could you explain what you mean by 'intellectual?'



> Without an intricate, dynamic and sensitive use of harmony (which I don't think the piece in the OP displays), this is difficult to achieve. We have a collection of sounds that may be interesting and intellectually stimulating, but falls short of being really 'moving'.


I did not know that it was difficult to achieve.



> I think the aspects of orchestration you have described are certainly impressive and a result of building on and improving orchestral techniques passed down through the centuries, but to me it is technical minutia relative to the merits of the best Mozart or Beethoven concertos. Its like saying you like a shiny package, but couldn't care less about the inner content.


I'm a bit confused by what you are saying with that shiny package analogy.....


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

To all those who stand by the fact that evaluating the great composers is purely subjective, try reading Chapter 16, Evaluating Music in the book, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Music.

Composing classical music at the level of the great composers of the 19th century is/was a craft. Like any craft, there are objective reasons why some perform the craft better than others. Shoot the messenger.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Well, you did bring up Beethoven, technically. And I agree that it's a bit ridiculous to try to draw parallels between the two. And if we can't even comment on two pieces of music using the same metrics, that only brings up more questions about the idea that music falls somewhere in this linear spectrum of bad-good-better-best rather than just different-different-different-different.


Oh, okay. He would have laughed at the comment that this work was 'as good as any Piano Concerto one can think of.'

However, I'm glad to see that you are walking back your original statement.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

I like it and after voting for my favourites gave it any surplus votes. However this was due as much to the other nominations not being as good, than necessarily on its own merits. It might not have done as well with stronger opposition.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't like it as much as Norgard's concerto in due tempi, or Ligeti's concerto.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

LezLee said:


> I like it and after voting for my favourites gave it any surplus votes. However this was due as much to the other nominations not being as good, than necessarily on its own merits. It might not have done as well with stronger opposition.


Curiously, what pieces would have been a stronger opposition in your view?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

This is certainly a concerto, one that falls clearly into four movements, contrasting but unified. There's plenty of virtuosic piano writing. It holds my attention mainly through its complex and unpredictable rhythm; there's little melodic or harmonic interest. Like a lot of contemporary classical music it places much importance on timbre, but generally I'm not interested in that element apart from formal structure, so I found it only moderately interesting here. I think the piece fills out most of its 18 minutes effectively, but the ending disappointed me; I couldn't see any reason, either structural or expressive, for its trailing off into vagueness, and I'd have been happier had it balanced its form and fulfilled its billing as a concerto with some really exciting rhythmic play and keyboard virtuosity.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

LezLee said:


> I like it and after voting for my favourites gave it any surplus votes.


I never have any surplus votes, but I do have strategic votes. Maybe they're the same thing.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DaveM said:


> So let me get this straight. This Beat Furrer work is comparable to the Beethoven concertos?


Why does it matter so much to you? You have reacted like this a few times when people show enthusiasm for modern music. I'm often probably too antagonistic when this happens, and I don't want this to be taken that way: I'm simply, genuinely curious...


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

shirime said:


> Listening to the music of Beat Furrer is generally a very visceral, emotionally moving experience for me. Could you explain what you mean by 'intellectual?'
> I did not know that it was difficult to achieve.
> I'm a bit confused by what you are saying with that shiny package analogy.....


Well, what I'm saying is for me harmony is the primary aspect of music that stirs my emotions, of course it has to be blended tastefully with things like rhythm and form etc. Orchestration I see as less important, (I'm not saying it isn't important at all) A piece like this I can find intellectually stimulating, but it doesn't move me in an emotional way as a result of its harmonic blandness.

My "shiny package" analogy is in reference to your preference for orchestration over other aspects of composition. While I think great orchestration can make a significant difference to the aesthetic quality of a work, I see it as more of the external shell of a piece, not the inner logic which to me is more important.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

nathanb said:


> Sure. That's a logical extrapolation of my statement, yes.


You must be joking. Ein musikalisches spass, ja?


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

A tedious waste of time and paper.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Lisztian said:


> Why does it matter so much to you? You have reacted like this a few times when people show enthusiasm for modern music. I'm often probably too antagonistic when this happens, and I don't want this to be taken that way: I'm simply, genuinely curious...


Well, there's a word for it when someone only comes out of the woodwork for the purpose of posting something critical about one particular poster. The last time was when you informed me that my post was not part of the conversation and that was the only post you made in the entire thread. Your only post in this thread is the one above directed at me, not the subject matter.

I don't post negative comments about contemporary music in threads where it is explicit that only positive comments are welcome. For instance, if this thread had been, 'Why I Love Furrer's Concerto' or 'How Many People Like This Concerto', you wouldn't see me here. But that wasn't the title. I don't report posts so if you want to keep trolling me then knock yourself out.

If you want to know what issues I have with most Avant-garde music then maybe in the appropriate thread l'll enlighten you. But not here.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Well, there's a word for it when someone only comes out of the woodwork for the purpose of posting something critical about one particular poster. The last time was when you informed me that my post was not part of the conversation and that was the only post you made in the entire thread. Your only post in this thread is the one above directed at me, not the subject matter.
> 
> I don't post negative comments about contemporary music in threads where it is explicit that only positive comments are welcome. For instance, if this thread had been, 'Why I Love Furrer's Concerto' or 'How Many People Like This Concerto', you wouldn't see me here. But that wasn't the title. I don't report posts so if you want to keep trolling me then knock yourself out.
> 
> If you want to know what issues I have with most Avant-garde music then maybe in the appropriate thread l'll enlighten you. But not here.


I'm not 'trolling' you, although I have indeed responded to you a few times, because your posts are often provocative from the point of view of someone who sees things completely differently; however, if you look at my posting history you'll see that it's not all I 'come out of the woodwork' for. Do I respond to posts to do with modern music when I'm on here? Yes, because I'm interested in modern music. In the other thread and this one I didn't have anything to say (I haven't listened to the work in question, as my headphones are at another property; I don't have anything substantive to contribute regarding which of Beethoven or Schubert was the better melodist), until I came across your posts: if I respond to them a fair bit it's because you yourself are probably the most vocal on this site on the, from my point of view, 'against' side of this topic...

You'll notice I didn't respond to your post regarding what you think of the piece, but rather the one where you were showing (again) that you struggled to accept a certain kind of opinion. I'm still curious as to why this is, but if you don't want to answer then I can live with that...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Re objective vs subjective.

There are actually some objective things. Each musical aesthetics has its own set of parameters and desirable goals. Classical Era had its own, and I can objectively state that, e.g., Beethoven was quite good and showed great craft at composing under those parameters. Contemporary music has another set of parameters (e.g., a rich orchestration and extreme timbral intricacy, as was noticed by many posters here) and I can assure you ("I'm sorry Dave,..." ) that Furrer shows great craft under the parameters which he chose to compose. 

The subjective part is, of course, if one accepts or not these new parameters as 'valid' ones for composing music that could be considered as belonging to the tradition of classical music. 

Personally, I think it is valid. True, there are no melodies in the traditional sense, etc., but these things are replaced by the increase in complexity of other aspects, like timbre, rhythm, dynamics and polyphony. Aspects which are even traditional. Thus, I don't think one has 'watered down' tradition, one simply decided to look at the traditional elements of music (melody, timbre, rhythm, polyphony) from a different perspective. 

The discussion about the supposed lack of craft, and even of intellectual honesty, of established modern composers is sterile and not worth pursuing (so, suddently, the world lost all of its talented people for a whole century? That's really hard to maintain from a statistical point of view). Thus, a more fertile discussion could be about the differences, advantages and disadvantages between the parameters that govern different aesthetics (although, of course, even there a dose of subjectivity is inescapable.)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DaveM said:


> If you are saying that you like it as much as a Beethoven Concerto then that's your right. But that is different than saying _'Pretty much as good as any piano concerto I can think of, save maybe a couple of Mozart's_.' which is what you originally said.
> 
> To everybody else: I reserve the right to question when someone says that one composer is as good as (especially if it's a composer at the level of a Beethoven) or better than another as opposed to liking a composer or preferring one more than another. If you don't see the difference or don't read the difference before jumping down my throat then that's your problem.


Even as a fan of much contemporary music, I do have some sympathy with your incredulity! But I don't want to open the "objective vs. subjective valuing of music" can of worms again. I don't think the "whatever I think is best _is _best" approach serves music well. But it does help keep the peace and keeps us clear of arguments that we will never be able to resolve.

EDIT - I see the can of worms was opened in a controlled and successful way by the post immediately above mine ... so that's good.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Lisztian said:


> You'll notice I didn't respond to your post regarding what you think of the piece, but rather the one where you were showing (again) that you struggled to accept a certain kind of opinion.


Oh, my struggle. And you were just helping me with it. You're a prince.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I couldn't find/hear much of interest in this. Some of the more active parts were mildly engaging, but otherwise it was vapid. The loud, high plings on the piano were annoying.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

aleazk said:


> Re objective vs subjective.
> 
> There are actually some objective things. Each musical aesthetics has its own set of parameters and desirable goals. Classical Era had its own, and I can objectively state that, e.g., Beethoven was quite good and showed great craft at composing under those parameters. Contemporary music has another set of parameters (e.g., a rich orchestration and extreme timbral intricacy, as was noticed by many posters here) and I can assure you ("I'm sorry Dave,..." ) that Furrer shows great craft under the parameters which he chose to compose.
> 
> ...


You are raising some points that are at the heart of the matter. You mention that Contemporary music has a different set of parameters. IMO, this kind of Avant-garde music has different parameters to the point that it is no longer Classical music as it has been known for almost 3 centuries. Most important is that it has no melody. In fact, it is so bereft of melody that, in comparison, it makes Schoenberg sound like Tchaikovsky.

There is no flow and no development -development is hard if there is no theme/melody. Much of these works is random, often harsh sounds (there is little that is soft or gentle). And as I've said before, if one is trying to pass this off as Classical music, then I have an issue with music where you wouldn't be able to tell if a musician played a wrong note or even if an instrument is out of tune.

So, I understand that a number of people like works like this. I'm happy for them. But, IMO, the parameters they enjoy are entirely different from traditional classical music. So, just call it what it is: an entirely separate classification of music, not Classical music. When I say this, a number of people get their knickers in a knot. What is the insult in having these works having their own classification? Or could it be that there is a need for it to be under the umbrella of Classical music for fear that it will be lost on its own?



> The discussion about the supposed lack of craft, and even of intellectual honesty, of established modern composers is sterile and not worth pursuing (so, suddently, the world lost all of its talented people for a whole century? That's really hard to maintain from a statistical point of view). Thus, a more fertile discussion could be about the differences, advantages and disadvantages between the parameters that govern different aesthetics (although, of course, even there a dose of subjectivity is inescapable.)


You'll notice that my mention of craft was in reference to the 18th/19th century classical music. When it comes to craft, Furrer may be a giant in the Avant-garde music world, but comparisons to the giants of classic music -an almost entirely different form of music- of the past is rather ridiculous.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DaveM said:


> You are raising some points that are at the heart of the matter. You mention that Contemporary music has a different set of parameters. IMO, this kind of Avant-garde music has different parameters to the point that it is no longer Classical music as it has been known for almost 3 centuries. Most important is that it has no melody. In fact, it is so bereft of melody that, in comparison, it makes Schoenberg sound like Tchaikovsky.


I had understood that the different sets of parameters are not just needed for contemporary music but for each broad category that we recognise. So, in those three centuries that you mention there are several sets of parameters (those for Baroque, Classical, Romantic and so-called "Modern") that you are accepting and valuing and only one that you reject (contemporary). You can probably leave it at that by saying "I don't do/get contemporary music". You would not be alone in that - so it is no big deal - and hardly worth commenting on. I would expect your comments on the genres/periods you do like (and do accept the parameters for) to be more enlightening.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I had understood that the different sets of parameters are not just needed for contemporary music but for each broad category that we recognise. So, in those three centuries that you mention there are several sets of parameters (those for Baroque, Classical, Romantic and so-called "Modern") that you are accepting and valuing and only one that you reject (contemporary). You can probably leave it at that by saying "I don't do/get contemporary music". You would not be alone in that - so it is no big deal - and hardly worth commenting on. I would expect your comments on the genres/periods you do like (and do accept the parameters for) to be more enlightening.


I expected this kind of response. The various eras of traditional classical music -regardless of their differences- shared parameters that distinguish them as classical music. I rather think that you know what they are.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Anyway, I finally was able to listen...

Pretty good, clean, well-crafted with some stand-out moments...but I'm surprised it won the game considering the works it was up against.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

I don't wish to continue talking past each other. I will recant my subjective statement when you offer proof (not opinions, not appeals to authority or popularity - proof) that musical quality is objective. Now please clearly and irrefutably define objectively good music in such a way that clearly includes Beethoven and clearly excludes Furrer, or let it go.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

nathanb said:


> I don't wish to continue talking past each other. I will recant my subjective statement when you offer proof (not opinions, not appeals to authority or popularity - proof) that musical quality is objective. Now please clearly and irrefutably define objectively good music in such a way that clearly includes Beethoven and clearly excludes Furrer, or let it go.


Why don't you prove that the Avant-garde music of Furrer even bears enough similarity to the genre of the music of Beethoven -or other concertos of the era, as you did- to make a comparison or let it go.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Why don't you prove that the Avant-garde music of Furrer even bears enough similarity to the genre of the music of Beethoven to make a comparison or let it go.


Subjective statements don't require proof. You are the only one that wants this to be an objective matter.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

DaveM said:


> You are raising some points that are at the heart of the matter. You mention that Contemporary music has a different set of parameters. IMO, this kind of Avant-garde music has different parameters to the point that it is no longer Classical music as it has been known for almost 3 centuries. Most important is that it has no melody. In fact, it is so bereft of melody that, in comparison, it makes Schoenberg sound like Tchaikovsky.


I don't think you can reduce the western classical tradition to melody, to consider that melody is its defining characteristic. Medieval gregorian chant is pure melody, it's homophonic, but I don't think anyone would consider it clearly inside the tradition (at best is proto-tradition). That's because a key parameter, considered by many as a necessary one for the western tradition is polyphony. I would consider Leonin and Perotin, circa the 1200, the initial point of the western classical tradition with their introduction of the polyphonic organum. Once introduced, polyphony never went away, it stayed in the tradition during all of its 800 years life, including contemporary music, of course. Thus, if you want to identify a necessary condition for being considered inside the western tradition, polyphony is a more appropriate one rather than melody (of course, I'm talking about polyphony of lines and sounds, not necessarily of melodic lines).


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Subjective statements don't require proof. You are the only one that wants this to be an objective matter.


How would you know if I'm the only one? I'm the only one speaking out at the moment.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Why don't you prove that the Avant-garde music of Furrer even bears enough similarity to the genre of the music of Beethoven -or other concertos of the era, as you did- to make a comparison or let it go.


How could anyone go about proving that? It is utterly impossible for any such proof to be made.

All I have learned here is that you are of the sort that feels a need to categorize music you don't like as somehow illegitimate.

There will never be another Beethoven in the sense that Beethoven lived at a unique point in history and those historical conditions don't exist any more. Beethoven changed music, and contemporary composers are also changing music as it exists in our historical context.

It is hard to compare Furrer to Beethoven just as it is hard to compare Beethoven to Bach. (And it is not at all clear that Furrer, of all the composers working today, will turn out to be a significant one. The future will judge)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

aleazk said:


> I don't think you can reduce the western classical tradition to melody, to consider that melody is its defining characteristic. Medieval gregorian chant is pure melody, it's homophonic, but I don't think anyone would consider it clearly inside the tradition (at best is proto-tradition). That's because a key parameter, considered by many as a necessary one for the western tradition is polyphony. I would consider Leonin and Perotin, circa the 1200, the initial point of the western classical tradition with their introduction of the polyphonic organum. Once introduced, polyphony never went away, it stayed in the tradition during all of its 800 years life, including contemporary music, of course. Thus, if you want to identify a necessary condition for being considered inside the western tradition, polyphony is a more appropriate one rather than melody (of course, I'm talking about polyphony of lines and sounds, not necessarily of melodic lines).


If it fits to put Gregorian Chant and even pre 17th century music in its own classification then that's fine with me. But why the focus on only my comments about melody; I mentioned other important factors. Fwiw, I find it a stretch to go back to 1200 for the start of classical music as we have known it. Perhaps, that early music is as the ape is to Homo sapiens.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

DaveM said:


> How would you know if I'm the only one? I'm the only one speaking out at the moment.


Do you have proof or not


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

DaveM said:


> If it fits to put Gregorian Chant and even pre 17th century music in its own classification then that's fine with me. But why the focus on only my comments about melody; I mentioned other important factors. Fwiw, I find it a stretch to go back to 1200 for the start of classical music as we have known it. Perhaps, that early music is as the ape is to Homo sapiens.


Okay:



DaveM said:


> There is no flow and no development -development is hard if there is no theme/melody. Much of these works is random, often harsh sounds (there is little that is soft or gentle). And as I've said before, if one is trying to pass this off as Classical music, then I have an issue with music where you wouldn't be able to tell if a musician played a wrong note or even if an instrument is out of tune.


There's an evident development in the timbral and rhythmic textures and also the occurrence and recurrence of different contrasting sections. All of the introduction, excepting some bursts like the one at 0:34 if you want, seems quite soft and gentle to me, as well as many inner sections in the whole piece. As for wrong notes and out of tune, many timbral effects vary from performance to performance, since they depend on the erratic characteristics of the device used to produce them, but that's not very relevant, since all, composer, performer and audience, know this. What's important is if they are placed at the correct time and in the adequate manner to produce the desired effect. Once you are familiar with the piece, and with the kind of variability intrinsic to the effects, I can assure you that one can tell if they were played and placed correctly. I also can tell if a Boulez piece is played with mistakes. And, anyway, there isn't anything illicit in having some indeterminate aspect, left to chance or to be improvised by performer, in a piece, that would be as old as baroque music, if not even earlier, with its intricate improvised ornamentation. It's not the case in this Furrer piece, though, and in many other modern pieces, which are very carefully conceived and notated in high detail.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Do you have proof or not


Do you you have legitimate criteria for proof -that you find acceptable- or not. So far, not! Which is always convenient for someone with an 'everything is subjective' position. Modus operandi: reject all proof as invalid and your position is uncontestable.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Do you you have legitimate criteria for proof -that you find acceptable- or not. So far, not! Which is always convenient for someone with an 'everything is subjective' position. Modus operandi: reject all proof as invalid and your position is uncontestable.


Sigh... the fact that you don't know what qualifies as proof and what doesn't isn't giving me high hopes that you'll be the one to accomplish what no one has in thousands of years, but ok, I'll bite.

(1) Your guidelines should conform to all the rules of formal logic. Only facts are premises for factual conclusions; no opinions, no judgements, and certainly no blatant falsehoods (no melody or development? seriously?). No fallacious conclusions either; appeals to authority, to popularity, etc. are out.

(2) Any musically literate person should be able to apply your guidelines to a piece of music and determine its classification as objectively good or objectively bad, without fail (I suppose 95% confidence interval could be reasonable?).

(3) Any musically literate person should be able to apply your guidelines to their own composition and yield objectively good music without fail.

(4) Your guidelines should pass extensive trials of (2) and (3), complete with statistical analysis, academic peer review, etc.

I would still have a few questions after that, but it'll get you started for the next few years.

Why do I get the impression you weren't a STEM major or a law student? Objectivity is not something one simply pulls out of their ***.

NOTE: I'm quite certain that the fact that I can't actually come up with a complete set of guidelines that would be able to conclusively answer every counterargument I can think up tells me this is not a possible task. Perhaps because musical (and artistic) experience is subjective? God forbid, I know.

NOTE 2: Good is, itself, a subjective word unless otherwise defined. If I say "that's good food", you're probably right to think I'm saying the taste agrees with my taste buds. We can probably safely assume that a good engine has a lot of power or high fuel efficiency. If I say "that's a good building", do I mean it's designed with a high factor of safety or that its aesthetic appeals to me? But music, how on Earth do you define good for something when that something's only real purpose is to be liked... and when there's not one piece of music that nobody has disliked? The whole idea is a logical pretzel and a farce, and I blame you for my headache today.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> How could anyone go about proving that? It is utterly impossible for any such proof to exist.
> 
> All I have learned here is that you are of the sort that feels a need to prove music you don't like is somehow illegitimate.


If that's all you've learned, I'm surprised and disappointed. From your other posts I expected more from you. And it's not true: I don't particularly like atonal music, but I accept it as legitimate classical music.



> It is hard to compare Furrer to Beethoven just as it is hard to compare Beethoven to Bach. (And it is not at all clear that Furrer, of all the composers working today, will turn out to be a significant one. The future will judge)


I didn't come out of nowhere and compare Furrer to Beethoven. Another poster said that Furrer's Concerto was as good as any other Concerto out there. Talk to him about the futility of comparing Furrer to other top tier classical composers.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2018)

DaveM said:


> I didn't come out of nowhere and compare Furrer to Beethoven. Another poster said that Furrer's Concerto was as good as any other Concerto out there. Talk to him about the futility of comparing Furrer to other top tier classical composers.


The only comparison made was in terms of how much I like them. Any implication otherwise is a lie.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

nathanb said:


> The only comparison made was in terms of how much I like them. Any implication otherwise is a lie.


You said:

What do you think of Beat Furrer's Piano Concerto?



> Pretty much as good as any piano concerto I can think of, save maybe a couple of Mozart's.


Then you said that the notion that this Beat Furrer work was comparable to the Beethoven concertos was a 'logical extrapolation of your statement'. This was a statement of quality not a statement of 'liking'. Whether that was what you intended or not, that is the direct implication of what you posted.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Sigh... the fact that you don't know what qualifies as proof and what doesn't isn't giving me high hopes that you'll be the one to accomplish what no one has in thousands of years, but ok, I'll bite.
> 
> (1) Your guidelines should conform to all the rules of formal logic. Only facts are premises for factual conclusions; no opinions, no judgements, and certainly no blatant falsehoods (no melody or development? seriously?). No fallacious conclusions either; appeals to authority, to popularity, etc. are out.
> 
> ...


Does the sun shine where you pulled the above from? How do you tell the difference between classical music and jazz or pop music? Seems like you would need the same sort of proof because this is all just a big subjective mystery to you.



> Why do I get the impression you weren't a STEM major or a law student? Objectivity is not something one simply pulls out of their ***.


Do you really want to go there and compare educational backgrounds that require objectivity? Go for it my friend. You'll be the loser for it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

aleazk said:


> Okay:
> 
> There's an evident development in the timbral and rhythmic textures and also the occurrence and recurrence of different contrasting sections. All of the introduction, excepting some bursts like the one at 0:34 if you want, seems quite soft and gentle to me, as well as many inner sections in the whole piece. As for wrong notes and out of tune, many timbral effects vary from performance to performance, since they depend on the erratic characteristics of the device used to produce them, but that's not very relevant, since all, composer, performer and audience, know this. What's important is if they are placed at the correct time and in the adequate manner to produce the desired effect. Once you are familiar with the piece, and with the kind of variability intrinsic to the effects, I can assure you that one can tell if they were played and placed correctly. I also can tell if a Boulez piece is played with mistakes. And, anyway, there isn't anything illicit in having some indeterminate aspect, left to chance or to be improvised by performer, in a piece, that would be as old as baroque music, if not even earlier, with its intricate improvised ornamentation. It's not the case in this Furrer piece, though, and in many other modern pieces, which are very carefully conceived and notated in high detail.


The emphasis on timbral and rhythmic textures to the exclusion of melody, varying timbral effects that depend on erratic characteristics of the device used to produce them and an audience that knows this only reinforces to me that we are talking about a different category of music, separate from classical music, that requires a particular audience that knows what to expect.

I don't really think people here are being honest about how obscure this music is. Obviously, some like it, but it appears to take a certain headset and familiarity to understand it over and above traditional classical music. I would be willing to bet that if you took random people off the street, most, even without classical music experience, would be able to recognize a traditional classical symphony/concerto as being a classical music piece. But play the Furrer work and I believe they would be dumbfounded as to what to call it.

Fwiw, I appreciate your having discussed this subject without being snide or using knee-jerk personal responses.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2018)

Fwiw, although I stand by my position that musical value is subjective, I would like to just say that I have felt horrible all day and believe I may have experienced a caffeine overdose, which appears to cover symptoms I had such as dizziness, nausea, perspiration, and _irritability_, so pardon any implied personal comments. (Or ban me because I'd appreciate it)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Fwiw, although I stand by my position that musical value is subjective, I would like to just say that I have felt horrible all day and believe I may have experienced a caffeine overdose, which appears to cover symptoms I had such as dizziness, nausea, perspiration, and _irritability_, so pardon any implied personal comments. (Or ban me because I'd appreciate it)


I hope you feel better tomorrow. No hard feelings here.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

nathanb said:


> Fwiw, although I stand by my position that musical value is subjective, I would like to just say that I have felt horrible all day and believe I may have experienced a caffeine overdose, which appears to cover symptoms I had such as dizziness, nausea, perspiration, and _irritability_, so pardon any implied personal comments. (Or ban me because I'd appreciate it)


Hah refreshingly honest. Sorry to hear about that. I worry that too many people only get through the day through excessive coffee consumption, and you may be in that category.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eusebius12 said:


> Hah refreshingly honest. Sorry to hear about that. I worry that too many people only get through the day through excessive coffee consumption, and you may be in that category.


Excessive consumption of something may be needed to get through threads like this one.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

tdc said:


> Well, what I'm saying is for me harmony is the primary aspect of music that stirs my emotions, of course it has to be blended tastefully with things like rhythm and form etc. Orchestration I see as less important, (I'm not saying it isn't important at all) A piece like this I can find intellectually stimulating, but it doesn't move me in an emotional way as a result of its harmonic blandness.
> 
> My "shiny package" analogy is in reference to your preference for orchestration over other aspects of composition. While I think great orchestration can make a significant difference to the aesthetic quality of a work, I see it as more of the external shell of a piece, not the inner logic which to me is more important.


Very well said. It comports with my outlook towards music and how it moves me.

Listening to this piece, I too found some "interesting" moments throughout, but I found the end of it completely limp. However, compared to a good deal of contemporary music, It held my interest more or less on a purely intellectual level. In line with tdc's description above, I found no emotional connection to the piece.

As to the discussion regarding subjectivity vs objectivity, I have always been an advocate of objectivity in art. Without some sort of parameters on anything, there is chaos and nothing works in chaos (& I'm not talking about the deep philisophical, metaphysical, and existential definition of chaos where one CAN find semblances of order...). IMO, for something to be called "art" it should have at least these parameters:

1. Originality: Is it just a carbon copy of something else? Or is it something new or original? It does appear that this has become many people's ONLY criteria for calling something "art" or "great art" nowadays.

2. Skill: Can anyone do it? Can most do it? If so, that certainly eliminates it out of the realm of "art." If a four year old can do something similar (unless of course the child is an amazing prodigy), or someone who doesn't even possess a talent for said art can do something very similar, It completely disqualifies from the "art" category. It needs honing, practicing, mastering of a skill. Yes, there are many contemporary composers who have studied music, theory, earned advanced degrees in music and in composition, but if they produce something that sounds very similar to the tuning of an orchestra before a concert, or a cat running across a keyboard, have they really applied all their knowledge? Perhaps. Perhaps they have intellectually learned everything and more that other great composers have known/learned, yet perhaps their talent is lacking and they couldn't create "great art" no matter how hard they try.

3. Longevity: Granted, this is the most difficult to measure in our lifetimes for obvious reasons. I forget who said it, but someone said to the effect that no book should be taught unless it's at least 100 years old (Was it Churchill?). It was said tongue-in-cheek but I think makes an important point. Is the poem, story, piece of music, painting, sculpture, etc going to be in the cannon of that particular genre of art years later? Will it last the critique of history?

This is my personal criteria for declaring anything as art and definitely great art. Obviously in the common and loose definition, yeah, the music of the Spice Girls falls under the category of "music," which is an "art." But is it "art" meeting the criteria enumerated above, certainly not.

Now, there is a lot of leeway in the above definitions and I'm sure many of you would reject my summation wholesale. That's fine, but my argument remains the same: I think there MUST be some definition/parameters of art and that is why there is some level of "objective truth" to music and art in general.

Here is a 5 minute summary of my belief system when it comes to art:






V


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Varick said:


> Here is a 5 minute summary of my belief system when it comes to art:
> V


An interesting video, thanks. I agree with some of what you are saying, there is definitely some truth there. I disagree with the video as far as the suggestion that the problem started with the Impressionists however, I think their music shows high standards of beauty and influenced a lot of music that is well known, loved and solidly in the repertoire (even if we are restricting the term to painting I still don't think it started there). I don't really feel like starting a big debate about the origins of the problem on this thread, but as the video points out, it comes from a few different areas.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Varick said:


> IMO, for something to be called "art" it should have at least these parameters:
> 
> 1. Originality: Is it just a carbon copy of something else? Or is it something new or original? It does appear that this has become many people's ONLY criteria for calling something "art" or "great art" nowadays.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you say, here, but suspect I would disagree with how you apply it. Certainly the video clip took a number of valid points but used them mostly to build and attack straw men. I thought it more political in style than genuinely intellectual. But fair enough - I'm sure he will find a ready market for his views. Some of the excesses and apparent excesses he has a go at are targets that have many people frothing at the mouth! But for me: even where I agree with his view I don't feel very upset about it.

The problem with your three criteria is the second one. It is very true. But how do we agree that skill and knowledge has been used in a creation? You agree (I think) that Beat Furrer possesses some of it (even if you are lukewarm about what he does with these). But where is the widely praised contemporary music that does not? Apart from the obligatory Cage piece (I would name it if I could remember how long it lasted) and some other "conceptual pieces" that tended to be one-offs, what examples are there? Isn't this a straw man when applied to something as wide and varied as contemporary music?

Your third criteria did once worry me. I am a classical music fan. Mozart was my starting point. It was a long time before I felt the urge to explore the contemporary and my listening would stop at composers born after 1920 or so. I feared that most of it would probably turn out to have been merely good and not excellent and that we had no way to recognise which was which in music that is so new. It worried me: how could I avoid wasting time with music that was going to die? How would I avoid being one of those people who failed to recognise the genius of, say, Schubert while he was still active or would think that Stamitz and Mozart were of equal value? But it didn't matter. I find now that I do have a taste forming for very new music and that my thoughts on what is worthwhile and what is less so have developed. I may be wrong but it guides me to greatly enjoyable and moving experiences. Strangely, the taste that has developed in me has involved rejecting a lot of the more conventional audience friendly pieces - they turned out to be unmemorable after repeated hearings and therefore seem rather hollow - and liking music that often came with a challenge. I found it opening up and saying new things to me, things that all the other music I know had not said - in just the same way that Mahler said things to me that Mozart and Beethoven had not. But it has always seemed to me that worthwhile art takes some effort to get into at first.

There is one other element that may be involved but that you don't mention and that is the subjective experience that some music is crass, is just in bad taste. I reject a lot of music (and quite a few performances of music I do like) for this reason. But it is a subjective judgement albeit a learned one. Your objective criteria suggest to us how we can measure the value of a work but the measure I use the most in my day to day listening is my own (subjective) taste.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

If one would want to know more about the piece and the composer's intentions, maybe even before rejecting it, there are of course some interesting sources on the web.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> There is one other element that may be involved but that you don't mention and that is the subjective experience that some music is crass, is just in bad taste. I reject a lot of music (and quite a few performances of music I do like) for this reason. But it is a subjective judgement albeit a learned one. Your objective criteria suggest to us how we can measure the value of a work but the measure I use the most in my day to day listening is my own (subjective) taste.


Yes, my entire post here is about measuring the value of work. I agree that I too use my own subjective taste mostly in my day to day listening as well.

I begrudge no one about what music they like. I just have issues when people feel they need to attach value to something they like. There is PLENTY I enjoy that I would never in a million years claim to be great, or of high value in any objective way. Just as there is plenty I think is objectively great and high in value that I DON'T enjoy.

I love when I see people emotionally connecting to music. It truly is a wonderful thing, even if it's music I do not enjoy. I went to pick up my motorcycle from my mechanic, it was towards the end of the day before the shop closed down and as I was going over the bill with the owner, there were three other mechanics blasting heavy metal in the shop, doing the vertical head swing again and again. They were loving it. I was recoiling from the music itself, but I was thoroughly enjoying their enjoyment of it. It always makes the think of my favorite quote about music by Beethoven which I think almost every here is familiar with.

V


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Varick said:


> I begrudge no one about what music they like. I just have issues when people feel they need to attach value to something they like. There is PLENTY I enjoy that I would never in a million years claim to be great, or of high value in any objective way. Just as there is plenty I think is objectively great and high in value that I DON'T enjoy.
> V


Yeah, I agree with that. But I nearly always find it impossible to know what people are doing when they call something great. They believe it to be great and I can ask them why. If they answer because they enjoy it I might ask again whether that is enough. But sooner or later I am going to have to take their word for it: in their opinion it is great.

This thing of recognising something as great but not enjoying it sounds a little strange to me. By "not enjoying" do you mean "not being rewarded by"? Or are you using enjoyment as a more narrow quality? I am not sure I would know something to be great if I wasn't moved (in a varied and broad sense) by it. It might be clever but if it is to be great for me it has to have a powerful impact on me.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> This thing of recognising something as great but not enjoying it sounds a little strange to me. By "not enjoying" do you mean "not being rewarded by"? Or are you using enjoyment as a more narrow quality? I am not sure I would know something to be great if I wasn't moved (in a varied and broad sense) by it. It might be clever but if it is to be great for me it has to have a powerful impact on me.


I'll use the example I've used in other threads: Bartok. I think he was a brilliant composer. I can dissect and deconstruct his music and see and hear the brilliance in his compositions. However, I wouldn't say I "enjoy" a lot of his works. Enjoy, as in putting the music on while I'm preparing dinner, sitting and relaxing with a cigar or drink, having it on for a party, etc. I need to sit, listen, and concentrate on his music. Yes, I sit, listen, and concentrate to Bach, Brahms, Rachmaninov, etc as well, but I enjoy them. They emotionally move me. Bartok, however does not (albeit a few pieces). I mostly equate "enjoying" music with music that moves me on an emotional, spiritual, or even primal level. Not that I don't "enjoy" analyzing music, I certainly do, but sometimes, I don't want to be bothered to work that hard.

V


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I've come to realize that I don't dislike this brand of contemporary classical because it sounds "weird." I wouldn't call it or many pieces by Boulez, Messiaen, Stockhausen, and others inaccessible for the moods they evoke, but because a lot of the time they just don't seem to follow the basic rules of drama.














I really enjoy any individual 2-5 minute clip from these pieces, but ultimately I'm still a human being. If something is going fast or slow or following some sort of pattern, you eventually get tired of it and need a change of pace. I love all of the chaotic, stressful, and metallic sort of textures in modern/contemporary music, but listening to Boulez's 2nd derive linked above - it sounds very interesting, but for it to continue on as it does for 48 freaking minutes just seems to violate a natural law of artistic aesthetic for me, or at least one that exists in my brain. The music is so complex and interesting, and yet my problem is so simple; why can't it just change a little more after 5 minutes? Why?


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I never have any surplus votes, but I do have strategic votes. Maybe they're the same thing.


Not the same thing. If we're given 10 votes but can't give more than 3 to any one work, then if there are only 2 works you REALLY like you'll have 4 to distribute to 'lesser' works.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Varick said:


> I'll use the example I've used in other threads: Bartok. I think he was a brilliant composer. I can dissect and deconstruct his music and see and hear the brilliance in his compositions. However, I wouldn't say I "enjoy" a lot of his works. Enjoy, as in putting the music on while I'm preparing dinner, sitting and relaxing with a cigar or drink, having it on for a party, etc. I need to sit, listen, and concentrate on his music. Yes, I sit, listen, and concentrate to Bach, Brahms, Rachmaninov, etc as well, but I enjoy them. They emotionally move me. Bartok, however does not (albeit a few pieces). I mostly equate "enjoying" music with music that moves me on an emotional, spiritual, or even primal level. Not that I don't "enjoy" analyzing music, I certainly do, but sometimes, I don't want to be bothered to work that hard.
> 
> V


For me enjoy (or "am moved by") is the same as great. And Bartok - especially some of the quartets and the concertos - is a composer I really love. His music transports me! There is music that I know _must _be great because its reputation among music lovers who I trust is so high but that I have not yet found a way to connect with.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> *For me enjoy (or "am moved by") is the same as great*. And Bartok - especially some of the quartets and the concertos - is a composer I really love. His music transports me! There is music that I know _must _be great because its reputation among music lovers who I trust is so high but that I have not yet found a way to connect with.


And whereas what I emboldened I do not always equate with great. This goes back to my campaign for objectivity in music (and art in general). Another example I use is Steely Dan vs Tom Petty. I can listen to Steely Dan, hear the musicality, musicianship, and skill to write and play music like that (ie: acknowledge it's greatness), and appreciate it, but I do not "enjoy" listening to much of Steel Dan. However, I really enjoy listening to Tom Petty, but I would never consider his music coming close to the "greatness" of Steely Dan. The man has hardly ever written anything more complex than a four chord progression. I just like it a lot.

V


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Varick said:


> And whereas what I emboldened I do not always equate with great. This goes back to my campaign for objectivity in music (and art in general). Another example I use is Steely Dan vs Tom Petty. I can listen to Steely Dan, hear the musicality, musicianship, and skill to write and play music like that (ie: acknowledge it's greatness), and appreciate it, but I do not "enjoy" listening to much of Steel Dan. However, I really enjoy listening to Tom Petty, but I would never consider his music coming close to the "greatness" of Steely Dan. The man has hardly ever written anything more complex than a four chord progression. I just like it a lot.
> 
> V


I agree with you on Steely Dan vs. Tom Petty! But on greatness I expressed myself badly - I was referring to music that had other qualities than merely my enjoyment of (or being moved by) it. I just meant that if it satisfied all the other things needed for me to be in awe of it I would still not consider it great if it didn't give me pleasure. In a different genre the Steely Dan example illustrates this well. It doesn't move me so I don't think of it as great. I do enjoy a fair amount of Tom Petty but, I agree, he was not a great.


----------

