# "Killing contemporary music"?



## KenOC

An article published today that may be a bit controversial. By composer Dan Visconti.

"Today I want to talk about a notion that is killing contemporary music...an idea so ubiquitous that it has become difficult to escape: that the audience does not matter as much as 'the music,' and that considering the audience as an essential part of music composition is tantamount to pandering."

http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/the-audience-is-the-most-important-instrument/


----------



## ArtMusic

If the composer is writing music at his/her complete artistic freedom today without any regard for the audience, then he/she writes at his/her own risk - artistically as a composer and also the music itself. Some listeners will bound to enjoy the music (good for them), but it's more than likely that such music will only appeal to a small minority today and be less relevant as a whole. Reverse back in time, all the great composers to a large extent in their entire oeuvre wrote music for a target audience (sure, they also wrote music purely/largely for their own pursuit, e.g. Bach's _Die Kunst der Fuge_ to maybe Beethoven's _Große Fuge_) but the audience was by and large never forgotten. Bach's church cantatas, Beethoven's symphonies, Rachmaninoff's piano concertos are great pieces because the composers didn't pander the audience.


----------



## ArtMusic

By the way, what type of music does Visconti write? I have never heard of him.

Edit: did a search. Here is a SQ piece. I enjoyed it. Nice music!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I thought it was an interesting article.

I don't think about an audience when I write my music, audiences for everything just seem to come by themselves to enjoy or not enjoy the work in any given medium, and I respect that. I don't believe in the notion of writing down to an audience (with a particular audience in mind) because it is a condescending attitude to have. This goes for any form of entertainment really, Steven Moffat understood this when creating his show _Press Gang_, it's essentially a kids show that in every effort does no treat its audience like kids, it isn't written down to them. The best works of any art and any entertainment I find are the ones in which its creator(s) are [subconsciously] thinking, "I am not going to simplify complex issues to suit the deteriorating intellect and knowledge of people today."

However, that said, there have been very successful and very _good_ works of art, music etc. that are written especially to get a reaction from an audience, or to put it another way, to ensure audiences participate in the work's intentional presentation or performance in the way they have to in a performance of Cage's 4'33". These creations are stimulating for the brain in a more positive way than not because they encourage the audience to think and learn and maybe even notice things in different ways than they are used to. Again, I don't believe many of these works to be created in a condescending way for the average modern pop culture influenced person because they are designed to make people think and react in their own way, not in a way set forth by the creator and most certainly not purely to make an audience "like" it!


----------



## KenOC

ArtMusic said:


> ...(sure, they also wrote music purely/largely for their own pursuit, e.g. Bach's _Die Kunst der Fuge_ to maybe Beethoven's _Große Fuge_)...


Despite a couple of noble and heroic-sounding statements, LvB was *always* concerned with his music's reception. Re the Grosse Fuge: He did not attend the premier performance of the Op. 130 (for whatever reason) but waited in a coffeeshop nearby. After the concert ended, Lenz, I think it was, came by and reported the good news that the Alla danza tedesca and the Cavatina had been encored. Beethoven's response? "Cattle! Asses! Only the fugue should have been encored!"


----------



## Stargazer

I agree with this. You shouldn't write music purely for "an audience", but if you want other people to listen to it you have to keep them in mind. It's like giving a presentation: I wouldn't give a presentation in Spanish to a group of people who only speak English.

As a non-classical example, I notice that a lot of artists write lyrics that make absolutely no sense to anyone but themselves. That's fine if you're the only person who will listen to it...otherwise make some accommodations so that other people can actually understand it. Here's one of my favorite examples, it's as good as pure jibberish to me:

"The hawser rolls, the vessel’s whole and Christ, it’s thin
Well Iʼd know that you’d offer
Would reveal it, though it’s soft and flat
Won’t repeat it, cull and coffer’s that
For the soffit, hang this homeward"


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Despite a couple of noble and heroic-sounding statements, LvB was *always* concerned with his music's reception. Re the Grosse Fuge: He did not attend the premier performance of the Op. 130 (for whatever reason) but waited in a coffeeshop nearby. After the concert ended, Lenz, I think it was, came by and reported the good news that the Alla danza tedesca and the Cavatina had been encored. Beethoven's response? "Cattle! Asses! Only the fugue should have been encored!"


Okay, name one composer who was not at all concerned with the present or future reception of his works. And please...don't say Babbitt. His article indicates that he does as a matter of fact care about his reception, just from an audience of peers rather than a general audience.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with the article. I'm wondering why the OP makes it out to seem like this is in any way controversial....


----------



## arpeggio

*Does not jive with my experiences.*

We have been through this dance before but the article does not jive with my experiences at performing new music. The vast majority of the real living composers that I have met are very concerned about communicating with the audience. I remember thirty years ago premiering a real avant-garde work (I can not remember the name of the composer). Even he was concerned with the idea of trying to connect with the audience.

Even the author stated, "*It's by no means the dominant way of thinking in the contemporary music world*, (my emphasis) but it is an idea so ubiquitous that it has become difficult to escape: that the audience does not matter as much as "the music," and that considering the audience as an essential part of music composition is tantamount to pandering."

Sure. There must be some truth of what the composer stated in the latter part of the statement. But I have attended and performed many premiers over the past decade. Only two were of what could be called difficult works. Still a large percentage of audience enjoyed them. It appears that the author is implying that if we program just one difficult work Western Classical Music is going to come to an end. He has provided no factual documentation to support his hypothesis.

In spite of the protestations of many, there will always be an audience for difficult contemporary music. It is wrong to say that their likes and dislikes should be disregarded.

Just like the 18th and 19th century, most contemporary music composed is mediocre. I seriously doubt that anyone here can guess what small percentagage of the works composed today will be remembered a century from now. I know I do not know the answer to that question and I am pro-contemporary music.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, name one composer who was not at all concerned with the present or future reception of his works. ... Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with the article. I'm wondering why the OP makes it out to seem like this is in any way controversial....


Well, the article says, "...an idea so ubiquitous that it has become difficult to escape." You seem to think that the idea doesn't exist at all. So at least *you* find the article controversial!


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Well, the article says, "...an idea so ubiquitous that it has become difficult to escape." You seem to think that the idea doesn't exist at all. So at least *you* find the article controversial!


The "idea so ubiquitous that it has become difficult to escape" is that "the audience does not matter as much as "the music," and that considering the audience as an essential part of music composition is tantamount to pandering".

This is not necessarily the same thing as caring or not caring about the reception of one's works. One can want to captivate a small audience, and write for them, and be relatively nonplussed when a subscription concert audience finds itself bewildered. In fact, one of the article's strengths (and I feel some guy would at least approve of this much) is that it doesn't base its arguments on stylistic distinctions, and acknowledges that different pieces are written for, at times, different audiences and different kinds of audiences.


----------



## Weston

I am reminded of Frank Zappa, noted for stating (paraphrased) "I write music for the people who like it. The people who don't like it don't have to listen to it. " To me this implies the music finds its own audience, however the audience is still considered to an extent.


----------



## SimonNZ

I assume there are as many complex and changable motives for composing as there are composers. I've never understood the simple reduction that gets to either "for myself" or "for the audience".

Also: there seem to have been a few from history who professed to be composing "for the glory of God". Which of the two options does that fit into?


----------



## Jobis

Weston said:


> I am reminded of Frank Zappa, noted for stating (paraphrased) "I write music for the people who like it. The people who don't like it don't have to listen to it. " To me this implies the music finds its own audience, however the audience is still considered to an extent.


This exactly.

Good music will always find an audience, and of course you will get some pretentious idiots who think amplifying a puddle is some kind of high art form, but they don't make up the majority of contemporary composers.

I blame that meddling old charlatan John Cage!


----------



## Guest

arpeggio said:


> In spite of the protestations of many, there will always be an audience for difficult contemporary music. It is wrong to say that their likes and dislikes should be disregarded.


Bingo!

Actually, that probably helps fuel the protestations, the knowledge that there really is an audience, an active, engaged, committed audience. Which means, natch, that people will keep writing the stuff. Because there _is_ an audience for it, and all the composers who write that kind of music are writing for _that_ audience.

The one fallacy that underlies all these pseudo-controversies is that one particular audience is the only audience. And that's just laughably not true.

I hope that more and more people start amplifying puddles, too, just to get Jobis' goat!

(By the way, who are these pretentious idiots? Do they have names? Yeah, you know Cage's name. But who are the pretentious idiots? Come on, don't be coy!)


----------



## KenOC

Couldn't resist! "And so, I dare suggest that the composer would do himself and his music an immediate and eventual service by total, resolute, and voluntary withdrawal from this public world to one of private performance and electronic media, with its very real possibility of complete elimination of the public and social aspects of musical composition. By so doing, the separation between the domains would be defined beyond any possibility of confusion of categories, and the composer would be free to pursue a private life of professional achievement, as opposed to a public life of unprofessional compromise and exhibitionism." And pandering?

In all fairness, I suspect the author would have liked his works to be enjoyed by as many people as possible. This is likely just the cry of the wounded bull academic.


----------



## norman bates

arpeggio said:


> In spite of the protestations of many, there will always be an audience for difficult contemporary music.


but that audience is incredibly smaller compared to that of the past.


----------



## Guest

Oh Ken.

Ken Ken Ken Ken Ken.

It would take hours to rebuild what you have destroyed in a few seconds. And in the end? The people who think Babbitt was anti-audience would continue to think that. Would continue to applaud the cherry-picking that seems to damn him out of his own mouth.

And, of course, you have really destroyed nothing. You've just perpetrated a popular and fallacious notion about contemporary music and contemporary composers. A notion that preceded you and will, unfortunately, outlive you--as it has outlived Beethoven and everyone else you hold dear who has been accused of not considering their audience.

Same old, same old. The music changes. The criticisms remain exactly the same.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> but that audience is incredibly smaller compared to that of the past.


Any evidence for this assertion?

Not that it matters. The size of an audience is surely no measure of its value. Think of some area in which you are a substantial minority. Hey! I know. Classical music. Yeah. The value of the classical audience is small because that audience is small? The music itself is less valuable because fewer people enjoy it than enjoy Justin Bieber?


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> but that audience is incredibly smaller compared to that of the past.


In terms of absolute numbers, it's larger than ever before...in terms of relative numbers compared to the entire world population...it's also probably larger than ever before.


----------



## Petwhac

What is this 'difficult' music I hear speak of? I presume it doesn't refer to difficulty in playing, or it should include many pieces by Liszt or Ravel. Does it mean difficult to listen to? Who would want to write music that is difficult to listen to?
I believe the composer is the audience. Like a painter who steps back from their canvas and ponders, "have I got it right?"


----------



## arpeggio

norman bates said:


> but that audience is incredibly smaller compared to that of the past.


Deleted. Others came up with better responses.


----------



## ahammel

Petwhac said:


> What is this 'difficult' music I hear speak of? I presume it doesn't refer to difficulty in playing, or it should include many pieces by Liszt or Ravel. Does it mean difficult to listen to? Who would want to write music that is difficult to listen to?


Difficult to understand.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> Any evidence for this assertion?


Do you really want something that proves that Beethoven or Mozart were incredibly more popular than Babbit? 



some guy said:


> Not that it matters. The size of an audience is surely no measure of its value. Think of some area in which you are a substantial minority. Hey! I know. Classical music. Yeah. The value of the classical audience is small because that audience is small? The music itself is less valuable because fewer people enjoy it than enjoy Justin Bieber?


I agree that the size of an audience is not a measure of its value. And as a matter of fact, most of my very favorite musicians certainly are or were not popular at all. But the lack of popularity of the contemporary music it's a measure of the disaffection for an art that once was so popular, and to blame only the audience for this is clearly pretend that the problem doesn't exists at all.
At the end of the article there's this passage: "But at the same time, don't stop trying to see others, to consider their experiences and to feel what they feel with the fullness of your musical being". I think that a lot of composers in the last century did not have a preoccupation for the effect of their musical ideas on a listener. They were more concerned about those musical ideas.
By the way, I love jazz and it's a genre that today has exactly the same problem.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> In terms of absolute numbers, it's larger than ever before...in terms of relative numbers compared to the entire world population...it's also probably larger than ever before.


Are audiences smaller? In Beethoven's day they seem to have been small indeed, populationwise, clustered in a few European cities and England, and perhaps to a minor extent in Russia. Remember, even Vienna had only about 275,000 people. And the audiences were split among the fans of dance bands like Muller and Kauer (probably the largest segment), aficionados of operas like Rossini's, and the dour partisans of "serious music." Much like today! Beethoven's appeal was to the last group, mostly, though he would have liked to have taken a bite out of Rossini's audience.

By the time when I was a kid, most families at least claimed to like "classical music," and the Toscanini set of Beethoven symphonies was a coffee table fixture in many homes. People would actually gather around the radio for concerts. Music was valued, partly because it was costly. A first line LP in those days cast about $50 in today's dollars.

Today I suspect CM reaches even more people than it did then, at least partly because it's accessible to anybody, practically or even literally for free. You can download all of Schnabel's Beethoven sonatas for free, or a very nice stereo reading of Bach's complete organ works! It would have taken a wealthy family to even consider such a purchase in earlier days, even had it been available. And of course the 99-cent virtual boxes...

But perhaps people no longer value CM as much, because it's become so cheap.


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> Do you really want something that proves that Beethoven or Mozart were incredibly more popular than Babbit?


Babbitt is far from the most notable composer of the 20th century. The only reason his name survives outside of audiences of post-WWII American serialism is because he wrote a single article that people really love to hate. An article that doesn't even express the thought that most people think it does. Recordings of his music are relatively rare and confined to small specialist labels.

Among post-WWII composers, Messiaen and Ligeti are two of the more well-respected by both audiences and critics, and were enjoyed and appreciated during their lifetimes. Major-label recordings of their works are numerous, even though neither of them has been dead for a quarter of a century.



norman bates said:


> At the end of the article there's this passage: "But at the same time, don't stop trying to see others, to consider their experiences and to feel what they feel with the fullness of your musical being". I think that a lot of composers in the last century did not had a preoccupation for the effect of their musical ideas on a listener. They were more concerned about those ideas.


Who? Name these composers.


----------



## arpeggio

*What the*



KenOC said:


> Are audiences smaller? In Beethoven's day they seem to have been small indeed, populationwise, clustered in a few European cities and England, and perhaps to a minor extent in Russia. Remember, even Vienna had only about 275,000 people. And the audiences were split among the fans of dance bands like Muller and Kauer (probably the largest segment), aficionados of operas like Rossini's, and the dour partisans of "serious music." Much like today! Beethoven's appeal was to the last group, mostly, though he would have liked to have taken a bite out of Rossini's audience.
> 
> By the time when I was a kid, most families at least claimed to like "classical music," and the Toscanini set of Beethoven symphonies was a coffee table fixture in many homes. People would actually gather around the radio for concerts. Music was valued, partly because it was costly. A first line LP in those days cast about $50 in today's dollars.
> 
> Today I suspect CM reaches even more people than it did then, at least partly because it's accessible to anybody, practically or even literally for free. You can download all of Schnabel's Beethoven sonatas for free, or a very nice stereo reading of Bach's complete organ works! It would have taken a wealthy family to even consider such a purchase in earlier days, even had it been available. And of course the 99-cent virtual boxes...
> 
> But perhaps people no longer value CM as much, because it's become so cheap.


Ken, you have said some unusual things but you have totally lost me on this one. You win.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Despite a couple of noble and heroic-sounding statements, LvB was **always* concerned with his music's reception.* Re the Grosse Fuge: He did not attend the premier performance of the Op. 130 (for whatever reason) but waited in a coffeeshop nearby. After the concert ended, Lenz, I think it was, came by and reported the good news that the Alla danza tedesca and the Cavatina had been encored. Beethoven's response? "Cattle! Asses! Only the fugue should have been encored!"


* Does not equate with 'consciously composes with the audience in mind / writes to the public taste.'

After all, others have already said that pieces written where the composer was simply writing away with no audience at all in mind (other than musicians who can play it) still find their audiences.... and what people -- no matter how learned or small their circle -- are truly "out of touch" with being a "fellow human being," -- that "fellow human being" is of course the source of all art and ideas.

_*"Cattle! Asses! Only the fugue should have been encored!"*_ kinda shows what Beethoven, most often, thought of the everymen who did consume his music... basically that he was composing and it was being consumed by idiots for all the wrong reasons. That is not a *I'm concerned with writing directly for the people and being Mr. Populist Composer* kinda guy


----------



## PetrB

This is such an antique saw to bend and bow and make sing.

I still maintain a composer like this has come up with some sound and style most suited to them, or from their most basic impulse and personal aesthetic, and not after some sacrificial dumping of another more complex, less tonal, 'less user friendly' way of writing.

That makes what they say about audience accessibility, tonality, etc. basically a truth, but rather lying about what it implies, i.e. that others think any more or less of the audience than the author of the quote in the OP.

ERGO: An easy statement like this -- which happens to match up with this composer's MO and style -- is about as meaningfully important as announcing your shoe size, or your personal limitations or tastes


----------



## ArtMusic

When Beethoven died, something like 20,000 Viennese attended his funeral. I think that was a sure sign of the music listening public's respect for the man and his music in Beethoven's city.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> ...kinda shows what Beethoven, most often, thought of the everymen who did consume his music... basically that he was composing and it was being consumed by idiots for all the wrong reasons. That is not a *I'm concerned with writing directly for the people and being Mr. Populist Composer* kinda guy


On occasion LvB could be populist indeed. He remained very attached to his execrable Wellington's Victory for the rest of his life, even penning his most scurrilous one-liner in response to a pretentious negative review in 1825, eleven years after its premier. Coincidentally, the piece was one of the most popular he ever wrote and it floated his financial boat very nicely indeed!


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> Babbitt is far from the most notable composer of the 20th century. The only reason his name survives outside of audiences of post-WWII American serialism is because he wrote a single article that people really love to hate. An article that doesn't even express the thought that most people think it does. Recordings of his music are relatively rare and confined to small specialist labels.
> 
> Among post-WWII composers, Messiaen and Ligeti are two of the more well-respected by both audiences and critics, and were enjoyed and appreciated during their lifetimes. Major-label recordings of their works are numerous, even though neither of them has been dead for a quarter of a century.
> 
> Who? Name these composers.


I think that about a lot of serialism (by the way, Ligeti was very critic of it, maybe it's a reason why he's one of the most popular composers of the last fifty years) and John Cage. But in general it's a problem of an excess of academicism. A lot of composers gaze too much at their own navel, they want the acclaim of their fellows. And if you want to be accepted by the elite you have to follow certain rules.
But now I want your opinion about this part of my post: "But the lack of popularity of the contemporary music it's a measure of the disaffection for an art that once was so popular, and to blame only the audience for this is clearly pretend that the problem doesn't exists at all."
Do you think that the composers have no responsibilities in the disaffection of the audience?


----------



## ArtMusic

some guy said:


> Any evidence for this assertion?
> 
> Not that it matters. The size of an audience is surely no measure of its value. Think of some area in which you are a substantial minority. Hey! I know. Classical music. Yeah. The value of the classical audience is small because that audience is small? The music itself is less valuable because fewer people enjoy it than enjoy Justin Bieber?


Fallacious argument. Opera is not very popular with the general population, right? Yet major capital cities do have their own opera houses and productions, in case if you don't attend or know, productions do run into the millions of dollars. Now, show me the equivalent with the type of stuff you listen to on an equivalent scale.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> On occasion LvB could be populist indeed. He remained very attached to his execrable Wellington's Victory for the rest of his life, even penning his most scurrilous one-liner in response to a pretentious negative review in 1825, eleven years after its premier. Coincidentally, the piece was one of the most popular he ever wrote and it floated his financial boat very nicely indeed!


And we all pretty much think the piece is crap, don't we?

Yeah, you got a rep, you lay a horrendous egg, it makes you a ton of money, whaddya gonna say about that egg in public, eh? LOL.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> And we all pretty much think the piece is crap, don't we, like Richard Nanes on a day when he had a fresher imagination. Yeah, you got a rep, you lay a horrendous egg, it makes you a ton of money, whaddya gonna say about that egg in public? LOL.


Can't put LvB in a straitjacket like that! He was publicly contemptuous of both his Septet and his C-minor Variations, both popular and good moneymakers. On occasion he was one way, on occasion the other.

Of course, if you or I had insulted either piece, he might have laid into us! :lol:


----------



## bigshot

KenOC said:


> "Today I want to talk about a notion that is killing contemporary music...an idea so ubiquitous that it has become difficult to escape: that the audience does not matter as much as 'the music,' and that considering the audience as an essential part of music composition is tantamount to pandering."


That's exactly what drove a nail in the heart of Jazz and paved the way for R&B, Jump Blues and Rock n' Roll to steal the limelight. Audiences still loved Jazz, but Jazz loved the critics who wrote in magazines better.


----------



## PetrB

I have a solution: Be wealthy, hire the composer (and musicians) as live-in servant(s), and tell the help what you want, and how and when you want it.

Now that might actually be _newsworthy_ and _controversial._


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> I think that about a lot of serialism (by the way, Ligeti was very critic of it, maybe it's a reason why he's one of the most popular composers of the last fifty years) and John Cage.


You realize that you disagree with the article on this point, then, which uses 4'33" as an example of a piece that is very much concerned with the audience's reception.

Ligeti was critical of multiple serialism, of course, but this was a very brief phase in 20th century music. Ligeti and I both consider Boulez's _Le marteau sans maitre_ one of the materpieces of that post-war avant-garde era.

George Rochberg was also a critic of serialism and of the 12-tone method. This hasn't made his music any more popular. In fact, Boulez's works have been recorded more than Rochberg's Neoexpressionist ones.

Serialism in itself does not seem to alienate audiences, given that Berg's most popular piece (and the most popular piece by any member of the Second Viennese School post-1903) is in fact a 12-tone work. Lulu is not a rarity on the operatic stage either.

So give more examples.



norman bates said:


> But in general it's a problem of an excess of academicism. A lot of composers gaze too much at their own navel, they want the acclaim of their fellows. And if you want to be accepted by the elite you have to follow certain rules.


In certain circles, perhaps. But one can go to other elite circles and look for acceptance there. Look at Eliott Carter for example, who never showed any interest in serial procedures and won the admiration of the very man who said that "Any composer who does not understand the necessity of the 12-tone method is USELESS!"

Look, also, at the very diverse list of composers who have won the Pulitzer Prize, which has a notoriously conservative/academic outlook.



norman bates said:


> But now I want your opinion about this part of my post: "But the lack of popularity of the contemporary music it's a measure of the disaffection for an art that once was so popular, and to blame only the audience for this is clearly pretend that the problem doesn't exists at all."
> Do you think that the composers have no responsibilities in the disaffection of the audience?


I think that good and bad music has always been written, and good and bad new music in every style continues to be played and programmed. I think that composers should write things that are worthwhile, in whatever style suits them best. If they do that, I believe that they will find an audience.

I think that Mahler was not wrong when he wrote music that only a few enjoyed, because he himself was convinced of its innate value. But today that many people have come to understand his vision, I have come across the idea that he "pandered to his audience". This is of course ridiculous, and proven so by the fact that he refused to simplify his style. On the contrary, it became increasingly complex.

Did he "not care about his audience"? No. He would have been overjoyed to find that he is, today, accepted as one of the great composers.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> I have a solution: Be wealthy, hire the composer (and musicians) as live-in servant(s), and tell the help what you want, and how and when you want it.


Been done. Zelenka, CPE Bach, Haydn, others. It worked. In the old days, composers would kill for a decent Kapellmeister position. Even Beethoven accepted a Kapellmeister position, but reneged when offered a large annual stipend to remain in Vienna. The idea had its points -- maybe still does?

Shostakovich was of course a Kapellmeister, one with a lot more artistic freedom than was offered to Haydn and the rest. Still, he had occasional trouble divining his employer's (unstated) expectations. Ornery guy in some ways.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Been done. Zelenka, CPE Bach, Haydn, others. It worked. In the old days, composers would kill for a decent Kapellmeister position. Even Beethoven accepted a Kapellmeister position, but reneged when offered a large annual stipend to remain in Vienna. The idea had its points -- maybe still does?
> 
> Shostakovich was of course a Kapellmeister, one with a lot more artistic freedom than was offered to Haydn and the rest. Still, he had occasional trouble divining his employer's (unstated) expectations. Ornery guy in some ways.


Wouldn't it be great if all those whining about the ignored audience (_"Write for me, to my tastes now, and make it snappy!"_) would pool their resources and simply commission those works they find enjoyable?

But no, they passively depend upon all those who compose, give and take commissions, whether subsidized or via other academic / corporate subsidies... that mentality that they already 'gave at the office.'

Depends upon whether you truly want this more 'accessible music,' or prefer to just whine about what is and is not being written.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Wouldn't it be great if all those whining about the ignored audience (_"Write for me, to my tastes now, and make it snappy!"_) would pool their resources and simply commission those works they find enjoyable?
> 
> But no, they passively depend upon all those who compose, take commissions, whether subsidized or via other academic / corporate subsidies... that mentality that they already 'gave at the office.'


I for one would like to continue to depend on other people's money. For example, for what Paul Allen's EMP "Hendrix" Museum cost in Seattle, he could have hired any number of house composers and had them double as valets, limo drivers, or whatever. And he could have demanded that they write some decent music!

Unfortunately, the tastes of our economic nobility seem to have declined. Mr. Allen would probably require music like that of the estimable Mr. Hendrix or his ilk. Ya can't win!


----------



## brianvds

some guy said:


> Actually, that probably helps fuel the protestations, the knowledge that there really is an audience, an active, engaged, committed audience. Which means, natch, that people will keep writing the stuff. Because there _is_ an audience for it, and all the composers who write that kind of music are writing for _that_ audience.


The question is, how large an audience? I suspect that avant garde music would pretty much go away if composers had to make a living off it. They either have day jobs, or they get subsidized by government to do what they do. This is nothing new either: Beethoven had a bunch of royal patrons that paid him, with money they probably stole from peasants, to compose whatever he liked.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Well, that is a political question rather than an aesthetic one.

I do find it interesting that there are major differences between avant garde music and avant garde visual art, which simply boils down to this: the music departments at universities remain the carriers of the torch of tradition, however weird the music they produce may be. Today, the standards of understanding and performance are probably higher than they have ever been before. You simply cannot bluff your way into classical music.

In the visual arts, it is different: many of the major academics actually applaud complete lack of knowledge, talent or technical skill.

I am therefore inclined to at least respect avant garde music, even if I don't necessarily like it, in a way that I find difficult to do with avant garde visual art.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I would like to think that composers aren't completely oblivious to the audience and I suspect that many of them were/are mindful of them. After all, the whole point of music is expression and communication. Without an audience, the composers are merely talking to themselves.


----------



## KenOC

brianvds said:


> Beethoven had a bunch of royal patrons that paid him, with money they probably stole from peasants, to compose whatever he liked.


Beethoven's royal patronage had pretty well dried up by about 1800. After that he was largely free-market, dependent on sales to publishers and the occasional benefit concert. Fortunately, he could demand high prices from publishers due to popular demand. Mozart, before him, was in much the same situation. A hard life! But people like Haydn got quite wealthy in that environment after he went independent. And Rossini was able to retire in comfort at...what...age 35 or thereabouts.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Beethoven's royal patronage had pretty well dried up by about 1800. After that he was largely free-market, dependent on sales to publishers and the occasional benefit concert. Fortunately, he could demand high prices from publishers. Mozart, before that, was in much the same situation. A hard life! But people like Haydn got quite wealthy in that environment after he went independent.


Stravinsky was able to live off of commissions himself. All of his works except for the Mass were written to commission, even when he had long since written all of his most popular works.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Stravinsky was able to live off of commissions himself. All of his works except for the Mass were written to commission, even when he had long since written all of his most popular works.


Indeed. Plus royalties from performances and recordings (not available to earlier composers) and occasional conducting gigs. Copyright problems with his popular early works caused him much aggravation...


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Indeed. Plus royalties from performances and recordings (not available to earlier composers) and occasional conducting gigs. *Copyright problems with his popular early works caused him much aggravation...*


Which ensured that the royalties from his best-known works were minimal, and thus making it a moot point.

If Beethoven had been alive, he would have had a recording deal playing his own works for sure (despite his deafness!).


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> When Beethoven died, something like 20,000 Viennese attended his funeral. I think that was a sure sign of the music listening public's respect for the man and his music in Beethoven's city.


When John Lennon died, there were spontaneous gatherings of many more than that, city to city, worldwide. It wouldn't be modest to estimate that collective number in the millions.

Your point is, uh, what, exactly?


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Can't put LvB in a straitjacket like that! He was publicly contemptuous of both his Septet and his C-minor Variations, both popular and good moneymakers. On occasion he was one way, on occasion the other.
> 
> Of course, if you or I had insulted either piece, he might have laid into us! :lol:


Sort of the non-absolute and non-consistent point I was hoping to make.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Which ensured that the royalties from his best-known works were minimal, and thus making it a moot point.


Minimal or zero. His later reorchestrations in the 1940s created works under copyright, but conductors and orchestras still had (and have) the option of the original versions -- for free.


----------



## ahammel

Górecki's _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs_ peaked at number 6 on the UK charts.

The UK pop-music charts. Not classical.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Brian... As much as I dislike certain elements of avant garde art, I'm not certain how much I agree with your assessment. I do agree that music education has retained certain solid formal requirements. One cannot imagine a contemporary composer unable to read music... where you do get the visual artists unable to draw. Conceptual art, which is really an art of ideas... concepts... arguably philosophy (although rather weak attempts at philosophy) has glommed onto the visual arts far more than it has to music or literature. In music we have John Cage and the infamous 4:33, Ligeti's metronome piece and Stockhausen's helicopter quartet... but in the visual arts we have endless examples of such absurdity. 

Still you need to recognize that 90% of the "abstract" or "conceptual" art that you see churned out over at a site like WC! would be immediately recognized as amateur garbage by almost anyone with a serious background in art/art education/art theory/art history, etc... The "serious" artist... regardless of your or my opinion on the merits of the actual work... will certainly be aware of art history/art theory/art criticism and be able to discuss his or her work using the language of the "art world" and understand his or her place within the current art world(s) as well as within the larger development of art. 

Academia within the visual arts may promote the notion that certain traditional artistic skills... even an ability to organize and structure an object/image in such a manner as to be visually striking or interesting... is unnecessary in Post-Aesthetic Art (as Donald Kuspit termed it)... or Post-Art Art... but they most certainly demand an ability to talk about the work with a decent grasp of art criticism, art theory, art history, etc...


----------



## Mahlerian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> In music we have John Cage and the infamous 4:33, Ligeti's metronome piece and Stockhausen's helicopter quartet... but in the visual arts we have endless examples of such absurdity.


As much as I'm not nuts about Stockhausen or the Licht cycle in general, the Helicopter Quartet, although it contains a conceptual element, is a fully notated piece and thus somewhat different from the other two examples. Notice, too, that all three of these are by trained composers who could write in previous styles if they so desired.


----------



## bigshot

Mahlerian said:


> Notice, too, that all three of these are by trained composers who could write in previous styles if they so desired.


That's the worst part about it.


----------



## Sid James

That was an interesting article to read. 

Many of the concerns raised in it have been faced by composers in the past. Recently reading about Copland and listening to his music, he went through quite a bit of this. Early in his career, when he got back from studying in Paris, he was considered too radical and in effect neglecting the needs of his audiences. During this time his music was more experimental, his Piano Concerto being an example with which I am familiar with. The premiere of the work was a disaster, the audience rejected it and the critics lampooned it. In the next decade Copland moved towards his 'Americana' style and he did say he aimed to write music that was more accessible and at the same time of the same high quality of his previous works. I for one think he achieved that aim, I like these works as well. Funnily enough, once he moved into serialism later in his career (post-WWII) its from the radicals he got flack, not the conservatives. They said he had come to serialism too late, he should have not wasted time doing that populist stuff.

Copland was a very good writer on music, and he did a lot of interviews. Reading these, he comes across as a person aware of different options open to a composer, and thinking through clearly the reasons why he would choose a particular option above others available. He was thoughtful and very aware of the issues of bridging that divide between self expression, innovation, communication to an audience (or indeed different types of audiences, different segments of the audience), and so on.

Ultimately I think its up to the individual composer. Maybe there are two extremes. Populism is one, or to be too concerned with the audience, or a general picture of the audience, "the masses." On the other hand, clique and ivory tower isn't healthy either, it can be stifling and we end up with things that kind of disappear into a rarified place of the composer having to justify things according to some sectarian view of music.

I like how this is being talked about now with (it seems) minimum rancour and venom vented at the people questioning the whole system of classical music. OF course this has been going on for ages, since time imemmorial. What's different is that Modernsim, or the ideologies associated with it (particularly the extreme sorts), have failed. There was this near Messianic zeal with which people made pronouncements early on, about music and so called "progress" (or a certain version of it?). Goes back to people like Wagner but Schoenberg did it and so too Boulez. People are now challenging these views, and now I think some sort of logic has prevailed over all the ideology. One thing that has to happen is Modernism has to be openly challenged, and Post-Modernism kind of shrinks back from doing that. I don't even know what they are saying half the time.

Don't know how to solve it, in some ways I don't care. I'm just a listener, and I just listen to what I listen to, and it includes contemporary or more recent classical music. What I think is important is to just let people talk about this, from composers, to musicians, listeners, and all those interested in music. The less political correctness and the more open dialogue the better. The other thing is to go back and look at what happened in the past in the history of music, partly so we can learn from the past and not make the same mistakes time and time again (throwing out the baby with the bathwater, each successive generation seems to do that, its like a bad habit!).


----------



## brianvds

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Academia within the visual arts may promote the notion that certain traditional artistic skills... even an ability to organize and structure an object/image in such a manner as to be visually striking or interesting... is unnecessary in Post-Aesthetic Art (as Donald Kuspit termed it)... or Post-Art Art... but they most certainly demand an ability to talk about the work with a decent grasp of art criticism, art theory, art history, etc...


Much of that is in itself nonsensical, at least when viewed from a particular angle. 

In any event, my impression is that the situation is not as bad as it was a decade or three ago, and skilled art is making a big comeback, by popular demand. Oh the horror, artists will have to pander to mere popular tastes again. 

Anyway, the whole question of whether creative artists should meet the audience halfway or not, and where exactly halfway is, seems to me a complex one where we cannot really make sweeping statements. As has been shown in this thread, at least some relatively avant garde-ish composers managed to make a perfectly good living in a capitalist environment. Others had other sources of income, or were willing to spend part of their creative energies on the composition of potboilers, in order to free themselves to pursue their aesthetic when they could afford to do so.

Whether the government should subsidize avant garde music remains a contentious and largely political issue that may not be discussed here anyway. I'm not sure government subsidies will do much harm, but I'm equally unconvinced that they necessarily do much good either.

Incidentally, I saw an interesting BBC interview with Philip Glass. I never realized that he was in his forties before he could make a living out of composition. Before that, he worked in various jobs, including taxi driver. He would work from 4 to 11 in the evening, and then go home and compose until 6 in the morning.

His opinion is that when composers show that sort of commitment and work ethic, it often reflects in their music, so he tends towards skepticism about the idea of government funding for classical composers.


----------



## Yardrax

Hey guys, let me let you all in on a secret.

I know what's _really_ killing contemporary music.

Pointless discussions about what's killing contemporary music


----------



## KenOC

Yardrax said:


> Hey guys, let me let you all in on a secret.
> 
> I know what's _really_ killing contemporary music.
> 
> Pointless discussions about what's killing contemporary music


I doubt that the wrangling here is having much impact on the direction or development of music. :lol:


----------



## ArtMusic

PetrB said:


> When John Lennon died, there were spontaneous gatherings of many more than that, city to city, worldwide. It wouldn't be modest to estimate that collective number in the millions.
> 
> Your point is, uh, what, exactly?


Well, you clearly, most clearly, missed my point.


----------



## ArtMusic

Sid James said:


> ......Don't know how to solve it, in some ways I don't care. I'm just a listener, and I just listen to what I listen to, and it includes contemporary or more recent classical music. What I think is important is to just let people talk about this, from composers, to musicians, listeners, and all those interested in music. .....


Thanks, Sid. I sort of skimmed through your whole post but your point I quoted above caught my attention. I'm also a listener and I listen to what I enjoy. That's the whole point. So what if the rest of the world hates atonal music or thinks it's not worth more than a first serving? Atonal music or extremities of avant-garde might be far, far less popular than Romantic or Baroque music, but there's always room even for the small minority in certain parts of the world.


----------



## SimonNZ

Your point seemed to be that a big turnout at a funeral proved that Beethoven was the kind of composer who "wrote for the audience" in the way you like.

Okay - so how many people were at Mozart's funeral, and what, if anything, does that prove?


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> You realize that you disagree with the article on this point, then, which uses 4'33" as an example of a piece that is very much concerned with the audience's reception.
> 
> Ligeti was critical of multiple serialism, of course, but this was a very brief phase in 20th century music. Ligeti and I both consider Boulez's _Le marteau sans maitre_ one of the materpieces of that post-war avant-garde era.
> 
> George Rochberg was also a critic of serialism and of the 12-tone method. This hasn't made his music any more popular. In fact, Boulez's works have been recorded more than Rochberg's Neoexpressionist ones.
> 
> *Serialism in itself does not seem to alienate audiences*, given that Berg's most popular piece (and the most popular piece by any member of the Second Viennese School post-1903) is in fact a 12-tone work. Lulu is not a rarity on the operatic stage either.
> 
> So give more examples.


To me the fact that fact that the most popular piece of the Decond Viennese School is a 12-tone work seems a very weak proof of the fact that Serialism has not a role in alienating the audience of classical music. And by the way, the fact that when Rochberg returned to tonality after the dead of his son if I remember well (a thing that looks meaningful to me) did not became more popular doesn't mean anything. As I've already said, I don't certainly think that popularity in itself can't be just taken as a measure of the value of the music.



Mahlerian said:


> In certain circles, perhaps. But one can go to other elite circles and look for acceptance there. Look at Eliott Carter for example, who never showed any interest in serial procedures and won the admiration of the very man who said that "Any composer who does not understand the necessity of the 12-tone method is USELESS!"
> 
> Look, also, at the very diverse list of composers who have won the Pulitzer Prize, which has a notoriously conservative/academic outlook.


I don't think that Carter is a good example of a composer who had the effect on a listener in his mind when he was writing the third string quartet (some of the most abstruse music of the last century) or similar things. 
By the way, an year ago I've began to listen all the compositions that won the pulitzer prize and sure, there's Copland, there's Howard Hanson, there's Ives's third symphony and Menotti and Barber, but there are also Crumb, Wuorinen, Davidowsky, Schuller, Druckman. It does not seem at all a list of conservative music (not that I was suggesting that I'm plain and simple saying that I'd prefer to see prizes only for conservative music). And by the way, the pulitzer is notorious because they refuse to give the prize to Ellington 



Mahlerian said:


> I think that good and bad music has always been written, and good and bad new music in every style continues to be played and programmed. I think that composers should write things that are worthwhile, in whatever style suits them best. If they do that, I believe that they will find an audience.
> 
> I think that Mahler was not wrong when he wrote music that only a few enjoyed, because he himself was convinced of its innate value. But today that many people have come to understand his vision, I have come across the idea that he "pandered to his audience". This is of course ridiculous, and proven so by the fact that he refused to simplify his style. On the contrary, it became increasingly complex.
> 
> Did he "not care about his audience"? No. He would have been overjoyed to find that he is, today, accepted as one of the great composers.


This is not an answer. I've only asked if you agree with the simple fact that contemporary classical music as jazz is not as popular as the nineteen century (absolute numbers mean nothing, Justin Bieber has probably more fans than all the composers of the twentieth century together) and if so what do you consider are the causes for this.


----------



## Piwikiwi

bigshot said:


> That's exactly what drove a nail in the heart of Jazz and paved the way for R&B, Jump Blues and Rock n' Roll to steal the limelight. Audiences still loved Jazz, but Jazz loved the critics who wrote in magazines better.


Jazz stopped being popular music with the creation of bebop and that was in the early 1940's. Critics hated it, the musicians chose to do it themselves. They stopped being afraid of the audience and tried to develop their music. John Coltrane is one of the best selling jazz musicians of all time and his music is not audience friendly.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> I've only asked if you agree with the simple fact that contemporary classical music as jazz is not as popular as the nineteen century (absolute numbers mean nothing, Justin Bieber has probably more fans than all the composers of the twentieth century together) and if so what do you consider are the causes for this.


Very simple: complexity, but in the following sense. 
Of course, a fugue by Bach is also complex, but there's no problem with Bach, why?. The thing is that modern music is complex in the most complex way something can be complex: by requiring the listener to apply a different and novel way of listening; to pay attention to new things.
And that's hard, pretty hard. Even in science, it can take years.
That's why most people with no experience in modern music find it completely incomprehensible. That's very interesting, because you can dislike something, but complete incomprehensibility is different. I think that's because they are trying to listen to this music in the same way they listen to the other previous music. That's a dead end, you are not going to find a romantic melody in a serial piece by Boulez. 
From the general population, only a small fraction will accept the challenge of listening to complex things like classical music or jazz. And inside classical music, only a small fraction will accept the challenge of abandoning their usual comfort zones in order to try to understand modern music. 
And this is neither the fault of the audiences, nor the composers. Instead, that's the natural way in which things happen, and not only in music.
The avant-garde is intrinsically elitist. It's nonsensical to ask the avant-garde to be "popular".


----------



## Piwikiwi

aleazk said:


> The avant-garde is intrinsically elitist.


And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Guest

OK, so different people like different things?

Have I got that right?

And different people dislike different things?

OK.

And the people who dislike Cage are much more likely to want to vent than the people who dislike Chopin (or Copland, for that matter)?

And venting is a sacred right? (I almost said "sacred rite.")

Alright then.

NEXT.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^That is something I've noticed too, it seems more common for a listener who dislikes modern music to continually vent and bash than a person who dislikes music from 1800-1825. I guess it's just either fun to hate or they feel te need to because so many others just get drawn in to the bait of the hater and try to convince them otherwise. KenOC's other thread shows that I, as a person who has very selective tastes in music between about 1800 to 1825, am in an even smaller minority which means that even more people would be able to argue against my tastes........

Perhaps composers should write music to be hated! It seems that many people love to do that!


----------



## Petwhac

aleazk said:


> From the general population, only a small fraction will accept the challenge of listening to complex things like classical music or jazz. And inside classical music, only a small fraction will accept the challenge of abandoning their usual comfort zones in order to try to understand modern music.


Only a small fraction will accept the 'challenge' of reading a 3 volume history of the ball-bearing in it's original Serbian.

The reason people would leave their "usual comfort zones in order to try to understand modern music, " would be be because they think they are otherwise missing out on a rewarding or enjoyable experience.


----------



## norman bates

aleazk said:


> Very simple: complexity, but in the following sense.
> Of course, a fugue by Bach is also complex, but there's no problem with Bach, why?. The thing is that modern music is complex in the most complex way something can be complex: by requiring the listener to apply a different and novel way of listening; to pay attention to new things.
> 
> That's why most people with no experience in modern music find it completely incomprehensible. That's very interesting, because you can dislike something, but complete incomprehensibility is different. I think that's because they are trying to listen to this music in the same way they listen to the other previous music. That's a dead end, you are not going to find a romantic melody in a serial piece by Boulez.


I don't think that Ligeti was looking for romantic melodies when he criticized Boulez. I mean, that criticism does not come only from casual or conservative listeners, but often by composers who wrote in modern idioms. To dismiss all this with an "haters gonna hate" is simply deny that often modern music sounds like a jargon even for those who listen a lot and know a lot about modern music.



aleazk said:


> From the general population, only a small fraction will accept the challenge of listening to complex things like classical music or jazz. And inside classical music, only a small fraction will accept the challenge of abandoning their usual comfort zones in order to try to understand modern music.
> And this is neither the fault of the audiences, nor the composers. Instead, that's the natural way in which things happen, and not only in music.
> The avant-garde is intrinsically elitist. It's nonsensical to ask the avant-garde to be "popular".


But it seems that a lot of musicians would like to have a larger audience (while blaming the audience for being so ignorant and the decadence of a world that seems to enjoy only rock and pop music).


----------



## Petwhac

I believe that the overwhelming majority of composers are sincere and serious about what they do. Regardless of what idiom or style they work in. This is true of neo-romantics, new-agers, avant-gardists and noise merchants. 

I have noticed much 'venting' by pro-modernists against neo-romantics, neo-tonal, 'conservative' and commercial musicians. It's not only one way traffic.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> I don't think that Ligeti was looking for romantic melodies when he criticized Boulez. I mean, that criticism does not come only from casual or conservative listeners, but often by composers who wrote in modern idioms. To dismiss all this with an "haters gonna hate" is simply deny that often modern music sounds like a jargon even for those who listen a lot and know a lot about modern music.


But Ligeti didn't dismiss integral serialism because it "sounded like a jargon". He dismissed it because he saw it as a restrictive system, and also he thought their practitioners were too dogmatic. He understood serialism pretty well I would say, there's a famous technical analysis of Boulez's Structures Ia by Ligeti. Ligeti admired Boulez a great deal.
Certainly, that dogmatism is not helpful if you want your music to be popular. But serialism is inherently academic music, so I don't think it had chances of becoming popular in the first place. Their practitioners were pretty aware of this, and they didn't care, which is the correct attitude I think. One cannot pretend that all art is for everybody. That's what I'm saying. 
All of this discussion originates in a false, populist, premise: that good art must be enjoyable by all.
I don't care if somebody says "I don't like serialism", fine; but I do care if somebody says "serialism is not art", because that's incorrect.



norman bates said:


> But it seems that a lot of musicians would like to have a larger audience (while blaming the audience for being so ignorant and the decadence of a world that seems to enjoy only rock and pop music).


I find this blame thing quite ridiculous. If you are a composer trying to be in the cutting-edge and at the same time expecting to be the Justin Biber of classical music, then you are pretty confused. As I said, the avant-garde is by definition for an elite.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> ..simply deny that often modern music sounds like a jargon even for those who listen a lot and know a lot about modern music.


Oh, that's easy. I'll deny that. (Who are these people who listen a lot but for whom modern music sounds like a jargon? Any names?)



norman bates said:


> But it seems that a lot of musicians would like to have a larger audience (while blaming the audience for being so ignorant and the decadence of a world that seems to enjoy only rock and pop music).


Again with the anonymous "a lot of."

Who are these people? What are their names? What do they actually say about things?

You're just making all of this up, aren't you? You don't really know any people who think like this, do you?


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> I have noticed much 'venting' by pro-modernists against neo-romantics, neo-tonal, 'conservative' and commercial musicians. It's not only one way traffic.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you have not noticed "much," simply because there is not much.

And what there is is nothing like the virulence of anti-modernists; nothing like the same lack of actual, direct experience of particular pieces, either. It's more like simply a complaint that too many otherwise talented people are turning their backs on all the delights of the past hundred years. And for what? Money? Fame? Adulation?

Oh well.

Pretty much, the traffic in this regard is indeed only going on one direction.


----------



## norman bates

aleazk said:


> But Ligeti didn't dismiss integral serialism because it "sounded like a jargon". He dismissed it because he saw it as a restrictive system, and also he thought their practitioners were too dogmatic. He understood serialism pretty well I would say, there's a famous technical analysis of Boulez's Structures Ia by Ligeti. Ligeti admired Boulez a great deal.


I've read it, and he dismissed it completely saying that altough the principles used to compose the piece were inspired by a total control, the effect on the listener was that it sounded like a mess. But still this discussion goes on as if only a superficial listener withouth experience could think that of a piece of modern music.



aleazk said:


> Certainly, that dogmatism is not helpful if you want your music to be popular. But serialism is inherently academic music, so I don't think it had chances of becoming popular in the first place. Their practitioners were pretty aware of this, and they didn't care, which is the correct attitude I think. One cannot pretend that all art is for everybody. That's what I'm saying.
> All of this discussion originates in a false, populist, premise: that good art must be enjoyable by all.


I wasn't saying that (I've always had problems with Mozart...)


----------



## Vasks

LOL! I've been on Internet CM boards since c.1995 and this topic frequently surfaces.

As a composer, I write whatever the heck I want, tonal, atonal or usually something in between. I don't write for a specific audience, but I do care that some of those who wind up hearing it do find it interesting or enjoyable or thought-provoking or ....


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you have not noticed "much," simply because there is not much.
> 
> And what there is is nothing like the virulence of anti-modernists; nothing like the same lack of actual, direct experience of particular pieces, either. It's more like simply a complaint that too many otherwise talented people are turning their backs on all the delights of the past hundred years. And for what? Money? Fame? Adulation?
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Pretty much, the traffic in this regard is indeed only going on one direction.


Well we can quibble about how much is "much". And what constitutes 'virulence'.

Who is turning their backs on who's "delights of the past hundred years?" You will have to be more specific with who the Fame, Fortune and Adulation seekers are. And how do you know they are talented? And what right has anyone got to 'complain' about such seekers.

If people turn their backs on something you find valuable or worthy, you'll just have to put up. Same as the Neos I guess.


----------



## PetrB

brianvds said:


> The question is, how large an audience? I suspect that avant garde music would pretty much go away if composers had to make a living off it. They either have day jobs, or they get subsidized by government to do what they do. This is nothing new either: Beethoven had a bunch of royal patrons that paid him, with money they probably stole from peasants, to compose whatever he liked.
> 
> Is that necessarily a bad thing? Well, that is a political question rather than an aesthetic one.
> 
> I do find it interesting that there are major differences between avant garde music and avant garde visual art, which simply boils down to this: the music departments at universities remain the carriers of the torch of tradition, however weird the music they produce may be. Today, the standards of understanding and performance are probably higher than they have ever been before. You simply cannot bluff your way into classical music.
> 
> In the visual arts, it is different: many of the major academics actually applaud complete lack of knowledge, talent or technical skill.
> 
> I am therefore inclined to at least respect avant garde music, even if I don't necessarily like it, in a way that I find difficult to do with avant garde visual art.


Bravo! .................................


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> Oh, that's easy. I'll deny that. (Who are these people who listen a lot but for whom modern music sounds like a jargon? Any names?)
> 
> 
> some guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again with the anonymous "a lot of."
> 
> Who are these people? What are their names? What do they actually say about things?
> 
> You're just making all of this up, aren't you? You don't really know any people who think like this, do you?
Click to expand...

We were talking about Ligeti and Rochberg, but do you know a theorist like Fred Lehrdal?
http://www.bussigel.com/lerdahl/pdf/Cognitive%20Constraints%20on%20Compositional%20Systems.pdf

There are clearly all the tonal composers who criticized the same thing. Ned Rorem is a famous example. Never heard of him? There is the guy who wrote the article at the beginning of this discussion.

Just because I don't want to say "me": my favorite music (also classical music) is all of the twentieth century, and I keep listening to a lot of stuff that I don't like just for curiosity. 
By the way, yesterday I was reading this article:
http://ericedberg.blogspot.it/2006/02/jake-heggie-is-tonal-music-especially.html

It's not exactly about the topic of the discussion but in a sense explains what a person who clearly listen to modern music feels about it. This is an interesting passage (who reminds also of the motivations push Rochberg to compose again tonal music):

"Music becomes a life saver. Music is there to transform an existence that must be transformed to be survived. When I have been most miserable, that's when music has been most important to me.

So I can see how middle-class, heterosexual white guys could reject tonal music, write a lot of very cerebral dodecaphonic pieces, and have been quite comfortable with it. African-American culture gave us not serialism but the Blues and jazz and rock and roll. Music that means something. And if Cantrell is right, and it was the gay men who stuck with tonality, it makes sense to me.

OK, this is a lot of generalizations. And yes, John Cage was as gay as you can get and wrote music as untonal as anyone. But I do think think there is something to the idea that for people who suffer as individuals and as a group, the emotional nuances and the ability to exploit and resolve tension that exists in tonal music holds a special meaning."


----------



## PetrB

some guy said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you have not noticed "much," simply because there is not much.
> 
> And what there is is nothing like the virulence of anti-modernists; nothing like the same lack of actual, direct experience of particular pieces, either. It's more like simply a complaint that too many otherwise talented people are turning their backs on all the delights of the past hundred years. And for what? Money? Fame? Adulation?
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Pretty much, the traffic in this regard is indeed only going on one direction.


Oh, I dunno, my "music took a near suicidal turn in the late romantic after Schumann until Mahler" campaign seems to have dented a few noses... at least _if_ this is a 'group love affair' where for some reason we are all supposed to like / revere exactly the same thing.

Oh. Wait a moment, it is not supposed to be a common denominator group love / revere fest? I'm shocked, taken aback, non-plussed, amazed.


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> We were talking about Ligeti and Rochberg, but do you know a theorist like Fred Lehrdal?
> http://www.bussigel.com/lerdahl/pdf/Cognitive%20Constraints%20on%20Compositional%20Systems.pdf
> 
> There are clearly all the tonal composers who criticized the same thing. Ned Rorem is a famous example. There is the guy who wrote the article at the beginning of this discussion.
> 
> Just because I don't want to say "me": my favorite music (also classical music) is all of the twentieth century, and I keep listening to a lot of stuff that I don't like just for curiosity.
> By the way, yesterday I was reading this article:
> http://ericedberg.blogspot.it/2006/02/jake-heggie-is-tonal-music-especially.html
> 
> It's not exactly about the topic of the discussion but in a sense explains what a person who clearly listen to modern music feels about it. This is an interesting passage (who reminds also of the motivations push Rochberg to compose again tonal music):
> 
> "Music becomes a life saver. Music is there to transform an existence that must be transformed to be survived. When I have been most miserable, that's when music has been most important to me.
> 
> So I can see how middle-class, heterosexual white guys could reject tonal music, write a lot of very cerebral dodecaphonic pieces, and have been quite comfortable with it. African-American culture gave us not serialism but the Blues and jazz and rock and roll. Music that means something. And if Cantrell is right, and it was the gay men who stuck with tonality, it makes sense to me.
> 
> OK, this is a lot of generalizations. And yes, John Cage was as gay as you can get and wrote music as untonal as anyone. But I do think think there is something to the idea that for people who suffer as individuals and as a group, the emotional nuances and the ability to exploit and resolve tension that exists in tonal music holds a special meaning."


About as solid a bunch of points as are the air pockets in a wheel of Swiss Cheese


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> Only a small fraction will accept the 'challenge' of reading a 3 volume history of the ball-bearing in it's original Serbian.
> 
> The reason people would leave their "usual comfort zones in order to try to understand modern music, " would be be because they think they are otherwise missing out on a rewarding or enjoyable experience.


And that depends upon the range of their intrinsic curiosity, not on the musical material(s) of the discussion.


----------



## arpeggio

Petwhac said:


> I have noticed much 'venting' by pro-modernists against neo-romantics, neo-tonal, 'conservative' and commercial musicians. It's not only one way traffic.


Again this goes against my experiences as an amateur musician.

The vast majority of the musicians I know and have met here are big fans of "neo-romatics, neo-tonal, 'conservative' and commercial musicians." Of course there is a small group of modernists who thumb there noses at contemporary romantics.

We are tired of constantly having to disprove negatives. We are tired of being hit over the head because of the actions of a few pro-modernists.


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> To me the fact that fact that the most popular piece of the Decond Viennese School is a 12-tone work seems a very weak proof of the fact that Serialism has not a role in alienating the audience of classical music. And by the way, the fact that when Rochberg returned to tonality after the dead of his son if I remember well (a thing that looks meaningful to me) did not became more popular doesn't mean anything. As I've already said, I don't certainly think that popularity in itself can't be just taken as a measure of the value of the music.


This is such a large mass of logical fallacies that I don't even know where to begin.

First, if you say "Serialism is alienating", then that means that "All A are B" (All pieces of serial music are pieces that alienate audiences). I have proven that this is not true by showing that there do in fact exist A that are not B.

Secondly, many of the pieces often cited as audience-alienating are, in fact, not serial at all. Pieces like those by Carter, Cage, and the Second Viennese School prior to 1923 (like Pierrot lunaire, which was actually a relative popular success at its premiere), so there needs to be further proof that serialism is, in fact, correlated with audience alienation.

Third, the point is not that there is a non-serial composer in Rochberg that is not popular. The problem is that you said that _the reason_ why Ligeti is popular is because he was a critic of serialism (which is not entirely true...he was a critic of integral or multiple serialism). I pointed out another composer who was, like Ligeti, a critic of serialism, and, unlike Ligeti *or even Boulez*, has not a single work in the larger performing repertoire.

Fourth, I at no point claimed that popularity was a measure of the quality of music. I often claim the opposite (which is *not* that lack of popularity is a measure of quality, but simply that popularity is not, in fact, a measure of quality).



norman bates said:


> I don't think that Carter is a good example of a composer who had the effect on a listener in his mind when he was writing the third string quartet (some of the most abstruse music of the last century) or similar things.


But I was responding to your separate insinuation that a composer, to be accepted in "elite circles", had to follow "certain rules". I presented a composer who gained quite a bit of acceptance in those circles without following the serial methods that you yourself claimed to be their rules. I think the author of the article would, in fact, present Carter as an example of a composer who thinks a great deal about what impression his music makes on audiences. Critics often cite Carter's music for its strong narrative qualities, and audiences near the end of his life began to respond pretty favorably.



norman bates said:


> By the way, an year ago I've began to listen all the compositions that won the pulitzer prize and sure, there's Copland, there's Howard Hanson, there's Ives's third symphony and Menotti and Barber, but there are also Crumb, Wuorinen, Davidowsky, Schuller, Druckman. It does not seem at all a list of conservative music (not that I was suggesting that I'm plain and simple saying that I'd prefer to see prizes only for conservative music). And by the way, the pulitzer is notorious because they refuse to give the prize to Ellington


I said they have a conservative/academic bias. The Pulitzer committee is not known for awarding avant-garde trends or up-and-coming talents so much as established university composers, their bias in not awarding Ellington is no doubt a result of that same ideology. There are a few exceptions, but most of the time they simply give the award to the most recent work of an established composer whom they haven't given an award to yet.



norman bates said:


> This is not an answer. I've only asked if you agree with the simple fact that contemporary classical music as jazz is not as popular as the nineteen century (absolute numbers mean nothing, Justin Bieber has probably more fans than all the composers of the twentieth century together) and if so what do you consider are the causes for this.


It's difficult to compare, because the methods of distribution have permanently altered the constitution of the audience. According to Schoenberg, at least, when he was young and living in Vienna, he was able to see the later Wagner operas over a dozen times each simply because the performances would not sell out to anywhere near capacity, and it was only some time later that an audience that had grown to love Lohengrin and Tannhauser would come to appreciate Tristan (and this was some 40 years after it was written) and the Ring.

Recordings and the internet have increased the availability of music, new and old, and at the same time made it possible to avoid the new entirely, which was not as much of an option when one had to attend subscription concerts at the symphony to hear the old. The complete works of Schoenberg are available for free on the internet, and yet one still encounters people who leave amazed after hearing one of Schoenberg's early tonal works for the first time, because their entire impression had been either formed by hearsay or partial experience of a single work. So while the music is available, it is not being consumed.

I think that one cause for this is that hearsay itself. People hear about "that nasty atonal/12-tone music", check out the first minute or so of the Chamber Symphony, and shut it off, forever to claim that it's nonsense or noise.

Another cause is in fact the difficulties presented by an idiom that presents density of motivic and rhythmic development, without repetition (and this in fact is what makes integral serialism even more difficult than 12-tone writing for audiences, because it went further in this direction).

Another is a result of these first two. Musicians have a difficult time grasping some of these scores (because of their inherent technical difficulties as well as the idea that this is "difficult" music), and thus sub-par performances are the norm even among professional groups (although this has improved significantly in the last few decades, and, surprise, audiences respond better to good performances than bad ones).


----------



## Mahlerian

aleazk said:


> *But serialism is inherently academic music*, so I don't think it had chances of becoming popular in the first place. Their practitioners were pretty aware of this, and they didn't care, which is the correct attitude I think. One cannot pretend that all art is for everybody. That's what I'm saying.


Integral serialism, perhaps. I disagree as regards 12-tone music of other kinds, or post-serial music.


----------



## bigshot

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Academia within the visual arts may promote the notion that certain traditional artistic skills... even an ability to organize and structure an object/image in such a manner as to be visually striking or interesting... is unnecessary in Post-Aesthetic Art (as Donald Kuspit termed it)... or Post-Art Art... but they most certainly demand an ability to talk about the work with a decent grasp of art criticism, art theory, art history, etc...


That's kind of like sex and teenagers. They all talk about it, but most of them don't know how to do it properly themselves.


----------



## hpowders

Bill O'Reilly has witten "Killing Lincoln", "Killing Kennedy" and "Killing Jesus". Perhaps "Killing Contemporary Music" will be next.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> I've read it, and he dismissed it completely saying that altough the principles used to compose the piece were inspired by a total control, the effect on the listener was that it sounded like a mess. But still this discussion goes on as if only a superficial listener withouth experience could think that of a piece of modern music.


He more or less retracted later from that opinion. I think he was being a little reactionary because of the dogmatism he saw. His main concern with serialism was the dogmatic thing. In later interviews, he only mentions this aspect.
Ligeti's relation to serialism is complex and singular, I don't think it can be taken as a general sample or example of nothing more than the composer's own path through composition. If you want a general sample, you can read the comments section on youtube or in this very forum.


----------



## aleazk

Mahlerian said:


> Integral serialism, perhaps. I disagree as regards 12-tone music of other kinds, or post-serial music.


Yes, I was talking about integral serialism. Also, I said that as a matter of "concession" in that particular discussion, i.e., in the very general terms of that discussion, I could agree to some extent that integral serialism is academic when compared to other styles.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> "Music becomes a life saver. Music is there to transform an existence that must be transformed to be survived. When I have been most miserable, that's when music has been most important to me.
> 
> So I can see how middle-class, heterosexual white guys could reject tonal music, write a lot of very cerebral dodecaphonic pieces, and have been quite comfortable with it. African-American culture gave us not serialism but the Blues and jazz and rock and roll. Music that means something. And if Cantrell is right, and it was the gay men who stuck with tonality, it makes sense to me.
> 
> OK, this is a lot of generalizations. And yes, John Cage was as gay as you can get and wrote music as untonal as anyone. But I do think think there is something to the idea that for people who suffer as individuals and as a group, the emotional nuances and the ability to exploit and resolve tension that exists in tonal music holds a special meaning."


, what the heck is that???. And, for that matter, Boulez is also gay and wrote dodecaphonic music.


----------



## Mahlerian

aleazk said:


> , what the heck is that???. And, for that matter, Boulez is also gay and wrote dodecaphonic music.


Wuorinen, Barraqué, and, if I may put him here despite the fact that he only wrote a few such works, Copland as well.

Speaking of which, the blog author's theory is damaged somewhat when one considers that Copland was a pretty outspoken anti-Romantic in his writings, which is why he was far more interested in the 12-tone method after Stravinsky turned to it; Schoenberg's expressionism was not part of his style.


----------



## brotagonist

I listen to the music and am not interested in exploring the composers' perversions and peccadillos. It helps, when it is instrumental music, of course, as the interpretation is open to me


----------



## Blancrocher

brotagonist said:


> I listen to the music and am not interested in exploring the composers' perversions and peccadillos.


I read about such things avidly, since I'm a sucker for gossip. I don't believe they're relevant to the issue at hand, however.

*p.s.* For others who are interested in such things (and I'm sure there aren't), I've found the extended acquaintance of G&A Mahler to be a happy hunting ground. Google "Oskar Kokotchka + doll" for starters.


----------



## brotagonist

I had my suspicions about Boulez, since he was a friend of Cage in his youth. Henze is also known to be one of their crowd. Heck, I just listen to the music. I have always wondered about how Britten might have told Melville's _Billy Budd_. I guess I should listen to it some time


----------



## PetrB

brotagonist said:


> I had my suspicions about Boulez, since he was a friend of Cage in his youth. Henze is also known to be one of their crowd. Heck, I just listen to the music. I have always wondered about how Britten might have told Melville's _Billy Budd_. I guess I should listen to it some time


I wonder if "the perversions and peccadilloes" are audible in Faure, Lully, and all those earlier tonal composers ?


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> This is such a large mass of logical fallacies that I don't even know where to begin.
> 
> First, if you say "Serialism is alienating", then that means that "All A are B" (All pieces of serial music are pieces that alienate audiences). I have proven that this is not true by showing that there do in fact exist A that are not B.Secondly, many of the pieces often cited as audience-alienating are, in fact, not serial at all. Pieces like those by Carter, Cage, and the Second Viennese School prior to 1923 (like Pierrot lunaire, which was actually a relative popular success at its premiere), so there needs to be further proof that serialism is, in fact, correlated with audience alienation.


I think there's a little misunderstanding. There is a difference between "serialism had a role in alienating the audience from classical music" (that is what I've said) and to say that "all serialism is alienating".
I should add that I don't think that only serialism is the responsible for that, the explaination that not all those pieces considered as a part of serialism are different things is unnecessary, it's something I already knew.



Mahlerian said:


> It's difficult to compare, because the methods of distribution have permanently altered the constitution of the audience. According to Schoenberg, at least, when he was young and living in Vienna, he was able to see the later Wagner operas over a dozen times each simply because the performances would not sell out to anywhere near capacity, and it was only some time later that an audience that had grown to love Lohengrin and Tannhauser would come to appreciate Tristan (and this was some 40 years after it was written) and the Ring.
> 
> Recordings and the internet have increased the availability of music, new and old, and at the same time made it possible to avoid the new entirely, which was not as much of an option when one had to attend subscription concerts at the symphony to hear the old. The complete works of Schoenberg are available for free on the internet, and yet one still encounters people who leave amazed after hearing one of Schoenberg's early tonal works for the first time, because their entire impression had been either formed by hearsay or partial experience of a single work. So while the music is available, it is not being consumed.
> 
> *I think that one cause for this is that hearsay itself. People hear about "that nasty atonal/12-tone music", check out the first minute or so of the Chamber Symphony, and shut it off, forever to claim that it's nonsense or noise.*
> 
> Another cause is in fact the difficulties presented by an idiom that presents density of motivic and rhythmic development, without repetition (and this in fact is what makes integral serialism even more difficult than 12-tone writing for audiences, because it went further in this direction).
> 
> Another is a result of these first two. Musicians have a difficult time grasping some of these scores (because of their inherent technical difficulties as well as the idea that this is "difficult" music), and thus sub-par performances are the norm even among professional groups (although this has improved significantly in the last few decades, and, surprise, audiences respond better to good performances than bad ones).


About the bold: I don't know, maybe there's a part of truth and many are discouraged by the bad publicity. But looking at my own experience there are other kind of music that have the same reputation of being difficult, abstruse or just nonsense that I really like. And when I began listening to twelve tone music I had a lot of enthusiasm about it, so at least personally I can't say that my opinon is biased by negative prejudices.


----------



## norman bates

aleazk said:


> He more or less retracted later from that opinion. I think he was being a little reactionary because of the dogmatism he saw. His main concern with serialism was the dogmatic thing. In later interviews, he only mentions this aspect.
> Ligeti's relation to serialism is complex and singular, I don't think it can be taken as a general sample or example of nothing more than the composer's own path through composition. If you want a general sample, you can read the comments section on youtube or in this very forum.


It's the first time that I see someone considering Ligeti a reactionary. He was just thinking with his own brain and he found his own way to compose, I mean anybody who don't like serialism is "a (maybe just a little) reactionary"? I see a bit of manicheism in it. 
Anyway, I've never heard that he changed his mind about serialism and I confess that I'm a bit skeptical. I'd be curious to read something.


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> I think there's a little misunderstanding. There is a difference between "serialism had a role in alienating the audience from classical music" (that is what I've said) and to say that "all serialism is alienating".
> I should add that I don't think that only serialism is the responsible for that, the explaination that not all those pieces considered as a part of serialism are different things is unnecessary, it's something I already knew.


I know that you did not say "all serialism is alienating". I rephrased your argument as "serialist pieces by their nature alienate the audience" (as a syllogism), and attempted to show that this is not the case. Given that there are in fact serial pieces that attract audiences, and many non-serialist pieces that alienate certain audiences (albeit while attracting others), you have to give a more nuanced answer. What is it that alienates audiences, if it is not serialism in itself, without any qualifiers?



norman bates said:


> About the bold: I don't know, maybe there's a part of truth and many are discouraged by the bad publicity. But looking at my own experience there are other kind of music that have the same reputation of being difficult, abstruse or just nonsense that I really like. And when I began listening to twelve tone music I had a lot of enthusiasm about it, so at least personally I can't say that my opinion is biased by negative prejudices.


Based on which works did you come to the conclusion that this music was not for you? Part of the point of the bolded passage is that the Chamber Symphony, which is supposed to be an exemplar of "that nasty 12-tone/atonal music" is, in fact, neither. Thus a condemnation of "12-tone/atonal music" based on it holds no weight whatsoever.

Not to say that this is true of you personally, but there are in fact cases of people condemning methods or styles for ideological, rather than artistic, reasons after having embraced them at first (Hindemith, for one).

I know for a fact that my initial opinion was shaped by negative prejudice, which I had to overcome before I could really hear serial works for what they were. Even though certain works stuck out to me on first hearing as something wonderful and unique, it took me time to get past the rhetoric of "one needs to study the score/have an academic degree in music to enjoy this". It's 100% *FALSE*, but it's repeated so often that people take it for received wisdom.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

In any event, my impression is that the situation is not as bad as it was a decade or three ago, and skilled art is making a big comeback, by popular demand. Oh the horror, artists will have to pander to mere popular tastes again. 

That was undoubtedly intended as sarcasm... but it contains a great degree of truth. Literature and Music have both been forced... to some extent... to deal with the demands of the larger "popular" audience due to the shift in money away from the "elite" wealthy aristocratic audience toward the larger larger audience as a consequence of technology: Gutenberg's movable type... and eventually even more rapid lithographic presses and the invention of TV, radio, and sound recording. The traditional visual arts have been forced to deal with printed reproductions... initially hand-made (engraving, etching, lithography) and later photography... but the experience of the reproduced painting/sculpture remains far from that of the experience of the original art object. A painting by Rubens that measures 9x12 feet and is built up of layers of transparent and opaque pigment and rich brushwork becomes something far less when reduced to a 4X6" reproduction in an art book.

Having said this... the internet is undoubtedly having an immense impact upon the traditional arts... and the art market. I (and anyone else with internet access) has an almost immediate access to nearly the whole of art history. I cannot begin to tell you how many artist's works I can now explore that were nearly wholly unavailable 20 years ago. The internet has also opened up the market in the sense that almost anyone can "publish" their work on line. Those with a degree of savvy can establish a professional web-site and reach an interested audience while wholly circumventing the middle-man (gallery dealer). Art periodicals such as _Art News_ and _Art in America_ which are largely financed through advertising dollars from the same galleries whose artists the critics review (Can anyone say conflict of interest?) have been declining in impact over the past decade or so as other sources... such as online magazines and blogs are introducing the interested audience to a broader array of art. Even established dealers/collectors/institutions such as Charles Saatchi are playing to this larger audience... check out Saatchi Online:

http://www.saatchionline.com/

The result has been a fragmentation of the old near monolithic "art world" into a collection of smaller "art worlds"... each with their own values, standards, etc...

Near the end of the 20th century, MoMA NY put on an exhibition that explored the concept of "High" and "Low" Art. There was a recognition that the boundaries between these were already being blurred. Great illustration such as the posters by Toulouse-Latrec and Alphonse Mucha, the book illustrations by William Blake, William Morris, Arthur Rackham, Arthur Beardsley, Edmund Dulac, Harry Clark, Maxfield Parrish, comic book artists such as R. Crumb, Art Spiegelman, Mark Buckingham, Aron Wiesenfeld, Frank Miller David Lloyd, etc... to say nothing of the various Japanese graphic artists... going back to the original Ukiyo-e artists (whose work was seen by the Japanese arts community as "populist" and "lowbrow") are all now recognized as "serious" art (whatever that term may mean. An artist as successful as Odd Nerdrum has embraced the term "kitsch" and rejected the term "Art" if "Art" means urinals and cans of artist's _merde_. The so-called "low-brow" artists have become pop stars to a degree... and their work has begun to have an impact on serious art school educated artists... infusing their work with a certain energy. Picasso was in favor of such a merger 100 years ago when he pointed out that left to its own devices "fine art"... the art of the academy... would ossify... grow mannered and academic. He went on to suggest that great art was always produced in the same way as the aristocrats of the Italian Renaissance produced their heirs: through a merger of the "high-born" and the "low".

Anyway, the whole question of whether creative artists should meet the audience halfway or not, and where exactly halfway is, seems to me a complex one where we cannot really make sweeping statements. As has been shown in this thread, at least some relatively avant garde-ish composers managed to make a perfectly good living in a capitalist environment. Others had other sources of income, or were willing to spend part of their creative energies on the composition of potboilers, in order to free themselves to pursue their aesthetic when they could afford to do so.

Obviously there is no "one size fits all" solution to the question of the relationship between the artist and the audience. Obviously some artists rely on a day job or alternative sources of income because their work is not popular enough (for whatever reason) to succeed within the marketplace. Where this becomes problematic, IMO, is with those artists of the Romantic ilk who set about to intentionally ignore or antagonize the audience... believing themselves some superior prophet/visionary. I share a studio with such an old Romantic who believes that the reason his work has not been recognized for the genius it is, is because the audience are but idiots and morons who fail to appreciate how advanced his work is. The fact that its God-awful ugly never plays into the equation.

Whether the government should subsidize avant garde music remains a contentious and largely political issue that may not be discussed here anyway. I'm not sure government subsidies will do much harm, but I'm equally unconvinced that they necessarily do much good either.

My thinking is that there is something inherently questionable about an institutionalized avant garde. How does the government get involved in championing one avant garde direction in art over another?

Incidentally, I saw an interesting BBC interview with Philip Glass. I never realized that he was in his forties before he could make a living out of composition. Before that, he worked in various jobs, including taxi driver. He would work from 4 to 11 in the evening, and then go home and compose until 6 in the morning.

His opinion is that when composers show that sort of commitment and work ethic, it often reflects in their music, so he tends towards skepticism about the idea of government funding for classical composers.

There is indeed a definite commitment and work ethic to be found among any artist who continues to labor against the odds... for decades.


----------



## Blancrocher

StlukesguildOhio said:


> In any event, my impression is that the situation is not as bad as it was a decade or three ago, and skilled art is making a big comeback, by popular demand. Oh the horror, artists will have to pander to mere popular tastes again.
> 
> That was undoubtedly intended as sarcasm... but it contains a great degree of truth. Literature and Music have both been forced... to some extent... to deal with the demands of the larger "popular" audience due to the shift in money away from the "elite" wealthy aristocratic audience toward the larger larger audience as a consequence of technology


I'd also mention globalization as a context for thinking about "popular taste." For a negative perspective on the matter with respect to film, I'd mention a quite good essay by David Denby.

With respect to music, one of the interesting (in my view, positive) developments of the 20th-21st centuries is the more widespread effort to infuse styles from diverse and under-explored cultures in compositions.

More specifically to the general subject of the thread, I'm heartened by contemporary composers' comparative detachment from the wider popular taste, and particularly for the presence of conservatories and other institutions housing experts that have a good eye for both talent and originality. To return to Denby's essay, Hollywood is no guide to such things!


----------



## Blake

Blancrocher said:


> *More specifically to the general subject of the thread, I'm heartened by contemporary composers' comparative detachment from the wider popular taste,* and particularly for the presence of conservatories and other institutions housing experts that have a good eye for both talent and originality. To return to Denby's essay, Hollywood is no guide to such things!


I don't think they have much of a choice, really. Unless they're planning on doing remixes with P-Diddy and Lady-Gaga. Thankfully, it does appear that more artists are becoming comfortable with stretching out, even if that requires them to be on their own for some time.


----------



## brotagonist

A remix with Miley Cyrus, all "stretched out and comfortable" and "on their own for some time" could really get the creative juices flowing.


----------



## mmsbls

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ^That is something I've noticed too, it seems more common for a listener who dislikes modern music to continually vent and bash than a person who dislikes music from 1800-1825. I guess it's just either fun to hate or they feel te need to because so many others just get drawn in to the bait of the hater and try to convince them otherwise.


Certainly TC threads support the notion that people bash modern classical music much more than earlier eras. While I don't think bashing and venting make much sense, I can understand why those who dislike modern music might feel differently than those who dislike earlier eras. If you dislike the Classical Era, it may seem an anomaly that has passed. Classical music has moved on, and composers are once again composing wonderful music again. One can shrug off the aberration and revel in the continuation of wonderful music. However, if one dislikes modern music, it may seem as though classical music has fundamentally changed, and no longer will this beautiful medium ever speak to you.

Classical composers clearly did not kill classical music. But maybe modern composers have. While I do not agree with this view, I certainly can sympathize with those who do view modern music this way.


----------



## PetrB

I was just checking in to see if Modern / Contemporary music was dead yet.

Nope -- people are still talking about it as if it were highly controversial -- shock!


----------



## Guest

Well, people in the classical era didn't even have the term "classical music" to deal with, as that phrase was not coined until 1810, in Germany. (It got to England around 1825.)

Music will always be around, no matter what it's called. 

And if we could give up the notions that started the anti-modernist sentiments going in the early 19th century, we could get back to listening to and enjoying the stuff a lot more easily. You know, like people did in the era that is now referred to as classical.


----------



## Mahlerian

mmsbls said:


> Certainly TC threads support the notion that people bash modern classical music much more than earlier eras. While I don't think bashing and venting make much sense, I can understand why those who dislike modern music might feel differently than those who dislike earlier eras. If you dislike the Classical Era, it may seem an anomaly that has passed. Classical music has moved on, and composers are once again composing wonderful music again. One can shrug off the aberration and revel in the continuation of wonderful music. However, if one dislikes modern music, it may seem as though classical music has fundamentally changed, and no longer will this beautiful medium ever speak to you.


This is one of the points Shawn makes in the concluding chapters of his Schoenberg biography. In paraphrase: "perhaps the problem is that in listening to Schoenberg we come face-to-face with all the 'harm' he has done. We wonder 'what if _all_ music from now on were like this?'"

So people are not listening to the music so much as thinking about how it isn't like the music they enjoy (and failing thereby to notice the myriad of ways in which it is). At this point, for me, 20th century modernism seems like a thing of the past, a rush of possibilities that spun off in many exciting directions. In my opinion, Schoenberg is as traditional a figure as Beethoven and Stravinsky as Mozart. But they are gone, and their styles have been superseded; today, we have new styles and new ideas, and I don't see that Classical music is on its last legs.


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> I don't see that Classical music is on its last legs.


_Good walking shoes_ are the answer and the reason it just keeps on truckin.'


----------



## Sid James

ArtMusic said:


> Thanks, Sid. I sort of skimmed through your whole post but your point I quoted above caught my attention. I'm also a listener and I listen to what I enjoy. That's the whole point. So what if the rest of the world hates atonal music or thinks it's not worth more than a first serving? Atonal music or extremities of avant-garde might be far, far less popular than Romantic or Baroque music, but there's always room even for the small minority in certain parts of the world.


Well thanks for replying. I'd add I am questioning the ideologies associated with Modernism, trying to separate that a bit from the music. Its hard to generalise about music of any era, but particularly the Modern/contemporary era, arguably the most diverse period in the history of Western classical music.

The other thing is I myself don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, fall into the trap which I think has been done all too often with various trendy ideologies that have come and gone but left us high and dry with regards to these sorts of debates. That's probably why they continue unabated. Things just haven't been resolved since those turf wars of decades back, as I said Post-Modernist theorists have tended to not confront the problems with Modernist ideologies face on.

Of course there's good and bad in everything, and a lot in-between. The truth as I see it is that Modernism of more extreme kinds, well it hijacked the defintion of things like "progress" and "innovation." This usually involved elevating someone or some approach to be the god, the answer to all of these problems, musical and otherwise.

In terms of Copland who I talked about in my post that you responded to, in the 1920's he was a bit of an enfant terrible in the USA, akin to Prokofiev in Paris at the same time. Copland had supporters then but he tried to disassociate himself from them. In terms of the work I talked about, one critic said that it was better, an "improvement" on Gershwin's concerto of the previous year. You'd think Copland would welcome this, since the critical tide was largely against his concerto, but he didn't warm to this idea of elevating his concerto above Gershwin's, let alone comparing it or saying its better. Copland just said it was different, he was aiming at different things. He talked of putting the jazz influenced to different uses than Gershwin did. Copland saw himself as having not much in common with Gershwin, and this applied once he went populist and lost the support of the Modernist radicals who hailed him as the future of American music.

Similar thing happened with Walton in the UK, in the 1930's he was the great white hope of music there, but once Britten emerged and gained the spotlight in the 1940's, Walton was yesterday's man.

This sort of thing happens a lot in music. It goes with the tides of fashion and ideology. Problem is that some writers on music have questioned this recurring trend, and many composers like Copland have no time to join one faction or another, they just want to write music as they see fit. But we get this time and time again, and the other thing is innovation is not limited one thing. Debussy became the poster boy of Modernism around the turn of the century, yet people like Franck, D'Indy, Saint-Saens of the previous generation who innovated in areas such as form and thematic development, well Modernism was reluctant or downright unwilling to recognise their contribution. Could have been since the last two became rather catankerous old men, but so what, many young composers who are initially radicals turn into establishment figures by the end of their lives. Debussy got the Legion of Honour, but nobody says he's a sell out, do they?

I can go on but I've said all this before, and some people are in effect saying the same thing here. There are many commonalities in music, many types of innovations and amazing things. Hijaking things and labelling a composer or a listener to be something they're not, or putting them in a box, I see it as unhelpful even destructive. Its anathema to how to go about looking at music, I think it makes it too political and divisive.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The truth as I see it is that Modernism of more extreme kinds... hijacked the definition of things like "progress" and "innovation."

Bingo! We have the thread on Boulez' negation of Shostakovitch. I don't know how many times I have read comments as to how Richard Strauss was this brilliant, innovative composer... up through _Salome_ and _Elektra_... and then became some tired reactionary... in spite of _Der Rosenkavalier, Ariadne auf Naxos, Die Frau ohne Schatten, Daphne_, _Eine Alpensinfonie, Metamorphosen, Oboe Concerto in D major_, and a slew of lieder culminating in the _Four Last Songs_. You get the same accusations of having "sold out" leveled against Penderecki... and to a lesser extent, Henryk Gorecki. And then we have repeated suggestions that other composers... less experimental... such as Copland, Barber, Virgil Thompson, Vaughan-Williams, Delius, Walton, Korngold, etc... are but minor composers. This is presented as if a statement of fact.

I see nothing wrong with stating "I prefer the earlier work by Penderecki" or "I prefer Stravinsky and Schoenberg to Richard Strauss, Shostakovitch, and Vaughan-Williams." The reality is that none of us have a monopoly upon what is or is not the finest music of the time. None of us has some infallible prophetic knowledge as to what music future generations will value the most from our era. We have differing levels of experience... and different experiences with regard to music... but none of us has some superior sense as to what music is truly of merit in contrast to the opinions of other classical music lovers.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> It's the first time that I see someone considering Ligeti a reactionary. He was just thinking with his own brain and he found his own way to compose, I mean anybody who don't like serialism is "a (maybe just a little) reactionary"? I see a bit of manicheism in it.
> Anyway, I've never heard that he changed his mind about serialism and I confess that I'm a bit skeptical. I'd be curious to read something.





> Yes. I criticised Structures 1A. I thought this was serial music, of course it was a stupid, naive mistake because this is not the typical Boulez music. It was just one moment in his work.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00nc1k8

In that interview, he makes emphasis in the dogmatic aspect.

In the documentary "Portrait", he talks about serialism as "a maffia, but a very good (bon, in french) maffia". (again, emphasis in the dogmatic aspect)

Ligeti later wrote the piano etude Desordre, "a homage to deterministic chaos... the total control leads to seemingly chaotic configurations" (Ligeti introducing the etude in the first performance).

So, I don't think he was worried very much for things sounding chaotic either.
All this is what leads me to the conclusion that he was being a little reactionary° in his critics to serialism as being "abstruse".

As you can see, Ligeti's position in respect to serialism is quite singular, I don't think it can be used as support of your theory.

°When I say "reactionary", I mean in the sense of reacting with exaggeration, not in the sense of conservadurism (which is a more standard meaning of the word). Maybe it wasn't the best word to use. Gosh, I would never qualify Ligeti as conservative!.
In this sense, considering that Ligeti was so sensible about dogmatism and political fights, I think he reacted against that with vehemence, and in the process he may have said some things that he later regreted (like judging all of serialism after the analysis of a particular piece, Structures Ia). 
His analysis is quite good, and some of his technical critiques predate the reasons of why Boulez, for instance, abandoned the style.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The truth as I see it is that Modernism of more extreme kinds... hijacked the definition of things like "progress" and "innovation."
> 
> Bingo! We have the thread on Boulez' negation of Shostakovitch. I don't know how many times I have read comments as to how Richard Strauss was this brilliant, innovative composer... up through _Salome_ and _Elektra_... and then became some tired reactionary... in spite of _Der Rosenkavalier, Ariadne auf Naxos, Die Frau ohne Schatten, Daphne_, _Eine Alpensinfonie, Metamorphosen, Oboe Concerto in D major_, and a slew of lieder culminating in the _Four Last Songs_. You get the same accusations of having "sold out" leveled against Penderecki... and to a lesser extent, Henryk Gorecki. And then we have repeated suggestions that other composers... less experimental... such as Copland, Barber, Virgil Thompson, Vaughan-Williams, Delius, Walton, Korngold, etc... are but minor composers. This is presented as if a statement of fact.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with stating "I prefer the earlier work by Penderecki" or "I prefer Stravinsky and Schoenberg to Richard Strauss, Shostakovitch, and Vaughan-Williams." The reality is that none of us have a monopoly upon what is or is not the finest music of the time. None of us has some infallible prophetic knowledge as to what music future generations will value the most from our era. We have differing levels of experience... and different experiences with regard to music... but none of us has some superior sense as to what music is truly of merit in contrast to the opinions of other classical music lovers.


I haven't really been posting much on this thread, but I have been reading it and following along...I would just like to say this post is most certainly one of your best, StlukesguildOhio!


----------



## Guest

*Progress and innovation*

Progress is probably the wrong word to use to talk about trends in the arts.

That leaves us with "innovation."

And it's not so difficult or mysterious or controversial as either Sid or St would have it. It's not that hard to know what's innovative. It's something we haven't heard before. See how easy that is? If you've heard it before, if it's familiar, then it's not innovative.

Problem is, "innovative" has become one of those cool words that everyone wants to have. You know, like "objective" or "scientific." In many conversations, these words appear to have lost any denotative meaning, and the connotation isn't much more than "good."

Scientific is "good." Objective is "good." And innovative is "good."

If you simply take the denotation of innovative, however, you see that far from hijacking the definition of it, the more extreme kinds of modernism simply exemplify it.

If there's been any hijacking, it's been from the kinds of music that look backwards to older (and hence more familiar) musics. And the only thing that's happened is that since "innovative" is "cool," then in order to be cool, you have to define yourself as "innovative," even if you're obviously not.

And here's where the urge to exclude kicks in, too. You are regressive. You call yourself innovative (because to be innovative is cool, remember?). But there are all those nasty folks who are not regressive (am I trying to sneak "progressive" in by the back door here? No.), who are trying to do something new (as in "nova"). Those people really ARE innovative. But for you to call yourself innovative means you have to deny the innovators the word that really does describe them.

Hence, you accuse them of hijacking "your" word. But really, they're not hijacking anything. They're just doing what they do. Sweetly and naturally.

(Step two: find some innovators who aren't sweet. Make them out to be representative.

And so it goes.)


----------



## Rapide

some guy said:


> .... the more extreme kinds of modernism simply exemplify it.
> 
> ...


For example, the type of extreme kinds of modern music you listen to, right?


----------



## Guest

"Ad hominem attacks are ultimately self-defeating. They are equivalent to admitting that you have lost the argument."

(http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AdHominem)

Notice the word "ultimately." Apparently I just couldn't wait that long is all.:lol:

Anyway, howz about we get back to what I said, you know rather than who I am and what I listen to. Come on. We can do it!!


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> Progress is probably the wrong word to use to talk about trends in the arts.
> 
> That leaves us with "innovation."


No, _you_ leave us with "innovation". Perhaps that also is probably the wrong word to use about trends in the arts. Are there any other qualities in a work of art that we may value? Does "innovation" trump everything else?

Those 'watershed' pieces that are held up as ground breaking, innovative and original are usually 10% innovative and 90% traditional. 
The Grosse Fuge is often held up as 'modernistic' and of course it a remarkable and original conception, except for the *Fugue *part that is! You know, that backward looking aspect of Beethoven and late Mozart, incorporating 'old' ways of writing, taking from the past what served their artistic purposes. And with their regressive tendencies creating some timeless masterpieces.



some guy said:


> And it's not so difficult or mysterious or controversial as either Sid or St would have it. It's not that hard to know what's innovative. It's something we haven't heard before. See how easy that is? If you've heard it before, if it's familiar, then it's not innovative.


Prelude number two is new because it is not prelude number one. Sonata number 15 is new because it is not sonata numbers 1-14. 
I'd love you to cite an example of a work written between 1600 and 1900 that was more than a few percentage points _new_. Or did innovation only start happening post 1900?



some guy said:


> Problem is, "innovative" has become one of those cool words that everyone wants to have.


No it hasn't. You of all people should know the dangers of speaking for 'everyone'.



some guy said:


> If you simply take the denotation of innovative, however, you see that far from hijacking the definition of it, the more extreme kinds of modernism simply exemplify it.


For me this raises the question, what is meant "extreme kinds of modernism" and what else do such pieces have to offer _besides _innovation? Is innovation on it's own enough? Should these works of extreme modernism (examples?) offer more than just innovation?



some guy said:


> If there's been any hijacking, it's been from the kinds of music that look backwards to older (and hence more familiar) musics. And the only thing that's happened is that since "innovative" is "cool," then in order to be cool, you have to define yourself as "innovative," even if you're obviously not.


Which backward looking composers define themselves as innovative?



some guy said:


> And here's where the urge to exclude kicks in, too. You are regressive. You call yourself innovative (because to be innovative is cool, remember?).


Again, which composers does this apply to?



some guy said:


> But there are all those nasty folks who are not regressive (am I trying to sneak "progressive" in by the back door here? No.), who are trying to do something new (as in "nova"). Those people really ARE innovative. But for you to call yourself innovative means you have to deny the innovators the word that really does describe them.


 Thing about innovation in music is that it usually happens in spite of the composers intention. It really doesn't do to try _too_ hard to be innovative. There are many examples in the history of music where composers are quite shocked by the reaction to their music. Music they did not themselves consider revolutionary or 'difficult', but which came naturally and intuitively to them.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> I don't think that Ligeti was looking for romantic melodies when he criticized Boulez. I mean, that criticism does not come only from casual or conservative listeners, but often by composers who wrote in modern idioms. To dismiss all this with an "haters gonna hate" is simply deny that often modern music sounds like a jargon even for those who listen a lot and know a lot about modern music.


Really?, I don't think so...:



> Tusa: Yes, we are fed this completely mendacious dichotomy between emotion and intellect...
> 
> *Ligeti*: Yes, which is false, this dichotomy does not exist. There are many naive people saying 'we don't understand modern music because it's so intellectual'. This is simply not true.


(from the same interview I quoted before)



norman bates said:


> But still this discussion goes on as if only a superficial listener withouth experience could think that of a piece of modern music.


Because that's indeed the case, evidently...


----------



## millionrainbows

True "art" happens when the artist expresses his highest aspirations, ideas, craft, humanity, and spirituality. Since we are all human, we can all relate to these criteria.
When we are "together," we share art; when we separate ourselves (as an audience) from receiving art, we become elitists.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The truth as I see it is that Modernism of more extreme kinds... hijacked the definition of things like "progress" and "innovation."
> 
> Bingo! We have the thread on Boulez' negation of Shostakovitch. I don't know how many times I have read comments as to how Richard Strauss was this brilliant, innovative composer... up through _Salome_ and _Elektra_... and then became some tired reactionary... in spite of _Der Rosenkavalier, Ariadne auf Naxos, Die Frau ohne Schatten, Daphne_, _Eine Alpensinfonie, Metamorphosen, Oboe Concerto in D major_, and a slew of lieder culminating in the _Four Last Songs_. You get the same accusations of having "sold out" leveled against Penderecki... and to a lesser extent, Henryk Gorecki. And then we have repeated suggestions that other composers... less experimental... such as Copland, Barber, Virgil Thompson, Vaughan-Williams, Delius, Walton, Korngold, etc... are but minor composers. This is presented as if a statement of fact.


Well the composers you mention, and others like them, their contribution has been reassessed in recent decades once Modernism kind of withered on the vine. You had this shift in the 1970's. Things moved on. Recently I've been reading on Rachmaninov in relation to this, this one of the most derided of composers and among hard line Modernists favourite punching bags, well he has been appraised more objectively for the last 40 years or so now. Sibelius is similar, and I'd guess Strauss as well. I think things like Strauss being a mentor and influence to so many composers speaks to this, I did a thread on it a while back:

http://www.talkclassical.com/26153-richard-strauss-musical-progeny.html



> ...
> I see nothing wrong with stating "I prefer the earlier work by Penderecki" or "I prefer Stravinsky and Schoenberg to Richard Strauss, Shostakovitch, and Vaughan-Williams." The reality is that none of us have a monopoly upon what is or is not the finest music of the time. None of us has some infallible prophetic knowledge as to what music future generations will value the most from our era. We have differing levels of experience... and different experiences with regard to music... but none of us has some superior sense as to what music is truly of merit in contrast to the opinions of other classical music lovers.


Well yes, and even the most knowledgeable scholars and critics (and composers!) simply got it wrong in the past. Their assessments clouded by trends that looked big at the time but later proved to be dodgy, or perhaps they didn't see the harm they where doing despite good intentions or genuine intentions at least.

You know, John Tavener who died last year was among that generation who - like Gorecki and Penderecki - moved back to tradition when those shifts where taking place in the 1960's and '70's. In an interview Tavener said that he was dubious of this eclecticism because it spoke to a kind of decay. So what we have is no rallying point, we are all over the shop. In the early to mid 20th century we can name a good deal of composers who defined the era. Today it is different.

My own opinion of this goes to ideology again. Modernism was basically dead by the 1970's. You know the ideas I talked to - there was one limited definition of progress, and it pushed towards favouring the revolutionary and not evolutionary kinds. The kind that raised these Messiahs and demigods and shoved under the carpet the likes of say Sibelius who was a massive innovator in symphonic form, or Rachmaninov who was a progressive on the Russian scene which was still quite conservative, or indeed not just Debussy around 1900 but others who innovated in other ways, Strauss being among them. You also had the likes of Busoni who no less than Varese went to study with in Berlin, he didn't see much worth in what Schoenberg was doing. It can be argued that Strauss had more influence on Varese than Schoenberg, much more. There where many that bypassed atonality and serialism and did interesting things in their own ways, in other ways. One injustice in the 19th century was a similar devaluing of especially Haydn, and a corresponding elevation of Beethoven, yet Haydn and Mozart preempted most of LvB's innovations in embryonic form at least. Yet musicology at the time was all wrapped up in Beethoven, this demigod, this Messiah.

This had gone on all the time. So getting back to this age of uber eclecticism, in some ways its good to be free of dogmas now, but in some ways there is a problem of a lack of unifying ideas. It goes back to how Modernism kind of died, but Post Modernism failed to deal with the aftermath of what that meant. With their talk of signifiers and discourses, PoMo theorists went into this navel gazing in overdrive. They failed to notice the forest for the trees.

Its a bit like the last bit of Apocalypse Now. The character played by Martin Sheen goes up the river and finds, kills the Kurtz guy played by Marlon Brando. But its as if that's been done, Modernism is dead and we are in this morass. We are trying to come out of the wilderness, come back from that part of the river deep in the jungle, but we're stuck. PoMo-"ism" just leaves us floundering there. So we got this lack of resolution, so we get these endless debates, which I have contributed to - and done my own threads on - but now think its point is that it is pointless.

Again, don't know what to do. I don't like dogma but I don't like this nothingness we're in. It streches well beyond the esoteric field of classical music. Look at how in the Western world you've got increased alienation and depression, kids coming out of school barely literate and numerate, increasing diseases like diabetes and obesity, thanks to poor diet and sedentary lifestyles. Is this "progress."

You've got corporations coopting the cliche's of Modernism - "progress" "innovation" "cutting edge." But what does it all mean? Whose agenda does it serve? Is endless innovation and so on achievable let alone desirable? Same in the economic field, or educational, or political. Do we do all these things without some unifying force, do we do them all according the standards of globalisation/Americanisation, a one size fits all solution just as Modernism was with its trendy things meant to apply equally to all? Serialism came out of Vienna and Mitteleuropa in between the two world wars, a place you had the decaying and dying ancien regime tussling various dictatorships, who also preached progress as a solution to all the world's problems. Composers at that time fighting for their right to compose, fighting in some cases for their lives. I am not commenting on the music that came out of that, I am setting a context here and trying to relate it to today.

But what I'm asking is do we need that same siege mentality today? Dunno, but maybe the soundtrack to Apocalypse Now by The Doors is good accompaniment to this semi-rant? This is the end my friend (or are we still back in 1974?)...


----------



## Mahlerian

Sid James said:


> You also had the likes of Busoni who no less than Varese went to study with in Berlin, he didn't see much worth in what Schoenberg was doing.


Perhaps...but he went out of his way to make a "concert paraphrase" of the second Klavierstuck, op.11.


----------



## guy

ArtMusic said:


> If the composer is writing music at his/her complete artistic freedom today without any regard for the audience, then he/she writes at his/her own risk - artistically as a composer and also the music itself. Some listeners will bound to enjoy the music (good for them), but it's more than likely that such music will only appeal to a small minority today and be less relevant as a whole. Reverse back in time, all the great composers to a large extent in their entire oeuvre wrote music for a target audience (sure, they also wrote music purely/largely for their own pursuit, e.g. Bach's _Die Kunst der Fuge_ to maybe Beethoven's _Große Fuge_) but the audience was by and large never forgotten. Bach's church cantatas, Beethoven's symphonies, Rachmaninoff's piano concertos are great pieces because the composers didn't pander the audience.


Bach's music didn't appeal to anyone really. He wasn't famous then, but he is perhaps the greatest composer ever. He wrote what he felt he needed to write, and he did.


----------



## PetrB

guy said:


> Bach's music didn't appeal to anyone really. He wasn't famous then, but he is perhaps the greatest composer ever. He wrote what he felt he needed to write, and he did.


Somehow, this just does not jibe with the fact he got hired, in a continual stream, to perform as an improviser and to write near constantly for his entire adult life. Odd, then -- it seems people liked it enough to hire the man.

Remember too he was in what we would consider a more than dour and Spartan "Protestant Reformation Land," where no one was supposed to really like anything pleasurable, the art of music being considered pretty frivolous, and to indulge in the theater, or opera, near a downright sin. (The answer, BTW, to "Why didn't Bach write any operas?" is a simple "Protestantism.")

P.s. Bach is perhaps ONE of the greatest composers 'like ever,' of a goodly handful of 'greatest composers,' like, ever


----------



## Guest

Petwhac, I'm sorry you went to all that effort for nothing, but I was responding to a particular claim in a particular post. That is, I was using the terms supplied in that post, progress and innovation, not presenting those as my choices, as my terms. So if I delete one of two things, then only one thing is left, that's all. Simple math and not ideology.

I also was not talking about what composers think, either of themselves or of each other. Indeed, I more or less agree that they do not themselves think in terms of innovation or not--another point against the accusation leveled in the post I was responding to.

I see how my facetious turns of phrase could have led you to conclude that I was blaming composers for having this attitude. I really wasn't. A kind of metonymy, but not very carefully used. Sorry.

The group of people who think "innovation" is a cool word and who have hijacked the term to describe their heroes is made up of fans, not of the heroes themselves.

Anyway, I have to take part of the blame for your misreading. My intent, unsuccessfully carried out, was simply to counter the claim that "extreme modernism" has hijacked the term "innovative." "Extreme modernism" (again, not my term but the term I was given to deal with) _exemplifies_ "innovative." No hijacking there. But looking into the past and mimicking some of the forms and sounds of the past is the antithesis of "innovative." Mimicking old forms and sounds may be many things, but "innovative" can hardly be one of them.

The desire, by some fans, to have a cool word describe their heroes has led to this claim. Nothing more complicated than that, I think.


----------



## PetrB

some guy said:


> I ... was not talking about what composers think, either of themselves or of each other. Indeed, I more or less agree that they do not themselves think in terms of innovation or not....
> 
> ... The group of people who think "innovation" is a cool word and who have hijacked the term to describe their heroes is made up of fans, not of the heroes themselves.
> 
> ...The desire, by some fans, to have a cool word describe their heroes has led to this claim. Nothing more complicated than that, I think.


So many buzzwords, claimed by iconoclasts for one music or composer or another.

The works of just about every composer any admire, from the most revolutionary to the most retro-conservative, fully meet at least some if not all parts of the definitions of innovative, ingenuity, etc. They are all the ones with a very distinct and unique voice which stand apart from the other highly skilled yet pedestrian works which are more interchangeable and less distinctly 'unique' from the same eras.

I think a better way to think of 'innovative' is as to the "ingenuity" inflected meaning of the word. Regardless of any descriptor, if a work sounds 'fresh' to most of us, it is somehow 'innovative.' Patently "mimic" music is not truly innovative, then. Stravinsky's neoclassicism was certainly innovative, as were later works in the same vein by some others, because they said something new to us.

There is nothing wrong with degrees of conservatism, look to and listen to the later works of Ligeti, for example. Completely groundbreaking, absolutely 'new' - not, many of them are looking back and commenting upon the past while they are still as fresh as ______ (fresh can be.) The somewhat controversy-inducing Beethoven-like piece lately posted was not in any way 'innovative,' though it was 'original notes.' I do not think there is any way to convey to those impressed with that sort of writing why it is not at all impressive; other than showing a somewhat facile skill (not implying that was not real work) it still had 'nothing to say.'

I do not know at all to what to attribute the hunger for more music as has already been as it was in the past, other than a wall of resistance to a discomfort because the familiarity is not there in newer works. _It is ironic that a good deal of those who go to all those old works because they still please and excite aren't up for more and similar pleasure and excitement from musics from a later date._ Too, I'm convinced there is personal sentiment attached to those older works which is in a way false, i.e. it is not the sentiments evoked in the contemporary audiences it was written for, but a later and false take on what that music was, and still is, about. All the old composers were contemporary when they were writing: their audiences were listening to contemporary music, in one way or the other, alarming, exciting, and 'new.'

I have begun to abandon my despair about all the heaped on contumely phrased in terms of 'no melody,' 'no harmony,' 'not music' etc, writing that off as complaints from fans who like to think they are musically literate but who are really not. So much of the older music is not at all about melody per se, and all along the way, each composer of any good repute was 'undoing' previous concepts of harmony, a progression from monody to polyphony, a 'radical' shift from polyphony to homophony, and / or becoming more and more chromatic as time pressed on.

Face it, many 'go to' classical music for not only excitement, _but because it provides a (real) solace._ Ergo, no matter how 'new' baroque, classical or romantic may be to most, it inevitably has the inherent feel of something old and familiar even upon absolute first exposure, and that is for many the most extreme far border of 'adventure.' I hold nothing against that approach _until those who do dwell there start ragging on music just outside their boundaries_ as if the Ottoman Armies were once again hovering just outside the walls of Vienna, i.e. their entire civilized world, including what they hold dear or precious as "the apex of elevated spirit and thought of all western civilization" is in imminent threat of destruction 

Beethoven is often not at all about melody (Mozart and many others, too), and when new the first time round, was making audacious breaks with harmonic tradition of the immediate past, as well as near bursting the envelope of classical form in use at the time (Mozart, too, expanded form and harmonic usage "radically." He was just infinitely more subtle about it than Beethoven was Radical, new, 'discordant,' non-traditional music is what it was, and if a listener had enough historic perspective and a bit of a sympathetic imagination, it would sound more like that than the gloriously exciting and _comfortable_ music it is to most today.

Maybe if more supposed music lovers would hear the old music as if it were new, they would be less averse to the music of the more recent past and their own times.

*{ADD; a very antique maxim ~ "If it is not growing, it is dying."}*


----------



## hpowders

Yes. At times Beethoven's music could be described as downright ugly as in parts of the Hammerklavier Sonata and the Grosse Fuge, but it is sublime at the same time. Magnificent!


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> That's kind of like sex and teenagers. They all talk about it, but most of them don't know how to do it properly themselves.


I think most of us r far smarter than u give us credit4 and take offence wiv ur silly generalism. Things may have bn different when u were a teenager or in a state whose age of consent is draconian.

We know and do quite a lot actually and experiment which I suspect don't happen a lot within marriage or old age.

I wonda how many teenagers have discussed their sexual preferences or experiences wiv u or if it's just anotha thing uv read about. My opinions r based on reality and I am quite cross wiv urs which obviously aren't.

This was a wholly unnecessary comment I think and ill-founded.


----------



## hpowders

Y don't u write n words???


----------



## Vasks

^^^^^^^^^^^^lol


----------



## Blancrocher

From Charles Rosen's chapter on "The Popular Style" in _The Classical Style_:



> The procedures of Haydn and Mozart must be understood in a larger context, that of the creation of a popular style which abandons none of the pretensions of high art. Their achievement is perhaps unique in Western music: Beethoven attempted a similar synthesis with the last movement of the Ninth Symphony, and his triumph, which seems to me incontestable, has nevertheless been contested. This solitary success in the history of musical style should make us wary of critics who reproach the _avant-garde_ composer for an uncompromisingly hermetic style, or the popular composer (like Offenbach or Gershwin) for low ideals; that is like blaming a man for not having blue eyes or for not having been born in Vienna. The most esoteric composer would welcome the popularity of Mozart in Prague, where people whistled 'Non piu andrai' in the streets, if he could achieve it as Mozart did without sacrificing a jot of his refinement or even his 'difficulty.' Only for one brief historical period in the operas of Mozart, the late symphonies of Haydn, and some of the Schubert songs, has the utmost sophistication and complexity of musical technique existed alongside--or better, fused with--the virtues of the street song.


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> Petwhac, I'm sorry you went to all that effort for nothing, but I was responding to a particular claim in a particular post. That is, I was using the terms supplied in that post, progress and innovation, not presenting those as my choices, as my terms. So if I delete one of two things, then only one thing is left, that's all. Simple math and not ideology.
> 
> I also was not talking about what composers think, either of themselves or of each other. Indeed, I more or less agree that they do not themselves think in terms of innovation or not--another point against the accusation leveled in the post I was responding to.
> 
> I see how my facetious turns of phrase could have led you to conclude that I was blaming composers for having this attitude. I really wasn't. A kind of metonymy, but not very carefully used. Sorry.
> 
> The group of people who think "innovation" is a cool word and who have hijacked the term to describe their heroes is made up of fans, not of the heroes themselves.
> 
> Anyway, I have to take part of the blame for your misreading. My intent, unsuccessfully carried out, was simply to counter the claim that "extreme modernism" has hijacked the term "innovative." "Extreme modernism" (again, not my term but the term I was given to deal with) _exemplifies_ "innovative." No hijacking there. But looking into the past and mimicking some of the forms and sounds of the past is the antithesis of "innovative." Mimicking old forms and sounds may be many things, but "innovative" can hardly be one of them.
> 
> The desire, by some fans, to have a cool word describe their heroes has led to this claim. Nothing more complicated than that, I think.


Then you must forgive _me_ for my failure to accurately follow the thread of this discussion and for not realising you were responding to another post.

I agree with you that mimicking or creating pure pastiche can hardly ever (never?) be regarded as innovative. It is though, quite possible to look backward and forward and indeed sideways simultaneously to create something 'new'.

People always want to 'big up' those composers and styles that they feel an affinity with, that's human nature I suppose.
Words like 'innovative' and 'genius' are too often inappropriately applied and thereby devalued.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

someguy- That leaves us with "innovation."

Petwhac- No, you leave us with "innovation". Perhaps that also is probably the wrong word to use about trends in the arts. Are there any other qualities in a work of art that we may value? Does "innovation" trump everything else?

That is a good question. Is the merit of a work of art reduced solely to a question of how innovative it is (was). Is this "innovation" even something we can discern within the work itself... or is it not rather dependent upon our knowledge of what went before?

Those 'watershed' pieces that are held up as ground breaking, innovative and original are usually 10% innovative and 90% traditional.

I would go further and suggest that those works that are truly ground-breaking or earth-shattering within the development of the history of an art form are few and far between. This is true even within a given composer's oeuvre.

It's not that hard to know what's innovative. It's something we haven't heard before. See how easy that is? If you've heard it before, if it's familiar, then it's not innovative.

Prelude number two is new because it is not prelude number one. Sonata number 15 is new because it is not sonata numbers 1-14.

:lol:

Problem is, "innovative" has become one of those cool words that everyone wants to have.

No it hasn't. You of all people should know the dangers of speaking for 'everyone'.

If you simply take the denotation of innovative, however, you see that far from hijacking the definition of it, the more extreme kinds of modernism simply exemplify it.

For me this raises the question, what is meant "extreme kinds of modernism" and what else do such pieces have to offer besides innovation? Is innovation on it's own enough? Should these works of extreme modernism (examples?) offer more than just innovation?

These are important questions. Is there a degree of "innovation" that a work of art must achieve before it can be considered "original"... or "good"? Indeed, is "innovation" alone enough...? It seems to me that some artists... some works of art... strive toward "innovation"... but the result is little more than novelty. It seems to me that a unique vision and a mastery of the artistic language well suited toward giving this vision form is far more important than striving toward the novelty of something no one else has ever thought of with ever-decreasing results.

If there's been any hijacking, it's been from the kinds of music that look backwards to older (and hence more familiar) musics. And the only thing that's happened is that since "innovative" is "cool," then in order to be cool, you have to define yourself as "innovative," even if you're obviously not.

Which backward looking composers define themselves as innovative? 

Some guys have interesting fantasy lives.

But there are all those nasty folks who are not regressive (am I trying to sneak "progressive" in by the back door here? No.), who are trying to do something new (as in "nova"). Those people really ARE innovative. But for you to call yourself innovative means you have to deny the innovators the word that really does describe them.

Innovative, new, nova, nuevo, neue... Is this, once again, the sole measure of artistic merit? And what degree of "innovation" is necessary to make a work of art worthy? Or is it not possible that there are other elements that may be equally valuable... equally essential?

Thing about innovation in music is that it usually happens in spite of the composers intention. It really doesn't do to try too hard to be innovative. There are many examples in the history of music where composers are quite shocked by the reaction to their music. Music they did not themselves consider revolutionary or 'difficult', but which came naturally and intuitively to them.

This is likely true. But are these surprisingly, shockingly "innovative" or "revolutionary" works the only works of any real merit... even within a given artist's oeuvre. Might it not be possible that an artist who builds upon a given artistic vocabulary will achieve works just as worthy of admiration as an iconoclastic revolutionary?


----------



## KenOC

This "innovative" idea is, to me, a psychological artifact. Even MacDowell felt he had to name some piano music "Modern Suites," as if the adjective added value to his works (which were hardly "modern" even then). Bartok, to friends, after an early performance: "Well? Was it modern enough?"

About a century ago advertisers caught on to the fact that people tended to attach values to certain words. Tests at that time showed that the two most positively-loaded words were "new" and "improved." That hasn't changed: Look at the cans and boxes in your cupboard.

In some people's minds, the idea has grown into a virtue outweighing all others.


----------



## Guest

Um, St, the post of yours that I was responding to was nothing to do with merit.

And my response was nothing to do with merit.

Merit is a different discussion. Not one I'm interested in having, by the way, but that's as may be.

It is not the discussion I was in. It has nothing to do with the point you were making, nor with the counter point I made.


----------



## ArtMusic

Novelty is what you see in the vast majority of extreme avant-garde more than anything else. Sadly.


----------



## dgee

ArtMusic said:


> Novelty is what you see in the vast majority of extreme avant-garde more than anything else. Sadly.


Yes! Otherwise it wouldn't be "extreme avant garde"


----------



## ArtMusic

dgee said:


> Yes! Otherwise it wouldn't be "extreme avant garde"


Thank you for stating that.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> This "innovative" idea is, to me, a psychological artifact. Even MacDowell felt he had to name some piano music "Modern Suites," as if the adjective added value to his works (which were hardly "modern" even then). Bartok, to friends, after an early performance: "Well? Was it modern enough?"
> 
> About a century ago advertisers caught on to the fact that people tended to attach values to certain words. Tests at that time showed that the two most positively-loaded words were "new" and "improved." That hasn't changed: Look at the cans and boxes in your cupboard.
> 
> In some people's minds, the idea has grown into a virtue outweighing all others.


There is a term from advertising, "Super-consumer", latin is the first half, meaning 'above.' The super consumer is then, by that industry's definition, unable to be reached or influenced by all the bells and whistles of the calculatedly freighted 'new & Improved' sort of campaign / assault mentality.

Style, and Innovation really are better off given the same weight, i.e. none. Content is at the pith, style and innovation will likely be an inherent part of a thing with truly valuable content.


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> Novelty is what you see in the vast majority of extreme avant-garde more than anything else. Sadly.


Novelty is what _you_ see in the vast majority of extreme avant-garde more than anything else. Sadly.

Speak for yourself.


----------



## ArtMusic

PetrB said:


> Novelty is what _you_ see in the vast majority of extreme avant-garde more than anything else. Sadly.
> 
> Speak for yourself.


I speak for many, real life people who I engage with outside of the internet.


----------



## dgee

That video is not terribly novel! Or hurty for delicate ears - what is it? An electroacoustic studio student recital?


----------



## ArtMusic

dgee said:


> That video is not terribly novel! Or hurty for delicate ears - what is it? An electroacoustic studio student recital?


Weird stuff. "Musical". Avant-garde. This one was a classic which members here have posted before.


----------



## Guest

Nice clips. I wonder if Chloe is any relation to Chris.

Anyway, I see stuff like this all the time, so for me it has no novelty at all. For me it's just music. Delightful and engaging music.

All of you, no matter what your orientation, must surely know already that the less knowledge you have about something the more novel that thing will seem to you.

But here it is. The situation is really pretty simple. Ideology trumps common sense.

An example that everyone here will be familiar with: If two people listen to the identical recording and one person likes it a lot and the other person thinks it's total crap, where is the difference? Obviously, it's not in the music. The actual sound waves are identical in each case. Obviously, the difference in the experience and in opinion is in the two people. This is so simple and logical and obvious, I'm always surprised that there's ever any debate about it at all. Yet in these discussions, if anyone locates a negative opinion about music in the person, that will unleash a firestorm of accusations about "blaming the audience."

Well, yeah. If it's a matter of perception, then it's people doing it. And the audience is made up of people. And, of course, going back to the example with only two people, the likelihood that some people in the audience will be digging something at the same time other people are rejecting the same thing is pretty high. The _same_ thing. (So it's not the thing that accounts for the difference.)

But reacting negatively to music and expressing those reactions at every opportunity is seen by some people as a right. And not only a right, as we have seen, but a responsibility. It is their _responsibility_ to warn other people away from the things that they hate. And so logic is buried. The important thing is to hate, to express hatred, and to warn others.

Funny thing, though. You know the common expression--haters gonna hate. But the opposite is equally true. And always will be. In that case, truly what is the point in trying to cut people off from things they might be able to love? (How does anyone's loving something affect you?)


----------



## Petwhac

^ Hard to argue with some-guy's logic but what about the following scenario?
I have occasionally taken on a student for keyboard playing or midi programming or DAW training.
One young chap I was helping with theory and teaching some basic keyboard technique (Bach's 1st Prelude from the 48). 
He also wanted to learn pop (he's now doing music tech at Uni-and is a DJ too). I always tried to introduce him to the great classical works and he was often enthusiastic about them but not so good at putting in the hard slog to learn them.

Sometimes he would come along and play me a pop video on youtube and ask me to show him the chords etc. This I was happy to do though I'd want to return to the Bach or some sight-reading practice afterwards.

However, when he wanted me to work out from the video some Einaudi that he liked, I just couldn't bring myself to agree. I told him to keep practicing his scales and arpeggios and he'd be able to write something similar himself! By refusing, I was imposing my opinion on him and telling him that something he loved was unworthy of _his_ attention let alone mine.

Perhaps it was wrong of me but in my role as his (informal) educator I felt it my duty to let him know when I think something is..........crap, IMO.

The music in question is no more rudimentary than the pop tracks but the pop tracks were songs. He wanted to know the accompanying chords to the songs so he could sit a play them. But I told him if he wanted me to teach him solo piano compositions I was going to use Bach-Beethoven-Chopin etc.

Thus, I have coloured his view of Einaudi by stating my honest opinion.


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> ^ Hard to argue with some-guy's logic but what about the following scenario?
> I have occasionally taken on a student for keyboard playing or midi programming or DAW training.
> One young chap I was helping with theory and teaching some basic keyboard technique (Bach's 1st Prelude from the 48).
> He also wanted to learn pop (he's now doing music tech at Uni-and is a DJ too). I always tried to introduce him to the great classical works and he was often enthusiastic about them but not so good at putting in the hard slog to learn them.
> 
> Sometimes he would come along and play me a pop video on youtube and ask me to show him the chords etc. This I was happy to do though I'd want to return to the Bach or some sight-reading practice afterwards.
> 
> However, when he wanted me to work out from the video some Einaudi that he liked, I just couldn't bring myself to agree. I told him to keep practicing his scales and arpeggios and he'd be able to write something similar himself! By refusing, I was imposing my opinion on him and telling him that something he loved was unworthy of _his_ attention let alone mine.
> 
> Perhaps it was wrong of me but in my role as his (informal) educator I felt it my duty to let him know when I think something is..........crap, IMO.
> 
> The music in question is no more rudimentary than the pop tracks but the pop tracks were songs. He wanted to know the accompanying chords to the songs so he could sit a play them. But I told him if he wanted me to teach him solo piano compositions I was going to use Bach-Beethoven-Chopin etc.
> 
> Thus, I have coloured his view of Einaudi by stating my honest opinion.


That situation may have a different spin, i.e. his needing to function to accompany himself in songs. I "never" gave in to requests for material of the pop piano genre, at least as subject to study. Call it rationale or reason, but so much of that offers next to nothing in the way of anything worth the effort en route to a gain of technique or really 'working the instrument.' I did meet those requests part-way, at least. "Study this. It will give you more technique and ability to negotiate the piano, in general, and then, if you would like to work on that on your own, I will be happy to briefly check it with you."

Enough of them capitulated / adhered to the assigned classical material, both more musically and technically challenging, and that did prove to them which was the better to spend time on. They found with a bit of patience with that rep, they could then go to that other genre more on their own and make a very good go of it.

While not fully refusing, I'm sure it still telegraphed some message about my tastes around that other genre, but I did keep it on a 'more gain' platform vs. just flat out refusing. Some of those who followed through did 'go there,' by their natural tastes and inclinations. All in all, not a bad middle ground, I thought.

I also think it is near impossible to not telegraph your preferences even within the varied music of the classical genre.

[All this is quite different from repeating, with something near to a deeply smug glee, "I don't like music X, it is crap."]


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> That situation may have a different spin, i.e. his needing to function to accompany himself in songs. I "never" gave in to requests for material of the pop piano genre, at least as subject to study. Call it rationale or reason, but so much of that offers next to nothing in the way of anything worth the effort en route to a gain of technique or really 'working the instrument.' I did meet those requests part-way, at least. "Study this. It will give you more technique and ability to negotiate the piano, in general, and then, if you would like to work on that on your own, I will be happy to briefly check it with you."
> 
> Enough of them capitulated / adhered to the assigned classical material, both more musically and technically challenging, and that did prove to them which was the better to spend time on. They found with a bit of patience with that rep, they could then go to that other genre more on their own and make a very good go of it.
> 
> While not fully refusing, I'm sure it still telegraphed some message about my tastes around that other genre, but I did keep it on a 'more gain' platform vs. just flat out refusing. Some of those who followed through did 'go there,' by their natural tastes and inclinations. All in all, not a bad middle ground, I thought.
> 
> I also think it is near impossible to not telegraph your preferences even within the varied music of the classical genre.
> 
> [All this is quite different from repeating, with something near to a deeply smug glee, "I don't like music X, it is crap."]


Well I knew he was destined to go into pop/dance music and would need more to be able to find his way around a keyboard than to have dexterity and technique in fingering. But I was damned if I was going to suffer the tedium of transcribing the music from audio unless it was music I personally found worthy. I rarely teach, actually. Which is probably just as well for the world. I prefer to teach theory than piano anyway.


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> Well I knew he was destined to go into pop/dance music and would need more to be able to find his way around a keyboard than to have dexterity and technique in fingering. But I was damned if I was going to suffer the tedium of transcribing the music from audio unless it was music I personally found worthy. I rarely teach, actually. Which is probably just as well for the world. I prefer to teach theory than piano anyway.


Transcribing from audio (a part time summer gig while in conservatory, for a well-known record company in town -- when copyright demanded musical notation of anything  is demanding, time consuming even if you're fairly good at it, and a specialized skill which demands a rather stiff pay rate. _No wonder you turned that down -- you would have to sit, listening to that which you do not like at all, repeatedly._ I think that is a reasonable enough line where you are free to 'just say no.'

I would never dream of doing that within the 'price of a lesson.' I would train their ears as part of a lesson program, so they had a better idea of what was involved, and maybe a chance to do it for themselves. Transcriptions (I'm waaaay out of practice there) I would just not do, or I would have to charge for at through the nose rates 

I would have thought that just everything by Einaudi was readily available in print -- his is such an aggressive pops business, after all.


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> Transcribing from audio (a part time summer gig while in conservatory, for a well-known record company in town -- when copyright demanded musical notation of anything .


Me too!


----------



## ArtMusic

some guy said:


> An example that everyone here will be familiar with: If two people listen to the identical recording and one person likes it a lot and the other person thinks it's total crap, where is the difference? Obviously, it's not in the music. The actual sound waves are identical in each case. Obviously, the difference in the experience and in opinion is in the two people. This is so simple and logical and obvious, I'm always surprised that there's ever any debate about it at all. Yet in these discussions, if anyone locates a negative opinion about music in the person, that will unleash a firestorm of accusations about "blaming the audience."


An example that everyone here will be familiar with: if two people eat the infamous "Heart Attack Grill Quadruple Bypass" burger at Heart Attack Grill in Las Vegas, and one person likes it a lot and the other person thinks it's total crap, is it sensible to ask "where is the difference"? Is it obviously not in the burger? This is so simple and logical and obvious, I'm always surprised that there's ever any debate about it at all. Yet in these discussions, if the person who enjoys the burger continues to consume it, it's really just not only bad for their taste buds, but quite demeaning for the food restuarants as a whole serving quality burgers, and people who eat healthy generally.


----------



## Petwhac

ArtMusic said:


> An example that everyone here will be familiar with: if two people eat the infamous "Heart Attack Grill Quadruple Bypass" burger at Heart Attack Grill in Las Vegas, and one person likes it a lot and the other person thinks it's total crap, is it sensible to ask "where is the difference"? Is it obviously not in the burger? This is so simple and logical and obvious, I'm always surprised that there's ever any debate about it at all. Yet in these discussions, if the person who enjoys the burger continues to consume it, it's really just not only bad for their taste buds, but quite demeaning for the food restuarants as a whole serving quality burgers, and people who eat healthy generally.


I'm afraid your comparison just shows that some people enjoy eating what other people consider total crap. It is still a matter of opinion.

I think what makes the burger unhealthy (according to some views, not all) is the amount of saturated fat and sugars so it is more a matter of quantity not quality.

Perhaps if we limit the amount of crap music we listen to we'll be Ok.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the problem with people accessing modern music is one of the harmonic language itself being slowly subverted into an era of "scientific uniformity." This crisis of language vs. technology finally hit its apex around the turn of the century, when all the attempts of the late 19th century to achieve equal temperament were finally realized, when frequency could be measured electrically.

Thus, the reason for being of HIP tunings and performances. After all, tonal music is _supposed_ to be based on _harmonic _models; _acoustic truths, _small whole-number ratios.

The rise of chromaticism and Equal Temperament in order to accommodate the opposing force, that of geometrically-even divisions of the chromatic scale, has finally won the day, and even the acoustic truth of the past is now filtered through the distorting lens of scientific rationalism.

But music has always contained this seed of conflict. Pythagoras' attempt to preserve the fifth (3:2) and octave, by arbitrarily closing the infinite spiral of irrationality, created the compromise of geometrically-divided relations which music & composers have always sought, ever since the 12-division. The battle of acoustic ratios, vs. the artificially-created man-made intervals of the tri-tone, minor third, and deformed, smaller, dissonant major third - sadly, collateral damage in preserving the fifth - has finally resulted in a "disconnect" between music's original acoustic objectives, and between the man-made, measured truth of the 5-limit. Acoustic music is open, sensuous, and visceral; 12-divided music is introspective, closed, spiraling inward, cerebral and logical, beautiful in its own way. As Goethe observed when observing the pentagram, the "gap" is there, and always has been, whenever Man tries to steer nature.

But what's the problem? This discrepancy has already been dealt with, by Lamont Young, Philip Glass, Terry Riley, Hary Partch, ironically now branded as "modernists" by those who oppose minimalism; the only solution for these adherents of tradition is to freeze time, to return to the compromised innocence of unknowing. A noble era, yes, but not accurate; this solution worked for a time, for an era, for a lost history which no longer lives, except as a re-animation of the vitality it once embodied. a museum of sound, of compromise, of Man's truth vs. nature.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Off-topic remarks of a derogatory nature have been removed from this discussion. Please get back on topic.


----------



## Taggart

millionrainbows said:


> Thus, the reason for being of HIP tunings and performances. After all, tonal music is _supposed_ to be based on _harmonic _models; _acoustic truths, _small whole-number ratios.
> 
> The rise of chromaticism and Equal Temperament in order to accommodate the opposing force, that of geometrically-even divisions of the chromatic scale, has finally won the day, and even the acoustic truth of the past is now filtered through the distorting lens of scientific rationalism.


I think these are very true comments in an excellent post. Certainly HIP music is a re-interpretation of older music. However there are other traditions which are still alive which preserve "the acoustic truth of the past". Bagpipe music is one. All sorts of folk music is another. I posted a modern piece today (yes, me - it's from 1951 ). The thing is, it's based on Jewish music. (entertainingly, his daughter Suzanne Bloch was an early music specialist). Klezmer is a folk tradition which preserves the old style because of its links with religious music.



millionrainbows said:


> the only solution for these adherents of tradition is to freeze time, to return to the compromised innocence of unknowing. A noble era, yes, but not accurate; this solution worked for a time, for an era, for a lost history which no longer lives, except as a re-animation of the vitality it once embodied. a museum of sound, of compromise, of Man's truth vs. nature.


Given what I have said above, I think tradition is alive and well. Yes, HIP represents a revival, but after 70 years it is a working and living revival and I think the patient is off life support. Just as the Cloud of Unknowing suggests of God, if you enter the realm of "unknowingness," you begin to glimpse the true nature of music.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> I think the problem with people accessing modern music is one of the harmonic language itself being slowly subverted into an era of "scientific uniformity." This crisis of language vs. technology finally hit its apex around the turn of the century, when all the attempts of the late 19th century to achieve equal temperament were finally realized, when frequency could be measured electrically.
> 
> Thus, the reason for being of HIP tunings and performances. After all, tonal music is _supposed_ to be based on _harmonic _models; _acoustic truths, _small whole-number ratios.
> 
> The rise of chromaticism and Equal Temperament in order to accommodate the opposing force, that of geometrically-even divisions of the chromatic scale, has finally won the day, and even the acoustic truth of the past is now filtered through the distorting lens of scientific rationalism.
> 
> But music has always contained this seed of conflict. Pythagoras' attempt to preserve the fifth (3:2) and octave, by arbitrarily closing the infinite spiral of irrationality, created the compromise of geometrically-divided relations which music & composers have always sought, ever since the 12-division. The battle of acoustic ratios, vs. the artificially-created man-made intervals of the tri-tone, minor third, and deformed, smaller, dissonant major third - sadly, collateral damage in preserving the fifth - has finally resulted in a "disconnect" between music's original acoustic objectives, and between the man-made, measured truth of the 5-limit. Acoustic music is open, sensuous, and visceral; 12-divided music is introspective, closed, spiraling inward, cerebral and logical, beautiful in its own way. As Goethe observed when observing the pentagram, the "gap" is there, and always has been, whenever Man tries to steer nature.
> 
> But what's the problem? This discrepancy has already been dealt with, by Lamont Young, Philip Glass, Terry Riley, Hary Partch, ironically now branded as "modernists" by those who oppose minimalism; the only solution for these adherents of tradition is to freeze time, to return to the compromised innocence of unknowing. A noble era, yes, but not accurate; this solution worked for a time, for an era, for a lost history which no longer lives, except as a re-animation of the vitality it once embodied. a museum of sound, of compromise, of Man's truth vs. nature.


The flow of reasoning in this post is quite impressive. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

The true nature of music, eh?

That should generate some heat.

Light, though. Light is what we want. (And by "want," I mean "lack.")

No, really. Let's cut to the most basic level.

1) The anti-modernist sentiment got going around 1800. It was a direct result of the new way of looking at music, which was to revere the past in a way that was unprecedented. The term "classical music" was coined then. The idea of "greatness" as applied to music grew up around that time. The debate over which is better, old or new, started around this time. It would not even have been possible earlier. And it was a hundred years old before the twentieth century dawned.

2) There are people who can and do listen to the most extreme, the most difficult, the most hideous things that can be imagined--that is, have been imagined by members of the audience who do not listen to them--listen to them without ever thinking or even needing those delightful things to be extreme or difficult or hideous. In fact, for some of us, the only difficult thing is to imagine anyone actually disliking the offerings of the New York, Darmstadt, West Coast, Spectralist, Serial, Experimental schools. What's to dislike?

Fortunately, there are people like mmsbls who came to these things the hard way and can sympathize. Unfortunately, none of the non-modernists really cares.

Very most basic level: *It Is Not About The Music.*


----------



## Mahlerian

some guy said:


> Fortunately, there are people like mmsbls who came to these things the hard way and can sympathize. Unfortunately, none of the non-modernists really cares.


Their ears must have gone wrong at some point. Obviously they lost the ability to understand, or they'd realize that there are no performances of this music that the audience doesn't want and no one wants to play!

...or they are all lying.


----------



## Guest

[Double post. The internet is very unreliable where I am at the moment.]


----------



## KenOC

The noble art has come to a sad pass indeed when audiences feel they have the right to like what they like and dislike what they don't, and to disregard the expert tutelage readily available. O tempora o mores!


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> The noble art has come to a sad pass indeed when audiences feel they have the right to like what they like and dislike what they don't, and to disregard the expert tutelage readily available. O tempora o mores!


Never fear, there are online tutorials which anyone can do in the privacy of their own home without any embarrassment.

I know, it used to be drivers and passengers, now it is all drivers and nothing but backseat passengers who oughtta be driving. Land 'o' goshen, its an unraveled mess


----------



## arpeggio

*???????????????*

Is classical music dying? I do not know.

Is contemporary classical music dying? Again I do not know.

I realize that this in anecdotal but based on my experiences as an amateur, I do not think so.

I appears to me that there are people who sincerely believe that any art, it could music, paintings, literature or movies, that they dislike is bad. As a result they look for any bogus rationalizations to support the views. They have to prove to the world that their tastes are infallible.


----------



## hpowders

Well if you compare the number of radio stations that broadcast classical music in the 1950's-1960's to now, you can draw your own conclusion. Very few major cities seem to take our group seriously any more.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Well if you compare the number of radio stations that broadcast classical music in the 1950's-1960's to now, you can draw your own conclusion. Very few major cities seem to take our group seriously any more.


If I had my money invested in a radio station, I'd think twice about classical music. I mean, the next commercial in 65 minutes after this Bruckner symphony??? Does not compute in a capitalist society. It's not all taste (though some of it probably is).

It's also a question of demographics. We used to have not one but *two* classical stations! The second (then KMZT) changed formats after a while. All their ads were either for cancer cures or Forest Lawn Cemetery.


----------



## Sid James

arpeggio said:


> ...
> I appears to me that there are people who sincerely believe that any art, it could music, paintings, literature or movies, that they dislike is bad. As a result they look for any bogus rationalizations to support the views. They have to prove to the world that their tastes are infallible.


I think it is less about the actual music and more about the ideologies attached to it. The idea that only those (or mostly those) who hate modern or contemporary classical are prone to questioning it doesn't make sense to me at all. So what we have to accept is that there will be those who cross that rubicon between music and ideology. Its like a politician from one side of parliament crossing the floor to vote on a certain issue with the opposing party on the other side of the chamber.

So I'd be interested in how many people here have kind of "crossed the floor" so to speak on Modernism/modernism (even the matter of me using a captial or lower case is controversial, potentially). What about those in the middle who are uncommitted or maybe even don't care or (holy of holies!) dare to question BOTH sides, BOTH extremes. Is anyone here TOTALLY 100 per cent conservative/retrograde or radical/vanguard in terms of their ideology? Do I think these are hollow stereotypes? You bet!

Until we kind of come out of the closet on these issues - these taboos and a kind of conformity at either polarity - then its going to go on and on non-stop like a merry go round.

No matter how many times I stress for example that I like a composer's music or some of it, but am wary of his ideology, I am still crossing some ideological line that by implication (some unwritten rule) should never be crossed.

Its similar to not liking say conceptual art, the subject of the article in the opening post of this thread, and then being labelled as ignorant of all art.

The result ends up like this thread which went for like 100 pages:

http://www.talkclassical.com/13778-what-point-atonal-music.html

Tit for tat.

We've got to get real I think!


----------



## ahammel

Sid James said:


> So I'd be interested in how many people here have kind of "crossed the floor" so to speak on Modernism/modernism (even the matter of me using a captial or lower case is controversial, potentially). What about those in the middle who are uncommitted or maybe even don't care or (holy of holies!) dare to question BOTH sides, BOTH extremes. Is anyone here TOTALLY 100 per cent conservative/retrograde or radical/vanguard in terms of their ideology? Do I think these are hollow stereotypes? You bet!


What is the ideology of Modernism meant to be?


----------



## Blake

Traditions die hard, so "ground-breakers" will almost always be a hard pill to swallow for most. But the ground-breakers will become tradition, and new pioneers will break those grounds... and again... and again... and again... Everything has its time in the sun, and then goes away... life is synonymous with change. There are as many active ways of dealing with this as there are people on this planet.


----------



## Sid James

ahammel said:


> What is the ideology of Modernism meant to be?


I will restrict answering you to the topic in terms of the focus of this thread, the issue in Visconti's article is the relationship between the composer and his/her audience.

A core tenet of the Modernist ideology that was predominant for a lot of the 20th century is that if a composer has success with mainstream audiences then its likely he is a sell out. Even Stravinsky's Neo-Classical period was described in these terms, as a kind of artistic retrenchment or sinking back from pushing things a la _Rite of Spring _(but even that work can be described as sell out, its concert hall premiere was a phenomenal success, and in the decade following it was performed all over Europe and the USA). Then he redeemed himself, supposedly, once he got into serialism.

Penderecki is another one, after he went from more experimental 'texture music' style (taking in things like innovations in sonority, in microtonality) back to a Romantic and more traditional aesthetic.

I did a thread on this here:

http://www.talkclassical.com/20565-selling-out.html

I agree with Visconti's view of this, especially the quote below, which I think tries to steer clear of dogma and focus on pragmatism and flexibility. Its up to each individual composer to deal with these issues, not with those who pull him down for being sell outs or pandering to some lowest common denominator or some nonsense.

_There's no formula for success, as every artist must find his or her own voice and, along the way, new and personal ways of establishing a kind of rapport with listeners._

Michael Tippett said something similar, about the need for composers to get out of the ivory tower and enter the marketplace, and I quoted that at length here. Copland had similar views.


----------



## arpeggio

*Economics*



hpowders said:


> Well if you compare the number of radio stations that broadcast classical music in the 1950's-1960's to now, you can draw your own conclusion. Very few major cities seem to take our group seriously any more.


The majority of the sources I have seen that address the state of classical music radio stations in American have attributed the decline to economics not esthetic's.


----------



## KenOC

arpeggio said:


> The majority of the sources I have seen that address the state of classical music radio stations in American have attributed the decline to economics not esthetic's.


Even in the days of the church, music was about economics. Certainly since. A truth that some find uncomfortable.


----------



## ahammel

Sid James said:


> A core tenet of the Modernist ideology that was predominant for a lot of the 20th century is that if a composer has success with mainstream audiences then its likely he is a sell out


Well then I will state for the record that, fond as I am of contemporary classical music, I think that is a very stupid idea.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Even in the days of the church, music was about economics. Certainly since. A truth that some find uncomfortable.


The economics regarding radio stations has nothing to do with 'modernism' or any newer music which the hoi polloi might find hard to chew, swallow or digest.

It has everything to do with an decreased availability / opportunity of advertising time, less spots per hour, because the airing of all three movements of a symphony or piano concerto without pause does not allow enough smaller time intervals in between plays in which to insert advertisements.

Some advertisers used to feel the 'demographic' of those who preferred their radio this way, whether it was Monteverdi, Mozart or Rachmainoff, could best be reached through these 'culture channels' -- another pitch at what was thought to be a demographic with healthy incomes, college degrees, etc. but this in fact has a lot to do with the association of classical with 'status and income.'

That audience has been replaced by younger who are not yet the target market for long cruises, financial / trust fund management services, elegant retirement homes with discreet medical staff on site, etc -- who might be in a similar economic slot to well pitch the more upscale items to, but instead, they are using subscribed to streaming internet services. This younger group are used to 'free' youtube, and other such media -- having much to do with their shift away from live performance attendance, and a want and expectation to have all at their fingertips makes the 'dependence' inherent upon the programming of even the better classical stations vs. click of the button on / off choose as not at all an option for the current habits listeners have. Indeed, making an appointment for a date of a live performance to hear a particular work must seem near archaic to those now used to what they want when they want it.

*The small percent (really small) of contemporary / modern music as part of this story is so negligible as to make considering it any part of the problem as completely laughable.* Modernism and contemporary music is simply the area of music those who are now despairing that they don't have radio or as inexpensive access to hearing 'all the old stuff' live have chosen as their scapegoat.

It isn't about "the music." It is about the consumer and a shift in consumer habits, expectations and wants, with a general lessened willingness to make any effort to go hear anything live, a generation who want their entertainments quick 'n' easy -- with instant access, including the ability to 'channel surf,' switch on or off mid-stream in any given piece, skip to this movement, 'that bit, etc.'

It is not the music, but another sort of contemporary consumer. In that regard, a lot of what is complained about of the woes of the music industry is very much about 'the people.' Call them lacking if you like, but something about who they are and how they 'use' anything they consume has very much changed. That change, to be addressed and corrected in order to infuse classical music of any sort with more revenues to stay alive, may not suit anyone who is old-school about any of it, and that includes people like me who very actively consume, including the 'modern and contemporary.'


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> The economics regarding radio stations has nothing to do with 'modernism' or any newer music hard for the hoi polloi which they might find hard to chew, swallow or digest.


I believe this is absolutely untrue. While CM certainly lacks sufficient breaks for commercials, the playing of more "modern" music on the radio is clearly anathema. Like dead air, it is a station changer. Even the mildest of such music (Bartok for instance) is avoided, even on stations dependent on donations rather than advertising revenues. For aficionados, there are late-night programs (ours is "Modern Times") where some such music might be played. But hardly ever when most people are awake!

Things may be different on smaller fully-funded university stations where public donations are less important.


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> I believe this is absolutely untrue. While CM certainly lacks sufficient breaks for commercials, the playing of more "modern" music on the radio is clearly anathema. Like dead air, it is a station changer. Even the mildest of such music (Bartok for instance) is avoided, even on stations dependent on donations rather than advertising revenues. For aficionados, there are late-night programs (ours is "Modern Times") where some such music might be played. But hardly ever when most people are awake!


I only have experience with a small number of classical music stations, but from that experience I would agree with the above. I asked several hosts of stations that are listener supported (no commercials) why they hardly play any modern music. Their answer was very clear. Modern music will drive away their listenership. While this assessment is not scientific, it is based on feedback. Obviously they cannot know whether playing modern music could gain them significant new membership, but businesses tend to be conservative and tend not to leap into unknown territory.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> I believe this is absolutely untrue. While CM certainly lacks sufficient breaks for commercials, the playing of more "modern" music on the radio is clearly anathema. Like dead air, it is a station changer. Even the mildest of such music (Bartok for instance) is avoided, even on stations dependent on donations rather than advertising revenues. For aficionados, there are late-night programs (ours is "Modern Times") where some such music might be played. But hardly ever when most people are awake!


That might be a 'channel changer' in one locale where it might not be so much, in San Francisco, L.A. or Manhattan. It IS probably a channel changer in general, even in Europe, but far less so.

There has to be some unabashed criticism of an audience who 'just want the old and familiar' -- whatever slant of the argument -- false rationale that the old stuff is the only good stuff. An amount of intellectual sloth, intellectual laziness must be called out.

I am prepared for the cliche comeback that Mozart and Beethoven were both great and popular, but glossing over the near third or so of either composers' works which were 'difficult' for a large part of the public then and now just to hype the popular / populist great composer theory -- and to perhaps fit well within the comfort zone of both the listening habit and 'business outlook' of the person so arguing -- has to be discounted in the same percent as there is a percent existing from both composers of those 'difficult for the people' pieces.

Otherwise that argument is another highly selective cherry-pick of 'convenient facts' ignoring the other facts just to make a point, the point made falsely, with a good bunch of evidence to the contrary withheld in order 'to win.'


----------



## PetrB

If the public feels they have the right to hold the composers accountable, cannot the composers have the right to hold the public also 'accountable?'

...or are composers and all artists still frozen in some model of a social construct where they are still considered the servants while the people are the lords and masters?


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> If the public feels they have the right to hold the composers accountable, cannot the composers have the right to hold the public also 'accountable?'


Certainly they have the right. But there is the question of whether they have the power to enforce their views.

In fact, it's not a matter of the public holding composers "accountable." It's much simpler than that. It's people avoiding what they don't want to hear. Quite impersonal. And of course in our society, the people are indeed "the lords and masters." Would you have it otherwise?


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> If the public feels they have the right to hold the composers accountable, cannot the composers have the right to hold the public also 'accountable?'
> 
> ...or are composers and all artists still frozen in some model of a social construct where they are still considered the servants while the people are the lords and masters?


Music - highbrow or not - is an entertainment. Hence composers are accountable to the likes or dislike of the public or some body which provides the money. Some composers have chosen to write music no-one likes. Then they bleat that the hoi polloi doesn't wasn't to hear it.


----------



## mmsbls

I don't think the public or composers can really hold the other accountable, but there is an asymmetry in the relationship. The public can refuse to support the composer (not attend concerts, not purchase music. etc.) and, thus, affect the composer's standard of living. The composer can affect the public vastly less.

There is, therefore, a reason why some composers "compose to the public" or sellout - something the public does not do.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Music - highbrow or not - is an entertainment.


Oh-oh. Dangerous ground here! Duck and cover! I learned how to do that in grade school...


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> Music - highbrow or not - is an entertainment. Hence composers are accountable to the likes or dislike of the public or some body which provides the money. Some composers have chosen to write music no-one likes. Then they bleat that the hoi polloi doesn't wasn't to hear it.


I think very few who are writing music they KNOW will not have a wide audience are 'bleating' about it at all. Those who do bleat have usually found almost no audience at all, because the music is generally 'poorly.' (Less high-profile, there are a slew of academic conservative composers whose works get done exactly once -- I have a hunch they wrote what many an anti-modernist classical fan might have thought was the 'new' music as it should be written.)

Anti-modernists (where are they born, grow up, develop? _will_ make the argument that _all_ they dislike of the new is 'poor' music, while readily consuming and lauding some not so great second and third-stringer older composers.

The most, and loudest noise, seems to come from the more conservative classical fan whenever modern or contemporary music appears, in performance, or in discussion. They wail, they despair... all the while evidently unhappy and dissatisfied with the amount of older classical music continually available to them... an ocean of it, in fact.

"Music is an entertainment." "Simple minds are simply entertained."

Any other blazing flashes of the most obvious anyone care to drag out?


----------



## dgee

I think it's always a bit special when classical music fans start taking up the power of the audience to decide what is awesome to decry anything (a sub-genre, era, in the "classical music"/"art music"/"serious music" space. Because listeners (i.e. people with ears) have overwhelmingly decided that the type of music we come and discuss so serious on this very site sux hard and they don't listen to it or buy it on CD or download or go to concert halls OR give it money so it may gloriously continue. And that audience is OLD and that is bad because you're all going to die soon

So, Verdi operas and all Beethoven nights with top piano soloists and when the touring chamber ensemble comes to town with Mozart and Brahms and Dvorak are all suffering and will probably suffer more as subscibers head to the great concert hall in the sky

However, from what I have seen and can see as a former orchestral performer, orchestra board member and active participant in my local contemporary music scene, small scale, niche stuff is taking off. Little (and getting bigger) contempo things are well-organised and are gathering a young, hip audience (whoa - young people playing rebellious music to young people - what a crazy idea!). Performer-driven things including those with oddball repertoire, HIP, unusual groups (friends of mine organise a successful brass festival for instance where brass band, jazz and contemporary performers all feature) are growing in participation and recognition as providing quality music experiences at lower prices and with a point of difference.

The orchestra I used to be involved with has thrived (relatively) due to programming innovations pairing known soloists and known rep (for the subscribers (read oldies) - biggest drawcard) with racier material and the odd jazz/pop crossover and good contemporary works (because orchestras (and arts org in general) programme a lot of poor contemporary works as they get nervy about not upsetting people - just programme good music and people will enjoy it or not. You programme crummy inoffensive stuff and nobody is happy!!! (NOTE this is probably a sign of fear and how badly things are going)). The programmes with crossover (some of which are quite interesting but not always :-( ) and contemporary works attracted a younger audience - wow!!!! And as much as I like all you oldies and appreciate all you've done for music you ain't the future. And just look how these kids ain't getting turned on by a sublime Beethoven 6 - they're quite digging some Berio and Ligeti (and if I'm honest, some Bernstein too ;-). Also the MD talks and is funny and informative - that helps too

Look, just my story and maybe other stuff is happening elsewhere, but I thought it might be worth sharing. Classical music blows for most and even I'm a terrible concert goer (but I'm also a solo parent, so babysitting's my excuse) but look what happens when you do something different, not just double down on "popular" classics - because they're just not popular enough to help you these days I reckon. Maybe time to change yr business model


----------



## dgee

duplicate..............................


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> The noble art has come to a sad pass indeed when audiences feel they have the right to like what they like and dislike what they don't, and to disregard the expert tutelage readily available. O tempora o mores!


Nice snark, but only possible by ignoring history. The bourgeois audiences that developed in the nineteenth century wanted and expected expert tutelage, which was willingly supplied. The more heterogeneous audiences of the 18th century neither needed nor wanted any expert tutelage. The audiences for concert music nowadays also want expert tutelage, which they are supplied, in increasing dosages. These "experts" contribute to the idea that modern is bad and old is good--who in this picture is truly liking what they like and disliking what they don't?

And speaking of experts, here's another take on the ideology business for ahammel: The idea that "if a composer has success with mainstream audiences then its likely he is a sell out" is not a core tenet of modernist ideology. It is an imposition from the outside by those who are disaffected with modernism, may be. But it is not a tenet of modernism itself. I mean, come on, look at it. This is a petty and silly notion, "stupid," as you point out. How is it even possible for such pettiness to be a "core" tenet of anything except maybe a junior high clique.

Early twentieth century modernists--read them to find out what their tenets were--were not a bunch of insecure junior high students. They were serious artists with serious things to say about their art. This quote from Visconti, just by the way, is ingenuous--and another gross simplification of the situation: "There's no formula for success, as every artist must find his or her own voice and, along the way, new and personal ways of establishing a kind of rapport with listeners."

Of course, as we have seen on this thread, there definitely IS a formula for success--treat your composing decisions as marketing decisions. Find out what the bulk of the concert audience already likes and supply that product to them. What's more, if an artist's "own voice" turns out to be some live eai thing with video and turntables and the like or perhaps a bit of new complexity for acoustic instruments, what's the likelihood of that being criticized for "turning away the audience" and "living in an ivory tower"?

The "new and personal ways of establishing a kind of rapport with listeners" is great advice, but how is it to be implemented? We're kinda short on the implementation part of it, aren't we? Maybe because we have to let artists find their own way, eh? And by "their own" way, we really mean "our own way," giving us what "we" want. And the "we" is very carefully defined (and the definition is very carefully concealed) as "those of us who prefer older music and who want our new composers to supply us with more of the same."

Do not find your own voice. Speak with the voices that WE already know.

In the radio debate, mmsbls points out that "While this assessment is not scientific, it is based on feedback" but without examining the qualities of the feedback. And the feedback, I can guarantee you, is not based on experience but on prejudice.

And DavidA's contribute is "Some composers have chosen to write music no-one likes. Then they bleat that the hoi polloi doesn't wasn't to hear it." How often are these two canards going to be repeated before they die? Composers want people to like their music. All composers, from Milton Babbitt on down. (Or on across.) No one sets out to write what they're sure no one will like. What kind of daffy idea is that? Its source, I'm sure, is the same source as for the silliness identified earlier as a core tenet of modernism.

As for bleating, I know dozens of contemporary composers. Hundreds, even. None of them bleat. And while all of them want to have as many people as possible like their music, they understand that the kinds of crowds that Justin Bieber can pull in are not the kinds of crowds they can pull in. They would all like the pre-experiential prejudices that keep people from coming out to hear their music in the first place to go away, but they also know how unlikely that is, too. In the meantime, they continue to write what they feel is valuable, and people continue to come to their concerts and have positive experiences. Odd, isn't it? People enjoying music that "listeners" don't like. Never ceases to amaze, eh?


----------



## ArtMusic

some guy said:


> Nice snark, but only possible by ignoring history. The bourgeois audiences that developed in the nineteenth century wanted and expected expert tutelage, which was willingly supplied. The more heterogeneous audiences of the 18th century neither needed nor wanted any expert tutelage. The audiences for concert music nowadays also want expert tutelage, which they are supplied, in increasing dosages. These "experts" contribute to the idea that modern is bad and old is good--who in this picture is truly liking what they like and disliking what they don't?
> 
> And speaking of experts, here's another take on the ideology business for ahammel: A core tenet of the Modernist ideology that was predominant for a lot of the 20th century is that The idea that "if a composer has success with mainstream audiences then its likely he is a sell out" is not a core tenet of modernist ideology. It is an imposition from the outside of those who are disaffected with modernism, may be. But it is not a tenet of modernism itself. I mean, come on, look at it. This is a petty and silly notion, "stupid," as you point out. How is it even possible for such pettiness to be a "core" tenet of anything except maybe a junior high clique.
> 
> Early twentieth century modernists--read them to find out what their tenets were--were not a bunch of insecure junior high students. They were serious artists with serious things to say about their art. This quote from Visconti, just by the way, is ingenuous--and another gross simplification of the situation: "There's no formula for success, as every artist must find his or her own voice and, along the way, new and personal ways of establishing a kind of rapport with listeners." Of course, as we have seen on this thread, there definitely IS a formula for success--treat your composing decisions as marketing decisions. Find out what the bulk of the concert audience already likes and supply that product to them. What's more, if an artist's "own voice" turns out to be some live eai thing with video and turntables and the like or perhaps a bit of new complexity for acoustic instruments, what's the likelihood of that being criticized for "turning away the audience" and "living in an ivory tower"?
> 
> The "new and personal ways of establishing a kind of rapport with listeners" is great advice, but how is it to be implemented? We're kinda short on the implementation part of it, aren't we? Maybe because we have to let artists find their own way, eh? And by "their own" way, we really mean "our own way," giving us what "we" want. And the "we" is very carefully defined (and the definition is very carefully concealed) as "those of us who prefer older music and who want our new composers to supply us with more of the same."
> 
> Do not find your own voice. Speak with the voices that WE already know.
> 
> In the radio debate, mmsbls points out that "While this assessment is not scientific, it is based on feedback" but without examining the qualities of the feedback. And the feedback, I can guarantee you, is not based on experience but on prejudice.
> 
> And DavidA's contribute is "Some composers have chosen to write music no-one likes. Then they bleat that the hoi polloi doesn't wasn't to hear it." How often are these two canards going to be repeated before they die? Composers want people to like their music. All composers, from Milton Babbitt on down. (Or on across.) No one sets out to write what they're sure no one will like. What kind of daffy idea is that? Its source, I'm sure, is the same source as for the silliness identified earlier as a core tenet of modernism.
> 
> As for bleating, I know dozens of contemporary composers. Hundred, even. None of them bleat. And while all of them want to have as many people as possible like their music, they understand that the kinds of crowds that Justin Bieber can pull in are not the kinds of crowds they can pull in. They would all like the pre-experiential prejudices that keep people from coming out to hear their music in the first place would go away, but they also know how unlikely that is, too. In the meantime, they continue to write what they feel is valuable, and people continue to come to their concerts and have positive experiences. Odd, isn't it? People enjoying music that "listeners" don't like. Never ceases to amaze, eh?


I think the world wide webt is big enough for those who wish to talk about genuine classical music versus those who wish to talk modern music. I wonder if there is a place called TalkModern or something where I could find similar like minded buddies.


----------



## dgee

ArtMusic said:


> I think the world wide webt is big enough for those who wish to talk about genuine classical music versus those who wish to talk modern music. I wonder if there is a place called TalkModern or something where I could find similar like minded buddies.


Oh there totally is - in fact I'm considering signing up. But the people who can talk modern on here also tend to be knowledgeable and comfortable discussing about other eras and styles and I'd hate to miss out on that. Maybe you could kick-off a safe space elsewhere on the internet for friends to chat on your idea of non-yucky music? You could set some rules and get a gang together. It would be real nice


----------



## PetrB

dgee said:


> Maybe you could kick-off a safe space elsewhere on the internet for friends to chat on your idea of non-yucky music? You could set some rules and get a gang together. It would be real nice


"Non-Yucky" music. _I LOVE it,_ terminology apposite to the maturity level of the general complaint.
Bless you, brave one, for saying it.


----------



## arpeggio

*Seperate does not work*



ArtMusic said:


> I think the world wide webt is big enough for those who wish to talk about genuine classical music versus those who wish to talk modern music. I wonder if there is a place called TalkModern or something where I could find similar like minded buddies.


They tried that in another forum and it did not work. Problem is what 'dgee' aluded to above. People who liked modern music still like traditional music.


----------



## guy

Back on the topic of the original post, I think that composers don't need to compose to appeal to the audience unless they are getting paid.


----------



## ahammel

ArtMusic said:


> I think the world wide webt is big enough for those who wish to talk about genuine classical music versus those who wish to talk modern music.


"Genuine" classical music indeed. It's all genuine. I like to talk about all of it. That's why I post here.

Actual point: I think there is a _certain_ extent to which the composer should consider his or her audience, or at least not hold the audience in utter contempt. I can't remember who it was at the moment (Sorabji?) but I remember hearing of one composer who was criticized on the grounds that the music was so complicated that nobody but himself could possibly understand it. His response was along the lines of "it's not for anybody else". Dude, why did you publish it and allow people to pay you for it if, in you're opinion, you're the only person on the planet who can get any benefit from the music?

I think that criticizing Boulez _et al_ for neglecting their audience is missing the point, though. Boulez's music is written for an audience. Maybe it's a smaller audience than, say, Phillip Glass', but does everybody really need to write music that everybody will immediately enjoy? I think not.


----------



## Guest

ahammel said:


> I think there is a _certain_ extent to which the composer should consider his or her audience


There is already every extent to which every composer thinks of his or her audience.

But one thing is for sure, they don't spend (or at least shouldn't spend) any time thinking about other people's audiences.

And you see what this has done--"not hold the audience in utter contempt"--it has changed the terms of discussion from "his or her audience, which no composer is contemptuous of, to "the" audience, which is either a null set or a particular audience that has been privileged over all other audiences and which, in practice, is most often used to replace the other audiences.

Since this audience is not noted for adventurousness in listening, it is very handy to use as "the" audience when blaming composers for being contemptuous about their audience. Which none of them are or ever have been. Contemptuous of other audiences, audiences that are not theirs? Well, maybe. Composers can be dicks, too, just like anyone else.



ahammel said:


> Boulez's music is written for an audience. Maybe it's a smaller audience than, say, Phillip Glass', but does everybody really need to write music that everybody will immediately enjoy? I think not.


Yeah! That's the good stuff!!:tiphat:


----------



## Sid James

ahammel said:


> Well then I will state for the record that, fond as I am of contemporary classical music, I think that is a very stupid idea.


Well its quite an outdated idea, however there are remnants of it still around. Take this critique of Rachmaninov's music by Adorno, very much couched in the terms of judging a composer and belittling him for supposedly pandering to the lowest common denominator (apparently, Rachmaninov's music is for children, or adults who are at the level of children mentally speaking, and his totality of contribution to music is the Prelude in C Sharp Minor!)

_There are passages in his works for young people and for student concerts which are grandoise and over-written. Small hands make a show of being strong; children imitate adults - wherever possible virtuosos who are swotting up on Liszt. It all sounds extremely heavy and in any case very loud. But it is sadly easy; a child player well knows that stupendous passages cannot go wrong and is sure in advance of an effortless triumph. Rakhmaninov's C sharp minor Prelude provides infantile adults with the same childish triumph. It owes its popularity to listeners who identify with the player and know they could play it just as well. In marvelling at the power which masters the four-note chords in fourfold fortissimo, they are marvelling at themselves. In their imagination they grow massive hands. Psychoanalysisk discovered the Nero complex; the Prelude already exemplified it._

These same sorts of things where said when the guys like Reich, Glass, Adams arose on the American scene decades ago. Their music is too childish, too simple. But they remain, so too does Rachmaninov's music, or for that matter another punching bag of Adorno, Sibelius.

In terms of the connection between success and musicianship, I think Ray Charles put it well in saying this:

_I just want to make my mark, leave something musically good behind. If it's a big record, that's the frosting on the cake, but music's the main meal._

He was one of the biggest innovators in music of the 20th century, and a person who moved and changed with his times, with things going on around him. While others followed tends, Ray created them. Yet he was hugely successful as well. The artistic credo of that quote, which I just found on wikipedia, exemplifies that aim to produce good music, and if it is successful then that's an extra or bonus aspect. The quality is the issue, whether something reaches a mass audience or a smaller audience or even no audience (eg. to be unearthed later).

Success is not a stigma, if it happens it doesn't mean a musician is necessarily aiming at the lowest common denominator, at morons.



ahammel said:


> *"Genuine" classical music indeed. It's all genuine. I like to talk about all of it. That's why I post here.*
> 
> Actual point: I think there is a _certain_ extent to which the composer should consider his or her audience, or at least not hold the audience in utter contempt. I can't remember who it was at the moment (Sorabji?) but I remember hearing of one composer who was criticized on the grounds that the music was so complicated that nobody but himself could possibly understand it. His response was along the lines of "it's not for anybody else". Dude, why did you publish it and allow people to pay you for it if, in you're opinion, you're the only person on the planet who can get any benefit from the music?
> 
> I think that criticizing Boulez _et al_ for neglecting their audience is missing the point, though. Boulez's music is written for an audience. Maybe it's a smaller audience than, say, Phillip Glass', but does everybody really need to write music that everybody will immediately enjoy? I think not.


Well that's a more pragmatic view. Music is for different purposes, so composers will do different things given the brief or commission they are doing, the reason why they are composing a piece. It can be for the concert hall, for a film, for a multimedia type experimental project or performance, in whatever genre or for whatever medium. Considerations of audience will be there, at least for composers whose music has a chance of being performed. Any kind of 'one size fits all' approach to music falls by the wayside if you look at what composers have had to say themselves on the topic.

Anything is permissible as far as a composer filling the needs of the piece at hand is concerned. That's why I see dogma of limited use, or of not much use at all, unless one wants to look at certain viewpoints - whether expressed by Adorno, or any other writer on music. However composers are often better in explaining what they aimed for and how they tried to achieve that in a piece. If they don't want to explain anything, its their choice as well.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...are composers and all artists still frozen in some model of a social construct where they are still considered the servants while the people are the lords and masters?

On the other hand, there is the social construct that suggests the artist is some superior being... a visionary if not a prophet... while the audience are all idiots.

I suspect neither construct is useful for either the artist or the audience.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> ...or are composers and all artists still frozen in some model of a social construct where they are still considered the servants while the people are the lords and masters?


I have seen this comment several times, and very much doubt that anybody in these parts considers composers their "servants" or demands that they write this or that kind of music. Of course people want the similar privilege of listening to what they like and not something else.

Some people apparently need to blame somebody when the music they prefer doesn't gain broad acceptance. It's usually the audience, of course!


----------



## ahammel

some guy said:


> And you see what this has done--"not hold the audience in utter contempt"--it has changed the terms of discussion from "his or her audience, which no composer is contemptuous of, to "the" audience, which is either a null set or a particular audience that has been privileged over all other audiences and which, in practice, is most often used to replace the other audiences.


Here's Górecki on his relationship with _his_ audience, which is, I think, a good and admirable one:

_I do not choose my listeners. What I mean is, I never write for my listeners. I think about my audience, but I am not writing for them. I have something to tell them, but the audience must also put a certain effort into it. But I never wrote for an audience and never will write for because you have to give the listener something and he has to make an effort in order to understand certain things. If I were thinking of my audience and one likes this, one likes that, one likes another thing, I would never know what to write. Let every listener choose that which interests him. I have nothing against one person liking Mozart or Shostakovich or Leonard Bernstein, but doesn't like Górecki. That's fine with me. I, too, like certain things._

It should be remembered that this is the same Henryk Górecki who did, in fact, write a symphony that was of a great deal of interest to 'the' audience.


----------



## ArtMusic

ahammel said:


> ...
> It should be remembered that this is the same Henryk Górecki who did, in fact, write a symphony that was of a great deal of interest to 'the' audience.


Does that make him a hypocrite? No, of course not. But a better artist who found "the artistic light" - as evident from his _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs_, which was his best piece and the only piece that many who know Górecki would surely know. Evidence that audience and composer need to go together if the composer is to have any chance of posterity for the very sake of the music itself.


----------



## ahammel

Sid James said:


> Well its quite an outdated idea, however there are remnants of it still around. Take this critique of Rachmaninov's music by Adorno, very much couched in the terms of judging a composer and belittling him for supposedly pandering to the lowest common denominator (apparently, Rachmaninov's music is for children, or adults who are at the level of children mentally speaking, and his totality of contribution to music is the Prelude in C Sharp Minor!)
> 
> [snip]


Ah, but that's a different thing. Adorno isn't saying the C-sharp minor prelude is bad because it's popular, he's saying it's bad because it's bad ("grandiose and over-written"), and then doing a sort of post-mortem on it, in an attempt to figure out why Rach wrote such a dog. He thinks that part of the reason was an effort on Rach's part to be popular. (I think he's probably wrong; I have no strong feelings about the C-sharp minor Prelude.)

To be clear, the idea that I think is silly is the idea that writing for-let's say a large audience-is a bad idea, edging on evil, and is doomed to produce bad music. But it's clearly true that making an effort to be popular has its risks. You can write something that, in an effort to please everybody, pleases nobody. You can leave out the aspects of your music that you think will be controversial, unaware that those are the _good parts_. You can talk down to your audience (utterly fatal). It's always going to raise hackles when you say "this music is bad in part because of the composer's efforts to make it popular", but sometimes it's true.

It's possible to do it well, of course. Glass' first Violin concerto was written with "the" audience in mind (people who are interested in music but not necessarily well-informed about it). It's hardly my favourite piece of music, but I think as far as Glass' aesthetic goes it's pretty successful.


----------



## ahammel

ArtMusic said:


> Does that make him a hypocrite? No, of course not. But a better artist who found "the artistic light" - as evident from his _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs_, which was his best piece and the only piece that many who know Górecki would surely know. Evidence that audience and composer need to go together if the composer is to have any chance of posterity for the very sake of the music itself.


I don't think he "saw the light". I think he wrote what he wanted to write and people liked it because he's a good composer.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Sid James... can you clear some of your old messages. I have been trying to send you a PM but your PMs are full.

:tiphat:


----------



## ArtMusic

ahammel said:


> .... I think he wrote what he wanted to write and people liked it because he's a good composer.


He may have wanted to write what he wrote without regard for the audience, but in this case for the _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs _it turned out to be yet another example of showing to listeners that he was a capable composers because listeners embraced the piece. It's a win-win-win (triple) for listener-composer-music. What more could be better than an ignorant composer sitting and writing alone?


----------



## dgee

KenOC said:


> Some people apparently need to blame somebody when the music they prefer doesn't gain broad acceptance. It's usually the audience, of course!


Yes - this is often the cry of the classical music lover when faced with the massive preference nearly everybody shows for the popular music of the day? Or is it just that Verdi and Beethoven and Shostakovich just don't have the appealing qualities of ragtime or big band dance music or The Beatles or Michael Jackson or Justin Bieber?

It could be quite vexing, couldn't it, to consider how this fine music from the past and present has been so thoroughly superseded by much more simple offerings.

Or did you have something else in mind?


----------



## Blake

ahammel said:


> Ah, but that's a different thing. Adorno isn't saying the C-sharp minor prelude is bad because it's popular, he's saying it's bad because it's bad ("grandiose and over-written"), and then doing a sort of post-mortem on it, in an attempt to figure out why Rach wrote such a dog. He thinks that part of the reason was an effort on Rach's part to be popular. (I think he's probably wrong; I have no strong feelings about the C-sharp minor Prelude.)
> 
> To be clear, the idea that I think is silly is the idea that writing for-let's say a large audience-is a bad idea, edging on evil, and is doomed to produce bad music. But it's clearly true that making an effort to be popular has its risks. You can write something that, in an effort to please everybody, pleases nobody. You can leave out the aspects of your music that you think will be controversial, unaware that those are the _good parts_. You can talk down to your audience (utterly fatal). It's always going to raise hackles when you say "this music is in part because of the composer's efforts to make it popular", but sometimes it's true.
> 
> It's possible to do it well, of course. Glass' first Violin concerto was written with "the" audience in mind (people who are interested in music but not necessarily well-informed about it). It's hardly my favourite piece of music, but I think as far as Glass' aesthetic goes it's pretty successful.


Yea, I see where you're getting. Usually any extreme is a downer. It would be ridiculous to say that great artists don't think about the audience and their possible reactions.

What happened to simply being compassionate and having the urge to share the beauty of creating art? It blows my mind that this has become a foreign concept to most people. Yes I know "Money is a factor," and our desires for the material world are at a ridiculous level right now, but it doesn't need to be obsessed over like society leads most to believe.

Do what you do in a loving embrace. If it works out, wonderful. If not, forget about it... we all die soon anyway.


----------



## PetrB

arpeggio said:


> Problem is .... People who liked modern music still like traditional music.


It is beyond funny, more toward 'astonishing / appalling' that anyone would / should consider that "a problem." 

...and therein lies the problem.


----------



## KenOC

dgee said:


> Yes - this is often the cry of the classical music lover when faced with the massive preference nearly everybody shows for the popular music of the day? Or is it just that Verdi and Beethoven and Shostakovich just don't have the appealing qualities of ragtime or big band dance music or The Beatles or Michael Jackson or Justin Bieber?
> 
> It could be quite vexing, couldn't it, to consider how this fine music from the past and present has been so thoroughly superseded by much more simple offerings.
> 
> Or did you have something else in mind?


Obviously the spiritual descendants of Muller and Kauer are still with us today and as popular as ever. I'm not sure anybody is too unhappy about this. More power to them!


----------



## Sid James

ahammel said:


> Ah, but that's a different thing. Adorno isn't saying the C-sharp minor prelude is bad because it's popular, he's saying it's bad because it's bad ("grandiose and over-written"), and then doing a sort of post-mortem on it, in an attempt to figure out why Rach wrote such a dog. He thinks that part of the reason was an effort on Rach's part to be popular. (I think he's probably wrong; I have no strong feelings about the C-sharp minor Prelude.)


Well that's just an example of Adorno's invective against Rachmaninov. There where others like that, plenty. Rachmaninov is amongst the most lambasted by critics of his era. For all types of reasons. Early on in Russia there where those who said he failed compared to "The Mighty Handful" because he was too cosmopolitan and not Russian enough. There where those who compared him to Scriabin and said he failed, they where the Modernists. Truth be told he was more a progressive than a conservative, but the problem of those like Adorno is that he became too successful and they developed this kind of bias which comes across as sour grapes at Rachmaninov's success (and others like him). Why didn't Adorno for example go for criticising Medtner, who was more conservative than Rachmaninov? I am not judging Medtner, I am saying Rachmaninov was a tall poppy that had to be felled by this mentality, he was an easy target, a big fish to fry.

Later in his career he engaged with more recent trends (in his Piano Concerto #4, Symphony #3 and Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini). With the first two he fell between two stools, not modern enough for those of that inclination, not conservative enough for those of that other extreme. With the Rhapsody he got it just right, and I think this goes to show that there is no way of telling what will hit the spot and what won't.

http://www.talkclassical.com/25187-falling-between-two-stools.html

The other thing is Rachmaninov ended up hating that prelude. Such was its success, he had to play it everywhere he went. He ended up calling it "it." The ultimate irony is that he sold teh piece to publishers for a trifling amount. He kicked himself big time when it became famous beyond all his expectations. Why that prelude out of all those he wrote? Why did it garner such attention? Rachmaninov did begin many of his compositions with images or stories, often drawn from Russian folk sources, in mind as inspiration. But he rarely if ever revealed what he meant, he wanted the listener to make up his own mind and use his own perception. But he often joked about that prelude being the one about the guy buried alive in a coffin, knocking on the wood from below. It was kind of a bitter joke.



> To be clear, the idea that I think is silly is the idea that writing for-let's say a large audience-is a bad idea, edging on evil, and is doomed to produce bad music. But it's clearly true that making an effort to be popular has its risks. You can write something that, in an effort to please everybody, pleases nobody. You can leave out the aspects of your music that you think will be controversial, unaware that those are the _good parts_. You can talk down to your audience (utterly fatal). It's always going to raise hackles when you say "this music is bad in part because of the composer's efforts to make it popular", but sometimes it's true.


Well there is a danger of writing with focus groups in mind and testing everything. Ultimately you've got to go with what you've got. If critics and audiences like it or don't, a composer has no control over that kind of outcome. Initial reactions may reflect what happens after, or it might not.

Reading a quote by Copland as to a work I just heard, The Tender Land, he was aiming it to be simple so it could be sung by those beginning their opera studies. It was aimed at young people and simplicity was the key. To my ears, this is pretty much unabashedly Romantic music, but it failed on its premiere. So Copland fashioned a suite out of the opera, which is the thing I heard. Bear in mind that context is important too, this was in the early 1950's when simplicity wasn't going to go down well in some quarters.

Copland always changed and a bit like Rachmaninov this means they can't pin you down. But they will anyway, especially with thier ideology (parading it as usual as some sort of objective opinion, as the only opinion of value or validity). But I say, this is art!



> It's possible to do it well, of course. Glass' first Violin concerto was written with "the" audience in mind (people who are interested in music but not necessarily well-informed about it). It's hardly my favourite piece of music, but I think as far as Glass' aesthetic goes it's pretty successful.


Yes, that's what is desirable, look at the aesthetic concerned, the aims of the composer. I must stress that I am not against ivory tower if that is the aim. Nor am I against pieces geared at other purposes, perhaps at wider audiences or bigger exposure. In any case, the reverse can happen at either extremes, ivory tower can become mainstream, and initially successful works can disappear into oblivion. There is no one rule of thumb to do with all this, its case by case.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Sid James... can you clear some of your old messages. I have been trying to send you a PM but your PMs are full.
> 
> :tiphat:


I'll get to that ASAP!


----------



## KenOC

Sid James said:


> Well that's just an example of Adorno's invective against Rachmaninov.


Adorno was not alone! I've quoted this before:
------------------------------
Rachmaninoff's music is "monotonous in texture ... consisting mainly of artificial and gushing tunes." His popular success is "not likely to last." --Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 1954 edition.

I suspect the current entry reads somewhat differently.


----------



## Mahlerian

ahammel said:


> Ah, but that's a different thing. Adorno isn't saying the C-sharp minor prelude is bad because it's popular, he's saying it's bad because it's bad ("grandiose and over-written"), and then doing a sort of post-mortem on it, in an attempt to figure out why Rach wrote such a dog. He thinks that part of the reason was an effort on Rach's part to be popular. (I think he's probably wrong; I have no strong feelings about the C-sharp minor Prelude.)


Rachmaninoff came to despise the piece himself.



ahammel said:


> To be clear, *the idea that I think is silly is the idea that writing for-let's say a large audience-is a bad idea, edging on evil, and is doomed to produce bad music*. But it's clearly true that making an effort to be popular has its risks. You can write something that, in an effort to please everybody, pleases nobody. You can leave out the aspects of your music that you think will be controversial, unaware that those are the _good parts_. *You can talk down to your audience (utterly fatal).* It's always going to raise hackles when you say "this music is bad in part because of the composer's efforts to make it popular", but sometimes it's true.


Guess who agrees?

"Most deplorable is the acting of some artists who arrogantly wish to make believe that they descend from their heights in order to give some of their riches to the masses. This is hypocrisy. But there are a few composers, like Offenbach, Johann Strauss, and Gershwin, whose feelings actually coincide with those of the 'average man in the street'. To them it is no masquerade to express popular feelings in popular terms." - Arnold Schoenberg



ahammel said:


> It's possible to do it well, of course. Glass' first Violin concerto was written with "the" audience in mind (people who are interested in music but not necessarily well-informed about it). It's hardly my favourite piece of music, but I think as far as Glass' aesthetic goes it's pretty successful.


I'd cite several works by Adams and Copland here as well, populist works written sincerely and with artistic merit.


----------



## Blancrocher

KenOC said:


> Adorno was not alone! I've quoted this before:
> ------------------------------
> Rachmaninoff's music is "monotonous in texture ... consisting mainly of artificial and gushing tunes." His popular success is "not likely to last." --Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 1954 edition.
> 
> I suspect the current entry reads somewhat differently.


Wikipedia mentions Harold C. Schonberg's disgust about this:



> "It is one of the most outrageously snobbish and even stupid statements ever to be found in a work that is supposed to be an objective reference."


To my knowledge, Schonberg's "Lives of the Great Composers" was one of the first "respectable" (though, in hindsight, increasingly problematic) books to pay unambiguous tribute to Rachmaninov.


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> If I had my money invested in a radio station, I'd think twice about classical music. I mean, the next commercial in 65 minutes after this Bruckner symphony??? Does not compute in a capitalist society. It's not all taste (though some of it probably is).
> 
> It's also a question of demographics. We used to have not one but *two* classical stations! The second (then KMZT) changed formats after a while. All their ads were either for cancer cures or Forest Lawn Cemetery.


So what was the reason for maintaining classical radio stations for the 25 years or so before this tremendous economic hardship excuse for dropping them? The classical stations were making tons of money from 1940-1965?


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> So what was the reason for maintaining classical radio stations for the 25 years or so before this tremendous economic hardship excuse for dropping them? The classical stations were making tons of money from 1940-1965?


LOL. No, but there was some notion of, as a business, doing not much more than, or a little more than, 'breaking even' due to a belief the endeavor was worth the effort and investment to keep it going, and supported -- i.e. belief that the repertoire and craft were one of the higher entertainments, and that was 'good for people.'

The more cynical might say it was an idea of classical music as 'cultural commodity' as defined by Adorno, and the personal scramble for status which drove that -- but who, really, spends such funds on a regular basis just to assert their social status? Not many, and it took more than just a few people and funders to keep those stations afloat.

Some of those finer stations had advertisers, but the majority of their funds came from listener donations -- i.e. enough listeners wanted what was offered to come forward and pay a good chunk of the bill to keep things running.

Now, with the business model being every branch of every enterprise needing to show healthy profit each quarter or it then gets unplugged, the ball game is played with very different rules, and we've seen it with either the many deaths of FM classical stations, or their going relentlessly pops-classical, with short bits, single movements, of only the most readily known / accessible from the classical repertoire.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> So what was the reason for maintaining classical radio stations for the 25 years or so before this tremendous economic hardship excuse for dropping them? The classical stations were making tons of money from 1940-1965?


We have had no "tremendous economic hardship." Look at the numbers. In any event, my take is that classical stations have been disappearing for several reasons:

1 - The "graying" of the classical audience, and their gradual change to an uninteresting demographic.
2 - The format does not support radio economics. Same reason we have so little soccer on TV.
3 - The astonishingly cheap (compared with the past) availability of classical recordings, in better-than-radio sound.

When I was a wee tyke, there were no "classical stations," just occasional (usually weekly) orchestral programs on the radio. The advent of FM fostered quite a few stations, but the commercial ones have largely disappeared. The public stations survive, though only in major population centers or where a university can scrape together the funding. I doubt that any of the commercial stations ever made much money...I suspect they were mostly labors of love, like our own dearly departed KMZT.


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> We have had no "tremendous economic hardship." Look at the numbers. In any event, my take is that classical stations have been disappearing for several reasons:
> 
> 1 - The "graying" of the classical audience, and their gradual change to an uninteresting demographic.
> 2 - The format does not support radio economics. Same reason we have so little soccer on TV.
> 3 - The astonishingly cheap (compared with the past) availability of classical recordings, in better-than-radio sound.
> 
> When I was a wee tyke, there were no "classical stations," just occasional (usually weekly) orchestral programs on the radio. The advent of FM fostered quite a few stations, but the commercial ones have largely disappeared. The public stations survive, though only in major population centers or where a university can scrape together the funding. I doubt that any of the commercial stations ever made much money...I suspect they were mostly labors of love, like our own dearly departed KMZT.


I realize that it always comes down to "show me the money" and that classical FM radio is and always has been for the select few and hence, unprofitable with sponsors. Yet when I was a kid, they were around for a long time, and then one morning I turned on my favorite station and instead of Bach or Handel, I got "Roll Over Beethoven" as the new boys in charge were celebrating the birth of yet one more FM rock station that the rock aficionados surely didn't need.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> ...and instead of Bach or Handel, I got "Roll Over Beethoven" as the new boys in charge were celebrating the birth of yet one more FM rock station that the rock aficionados surely didn't need.


Interesting sidelight. A few years ago there were a lot of complaints that the "classic rock" stations were so prevalent that newer pop/rock artists couldn't get a fair hearing for their music. Don't know if that's still the case -- but it was an interesting example of the "classics" driving out newer works. Reminds me of some of the discussions around here!


----------



## Blancrocher

KenOC said:


> Interesting sidelight. A few years ago there were a lot of complaints that the "classic rock" stations were so prevalent that newer pop/rock artists couldn't get a fair hearing for their music. Don't know if that's still the case -- but it was an interesting example of the "classics" driving out newer works. Reminds me of some of the discussions around here!


And after so many music executives put so much work into these contemporary masterpieces!

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/26/120326fa_fact_seabrook


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Interesting sidelight. A few years ago there were a lot of complaints that the "classic rock" stations were so prevalent that newer pop/rock artists couldn't get a fair hearing for their music. Don't know if that's still the case -- but it was an interesting example of the "classics" driving out newer works. Reminds me of some of the discussions around here!


There were 3 stations playing classical music with strong signals in NYC back in the days of yesteryear. Two were commercial and one was a public radio station. The best of the three was the most adventurous and starting around midnight, this guy "Watson" would play, say all Beethoven's 9 symphonies or all Mozart Piano Concertos from #9-#27. It would go 'til 6AM. And then one morning the whole deal was gone! Just like that!

I believe that from around 1940-1965, many of the classical FM stations were being subsidized by some very wealthy music lovers to keep them afloat. The in the mid 60's, they became old or worse(!!!), the money dried up and so did the music.


----------



## Blancrocher

hpowders said:


> I believe that from around 1940-1965, many of the classical FM stations were being subsidized by some very wealthy music lovers to keep them afloat. The in the mid 60's, they became old or worse(!!!), the money dried up and so did the music.


The more recent news along these lines, of course, is the demise of the City Opera--which I often found more interesting than the Met, incidentally.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> I believe that from around 1940-1965, many of the classical FM stations were being subsidized by some very wealthy music lovers to keep them afloat. The in the mid 60's, they became old or worse(!!!), the money dried up and so did the music.


It seems that the current FM band (88-108 MHz) was not assigned until 1945. FM broadcasts were not popular until the early 1960s -- prior to that, for instance, car radios were pretty uniformly AM only.


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> The more recent news along these lines, of course, is the demise of the City Opera--which I often found more interesting than the Met, incidentally.


I used to attend City Opera and found it to be just fine, but that was way back in times of yesteryear, when men were men and women were glad of it.


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> It seems that the current FM band (88-108 MHz) was not assigned until 1945. FM broadcasts were not popular until the early 1960s -- prior to that, for instance, car radios were pretty uniformly AM only.


Yes! I remember. My father's car radio was only AM! Memories!!! And so EASY to program the station pre-sets!!


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Interesting sidelight. A few years ago there were a lot of complaints that the "classic rock" stations were so prevalent that newer pop/rock artists couldn't get a fair hearing for their music. Don't know if that's still the case -- but it was an interesting example of the "classics" driving out newer works. Reminds me of some of the discussions around here!


LOL. That too, has to do with the 'graying' of a bubble segment of the population - and their incomes.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> I used to attend City Opera and found it to be just fine, but that was way back in times of yesteryear, when men were men and women were glad of it.


"Where the women are strong and the men are pretty" ~ Garrison Keillor


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> "Where the women are strong and the men are pretty" ~ Garrison Keillor


Exactly and those days I woe to be gone.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Exactly and those days I woe to be gone.


Heh heh. I get it....


----------



## Mahlerian

Blancrocher said:


> And after so many music executives put so much work into these contemporary masterpieces!
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/26/120326fa_fact_seabrook


Well, it's what the audience wants, I suppose. Although there's that thing about sausages and laws...


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> I know that you did not say "all serialism is alienating". I rephrased your argument as "serialist pieces by their nature alienate the audience" (as a syllogism), and attempted to show that this is not the case. Given that there are in fact serial pieces that attract audiences, and many non-serialist pieces that alienate certain audiences (albeit while attracting others), you have to give a more nuanced answer. What is it that alienates audiences, if it is not serialism in itself, without any qualifiers?
> 
> Based on which works did you come to the conclusion that this music was not for you?


Sorry if I reply so late, but I had a problem.
I don't want to say that it's not for me at all (I quite like something), but based on all the (hundreds I suppose) of pieces I've listened I'd say that it's music with a very narrow emotional range. From Schoenberg to Boulez, from Wuorinen to Perle with all their different way to compose it's music that for it's nature has great expressive limits. I opened also a thread on this topic.



Mahlerian said:


> Part of the point of the bolded passage is that the Chamber Symphony, which is supposed to be an exemplar of "that nasty 12-tone/atonal music" is, in fact, neither. Thus a condemnation of "12-tone/atonal music" based on it holds no weight whatsoever.
> 
> Not to say that this is true of you personally, but there are in fact cases of people condemning methods or styles for ideological, rather than artistic, reasons after having embraced them at first (Hindemith, for one).


But as I think I've said, my criticism is not just on serialism. It's the element of complexity that often sounds unnecessary. A lot of modern music sounds like jargon.


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> But as I think I've said, my criticism is not just on serialism. It's the element of complexity that often sounds unnecessary. A lot of modern music sounds like jargon.


Time for another ideological movement along the lines of the Galante, then?


----------



## norman bates

PetrB said:


> Time for another ideological movement along the lines of the Galante, then?


like the dictatorship of Boulez? Oh no, I'm not so dogmatic. I think it's far more ideological to say that there isn't any problem. And by the way, the twentieth century is by far my favorite musical period.


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> like the dictatorship of Boulez? Oh no, I'm not so dogmatic. I think it's far more ideological to say that there isn't any problem. And by the way, the twentieth century is by far my favorite musical period.


Galante, moved away from dense polyphony in favor of melody


----------



## norman bates

PetrB said:


> Galante, moved away from dense polyphony in favor of melody


Lately I was enjoyng a lot composers like Henry Brant and Takemitsu, do you think that I was saying that one should have necessarily something to sing under the shower?


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Heh heh. I get it....


Few do! 

Wouldn't be my first witticism to die a tragic and undeserved demise!


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> Lately I was enjoyng a lot composers like Henry Brant and Takemitsu, do you think that I was saying that one should have necessarily something to sing under the shower?


Anything by Brant or Takemitsu would and could do for that


----------



## ahammel

PetrB said:


> Anything by Brant or Takemitsu would and could do for that


Yikes. How's your coloratura technique?


----------



## ahammel

PetrB said:


> Time for another ideological movement along the lines of the Galante, then?


Didn't we already have one of these and call it minimalism?


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> I think very few who are writing music they KNOW will not have a wide audience are 'bleating' about it at all. Those who do bleat have usually found almost no audience at all, because the music is generally 'poorly.' (Less high-profile, there are a slew of academic conservative composers whose works get done exactly once -- I have a hunch they wrote what many an anti-modernist classical fan might have thought was the 'new' music as it should be written.)
> 
> Anti-modernists (where are they born, grow up, develop? _will_ make the argument that _all_ they dislike of the new is 'poor' music, while readily consuming and lauding some not so great second and third-stringer older composers.
> 
> The most, and loudest noise, seems to come from the more conservative classical fan whenever modern or contemporary music appears, in performance, or in discussion. They wail, they despair... all the while evidently unhappy and dissatisfied with the amount of older classical music continually available to them... an ocean of it, in fact.
> 
> "Music is an entertainment." "Simple minds are simply entertained."
> 
> Any other blazing flashes of the most obvious anyone care to drag out?


"Music is an entertainment." "Simple minds are simply entertained."

This is laughable in its elitist tendency. I am listening at present to a Bruckner symphony. Why? To be entertained by it. I am entertained because I happen to like it. If I don't like music I simply don't listen to it. 
What other reason would you listen to absolute music? Now I might have a simple mind but it is not so simple as to ignore the obvious. 
When what purports to be 'music' is a tuneless racket to my ears then I simply don't listen to it. I have that right no matter what the self-appointed sophisticates might think or say.
Now if you find what I think is a tuneless racket entertains you in some way, then please listen to it. Pay for it! You have that right. But please don't place this burden on others.


----------



## starry

I've thought myself that classical music definitely has it's simpler pleasures, so I'm puzzled when some claim classical is somehow always more intellectual and profound than popular music.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think that in many ways, classical music is more complex and demanding than popular music. It's more intellectual in that, to be fully appreciated, classical must be listened to with a sustained vertical concentration through time, in order to grasp the functional harmonic tensions. With modern classical, some preparation is usually necessary (reading the liner notes) in order to approach the work adequately.

For me, classical music has higher demands, and that's one of my criteria. I don't use this to denigrate popular music, though. I don't make absurd comparisons. I just feel that, as a genre, classical music (ideally) demands more of its listeners.

Of course, anything can be listened to in any way one wishes to.


----------



## hpowders

I disagree. ANYONE can enjoy classical music, whether you are an inexperienced novice won over by the power of a full orchestra and/or memorable melodies, or the specialist involved in harmony, counterpoint and complex rhythms, or folks somewhere in-between.


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> I disagree. ANYONE can enjoy classical music, whether you are an inexperienced novice won over by the power of a full orchestra and/or memorable melodies, or the specialist involved in harmony, counterpoint and complex rhythms, or folks somewhere in-between.


That's what I closed with in post #230:"Of course, anything can be listened to in any way one wishes to."

What I'm saying is that, in order to *fully *comprehend and thus fully enjoy classical, one must be equipped with some preparation of some sort. But comprehension is *my *criteria for this music. Of course, anyone may be entertained by opera and entertainment-based music.

This demanding nature of classical becomes more apparent, especially in regard to popular music, which is designed to entertain. But I don't downgrade popular for this reason; comprehension is a criteria I apply to classical more rigorously.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> I disagree. ANYONE can enjoy classical music, whether you are an inexperienced novice won over by the power of a full orchestra and/or memorable melodies, or the specialist involved in harmony, counterpoint and complex rhythms, or folks somewhere in-between.


Word. I had just really gotten into Classical this year, to be honest. I've always adored music from all over, but it wasn't until recently that I really turned my gaze on Classical.


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> I think that in many ways, classical music is more complex and demanding than popular music. It's more intellectual in that, to be fully appreciated, classical must be listened to with a sustained vertical concentration through time, in order to grasp the functional harmonic tensions. With modern classical, some preparation is usually necessary (reading the liner notes) in order to approach the work adequately.
> 
> For me, classical music has higher demands, and that's one of my criteria. I don't use this to denigrate popular music, though. I don't make absurd comparisons. I just feel that, as a genre, classical music (ideally) demands more of its listeners.
> 
> Of course, anything can be listened to in any way one wishes to.


There are many way to listen to music, any kind of music, as you have said. 
While it is true that a greater knowledge of something will enhance one's _appreciation_ of it, I'm not sure it necessarily does the same for ones _enjoyment_ of it.

Take poetry. Is it possible to fully appreciate Milton's Paradise Lost without a knowledge of the Bible? I don't think so. But it is possible to enjoy the sound of it. It's rhythms and cadences? Yes. Likewise for a symphony, one can be carried along on it's contours and be deeply affected by it without knowing the first thing about what is actually 'going on'.

Most of us music lovers, I hope, start with the enjoyment and for some this leads to a desire to know more. Others are happy just to enjoy.


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> There are many way to listen to music, any kind of music, as you have said.
> While it is true that a greater knowledge of something will enhance one's _appreciation_ of it, I'm not sure it necessarily does the same for ones _enjoyment_ of it.
> 
> Take poetry. Is it possible to fully appreciate Milton's Paradise Lost without a knowledge of the Bible? I don't think so. But it is possible to enjoy the sound of it. It's rhythms and cadences? Yes. Likewise for a symphony, one can be carried along on it's contours and be deeply affected by it without knowing the first thing about what is actually 'going on'.
> 
> Most of us music lovers, I hope, start with the enjoyment and for some this leads to a desire to know more. Others are happy just to enjoy.


So, this underscores the fact that all art has* universal*, as well as* specific contextual *meanings. I'm just saying that the universal is the way in; the deeper level comes when one understands the historical context and technical meanings of an art work, like knowing the Bible and applying it to Paradise Lost.

After all, art is a reflection of a culture, as well as being a reflection of Humanity in general. We all have two legs, two hands, and a brain, and that's great; welcome in! But to really delve more deeply into art, you need to understand some contexts first.


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> That's what I closed with in post #230:"Of course, anything can be listened to in any way one wishes to."
> 
> What I'm saying is that, in order to *fully *comprehend and thus fully enjoy classical, one must be equipped with some preparation of some sort. But comprehension is *my *criteria for this music. Of course, anyone may be entertained by opera and entertainment-based music.
> 
> This demanding nature of classical becomes more apparent, especially in regard to popular music, which is designed to entertain. But I don't downgrade popular for this reason; comprehension is a criteria I apply to classical more rigorously.


A lot of people just want to relax with the music, not think too much about it. My brother's like that and it irks me no end when all he can say is how relaxing it is. It should at least MOVE YOU!!! LOL!!!


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> Word. I had just really gotten into Classical this year, to be honest. I've always adored music from all over, but it wasn't until recently that I really turned my gaze on Classical.


Good for you! Too bad the majority of folks in the USA have absolutely no idea of what they are missing. I think it's sad.


----------



## Blake

Everyone has their own trip in this world. You've entered a struggle the minute you try to fix something according to your mental projections and intentions.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Good for you! Too bad the majority of folks in the USA have absolutely no idea of what they are missing. I think it's sad.


For sure. I've taken music classes in college and have been to my city's orchestral performances and a few quartets years ago, but it wasn't until recently that I fully dove in.


----------



## starry

I don't think all classical music is really complex, and once you get to know some pieces the complexity which may have seemed there at first could disappear to an extent. Understanding the style and conventions enables you to listen to the music in a less tense way.

And I have to respectfully disagree as to needing liner notes for modern music.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> I think that in many ways, classical music is more complex and demanding than popular music. It's more intellectual in that, to be fully appreciated, classical must be listened to with a sustained vertical concentration through time, in order to grasp the functional harmonic tensions. With modern classical, some preparation is usually necessary (reading the liner notes) in order to approach the work adequately.
> 
> For me, classical music has higher demands, and that's one of my criteria. I don't use this to denigrate popular music, though. I don't make absurd comparisons. I just feel that, as a genre, classical music (ideally) demands more of its listeners.
> 
> Of course, anything can be listened to in any way one wishes to.


There's one thing that I'd like to ask you. Do you think that music that is more difficult to listen and appreciate is inherently better?


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> That's what I closed with in post #230:"Of course, anything can be listened to in any way one wishes to."
> 
> What I'm saying is that, in order to *fully *comprehend and thus fully enjoy classical, one must be equipped with some preparation of some sort. But comprehension is *my *criteria for this music. Of course, anyone may be entertained by opera and entertainment-based music.
> 
> This demanding nature of classical becomes more apparent, especially in regard to popular music, which is designed to entertain. But I don't downgrade popular for this reason; comprehension is a criteria I apply to classical more rigorously.


This still doesn't make listening to music anything more than entertainment. It might be very profound entertainment, and certainly knowledge helps our appreciation, but we still listen to be entertained.


----------



## DavidA

norman bates said:


> There's one thing that I'd like to ask you. Do you think that music that is more difficult to listen and appreciate is inherently better?


Not at all. The great trio from Cosi fan Tutte is one of the most sublime pieces written yet disarming in its simplicity.


----------



## ArtMusic

norman bates said:


> There's one thing that I'd like to ask you. Do you think that music that is more difficult to listen and appreciate is inherently better?


Only a minority "gets" such music, the rest don't, therefore that shows that it gotta be better?


----------



## Blake

ArtMusic said:


> Only a minority "gets" such music, the rest don't, therefore that shows that it gotta be better?


It's funny how people throw around "better" without additional information like it really means something. "Hey man, take this... it's better." Oh okay, better at what exactly?


----------



## norman bates

Vesuvius said:


> It's funny how people throw around "better" without additional information like it really means something. "Hey man, take this... it's better." Oh okay, better at what exactly?


I've asked the question, so with better I mean something with a superior artistic and aesthetic value.


----------



## Blake

norman bates said:


> I've asked the question, so with better I mean something with a superior artistic and aesthetic value.


I doubt there is any objective answer for this question.


----------



## norman bates

Vesuvius said:


> I doubt there is any objective answer for this question.


I like the clear and simple answer of DavidA and I share his point of view (when I was talking of the fact that a lot of modern music seems to me jargon, something unnecessarily complex and abstruse I meant exactly that). But I think that many composers and listeners (like the often mentioned Boulez) seems to see formal complexity as something that means automatically superior aesthetic complexity and superior artistic value.
There's also a "movement" called New complexity.


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> There's one thing that I'd like to ask you. Do you think that music that is more difficult to listen and appreciate is inherently better?


No.

It's not inherently worse, either, but the presentation should match the material. Making something simple obtusely complex is of course not a virtue.


----------



## dgee

norman bates said:


> I like the clear and simple answer of DavidA and I share his point of view (when I was talking of the fact that a lot of modern music seems to me jargon, something unnecessarily complex and abstruse I meant exactly that). But I think that many composers and listeners (like the often mentioned Boulez) seems to see formal complexity as something that means automatically superior aesthetic complexity and superior artistic value.
> There's also a "movement" called New complexity.


I believe it's called formalism - Stalin wasn't too hot on it either. Maybe it's time Boulez was "advised" of the error of his ways - he might yet delight us with "A modernist artist's reponse to just criticism" ;-)


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> I like the clear and simple answer of DavidA and I share his point of view (when I was talking of the fact that a lot of modern music seems to me jargon, something unnecessarily complex and abstruse I meant exactly that).


Actually, I believe that the appeal of composers like Varese and Xenakis, for example, is quite direct and visceral. Especially in the later part of the century, with its focus on timbre and sonority, the dense developmental structures of a Schoenberg or a Reger are quite a rare thing.


----------



## ahammel

dgee said:


> I believe it's called formalism - Stalin wasn't too hot on it either. Maybe it's time Boulez was "advised" of the error of his ways - he might yet delight us with "A modernist artist's reponse to just criticism" ;-)


Formalism is a different thing. I think minimalism is or can be just as formalist as Boulez.


----------



## starry

Mahlerian said:


> Actually, I believe that the appeal of composers like Varese and Xenakis, for example, is quite direct and visceral. Especially in the later part of the century, with its focus on timbre and sonority, the dense developmental structures of a Schoenberg or a Reger are quite a rare thing.


Isn't music at base about the creation of tension and the release of tension? That's what structures it. It's visceral. It's not like a poem where you can look in detail at the meaning of a word. It's more abstract and universal and so more direct in a way. And we largely talk about instrumental music here. So despite the fact that classical music can often be longer and have more themes and development and interaction of them it still has at it's root this visceral aspect. Not the kind of messy emotion that informs weaker popular music and which some, maybe new to classical, want to read into classical music. But a controlled, directed and intellectual emotional interplay.


----------



## Mahlerian

ahammel said:


> Formalism is a different thing. I think minimalism is or can be just as formalist as Boulez.


Early minimalism is perhaps even more process-oriented than total serialism. Many of the early pieces by Glass and Reich are simply a single idea brought to its logical conclusion over a long span of time.


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> Only a minority "gets" such music, the rest don't, therefore that shows that it gotta be better?


The *entire classical listening community* is a minority of 3% of the world population.


----------



## PetrB

dgee said:


> I believe it's called formalism - Stalin wasn't too hot on it either. Maybe it's time Boulez was "advised" of the error of his ways - he might yet delight us with "A modernist artist's response to just criticism" ;-)


Classicism is part of formalism -- just happened to be scarcer than hens teeth as coming from the home boys in Moscow, St. Petersburg or Kiev ca. 1750 - 1820, so they could safely diss formalism without disposing of any home boy heroes of yore.

Romanticism, beneath all its cloth, abounds with symphonies and concertos, still more than a little involved with formalism.


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> Only a minority "gets" such music, the rest don't, therefore that shows that it gotta be better?


So THAT is why J.S. Bach tops every list of greatest and most popular composers....

"Mr. complexity hisself wins the prize, the peasants and children wailing for all to be as direct as a folk song or catchy-tuned / themed film score lose. Waaaaah."

Film at eleven.


----------



## norman bates

starry said:


> Isn't music at base about the creation of tension and the release of tension? That's what structures it. It's visceral.
> It's not like a poem where you can look in detail at the meaning of a word. It's more abstract and universal and so more direct in a way. And we largely talk about instrumental music here. So despite the fact that classical music can often be longer and have more themes and development and interaction of them it still has at it's root this visceral aspect. Not the kind of messy emotion that informs weaker popular music and which some, maybe new to classical, want to read into classical music. But a controlled, directed and intellectual emotional interplay.


Do you really consider Webern visceral? I think you could learn a thing or two about viscerality by the "weaker popular music". Where are those who were saying that avantgarde should be judged in a different way? Why a different approach is not considered valid for popular music?


----------



## dgee

norman bates said:


> Do you really consider Webern visceral? I think you could learn a thing or two about viscerality by the "weaker popular music". Where are those who were saying that avantgarde should be judged in a different way? Why a different approach is not considered valid for popular music?


I find this visceral:






Much in the same way as I find this visceral:






By the way: with that gigantic breakbeat, huge rock/soul chorus and early synth and big string arrangement, how was this not one of the massive hits of the mid 70s


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> Do you really consider Webern visceral? I think you could learn a thing or two about viscerality by the "weaker popular music". Where are those who were saying that avantgarde should be judged in a different way? Why a different approach is not considered valid for popular music?


Visceral is visceral, and it is about my prime criterion for any sort of music and musicianship regardless of genre.

But really, honestly and truly, you have to listen more aggressively and use more of your intellect to read an extensive novel written in a much more advanced vocabulary vs. a children's story, and that is quite the same with classical to popular music: fortunately, many have the native equipment without any further need of more formal study to go from one to the other.

Can some non-classical genre be nearly as demanding and complex? I'd say "jazz" and "yes" to that, at least. Can some classical be as simple and direct as the most immediately accessible of pop or folk tunes, again, a resounding "yes."

For me, Webern, Boulez, Schoenberg, Babbitt, all and any you might throw in the 'non-visceral' bin as music which is not visceral, I wholeheartedly think was very much meant to be first enjoyed on the visceral plane, regardless of any more technical / intellectual games going on in those scores.

The 'approach' needed is _always visceral COMBINED WITH the intellectual:_ some music taken viscerally is so direct that the listener is unaware that to follow it at all the intellect is still at work... it is just not so at work you are aware of it. Your intellect is busy when it hears or reads, "See the cat." or hears or sings "Mary had a little lamb." Visceral, at least in the case of listening to any sort of music, does not mean brain-dead


----------



## Sid James

norman bates said:


> Do you really consider Webern visceral? I think you could learn a thing or two about viscerality by the "weaker popular music".* Where are those who were saying that avantgarde should be judged in a different way?* *Why a different approach is not considered valid for popular music?*


I suppose that's what I was getting at by quoting Ray Charles before. He didn't aim to make it big, he aimed to do what he called good music, and if he did make it big, its a bonus, the icing on the cake.

Regarding Webern his aims where of course different in some ways, but being the fastidious perfectionist he was, he also aimed to do good music in his chosen genres.

Like Ray, he was an innovator.

On the whole, I don't warm to Webern much, he's the hardest of the Viennese crew for me to appreciate. Still, I am getting there with him slowly and sometimes I do find him visceral.

One writer compared Webern to be like going in a pitch black room and only having a match to light to guide your way, look around the room. But a match doesn't last long, once it has gone out, you've got to light another one. You may get a sense of bits of the room, but your impressions are fragmentary, its not the same as seeing things with a light turned on.

That description makes sense to me, in terms of my experience. I wonder if that's too politically incorrect for those who think his melodies are not fragmented for example, or that if one is assessing and grouping melodies by their fragmentation or unity, then that is undesirable, that is by default or implication putting Webern and those like him down.

The writer I read putting across that simile was not putting him down, but trying to assist people in accessing Webern's music. Now there's another taboo word in discussions of new or newer music, access.

I hope we don't have an argument about that now as well!


----------



## norman bates

dgee said:


> I find this visceral:
> 
> Much in the same way as I find this visceral:


Webern avoided completely repetition, while in popular music (that has is roots in african and folk music) repetition is the foundation of groove, the swing etc. So I think that this is a HUGE difference. European modern composers before minimalism thought repetition as a capital sin, and not something with a value for his viscerality and his hypnotic effect.


----------



## norman bates

PetrB said:


> Visceral is visceral, and it is about my prime criterion for any sort of music and musicianship regardless of genre.
> 
> But really, honestly and truly, you have to listen more aggressively and use more of your intellect to read an extensive novel written in a much more advanced vocabulary vs. a children's story, and that is quite the same with classical to popular music: fortunately, many have the native equipment without any further need of more formal study to go from one to the other.
> 
> Can some non-classical genre be nearly as demanding and complex? I'd say "jazz" and "yes" to that, at least. Can some classical be as simple and direct as the most immediately accessible of pop or folk tunes, again, a resounding "yes."
> 
> For me, Webern, Boulez, Schoenberg, Babbitt, all and any you might throw in the 'non-visceral' bin as music which is not visceral, I wholeheartedly think was very much meant to be first enjoyed on the visceral plane, regardless of any more technical / intellectual games going on in those scores.
> 
> The 'approach' needed is _always visceral COMBINED WITH the intellectual:_ some music taken viscerally is so direct that the listener is unaware that to follow it at all the intellect is still at work... it is just not so at work you are aware of it. Your intellect is busy when it hears or reads, "See the cat." or hears or sings "Mary had a little lamb." Visceral, at least in the case of listening to any sort of music, does not mean brain-dead


See my post above. You can't have the same kind viscerality avoiding repetition.


----------



## norman bates

Sid James said:


> I suppose that's what I was getting at by quoting Ray Charles before. He didn't aim to make it big, he aimed to do what he called good music, and if he did make it big, its a bonus, the icing on the cake.
> 
> Regarding Webern his aims where of course different in some ways, but being the fastidious perfectionist he was, he also aimed to do good music in his chosen genres.
> 
> Like Ray, he was an innovator.
> 
> On the whole, I don't warm to Webern much, he's the hardest of the Viennese crew for me to appreciate. Still, I am getting there with him slowly and sometimes I do find him visceral.
> 
> One writer compared Webern to be like going in a pitch black room and only having a match to light to guide your way, look around the room. But a match doesn't last long, once it has gone out, you've got to light another one. You may get a sense of bits of the room, but your impressions are fragmentary, its not the same as seeing things with a light turned on.
> 
> That description makes sense to me, in terms of my experience. I wonder if that's too politically incorrect for those who think his melodies are not fragmented for example, or that if one is assessing and grouping melodies by their fragmentation or unity, then that is undesirable, that is by default or implication putting Webern and those like him down.
> 
> The writer I read putting across that simile was not putting him down, but trying to assist people in accessing Webern's music. Now there's another taboo word in discussions of new or newer music, access.
> 
> I hope we don't have an argument about that now as well!


Oh no, it's a truly great description of Webern's music.


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> See my post above. You can't have the same kind viscerality avoiding repetition.


There is the general visceral quality of reacting to 'just the sounds.' If you are dependent upon, or looking for repetition, no, then, that has -- as you know it -- been left behind here.

Some people are willing to concentrate more, and repeatedly (the piece posted is just under all of six minutes) and will 'crack the nut,' others, less interested or willing, wanting instead the work 'more done for them,' via more constant or insistent repetition, will not find themselves engaged with any music which works along these lines, I would venture to say they would also feel more at sea or left out with the mid or late romantic works which are through-composed, again not relying so much on repetition.

You can not fault any composer for simply not adhering or conforming to your particular listening habits, though.


----------



## norman bates

PetrB said:


> There is the general visceral quality of reacting to 'just the sounds.' If you are dependent upon, or looking for repetition, no, then, that has -- as you know it -- been left behind here.
> Some people are willing to concentrate more, and repeatedly (the piece posted is just under all of six minutes) and will 'crack the nut,' others, less interested or willing, wanting instead the work 'more done for them,' via more constant or insistent repetition, will not find themselves engaged with any music which works along these lines, I would venture to say they would also feel more at sea or left out with the mid or late romantic works which are through-composed, again not relying so much on repetition.
> 
> You can not fault any composer for simply not adhering or conforming to your particular listening habits, though.


If viscerality was just a matter of sound, all music would be considered visceral. I would agree with you when you say "visceral COMBINED WITH the intellectual" for the fifth symphony of Hartmann for instance or for the second movement of Beethoven's ninth or for the music of Mingus, but Webern's music is detached, austere, still, it's a complete negation of viscerality.


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> If viscerality was just a matter of sound, all music would be considered visceral. I would agree with you when you say "visceral COMBINED WITH the intellectual" for the fifth symphony of Hartmann for instance or for the second movement of Beethoven's ninth or for the music of Mingus, but Webern's music is detached, austere, still, it's a complete negation of viscerality.


That is your point of view as per your personal opinion of that music.

All music is perceived viscerally, think about it... physical waves of air taken in by both ears and body. Pretty hard to get away with when dealing with sound: it is sensory.


----------



## norman bates

PetrB said:


> That is your point of view as per your personal opinion of that music.
> 
> All music is perceived viscerally, think about it... physical waves of air taken in by both ears and body. Pretty hard to get away with when dealing with sound: it is sensory.


I think about it and I think that if all is visceral, visceral does not mean anything. It's like to say that Britney Spears's music is cerebral because we use the use the brain to understand it. So there's any difference at any level. All music is visceral, all music is cerebral. Think about it.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> You can not fault any composer for simply not adhering or conforming to your particular listening habits, though.


I have not read the rest of the thread, yet. This pulled me up, and I had to respond to it.

This is at the very core of every conversation about "modern" music.

That you not only can, but that you must, at every opportunity. It is your sacred right, your duty, your solemn responsibility to do this repeatedly and forcefully.

(Now I'm going to read the rest of the thread. See what's what.)


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> If viscerality was just a matter of sound, all music would be considered visceral.


Hahaha, yes! A gem almost immediately.

Yes, all music IS visceral. All music is vibrations, and all music makes your eardrums vibrate sympathetically with it. (Too bad it's not also sympathetic at the brain end of things, but "oh well."



norman bates said:


> Webern's music is detached, austere, still, it's a complete negation of viscerality.


It is nothing of the sort. I'd like to quote a friend of mine remarking on this very thing: "You can not fault any composer for simply not adhering or conforming to your particular listening habits, though."


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> Hahaha, yes! A gem almost immediately.
> 
> Yes, all music IS visceral. All music is vibrations, and all music makes your eardrums vibrate sympathetically with it. (Too bad it's not also sympathetic at the brain end of things, but "oh well."


what about the other part of the gem? 
"It's like to say that Britney Spears's music is cerebral because we use the use the brain to understand it. So there's any difference at any level. All music is visceral, all music is cerebral. Think about it"



some guy said:


> It is nothing of the sort. I'd like to quote a friend of mine remarking on this very thing: "You can not fault any composer for simply not adhering or conforming to your particular listening habits, though."


I'm not faulting Webern for been cerebral. Cerebral is not a bad word. But his music is not visceral at all. Like Britney's music is not cerebral.


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> what about the other part of the gem?
> "It's like to say that Britney Spears's music is cerebral because we use the use the brain to understand it. So there's any difference at any level. All music is visceral, all music is cerebral. Think about it"
> 
> I'm not faulting Webern for been cerebral. Cerebral is not a bad word. But his music is not visceral at all. Like Britney's music is not cerebral.


I think you're either just being stubborn, or you sincerely do not get what is being gotten at: sound is sensate, and the brain processes it.

You're more than correct there are varying degrees of 'cerebral' involved, but I would like to see the rationale (that holds water, anyway) part of the argument where for some reason the more cerebral music is still not equally perceived through the physical senses. (If you mean you have a more immediate 'response' to one sound vs. another, that has to do with your brain, not your ears or body. Emotional responses, too, are of and from the brain, i.e. they're still "thoughts.")

Does pop / rock quite often hammer you over the head and pummel your body with wide and extremely amplified sound waves -- yeah, is that what you mean, that pop music is LOUDER? lol. I'm sure that is not what you were thinking, just thought the actual pulsation of that greater a dynamic may have influenced your thinking in your take from Webern to a pop tune.


----------



## norman bates

PetrB said:


> I think you're either just being stubborn,


me? 



PetrB said:


> or you sincerely do not get what is being gotten at: sound is sensate, and the brain processes it.
> 
> You're more than correct there are varying degrees of 'cerebral' involved, but I would like to see the rationale (that holds water, anyway) part of the argument where for some reason the more cerebral music is still not equally perceived through the physical senses. (If you mean you have a more immediate 'response' to one sound vs. another, that has to do with your brain, not your ears or body. Emotional responses, too, are of and from the brain, i.e. they're still "thoughts.")
> 
> Does pop / rock quite often hammer you over the head and pummel your body with wide and extremely amplified sound waves -- yeah, is that what you mean, that pop music is LOUDER? lol. I'm sure that is not what you were thinking, just thought the actual pulsation of that greater a dynamic may have influenced your thinking in your take from Webern to a pop tune.


I'm certainly not talking of loudness, but of groove, swing, funk or whatever you want to call it (that's what I mean with viscerality) , all ideas that are tied indissolubly with the concept of repetition.


----------



## Guest

Well, Norman, if all water is wet, then wet obviously means nothing.

Might as well say that all sand is dry. Dry is just meaningless if all sand is dry.

(Fortunately, if you put some meaningless water on it....)

This "all" equals "meaningless" comes up a lot in these discussions. "If all sound is music, then the word 'music' is meaningless." I feel like it should have its own name, but I guess that "red herring" pretty well already covers it. Still, to have its own name....

The point being, as I have said, that the physical component of music is hooked up to a brain, and each brain responds differently to the physical input. I respond viscerally to the sounds of Webern's music; you do not. 

Better, probably, to reserve words like "visceral," then to talking about what they really describe--not the music itself but to the responses to that music. But this idea, for whatever reason, just doesn't seem able to get any traction. It's like that cliche about beauty being in the eye of the beholder as a response to a criticism of some object (painting) being ugly. But what if beauty and ugliness are neither one of them qualities of either the eye or the object but of what happens when the two of them get together?

I guess we're just too stuck on the material plane. Reality is either in one object, an eye, or in another object, the "ugly" painting. Nothing really happens when the eye and the pigments interact. Or, the only thing that happens that's real is that the eye that perceives the painting as ugly gets privileged over all other eyes. The painting, therefore, is defined as ugly. And there we are with all conversations about music as well. You can and must fault any and every composer for simply not adhering or conforming to your particular listening habits, because those habits are not only normative, they are the only right ones. In fact, they are literally the only ones. Any others are, by definition, spurious. How dare these pro-modernists lie to us about what they really don't like, either, deep down.

Balls to that, eh?


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> Well, Norman, if all water is wet, then wet obviously means nothing.


Fire is not wet, so wet means something. But if you think that it's all subjective, you could try to touch it.



some guy said:


> You can and must fault any and every composer for simply not adhering or conforming to your particular listening habits


Like, to say that popular music is inferior because it use repetition? I thought that (like the avantgarde) it required a different approach. No more complex harmonies, no more development, the focus is like in the african music for instance on repetition (that is appreciated for its visceral aspect and his hypnotic value) and on texture. Oh well, but that is popular music so it's not interesting or complex enough to be appreciated by the elitists.


----------



## norman bates

In a sense I think that the last page of this discussion is a good of illustration of the reasons for the lack of popularity of classical music. Every criticism of it is seen as unreasonable.


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> Like, to say that popular music is inferior because it use repetition? I thought that (like the avantgarde) it required a different approach. No more complex harmonies, no more development, the focus is like in the african music for instance on repetition (that is appreciated for its visceral aspect and his hypnotic value) and on texture. *Oh well, but that is popular music so it's not interesting or complex enough to be appreciated by the elitists.*


Gadzooks! Talk about massive inverse snobbery... if that's all you wanted to say why didn't you just say it?

You didn't need to drag Webern out on the dance floor with you to make your point 

P.s. Of course, if you had gone with a dictionary meaning of visceral vs. your "to me, visceral is" personally defined spin on that (where can we all look that one up?) all this column space would have been unnecessary :-/


----------



## Guest

Miguel Azguime is a composer of percussion, electroacoustic, and multimedia theatrical works.

He said once to me that if he wants to dance, he doesn't turn to his own music. It's no good at all for dancing.

And that's OK. There's plenty of music for dancing, if dancing's what you want. And if you want a thrilling excursion into sound and light and color, well, Azguime's your man, then.

Human's are all of them quite a lot more complex and their needs are quite a lot more various and quite a lot less consistent than these discussions ever consider.

As for criticisms of classical music being at all connected logically with classical music's popularity, that is truly risible. 

Besides, we haven't really seen any criticisms of anything, have we? Unless carping counts as criticism. (Fire and water are different. So are carping and criticism.)


----------



## norman bates

PetrB said:


> Gadzooks, if that's all you wanted to say why didn't you just say it. You didn't need to drag Webern out on the dance floor with you to make your point.


I think I've said a lot more than that. But I know that it's way more simple to dismiss all criticisms of the avantgarde as stupid rants of someone who know nothing about it.


----------



## Guest

A) Have we gotten any _criticisms_ of the avant garde?

B) Have even all the carpings about the avant garde been simply _dismissed?_

C) Things that are stupid rants should be treated differently from things that are actual criticisms, should they not?

I know this for sure, that "Webern's music is not visceral at all" is far from being a criticism of Webern, much less of "the avant garde," generally. It is not even, as I have pointed out ad nauseum (it even nauseates me, by now), a comment about the music.

But "oh well."


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> I know this for sure, that "Webern's music is not visceral at all" is far from being a criticism of Webern


in fact it was not a criticism (and as I've said I think that the description of of his music in the post of Sid is fantastic). Some of my very favorite music is not visceral at all and I've explained what I mean with viscerality, and I don't certainly mean it like a criticism but just a fact. 
I've made a few points back in the thread (this one on repetition is just one) but I see that there's no space for a discussion.


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> Webern avoided completely repetition, while in popular music (that has is roots in african and folk music) repetition is the foundation of groove, the swing etc. So I think that this is a HUGE difference. European modern composers before minimalism thought repetition as a capital sin, and not something with a value for his viscerality and his hypnotic effect.


I hate to bring this up, because it's a tasteless defamation of a masterpiece, but it proves you can make *anything* into banal popular music.


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> in fact it was not a criticism (and as I've said I think that the description of of his music in the post of Sid is fantastic). Some of my very favorite music is not visceral at all and I've explained what I mean with viscerality, and I don't certainly mean it like a criticism but just a fact.
> I've made a few points back in the thread (this one on repetition is just one) but I see that there's no space for a discussion.


What YOU mean by 'viscerality' has nothing to do with the accurate definition of the word. If the written word is all we've got here, making up your own definition of visceral, classical, romantic era, etc. just does not cut it _at all_. It is called 'a failure to communicate.'


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> I hate to bring this up, because it's a tasteless defamation of a masterpiece, but it proves you can make *anything* into banal popular music.


There ya go, just add a steady-ish back beat and then some people are happy -- i.e. those who do not understand music without a relentlessly present and steady four-on-the-floor played on a trapset ~ or, "Do you know four-on-the-floor played by a trapset?" 
"No, but if you hum me a few bars...."


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> I hate to bring this up, because it's a tasteless defamation of a masterpiece, but it proves you can make *anything* into banal popular music.


it's been seen by 1200 persons, it's not so popular (and by the way it's horrible). Seriously, that's another question, what is popular music and what's not. Captain Beefheart, Merzbow or the Residents are popular music?


----------



## norman bates

PetrB said:


> What YOU mean by 'viscerality' has nothing to do with the accurate definition of the word. If the written word is all we've got here, making up your own definition of visceral, classical, romantic era, etc. just does not cut it _at all_. It is called 'a failure to communicate.'


Maybe, but the question was about the importance of repetition, and I have clarified what I meant. But we could continue to discuss about the accurate meaning of "viscerality" if you want.


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> Maybe, but the question was about the importance of repetition, and I have clarified what I meant. But we could continue to discuss about the accurate meaning of "viscerality" if you want.


I'd prefer you just look it up.


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> it's been seen by 1200 persons, it's not so popular (and by the way it's horrible). Seriously, that's another question, what is popular music and what's not. Captain Beefheart, Merzbow or the Residents are popular music?


I know it's horrible.

I didn't mean that it was "popular" music (as in having a wide audience), but rather that it was arranged (without much thought) into the style of Popular Music (as in separate from Classical/Art or Folk music).


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> I know it's horrible.
> 
> I didn't mean that it was "popular" music (as in having a wide audience), but rather that it was arranged (without much thought) into the style of Popular Music (as in separate from Classical/Art or Folk music).


To me it's just a classical piece arranged (raped maybe it's a better word) in very poor taste with an horrible drum sample. I've heard John Rutter using a similar drum sample on a piece of him.


----------



## arpeggio

*Crusade Against Contemporary Music*

Even though we may be a minority, there are too many here whole appreciate contemporary music.

No matter how much the anti crowd complains, we are not going away! 

If you don't like, don't listen to it.


----------



## JohnnyRotten

Right on! I like the Sex Pistols, others don't. I like Beethoven, a lot of my friends don't. I don't have a problem with old or new music.


----------



## PetrB

arpeggio said:


> Even though we may be a minority, there are too many here whole appreciate contemporary music.
> 
> No matter how much the anti crowd complains, we are not going away!
> 
> If you don't like, don't listen to it.


I know. It begs the question of how many times does any person need to say either or both, "I don't get it. I don't like it." as if constant repetition of that is enough to change the tides and flow of music now. "They" are already literally not buying it, and that is about the biggest and only vote they, or anyone, gets in the consumption of music game.


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> I know. It begs the question of how many times does any person need to say either or both, "I don't get it. I don't like it." as if constant repetition of that is enough to change the tides and flow of music now. "They" are already literally not buying it, and that is about the biggest and only vote they, or anyone, gets in the consumption of music game.


You could ask, on the other hand, how many times you need to keep saying, 'I like it! I get it!' as though constant repetition of that is enough to get everyone else to be forced into a guilt trip whereby they - for fear of not being considered enlightened - force themselves to listen to the discordant noise that is masquerading as music.


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> You could ask, on the other hand, how many times you need to keep saying, 'I like it! I get it!' as though constant repetition of that is enough to get everyone else to be forced into a guilt trip whereby they - for fear of not being considered enlightened - force themselves to listen to the discordant noise that is masquerading as music.


I have chosen to no longer deal with what I perceive to be personal and wholly imagined projected issues. Just look at the Aleazk Piano concerto thread, and recall that looking at it and listening to the clip was entirely voluntary.

Sayonara, and best regards.


----------



## arpeggio

*What's the Difference*



DavidA said:


> You could ask, on the other hand, how many times you need to keep saying, 'I like it! I get it!' as though constant repetition of that is enough to get everyone else to be forced into a guilt trip whereby they - for fear of not being considered enlightened - force themselves to listen to the discordant noise that is masquerading as music.


Then why is it that Mozart people can say, "I like it, I get it," but Schoenberg people can not?

You hate repetition. Well how many times do I have to say that I do not support the comments you accuse all modernists of saying. So what? Because some modernists are jerks, the rest of us have to go hide in closet?

What are you trying to prove?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> You could ask, on the other hand, how many times you need to keep saying, 'I like it! I get it!' as though constant repetition of that is enough to get everyone else to be forced into a guilt trip whereby they - for fear of not being considered enlightened - force themselves to listen to the discordant noise that is masquerading as music.


Wow. This is a lot of convolution in a very short space.

Unpacking time:

1) How many times do you really see anyone saying "I like it! I get it!"? I think that this is one of those "appears to be equivalent to something that actually is real but it's really just made up" things.

2) And even if there were constant repetition of that, is the constant repetition for the purpose of forcing people into a guilt trip? Wow. Really? And what would be the purpose of that? Do you really believe that people are trying to guilt you into things? I'm gonna guess that no one is doing that. Not with music, anyway. I would take "I like it! I get it!" to be something good, an expression of delight at finally understanding something. Not something to be threatened by, anyway.

3) If anyone fears not being considered enlightened, they're on their own. Truly. If people force themselves to do something unpleasant, that's on them. No one else is to blame.

4) "Discordant noise that is masquerading as music" is about as prejudicial a way of stating something as I've ever seen. This would be a good time to give some examples of what you consider to be "discordant noise" and why you consider this "noise" to be masquerading. I've listened to a lot of music in my day. I cannot think of anything that I've ever heard that matches this "description."


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> This would be a good time to give some examples of what you consider to be "discordant noise" and why you consider this "noise" to be masquerading. I've listened to a lot of music in my day. I cannot think of anything that I've ever heard that matches this "description."


It was also time to you (who asked also to me a list of composers that didn't exist and that I was inventing in your opinion, remember?) what you thought of that very detailed study of Fred Lehrdal. Strangely you disappeared when I posted it 
What is this thing of the lists for, just to exhaust the interlocutor?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> This still doesn't make listening to music anything more than entertainment. It might be very profound entertainment, and certainly knowledge helps our appreciation, but we still listen to be entertained.


Is there anything else in life - between work and sleep, I mean?


----------



## Sid James

norman bates said:


> Webern avoided completely repetition, while in popular music (that has is roots in african and folk music) repetition is the foundation of groove, the swing etc. So I think that this is a HUGE difference. European modern composers before minimalism thought repetition as a capital sin, and not something with a value for his viscerality and his hypnotic effect.


There is truth in this, but I'll broaden the issue a bit and focus away from Webern. I recently reread the autobiography of one of Australia's leading composers of the 20th century, Peter Sculthorpe. In it he wrote of attending and giving an address at some conference, around the time that kind of serialist hegemony was still alive and strong. In his address, Sculthorpe said in effect what you're saying, that there is this corporeal element in music that has repetition, and if you do away with repetition entirely, you lost that sense of sway and rhythm that is there, has been since the dawn of humanity. It also gives the listener something to hang onto.

Sculthorpe mentioned that some luminaries of the post-war music scene where there, Stockhausen being one. He said Stockhausen made it clear to Sculthorpe then that he didn't agree with what he was saying. But in 1999, when he wrote his autobiography decades later, Sculthorpe said that judging from how Stockhausen's music had changed and gone back to some of those things he jettisoned earlier, like repetition, he would agree with him if they'd had that conversation in 1999.

So Boulez and Stockhausen, people like them returned to things later which in their youth they said where old hat. Music in the 1970's kind of moved on from that hard line view that for example you had to have like 30 different musical events in a piece for it to be really Modern or whatever. Repetition is a no-no because its predictable, traditional, retrograde, cheap, whatever. I did a thread on this issue a while back, that balance between predictability and unpredictability in music:

http://www.talkclassical.com/17622-balancing-predictable-surprising-music.html

Another thing is that Sculthorpe wasn't against serialism, he just didnt have a need for it. He innovated in sonority early on, and himself went back to more elements of tradition - which was one of the big trends of the 1970's and '80's. A lot of people did it. But when he taught at conservatorium level, of course he taught serialism, he also had studied under a composer who did use serial techniques, Egon Wellesz in the UK (as well as Edmund Rubbra). Sculthorpe was also amongst the first to teach courses in Asian music at university level. He also admired Takemitsu's music, who you mentioned, and I think that its obvious that Webern influenced him but not prescriptively or dogmatically as some where trying to push.

There where many innovations going on in the 20th century, things like serialism, electronics, chance based ones where only a few. Some used these flexibly, others more prescriptively. Its up to them, up to the composer. But to argue the old Modernist cliches of blaming the listener and so on, well I think the world has gone beyond that. We need to stop blaming, and usually that involves blaming others who listen to new or newer music, so that infighting. Its destructive and divisive. So its about stopping blame games which undermine everything and looking at the commonalities. Like between Takemitsu and WEbern, for example. They are there and its another way of aiding the listener to make connections and access more music, or potentially access it. Knowledge like that is useful, whereas ideological bunfights aren't.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> It was also time to you (who asked also to me a list of composers that didn't exist and that I was inventing in your opinion, remember?) what you thought of that very detailed study of Fred Lehrdal. Strangely you disappeared when I posted it


"Sorry if I reply so late, but I had a problem."

One standard for you; another one for the rest of us? Good luck with that.



norman bates said:


> What is this thing of the lists for, just to exhaust the interlocutor?


My very dear Mr. Bates, in discussion, there are certain conventions for behavior, sometimes more honored in the breach, but nonetheless still considered operable, and one of them is that assertions and generalizations need support to be convincing.

You were damning a group of people, your description of which did not match any living composers whom I know, without identifying any particular person in that group. It is your responsibility to back up your assertions with evidence.

It is, on the other hand, no part of any interlocutor's responsibility to read long, detailed essays of questionable pertinence to the discussion in order to be a responsible participant.

I guess that that will have to stand for my opinion of that study--what were you trying to accomplish by inviting me (us) to read it?


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> It was also time to you (who asked also to me a list of composers that didn't exist and that I was inventing in your opinion, remember?) what you thought of that very detailed study of Fred Lehrdal. Strangely you disappeared when I posted it.


I'm not some guy, but I've read that study a few times. It has some interesting propositions in it, but most of them, on further inspection, are self explanatory:

"Music that is not repetitive is harder to grasp"
"Music that lacks traditional formal signposts is harder to grasp for one who uses those signposts to orient him/herself"
"In music where the mechanism is hidden, the mechanism remains unheard."

That third one seems to be the point of his article, and it's so tautological that I'm baffled that he spent an entire paper on it. After all, he doesn't do anything to prove that there's really a _problem_ with the methods being in some way divorced from the audible result, as long as the work does not depend on the method for its external presentation.

In Boulez's case (the one examined in detail throughout the paper) grasping the external result matters more than grasping the process that led to it (which, as he comments, is not followed strictly in any event), and I disagree that one "cannot tell whether correct rhythms or pitches have been played". I have heard performances of _Le marteau_ with mistakes in them, and they inevitably sound worse than a correct performance.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7JIAVneYYoM#t=117

The ensemble in the first version is far sloppier. Note the intonation in the viola and the accents in the pitched percussion, for example.

Edit: Replaced second video with better example.


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> "Music that is not repetitive is harder to grasp"
> "Music that lacks traditional formal signposts is harder to grasp for one who uses those signposts to orient him/herself"
> "In music where the mechanism is hidden, the mechanism remains unheard."


*These truths are glaringly self-evident *


----------



## norman bates

Sid James said:


> There is truth in this, but I'll broaden the issue a bit and focus away from Webern. I recently reread the autobiography of one of Australia's leading composers of the 20th century, Peter Sculthorpe. In it he wrote of attending and giving an address at some conference, around the time that kind of serialist hegemony was still alive and strong. In his address, Sculthorpe said in effect what you're saying, that there is this corporeal element in music that has repetition, and if you do away with repetition entirely, you lost that sense of sway and rhythm that is there, has been since the dawn of humanity. It also gives the listener something to hang onto.
> 
> Sculthorpe mentioned that some luminaries of the post-war music scene where there, Stockhausen being one. He said Stockhausen made it clear to Sculthorpe then that he didn't agree with what he was saying. But in 1999, when he wrote his autobiography decades later, Sculthorpe said that judging from how Stockhausen's music had changed and gone back to some of those things he jettisoned earlier, like repetition, he would agree with him if they'd had that conversation in 1999.
> 
> So Boulez and Stockhausen, people like them returned to things later which in their youth they said where old hat. Music in the 1970's kind of moved on from that hard line view that for example you had to have like 30 different musical events in a piece for it to be really Modern or whatever. Repetition is a no-no because its predictable, traditional, retrograde, cheap, whatever. I did a thread on this issue a while back, that balance between predictability and unpredictability in music:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/17622-balancing-predictable-surprising-music.html
> 
> Another thing is that Sculthorpe wasn't against serialism, he just didnt have a need for it. He innovated in sonority early on, and himself went back to more elements of tradition - which was one of the big trends of the 1970's and '80's. A lot of people did it. But when he taught at conservatorium level, of course he taught serialism, he also had studied under a composer who did use serial techniques, Egon Wellesz in the UK (as well as Edmund Rubbra). Sculthorpe was also amongst the first to teach courses in Asian music at university level. He also admired Takemitsu's music, who you mentioned, and I think that its obvious that Webern influenced him but not prescriptively or dogmatically as some where trying to push.
> 
> There where many innovations going on in the 20th century, things like serialism, electronics, chance based ones where only a few. Some used these flexibly, others more prescriptively. Its up to them, up to the composer. But to argue the old Modernist cliches of blaming the listener and so on, well I think the world has gone beyond that. We need to stop blaming, and usually that involves blaming others who listen to new or newer music, so that infighting. Its destructive and divisive. So its about stopping blame games which undermine everything and looking at the commonalities. Like between Takemitsu and WEbern, for example. They are there and its another way of aiding the listener to make connections and access more music, or potentially access it. Knowledge like that is useful, whereas ideological bunfights aren't.


Sid you think that the world is gone beyond the phase of the extremism? Maybe, considering certain aspects it's certainly true, but still (back to the article at the beginning) I think that still there's too much academicism and formalism. 
It's not a problem in itself, I could certainly live with that and nevertheless find a lot of music that I really like. But since the discussion was about the reasons of the disaffection of the audience I've just said what I thought were some "problems" (a certain emotional narrowness of serialism, the emphasis on complexity that sometimes seems unnecessary in a lot of modern music, the condamnation of repetition, at least in a certain phase if you will). Then, I know that I could be wrong and it's just a discussion on a board.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> "Sorry if I reply so late, but I had a problem."
> 
> One standard for you; another one for the rest of us? Good luck with that.


Well, but at the end of that I've answered to the posts.



some guy said:


> My very dear Mr. Bates, in discussion, there are certain conventions for behavior, sometimes more honored in the breach, but nonetheless still considered operable, and one of them is that assertions and generalizations need support to be convincing.
> 
> You were damning a group of people, your description of which did not match any living composers whom I know, without identifying any particular person in that group. It is your responsibility to back up your assertions with evidence.


If you have never heard of Ligeti, Lehrdal, Rochberg, Ohana, Ned Rorem just to say (or say again) it's not my problem.



some guy said:


> It is, on the other hand, no part of any interlocutor's responsibility to read long, detailed essays of questionable pertinence to the discussion in order to be a responsible participant.


That's right, but since I was saying that even avantgarde composers have criticisms on serialism and you was saying that I was inventing it and that there were no one saying similiar things I've mentioned that study of Lehrdal, who is an avantgarde composer, a theorist and he teaches composition at the Columbia. Then, you're certainly free and you could not read (it's interesting but I admit that it's a bit long), but as you can see I wasn't inventing anything.


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> I'm not some guy, but I've read that study a few times. It has some interesting propositions in it, but most of them, on further inspection, are self explanatory:
> 
> "Music that is not repetitive is harder to grasp"


it's not true? Ask anyone to try to memorize a simple tonal tune and then a twelve tone row. This is not a proof of the superiority of tonality, but I think that it's clear that the first is easier to grasp.



Mahlerian said:


> "Music that lacks traditional formal signposts is harder to grasp for one who uses those signposts to orient him/herself"
> "In music where the mechanism is hidden, the mechanism remains unheard."
> 
> That third one seems to be the point of his article, and it's so tautological that I'm baffled that he spent an entire paper on it. After all, he doesn't do anything to prove that there's really a _problem_ with the methods being in some way divorced from the audible result, as long as the work does not depend on the method for its external presentation.


I see that instead as a very interesting point. Because if you use a a certain technique to compose, it's clear that you use it to achieve a particular effect. But if that effect is no discernable at all from something you could achieve in different ways (like free atonality in that case) so why use a difficult technique that involves a lot more constrainments? I mean, what's the merit in a new and more technique that produces results that for the ear does not produce a new effect?



Mahlerian said:


> In Boulez's case (the one examined in detail throughout the paper) grasping the external result matters more than grasping the process that led to it (which, as he comments, is not followed strictly in any event), and I disagree that one "cannot tell whether correct rhythms or pitches have been played". I have heard performances of _Le marteau_ with mistakes in them, and they inevitably sound worse than a correct performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7JIAVneYYoM#t=117
> 
> The ensemble in the first version is far sloppier. Note the intonation in the viola and the accents in the pitched percussion, for example.
> 
> Edit: Replaced second video with better example.


I don't know, what I like about Le marteau is the mix of the timbres of those instruments, but about the pitch I (like Lehrdal) can't say if there's one note wrong or not.


----------



## Guest

Well, I've tried to read the article in the OP, but I had to give up. It seems he's creating several Aunt Sallies - or do I mean Straw Men - but only half-heartedly so. And whilst he makes some self-evidently truthful points (at least, self-evident to those not about to embark on a recondite philosophical debate about whether music is music if no-one's heard it) he doesn't seem to clinch any of them convincingly. For example,



> And therein lies the paradox of contemporary music: music exists to be heard or not at all, yet it's true that audiences for contemporary music are not as large as any of us would like them to be. It won't do to try and resolve the paradox by claiming that we don't care if our music is heard, engaged with, and deeply felt, thus absolving ourselves of our responsibilities to others as well as ourselves. Because that is what, most of all, is shrinking audiences for contemporary music: not any particular musicians, stylistic approaches, or programming, but rather a pernicious idea that contemporary music can only succeed if it bets against itself, and pretends that losing was really winning all along.


When he says "contemporary music" he doesn't define it. Are we to assume he really means "contemporary classical"? If so, it seems he fails to accept a truth, which is that music, taken in total, has a very large audience, and most of it finds the niche that it wants. My guess is that the branch of music that 'bets against itself' is small and need not be held up as a threat to "contemporary music" as a whole (see his example of the composer in Italy whose performance was heard by just 7 people).

It may be deeply distressing to some, but the era of "real" classical music came to an end a long time ago, and cannot be returned to. Society has changed, instruments and instrument technology have changed, methods of recording and distribution, of consumption and listening have changed. All of these have had a profound impact on what is composed and what is listened to: the clock cannot be turned back. So his complaint is, in my view, without foundation. There will always be some composers who will grapple with the 'paradox' of composing what they want to say in the full knowledge that there may be no-one who wants to listen to it: so what? That is no worse than those who compose for fame and fortune and appear to be driven only by commercial imperatives.

His limp conclusion is to exhort composers to do what most have always been doing, to some degree, if in different proportions: being themselves _and _considering the response of the audience.


----------



## starry

MacLeod said:


> There will always be some composers who will grapple with the 'paradox' of composing what they want to say in the full knowledge that there may be no-one who wants to listen to it: so what? That is no worse than those who compose for fame and fortune and appear to be driven only by commercial imperatives.


There will always be somebody somewhere who wants to listen, but I assume you intentionally exaggerated.


----------



## Guest

starry said:


> There will always be somebody somewhere who wants to listen, but I assume you intentionally exaggerated.


I didn't exaggerate. I didn't say that there _won't_ be any one to listen. I said that there are some composers who will give consideration to the idea that there _may not be_ an audience for their work. It's the act of consideration while composing that is important, not whether there is or isn't.


----------



## starry

There will always be some kind of audience unless it's never performed and also the score isn't shown to anyone.


----------



## Guest

starry said:


> There will always be some kind of audience unless it's never performed and also the score isn't shown to anyone.


The composer at least .


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> it's not true? Ask anyone to try to memorize a simple tonal tune and then a twelve tone row. This is not a proof of the superiority of tonality, but I think that it's clear that the first is easier to grasp.


I've seen this criticism a number of times, but it misses the point in my opinion. It would only be a significant problem if the twelve tone row were the object of perception. I am not aware of any pieces in which it is. Most of the time, composers break it up so that short, easily distinguished motifs or gestures (in the case of post-Schoenberg serialism) are the primary focus. The 12-tone row is meant to be background to the piece's material, analogous to the relation between a mode and the music formed out of it.



norman bates said:


> I see that instead as a very interesting point. Because if you use a a certain technique to compose, it's clear that you use it to achieve a particular effect. But if that effect is no discernable at all from something you could achieve in different ways (like free atonality in that case) so why use a difficult technique that involves a lot more constrainments? I mean, what's the merit in a new and more technique that produces results that for the ear does not produce a new effect?


Serialism _does_ produce a particular effect differing from free atonality. It ensures that the material will, at the subconscious level at the least, fit together as variations of the same thing.



norman bates said:


> I don't know, what I like about Le marteau is the mix of the timbres of those instruments, but about the pitch I (like Lehrdal) can't say if there's one note wrong or not.


You mean that the two videos sound equally correct to you?

I can hear why certain pitches and rhythms are used rather than others. Boulez keeps the melody and phrasing from the vocal version in the background, so to speak, throughout the whole thing.


----------



## Yardrax

Mahlerian said:


> Serialism _does_ produce a particular effect differing from free atonality. It ensures that the material will, at the subconscious level at the least, fit together as variations of the same thing.


This seems like a bit of a mental leap of faith.


----------



## Mahlerian

Yardrax said:


> This seems like a bit of a mental leap of faith.


I think it has the same general level of validity as saying that a piece that is in a key and adheres to progressions that support that key fits together.

Of course in both cases one has to make sure that the phrasing and rhythm do their part in creating coherence. A piece that uses "progressions" taken from classicism without the correct phrasing is nonsense.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> If you have never heard of Ligeti, Lehrdal, Rochberg, Ohana, Ned Rorem just to say (or say again) it's not my problem.


Of course I have heard of these people. Well, of all of them besides Lehrdal. I don't know any Lehrdal's.

Ned Lerdahl I know. And I would not call him an avant garde composer.

And, of course, the point is not and never has been whether I know this group of people or not. These are people who have said things that "support" your otherwise unsupported assertions about other people who remain nameless. OK. We are still right where we started. You have made assertions about some unnamed people. I could not match up those assertions with anyone I know, so I asked you for some names. You found some people who agree with your unsupported assertions, who make the same assertions themselves.

But the unnamed people remain unnamed. And the assertions about those anonymouse folk remain just that, assertions.



norman bates said:


> That's right, but since I was saying that even avantgarde composers have criticisms on serialism and you was saying that I was inventing it and that there were no one saying similiar things I've mentioned that study of Lehrdal, who is an avantgarde composer, a theorist and he teaches composition at the Columbia. Then, you're certainly free and you could not read (it's interesting but I admit that it's a bit long), but as you can see I wasn't inventing anything.


Um, Norman, what I was responding to originally were your blanket statements about the supposed lacks of modern music generally.


norman bates said:


> my criticism is not just on serialism


So to say something about modern music sounding like jargon and then to bring in some tame contemporary composers who have things to say about the limits of serialism is simply not to play the game at all at all.

Our original disagreement went like this:

Norman: "...often modern music sounds like a jargon even for those who listen a lot and know a lot about modern music."

Me: "Who are these people who listen a lot but for whom modern music sounds like a jargon?"

Norman: "a lot of musicians would like to have a larger audience (while blaming the audience for being so ignorant...)"

Me: "Who are these people? What are their names? What do they actually say about things?"

And that discussion has yet to move beyond that point. The people you named--Ligeti, Lehrdal (sic), Rochberg, Ohana, Ned Rorem--are neither people for whom modern music sounds like jargon nor musicians who would like to have a larger audience while blaming the audience for being so ignorant. Nor are they people with whom, in a delightful non sequitur, I am unfamiliar. The closest anything you've said to moving beyond that point is that Lerdahl claims that there are cognitive reasons why audiences have difficulty with serialism.

I, just by the way, do not have and have never had the problems with serialism that Lerdahl says I should be having. Ah exceptions. The bugbears of dogmatism.


----------



## ahammel

Mahlerian said:


> I have heard performances of _Le marteau_ with mistakes in them, and they inevitably sound worse than a correct performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7JIAVneYYoM#t=117
> 
> The ensemble in the first version is far sloppier. Note the intonation in the viola and the accents in the pitched percussion, for example.
> 
> Edit: Replaced second video with better example.


For my part, I have pretty much no idea what's going on technically in _Le Marteau_, and I had no trouble in distinguishing the two performances.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> Of course I have heard of these people. Well, of all of them besides Lehrdal. I don't know any Lehrdal's.
> 
> Ned Lerdahl I know. And I would not call him an avant garde composer.


But Fred Lehrdal is an avant garde composer.

just as an introduction from the wikipedia page:


> Alfred Whitford Lerdahl (Fred Lerdahl) (born March 10, 1943, in Madison, Wisconsin) is the Fritz Reiner Professor of Musical Composition at Columbia University,[1] and a composer and music theorist best known for his work on pitch space and cognitive constraints on compositional systems or "musical grammar." He has written many orchestral and chamber works, three of which were finalists for the Pulitzer Prize for Music: Time after Time in 2001, String Quartet No. 3 in 2010, and Arches in 2011.
> 
> Music
> 
> Lerdahl's influences include Elliott Carter, late Sibelius, early Schoenberg, Bartok, and Stravinsky. Lerdahl has said he "always sought musical forms of [his] own invention," and to discover the correct form for the expression.[2] His spiral form (implying both change and repetition), "in which a simple and stable musical idea is expanded on,"[2] has been described as a "recurrent motif of interweaving patterns."[3






some guy said:


> And, of course, the point is not and never has been whether I know this group of people or not. These are people who have said things that "support" your otherwise unsupported assertions about other people who remain nameless.
> 
> OK. We are still right where we started. You have made assertions about some unnamed people. I could not match up those assertions with anyone I know, so I asked you for some names. You found some people who agree with your unsupported assertions, who make the same assertions themselves.
> 
> But the unnamed people remain unnamed. And the assertions about those anonymouse folk remain just that, assertions.
> 
> Um, Norman, what I was responding to originally were your blanket statements about the supposed lacks of modern music generally. So to say something about modern music sounding like jargon and then to bring in some tame contemporary composers who have things to say about the limits of serialism is simply not to play the game at all at all.
> 
> Our original disagreement went like this:
> 
> Norman: "...often modern music sounds like a jargon even for those who listen a lot and know a lot about modern music."
> 
> Me: "Who are these people who listen a lot but for whom modern music sounds like a jargon?"
> 
> Norman: "a lot of musicians would like to have a larger audience (while blaming the audience for being so ignorant...)"
> 
> Me: "Who are these people? What are their names? What do they actually say about things?"
> 
> And that discussion has yet to move beyond that point. The people you named--Ligeti, Lehrdal (sic), Rochberg, Ohana, Ned Rorem--are neither people for whom modern music sounds like jargon nor musicians who would like to have a larger audience while blaming the audience for being so ignorant. Nor are they people with whom, in a delightful non sequitur, I am unfamiliar.


Nameless? Well, if as Mahlerian you would read that study, you will see that it's about Boulez and serialism. He don't use the word "jargon", but I hope that the use of a certain word is not the point. That's clearly just an example, because I don't want to spend days to find studies on web about it. I know I've read a lot of persons (I've also posted another article, and there's also the article at the beginning) who say similar things. I've posted that page with the study of Lerdhal because it's very well done and it's the first thing that I've remembered.



some guy said:


> The closest anything you've said to moving beyond that point is that Lerdahl claims that there are cognitive reasons why audiences have difficulty with serialism.
> 
> I, just by the way, do not have and have never had the problems with serialism that Lerdahl says I should be having. Ah exceptions. The bugbears of dogmatism.


You're criticizing something that you haven't even read, but I mean, you've said that Webern's music is not visceral just because you thought I was meaning that as an insult. I mean, you could say interesting things about music, but I know also that in discussions where there are criticisms about ANY contemporary classical music (especially the difficult types: oh, and I know the answer to this: "which are the difficult types?") [inflammatory comment removed].


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> But Fred Lehrdal is an avant garde composer.


Hahaha, egg all over my face. Here I was, innocently mocking you for consistently misspelling Lerdahl's name, even when it's spelled correctly for you, by me and by the wikipedia page, and then I go and refer to him as "Ned."

Hahahaha! Now I must mock myself.:lol:



norman bates said:


> I don't want to spend days to find studies on web about it.


No one would ever ask you to do that.



norman bates said:


> I've posted that page with the study of Lerdhal because it's very well done and it's the first thing that I've remembered.


A study which does not address any of my issues with your unsupported assertions.



norman bates said:


> You're criticizing something that you haven't even read


I've read your posts. And I have read enough of Lerdahl's article to have made the observations that I did make.



norman bates said:


> you've said that Webern's music is not visceral just because you thought I was meaning that as an insult.


I said that Webern's music was visceral. Was, not was not. You were the one saying it was not visceral.



norman bates said:


> I mean, you could say interesting things about music, but I know also that in discussions where there are criticisms about ANY contemporary classical music (especially the difficult types: oh, and I know the answer to this: "which are the difficult types?")[inflammatory comment removed


Otherwise, if you had really been paying attention, you would see that I only respond to unjust or uniformed or prejudicial carping. Criticism? That would be a great, wonderful change of pace!!:lol:


----------



## scratchgolf

The Taliban do not like difficult music. I asked them personally.


----------



## Guest

Further to my earlier post, I've just found this in Howard Goodall's _Story of Music_...



> In pop, being new was a bonus; in classical, it had become a hurdle. [...] Classical music's infatuation with mining the riches of the distant past only reinforced the popular impression that it was backward- rather than forward-looking. All around its besieged citadel, live music was booming as never before, but only in genres in which it was acceptable - desirable even - to move with the times.


 p313 (Vintage Edition)

Great composers take what they know and do something new with it. They experiment, perhaps with an eye on the audience that wants the new, not only the audience that wants the old and comfortable.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> I said that Webern's music was visceral.


O rly? Anyway, I wonder what you consider the least visceral (in the sense of groove, swing, etc that it I've explained and that Sid has perfectly understood reporting that episode of Sculthorpe) music in your world of the extreme subjectivity.


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> I didn't exaggerate. I didn't say that there _won't_ be any one to listen. I said that there are some composers who will give consideration to the idea that there _may not be_ an audience for their work. It's the act of consideration while composing that is important, not whether there is or isn't.


I don't even think the act of consideration is actually 'important,' other than in helping, maybe, the composer to not develop a false expectation of some wildly enthusiastic and broad reception.

I can not see what the consideration of 'who may like it' can really effect what the composer has set out to do, unless that was a priori a consideration, then some deliberate tack taken to write directly to a particular market / audience (which is what the teams of on-staff commercial songwriters working for a record company do.)


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> O rly? Anyway, I wonder what you consider the least visceral (in the sense of groove, swing, etc that it I've explained and that Sid has perfectly understood reporting that episode of Sculthorpe) music in your world of the extreme subjectivity.


Well, if Sculthorpe actually said that the absence of repetition accounted for less swing and groove, I'd eat my hat: it is almost certain he did not. Sid said that 

But this is what is known of the effect of repetition time out of mind, and it is still in place in education. 
Usually, an initial hearing of three times is enough for any listener to then be able to retain what was heard.

That innately understood, the classical crowd really banked on it in presenting their main theme in the sonata allegro form, to set that in the mind of the listener (in a time when people could only hear a work live, and maybe once in their lifetimes) so that when the development came, variants of that theme, and going further away from that idea, the ultimate return in the recapitulation would have that "Aha!, You're Back!" feeling because the theme was 'cemented' in place in the listener's memory by those repetitions at the beginning.

But, many a contemporary work is not working in that format anymore, so the repetition is not needed.

_*The absence of repetition has nothing to do with the absence of a sense of groove, or rhythmic drive, swing or anything at all like* -- that is truly nonsensical._ If that is absent, the composer wants you to listen to the now of the piece, moment to moment, and stop looking for what isn't there and wait until it is over for its cumulative effect.

The second half of Marc-André Dalbavie's _Concertate il suono_ for orchestra is an up tempo movement with a driving walking bass, and definitely 'swings;' it is toe-tappin hip and no two ways about it -- it is also a rigorously serial 12-tone atonal work.

P.s. Re: Visceral
You are still using the word in a personal universe sort of way, which I'm sorry is just too much to ask of the world around you.... so if you haven't had the time....
1
: felt in or as if in the internal organs of the body : deep <a visceral conviction>
2
: not intellectual : instinctive, unreasoning <visceral drives>

You know, Maybe you should tell US what classical music has that 'groove / swing' you keep mentioning, because what I think you're talking about, really, is nothing more than if a piece has a fairly regular rhythmic phrase that stands out - it does not have to be a repeated lick of the same note-pattern. Ostinato (repeat figure) can be Just Rhythm.


----------



## norman bates

PetrB said:


> Well, if Sculthorpe actually said that the absence of repetition accounted for less swing and groove, I'd eat my hat: it is almost certain he did not. Sid said that


If I've read it correctly Sid reported what Sculthorpe said.



PetrB said:


> But this is what is known of the effect of repetition time out of mind, and it is still in place in education.
> Usually, an initial hearing of three times is enough for any listener to then be able to retain what was heard.
> 
> That innately understood, the classical crowd really banked on it in presenting their main theme in the sonata allegro form, to set that in the mind of the listener (in a time when people could only hear a work live, and maybe once in their lifetimes) so that when the development came, variants of that theme, and going further away from that idea, the ultimate return in the recapitulation would have that "Aha!, You're Back!" feeling because the theme was 'cemented' in place in the listener's memory by those repetitions at the beginning.
> 
> But, many a contemporary work is not working in that format anymore, so the repetition is not needed.
> 
> _*The absence of repetition has nothing to do with the absence of a sense of groove, or rhythmic drive, swing or anything at all like* -- that is truly nonsensical._


I don't think that the bold make it more real. I don't think that there's any nonsense. You can't have swing for instance without repetition. Or you should point me to a piece that you think that swings without repetition. But...



PetrB said:


> The second half of Marc-André Dalbavie's _Concertate il suono_ for orchestra is an up tempo movement with a driving walking bass, and definitely 'swings;' it is toe-tappin hip and no two ways about it -- it is also a rigorously serial 12-tone atonal work.


Wait a minute: I wasn't meaning pitch-repetition but repetition in a wider sense. I perfectly know that a 12 tone piece could have swing.


----------



## Mahlerian

Written by a man who played in dance bands when younger.


----------



## aleazk

(wow, I love that piece!, thanks for posting it, Mahlerian)


----------



## Mahlerian

aleazk said:


> (wow, I love that piece!, thanks for posting it, Mahlerian)


So do I! My favorite Babbitt work from the ones I've heard. It makes me wish someone else would try writing more 12-tone jazz-inflected music.


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> So do I! My favorite Babbitt work from the ones I've heard. It makes me wish someone else would try writing more 12-tone jazz-inflected music.


That piece (and I share your opinion, is my favorite of him, at least for what I've heard of him) was taken by a project made by Gunther Schuller. Schuller himself wrote twelve tone music influenced by jazz and his books he talked about other similar pieces. Giorgio Gaslini wrote a piece called Tempo e relazione. Karl Birger Blomdhal in his very interesting opera Aniara mixed serialism with swing and electronic effects. Rolf Liebermann wrote Concerto for jazz band (I didn't like this one when I listened to it). Alec Wilder used it in one of his chamber piece (altough I don't remember if it was a swinging piece, but Wilder was one of the composers who was more deeply influenced by jazz) And then there are other experiments, like the system developed by Lyle "Spud" Murphy but that is a different thing (but I really like his music. Those are the ones I can think at the moment, but there are others.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> I don't even think the act of consideration is actually 'important,' other than in helping, maybe, the composer to not develop a false expectation of some wildly enthusiastic and broad reception.
> 
> I can not see what the consideration of 'who may like it' can really effect what the composer has set out to do, unless that was a priori a consideration, then some deliberate tack taken to write directly to a particular market / audience (which is what the teams of on-staff commercial songwriters working for a record company do.)


Hey - don't you start too! For _some _composers, _consideration _of audience is important. The composer may then decide that having an audience is not important - or, perhaps more significantly, that reaching a particular audience is not important. For other composers, they just get on and do their thing, whatever. My point was in opposition to Visconti, who seemed to be saying that _all _artists _must _think about the audience that they wish to appeal to. Starry's point that there will always be an audience was not relevant.


----------



## ArtMusic

Ned Lerdahl? Who? Can hardly find anything about his music. That's the thing with all these contemporary names thrown around - barely anymore than an infinitesimal few might have heard of the names.

Honestly, it wouldn't be hard to me, ArtMusic, to be a contemporary composer by way of writing new music. The trouble is, I wouldn't be very well known.


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> Further to my earlier post, I've just found this in Howard Goodall's _Story of Music_...
> 
> p313 (Vintage Edition)
> 
> Great composers take what they know and do something new with it. They experiment, perhaps with an eye on the audience that wants the new, not only the audience that wants the old and comfortable.


Audience apart as a non-issue, they also are selfishly motivated to make something new with it because they don't want to be bored out of their minds kicking a dead horse.


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> Audience apart as a non-issue, they also selfishly motivated to make something new with it because they don't want to be bored out of their minds kicking a dead horse.


Except for JS Bach who seemingly wrote for no audience, save God's glory and was arguably the greatest composer of them all.


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> Honestly, it wouldn't be hard to me, ArtMusic, to be a contemporary composer by way of writing new music. The trouble is, I wouldn't be very well known.


Live for Art, as your screen name implies, and GO FOR IT! You may win the Pulitzer Prize and / or the Grawemeyer Award, because, as you say, its that easy-peasy.

:lol:...:lol:...:lol:...

P.s You might want to finish your undergraduate work, at least, so those committees considering your work don't think the one piece of yours they are looking at and have under consideration is an accident, rather like the Monkeys having actually typed out Hamlet.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> Except for JS Bach who seemingly wrote for no audience, save God's glory and was arguably the greatest composer of them all.


Charles Ives.

You know, other than a very few, if composers were / are more honest, almost none of them are ever thinking of any audience beyond musicians who can play what they write.


----------



## ahammel

hpowders said:


> Except for JS Bach who seemingly wrote for no audience, save God's glory[...]


You don't think the various people who paid him to compose music for their entertainment count?


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> Charles Ives.
> 
> You know, other than a very few, if composers were / are more honest, almost none of them are ever thinking of any audience beyond musicians who can play what they write.


 Charles Ives is one of my favorites. His Concord Sonata is absolutely astonishing, at the very summit in brilliance. It has a nostalgic quality to it, weaving in those old yankee hymns among the dissonance that moves me like few other pieces.


----------



## KenOC

ahammel said:


> You don't think the various people who paid him to compose music for their entertainment count?


I suspect Bach was one of the "least free" composers. Like Shostakovich, he answered to his bosses, usually town councils, and was expected to compose works in the style of the day suitable for local and mostly volunteer musicians -- and a lot of it! In fact, he had less freedom than Shostakovich, who was (usually) given a lot of leeway, although the only thing Bach had to lose was his job.


----------



## ahammel

KenOC said:


> I suspect Bach of one of the "least free" composers. Like Shostakovich, he answered to his bosses, usually town councils, and was expected to compose works in the style of the day suitable for local and mostly volunteer musicians -- and a lot of it! In fact, he had less freedom than Shostakovich, who was (usually) given a lot of leeway, although the only thing Bach had to lose was his job.


Although he didn't always have an especially amicable relationship with the boss, given the extended, unauthorized vacations to go hang out with Buxtehude and whatnot.


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> If I've read it correctly Sid reported what Sculthorpe said.


You might generally want to check the direct source rather than a statement filtered through the mind of any ole amateur music lover as author of their own blog .... just sayin'


----------



## PetrB

ahammel said:


> Although he didn't always have an especially amicable relationship with the boss, given the extended, unauthorized vacations to go hang out with Buxtehude and whatnot.


... let alone those strongly rumored but undocumented side-trips to the bordellos and opium dens of Lübeck.


----------



## PetrB

ahammel said:


> You don't think the various people who paid him to compose music for their entertainment count?


A working stiff for nearly his entire adult life....


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> was arguably the greatest composer of them all.


And also, therefore, arguably wasn't. But I fail to see why Bach's greatness matters in relation to the question of attitude to audience. Are you saying, "Look, see, you can be the greatest and not care about audience"?


----------



## ArtMusic

PetrB said:


> P.s You might want to finish your undergraduate work, at least, so those committees considering your work don't think the one piece of yours they are looking at and have under consideration is an accident, rather like the Monkeys having actually typed out Hamlet.


That's a good idea. I mean, you should see the audiences that we have in music school - half of them are pretentious folks who only acknowledge these are music because they are sitting in a concert hall. I can write something contemporary, dress it up, and get the applause. Seriously, it's that simple and deceiving, it's tragic.


----------



## SimonNZ

You'd get polite applause, not heartfelt.

For all your talk here and elsewhere about the need to "respect the audience" that post suggests you see them as clueless cloth-eared fools.


----------



## PetrB

SimonNZ said:


> You'd get polite applause, not heartfelt.
> 
> For all your talk here and elsewhere about the need to "respect the audience" that post suggests you see them as clueless cloth-eared fools.


Clearly, a lot of us seem to need guidance in what to like that is really worthwhile, the more accessible film scores as a suggested better direction having been mentioned as contemporary music's last gasp at holding the audience, for example.

Profound stuff, no doubt, to which all must (by leaden and pounding endless repetition) be made aware.

But that energy seems to have met that other energy, people who bandy about the notion that contemporary only, this school or that, is the way to go. At least they met each other, though I'd prefer to give both camps a room of their own, sight and sound-insulated from the rest of TC. 
(I'd wager the average age in that room to maybe top at 20


----------



## Sid James

norman bates said:


> Sid you think that the world is gone beyond the phase of the extremism? Maybe, considering certain aspects it's certainly true, but still (back to the article at the beginning) I think that still there's too much academicism and formalism.
> It's not a problem in itself, I could certainly live with that and nevertheless find a lot of music that I really like. But since the discussion was about the reasons of the disaffection of the audience I've just said what I thought were some "problems" (a certain emotional narrowness of serialism, the emphasis on complexity that sometimes seems unnecessary in a lot of modern music, the condamnation of repetition, at least in a certain phase if you will). Then, I know that I could be wrong and it's just a discussion on a board.


My impression is that academia today is more relaxed about these things. The dogma is less, even if evidenced by the fact that you've got composers who aren't rigorously atonal or post-serial who are teaching music at university level. That doesn't mean there is no tendency towards cliques and factions amongst staff in universites (for whatever reason, in whatever discipline). I myself came across people with these views in my own area of study. Basically it boils down to freedom of expression. A person can say he or she is for open debate, but then if they try to stifle debate with their own viewpoint, well its not really open, is it? Actions have to meet words, and vice-versa for things to be real.

I re-read the Sculthorpe anecdote that I mentioned before. Funnily enough, that conference was at Japan, and he was invited to speak there by Toru Takemitsu. Sculthorpe's views on retaining some links to the past weren't taken seriously by the Japanese, but he said it could have been an issue with translating English. In any case, the avant-garde was in full swing then. However, Sculthorpe did say that Webern and the Viennese where masters of, and well knew, things like marches and waltzes. The issue was that his generation had the idea of jettisoning everything, that kind of bedrock, and he disagreed with that. He also said that at the time many Japanese composers where intent on copying the trends in Europe rather than developing their own traditions through classical music. No doubt Takemitsu was an exception to this.

In terms of the serialist hegemony, here is a quote speaking to that from Sculthorpe's book. He was at Oxford in 1959, studying under Wellesz, who encouraged him to go to Darmstadt. He even organised a scholarship so it would be free. Sculthorpe said he wasn't interested, he had learnt what he needed of post-Webernian serialism at Oxford.

Many composers from that era have made similar reflections on that aspect of expectations to toe the line vis a vis serialism:

_Ultimately, I was expected by my contemporaries at Oxford to write music that sounded like Boulez or Stockhausen. I couldn't imagine, however, that Boulez would have wanted to compose like Stockhausen, or vice-versa, nor could I imagine that they'd want to write like me, or anybody else. At the time, modern architecture was becoming synonymous with formed concrete surfaces. In the same way, the arbiters of musical taste where simply decreeing that everybody must write in post-Webern style. A kind of stylistic fascism had caught up with the composer._

After that, Sculthorpe says he admired some works of Boulez, but he simply wasn't interested in pursuing that line of composition. He doesn't appear to be looking back in anger, just reflecting on that whole hoopla over what was later proven to be like a storm in a teacup. It was all in retrospect a phony war, a war of composers against other composers, of one group against another.

My opinion is that it was a waste of time. So from 1945 till about the mid 1970's you had Modernist dogma. Then it crumbled and since we've had arguments similar to on this forum. Things haven't been resolved (and if I see another "atonal" thread, I will SCREAM! :lol: ). Its a sign that Modernism has led us to the wilderness after promising great things. Post Modernism doesn't fix things, it leaves us floundering, and the cause of new or newer music flounders with it too. We're in no man's land. We're divided when we should in some ways be united.

Well no use crying over spilt milk as I said. No use even in getting angry. Absolutely no use in mudslinging and further trench warfare.

But how sad is this?


----------



## Mahlerian

Sid James said:


> After that, Sculthorpe says he admired some works of Boulez, but he simply wasn't interested in pursuing that line of composition. He doesn't appear to be looking back in anger, just reflecting on that whole hoopla over what was later proven to be like a storm in a teacup. It was all in retrospect a phony war, a war of composers against other composers, of one group against another.


This reminds me of Glass's comments (within the past decade or so, so after all the polemics and style wars), that he and the other minimalists thought highly of what the serialists were doing, but they didn't want to be second rate Boulezes or Stockhausens.


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> And also, therefore, arguably wasn't. But I fail to see why Bach's greatness matters in relation to the question of attitude to audience. Are you saying, "Look, see, you can be the greatest and not care about audience"?


I believe some poor naif thinks that, not knowing Bach as a working stiff his entire life, nor that Bach's music didn't get any public performances after his death until Mendelssohn resurrected his work to the public 75 years later.

If you're sitting at a desk writing all your music while being supported by something else you do (Charles Ives) _and_ dedicating all your works "to the glory of God," then maybe you neither care about audience any more than you care if you are considered great.

in regard to which -- Naif still comes to mind more than anything else.


----------



## ArtMusic

SimonNZ said:


> You'd get polite applause, not heartfelt.
> 
> For all your talk here and elsewhere about the need to "respect the audience" that post suggests you see them as clueless cloth-eared fools.


No, I don't actually would dare to hold the audience with that contempt by actually composing some technical piece - music as technically defined as such - and expect genuine applause. All I am saying is that it is not difficult to do so, even my a novice like me, and receive applause. And frankly, even the more experienced listeners of such dreadful sounds might be fooled into thinking it is some "signature" piece by a respected modern composer. Frankly, a lot of the extreme avant-garde pieces leave so little room for individuality that you can't eve tell it is a piece by composer X or composer Y (both might even be obscure folks to begin with anyway).


----------



## ahammel

ArtMusic said:


> Frankly, a lot of the extreme avant-garde pieces leave so little room for individuality that you can't eve tell it is a piece by composer X or composer Y (both might even be obscure folks to begin with anyway).


Well, perhaps _you_ can't.


----------



## Guest

Sid James said:


> But how sad is this?


Hmmmm. I've been listening to modern music since 1972, when I first realized there was such a thing. I spent twelve years catching up (that is, by 1984 I was listening to music written in 1984) and have spent the last thirty years exhilarated by all the many splendid things that have been done in those thirty years and in the eight decades that preceded them. Varese, Partch, Cage, Mumma, Oliveros, Lutoslawski, Dhomont, Marchetti (both of them), Amacher, Radigue, Bokanowski, Noetinger, Karkowski, Yoshihide, Tone, Mouri, Sachiko M, eRikm, Dan Senn. And dozens more.

Nothing but pure unadulterated pleasure, I assure you. Nothing sad about it at all.

The only sadness I can think of is my sorrow that so many people are so unwilling to listen to music. And my concern that a significant group of those people are so willing to traduce what they refuse to listen to. And a little bit of frustration with a few people who insist on repeating ad nauseam that "modernism" died in 1970 and everyone's been floundering since then.

I've been involved in the contemporary music world since 1976, and I must say, I have never seen anyone in it floundering at all. Or outside of it, either, for that matter. (I did see a flounder once, I recall, in the seafood section. But it was dead.)

Something largely missing from these futile conversations online is the simple fact that contemporary music is fun to listen to. Just that. It's not too dissonant or too complex or too noisy or just too difficult or anything. It is simply good, clean fun.

All the terrific energy expended on why "the audience" has rejected new music or why composers have neglected "the audience" or why new music is so hard to understand is simply one huge waste. It's looking in the wrong direction at the wrong things.

Contemporary, new, avant garde, modern, "extreme," "atonal," electroacoustic, eai, serial, indeterminate, experimental.

All of it, in words of one syllable, is fun. Fun to hear. Fun to watch.

As soon as "the audience" is ready to get over themselves and have some fun, why, then we'll all be having ourselves some fun, eh? And if it turns out that listening to music is not fun for you, then by all that's holy, go find yourself something else to have fun with. Snowboarding or video games or tagging or knitting or constructing highrise apartment buildings. Anything but constantly sniping at people who are having fun listening to music. I know, sniping is fun, too. But surely there's something else you'd like to do. Please find it and do it!


----------



## starry

I think it takes most people time to get used to a new style. But the main thing is music is music, the issue is never the style but the creativity of someone within it.If someone thinks the issue is the style the likelihood is the issue is actually with them.

And in reply to ArtMusic saying most experimental work isn't individual, the truth is most work in any style isn't individual. But the only way to find those who are is to look at a wide range of works so you get to realise which are generic and which aren't. That takes a little time but nobody said that understanding something was easy, particularly when there is so much to look at and the better stuff hasn't been filtered out much. But it's fun exploring and learning the language.


----------



## arpeggio

*Goldsmith & Schuman*



ArtMusic said:


> Frankly, a lot of the extreme avant-garde pieces leave so little room for individuality that you can't eve tell it is a piece by composer X or composer Y (both might even be obscure folks to begin with anyway).


This may be an opinion but it is a very inaccurate observation.

Jerry Goldsmith composed two concert pieces that are twelve-tone and they still sound like Jerry Goldsmith. They do not sound like Schoenberg.

I know William Schuman composed a twelve-tone piece. It still sounds like William Schuman.

A good twelve-tone composer will sound like himself. A weak twelve-tone composer will sound like Schoenberg.


----------



## Blake

I have a sneaking suspicion that ArtMusic is well aware of his controversial opinions. It's a charade... and the way to stop a charade? Stop playing. Sometimes the obvious is overlooked. But if everyone is having fun with this, then proceed.


----------



## norman bates

Sid James said:


> My impression is that academia today is more relaxed about these things. The dogma is less, even if evidenced by the fact that you've got composers who aren't rigorously atonal or post-serial who are teaching music at university level. That doesn't mean there is no tendency towards cliques and factions amongst staff in universites (for whatever reason, in whatever discipline). I myself came across people with these views in my own area of study. Basically it boils down to freedom of expression. A person can say he or she is for open debate, but then if they try to stifle debate with their own viewpoint, well its not really open, is it? Actions have to meet words, and vice-versa for things to be real.
> 
> I re-read the Sculthorpe anecdote that I mentioned before. Funnily enough, that conference was at Japan, and he was invited to speak there by Toru Takemitsu. Sculthorpe's views on retaining some links to the past weren't taken seriously by the Japanese, but he said it could have been an issue with translating English. In any case, the avant-garde was in full swing then. However, Sculthorpe did say that Webern and the Viennese where masters of, and well knew, things like marches and waltzes. The issue was that his generation had the idea of jettisoning everything, that kind of bedrock, and he disagreed with that. He also said that at the time many Japanese composers where intent on copying the trends in Europe rather than developing their own traditions through classical music. No doubt Takemitsu was an exception to this.
> 
> In terms of the serialist hegemony, here is a quote speaking to that from Sculthorpe's book. He was at Oxford in 1959, studying under Wellesz, who encouraged him to go to Darmstadt. He even organised a scholarship so it would be free. Sculthorpe said he wasn't interested, he had learnt what he needed of post-Webernian serialism at Oxford.
> 
> Many composers from that era have made similar reflections on that aspect of expectations to toe the line vis a vis serialism:
> 
> _Ultimately, I was expected by my contemporaries at Oxford to write music that sounded like Boulez or Stockhausen. I couldn't imagine, however, that Boulez would have wanted to compose like Stockhausen, or vice-versa, nor could I imagine that they'd want to write like me, or anybody else. At the time, modern architecture was becoming synonymous with formed concrete surfaces. In the same way, the arbiters of musical taste where simply decreeing that everybody must write in post-Webern style. A kind of stylistic fascism had caught up with the composer._
> 
> After that, Sculthorpe says he admired some works of Boulez, but he simply wasn't interested in pursuing that line of composition. He doesn't appear to be looking back in anger, just reflecting on that whole hoopla over what was later proven to be like a storm in a teacup. It was all in retrospect a phony war, a war of composers against other composers, of one group against another.
> 
> My opinion is that it was a waste of time. So from 1945 till about the mid 1970's you had Modernist dogma. Then it crumbled and since we've had arguments similar to on this forum. Things haven't been resolved (and if I see another "atonal" thread, I will SCREAM! :lol: ). Its a sign that Modernism has led us to the wilderness after promising great things. Post Modernism doesn't fix things, it leaves us floundering, and the cause of new or newer music flounders with it too. We're in no man's land. We're divided when we should in some ways be united.
> 
> Well no use crying over spilt milk as I said. No use even in getting angry. Absolutely no use in mudslinging and further trench warfare.
> 
> But how sad is this?


It's a bit off topic but it's strange to read that comment of Sculthorpe making that parallel between modern music and modern architecture. I don't know if you read it or not but few days ago I've opened with little success a thread on this (fascinating for me) argument


----------

