# Survival of the fittest?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Some people don't believe in this concept in music at all, or at least object to it, regardless of its reality.

Others argue that the opinions that count are those of professional musicians, musicologists, and others more fitted by training and knowledge to judge than thee or me.

Still others may think that we, in this forum, are the ideal cross section to determine which music should be considered "great" and which deserves to fade into obscurity.

It seems to me that the canon is ultimately determined by what the entire broad audience of CM wants to hear and is willing to spring for the bucks to buy tickets or recordings. In short, the canon is a popularity contest, pure and simple.

But...what do you think?


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2014)

I have determined, all by myself, that you are obsessed with greatness and obscurity.

If you put some of that energy into listening to music, I'll bet that you would be happier.

No, wait. That *I* would be happier. Yeah. That's it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I think the majority of folks here are mainstream conservative listeners who are leaning strongly toward the Romantic Period and to a lesser degree, the Classical period. This is the music they will go and hear.

if I attempted to set up all William Schuman concerts with regional orchestras, advertise them heavily on TC, and set them up as "Pay Per View Events", I will surely starve.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> I have determined, all by myself, that you are obsessed with greatness and obscurity.
> 
> If you put some of that energy into listening to music, I'll bet that you would be happier.
> 
> No, wait. That *I* would be happier. Yeah. That's it.


Yeah; me too. Well, not happier maybe, I ain't happy now. And I don't much care anyway about _KenOC_'s obsessions, when you get right down to it. So never mind. I'm more concerned about what is up with _moody_.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

hpowders said:


> I think the majority of folks here are mainstream conservative listeners who are leaning strongly toward the Romantic Period and to a lesser degree, the Classical period. This is the music they will go and hear.
> 
> if I attempted to set up all William Schuman concerts with regional orchestras, advertise them heavily on TC, and set them up as "Pay Per View Events", I will surely starve.


I think there is considerably more interest in Modern and Contemporary music here at TC than out there in the real world.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

some guy said:


> I have determined, all by myself, that you are obsessed with greatness and obscurity.
> 
> If you put some of that energy into listening to music, I'll bet that you would be happier.
> 
> No, wait. That *I* would be happier. Yeah. That's it.


He's just a little too high-strung, is all.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Experience*

Ken,

You are intelligent and very knowledgeable. There are many areas of music were your knowledge is superior to mine.

Problems arise when your observations completely clash with my real life experiences as a musician. Most of the time I do not know how to respond to your commentary. At times I feel that I have to deny my background because anything I might say may offend the sensibilities of some of the members.

For me there was a recent occurrence concerning this. I have never been impressed with the Schubert _Unfinished Symphony_. The only time I have ever played it was with a really bad arrangement for concert band. Last Tuesday night I played the original orchestra version for the first time. The experience blew me away. It was awesome. I felt things that I never heard before.

My feelings are not superior to others, they just may be a little different.


----------



## stevederekson (Jan 5, 2014)

If the art holds reward, no matter how inaccessible, there will always be people pushing it through the centuries.

It doesn't matter what happens politically, culturally or artistically, but Bach will be remembered for centuries to come. The same can not be said of most.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

The canon may well be a "popularity contest," but I rarely care about things like that. It does make it easy for me to choose which concerts I like to go to during the year though, the ones I pick are often the ones with underperformed or new works.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> I think there is considerably more interest in Modern and Contemporary music here at TC than out there in the real world.


Well, yeah, I agree, but IMO, the vast majority are conservative listeners. I believe a lot of them don't even post regularly. They lurk.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Some people don't believe in this concept in music at all, or at least object to it, regardless of its reality.
> 
> Others argue that the opinions that count are those of professional musicians, musicologists, and others more fitted by training and knowledge to judge than thee or me.
> 
> ...


Well there is the opinion that there are three canons, and they kind of interact and feed into eachother.
1. Musicological/historical canon
2. Pedagogical canon - for teaching
3. Performance canon

I explained it initially here and put my slant on it here.

So with Bach for example, he had a 100 year dip. Then Mendelssohn came along and revived his choral things, later in the 19th century you had guys like Widor who focussed on Bach's organ music, followed by his protege Albert Schweitzer in the early to mid 20th century. Pablo Casals unearthed the solo cello suites around turn of the century. Same time in Paris Wanda Landowska did first performances since the composer's time of his harpsichord music. Closer to today the HIP/period instruments movement has added to the mix as well.

That's just one example of that symbiotic relationship between scholarship, musicianship and audiences.

So I think its a mix of things. Of course some things are more valued by one group or "class" of those categories than by others. Bach's case shows balance between all three - he is important for musicologists as for teachers of music and musicians who play him as well as for listeners. But there are many other cases like this, some composers don't see the light of day for decades. Eg. Schubert took a dip until manuscripts of his where discovered 20-30 years after his death. Zemlinsky was in the dark from the 1940's to the '70's. Vivaldi same for something like 150 years, the Four Seasons only being discovered in the 20th century.

The thing I'd add on a personal note regarding forum participation is this holier than thou attitude that we should know everything, that there is some common standard. Well I think there isn't. Listeners are a diverse bunch. Some are trained in music, some aren't. Some are beginners, others are intermediate or advanced. Some focus on one or two genres or eras only, others are all over the shop. I don't like assumptions about some common or gold standard, because there is none. Even get a bunch of musicologists or composers in the room and there would be gaps in knowledge, some would be more experted in some things compared to others.

The other thing is that concerts are catering for this. What I have increasingly seen is the conductor for example talking to the audience for a few minutes during the concert to explain what they played and perhaps link it to what will come next, or talk about the composer or piece, or even about finer points like interpretation. These are engaging and rewarding for many levels of listeners. They also give a human face to it all and do away with that "you have to know everything" type attitude. It brings musicology, education and performance together in a neat bundle.

One acquaintance said to me that he frequents a certain group here because they do provide that kind of guiding and welcoming side, they don't just make assumptions. I particularly like it when they demonstrate ways of interpretation by playing an extract from the piece to be performed. The same extract being played in different ways of interpretation. It gives the listener an insight to the work and concepts behind the actual music. Its not highbrow but aimed at giving access, not building some barrier. I think its good.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Yes, a canon of works which have achieved a lasting place in the repertoire exists , and
it consists of some truly great works . The music of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Schumann,
Brahms , and other great msters is popular for a good reason .
But there are so many works by so many other composers who are not household names which
deserve to be heard with some regularity . If you go up to people on the street in any major 
western city and ask them if they've heard of Bach,Mozart, Beethoven, or Tchaikovsky, chances
are they will say yes. They may have heard some of the most famous melodies by these
composers and may not have ever attended a classical concert or own any classical CDs,
but they've heard of these composers . They will recognize the melody of Beethoven';s ode to joy, but they don't know the whole 9th symphony . And they've heard some of their music as soundtracks
in movies, but this isn't REALLY listening to the music . The classical works are very effective from
a dramatical viewpoint, but these people don't really KNOW the works as music qua music .
But if you ask them if they've heard any music by Bruckner, Nielsen , Roussel , Berlioz,
Janacek, etc, they will give you a blank stare . "Carl Nielsen" ? Isn't he the guy who started
the Nielsen ratings for TV ? 
There is a vast repertoire of symphonies, concertos, operas, oratorios, chamber music , etc
which has accumulated over the centuries . I have certianly heard far more than most people, but
I've still only heard an infinitessimaly tinu fraction of everything which has been written by composers
over the centuries . I've heard recordings of at least 6 to seven hundred operas on LP and CD
since I was a teenager, and this does not count the ones I've heard multiple recordings of .
Yet it's been estimated that since the early 17th century, approximately 40,000 operas have
been written !
The canon is only a beginning to all of the classical music that deserves to be heard .


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

stevederekson said:


> It doesn't matter what happens politically, culturally or artistically, but Bach will be remembered for centuries to come. The same can not be said of most.


Not necessarily though. Remember, Bach was nearly forgotten for almost 100 years after his death.

And what would have happened if the French had become Nazis rather than the Germans and went on a mission to erase all non-French art. Bach isn't immune from political or cultural changes. He has a better chance of survival than many composers, but not immune.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

It's surivival of the most *accepted*. Those rejected sink into oblivion/appreciated by fringe minority groups.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> Problems arise when your observations completely clash with my real life experiences as a musician. Most of the time I do not know how to respond to your commentary. At times I feel that I have to deny my background because anything I might say may offend the sensibilities of some of the members... For me there was a recent occurrence concerning this. I have never been impressed with the Schubert _Unfinished Symphony.._.


Huh? I just asked a question.  ...and stated my opinion, which is certainly no better than yours.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> .
> 
> Others argue that the opinions that count are those of professional musicians, musicologists, and others more fitted by training and knowledge to judge than thee or me.
> 
> Still others may think that we, in this forum, are the ideal cross section to determine which music should be considered "great" and which deserves to fade into obscurity.


I tend to trust musicologists when it comes to what composers they consider great. If they think a composer like Beethoven or Carter is among the best I figure there must be a reason for that regardless of my initial impression of the music. So I usually keep listening until I find out why these composers are regarded as great by musicologists and I have never been disappointed yet, so I don't know why I shouldn't trust their opinion.

I don't see how music academia would gain anything by somehow coming up with a conspiracy to purposely promote "bad composers" anyway. I suppose if I really am getting brainwashed into liking bad music that's fine with me. It has no consequences apart from enjoyment of more music.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Sid James said:


> The other thing is that concerts are catering for this. What I have increasingly seen is the conductor for example talking to the audience for a few minutes during the concert to explain what they played and perhaps link it to what will come next, or talk about the composer or piece, or even about finer points like interpretation. These are engaging and rewarding for many levels of listeners. They also give a human face to it all and do away with that "you have to know everything" type attitude. It brings musicology, education and performance together in a neat bundle.


Something which has grown in popularity over here as well and has attracted a lot of students. Even the seasoned listeners are interested in how the conductor's mind works. Let's face it, the printed programme notes offer little insight.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> What I have increasingly seen is the conductor for example talking to the audience for a few minutes during the concert to explain what they played and perhaps link it to what will come next, or talk about the composer or piece, or even about finer points like interpretation. These are engaging and rewarding for many levels of listeners.


I heartily approve of this. The LA Phil often has individual musicians talk briefly about their views of particular works, not just the conductor. I think that's great.


----------



## Rachmanijohn (Jan 2, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> I think there is considerably more interest in Modern and Contemporary music here at TC than out there in the real world.


Amen to that statement.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Like violadude, I put my trust in the musicologists, and the musicians and directors who perform the works they select for performance, but this really ultimately boils down to me putting my trust in the major record labels to decide who is great and worthy of my interest. They sift through it all and make it available to me, and I, in turn, sift their choices to make my selections. Only a very small amount of the music I consume bypasses the sifting of the experts: it comes to me through You Tube. I learn of it through this forum or by chance discovery. It has little impact on my overall appreciation or consumption of music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Of course there is no one correct canon, but people have attempted to list "important" works of classical music. I have David Dubal's _Essential Canon of Classical Music_. Among others that volume includes the following works:

Schoenberg: _Pierrot lunaire_
Bartok: _String Quartet No. 4-6_
Hindemith: _Ludus tonalis_
Varese: _Arcana for Orchestra_
Carter: _Concerto for Piano and Orchestra_
Cage: _Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano_
Babbitt: _Concerto for Piano and Orchestra_
Xenakis: _Thallein for Fourteen Instruments _
Boulez: _Rituel_
Stochkhausen: _Stimmung for Six Vocalists_

I don't think these works would be in "the canon" if popularity were the main rationale. Perhaps Sid's performance canon relies mostly on popularity, but a musicological canon must lie in some large part on the opinions of those who have spent many years studying, comparing, discussing, and carefully listening to a very wide range of works. When those who have spent considerable time in those endeavors share their thoughts, the canon (or maybe a canon) is produced.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

All this talk of canons bores me. It sounds like a bad 1812. We've been here before and we're not saying anything much different.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> I tend to trust musicologists when it comes to what composers they consider great. If they think a composer like Beethoven or Carter is among the best I figure there must be a reason for that regardless of my initial impression of the music. So I usually keep listening until I find out why these composers are regarded as great by musicologists and I have never been disappointed yet, so I don't know why I shouldn't trust their opinion.
> 
> I don't see how music academia would gain anything by somehow coming up with a conspiracy to purposely promote "bad composers" anyway. I suppose if I really am getting brainwashed into liking bad music that's fine with me. It has no consequences apart from enjoyment of more music.


I think there is an inofficial conglomerate of players that influence, perhaps determine, the canon:

Musicologists (universities/ministries, editors/publishers)
Music directors/conductors (orchestra owners/boards)
Recording artists (record company executives)
Composers
Critics (media executives/owners)
Audiences

No order implied here. There might be more. But even with those mentioned, there is a kind of balance between the desire for popularity (sales, profit) and artistic significance. The kind of balance that, I think, is characteristic for most composers who have become classics.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Schoenberg: _Pierrot lunaire_


We're playing this next week. Hopefully someone will turn up to listen


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> He's just a little too high-strung, is all.


If you're pitch sensitive then, don't play him, for everything will sound sharp.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

stevederekson said:


> If the art holds reward, no matter how inaccessible, there will always be people pushing it through the centuries.
> 
> It doesn't matter what happens politically, culturally or artistically, but Bach will be remembered for centuries to come. The same can not be said of most.


There is always that hiccup of not being known to the general public for three quarters of a century after his death (would Bach be a near household word if Mendelssohn had not revived him by promoting and conducting that concert 75 years after Bach's death?), and that other little matter of only, during his lifetime, being known within the smallest area or locale in which he was working at the time.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> ... Others argue that the opinions that count are those of professional musicians, musicologists, and others more fitted by training and knowledge to judge than thee or me.


"The canon" as determined by the general public is certainly a factor, at least in supporting and continuing to support certain composers and music.

But this first-tier group of experts, your "_professional musicians, musicologists, and others more fitted by training and knowledge to judge than thee or me"_, and I name them without hesitation or that hint of disdain about "others more fitted, etc." _are overwhelmingly the first to determine what gets performed._ Without them, the audience wouldn't even be aware they have that music to accept or reject.

Really there are only two tiers if you lump academe / cognoscenti, whatever you care to call them and include the composers and musicians, the second tier (filter) being the hoi polloi. Altogether, I think what is of interest and still with us is fairly replete, no major oversights or 'neglect,' and it is 'selected' by those named factions.

The often enough illustrated lags between audience, i.e. the public beginning to embrace some composer's music, Bach, Mahler, often their taking ca. 75 years or more 'to catch up,' lol, seems to be a common enough pattern as is seen currently some sixty years after Schoenberg's death, when just now we are at the beginning of his works being performed and recorded more frequently, general interest finally taking hold, "on schedule" as it were.

All I deduce from the past history and current 'behavior' of this audience has me not relying -- at all -- on general popular opinion for the more recent musics (i.e. "recent" as much as 100 years old and the more currently composed including up to your current time) because that "hoi polloi" audience has repeatedly proven, generation upon generation, their conservatism and resistance to the new for several hundred years now.

So much for 'popularity' until it has been established for nearly one hundred years. You can also find music which was extremely popular, immediately so, from past times having been dropped from the repertoire now, or fading in front of our eyes, as currently being of little or no interest to today's public.

The track record of that general audience may look reliable (Hey, they adored Beethoven!) but they also adored, rather indiscriminately, a lot of forgettable music from that same time 

That flakiness, well, I'm not going to rely upon or listen to their opinions much, at least not when looking for recommendations of what they think good. The history of what they choose, approve of is both glacially slow as to current music and just too retro conservative for, at least, the more current musics in which I am interested.

I'd rather winnow out the whack isolated academic opinion, slog through only a little post modernese jargon-laden silliness, than wade through all of what I consider the less than reliable vagaries of general public opinions, and of course, try most to use my own judgment before I feel a need to have anyone else 'confirm' my choices of what is good music in the first place.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

How things become ''mainstream'' is beyond me and cant explained on only one sentence. But since i've came here i have heard of and listened more composers i could even imagine and who are for most of my friends who listen to classical music a ''terra incognita''


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Flamme said:


> How things become ''mainstream'' is beyond me and cant explained on only one sentence. But since i've came here i have heard of and listened more composers i could even imagine and who are for most of my friends who listen to classical music a ''terra incognita''


I quite agree, this site is indeed an education. "Terra incognita'' or "here be dragons" is simply another way of saying non-mainstream. Classical music used to be current music - whatever the composers were writing at the time. Yes, the composers looked at older music to study what could be done, but the audience listened to new music. Nowadays we have a whole range of music available and some people specialise in a particular era or style, others are more generalist and have favourites from many styles. So maybe the idea of a unique canon of all music is no longer a valid idea. We will have a medieval canon, a renaissance canon and so on.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

violadude said:


> I tend to trust musicologists when it comes to what composers they consider great. If they think a composer like Beethoven or Carter is among the best I figure there must be a reason for that regardless of my initial impression of the music. So I usually keep listening until I find out why these composers are regarded as great by musicologists and I have never been disappointed yet, so I don't know why I shouldn't trust their opinion.
> [...]


Do you not see a resemblance between your process and one famously employed by Pavlov?


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> When those who have spent considerable time in those endeavors share their thoughts, the canon (or maybe a canon) is produced.


Here's what has happened, at least among the people I hang out with:* the idea of a canon is jettisoned.

The canon is another of those nineteenth century ideas that we are still struggling with. People don't seem to have a very good sense of what happened in that very volatile and contentious century. And so we seem doomed to keep struggling with its issues. In many ways, the twentieth century was one long extension of the nineteenth. It's as if we totally failed to get past the ideas and obsessions of that century.

Think about this for a second (or less): many of the works that are in "the canon," (which we seem unable to think about, taking it totally for granted as a thing) were written long before there was any idea of a canon. Much of the music we refer to as "classical" was written long before the term "classical music" was coined, including everything in the so-called classical era.

Does that not seem peculiar to you?

Oh well. I guess it's kinda like Christmas and Santa Claus, nineteenth century inventions both. Sure, there were winter celebrations and there was even a Saint Nicholas in Greece. But the Christmas of yule logs and and decorated trees and presents and such comes straight from Dickens. And, being in fictional stories, all of those Christmassy things came accompanied by a detailed back story. From the start, in those stories, the Christmas traditions are complete, supplied with a history that seems to date back hundreds of years.

Same with classical music. Once the term was coined, it encompassed all sorts of music from before 1810. Long before. It was applied to an era. And so it gives the illusion of having a long tradition. It doesn't. It simply retrofitted a lot of music to fit under its umbrella. And there was a lot of debate after 1810 about what would be considered "classical" music. String quartets, yes. Songs, no. Symphonies, yes. Opera, no. And so on. Similarly with the canon. We take this to be a permanent thing. A thing that while evolving has always been a part of the musical landscape.

It hasn't.

*People "who have spent considerable time in those endeavors...."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ukko said:


> Do you not see a resemblance between your process and one famously employed by Pavlov?


Aha, but you see, some of us are more like cats rather than like dogs... and we have no responses anywhere similar to those pathetic pack-mentality dogs.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Couac Addict said:


> We're playing this next week. Hopefully someone will turn up to listen


_Pierrot Lunaire_ happens to be one of my all-time favourite pieces and I even know a lot of the lyrics by heart <3

In fact, of the list mmsbls posted above, I know nearly all of the works and about half are among my favourite pieces (and I have purchased them on CD) 

Even if the concept of canon has been jettisoned, as some guy suggests, it is and will continue to be relevant to me. To revive Sid James' concept of a personal canon, this is how I listen. I have favourites that I want to hear again and again. I am not trapped in the need for the perpetual new. I live in the age of recording and can allow myself the freedom of repeats.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> Think about this for a second (or less): many of the works that are in "the canon," (which we seem unable to think about, taking it totally for granted as a thing) were written long before there was any idea of a canon. Much of the music we refer to as "classical" was written long before the term "classical music" was coined, including everything in the so-called classical era.
> 
> Does that not seem peculiar to you?


It does not seem peculiar. Both the literary and musical canons are simply attempts to select, from an enormous number of works, music and books (mostly) that are deemed important by a group of knowledgeable (defined in some manner) people. It's really just a way of saying, "If you're interested in this sort of thing, make sure you have a look or listen to many of these works." Obviously, people can do whatever they wish with the canon.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> It seems to me that the canon is ultimately determined by what the entire broad audience of CM wants to hear and is willing to spring for the bucks to buy tickets or recordings. In short, the canon is a popularity contest, pure and simple.


That's my theory too, but I don't think it's a very popular theory. If we set up a popularity contest for theories as to what greatness in music means, my theory would probably quickly sink into obscurity.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> I am not trapped in the need for the perpetual new. I live in the age of recording and can allow myself the freedom of repeats.


Language is good fun, isn't it? I'm not _trapped_ in the outside of Plato's cave. I'm _free_ to sit chained in my seat looking at shadows.

Otherwise, "need for perpetual new" and "repeats" are not mutually exclusive categories. I manage to have both, anyway, without any effort at all. What is the point of defining them as if they were exclusive? Hmmm? Yes. Yes, I see....


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> Both the literary and musical canons are simply attempts to select, from an enormous number of works, music and books (mostly) that are deemed important by a group of knowledgeable (defined in some manner) people. It's really just a way of saying, "If you're interested in this sort of thing, make sure you have a look or listen to many of these works."


If only it were this innocent.

The historical record suggests otherwise.

I would think that psychology would suggest otherwise as well. Of course, no one can know everything. And one listens to one's friends and gets ideas for what to listen to from them. But if you're interested in something, you're going to become familiar with it, eh? Your interest will drive your acquisition of knowledge and experience.

What's pernicious about the canon is the suggestion that these are the only works worth knowing. Even if it's that these are the best works for knowing, I have trouble with it.

Saying that people can do whatever they wish is wishful thinking, I think. How many people actually manage to pull this off? Looking at just the success of advertising, I would say "precious few."

If it were true that people could do whatever they wish with the canon, I'm sure that no one would consider it a topic worthy of conversation and the whole thing would vanish. But it hasn't. It still exists as a thing. It still fuels conversations. It's still used as a club to beat non-canonical music over the head. "Why are you so weird? Why can't you be more like the other pieces?":lol:

Anyway, I wasn't saying that the impulse to canonize is peculiar (though I do also think that that is peculiar as well), I was saying that a lot of canonical works were written before the idea of canonicity ever arose. That is, Bach's b minor mass, for instance, was written without benefit of the idea and managed, regardless, to be canonized. That says something about ideas and expectations and motivations to me.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I guess the one true benefit of a musical canon is that if one did actually take the canon seriously and listened carefully to the listed works, one would get exposure to a very wide range of music. And I think many of us would view that in a positive way. Obviously one can do that without a canon to guide them, but for many it may be the easiest or most straightforward way to explore that range of music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I am taking the 20th century almost like a "resurrection" of old classical music, as so much of old music is enlarging the "canon". One of my music teacher (who is an elderly lady) said the last thirty to forty years of her life, she has come across so many pieces of old music never first performed nor recorded nor seriously studied till now (i.e. often from manuscript to newly publised scholarly editions). She was showing me examples with sonatas of Scarlatti, keyboard pieces of Liszt, lieders of Schubert, and adding how exciting it must be today rediscovering these very old pieces anew for students and listeners.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

If only the fittest can be part of the canon, why does it include works by so many overweight composers.


----------



## stevederekson (Jan 5, 2014)

> Not necessarily though. Remember, Bach was nearly forgotten for almost 100 years after his death.
> 
> And what would have happened if the French had become Nazis rather than the Germans and went on a mission to erase all non-French art. Bach isn't immune from political or cultural changes. He has a better chance of survival than many composers, but not immune.


They could bomb the whole of Europe and there would still be enough lovers of great music for it to survive.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

some guy said:


> I have determined, all by myself, that you are obsessed with greatness and obscurity.
> 
> If you put some of that energy into listening to music, I'll bet that you would be happier.
> 
> No, wait. That *I* would be happier. Yeah. That's it.


So then why don't you spend more of your time listening to music and less responding to each and every post concerning Modern and Contemporary music that pops up on any forum on the net?


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

Good idea, St.

But so many people have invited me to post even _more_ about modern and contemporary music than I already do.

I have to think of my audience.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

someguy- many of the works that are in "the canon," (which we seem unable to think about, taking it totally for granted as a thing) were written long before there was any idea of a canon.

Now that's just plain nonsense. The Greeks, the Romans, the artists, writers, and intellectuals of the Middle Ages all had something of a "canon"... a notion as to what works of literature, music, and art were of the greatest importance... if not the "best" or "greatest".

_mmsbls- Both the literary and musical canons are simply attempts to select, from an enormous number of works, music and books (mostly) that are deemed important by a group of knowledgeable (defined in some manner) people. It's really just a way of saying, "If you're interested in this sort of thing, make sure you have a look or listen to many of these works."_

Someguy- If only it were this innocent.

The historical record suggests otherwise.

I would think that psychology would suggest otherwise as well. Of course, no one can know everything. And one listens to one's friends and gets ideas for what to listen to from them. But if you're interested in something, you're going to become familiar with it, eh? Your interest will drive your acquisition of knowledge and experience.

What's pernicious about the canon is the suggestion that these are the only works worth knowing. Even if it's that these are the best works for knowing, I have trouble with it.

The sixties are over... as are your notions that any attempt to construct a list of what works of art are "canonical" amounts to some insidious attempt to silence alternative voices... no doubt in an effort to reinforce the powers that be.

What we call the "canon" simply is. It is an ever-evolving notion of what works of art are the most influential and the "greatest" (not necessarily the "best") in the narrative of art/music/literary history as it currently stands. No one person is going to knock J.S. Bach or Michelangelo or Shakespeare out of the canon... nor is any one person... regardless of their influence... able to assure that James Joyce or J.L. Borges, or Andy Warhol or Jeff Koons, or Xenakis or Philip Glass will remain canonical figures 100 or 200 years from now.

As member Sid James suggested, the "canon" is a construct that results from the collective opinions of several groups. This includes the opinions of so-called "experts" and academics (critics, historians, curators, conductors, etc...); the subsequent generations of artists and performers; and the interested/informed/educated audience. It is also a process that unfolds over decades... centuries. The notion of a "Modern Masterpiece" or "Contemporary Classic" has a degree of absurdity to it... but then again... it seems only human nature to want to believe that that which we most value must be "good" or "great". This is even true of those who would dismiss the idea of the "canon" and yet bristle with indignation and rush into the fray every time the music they value is challenged, questioned or denigrated... be it Xenakis, Stockhausen, and Schoenberg... or Mozart, Handel, and _bel canto_ opera...

Ultimately, the canon offers but some concept as to which works of art and artists have had the greatest impact... and continue to resonate with those most interested/informed/educated in the field. But it is only a starting point... and it certainly is no assurance that the individual will love each and every work that has been deemed canonical. Some individuals will never explore beyond the realm of the "canon". Some will delve deeper, yet within a specific range (Medieval or Baroque, etc...) others may feel the need for novelty and the desire to experience as much as possible across a broad range. I question whether any one is superior to another.

Reading some years back on Dante I came across the fact that his personal library consisted of but a few hundred books. Beyond that, he may have had access to a thousand of so texts during his lifetime as a scholar and poet. I own far more books than he ever had access to... but I somehow doubt that I have a superior grasp of literature to his. Can we honestly presume that only those with some broad experience across the spectrum of music and a collection of some 10,000 CDs is qualified to speak on music... or that those who are uninterested... or dislike a given body of work (be it by a given composer, a given style, a specific genre, etc...) should not speak on music until they come to recognize the error of their ways?

Tolstoy spent a great deal of time and effort in attempting to argue that Shakespeare was a bad dramatist, a poor writer, and not even a real artist at all. He went on to suggest that Shakespeare's reputation was owed solely to the propaganda of 18th century German professors... or a sort of mass hypnosis or epidemic. Even an artist as brilliant and intelligent as Tolstoy fell prey to the belief that what he liked must be "good" and what he disliked must be "bad" and felt the need to justify his dislikes to others. Is it then surprising that members at TC share such a passionate drive to prove the validity of their own tastes?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

That's pretty impressive for you to keep up with EVERY post concerning Modern/Contemporary music that pops up on ANY forum on the NET. Eagle eye, this guy.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

violadude said:


> Not necessarily though. Remember, Bach was nearly forgotten for almost 100 years after his death.
> 
> And what would have happened if the French had become Nazis rather than the Germans and went on a mission to erase all non-French art. Bach isn't immune from political or cultural changes. He has a better chance of survival than many composers, but not immune.


Dead right. I was reading of Kurt Weill, the Nazis destroyed all his scores when he left Germany, even the plates used to print them. Scary!

As for Bach, I must emphasise that he would have been known to musicians during his 100 year hiatus. I know that Mozart is said to have played one of the Well Tempered Clavier pieces on a daily basis. People like him would have know at least some of BAch's music, but they where "insiders" in the music industry. Those outside didn't know of BAch, save I guess his music used in church.

BTW another important figure in Bach's posthumous resurrection was the violinist Eugene Ysaye. So you got a veritable 'united nations' of musicians in the 'back to Bach' movement: Mendelssohn of Germany, Casals of Spain, Landowska of Poland, Widor of France, Ysaye of Belgium.



KenOC said:


> I heartily approve of this. The LA Phil often has individual musicians talk briefly about their views of particular works, not just the conductor. I think that's great.


Composers have also been invited to the stage to discuss a new work, or a performance of an existing work (or a transcription for larger forces, which also happens). It makes things real. It doesn't replace but supplements the program notes and pre-concert talk. Listeners are different, they have different ways of getting into and accessing music. If things like performance practice or a composer's influences and inspirations are opened up to them - even in a few sentences - I also think that's a plus.

The canon is always a contentious topic here, and elsewhere. I think its good that there are so many views of it. Kind of means that its not dead, not fossilised. This isn't new, every generation will in effect redefine the canon/repertoire. There will always be a tension between what's there already and what is a candidate for inclusion, between old and new, between the known and unknown. It's something that I see as living, not dead (well, I hope it doesn't become totally fossilised!). Renewal is good, so too maintaining links to what we've got from the past - its a very rich resource, a treasure trove for composers, musicians, listeners, academics, all who are interested in some way.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

Canonizing came very late to music.

Early nineteenth century.

The other arts had had it for centuries before and had achieved a balance between old and new.

Music got it around the same time that the split between old and new became a thing. And so music's canon started out hostile to the new in a way that is unique to music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> I think there is considerably more interest in Modern and Contemporary music here at TC than out there in the real world.


This is true of the active posters. But you also have a large faction of lurkers who never post; probably more conservative in their musical taste. Possibly intimidated by all the atonal vs tonal threads. I have no proof of this silent faction being conservative in their musical tastes, but you can't offer me any proof to the contrary either.

18,000 members. How many of them do you see posting? 16,876 are listening to Lulu and can't find the time?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

hpowders said:


> This is true of the active posters. But you also have a large faction of lurkers who never post; probably more conservative in their musical taste. Possibly intimidated by all the atonal vs tonal threads. *I have no proof of this silent faction being conservative in their musical tastes, but you can't offer me any proof to the contrary either.*


This should mean that neither party knows and shouldn't make any truth claims about it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

violadude said:


> This should mean that neither party knows and shouldn't make any truth claims about it.


The predominant trait among lurkers is timidity. "Lurker" doesn't include the casual 'looker-in'; those folks may just be leery of whippersnappers and their damnfool notions.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

If snapping a whipper is anything like buckling a swash, count me in!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ukko said:


> The predominant trait among lurkers is timidity. "Lurker" doesn't include the casual 'looker-in'; those folks may just be leery of whippersnappers and their damnfool notions.


They could be eager and curious whippersnappers who are readily terrified by the greybeard curmudgeons and anyone of the members of any age who are more visibly 'academically' and musically literate.

I think you just have to accept the whole ball of wax, whippersnapper to curmudgeon being a cumulative filter, or repellent... which is the whole the glass is half-full or half-empty thingie.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Oh come now. It's a stretch of the truth to say most classical music lovers whether here or out there are conservative in their tastes? I believe I can say with complete confidence that a majority of them ain't listening to Berg, Ligeti or Varese. I don't need to take a survey.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

hpowders said:


> I believe I can say with complete confidence that a majority of them ain't listening to Berg, Ligeti or Varese.


I share your confidence in their good taste.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

some guy said:


> Here's what has happened, at least among the people I hang out with:* the idea of a canon is jettisoned.
> 
> The canon is another of those nineteenth century ideas that we are still struggling with. People don't seem to have a very good sense of what happened in that very volatile and contentious century. And so we seem doomed to keep struggling with its issues. In many ways, the twentieth century was one long extension of the nineteenth. It's as if we totally failed to get past the ideas and obsessions of that century.
> 
> ...


Not at all, because we are far more interested in history now, in fact we are obsessed by it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Aramis said:


> I share your confidence in their good taste.


Well, most of them are listening to Classic FM, or the equivalent. If that's good taste, I'm glad I don't have it!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Oh come now. It's a stretch of the truth to say most classical music lovers whether here or out there are conservative in their tastes? I believe I can say with complete confidence that a majority of them ain't listening to Berg, Ligeti or Varese. I don't need to take a survey.


Berg and Varese are in that there canon. Crusell isn't. Rzewski has a leg up. Bartók is in. Scullthorpe isn't. The canon isn't what you and _some guy_ seem to think it is. "Conservative" ain't either.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ukko said:


> Berg and Varese are in that there canon. Crusell isn't. Rzewski has a leg up. Bartók is in. Scullthorpe isn't. The canon isn't what you and _some guy_ seem to think it is. "Conservative" ain't either.


All I'm saying is what you guys listen to is not what most classical music lovers are listening to. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you guys or ""them guys".


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

hpowders said:


> All I'm saying is what you guys listen to is not what most classical music lovers are listening to. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you guys or ""them guys".


I'm guessing you think 'most classical music lovers' are listening to 'the standards', which I define as a subset of the canon, the 'warhorses' and close kin. Or to take the other tack, they are _not_ listening to Berg, Varese or Bartók, or even Dussek or Crusell. You could be right; the view from here isn't good enough.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ukko said:


> I'm guessing you think 'most classical music lovers' are listening to 'the standards', which I define as a subset of the canon, the 'warhorses' and close kin. Or to take the other tack, they are _not_ listening to Berg, Varese or Bartók, or even Dussek or Crusell. You could be right; the view from here isn't good enough.


You don't need a view; just being an observer of typical human nature is enough. People will consider the path of least resistance. Nothing too complex.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

Just for a bit of perspective--not that anyone wants any--but if the same time span as we're dealing with today (Berg, Ligeti, Varese) were operative in 1814, say, then the "modern" composers still being struggled with would have been people like Georg Friedrich Handel, Armand-Louis Couperin, and Domenico Scarlatti.

If 1914, then it would have been Franz Xaver Gruber, Bedrich Smetana, and Carl Maria von Weber.

Whether you attribute that to the changes in music or to the changes in audience sensibilities, it's pretty alarming either way.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

some guy said:


> Whether you attribute that to the changes in music or to the changes in audience sensibilities, it's pretty alarming either way.


Whoa. Couple of days ago I made similiar point and you argued there are no "alarming changes" of such nature.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

You're comparing new tonal music to new atonal music for contemporary audiences hearing it for the first time? Admittedly, it took the strange new sounds of Handel, Bach, Beethoven and Mozart a considerable while to be considered standard repertoire. Mozart and Beethoven were considered incomprehensible in some instances to their initial audiences. I'll go out on a limb and predict that atonal music will never be considered standard repertoire. I'm not saying I dislike tonal music. I don't. I'm just saying it is too radical to ever become mainstream. Mainstream listeners will simply not make the considerable effort to acclimate themselves to it. Their natural instinct is revulsion, unfortunately.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

Aramis said:


> Whoa. Couple of days ago I made similiar point and you argued there are no "alarming changes" of such nature.


My point is and always has been that the music has changed while the criticisms of whatever is new at the time are all the same. For two hundred years or more the same.

Dunno what post of yours you're referring to. Could you send me a link?

Maybe I misunderstood your point. Maybe I was just wrong.


----------

