# What's the greatest musical work of the 20th century?



## KenOC

I'll nominate Shostakovich's 10th Symphony (1953). Performed just a few months after Stalin's death -- it may have been written earlier -- it's an obvious masterpiece but a far cry from "socialist realism." In the nervousness of the times, the authorities didn't know quite what to do with it. A special conference was called, which ended with the symphony being approved and even endorsed as an "optimistic tragedy."

As those days recede, the symphony's greatness may become more and more divorced from the politics of the time, and its stature seen purely as a result of its own merits.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I was going to say Marche Slave in B-flat minor lol but it was from 1876, drat.

So it would be Edgard Varèse - Dance for Burgess


----------



## Prodromides

Aarre Merikanto's 1924 symphonic poem _*Pan*_.


----------



## Sid James

KenOC said:


> ...
> As those days recede, the symphony's greatness may become more and more divorced from the politics of the time, and its stature seen purely as a result of its own merits.


Beethoven's Symphony #3 was written something like 200 years ago, yet I consider it great and my understanding of the history of its context and gestation would not, for any reason, detract from it. It actually enhances it, and I think the merits of such music is the way it relates to what was happening then.

As for Shostakovich's 10th symphony, sorry for people if I'm repeating this, not only is his motto DSCH prominent in it, but in the third slow movement a motto of a young woman (a student of his I think, people can check on wikipedia) who helped Shostakovich through those dark days is played on french horn. This theme is also related to one in Mahler's Song of the EArth. Of course DSCH comes out triumphant in the end, as if to say 'Stalin, you are dead, but Shostakovich am alive, and my music will always remain long after you've bitten the dust.' I see the first movement as a requiem for all who perished in those dark days, and maybe a reference back to his 6th symphony which some call 'a body without a head,' in terms of having only three movements, the usual first sonata movement is 'missing.'

But you can see music as you want, anybody can. I feel my years on this forum have been largely a waste of time. Despite the suffering and tribulations of the great composers, people just see their music as ear candy. & I think thats one of the things that make it now a dead art, museum piece, devoid of any context or meaning to make it real.

RIP to classical music and another factoid is Stalin died 60 years ago this year. Unfortunately some of his attitudes - of control, of manipulation of history, of making jokes at other people's expense, of shooting the messenger (and I can go on and on like a broken record that I am) - live on not only in reality but on the interent. Oh what great progress technology brings mankind! Same progress as in Ukraine where people are still being incarcerated without trial for political reasons (eg. the case of Yulia Tymoshenko). So what's changed? Isn't the hidden meanings of Shostakovich's music just as relevant now as in his time?

Nope, not if you're in your cushy condo in some Western country it aint!

Note this will be the last time I talk you KenOC, its just been a waste of time. But that's just my view as usual.


----------



## KenOC

Sid James said:


> Note this will be the last time I talk you KenOC, its just been a waste of time. But that's just my view as usual.


Wow! Something I said?


----------



## PetrB

To the matter at hand....

Sorry to prick everyone's emotional investment in what and why they 'feel' that X Y or Z is the greatest / most beautiful / most exciting, etc. 20th Century piece, but I do think that like 'em, love 'em, or hate'em, the remaining and later works by all those other fantastic 20th century composers just would not have been as they are, or exist at all perhaps, without the seminal trails bravely blazed, 'where no man had gone before,' by both Stravinsky (both Petroushka and Le Sacre du Printemps) and Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire.

The rest which followed is truly unthinkable without these seminal, and precedent masterpieces, works which blasted open the gates to new worlds not dreamt of by many a later 'great' composer. All the others, until there were similar vaults forward made by later composers in the mid-sixties / seventies, could be called 'everyone else jumping on the bandwagon,' or riding on the coat tail / comet trail of Schoenberg and Stravinsky. To take that last literally would trivialize many a fine and great later composer, but those later composers were all well after the fact, and each owes something to Schoenberg and Stravinsky completely changing the musical air we all breathe.

Ergo:

Pierrot Lunaire, and Petroushka / Le Sacre du Printemps 

Without them, 20th century music would not be at all like we have it...


----------



## Rapide

KenOC said:


> As those days recede, the symphony's greatness may become more and more divorced from the politics of the time, and its stature seen purely as a result of its own merits.


Exactly one of the features that make a work great. Whatever political and or religious and or social-economic context are totally irrelevant and the music itself reaches us today. No need even to be aware of what Stalin might have thought about the piece, who cares, but what matters here and now, we as casual listeners and or musicians.


----------



## Guest

I find Shostakovich's music cold and uninviting. No doubt he was a magnificent craftsman and he returned to the past in terms of the symphony and string quartet. But I've heard the criticism that his symphonies are "iron foundry music" and, from what I hear, there's a certain amount of truth to that. No matter what the REASON for that, I cannot listen to it and feel engaged. He wrote a beautiful piano concerto (again, older forms!) and his film music was enjoyable. The bigger forms are the problematic ones, for me. But he looked backwards; no doubt about it.

As for the politics of it: this was a sad fact of life for Dmitri. He died the year my first son was born - 1976 - and won't be forgotten because of his massive contribution to music.


----------



## Sid James

KenOC said:


> Wow! Something I said?


Maybe it was an overreaction. But see how my little tantrum/slip up has been 'shadowed' by one of my minders on this forum? He's just contributed (guess who he is - no prizes for guessing). Some people will only see the fault in what others say, they will never validate even a bit of it, they will never show some sort of understanding of where people different from them are 'coming from.' Or may be coming from. That's called empathy. All mammals have it. Reptiles don't. & I count the likes of Stalin as a reptile, but anyway.

ANyway, time for me to chill and realise not many people view classical as I do, with my 'baggage.' In many ways, its more a burden than anything. I often question why I'm listening to this at all, many times it doesn't make me happy, just the opposite. To learn what was going on then. In my case, ignorance would be true bliss. Ignorance of human nature and how it panned out so shockingly in history. Touched my family too, and in some cases broke them (or near to).

But I agree that Shostakovich's 10th is a mighty achievement for the period, it may be his finest work (and some do say its his finest symphony). A bringing together of many things, and with the Mahler thing thrown in (but its a different theme to the girls theme in the slow movement, they kind of intertwine, I checked) it shows a kind of polystylism and quoting to come later with guys like Schnittke and Berio. So I think it does look forward.

Getting to the topic though PetrB would be right I think in terms of a more objective view. Schoenberg, Stravinsky and I'd add Bartok, for reasons I said on my opening post here:

http://www.talkclassical.com/21139-big-three-modernists-poll.html

However I must stress I jumped and was too extreme, but I will leave it and not edit it, there is no harm in people seeing what I think. I try not muck around and refine everything, but I think a lot of people think I'm an idiot for doing this. So be it, I don't care.


----------



## PetrB

sid james said:


> maybe it was an overreaction. But see how my little tantrum/slip up has been 'shadowed' by one of my minders on this forum? He's just contributed (guess who he is - no prizes for guessing). Some people will only see the fault in what others say, they will never validate even a bit of it, they will never show some sort of understanding of where people different from them are 'coming from.' or may be coming from. That's called empathy. All mammals have it. Reptiles don't. & i count the likes of stalin as a reptile, but anyway.
> 
> Anyway, time for me to chill and realise not many people view classical as i do, with my 'baggage.' in many ways, its more a burden than anything. I often question why i'm listening to this at all, many times it doesn't make me happy, just the opposite. To learn what was going on then. In my case, ignorance would be true bliss. Ignorance of human nature and how it panned out so shockingly in history. Touched my family too, and in some cases broke them (or near to).
> 
> But i agree that shostakovich's 10th is a mighty achievement for the period, it may be his finest work (and some do say its his finest symphony). A bringing together of many things, and with the mahler thing thrown in (but its a different theme to the girls theme in the slow movement, they kind of intertwine, i checked) it shows a kind of polystylism and quoting to come later with guys like schnittke and berio. So i think it does look forward.
> 
> Getting to the topic though petrb would be right i think in terms of a more objective view. Schoenberg, stravinsky and i'd add bartok, for reasons i said on my opening post here:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/21139-big-three-modernists-poll.html
> 
> however i must stress i jumped and was too extreme, but i will leave it and not edit it, there is no harm in people seeing what i think. I try not muck around and refine everything, but i think a lot of people think i'm an idiot for doing this. So be it, i don't care.


_*....maybe? *_


----------



## Art Rock

Keeping in mind that I still am waiting for a workable definition of "greatest", I nominate Gorecki's third symphony. A personal favourite of mine for sure, but it made more people listen to classical music than any other piece composed in the past 100 years.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> But you can see music as you want, anybody can. I feel my years on this forum have been largely a waste of time. Despite the suffering and tribulations of the great composers, people just see their music as ear candy. & I think thats one of the things that make it now a dead art, museum piece, devoid of any context or meaning to make it real.
> 
> ...


How should we "see" classical music, then? Your post appears to suggest that there was an extra dimension of cynicism that the average listener ought to "see" into. Certainly there are obviously pieces with extremely interesting historical context, from Shostakovich's symphony #7 back to Beethoven's _Eroica_, but the music itself can surely be enjoyed without even acknowledging their historical significance. Beethoven was furious with Napolean tht he tore a hole onto the _Eroica's_ manuscript; but ultimately, so what? What about a chamber domestic peice written by Bach for one of his sons? Or a church piece for a Sunday service? Do these too need an extra dimension of perception to make them "real"? The fact that I have multiple versions of these works on recordings, have read scholarly articles about these, attended performances, discussed these pieces with folks in both the virtual and real world, make these pieces real enough for me. And I can say that I would represent millions of others who would appreciate the same. It has nothing to do with Hitler, Bonaparte or what size shoe Handel wore. None.


----------



## Nereffid

Before I drag this thread further off topic and into the "context" debate let me just endorse PetrB's suggestion:


> Pierrot Lunaire, and Petroushka / Le Sacre du Printemps
> 
> Without them, 20th century music would not be at all like we have it...


This might just be considered as history being written by the victors, but in the context of the question "What's the greatest musical work of the 20th century?" it's a reasonable definition of the term "greatest".

Now. This:


> Whatever political and or religious and or social-economic context are totally irrelevant and the music itself reaches us today.


Well, that's in direct contrast to PetrB's statement, because if you ignore context then the suggestion that Stravinsky and Schoenberg altered the course of 20th century music is irrelevant. Yes, I know Rapide didn't mention _musical_ context but I would love to know how one can divorce a piece of music from the time it was written. Maybe for some people a thousand years of music is like a very deep grab-bag but it's not merely a random fact that, say, the Mannheim school didn't write music like the Notre Dame school. If you listen to a work by Pérotin and aren't surprised that it doesn't sound like a Stamitz symphony, then you're acknowledging the contextual role of politics, religion, and socioeconomics.


----------



## FLighT

PetrB said:


> To the matter at hand....
> 
> Ergo:
> 
> Pierrot Lunaire, and Petroushka / Le Sacre du Printemps
> 
> Without them, 20th century music would not be at all like we have it...


_I'm good with these._


----------



## Weston

You're all aware aren't you that history will probably look back and say "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" is the greatest 20th century composition. However my vote goes to "Le Sacre du Printemps" as well.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Ergoierrot Lunaire, and Petroushka / Le Sacre du Printemps
> 
> Without them, 20th century music would not be at all like we have it...


Then the master is always better than the apprentice? History suggests otherwise. Was Haydn a "greater" composer than Beethoven? Was Bridge "greater" than Britten? Having an influence, even a profound one, does not necessarily imply greatness IMHO.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Then the master is always better than the apprentice? History suggests otherwise. Was Haydn a "greater" composer than Beethoven? Was Bridge "greater" than Britten? Having an influence, even a profound one, does not necessarily imply greatness IMHO.


Yes, but that's beside the point, as both of these works, now celebrating 100 years apiece, remain in the repertoire, have been specifically acknowledged by fellow musicians and composers for their quality, and continue to be recorded and performed to this day.


----------



## jani

Something that was written by Sibelius.


----------



## aleazk

John *Cage*'s _4'33''_. That piece represents Twentieth century music in a symbolic way. In the Twentieth century, we witnessed a remarkable questioning, and without precedent, of "what is music?", "what is the role of sound in music?", "what is possible with music?", "what are its limits in terms of expression?". Cage's piece is the ultimate question: can a piece composed of silence be music?. It represents some of the most important ideas developed in Twentieth century in an abstract way.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but that's beside the point, as both of these works, now celebrating 100 years apiece, remain in the repertoire, have been specifically acknowledged by fellow musicians and composers for their quality, and continue to be recorded and performed to this day.


Indeed. I was not responding to your choice(s), but to the reasons you put forward.


----------



## Weston

aleazk said:


> John *Cage*'s _4'33''_. That piece represents twenty century music in a symbolic way. In the twenty century, we witnessed a remarkable questioning, and without precedent, of "what is music?", "what is the role of sound in music?", "what is possible with music?", "what are its limits in terms of expression?". Cage's piece is the ultimate question: can a piece composed of silence be music?. It represents some of the most important ideas developed in twenty century in an abstract way.


That's an interesting interpretation. As a layman or armchair music explorer, I had thought of it as emphasizing the rests between the notes to the point that they are all that is left, therreby creating nearly the ultimate in minimalsm. The only thing more minimal would be a shorter piece. Those were my thoughts on it without doing any research whatsever. I agree it's an important work whether serious or a stunt. People will be talking about it for centuries.


----------



## PetrB

Weston said:


> You're all aware aren't you that history will probably look back and say "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" is the greatest 20th century composition. However my vote goes to "Le Sacre du Printemps" as well.


You're really dating yourself, but, 
oh LOL 
oh LOL 

Thanks for the giggle.


----------



## ptr

To difficult, can't think of one that is more important, for me it is not the specific but the many possibilities of the 20th and 21st century (classical) music that makes it interesting to investigate. One work tho, that almost could be a contender is Charles Ives Fourth symphony, it for me, sums all the 20th Century currents even before they occurred!

/ptr


----------



## Klavierspieler

The "greatest" (my favorite) work of the 20th c. would probably be the Shostakovich _24 Preludes and Fugues_ or Hindemith _Ludus Tonalis_.

Hmmm... Do I have an obsession with counterpoint? I wonder...


----------



## mmsbls

Great is a difficult word to define especially in a field such as music where no clear metrics exist. I do agree with KenOC that being influential is not a strong reason to declare something great. For example, I would not say that the Wright brothers airplane was the greatest vehicle of the 20th century. On the other hand, Le Sacre du Printemps was not only highly influential but also a major work that has stood the test of time for a century now. I think it is an excellent choice for "greatest" work.



aleazk said:


> John *Cage*'s _4'33''_. That piece represents twenty century music in a symbolic way. In the twenty century, we witnessed a remarkable questioning, and without precedent, of "what is music?", "what is the role of sound in music?", "what is possible with music?", "what are its limits in terms of expression?". Cage's piece is the ultimate question: can a piece composed of silence be music?. It represents some of the most important ideas developed in twenty century in an abstract way.


Perhaps 4'33" is the most astonishing work in that it seems easier to see how other works could have been written. Personally I always think of it as a philosophical statement rather that a musical piece.


----------



## Rapide

aleazk said:


> John *Cage*'s _4'33''_. That piece represents twenty century music in a symbolic way. In the twenty century, we witnessed a remarkable questioning, and without precedent, of "what is music?", "what is the role of sound in music?", "what is possible with music?", "what are its limits in terms of expression?". Cage's piece is the ultimate question: can a piece composed of silence be music?. It represents some of the most important ideas developed in twenty century in an abstract way.


Yep, I can agree with all that. I would add it is disturbing though, because it answers why classical music have alienated many millions around the world while other types of music have become much more popular. Discuss Cage's idea with any random folk that might walk pass you, chances are (s)he would not agree with its sanity and presume we are some pretentious intellectual.


----------



## neoshredder

Sibelius Symphony 3. Or maybe Schnittke Concerto Grosso #1 for something more modern.


----------



## Guest

For the record, Sid. The exact quote is:

*IF ignorance is bliss it's a folly to be wise*

So, the word *IF* is the key to this aphorism. You'll agree it shifts the meaning tectonically.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

John Cage's 4'33''. That piece represents twenty century music in a symbolic way. In the twenty century, we witnessed a remarkable questioning, and without precedent, of "what is music?", "what is the role of sound in music?", "what is possible with music?", "what are its limits in terms of expression?". Cage's piece is the ultimate question: can a piece composed of silence be music?. It represents some of the most important ideas developed in twenty century in an abstract way.

Oh come on; it's nothing but a belated rip-off of Duchamp.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> John Cage's 4'33''. That piece represents twenty century music in a symbolic way. In the twenty century, we witnessed a remarkable questioning, and without precedent, of "what is music?", "what is the role of sound in music?", "what is possible with music?", "what are its limits in terms of expression?". Cage's piece is the ultimate question: can a piece composed of silence be music?. It represents some of the most important ideas developed in twenty century in an abstract way.
> 
> Oh come on; it's nothing but a belated rip-off of Duchamp.


I think 4'33" highly derivative!! I've heard parts of it in all other serious works - even the rests at the end of "Concerto for Orchestra" by Bartok (which conforms to the 'Golden Mean', according to musicologist Lendvai). So, he was a plagiarist after all!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernő_Lendvai


----------



## ahammel

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I think 4'33" highly derivative!! I've heard parts of it in all other serious works - even the rests at the end of "Concerto for Orchestra" by Bartok (which conforms to the 'Golden Mean', according to musicologist Lendvi). So, he was a plagiarist after all!!


You laugh, but...


----------



## Guest

ahammel said:


> You laugh, but...


....then I continue to laugh!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Personally, Ill go with:

Stravinsky: _Le Sacre du Printemps_
Gustav Mahler: _Das Lied von der Erde_
Richard Strauss: _Salome_ & _Four Last Songs_
Duke Ellington: _At Newport_
Miles Davis: _Kind of Blue_


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, Ill go with:
> 
> Stravinsky: _Le Sacre du Printemps_
> Gustav Mahler: _Das Lied von der Erde_
> Richard Strauss: _Salome_ & _Four Last Songs_
> Duke Ellington: _At Newport_
> Miles Davis: _Kind of Blue_


Absolutely agree about the Richard Strauss. "Four Last Songs" are amongst the greatest of all works, IMO, and all the operas by Strauss qualify as masterworks of the 20th century. I saw "Salome" again in 2011 Live am Platz in Wien. It is DEVASTATING. That last line..."Kill that woman!". Sends a chill. Such a drastic step further than Wilde.

I think Berg's "Lulu" also belongs in 'great works of the 20th Century' category.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think "the greatest musical work of the 20th century" would have to exemplify the transition into chromaticism, the departure from tonal thinking, exemplifying non-CP tonal "chromatic" thinking, and yet be harmonically rich "ear" music which is loaded with real "musical meaning" which is understood (or understandable) by a "good ear/brain connection," and not a popularity contest. 
It should not be consumed by politics or by reflecting any kind of "extra-musical artistic truth," no matter how profound. This is a test of purely formal "musical craft" and meanings conveyed by music itself, with no artistic "extras" or limitations.

Cage's 4'33" is too loaded with conceptual art; Shosty is too socio/political.

I nominate Samuel Barber's Piano Sonata, Op. 26. Other possibilities I acknowledge would be Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony No. 2, Pierot lunaire, The Rite of Spring, Bartok's Concerto for Percussion Instruments etc, Debussy's Preludes. 

As a result of this thread, I am interested now in getting further into Shosty's 10th.


----------



## KenOC

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I think 4'33" highly derivative!! I've heard parts of it in all other serious works...


Have to agree. Sibelius is an excellent example, where he programs several silences of varying lengths at the end of his Fifth Symphony, to good effect.

In contrast, Cage's effort seems unimaginative and lacking in compositional skill. But at least his tempo marking is unambiguous.


----------



## quack

Rock Around the Clock


----------



## peeyaj

*The Rite of Spring *the greatest work in 20th century.


----------



## JCarmel

Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring'...Period!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Have to agree. Sibelius is an excellent example, where he programs several silences of varying lengths at the end of his Fifth Symphony, to good effect.
> 
> In contrast, Cage's effort seems unimaginative and lacking in compositional skill. But at least his tempo marking is unambiguous.


Couldn't agree more. 4'33" really has an ONTOLOGICAL problem!!


----------



## Guest

quack said:


> Rock Around the Clock


Oh, sorry, I thought you said "Rock Around the Crock" - that's one dedicated to me!!!


----------



## Ukko

Phooey on the Rite; Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra is the *obvious* winner!


----------



## Klavierspieler

"Happy Birthday to You"


----------



## tdc

My top nominees:

Ravel - Piano Trio, Piano Concerto in G, Daphnis et Chloe

Bartok - Piano Concerto no. 2, Bluebeard's Castle


----------



## millionrainbows

Since Stravinsky's "Rite" is associated with the Paris scene, it seems like an obvious choice as well, and it satisfies all my "pure music" criteria.

My mind keeps drifting back to Debussy, though...and how his music is a complete departure from all that came before.


----------



## Rangstrom

Peter Grimes
The People United Will Never Be Defeated
A Child of Our Time
Schuman Symphony 3
Shostakovitch String Quartet 8


----------



## KenOC

Rangstrom said:


> Peter Grimes
> The People United Will Never Be Defeated
> A Child of Our Time
> Schuman Symphony 3
> Shostakovitch String Quartet 8


Choosing just one takes some courage...


----------



## Sid James

millionrainbows said:


> ...
> 
> As a result of this thread, I am interested now in getting further into Shosty's 10th.


That's good. If you mean what I wrote about it, its no big deal. My info is gotten for sources such as pre concert talks, programs of concerts, books and liner notes from cd's. All of Shostakovich's works I know are loaded with meanings, but often they are hidden meanings, or ambigious. Thats understandable in light of the times he lived. & as I argued, I think its wise to remember those times, and the mistakes and abuses of power during those times, cos there are parallels of it going on today.



ptr said:


> To difficult, can't think of one that is more important, for me it is not the specific but the many possibilities of the 20th and 21st century (classical) music that makes it interesting to investigate. One work tho, that almost could be a contender is Charles Ives Fourth symphony, it for me, sums all the 20th Century currents even before they occurred!
> 
> /ptr


But I agree also with what ptr said about Charles Ives. He looked way forward, prefiguring much of what was to happen, right to this day. Another one like that was Mahler (listen to his 6th symphony in that regard, to my ears a lot of what Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok where to do are in that in embryo). Perhaps Mahler and Ives where looking forward just as Haydn (and Mozart?) where into the 19th century? Their influence felt throughout the next century.


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> How should we "see" classical music, then? Your post appears to suggest that there was an extra dimension of cynicism that the average listener ought to "see" into. Certainly there are obviously pieces with extremely interesting historical context, from Shostakovich's symphony #7 back to Beethoven's _Eroica_, but the music itself can surely be enjoyed without even acknowledging their historical significance.


Yes, it can be for you or anyone else, but I was talking of my own experience with it.

& I think that the work KenOC gave as an example in his opening post, Shostakovich's 10th symphony, it isn't a good example of this kind of decontextualisation of a piece of music, is it? Can you validate some of the things I said about this symphony earlier? Some of the symbols, mottos, other things like that in it?

If I wanted to give an example of a modern era composer who largely writes without reference to his own life and times/politics, it would be Stravinsky. Or perhaps Richard Strauss. I've discussed this before, it depends on the listener and composer. Stravinsky went for an anti-romantic type of aesthetic, which saw music as just music. The only major work I can think of his that speak to his own times strongly is the Symphony in Three Movements, which he wrote during the final stages of WW2. He was actually tracing on a map the advancing Russian and American troops as they closed in on Germany, liberating Europe. Robert Craft has written he remembers this, and things like that (and also the parody of the Nazi fanfare that opens it) is related to the fabric/structure of this work. & with Richard Strauss, he was the least autobiographical of all the great late Romantics. The only work he refers to his own times is also to do with the war, Metamorphosen. Written when he was basically a refugee in Switzerland. He wrote at the top fo the score 'In Memoriam,' but to exactly who or what, we don't know. & of course at the end of that, you get a reference to Beethoven's Eroica (the funeral march) at the very end.

So what I'm saying is Shostakovich is a bad example of this decontextualised view of music. Stravinsky and Strauss, most of their works would qualify. Other composers would qualify (but guys like Janacek, Berg, Messiaen, Kodaly, of course Mahler, would on the whole not be a good example of decontextualisation either - a good deal of their music has strong autobiographical elements).

But I am harping on. One contributor to this thread has said I am a bully and obsessed by these things. Well the latter I accept as true. So I will desist from participation in this forum on threads that may spark this obsession off. & you or anyone else need not answer me here, I will not further participate in this or any other of KenOC's threads. A note that I have had marks deducted (infraction points) for my first post here, and I get the message, I am going to keep things under very heavy wraps from now on. In any case I am repeating myself so it doesn't matter. My contribution to this forum has kind of reached its use by date I feel.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> My top nominees:
> 
> Ravel - Piano Trio, Piano Concerto in G, Daphnis et Chloe
> 
> Bartok - Piano Concerto no. 2, Bluebeard's Castle


Ravel's Piano Trio in A minor - ecstasy, transcendence, unbelievable poignance and beauty. I can't find the words....


----------



## userfume

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Ravel's Piano Trio in A minor - ecstasy, transcendence, unbelievable poignance and beauty. I can't find the words....


I agree, Ravel's piano trio is incredibly beautiful, especially the first movement. I love the way he uses rhythm, subtle dissonance, the high register of the cello, everything,,,,,,,!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Guest

userfume said:


> I agree, Ravel's piano trio is incredibly beautiful, especially the first movement. I love the way he uses rhythm, subtle dissonance, the high register of the cello, everything,,,,,,,!!!!!!!!!


Agree. The movement I adore the most is "Passacaglia". And that shimmering final movement.


----------



## userfume

Does anyone find that the first half of the Rite (the adoration of the earth) is incredible: full of ideas, atmospheric, generally amazing. However the second half (the sacrifice) falls a bit flat and seems like Igor ran out of ideas.


----------



## FLighT

userfume said:


> Does anyone find that the first half of the Rite (the adoration of the earth) is incredible: full of ideas, atmospheric, generally amazing. However the second half (the sacrifice) falls a bit flat and seems like Igor ran out of ideas.


Not me. As I listen to the second half I come away with a sense of compliment, contrast, and completion of the story being told (it was after all composed for the ballet), and not just more of the same. I find the rhythmic differences and varying moods between and within the first and second half nicely balanced against one another and very evocative of the individual groups of participants and the activities they are engaged in. I feel no sense of a let down or loss of inventiveness.

But that's just me.


----------



## millionrainbows

userfume said:


> Does anyone find that the first half of the Rite (the adoration of the earth) is incredible: full of ideas, atmospheric, generally amazing. However the second half (the sacrifice) falls a bit flat and seems like Igor ran out of ideas.


I see 'The Sacrifice' as where it starts to get really good.


----------



## Mahlerian

userfume said:


> Does anyone find that the first half of the Rite (the adoration of the earth) is incredible: full of ideas, atmospheric, generally amazing. However the second half (the sacrifice) falls a bit flat and seems like Igor ran out of ideas.


I love the static swaying block chords of the opening, the slow march that follows, and the wild orgies of rhythm and sound preceded by a bar in 11/4, so no.


----------



## tdc

I think the _Rite of Spring_ was a landmark work, fascinating, innovative and certainly worthy of being mentioned among the greatest of the 20th century, but for whatever reason I never have enjoyed listening to it very much. I prefer other Stravinsky works to it, like _The Firebird _and _Histoire Du Soldat_. I'm also a big fan of Stravinsky's neoclassical period, _Dumbarton Oaks_ is definitely among my favorites, though I can see why the latter isn't considered as being as "great" as the Rite.

Actually its a similar thing with Ravel's _Daphnis et Chloe_, on paper it should be his greatest work, and I do love it but I actually prefer listening to a lot of his other works.


----------



## worov

The greatest work in the 20th century ? My choice has to be Prokofiev's sixth symphony :


----------



## KenOC

worov said:


> The greatest work in the 20th century ? My choice has to be Prokofiev's sixth symphony...


An interesting choice! But as they say in politics, the work has "negatives," which is to say that a lot of people don't like it. And not just Zhdanov either! :lol:

I certainly agree that it's Sergei's finest symphony.


----------



## FLighT

tdc said:


> I think the _Rite of Spring_ was a landmark work, fascinating, innovative and certainly worthy of being mentioned among the greatest of the 20th century, but for whatever reason I never have enjoyed listening to it very much. I prefer other Stravinsky works to it, like _The Firebird _and _Histoire Du Soldat_. I'm also a big fan of Stravinsky's neoclassical period, _Dumbarton Oaks_ is definitely among my favorites, though I can see why the latter isn't considered as being as "great" as the Rite. ...


I have to confess, for years I trouble getting my head around the "Rite" myself. I think my initial problem was associating it with Disney's Fantasia which my father took me to see at age 6 or 7 (1953 or 54) for the first time and also being a dinosaur nut at the time (well, I'm sort of a closet dinosaur nut now). The bleeding chunks became a stumbling block when I tried to listen to the full Monty version until my early 20's when I read a comment to the effect that it's not a Beethoven symphony (Duh!), and that at times Stravinsky uses the percussion instruments to carry the melody and the strings and other instruments, usually given the melodic lines, to act percussively. What?!

So, I took a day off from work and went to the Academy of Music for a Friday afternoon matinee. Muti and the Philadelphia. I forget what came first on the program, I'm sitting row H in the center of the floor. When the strings finally attack for the first time after the intro it hit me between the eyes with a knockout punch. After a few minutes I suddenly realized the whole of 20th century music was a new land to explore, and that there was hope for me to understand and enjoy it.

As the different orchestra sections wove in and out of the music it was like looking at a master crafted Swiss watch with the back off; gears and levers, balance wheels and springs, all moving in unison in a perfectly choreographed dance. My jaw remained in my lap until the final, exquisitely sour, bang! Needless to say, a life changing event for my love of music.

On a side note, back then Friday matinees were heavily frequented by senior citizens (I'm one now myself). The hearing aids of the day were not as sophisticated as todays. When the orchestra hit the fortissimos in this work the increased dynamic range would overload them and they would emit various beeping sounds. I remember them going off all around me during the performance. This is also permanently burned into my remembrance and still brings a smile to my face when I recall the event. I'm thankful and fortunate that with all the normal aches and pains and wear and tear one accumulates as we age, my eyes and ears are holding up. So far.

Over my listening career I've gone through this kind of experience several times with different composers. The only one left for me to "get" (of the major composers that is), Verdi.

Nothing illuminates music like a live performance.


----------



## DavidA

I don't know about the greatest work, but for me the most enjoyable 20th century work is Rachmaninov's Third piano concerto. 

Perhaps the most seminal is the Rite of Spring.

The most sublime is Strauss' Four Last Songs, especially when sung by Janowitz / Karajan


----------



## Bone

Rite of Spring.


----------



## millionrainbows

Rachmaninoff and Shostakovich were able to sustain their Romanticism well into the 20th century because they were isolated, like those species in the Galapagos Islands. The last of a dying species. The only "modern" thing about Rachmaninoff was his short haircut, a practice introduced during the First World War to solve the lice problem. Otherwise, they'd probably look like Brahms.

I've got the RCA box of Rachmaninoff's recordings as a pianist. I must admit, the guy could play. They should have done a movie about him, starring Lee Marvin.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Rachmaninoff and Shostakovich were able to sustain their Romanticism well into the 20th century because they were isolated, like those species in the Galapagos Islands. The last of a dying species. The only "modern" thing about Rachmaninoff was his short haircut, a practice introduced during the First World War to solve the lice problem. Otherwise, they'd probably look like Brahms.
> 
> I've got the RCA box of Rachmaninoff's recordings as a pianist. I must admit, the guy could play. They should have done a movie about him, starring Lee Marvin.


Isolated, aye? Sergei had been living in the USA for quite a while up until the time of his death in 1943 - and that's where Schoenberg was too!! They were 'fellow Californians'. It was in his last months that Sergei orchestrated his sublime "Symphonic Dances". (Plenty of other composers carried on the Romantic tradition - including Ralph V-W, just to name one.)

Here's the splendid 2nd movement - Andante con moto - from "Symphonic Dances" (for which Rachmaninov first wrote a 2 piano version).


----------



## aleazk

Rachmaninoff was clearly a furious conservative. That's not a bad thing, since his music is extremely well crafted. His third piano concerto is a masterpiece for the instrument. But, of course, it has nothing to do with the 20th century. His exacerbated romanticism sounds pompous to me, I'm not a very big fan of his music. But I recognize his talent as a craftsman.


----------



## KenOC

Another "isolated" Romantic composer, and a fine one: Howard Hanson, head of the Eastman School of Music for 40 years.


----------



## PetrB

ptr said:


> To difficult, can't think of one that is more important, for me it is not the specific but the many possibilities of the 20th and 21st century (classical) music that makes it interesting to investigate. One work tho, that almost could be a contender is Charles Ives Fourth symphony, it for me, sums all the 20th Century currents even before they occurred!
> 
> /ptr


I fully agree the Ives 4th is a 'true masterpiece,' and it did predate many of the other pieces mentioned as contenders. However, working in isolation and leaving it to chance or posterity to have a work performed, and from which set of many revised drafts, does not stand next to those pieces which were overtly performed, dropped in the sea and made such giant tsunamis throughout the western musical world.

But, one of the 'greatest' masterworks of the 20th century, to me, not even a question 

P.s. while we're at it, although it is a crowning stone upon a great body of work, I would also include, Mahler ~ Das Lied von der Erde.


----------



## PetrB

StlukesguildOhio said:


> John Cage's 4'33''. ....
> Oh come on; it's nothing but a belated rip-off of Duchamp.




I find that patently glib, as if someone was trying to say something neat and clever. _It needs a brief essay with good explantion of why_ it is a rip-off of Duchamp (Yes, I even know Duchamp 'composed,' have owned and many times shuffled and re-read his _Green Box Notes_) before I'd rate it at anything above glib trying to be too clever by half, a posture more than a real thought.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I find that patently glib, as if someone was trying to say something neat and clever. It needs a brief essay with good explantion of why it is a rip-off of Duchamp (Yes, I even know Duchamp 'composed,' have owned and many times shuffled and re-read his Green Box Notes) before I'd rate it at anything above glib trying to be too clever by half, a posture more than a real thought.

I'll leave the essay on Duchamp/Cage up to you as undoubtedly you are the far greater expert when it comes to real thinking vs glib posturing.


----------



## SottoVoce

I'm surprised that no one at all has named the Symphony of Psalms. At the very least it is a serious contender.

Other choices would be Bartok's Quartet no. 4 or 6, Mahler's 9th, Schoenberg's Gurrilieder, Strauss's Metamorphsen (Which I am suprised no one has answered either), and much more. Needless to say, and I'd be willing to put all of these works and more into the eternal pantheon; it is trivial to say which one is the best of any of them. They are all great in their own way.

Something I would rather not share, but I have never felt easy with the Rite of Spring. I think if it weren't for its influence it wouldn't nearly be considered the way it is now, and I think of many 20th century works that surpass it, maybe not in influence but in the music itself. However, I have been very wrong about these kind of things before, and I'm sure it is my own loss more than anyone elses.


----------



## millionrainbows

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Oh come on; (John Cage's 4'33'') is nothing but a belated rip-off of Duchamp.


I disagree. Duchamp was trying to call into question the meaning of art; whereas Cage wanted us to sit and listen for a prescribed duration to sounds around us, with awareness. So, I see Cage's work as being primarily "religious" or designed to create a "sacred segment of time," while Duchamp was questioning art itself, and had no "spiritual" component.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> So, I see Cage's work as being primarily "religious" or designed to create a "sacred segment of time," while Duchamp was questioning art itself, and had no "spiritual" component.


Funny, they sound the same to me. Perhaps I need those famous "better ears"?


----------



## aleazk

It is true that Cage's original intention was more in the "spiritual" side and not about silence but about the sound of the enviroment. But I think that, sometimes, the work surpasses the creator. 
I think that what Cage's piece really represents to the public is the question I mentioned: can a piece composed of silence be music?. And this is indeed, superficially and to some extent, related with Duchamp in that case. And I think this is a valid interpretation because other composers also had similar ideas, at least compatible in the superficial result (I remember an interview with Ligeti in which he says that he, without knowing Cage's piece, planned a piece which consisted in one sound followed by several minutes of silence).
So, these ideas were indeed in the air in that time.


----------



## SottoVoce

KenOC said:


> Funny, they sound the same to me. Perhaps I need those famous "better ears"?


Yes, they sound the same, but their contents are different. It's the problem of indistinguishables in aesthetics, that Danto bases his whole book on - the book is called Transfiguration of the Commonplace. It's based on the found object movement of the 60s, which made it so that out of two objects completely undistingushable from another, one can be art and the other just a "mere real object', as Danto humoursly puts it (Kant, in his Critique of Judgment, calls artworks "mere artworks"; I think this is a play on that). In terms of conceptual art, namely art that is "about something", two artworks that are indistingushable visually from eachother can be two completely different things. It is a interesting topic, much more relevant to the visual artist rather than to the musician, but we have our experiments as well (Cage, even Satie and Varese.)

Don't want to get too off topic however. Sorry for sidetracking that whole bit. I do think rainbow's distinction is significant though. Cage was influenced by Buddhist philosophy and brought with it it's adoration with sound rather than music, with "being" rather than speaking. Duchamp was very influenced by the anti-Enlightenment post-World War I gang who saw art as a hideous propagation of the old regime. The latter is more socially/politically motivated than spiritually. They both shared their discontentment with Western art, but in completely different ways, and for completely different reasons. Cage wasn't ripping off Duchamp, they weren't even part of the same movement, but I'm sure he was influenced by his "courage", take it as you will.


----------



## KenOC

"Yes, they sound the same, but their contents are different."

Thanks SottoVoce. But they still sound the same! Is there hope for me?

I am reminded of the pronouncement by Karlheinz Klopweisser: "German silence, which is of course organic, as opposed to French silence, which is ornamental..."


----------



## SottoVoce

KenOC said:


> "Yes, they sound the same, but their contents are different."
> 
> Thanks SottoVoce. But they still sound the same! Is there hope for me?
> 
> I am reminded of the pronouncement by Karlheinz Klopweisser: "German silence, which is of course organic, as opposed to French silence, which is ornamental..."


Hahaha I love that video. You know, people bag on Glenn Gould's sense of humor a lot - I remember someone calling his humor attempt on the Silver Jubilee tortorous - but I've always at least grinned at his characters.

I agree that they do "sound the same", but their message, as conceptual art, is different from the self-referential art we find in most music; it is outside the sound. So you have to look at the historical context, what Danto, being a visual expert, sees in the history of visual art as the gradual rejection of representation and beauty (which he doesn't see as entirely bad). You also have to look at the ideas that he expressed themselves; John Cage's interviews on youtube are a good place to stop. These were two different people with two completely different ways of thinking about art, and whether you see their ideas as legitimate or not, I think it would be just false as them trying to express the same things. Conceptual art expresses a concept outside of it, and thus require interpretation, interpretation being the answer to what it is is about. Because it expresses something outside of it, other things other than the sound or the visual artwork must be referred to when understanding the meaning and value of the artwork. So this is why they can sound the same, but mean two entirely different things.

The reason why Glenn Gould's caricature is so ridiculous is because he is attaching aesthetic predicates that we would usually attach to sound itself, to silence, which is the absence of sound. Aesthetic predicates are things are refer to the formal properties of the artwork itself, and since silence is not sound, it is silly to try to say anything aesthetic about it (unless in context, like the way Webern and Schubert use silence in the context of other sound). But John Cage's artwork isn't supposed to be aesthetically rewarding, as most other canonical artworks are; it is supposed to be conceptually rewarding. Although I am a bit skeptical on what originality resides in Cage's work, I think it is something not to be confused with, as many people do. It is not about itself, but something outside of itself, similar to how Duchamp's work is about itself, but about the history of art. I hope that makes it clearer what I am saying.


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> It is true that Cage's original intention was...not about silence but about the sound of the enviroment.


Agreed. The work 4'33" is not "silent," but is a prescribed duration in which you are to listen to sounds around you.



KenOC said:


> Funny, they sound the same to me. Perhaps I need those famous "better ears"?


Remember, I said "better ear/*brain* connection." You obviously don't get it. Perhaps you need a dumber audience which will go along with "silence jokes," because 4'33" will not "sound" like anything if it is a duration of un-determined *sounds* which will be different every time it is engaged with. Not silence, unless it's being "performed" in outer space. :lol:



aleazk said:


> I think that what Cage's piece really represents to the public is the question I mentioned: can a piece composed of silence be music?. And this is indeed, superficially and to some extent, related with Duchamp in that case. And I think this is a valid interpretation because other composers also had similar ideas, at least compatible in the superficial result (I remember an interview with Ligeti in which he says that he, without knowing Cage's piece, planned a piece which consisted in one sound followed by several minutes of silence).
> So, these ideas were indeed in the air in that time.


Oh, OK, so you're saying we should proceed with this erroneous Cage/Duchamp comparison on the basis of the fallacy of what 4'33" "represents" to a "public" who has misinterpreted it? No thanks, I don't smoke that stuff.


----------



## FLighT

Karlheinz Klopweisser. :lol:


----------



## BartokBela

It's obviously anything written by Bartok!


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> Rachmaninoff was clearly a furious conservative. That's not a bad thing, since his music is extremely well crafted. His third piano concerto is a masterpiece for the instrument. But, of course, it has nothing to do with the 20th century. His exacerbated romanticism sounds pompous to me, I'm not a very big fan of his music. But I recognize his talent as a craftsman.


Of course it has everything to do with the 20th century. It was written in the 20th century. By a man who lived in the 20th century. When you consider all the simply tuneless and unlistenable music that has been written in the 20th century, Rachmaninov deserves a place of honour for doing something many other composers didn't in the 20th century: write music that people actually could enjoy. Give me Rachmaninov's romantic pomposity beside some of the jangling, tuneless nonsense that often passed for music in the last century any day.


----------



## aleazk

DavidA said:


> Of course it has everything to do with the 20th century. It was written in the 20th century. By a man who lived in the 20th century. When you consider all the simply tuneless and unlistenable music that has been written in the 20th century, Rachmaninov deserves a place of honour for doing something many other composers didn't in the 20th century: write music that people actually could enjoy. Give me Rachmaninov's romantic pomposity beside some of the jangling, tuneless nonsense that often passed for music in the last century any day.


...When you consider all the simply tuneless and unlistenable music that has been written in the 20th century... yada yada... write music that people actually could enjoy... yada yada....tuneless nonsense that often passed for music in the last century any day... yada yada.
Thank you.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> Rachmaninoff was clearly a furious conservative. That's not a bad thing, since his music is extremely well crafted. His third piano concerto is a masterpiece for the instrument. But, of course, it has nothing to do with the 20th century. His exacerbated romanticism sounds pompous to me, I'm not a very big fan of his music. But I recognize his talent as a craftsman.


Are you suggesting, then, that all tonality-orientated composers having 'nothing to do with the 20th century'? That, of course, must include some very wonderful composers like Ravel and I'm not buying it.


----------



## Mahlerian

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Are you suggesting, then, that all tonality-orientated composers having 'nothing to do with the 20th century'? That, of course, must include some very wonderful composers like Ravel and I'm not buying it.


I think he was referring to composers who stayed within the bounds of common practice tonality, which includes Rachmaninoff, Pfitzner, and Strauss. Ravel, Debussy, and Stravinsky did not, nor did any other neoclassical or impressionist composers.


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> ...When you consider all the simply tuneless and unlistenable music that has been written in the 20th century... yada yada... write music that people actually could enjoy... yada yada....tuneless nonsense that often passed for music in the last century any day... yada yada.
> Thank you.


"A regular Friday audience, 90 percent feminine and 100 percent well-bred, sat stoically yesterday through thirty minutes of the most cacophonous world premiere ever heard here - the first performance anywhere of a new Violin Concerto by Arnold Schoenberg. Yesterday's piece combines the best sound effects of a hen yard at feeding time, a brisk morning in Chinatown and practice hour at a busy music conservatory. The effect on the vast majority of hearers is that of a lecture on the fourth dimension delivered in Chinese." (Philadelphia Record 1940)


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> "A regular Friday audience, 90 percent feminine and 100 percent well-bred, sat stoically yesterday through thirty minutes of the most cacophonous world premiere ever heard here - the first performance anywhere of a new Violin Concerto by Arnold Schoenberg. Yesterday's piece combines the best sound effects of a hen yard at feeding time, a brisk morning in Chinatown and practice hour at a busy music conservatory. The effect on the vast majority of hearers is that of a lecture on the fourth dimension delivered in Chinese." (Philadelphia Record 1940)


This really isn't very different from what people said about Mahler or Wagner in their day. (Don't forget that Beethoven's Grosse Fuge was said to be as "incomprehensible as Chinese") Why is it suddenly true here?


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> This really isn't very different from what people said about Mahler or Wagner in their day. (Don't forget that Beethoven's Grosse Fuge was said to be as "incomprehensible as Chinese") Why is it suddenly true here?


If you look, you will see that nowhere did I say it was true. I just quoted the report.

Mind you, Schoenberg might have been glad people didn't get his 'music'. After all, he was the one who said: "If it is art, it is not for all and if it is for all, it is not art."

The review indicates that by his reckoning he was producing great art.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> I think he was referring to composers who stayed within the bounds of common practice tonality, which includes Rachmaninoff, Pfitzner, and Strauss. Ravel, Debussy, and Stravinsky did not, nor did any other neoclassical or impressionist composers.


Now you're getting into controversial territory. May I suggest Bernstein's Harvard Lecture, "The Unanswered Question" (think it's this one). Strauss you say? I'm sure that upon close inspection you'll see his harmonic practices are very much like Wagner - with shifting 'plates' (like geophysics) all through his work. Think of the dissonance and lack of resolution in "Metamorphosen" for string, just as one example.

"Common practice tonality" is a very ambiguous and misleading expression, IMO. What is "common practice"? Do you think that's what Beethoven was doing in Opus 106, 109, 111 and 135 (for example)?


----------



## Mahlerian

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Now you're getting into controversial territory. May I suggest Bernstein's Harvard Lecture, "The Unanswered Question" (think it's this one).


I've seen the second half of it. There's some interesting stuff in there, and it's presented so that any kind of audience to get something out of it.



CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Strauss you say? I'm sure that upon close inspection you'll see his harmonic practices are very much like Wagner - with shifting 'plates' (like geophysics) all this his work. Think of the dissonance and lack of resolution in "Metamorphosen" for string, just as one example. "Common practice tonality" is a very ambiguous expression, IMO.


Wagner also stayed within common practice tonal bounds.

Common practice tonality has a very specific definition. It is the system of harmonic relations used in music between roughly 1600 and 1910. It depends primarily on two elements: the circle of fifths and the leading tone. These are the two things that are used to define keys and produce modulations.

Whole tone scales and other symmetrical constructions do not have a leading tone, while the "nonfunctional" tonality of the Neoclassicists broke down the fifth relations that had dominated music previously.



DavidA said:


> Mind you, Schoenberg might have been glad people didn't get his 'music'. After all, he was the one who said: "If it is art, it is not for all and if it is for all, it is not art."
> 
> The review indicates that by his reckoning he was producing great art.


This does not follow. His pithy line says nothing about quality.

And he would be happy to know that his music is appreciated now more than ever.


----------



## Guest

Some "interesting stuff here"? This man WAS the musical pedagogue par excellence. Here's the first program in the series. Note the poise, elegance and fleetness of foot in his delivery. And if you look at all the programs you'll see there's no such thing as the "definite" in music. Theoretical discussions occur making broad brush-strokes. (This is not to be confused with the study of harmonic practice and 'rules' from the classical period). I highly recommend these fabulous, fabulous lectures:






If I were to distill Bernstein's argument to its *absolute essence* it would be this: with respect to atonality/serialism, "this music is ALWAYS what it is NOT" i.e. tonal. One of the primary reasons I've grown a little bored with music from the classical period is its very predictability. I admired those, like Haydn and Beethoven, who 'challenged' the idiom and its structures from WITHIN. That is to say, within a certain shape and structure they used other means to create their 'drama' in the music. Remembering that sonata form itself with its exposition, development and recapitulation and the relationship of all that to the key system (circle of 5ths) was essentially there for the creation of DRAMA in the music. First movement sonata form came from the operatic overture. But Haydn and Beethoven, IMO, both tried to do more in the way they used motivic development, key relationships - and then there was very nature of their musical 'material' itself. In short, it has kept me considerably more interested than I already am in music of this period!!!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Yes, they sound the same, but their contents are different. It's the problem of indistinguishables in aesthetics, that Danto bases his whole book on - the book is called Transfiguration of the Commonplace. It's based on the found object movement of the 60s, which made it so that out of two objects completely undistingushable from another, one can be art and the other just a "mere real object', as Danto humoursly puts it (Kant, in his Critique of Judgment, calls artworks "mere artworks"; I think this is a play on that). In terms of conceptual art, namely art that is "about something", two artworks that are indistingushable visually from eachother can be two completely different things.

Of course a great many also define Danto (as others have Scruton) as a "pseudo-thinker"... or to be less kind, an "idiot". Either term surely applies when speaking of the visual aesthetics of visual art... of which Danto is wholly blind. Nearly the whole of conceptualism in the visual arts was a development of an academia which enthralled with its own cleverness with words, critical theory, and mental Onanism has never grasped the value of the visual aspects of art as developed in the art academies, art schools, and ateliers.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

This really isn't very different from what people said about Mahler or Wagner in their day.

The problem with this oft-repeated analogy is that the shocking innovations of Beethoven, Wagner, or Mahler were not still controversial... let alone unpopular with a majority of the classical music public 100+ years after the fact. How many centuries do we wait?


----------



## Mahlerian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> This really isn't very different from what people said about Mahler or Wagner in their day.
> 
> The problem with this oft-repeated analogy is that the shocking innovations of Beethoven, Wagner, or Mahler were not still controversial... let alone unpopular with a majority of the classical music public 100+ years after the fact. How many centuries do we wait?


There does still exist a segment of the classical-listening public that finds Mahler unbearable, or Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, or Wagner's operas. The word noise has been bandied about on this forum more than once.

All of their reputations were made first with musicians and composers. They are the ones who learn and perform music. The reputations of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Berg, and Webern seem secure if one looks at it from that point of view.


----------



## SottoVoce

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yes, they sound the same, but their contents are different. It's the problem of indistinguishables in aesthetics, that Danto bases his whole book on - the book is called Transfiguration of the Commonplace. It's based on the found object movement of the 60s, which made it so that out of two objects completely undistingushable from another, one can be art and the other just a "mere real object', as Danto humoursly puts it (Kant, in his Critique of Judgment, calls artworks "mere artworks"; I think this is a play on that). In terms of conceptual art, namely art that is "about something", two artworks that are indistingushable visually from eachother can be two completely different things.
> 
> Of course a great many also define Danto (as others have Scruton) as a "pseudo-thinker"... or to be less kind, an "idiot". Either term surely applies when speaking of the visual aesthetics of visual art... of which Danto is wholly blind. Nearly the whole of conceptualism in the visual arts was a development of an academia which enthralled with its own cleverness with words, critical theory, and mental Onanism has never grasped the value of the visual aspects of art as developed in the art academies, art schools, and ateliers.


But Danto's book is not inaccesible at all. Danto has worked as an art critic for the Nation for a long time. He is defienetely not an idiot, and to say so is an ad hominen attack without confronting his theory. Find me a counterexample, as all good counterarguments must do, to his theory in the Transfiguration of the Common Place, and I will concede, and I'm sure Danto, will concedes. How could you say he is wholly blind of visual art? His whole life has been devoted to it, most as a former painter and an art critic. How is he is a pseudo-thinker? He was a Columbia professor and a long-time art critic. You are throwing around words here my friend.

I'm not sure you've read the book. It's not clouded in any sort of critical theory (in fact, Danto is influenced by no critical thinker... unless you mean philosopher or aesthetician, which would be absurd because he is both of those, so why wouldn't he be influenced by them?) It's not even shrouded in philosophical language. As to the case of mental Onanism, which I'm confused on why your saying this; is this the counterargument to anyone who provides a theory that someone doesn't like these days? In his book, Danto neither uses philosophical or academic jargon at all really, and his conclusions he uses are not absurd at all, nor rooted in the contemporary; he spends most of his time analyzing Bruegel's Icarus. What Danto is saying is that in the artworld, we have obviously considered these things (found objects, indiscernables) art for the past 40 years, theory or not. He is trying to explain why we have considered it art. The book I mention is open to anyone with a minor to no background in either aesthetics or philosophy. Do you know what he argues in the book even, or are you just against conceptualism a priori? If you have read the book, or know any of Danto's theory, please state why you have a problem with Danto's necessary and sufficent condition. All I have found in your "argument" is a broad generalization of conceptualism, a subtle anti-academia, and an ad hominen attack on Danto. I wonder why you attack him, while you snapped at some guy for calling Scruton a "pseudo-thinker" just because he disagreed with it? I encourage you to read the book.


----------



## SottoVoce

StlukesguildOhio said:


> This really isn't very different from what people said about Mahler or Wagner in their day.
> 
> The problem with this oft-repeated analogy is that the shocking innovations of Beethoven, Wagner, or Mahler were not still controversial... let alone unpopular with a majority of the classical music public 100+ years after the fact. How many centuries do we wait?


Of the Hammerklavier: "The work, particularly the last movement, had more or less to wait until the twentieth century before its significance was realised (possibly due to the difficulty of gaining a technically competent performance). Even as progressive a musician as Richard Wagner, who appreciated the work and fully admired the late string quartets, held reservations for what he perceived as a lack of succinctness in its composition." The same is said of Schubert's last works, which had to wait untill Schnabel and Richter revived them. Even Mahler had to wait, although not as much, for Bernstein and Walter.

With the big names - Beethoven, Bach, Wagner - people think they ought to like it, because only intelligent people like Beethoven and Bach; I am sure most people in a modern audience would rather hear Handel's Waterworks than the Grosse Fugue, and only put up with the Grosse Fugue because it is Beethoven. But with the High Modernists, it is acceptable to hate them and call them noise and be suspicious of it, as it is all of art of the 20th century/21st century. The Mass in B Minor doesn't seem to be any more accessible than Stravinsky or Schoenberg's work, but it is helped by our innate recepitivity to our ears of the tonal system. And because it's Bach, and you're supposed to like Bach.


----------



## quack

Hilary Hahn's recording of Schoenberg's violin concerto seems to have gained mostly universal good to great reviews (10/10 from classics today) so that's a little less than 100 years.

It is rather revealing that the 1940 review says it is like Chinese. That might work as a put-down if Chinese really was an incomprehensible language, spoken by almost no one and used for nothing significant. But centuries of Chinese culture is rendered worthless with the same amount of willful ignorance used to dismiss Schoenberg because it doesn't offer instant gratification.


----------



## KenOC

SottoVoce said:


> Of the Hammerklavier: "The work, particularly the last movement, had more or less to wait until the twentieth century before its significance was realised...


This is not a fair comparison. The Hammerklavier's fugue and of course the Grosse Fuge were poorly accepted by the wider audience, indeed (and the "wider audience" was mostly amateurs who had no chance of being able to play them in any event). But little else in Beethoven's output had to wait. In fact, each new opus was eagerly awaited by sheet-music buyers and publishers alike. The last three piano sonatas were great hits, and publishers vyed with each other for the late quartets. For Beethoven, this had been the case since about 1795. Even the critics generally acknowledged him as the greatest composer by about 1802 -- and the audience was there before them!

This is a HUGE contrast with much music of the 20th century, where even most of Bartok's music is still waiting for that "wider audience," not to mention the music of certain other luminaries that I won't name here. Some of this music has been around close to a century. So how long must we wait before it "catches on"?


----------



## quack

There's strange desire for acceptance. Why do you need the music to "catch on"? I agree Schoenberg and Bartok have kind of missed out on the hype wave, they didn't manage to surf it early on and it left them behind. But then again, look at plucky little Vivaldi, he "caught on" centuries after, so you never know.

There's so much more new music every year, and it no longer replaces the old music, as you can listen to it all, almost instantaneously. So why should Schoenberg catch on now, pushing back the acceptance of Salonen or Chin or Glass's violin concertos to some time in the 22nd century. Some music just doesn't stick despite being liked by a small majority. Personally I am content with the music just existing, it doesn't need to jostle Beethoven in the Top 40.


----------



## KenOC

quack said:


> There's strange desire for acceptance. Why do you need the music to "catch on"?


I only bring the point up because of the common argument that the failure (so far) of a lot of modern work to gain broad acceptance is somehow paralleled by the experiences of Beethoven, or Mahler, or Wagner -- and in all these cases, that is (to put it very politely) untrue.

As you say, there may be perfectly good reasons that this music is slow to "catch on." These reasons may be what you speculate, or they may be different!


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> I only bring the point up because of the common argument that the failure (so far) of a lot of modern work to gain broad acceptance is somehow paralleled by the experiences of Beethoven, or Mahler, or Wagner -- and in all these cases, that is (to put it very politely) untrue.
> 
> As you say, there may be perfectly good reasons that this music is slow to "catch on." These reasons may be what you speculate, or they may be different!


I believe that Schoenberg's music is unpopular for three reasons, and I have given these before.

1. It is very idiosyncratic, full of wide leaps, unusual sonorities, and sharp contrasts of mood and texture.
2. It is very dense, loaded with counterpoint and cross rhythms at every turn.
3. It is very non-repetitive, rarely playing an idea more than once without modification.

The proof, in my mind, that these, and not atonality, are the primary reasons behind the lack of acceptance, is that people also dislike the works before (and including the first 3 movements of) Op. 10, or confuse them with the "atonal" ones (not to mention not knowing the difference between "atonal" and 12-tone).

As for Bartok, his music is very different from the thinking behind romanticism, and I think that the distance in the type of expression prevents his wider acceptance.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

There does still exist a segment of the classical-listening public that finds Mahler unbearable, or Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, or Wagner's operas. The word noise has been bandied about on this forum more than once.

All of their reputations were made first with musicians and composers. They are the ones who learn and perform music. The reputations of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Berg, and Webern seem secure if one looks at it from that point of view.

Honestly, I'm not big on Schoenberg... but I quite like Berg and what I have of Webern... and I agree that the size of the audience isn't necessarily indicative of a work of art's merit. I'm an opera fanatic... but I am fully aware that opera is something of a niche even within the niche of classical music aficionados.

But let's play the devil's advocate here... how popular are Schoenberg or Berg or Webern or Boulez with composers and musicians? I have come upon quotes by any number of highly respected composers/conductors/musicians who admit a dislike or aversion for any number of Modernist/Contemporary composers.


----------



## Guest

SottoVoce said:


> Of the Hammerklavier: "The work, particularly the last movement, had more or less to wait until the twentieth century before its significance was realised (possibly due to the difficulty of gaining a technically competent performance). Even as progressive a musician as Richard Wagner, who appreciated the work and fully admired the late string quartets, held reservations for what he perceived as a lack of succinctness in its composition." The same is said of Schubert's last works, which had to wait untill Schnabel and Richter revived them. Even Mahler had to wait, although not as much, for Bernstein and Walter.
> 
> With the big names - Beethoven, Bach, Wagner - people think they ought to like it, because only intelligent people like Beethoven and Bach; I am sure most people in a modern audience would rather hear Handel's Waterworks than the Grosse Fugue, and only put up with the Grosse Fugue because it is Beethoven. But with the High Modernists, it is acceptable to hate them and call them noise and be suspicious of it, as it is all of art of the 20th century/21st century. The Mass in B Minor doesn't seem to be any more accessible than Stravinsky or Schoenberg's work, but it is helped by our innate recepitivity to our ears of the tonal system. And because it's Bach, and you're supposed to like Bach.


Be assured I dislike Wagner and do not feel under any pressure to "like" Beethoven, Bach or any other composer. The fact that I adore these two latter composers above all others is a function of 45 years of intensive listening, engaging, reading, studying and *continually* learning. If somebody said to me today, "you can never listen to Bach or Beethoven again" I would go to my bed and never get out of it again. And I've discussed this fact many times with my nearest and dearest, so that they are in no doubt.

Handel's "Waterworks"? Oh, I see - this was presumably for the opening of the London Sewage system!! I think you meant "Water Music"!! And I can assure you, from vast concert-going experience, people WOULD NOT prefer Handel's "Wasser Musik" to that of Beethoven and Bach. There would be a riot in Vienna if this were the case. Like me, they are more than prepared to "put up with" the Grosse Fugue!!

What strange kind of self-justification (about one's own musical tastes?) would cause somebody to make that statement about Beethoven and Bach.

"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do".


----------



## Mahlerian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But let's play the devil's advocate here... how popular are Schoenberg or Berg or Webern or Boulez with composers and musicians? I have come upon quotes by any number of highly respected composers/conductors/musicians who admit a dislike or aversion for any number of Modernist/Contemporary composers.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2005/mar/25/classicalmusicandopera2

The Guardian asked for opinions from well-known composers regarding Boulez on the occasion of his 80th birthday. The majority of them are positive. Even Steve Reich gave guarded praise regarding his composition.

I'd imagine that opinion about Schoenberg as a composer is generally more positive than about Boulez.

EDIT: Some internet searching brought up this quote from Reich regarding 20th century modernists:

"People were taking their academic musical cues from Boulez, Stockhausen and Berio, who had taken their cues from Berg, Schoenberg and Webern. _All of those European composers are great composers_, and all of them were responding to the real situation that they were living in at the time."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

But Danto's book is not inaccesible at all. Danto has worked as an art critic for the Nation for a long time.

Yes... he followed in the footsteps of ol' Clem... and neither was educated visually... or rather one might say that their discipline or area of expertise was not art... but Greenberg developed a far greater eye for the visual aesthetic.

He is defienetely not an idiot, and to say so is an ad hominen attack without confronting his theory.

I'm sorry, but as an artist who values the visual aesthetics of art, Danto is an idiot who has no eye whatsoever for art, and whose writings have been apologetic for much of the worst developments in contemporary conceptual art.

Find me a counterexample, as all good counterarguments must do, to his theory in the Transfiguration of the Common Place, and I will concede, and I'm sure Danto, will concedes.

Do you honestly imagine that artists of any merit sit about contemplating the theories of Danto or any other navel-gazer? DeKooning related how the Ab-Ex painters used to sit about the Cedar Tavern reading Greenberg's latest essays... and burst out laughing. "We're all trying to flatten the picture plane? Really?" Picasso was even more to the point: "When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine."

How could you say he is wholly blind of visual art? His whole life has been devoted to it, most as a former painter and an art critic.

Danto was not a painter, but rather a print-maker. He quit art cold-turkey to focus upon philosophy. He suggested that he initially thought that teaching would give him more time to create art... but ultimately he admitted, "In the end I gave art up because I loved writing philosophy more than carving blocks, and because, as I said, I couldn't see giving up philosophy, realizing that I was going to have to give up something... Carving took a lot of physical energy." Obviously he loved ideas more than images or objects.

How is he is a pseudo-thinker? He was a Columbia professor and a long-time art critic. You are throwing around words here my friend. 

Yes, we all know that credentials are how we measure merit. Just look how far Van Gogh got as a result of all those accolades and awards from academia. It seems to me that where you accuse me a subtle anti-academicism, you place far too much faith in your indoctrination.

I'm not sure you've read the book.

Perhaps, unlike yourself (?) I've read more than one of Danto's books (He did write a few, you know).

It's not clouded in any sort of critical theory... 

So his critical theory is not clouded in critical theory?

What Danto is saying is that in the artworld, we have obviously considered these things (found objects, indiscernables) art for the past 40 years, theory or not. He is trying to explain why we have considered it art. The book I mention is open to anyone with a minor to no background in either aesthetics or philosophy.

There are different approaches to the use of found objects. Picasso, Schwitters, Cornell, Rauschenberg, etc... all employ found objects and images with a sensitivity to the visual or formal aesthetics. Duchamp, who was more concerned with ideas than visual aesthetics, and admitted to a fear of appearing "dumb, like a painter," took a different approach, which stressed the idea... and wholly negated the visual aesthetics. Indeed, the more visually banal, the better.

Danto, like many champions of Conceptualism, champions Duchamp (rather than Picasso... let alone Matisse) as the central figure of Modernism. In _The Madonna of the Future_ (great title... by Henry James) he admits to placing the conceptual or the idea above the image or concerns for the visual. Indeed, he wholly dismisses Greenbergian "Formalism" outright, stating that visual aesthetics... how a work of art looks... is no longer relevant. In theory, he suggests, an artist (who sounds a lot like Thomas Kinkade) could be seen as a true genius if his kitsch paintings were placed within the context of a "serious art gallery" with the audience fully aware of the intended irony. Thus we get Piero Manzoni's can of artist's merde or Jeff Koons inflated kitsch.

Danto argues that what we are seeing is "the end of art." His argument is that art as we know it is no longer... or that Post-Duchampian/Post-Aesthetic art represents something wholly new and removed from the history of art as we know it. Not only is this art the rejects illusionism but visual representation of any sort. He suggests that the history of art has gone from an "era of imitation" to be "followed by an era of ideology."

Now if we accept Danto's argument at face value, this does not mean that we must accept that this development is something to be embraced... nor does it mean that such Post-Aesthetic Art is the sole relevant artistic direction. If Post-Aesthetic Art represents such a drastic break from the tradition of visual art as to be wholly unrecognizable, why should it be acknowledged within the tradition? Should we assume that Post-Aesthetic Art has superseded or eclipsed the traditional concepts of art... or that it represents something completely different? If it truly represents something different, then part of the problem seems to be that this new art and the traditional visual arts both seem to be struggling for recognition within the same contexts: the art gallery, art museums, art press.


----------



## SottoVoce

KenOC said:


> This is not a fair comparison. The Hammerklavier's fugue and of course the Grosse Fuge were poorly accepted by the wider audience, indeed (and the "wider audience" was mostly amateurs who had no chance of being able to play them in any event). But little else in Beethoven's output had to wait. In fact, each new opus was eagerly awaited by sheet-music buyers and publishers alike. The last three piano sonatas were great hits, and publishers vyed with each other for the late quartets. For Beethoven, this had been the case since about 1795. Even the critics generally acknowledged him as the greatest composer by about 1802 -- and the audience was there before them!
> 
> This is a HUGE contrast with much music of the 20th century, where even most of Bartok's music is still waiting for that "wider audience," not to mention the music of certain other luminaries that I won't name here. Some of this music has been around close to a century. So how long must we wait before it "catches on"?


I'm not sure this is the case for Beethoven, Ken. Later in his life, he was constantly complaining on how Rossini's music was dominating the musical scene of Vienna at the time, and his music was not played as much as it deserved. I think Charles Rosen's book mentions a complaint similar to the ones that we hear today, that the works of great contemporary composers aren't played nearly as much. I agree that the situations are much different, maybe perhaps even in severity, but that is because the situation of music has changed; there is no more an audience like that the 17th century, and the recording process I'm sure greatly affected the concert situation and it's choice of what to play. I think it wouldn't be ridiculous to say that the blow to the audience's ears of Tristian und Isolde was just as hard as Pierrot Lunaire.

Even if this is the case, that our situation is not different from the situation 200 years ago, I still don't think it's because one music is more accessible than the other. The 9th Symphony is an extremely inaccessible work, as is the Mass in B Minor; the majority of canonic works seem to fall much more on the side of difficult rather than accessible. I don't think this is because of a tonal simplicity either, considering the massive popularity of the Late Romantics. I think it's generally because it's acceptable for the average audience to be suspicious of contemporary art, while still enjoying the music of the past. There is no "ought-to" for the modernists. Elliott Carter noticed that his music is played much more frequently in the radio in Europe, and the reason he said it was is because there is a different relationship between contemporary art in Europe, where there is an expectation that one ought to like it, and thus there is more time given to it on the part of the audience. Hell, Elliott Carter could remember a time when the top of the exit from the orchestra jokingly said "This way in case of Brahms". Even 60 years ago, people were having a hard time with Wagner and Brahms, and only through time did this get better. I think you're right; I'm not sure that the same will happen for the Modernists. But I also don't think it's because of its accessibility. I see your point, and it is a very good one though. I think you are right in saying there is a difference in situation.


----------



## KenOC

SottoVoce said:


> I'm not sure this is the case for Beethoven, Ken. Later in his life, he was constantly complaining on how Rossini's music was dominating the musical scene of Vienna at the time, and his music was not played as much as it deserved. I think Charles Rosen's book mentions a complaint similar to the ones that we hear today, that the works of great contemporary composers aren't played nearly as much.


Yes, Beethoven bitched and moaned. Here's one from 1824: "No one has a mind any more for what is good, what is vigorous -- in short, for real music! Yes, yes, that's how it is, you Viennese! Rossini and his pals, they're your heroes. You want nothing more from me! Sometimes Schuppanzigh gets a quartet out of me, but you've no time for the symphonies, and you don't want Fidelio. It's Rossini, Rossini above everything. Perhaps your soulless strumming and singing, your own shoddy stuff that you take for real art -- that's your taste. Oh, you Viennese!"

But the much-put-upon Ludwig doesn't mention that he made US$100K (equivalent) on his Missa Solemnis, or that he was very well compensated for essentially ALL of his late works, including the quartets.

My heart does not bleed for Beethoven's economics.

Interesting side note: Beethoven's last two orchestral concerts, with the 9th Symphony, were not financial successes. The first earned Beethoven little money, probably because of the expense of the large forces involved, leaving Beethoven feeling he had been cheated. He arranged for a second concert, for which he took a fixed fee, but the promoter lost a bundle. Cooper says the concert included "the aria Di Tanti Palpiti from Rossini's Tancredi, which left Beethoven open to the charge, 'See, he has to get Rossini to help.' "


----------



## SottoVoce

> Do you honestly imagine that artists of any merit sit about contemplating the theories of Danto or any other navel-gazer? DeKooning related how the Ab-Ex painters used to sit about the Cedar Tavern reading Greenberg's latest essays... and burst out laughing. "We're all trying to flatten the picture plane? Really?" Picasso was even more to the point: "When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine."


I think deKooning and the Ab Exp painters of the Cedar Tavern had a personal animosity towards Greenberg; I'm pretty sure deKooning punched Greenberg in the face. I wouldn't take any of his words towards the person too seriously. As for Picasso, I think he cared deeply about the meaning of his paintings, and how the medium presented that meaning. I mean, that's the whole point of art, right? Or else it's just some sort of craft where someone puts paint on a canvas and comes out with something pretty. I think he was being tongue and cheek.


> Danto was not a painter, but rather a print-maker. He quit art cold-turkey to focus upon philosophy. He suggested that he initially thought that teaching would give him more time to create art... but ultimately he admitted, "In the end I gave art up because I loved writing philosophy more than carving blocks, and because, as I said, I couldn't see giving up philosophy, realizing that I was going to have to give up something... Carving took a lot of physical energy." Obviously he loved ideas more than images or objects.


Art has ideas, and he like the ideas that Art has. Aesthetics has existed for more than 300 years, and talking about the philosophy of art is not a new subject. In fact, because they both talk about things that are outside of reality but about it, philosophy and art are very similar. Language is a prime concern for philosophy, so is knowledge, because these are about reality; because philosophy concerns itself with things that reference reality, art seems to be something that is interesting to philosophers. So yes, he is a philosopher, not an artist. But I never said he was an artist; I said he had experience in the visual arts. His main concern is the ideas of art, but many people think ideas are the concern of art in general. Formalists don't, but there's two sides to the spectru. I don't see anything wrong with this.



> Yes, we all know that credentials are how we measure merit. Just look how far Van Gogh got as a result of all those accolades and awards from academia. It seems to me that where you accuse me a subtle anti-academicism, you place far too much faith in your indoctrination.


Yes, but you haven't given me a good reason why he should be regarded as a pseudo-thinker other than he is an idiot. I am saying that other people don't think he is a pseudo-thinker, and since you haven't given me any good idea to think otherwise, I don't see why I should regard him as one.


> Perhaps, unlike yourself (?) I've read more than one of Danto's books (He did write a few, you know).


I have also read many of Danto's book; my professor studied under him and we read his books together (my professor is also a Formalist). The idea that I was specifically talking about comes from Transfiguration of the Commonplace, which is why I asked if you read the theory that comes out of The Transfiguration of the Common Place. You seem to think that because he is a pseudo-thinker, that makes any of the ideas in that book wrong. But again, I don't think you've read the book. So how does calling him a pseudo-thinker attack the arguments set out on that book at all?



> So his critical theory is not clouded in critical theory?


I'm not sure what you think critical theory means. Critical Theory is a specific term coming from philosophy and sociology that purports a certain method of criticizing society. They usually tend to be Marxist. Danto is not a critical theorist, not a Marxist. He is a philosopher, and a critic though, and if by critical theory you mean that he provides a critique, then what else do you think those two roles do? That would make all of the philosophical tradition unable to comment on anything, really. Not only the philosophical tradition, but anyone providing critique on society and culture.



> There are different approaches to the use of found objects. Picasso, Schwitters, Cornell, Rauschenberg, etc... all employ found objects and images with a sensitivity to the visual or formal aesthetics. Duchamp, who was more concerned with ideas than visual aesthetics, and admitted to a fear of appearing "dumb, like a painter," took a different approach, which stressed the idea... and wholly negated the visual aesthetics. Indeed, the more visually banal, the better.
> 
> Danto, like many champions of Conceptualism, champions Duchamp (rather than Picasso... let alone Matisse) as the central figure of Modernism. In _The Madonna of the Future_ (great title... by Henry James) he admits to placing the conceptual or the idea above the image or concerns for the visual. Indeed, he wholly dismisses Greenbergian "Formalism" outright, stating that visual aesthetics... how a work of art looks... is no longer relevant. In theory, he suggests, an artist (who sounds a lot like Thomas Kinkade) could be seen as a true genius if his kitsch paintings were placed within the context of a "serious art gallery" with the audience fully aware of the intended irony. Thus we get Piero Manzoni's can of artist's merde or Jeff Koons inflated kitsch.


Anyone who isn't a Formalist champions the idea over the visual. Hegel did so, Cavell does so, and many others. Why is there anything wrong with that? He even refuses to say that the Brillo Boxes are good art. His philosophical texts have no emphasis on evaluative judgments, but like all good philosophy wants to observe and explained. Whether liked or not, Duchamp was one of the most influential of the 20th century. It seems like you have a problem with Duchamp and he doesn't. But is that really retracting from him?



> Danto argues that what we are seeing is "the end of art." His argument is that art as we know it is no longer... or that Post-Duchampian/Post-Aesthetic art represents something wholly new and removed from the history of art as we know it. Not only is this art the rejects illusionism but visual representation of any sort. He suggests that the history of art has gone from an "era of imitation" to be "followed by an era of ideology."
> 
> Now if we accept Danto's argument at face value, this does not mean that we must accept that this development is something to be embraced... nor does it mean that such Post-Aesthetic Art is the sole relevant artistic direction. If Post-Aesthetic Art represents such a drastic break from the tradition of visual art as to be wholly unrecognizable, why should it be acknowledged within the tradition? Should we assume that Post-Aesthetic Art has superseded or eclipsed the traditional concepts of art... or that it represents something completely different? If it truly represents something different, then part of the problem seems to be that this new art and the traditional visual arts both seem to be struggling for recognition within the same contexts: the art gallery, art museums, art press.


Okay, this is something I agree with you here. But just because you have reservations with his theory, does not mean that that makes him a pseudo-thinker right? That would make him wrong, yes, but the idea that I stated about the indistinguishables can be saved without referring at all to his end of art thesis. I do agree that he is wrong in this point. But why does this give you the right to immediately dispel the other ideas that he has made, especially when this idea has no effect on the other?


----------



## SottoVoce

KenOC said:


> Yes, Beethoven bitched and moaned. Here's one from 1824: "No one has a mind any more for what is good, what is vigorous -- in short, for real music! Yes, yes, that's how it is, you Viennese! Rossini and his pals, they're your heroes. You want nothing more from me! Sometimes Schuppanzigh gets a quartet out of me, but you've no time for the symphonies, and you don't want Fidelio. It's Rossini, Rossini above everything. Perhaps your soulless strumming and singing, your own shoddy stuff that you take for real art -- that's your taste. Oh, you Viennese!"
> 
> But the much-put-upon Ludwig doesn't mention that he made US$100K (equivalent) on his Missa Solemnis, or that he was very well compensated for essentially ALL of his late works, including the quartets.
> 
> My heart does not bleed for Beethoven's economics.


Hahaha I very much agree. But I believe that the Late Quartets were commissioned by a patron. I mean, Webern was very well compensated by Coolidge as well, but again at that time his music wasn't played very much. I think it might've been the same for Beethoven. Although he was economically well off, I think he was complaining more about how often his work is being played. I don't think any of those composers (perhaps maybe for Bartok) were having extreme financial difficulties, because they were getting steady commissions, but that their works weren't really getting played. I still think that is the main issue.


----------



## KenOC

SottoVoce said:


> Hahaha I very much agree. But I believe that the Late Quartets were commissioned by a patron.


Yes, Nicholas Galitzin in Russia provided Beethoven's last commission, for three quartets. The availability of commissions in Vienna had collapsed by that time. However, Beethoven got most of his dough, even for these quartets, from the publishers. Here's Cooper again (I've posted this before):

"It is often assumed that, after the Ninth Symphony, Beethoven turned his back on the public, withdrawing into a private world to write string quartets purely for his own satisfaction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although his late quartets were supposedly sparked off by a request from Galitzin and sustained by his own love of the genre, it was public demand, filtered through a number of publishers, that fuelled this unprecedented burst of activity in a single genre. Beethoven had been asked for quartets by both Schlesinger and Peters even before Galitzin's commission had arrived; and Schott's and probably Steiner had joined the chase before a note of Op. 127 had been written. These and other publishers then sustained Beethoven's activities with offers of high rewards unmatched, as Schlesinger confirmed, in other types of music... He had, it is true, received 600 fl. from Schott's for the Ninth Symphony -- more than the 360 fl. now being offered for a quartet -- but in proportion to the work involved the rate was lower."


----------



## SottoVoce

KenOC said:


> Yes, Nicholas Galitzin in Russia provided Beethoven's last commission, for three quartets. The availability of commissions in Vienna had collapsed by that time. However, Beethoven got most of his dough, even for these quartets, from the publishers. Here's Cooper again (I've posted this before):
> 
> "It is often assumed that, after the Ninth Symphony, Beethoven turned his back on the public, withdrawing into a private world to write string quartets purely for his own satisfaction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although his late quartets were supposedly sparked off by a request from Galitzin and sustained by his own love of the genre, it was public demand, filtered through a number of publishers, that fuelled this unprecedented burst of activity in a single genre. Beethoven had been asked for quartets by both Schlesinger and Peters even before Galitzin's commission had arrived; and Schott's and probably Steiner had joined the chase before a note of Op. 127 had been written. These and other publishers then sustained Beethoven's activities with offers of high rewards unmatched, as Schlesinger confirmed, in other types of music... He had, it is true, received 600 fl. from Schott's for the Ninth Symphony -- more than the 360 fl. now being offered for a quartet -- but in proportion to the work involved the rate was lower."


Thanks for the great information, Ken. I think you are right in saying that the two situations are different. I'm not sure, however, it is because that the music is any harder to "get" than Beethoven's, or even that Beethoven intended his music to more accessible to the audience. I just think that the audience has changed, the concert hall has changed, and the public perception of culture to avant-garde, or contemporary art, has changed drastically. I think some of Beethoven's music was very popular, but others wasn't, such as the Hammerklavier and the Gross Fugue. But this is similar to the Modernists, with Rite of Spring, Transifgured Night, some of Bartok's works, and others being completely popular, while others are not so much. Even then, I think the idea that these composers also have not been accepted by the general audience is a bit farfetched. It seems most people regard the Modernists as good composers. Even for Brahms, it took a while; in the 50s the orchestras in America had a very hard time sustaining Brahms, but it eventually got through. The same for Wagner. Again, I don't think it will be the same for the Modernists, but I'm not sure it's really because of the music. Who knows though.


----------



## millionrainbows

Beethoven and Wagner are validated because they were doing what they were supposed to be doing appropriate to their time era, and "pushing the envelope" as things were back then, not because their aesthetic was Romantic or their music was tonal.

Rachmaninoff and Shostakovich are validated, but they are "freaks," throwbacks to Romanticism because their aesthetic visions were forged in isolation.They are validated because they were sincere. They are not good representatives of the 20th century, though, because they are exceptions, "special cases."

The age of Romanticism is over. 

The 20th century nominees should reflect the change which occurred. 

Now that it's the 21st century, we can say it's a "post-modern" era where everybody is famous for 15 minutes. This can include neo-Romantics, neo-minimalists, and whatever niche market you want; but let's reserve the 20th century for radical change.

I just don't think it's a very accurate historical perspective to say that "Rachmaninoff was the greatest composer of the 20th century." It sounds defensive and reactionary. Our choices should be based on responsible reflection, not a fearful clinging to the past. Calm down, it will be over soon; history will have written itself, and you can go listen to Arvo Pärt or Tavener.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Yes, Beethoven bitched and moaned. Here's one from 1824: "No one has a mind any more for what is good, what is vigorous -- in short, for real music! Yes, yes, that's how it is, you Viennese! Rossini and his pals, they're your heroes. You want nothing more from me! Sometimes Schuppanzigh gets a quartet out of me, but you've no time for the symphonies, and you don't want Fidelio. It's Rossini, Rossini above everything. Perhaps your soulless strumming and singing, your own shoddy stuff that you take for real art -- that's your taste. Oh, you Viennese!"
> 
> But the much-put-upon Ludwig doesn't mention that he made US$100K (equivalent) on his Missa Solemnis, or that he was very well compensated for essentially ALL of his late works, including the quartets.
> 
> My heart does not bleed for Beethoven's economics.
> 
> Interesting side note: Beethoven's last two orchestral concerts, with the 9th Symphony, were not financial successes. The first earned Beethoven little money, probably because of the expense of the large forces involved, leaving Beethoven feeling he had been cheated. He arranged for a second concert, for which he took a fixed fee, but the promoter lost a bundle. Cooper says the concert included "the aria Di Tanti Palpiti from Rossini's Tancredi, which left Beethoven open to the charge, 'See, he has to get Rossini to help.' "


The concert scene in Vienna was very problematic in Beethoven's day. He often had to be his own entrepreneur and stage his own concerts but he wasn't good at this (and why should he be?) and lost money nearly every time. Also, it was usual to have works of many composers on a single program and often not have a complete symphony played. Orchestral musicians were generally not of a very high standard; indeed, the performance of Beethoven's beautiful Mass in C was almost lost to us through under-rehearsal and bad playing.

But it's a fact he was also guilty of rather sharp practice, playing one person off against another every time he had a score to sell. The cult of Rossini didn't only affect Beethoven - Schubert was adversely affected by this too and I've read some articles which suggest one of the reasons Schubert's operas didn't take off in the popular imagination in his lifetime was the impossible competition with Rossini. I detest Rossini and cannot blame Beethoven or Schubert for their feelings towards him either. Most of his music is just silly. I agree with what Beethoven said about Rossini in the quote you provided. And there is documentary evidence that, after the Congress of Vienna, the taste for more serious music waned and the fashion of the day was towards lighter music. When Beethoven died he was most decidedly out of fashion in Vienna, but still regarded as the greatest living composer.

As to whether Beethoven "bitched and moaned"......I've not read those words in any of the texts, but Barry Cooper might use it. I really don't know.


----------



## PetrB

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I find that patently glib, as if someone was trying to say something neat and clever. It needs a brief essay with good explantion of why it is a rip-off of Duchamp (Yes, I even know Duchamp 'composed,' have owned and many times shuffled and re-read his Green Box Notes) before I'd rate it at anything above glib trying to be too clever by half, a posture more than a real thought.
> 
> I'll leave the essay on Duchamp/Cage up to you as undoubtedly you are the far greater expert when it comes to real thinking vs glib posturing.


Helluva non-answer response.


----------



## KenOC

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> When Beethoven died he was most decidedly out of fashion in Vienna, but still regarded as the greatest living composer. As to whether Beethoven "bitched and moaned"......I've not read those words in any of the texts, but Barry Cooper might use it. I really don't know.


Agree totally on Beethoven being out of fashion -- maybe a parallel here with Bach! As to "bitched and moaned," these are my words and mine only...


----------



## millionrainbows

I think these "historical parallels of popularity with the recent past" are suspect. As was said, times have changed, and the situation is much different now.

But do go on, as long as we learn some history.


----------



## DavidA

Wow! Some long discussions here. Can I just offer you the wisdom of a child? I happened to put on a CD of Webern piano music. He looked startled and said: "Gosh! That's funny music, Daddy!" I was reminded of a certain tale in which a young boy says that the Emporer has no clothes on!


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Wow! Some long discussions here. Can I just offer you the wisdom of a child? I happened to put on a CD of Webern piano music. He looked startled and said: "Gosh! That's funny music, Daddy!" I was reminded of a certain tale in which a young boy says that the Emporer has no clothes on!


Oh-oh. I'm out of town if anybody asks.


----------



## ahammel

DavidA said:


> Wow! Some long discussions here. Can I just offer you the wisdom of a child? I happened to put on a CD of Webern piano music. He looked startled and said: "Gosh! That's funny music, Daddy!" I was reminded of a certain tale in which a young boy says that the Emporer has no clothes on!


That's funny, when I did the same thing the child said "Gosh! These innovations regarding schematic organization of pitch, rhythm and dynamics were formative in the influential total serialism movement."


----------



## DavidA

ahammel said:


> That's funny, when I did the same thing the child said "Gosh! These innovations regarding schematic organization of pitch, rhythm and dynamics were formative in the influential total serialism movement."


To which he added: "What a tuneless noise they make!"


----------



## neoshredder

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven and Wagner are validated because they were doing what they were supposed to be doing appropriate to their time era, and "pushing the envelope" as things were back then, not because their aesthetic was Romantic or their music was tonal.
> 
> Rachmaninoff and Shostakovich are validated, but they are "freaks," throwbacks to Romanticism because their aesthetic visions were forged in isolation.They are validated because they were sincere. They are not good representatives of the 20th century, though, because they are exceptions, "special cases."
> 
> The age of Romanticism is over.
> 
> The 20th century nominees should reflect the change which occurred.
> 
> Now that it's the 21st century, we can say it's a "post-modern" era where everybody is famous for 15 minutes. This can include neo-Romantics, neo-minimalists, and whatever niche market you want; but let's reserve the 20th century for radical change.
> 
> I just don't think it's a very accurate historical perspective to say that "Rachmaninoff was the greatest composer of the 20th century." It sounds defensive and reactionary. Our choices should be based on responsible reflection, not a fearful clinging to the past. Calm down, it will be over soon; history will have written itself, and you can go listen to Arvo Pärt or Tavener.


Plenty of Romanticism in the 20th Century. Elgar, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Mahler, and etc. I always split the 20th Century into 2 periods. Late 20th Century is clearly all Modernism. Early 20th Century is a mix.


----------



## Crudblud

I'm struggling to understand how "troll" is a dirty word on a forum in which petty-minded buffoons are allowed to run amok offering little in the way of actual discussion. Are we to go the way of _the other forum_, a place in which no discussion of anything that doesn't support the narrow views of a self-proclaimed Patrician militia comprised entirely of verbally incontinent jesters may take place, or shall we boldly attempt to take the high road and engage each other in serious and civil discussion? I am fast tiring of the constant ridicule lavished upon certain types of music by these archconservative bullies, and I dare say the rest of you are too. Now, for the love of whatever you hold dear: discuss the topic or shut up and stay shut.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Wow! Some long discussions here. Can I just offer you the wisdom of a child? I happened to put on a CD of Webern piano music. He looked startled and said: "Gosh! That's funny music, Daddy!" I was reminded of a certain tale in which a young boy says that the Emporer has no clothes on!


You should have said, "Shut up, Damian, and go listen to some Carl Orff!"


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> Wow! Some long discussions here. Can I just offer you the wisdom of a child? I happened to put on a CD of Webern piano music. He looked startled and said: "Gosh! That's funny music, Daddy!" I was reminded of a certain tale in which a young boy says that the Emporer has no clothes on!


Webern wrote one single (published) work for solo piano.

Emperor's New Clothes analogies need to be used sparingly or not at all. They are an argument, not that what is there is not good, but that there is, in fact, nothing there whatsoever. It is difficult (if not impossible) to prove a negative, so throwing in an Emperor's New Clothes analogy usually consists only of a statement.

In this case, you are revealing nothing but ignorance. That Webern's music is coherent and ordered can be seen on the page, as well as heard on recordings. I have heard computer-generated chords of random notes in a random order. It sounds nothing like any music, much less great music like that of the Second Viennese School.

Kyle Gann, no fan of serialism, wrote about a test that was supposed to prove that serialism and chance amounted to the same thing on a cognitive level. Not only was this not true, he could identify every composer involved (both those representing serialism and those representing "chance").

http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2010/06/chance_vs_serialism_redux.html


----------



## DavidA

Interesting the words 'arch conservative bullies' when the serialists led by Boulez were some of the biggest bullies music has ever known. According to Alex Ross of the New York Times:

Boulez in his youth was something of a holy terror. In a 1952 polemic entitled “Eventually. . .,” he wrote, with typical bluntness,“Why not play the sniper for a few moments?” He played the sniper often; he had excellent aim; he created, in the years following the Second World War, a climate of intellectual fear. He announced the supremacy of atonal, twelve-tone composition in the following terms: “Any musician who has not experienced. . .the necessity for the dodecaphonic language is useless.” The statement was arguable. Ned Rorem, for one, responded, “Omit the word ‘not,’ and I would agree.” Yet many composers were intimidated by this young man’s table-pounding certitude. Both Aaron Copland and Igor Stravinsky took up twelve-tone writing immediately after encountering Boulez. Even the most august composers were desperate to please him.
Not since Wagner had a composer played the bully to such effect. Boulez’s tactics were exuberantly brutal: he compared himself several times to the Bolsheviks and to the Chinese Red Guards. He placed Stravinsky in his neoclassical period at the head of the “useless.” He accused Schoenberg, after his death, of the “most ostentatious and obsolete romanticism.” Webern was “too simple.” Berg suffered from “bad taste,” Ravel from “affectation.” Twelve-tone music in its extant form was overrun by “number-fanatics” who engaged in “frenetic arithmetic ************.” Boulez’s teacher, Olivier Messiaen, produced “brothel music.” John Cage, who was at one time an ally of Boulez, became a “performing monkey,” and Karlheinz Stockhausen, likewise, a “hippie.” The American minimalists displayed a “supermarket aesthetic,” the American serialists had a “cashier’s point of view.” Brahms was a “bore,” Tchaikovsky “abominable,” Verdi “stupid, stupid, stupid!” And so on.

Now that is what I call bullying!


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> Webern wrote one single (published) work for solo piano.
> 
> Emperor's New Clothes analogies need to be used sparingly or not at all. They are an argument, not that what is there is not good, but that there is, in fact, nothing there whatsoever. It is difficult (if not impossible) to prove a negative, so throwing in an Emperor's New Clothes analogy usually consists only of a statement.
> 
> In this case, you are revealing nothing but ignorance. That Webern's music is coherent and ordered can be seen on the page, as well as heard on recordings. I have heard computer-generated chords of random notes in a random order. It sounds nothing like any music, much less great music like that of the Second Viennese School.
> 
> [[/url]


No, I'm not displaying ignorance. Just repeating what my young son (now a professional musician himself) said when he heard Glenn Gould (at the concert he gave in the Moscow Conservatory) playing the Webern Variations. They are Webern's only published work for solo piano, and are said to be one of his major instrumental works and a seminal example of his late style. The the work is just over seven minutes long. Now I am quite prepared to accept your point on the construction, etc, of the piece. But what work lasting just over seven minutes by any other composer is considered a 'major' work? Now I've no doubt such stuff has its fascinations - Gould obviously thought so. But does it do the primary job of music which is to feed our souls? To me, the answer is in the negative. In that I'm not displaying ignorance - just telling the truth!


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> No, I'm not displaying ignorance. Just repeating what my young son (now a professional musician himself) said when he heard Glenn Gould (at the concert he gave in the Moscow Conservatory) playing the Webern Variations. They are Webern's only published work for solo piano, and are said to be one of his major instrumental works and a seminal example of his late style. The the work is just over seven minutes long. Now I am quite prepared to accept your point on the construction, etc, of the piece. But what work lasting just over seven minutes by any other composer is considered a 'major' work? Now I've no doubt such stuff has its fascinations - Gould obviously thought so. But does it do the primary job of music which is to feed our souls? To me, the answer is in the negative. In that I'm not displaying ignorance - just telling the truth!


It is certainly the truth that that is your opinion, and it is certainly the truth that your son said what he said, but that doesn't make the Emperor's New Clothes analogy relevant.

As for the length, there are other works by the Second Viennese School that are as short or shorter, such as Schoenberg's Six Little Pieces, Op. 19. There are quite a few works by composers of Mozart's time and earlier that are shorter than 10 minutes as well, and some of these are considered major works. I know that it's part of a larger set, but the Ricercar a 6 from Bach's Musical Offering is frequently heard by itself, stands on its own as a work of music, and lasts just about as long.

To me, Webern's music is beautiful, like that of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, or Schoenberg, to name but a few. It is, perhaps, not always pretty. There are sharp contrasts and dissonances, certainly. But these are part of the picture, not the whole thing. I don't understand every moment of his music, perhaps, but neither do I understand every moment of complex counterpoint in Bach's 4 voice fugues without intense study. But in both cases I find elements that I love, and intuitively understand why one thing follows after another in this or that instance.


----------



## Andreas

DavidA said:


> Now I've no doubt such stuff has its fascinations - Gould obviously thought so. But does it do the primary job of music which is to feed our souls?


I would think that the primary job of music is to satisfy the person who wrote it. The fact that other people may like it is a bonus. Unless you compose to make a living, of course.


----------



## Guest

David,

I call your wise child with three of a kind:

My oldest son was early taken with the Poeme electronique by Edgard Varese, so much so that he took a computer music composition major in college.

My middle son was early taken with Alice Shields' Coyote, an excerpt from her electro-acoustic opera, Shaman. When he grew up, he became an electronic composer and improviser himself.

My youngest son was early taken with Merzbow and is also a musician now and a music teacher.

All of my sons would very probably have thought that the Webern piece was very nice. Pretty. Proves nothing one way or the other about the piece itself.

As for bullies, pointing out, whether rightly or wrongly, that Boulez was a bully really says nothing one way or the other about whether anyone else is a bully or not. "Archconservative bullies" is not answered with "serialist bullies." All you've done is identify another bully is all. "Archconservative bullies" has to be answered with something showing that archconservatives' bullying is really something else.


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> It is certainly the truth that that is your opinion, and it is certainly the truth that your son said what he said, but that doesn't make the Emperor's New Clothes analogy relevant.
> 
> As for the length, there are other works by the Second Viennese School that are as short or shorter, such as Schoenberg's Six Little Pieces, Op. 19. There are quite a few works by composers of Mozart's time and earlier that are shorter than 10 minutes as well, and some of these are considered major works. I know that it's part of a larger set, but the Ricercar a 6 from Bach's Musical Offering is frequently heard by itself, stands on its own as a work of music, and lasts just about as long.
> 
> To me, Webern's music is beautiful, like that of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, or Schoenberg, to name but a few. It is, perhaps, not always pretty. There are sharp contrasts and dissonances, certainly. But these are part of the picture, not the whole thing. I don't understand every moment of his music, perhaps, but neither do I understand every moment of complex counterpoint in Bach's 4 voice fugues without intense study. But in both cases I find elements that I love, and intuitively understand why one thing follows after another in this or that instance.


Fine, friend. Let's agree to differ in our tastes. I have tried with the Second Viennese School - I do have quite a number of discs. But I can't say it really does it for me like (eg) a work like The Art of Fugue does. Each according to their taste. So enjoy!


----------



## DavidA

Andreas said:


> I would think that the primary job of music is to satisfy the person who wrote it. The fact that other people may like it is a bonus. Unless you compose to make a living, of course.


That appears to me like a playwright saying that the primary reason for writing the play is for themselves. Or an author saying the primary reason for writing a book is for themselves to enjoy. Surely the purpose of an artist to communicate art. The avant garde would never have survived had it relied on the support of music lovers. To quote composer David Hellewell:
The avant garde is a closed system: state-funded, yet exclusive and elitist. It excludes in its language just about everything that music lovers value. Indeed, it could crudely but accurately be stated, as a working tenet, that a work must, to be 'avant garde', be an affront to normal artistic / audience sensibilities; and especially, that it must not be 'popular' or liked by the public! The avant garde equate 'standing out' with 'outstanding'. (They have a great prob- lem with past masterpieces, which are both profound and popular.) Hence, the seeming diversity of styles within the avant garde are merely different facets of the same ideology: what total-seriel Stockhausen and aleatoric Cage (and their mutations that have since been spawned) have in common, is this audience effrontery - a spit in the eye - and the avant garde's colluding critics call this "challenging" or "con- troversial", terms which were never considered to be aes- thetic-judgemental criteria before the twentieth century. We have certainly moved a long way from 'Art imitating Life'; it is now 'Art intimidating Life'! (Why the hecklers are right about the musical avant-garde)


----------



## DavidA

some guy said:


> David,
> 
> As for bullies, pointing out, whether rightly or wrongly, that Boulez was a bully really says nothing one way or the other about whether anyone else is a bully or not. "Archconservative bullies" is not answered with "serialist bullies." All you've done is identify another bully is all. "Archconservative bullies" has to be answered with something showing that archconservatives' bullying is really something else.


Interesting point, but the fact is that (eg) Rachmaninov didn't have to bully anyone as he wrote music people enjoyed and would pay to hear.


----------



## KenOC

Interesting topic, which is why there are SO MANY other threads where this might be discussed. Hint.


----------



## Andreas

DavidA said:


> To quote composer David Hellewell:
> The avant garde is a closed system: state-funded, yet exclusive and elitist. It excludes in its language just about everything that music lovers value. Indeed, it could crudely but accurately be stated, as a working tenet, that a work must, to be 'avant garde', be an affront to normal artistic / audience sensibilities; and especially, that it must not be 'popular' or liked by the public! The avant garde equate 'standing out' with 'outstanding'. (They have a great prob- lem with past masterpieces, which are both profound and popular.) Hence, the seeming diversity of styles within the avant garde are merely different facets of the same ideology: what total-seriel Stockhausen and aleatoric Cage (and their mutations that have since been spawned) have in common, is this audience effrontery - a spit in the eye - and the avant garde's colluding critics call this "challenging" or "con- troversial", terms which were never considered to be aes- thetic-judgemental criteria before the twentieth century. We have certainly moved a long way from 'Art imitating Life'; it is now 'Art intimidating Life'! (Why the hecklers are right about the musical avant-garde)


Avantgarde works make up perhaps 1% of concert programmes and recordings. If one feels any resentment towards avangardists, imagine how they must feel, given their peripheral existence.


----------



## DavidA

Andreas said:


> Avantgarde works make up perhaps 1% of concert programmes and recordings. If one feels any resentment towards avangardists, imagine how they must feel, given their peripheral existence.


Of course, they might just consider WHY their works get so few performances?


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> It excludes in its language just about everything that music lovers value.


Could not the same be said of all classical music, which attracts a vanishingly small percentage of the music-listening population, or do you consider some music lovers relevant and not others?

If the latter, why privilege those who disdain modernist/post-modernist music (Cage is considered part of experimental music, which is separate from the avant-garde) over those who do not?



> Indeed, it could crudely but accurately be stated, as a working tenet, that a work must, to be 'avant garde', be an affront to normal artistic / audience sensibilities; and especially, that it must not be 'popular' or liked by the public! The avant garde equate 'standing out' with 'outstanding'. (They have a great prob- lem with past masterpieces, which are both profound and popular.) Hence, the seeming diversity of styles within the avant garde are merely different facets of the same ideology: what total-seriel Stockhausen and aleatoric Cage (and their mutations that have since been spawned) have in common, is this audience effrontery - a spit in the eye - and the avant garde's colluding critics call this "challenging" or "con- troversial", terms which were never considered to be aes- thetic-judgemental criteria before the twentieth century. We have certainly moved a long way from 'Art imitating Life'; it is now 'Art intimidating Life'! (Why the hecklers are right about the musical avant-garde)


I doubt that "challenging" and "controversial" are in and of themselves valued. I don't care one bit whether or not something is controversial or disliked by others. I care about whether or not I think it's good music.

In short, I disagree with the person you quoted, whose name I will probably never hear in any other context.



DavidA said:


> Of course, they might just consider WHY their works get so few performances?


The same reason the vast majority of recent works _in any style_ get few performances. They are not a part of the standard repertoire, are usually in copyright, and are unfamiliar.


----------



## DavidA

Looking at this, can we say that a great musical work has the qualities to change music AND to communicate that change to a willing public who will embrace the challenge the music presents. In which case of music written the 20th century The Rite of Spring may be regarded as such a work, fulfilling both criteria. Whether it is the greatest work of all is really impossible to determine.


----------



## SottoVoce

DavidA said:


> Wow! Some long discussions here. Can I just offer you the wisdom of a child? I happened to put on a CD of Webern piano music. He looked startled and said: "Gosh! That's funny music, Daddy!" I was reminded of a certain tale in which a young boy says that the Emporer has no clothes on!


Show him Ingrid Bergman and he would probably say, "Yuck! Girls are gross, Daddy!" But that doesn't make Ms. Bergman any less beautiful does it?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Looking at this, can we say that a great musical work has the qualities to change music AND to communicate that change to a willing public who will embrace the challenge the music presents. In which case of music written the 20th century The Rite of Spring may be regarded as such a work, fulfilling both criteria. Whether it is the greatest work of all is really impossible to determine.


*What's the greatest musical work of the 20th century?* An impossible question in my opinion, there can't be (and I don't want there to be) _one_ single, all-defining work. 
DavidA : I would go along with what you say, except for the notion of a 'willing public'. We all think the Beethoven late quartets are great music (can I say paradigm shifting?) but not when they were first performed. No, the public at that time was most unwilling. Isn't the same for the 20th century? For Stravinsky? For Schoenberg?
To answer the question as best as I can, I would certainly vote for the The Rite, for Schoenberg's Pierrot. But equally I would vote for Mahler's Ninth, and Varese's _Poeme electronique_.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think deKooning and the Ab Exp painters of the Cedar Tavern had a personal animosity towards Greenberg; I'm pretty sure deKooning punched Greenberg in the face. 

Greenberg probably had more power to make or break an artist than any critic in the history of art with the possible exception of Ruskin. Undoubtedly, he abused this power promoting artists whose works he collected... or whom had even given him gifts of free paintings (or slept with him in the case of Frankenthaler). I've never heard of DeKooning punching Greenberg. He always seemed well balanced enough to simply shrug off any criticism that he felt was nonsense. Pollock and Rothko? I can imagine them punching Greenberg. Pollock while drinking, and Rothko simply on principle.

I wouldn't take any of his words towards the person too seriously. 

Well all such "words" on art must be taken with a very large grain of salt.

As for Picasso, I think he cared deeply about the meaning of his paintings, and how the medium presented that meaning. I mean, that's the whole point of art, right?

Of course art always deals with ideas... concepts... feelings... sensations... perceptions... but these are presented first and foremost the aesthetic merit of the visual form that matters. As someone pointed out, all of Shakespeare's sonnets might be reduced to a rather banal idea or "meaning": "When I think of you, I feel blue." What Danto or even Hirst and Koons hit upon is that even the most banal or kitsch art can be seen to express ideas. Placing the idea or ideology above the aesthetic visual merits of the art work seems to place the horse before the cart.

Or else it's just some sort of craft where someone puts paint on a canvas and comes out with something pretty. I think he was being tongue and cheek.

That's the fear of the Post-Aesthetic artist... being reduced to a "mere" craftsman. The attempt to escape from being pegged as a mere craftsman begins with the High Renaissance masters such as Leonardo, Michelangelo, Brunelleschi, etc... Michelangelo argued that the artist works with the mind and the hand. Never, until Duchamp, would an artist have negated the craft or the "hand" in favor of the mind. Even by the late 19th century and the PreRaphaelites, the aesthetes or circle who embraced the theory of art pour l'art (Baudelaire, Verlaine, Gautier, Pater, Poe, Henry James, Huysmans, Oscar Wilde, etc...) the importance of art as an aesthetically "beautiful" object/image is unquestioned. Are the ideas of Duchamp, Manzoni, Hirst, Koons truly so profound and marvelous as to stand on their own and move us... regardless of the banality... ugliness... or even kitsch nature of their form?

Art has ideas, and he like the ideas that Art has. Aesthetics has existed for more than 300 years, and talking about the philosophy of art is not a new subject.

I would assume that aesthetics and discussing the philosophy of art goes back to the Greeks and beyond. Plato and Aristotle both engage in such.. The question becomes: is it the idea or the form that the idea is given that makes a work of art "great" and/or timeless? If I look at a painting such as this:










I am not struck by the brilliance or originality of the idea conveyed. I am struck by the aesthetic beauty of the image... the handling of paint, etc... This was equally true of Rembrandt (who copied the painting), Cezanne, who extolled the virtues of the work, and numerous other artists.

In fact, because they both talk about things that are outside of reality but about it, philosophy and art are very similar.

Are they? This sounds too much like the Romantic notion of the artist as philosopher or prophet. Personally, I find that Oscar Wilde was far closer to the truth when he declared: _The artist is the creator of beautiful things._
On the contrary, "The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things. The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography." In other words, the audience/viewer/critic brings his or her "meaning" to a work of art. This meaning often says more about the viewer (autobiographical) than it does about the artist or the artist's intentions.

I have also read many of Danto's book; my professor studied under him and we read his books together (my professor is also a Formalist).

For better or worse, a good number of my professors studied under Joseph Albers... who could be just as one-sided in his view. We read the critics and theorists: Poe, Baudelaire, Ruskin, Zola, William Morris, Pater, Rodger Fry, Gautier, Walter Benjamin... on through Greenberg, Rosenberg, Kenneth Clark, Lawrence Alloway, Meyer Shapiro, Robert Rosenblum, Robert Hughes, David Sylvester, Lucy Lippard, Barbara Rose, Donald Kuspit... as well as Denis Diderot, Jean Baudrillard, and Michel Foucault. But as my education was within the context of an art school as opposed to the art department of a university or college, the emphasis was upon the experience in the studio... the visual. If Ideas were stressed, these were more often the ideas of the artists as found in their personal journals and other writings, whether we are talking of Michelangelo, Leonardo, Alberti, Delacroix, Klee, Kandinsky, Beckmann, Motherwell, etc...

The idea that I was specifically talking about comes from Transfiguration of the Commonplace...

The title of the book certainly sets the tone arguing for the end of the relevance of the aesthetic as the banal... the commonplace... even the ugly or that considered kitsch is now embraced, and the aesthetic... the exceptional... and certainly the "naive" concept of the beautiful is "maligned" as Donald Kuspit put it in his book, _The End of Art_.

I'm not sure what you think critical theory means. Critical Theory is a specific term coming from philosophy and sociology that purports a certain method of criticizing society. They usually tend to be Marxist. Danto is not a critical theorist, not a Marxist.

"Critical Theory" as you speak of it, deals with a critique of art or culture through the cant of ideas or concepts rooted in the social sciences: Marxism, Feminism, Racial and gender issues, etc... The very concept of "reading" or interpreting art through the filters and values such non-art issues is wholly at odds with the liberation of _art pour l'art_ (the precursor of Formalism) which freed art from being judged upon such non art issues as ethics, morals, religion, etc... This is not to say that we should ignore issues of racial or sexual inequality when raised by a work of art, but rather it is to suggest that ultimately, such considerations should be irrelevant to our judgment of the merits of the work of art. To deem a work inferior because it fails to meet the ideals of Feminism or Marxism is no less constraining than the past approach to dismissing a work of art that was deemed "immoral" or conveyed the wrong religious views.

What I am speaking of when I refer to "critical theory" is the notion of art based first and foremost in theories of ideas often rooted in the writings of various art and literary critics, as opposed to art based first and foremost in visual perception and visual aesthetics.

Anyone who isn't a Formalist champions the idea over the visual. Hegel did so, Cavell does so, and many others. Why is there anything wrong with that?

The term "Formalist" seems no less loaded than the term "critical theory". On one level it refers to the 20th century heir of _art pour l'art_ and especially to the writings of Greenberg. In a broader sense, it refers to the whole of the idea that the meaning and judgment of art is based wholly upon the purely visual aspects. While this idea might have noble intentions... allowing us to compare an African totem with a European icon on equal grounds... it certainly isn't reality. We, the audience, always bring our own background knowledge, personal preferences, biases, etc... to every work of art. Ignoring everything but the form seems no less absurd than ignoring everything but the idea.

He even refuses to say that the Brillo Boxes are good art. His philosophical texts have no emphasis on evaluative judgments, but like all good philosophy wants to observe and explained. Whether liked or not, Duchamp was one of the most influential of the 20th century.

That may be the crux of the problem with Danto. He makes no qualitative judgments of the work of art as art. Duchamp is accepted as influential... but is he actually any good? Are his works actually visually interesting? And how seriously do we take Duchamp when we discover that his most famous, if not notorious, contribution to 20th century art, the _Fountain_, may not have been by him at all... but only claimed by him years after the fact... after the actual artist had died?


----------



## SottoVoce

> Greenberg probably had more power to make or break an artist than any critic in the history of art with the possible exception of Ruskin. Undoubtedly, he abused this power promoting artists whose works he collected... or whom had even given him gifts of free paintings (or slept with him in the case of Frankenthaler). I've never heard of DeKooning punching Greenberg. He always seemed well balanced enough to simply shrug off any criticism that he felt was nonsense. Pollock and Rothko? I can imagine them punching Greenberg. Pollock while drinking, and Rothko simply on principle.


Sorry I should've posted a link. http://www.warholstars.org/abstractexpressionism/timeline/abstractexpressionism61.html

I'm not sure how credible it is though, but I've also heard it spoken about sometimes.

Anyway, thank you for a great rebuttal, Stlukes, and I agree with much of what you say; I think I was more impressed with Danto's speculation on the definition of art rather than his emphasis on the kitsch and the conceptual, although I still do agree that the primary goal of artists is that they want to say something through a creative process, not to make something. Most of what you say however is incredibly astute. What I would say is that it really depends on each artist; Shakespeare was obviously looking more to the form when crafting his sonnets, but I don't think Whitman's primary goal was to do that, but rather to use the form to carry out the meaning. Both are very highly regarded however, and deserverdly so. I'm sure it is the same in visual art.



> What I am speaking of when I refer to "critical theory" is the notion of art based first and foremost in theories of ideas often rooted in the writings of various art and literary critics, as opposed to art based first and foremost in visual perception and visual aesthetics.


I think what also separates Danto from the critical theorists is that he has no particular "lens" that he is evaluating with, because he doesn't evaluate works at all. His job, as a philosopher, is to try to find some definition on why we consider both found objects and Rembrandt pieces of art. He didn't make it so that we consider the two art, but it has been considered by the artworld for the past 40 years, and he's trying to figure out why this is so. Whether or not they are good art is another subject, because the predicate "art" shouldn't be seen as a normative label. However, it is obvious you know much more than me about Dante the critic, and I'm not sure where his allegiences really are, and by your words I would probably not agree with them. As an aesthetician though, I admire him greatly.



> Are they? This sounds too much like the Romantic notion of the artist as philosopher or prophet. Personally, I find that Oscar Wilde was far closer to the truth when he declared: _The artist is the creator of beautiful things._
> On the contrary, "The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things. The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography." In other words, the audience/viewer/critic brings his or her "meaning" to a work of art. This meaning often says more about the viewer (autobiographical) than it does about the artist or the artist's intentions.


I think I meant something else when I said that philosophy deals with subjects that are about something, and art is about something, so philosophy talks about art. I mean in this case is that we have a distinction between real things and artworks. When we look at a shoe for example, it wouldn't make sense to say "What is it about"? It is just not of that kind. However, when looking at artworks, it does make sense to ask so, even if the answer is "It's not about anything". If we do look at artworks as just mere real things, then we would have to look at paintings as just what they are in reality, paint on a canvas. But you must find it strange, as I do and I think it's something most people take for granted, that a human being can dabble paint on a canvas and use it to create a depicition of something, a thing that means something. I think that's why art was regarded as magic for some along, because instead of representation they saw it as re-presentation, meaning the object was actually there. I think this lasted for as long as Dante, for in the 10th and 11th Cantos of Purgatorio he imagines the walls of the pavements as something he is smelling and seeing presented to himself as if it was the event itself. I think this strangeness, the peculiar property of artworks about being something (which is like language too, being about something), that Danto tries to explain in Transfiguration.

I think it's impossible to be an artwork as being about nothing outside itself but only being aesthetic or formal, because to see it as an artwork is to see it about something. To see music as something else other than a collection of sounds is to see it as about something, even if the aboutness of it is about itself, such as Schenker's idea of I-V-I or Stravinsky's idea of music being about itself or Bazan's idea of music being about sonata allegro form or whatever "program" it's in. For visual art, I think this is even more explicit. Even for the purely self-refrential artist (who Danto calls the olfactory artist), who says that my art is just paint on a canvas, I think it is still about the history of art, because he is making a statement that would only be understood when you see some artist's gradual rejection of representation. Do you find this view a little sensible? I think this is why I admired Danto.

In the Abuse of Beauty, Danto also talks about the problem you are concerned with, that no one appreciates beauty as an end anymore. Like you said, he is rather apologetic to the conceptualists who don't want people to find their works as merely beautiful, but I think he tries to subtly provide a defense of beauty against this way of thinking as well. To me, he seems like a middle-man more than anything else; however, I have read this philosophy only, and I'm sure he is a much more different critic.

Anyways, I digress. Although we are talking about art in general, I think this discussion is moving dangerously away from the topic in the thread. I would love to continue this discussion with you through PM; it's obvious you know your stuff about Danto, the history of visual art, and the important questions in aesthetics.


----------



## tensongsblog

Can I just be brash, and say 'Rhapsody In Blue'. Mainly because that piece is still going strong even outside classical circles. I know MANY young people who know the slink of the clarinet and the middle waltz section (if from the airline) ads but not Shostakovitch nor Stravinsky nor Copland. And for me anyway that piece spoke in the 20th century dialect with all the sland phrases and such. But I can't help being biased I LOVE this piece.


----------



## tensongsblog

This is true. Or possibly even something like Bohemian Rhapsody


----------



## arpeggio

*Anti-modernists*

I was not going to post the following. I was discussing the atmosphere concerning discussions of modernistic music with Crudblud. Since this thread is about 20th century music, it is reasonable to expect that some will bring up some modernistic works. It appears to me that when some start threads about 20th and/or 21st century they really want to use at as a platform to provoke a dispute concerning the pros and cons of modernistic music. Crudblud thought I had some interesting ideas and that I should go ahead and post them.

Many of the anti-modernists employ disingenuous rhetorical tricks in order to try support their positions. One of them is that they ask questions that they already know the answer too. They will ask a question like, "Please explain why you like 'Johnson', I would like to understand why."

Then an unsuspecting sucker takes the bait and tries to answer. The responder then gets drawn into a dispute, gets frustrated, loses his cool and gets sent to the penalty box. When a person asks about 'Johnson' he is being insincere. He has been verbally sparring with others about 'Johnson' for years and has built up a huge arsenal of responses.

The other strategy that some anti-modernists employ is to cite articles trashing 'Johnson'. Those are the only articles they ever cite. I refuse to believe that considering how much these gentlemen read that they have never read any articles praising 'Johnson'. I recently read an article in the _BBC Magazine_ praising Harrison Birtwistle. If one is going to be objective he would cite sources that addressed both sides of the issue. They are not concerned with being objective. They are being advocates for a particular point of view.

One gentleman made a very interesting point in another forum. It is impossible to judge the worth of a piece of music or any work of art through rhetoric alone. For many this is the only tool they have at their disposal to support their views.

I seriously doubt if one can use rhetoric to convince someone that they should like or dislike the music of 'Johnson'. I think 'anti-Johnson' types know this. I remember one person in another forum admitting that he realized that they could never persuade a committed fan of 'Johnson' to change his mind. What he hoped to accomplish is convince someone who was unfamiliar with the music of 'Johnson' never to try it.

I am not that smart. For me the best way to deal with opponents of modernistic music to ignore them. Talking to them is like talking to a brick wall.


----------



## aleazk

arpeggio, I think you are taking the opinions of some of the posters of this thread too seriously. I read their opinions with a laugh, since they are just the archetypal _dinosaurs_.


----------



## KenOC

aleazk said:


> I read their opinions with a laugh, since they are just the archetypal _dinosaurs_.


Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 300 million years. And how long has that vain creature, man, been around?


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 300 million years. And how long has that vain creature, man, been around?












(The asteroids represent 20th century music and the mammals the public. )


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> Could not the same be said of all classical music, which attracts a vanishingly small percentage of the music-listening population, or do you consider some music lovers relevant and not others?
> 
> The same reason the vast majority of recent works _in any style_ get few performances. They are not a part of the standard repertoire, are usually in copyright, and are unfamiliar.


No, I would not say that the numbers listening to classical music are decreasing. It may be a minority taste but with recording and multi-media there are now more listeners than ever.

As regards the second point quoted. A work like The Rite of Spring soon became part of the established repertoire. You can point to numerous instances of modern music that have done this. The reason was people wanted to hear them!


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> You can point to numerous instances of modern music that have done this. The reason was people wanted to hear them!


Perhaps there are three categories of music.

1. Music people want to hear
2. Music people will put up with
3. Music people will run, screaming, for the exits to avoid.

For the third category, composer John Adams has described a highly automated Audience Ejection System.

http://www.earbox.com/posts/76


----------



## Andreas

If

18th - Bach, St Matthew Passion
19th - Beethoven, Symphony no. 9

then perhaps

20th - Mahler, Symphony no. 8


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> ...When you consider all the simply tuneless and unlistenable music that has been written in the 20th century... yada yada... write music that people actually could enjoy... yada yada....tuneless nonsense that often passed for music in the last century any day... yada yada.
> Thank you.


The gentleman kindly informed you of his preferences, taste limits and boundaries, whether foolishly or fearlessly in this festering war of attrition on what is perceived as dissonant, or older music vs. newer music.

At least we know where he stands.


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> (the asteroids represent 20th century music and the mammals the public. )


"_*incoming!*_"


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> Perhaps there are three categories of music.
> 
> 1. Music people want to hear
> 2. Music people will put up with
> 3. Music people will run, screaming, for the exits to avoid.
> 
> For the third category, composer John Adams has described a highly automated Audience Ejection System.
> 
> http://www.earbox.com/posts/76


And what a sensible Man John Adams is too - should call him the Doctor Atomic Adams

I would propose the following Three (maybe 2 only), types of music

1. Arcane Music for Wigs
2. Music that evolves and is of interest
3. And populist commercial tripe.









"I refuse to submit myself only to sounds that have already been heard,"


----------



## neoshredder

Crudblud said:


> I'm struggling to understand how "troll" is a dirty word on a forum in which petty-minded buffoons are allowed to run amok offering little in the way of actual discussion. Are we to go the way of _the other forum_, a place in which no discussion of anything that doesn't support the narrow views of a self-proclaimed Patrician militia comprised entirely of verbally incontinent jesters may take place, or shall we boldly attempt to take the high road and engage each other in serious and civil discussion? I am fast tiring of the constant ridicule lavished upon certain types of music by these archconservative bullies, and I dare say the rest of you are too. Now, for the love of whatever you hold dear: discuss the topic or shut up and stay shut.


I wonder who you are talking to. I don't see anyone like that.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Art should "feed our souls?" Give up your desire, submit to the art.


And just what do you mean by that, pray?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I'm struggling to understand how "troll" is a dirty word on a forum in which *petty-minded buffoons are allowed to run amok* offering little in the way of actual discussion. Are we to go the way of the other forum, a place in which no discussion of anything that doesn't support the *narrow views of a self-proclaimed Patrician militia comprised entirely of verbally incontinent jesters* may take place, or shall we boldly attempt to take the high road and engage each other in serious and civil discussion?

That's not fair, Crudblud, to characterize ALL of *the arch-conservatives as "bullies." At least one of them is simply an enabler*, who cleverly distances his comments.

I am fast tiring of the constant ridicule lavished upon certain types of music by *these archconservative bullies*, and I dare say the rest of you are too. Now, for the love of whatever you hold dear: discuss the topic or shut up and stay shut.

I think you are taking the opinions of some of the posters of this thread too seriously. I read their opinions with a laugh, since *they are just the archetypal dinosaurs.*

Perhaps there are four categories of people and their expectations of music/entertainment.

1. People who want to hear music which they are familiar with and which caters to their desires
2. People who will put up with or tolerate music which they are gracious enough to allow to exist in their presence
3. *People who walk away and reject music they are too deficient to engage with*, because they don't have the tools to deal with it
4. People who have informed themselves, have done their homework, have faith, and suspend judgement, and are prepared to engage with sounds they have never heard, and are not consumed by their own selfish ego-desires

I am quite impressed with the clear open-minded thinking displayed above. Nothing smug, self-righteous, or pretentious that might prevent those listeners still unconvinced as to the splendours of Modern/Avant-Garde music from listening to the arguments and giving the music an honest chance.

"Trolls", "dinosaurs," "petty minded buffoons", "verbally incontinent jesters"... And to think I was banned for 3 months for referring to certain members as "children".


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Perhaps there are four categories of people and their expectations of music/entertainment.
> 
> 1. People who want to hear music which they are familiar with and which caters to their desires
> 2. People who will put up with or tolerate music which they are gracious enough to allow to exist in their presence
> 3. People who walk away and reject music they are too deficient to engage with, because they don't have the tools to deal with it
> 4. People who have informed themselves, have done their homework, have faith, and suspend judgement, and are prepared to engage with sounds they have never heard, and are not consumed by their own selfish ego-desires
> 
> For the third category, I suggest reading and listening assignments, or for difficult cases, a "tough love boot camp" until their egos are "broken" and they are prepared to submit to the accepted standards of history and art


In what category do you put yourself?


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> Perhaps there are three categories of music.
> 
> 1. Music people want to hear
> 2. Music people will put up with
> 3. Music people will run, screaming, for the exits to avoid.
> 
> For the third category, composer John Adams has described a highly automated Audience Ejection System.
> 
> http://www.earbox.com/posts/76


"Listen carefully and you can hear the exit ramp's motors automatically kick in at the arrival of the final tonic.", lol, I almost cried of the laugh.


----------



## DeepR

Less talk, more pieces. With a few exceptions all we've had so far is parrots saying Rite of Spring.


----------



## neoshredder

I'm just glad I don't have to hear atonal music. Uh the agony. Pure chaos without a tonal center.  And Sibelius 3 is my choice.


----------



## Mahlerian

neoshredder said:


> I'm just glad I don't have to hear atonal music. Uh the agony. Pure chaos without a tonal center.  And Sibelius 3 is my choice.


So-called atonal music does have tonal centers, whether or not the music explicitly affirms them. It's not chaos either.


----------



## moody

aleazk said:


> arpeggio, I think you are taking the opinions of some of the posters of this thread too seriously. I read their opinions with a laugh, since they are just the archetypal _dinosaurs_.


Not long ago somebody was in trouble with the mods for referring to members as Dinosaurs and I find such a term objectionable.


----------



## Prodromides

DeepR said:


> With a few exceptions all we've had so far is parrots saying Rite of Spring.












All together now, let's squawk "Le Sacre du Printemps"

Rrraaawwkk!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The avant garde... excludes in its language just about everything that music lovers value.


I'm not a music lover? I beg to differ.



DavidA said:


> Indeed, it could crudely but accurately be stated, as a working tenet, that a work must, to be 'avant garde', be an affront to normal artistic / audience sensibilities


Not only not a music lover but also without normal sensibilities. This is getting personally offensive.



DavidA said:


> The avant garde equate 'standing out' with 'outstanding'.


Bad puns add insult to injury. (Or is it injury to insult, since we've had the insults already.)



DavidA said:


> They have a great prob- lem with past masterpieces, which are both profound and popular.


They do, do they? Perhaps some composers have a problem with redoing the past. I don't know of any, personally, who dislike past masterpieces, though some of them are understandably put off by the adoration of the past (accompanied by antagonism towards the present). They are alive, after all, and have bills to pay just like everyone else.



DavidA said:


> audience effrontery - a spit in the eye


Yes, it would be nice to have less spitting, especially the spitting on contemporary music and its creators and its fans.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The avant garde... excludes in its language just about everything that music lovers value.


I'm not a music lover? I beg to differ.



DavidA said:


> Indeed, it could crudely but accurately be stated, as a working tenet, that a work must, to be 'avant garde', be an affront to normal artistic / audience sensibilities


Not only not a music lover but also without normal sensibilities. This is getting personally offensive.



DavidA said:


> The avant garde equate 'standing out' with 'outstanding'.


Bad puns add insult to injury. (Or rather injury to insult, since we've had the insults already.)



DavidA said:


> They have a great prob- lem with past masterpieces, which are both profound and popular.


They do, do they? Perhaps some composers have a problem with redoing the past. I don't know of any, personally, who dislike past masterpieces, though some of them are understandably put off by the adoration of the past (accompanied by antagonism towards the present). They are alive, after all, and have bills to pay just like everyone else.



DavidA said:


> audience effrontery - a spit in the eye


Yes, it would be nice to have less spitting, especially the spitting on contemporary music and its creators and its fans.


----------



## DavidA

some guy said:


> They do, do they? Perhaps some composers have a problem with redoing the past. I don't know of any, personally, who dislike past masterpieces, though some of them are understandably put off by the adoration of the past (accompanied by antagonism towards the present). They are alive, after all, and have bills to pay just like everyone else.
> 
> .


Boulez didn't seem to think much of past composers as I have already pointed out. He seemed to want to attack everything in the past including his own teacher, Messiaen.
Another quote of his from January of 2000: "Well, Shostakovich plays with clichés most of the time, I find. It's like olive oil, when you have a second and even third pressing, and I think of Shostakovich as the second, or even third, pressing of Mahler."
So not very generous to artists of the past, I would say.


----------



## Andreas

DavidA said:


> Boulez didn't seem to think much of past composers. According to Alex Ross in The New Yorker:
> He placed Stravinsky in his neoclassical period at the head of the "useless." He accused Schoenberg, after his death, of the "most ostentatious and obsolete romanticism." Webern was "too simple." Berg suffered from "bad taste," Ravel from "affectation." Twelve-tone music in its extant form was overrun by "number-fanatics" who engaged in "frenetic arithmetic ************." Boulez's teacher, Olivier Messiaen, produced "brothel music." John Cage, who was at one time an ally of Boulez, became a "performing monkey," and Karlheinz Stockhausen, likewise, a "hippie." The American minimalists displayed a "supermarket aesthetic," the American serialists had a "cashier's point of view." Brahms was a "bore," Tchaikovsky "abominable," Verdi "stupid, stupid, stupid!"


One can also look at it this way: With all this trash talking, Boulez also raised the bar to astronomical heights as far as his own compositions were concerned. Putting down acknowledged masters is nasty, but it's also pretty courageous if you're a composer yourself. Boulez was not just talking, he was also putting out works to back up his outrageous opinions. He was not a journalist, criticising from his foxhole, Boulez was putting himself out there, inviting the same kind of stinging criticism he was dishing out himself.


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> Boulez didn't seem to think much of past composers as I have already pointed out. He seemed to want to attack everything in the past including his own teacher, Messiaen.
> Another quote of his from January of 2000: "Well, Shostakovich plays with clichés most of the time, I find. It's like olive oil, when you have a second and even third pressing, and I think of Shostakovich as the second, or even third, pressing of Mahler."
> So not very generous to artists of the past, I would say.


Neither was Debussy, who was pretty dismissive of just about anyone. I'm not really defending Boulez here; his rhetoric was over-the-top (he's mellowed out quite a bit since then and the Shostakovich comment is more the exception than the rule now) and ridiculous. I just don't see it as indicative of a wide-spread trend in the avant-garde. Most composers readily acknowledge their debt to the past and their love of the masterpieces.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> "...I think of Shostakovich as the second, or even third, pressing of Mahler."


I've never agreed with Boulez's comment on Shostakovich. But here's another from Robin Holloway that may be more on point. Shostakovich's music is "battleship-grey in melody and harmony, factory-functional in structure; in content all rhetoric and coercion." Of course he was probably thinking of the 7th Symphony...


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Boulez didn't seem to think much of past composers as I have already pointed out. He seemed to want to attack everything in the past including his own teacher, Messiaen.
> Another quote of his from January of 2000: "Well, Shostakovich plays with clichés most of the time, I find. It's like olive oil, when you have a second and even third pressing, and I think of Shostakovich as the second, or even third, pressing of Mahler."
> So not very generous to artists of the past, I would say.


It's true that Boulez in his youth was very disparaging about certain past composers, but he has considerably mellowed his position over the last couple of decades. He may not have softened his position on Shostakovitch, but he's quite positive about Bruckner and Mahler, which the following quotes from an interview show:

*Interviewer*: _How did your conducting of Bruckner influence your point of view on the long form?_
*Boulez*: _That was very important. I like his harmonic writing, which supports long development - at the end of the slow movement of the 9th, for instance (when the melodic line repeats and it's very large). But this is less important to me than the segments which are there, because for me, the segments are too visible. But that's not only a point of view - it's a difference of centuries, not a difference of personalities. And I find that if the segments are too visible, you miss the point. And that's what's so interesting about the great moments in Mahler: I was very, very struck by the way he handles form - which is with movements, of course, but what I mean is how those movements are put together. I conducted the 7th Symphony recently in Chicago, replacing Riccardo Muti. I had not performed it in five years, so while it was not new, it was once again striking to me. And the last movement is indicative for the cohesion of the whole. I find that if you take the right tempo and properly relate the tempi between the various movements, then it is indeed very coherent. You must really have a kind of coherency in the tempi, and then it goes right along. Otherwise it's by bits and pieces, and that's certainly not what you want - at least I wouldn't imagine it is._


----------



## Guest

And here are two more extracts from the Boulez interview:

*Interviewer*:_Mahler spoke about the flexibility of the tempi, and its importance in making a performance really vivid_.
*Boulez*: _Yes, the relations between the tempi really are important; that's what I call narration. You tell the story. And to tell the story, you have to be very careful with moments of tension, as well as with moments where the tension is not that strong, and so on. That's important. And even in the first movement, you have to be very careful with the relationships between tempi. But of course that's my problem, at this point. _

*Interviewer*:_But Bruckner's influence is surprising, since Bruckner wasn't part of French musical culture - at least not while you were growing up._
*Boulez*: _Bruckner wasn't even performed at all, and even as late as when Karajan brought along a symphony by Bruckner when he came on tour with the Berlin Philharmonic, the reaction in some of the papers was, "why did he bring this monster?" And even Messiaen - though you can imagine that there are some very strange ties between the universe of Messiaen and the universe of Bruckner - Messiaen said, "oh, Bruckner, that's a lot of bridges." Now in French, when you have a transition from one section to another one, you call that a bridge. And for Messiaen, Bruckner's music was simply one of transition after transition after transition. And that's very strange, and the French are indeed sometimes complete strangers to ways of musical thinking that are not native to their own practice. Even in the case of Mahler: now he's very popular, but France was that last country to rediscover him. England and the States were much more open to the influence of Mahler that the French were.
_


----------



## Guest

I'd just like to say that I have picked up on an undercurrent of resentment on this forum between those that advocate modern music and those that prefer earlier music(s). I'm not going to be taking any position on that at all. All I will say is that I like my Bach and Beethoven mixed in with my Boulez and Benjamin.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> I'd just like to say that I have picked up on an undercurrent of resentment on this forum between those that advocate modern music and those that prefer earlier music(s). I'm not going to be taking any position on that at all. All I will say is that I like my Bach and Beethoven mixed in with my Boulez and Benjamin.


Undercurrent??

That gets my vote as the understatement of the year. No, of all time.


----------



## Guest

Currents tend to be lengthy, if not continuous. But as I said, I'm not going to be partisan. Give me Bach & Berio, give me Beethoven & Boulez.
Back to the original question of this thread (What's the greatest work of the 20th century?): I have already answered it (in Post #137).


----------



## ArtMusic

I quite like Ravel's _Bolero_. It was probably one of the first 20th century pieces that I heard and loved straight away.


----------



## DavidA

In all our discussions we do need to keep a sense of humour. I love the story of Gershwin going to Stravinsky to ask him for some lessons. Stravinsky asked Gershwin how much he earned in a year. When Gershwin told him Stravinsky remarked, Perhaps I need to take lessons off of you!"


----------



## arpeggio

*Modernists should lighten up.*

Anti-modernists rhetorical trick number 4,628.

"You guys are taking this discussion way too seriously. Lighten up."

It is alright for anti-moderninsts to be passionate about what they believe in, but when a modernist displays any passion they have no sense of humor.

Heard this comeback way too many times


----------



## neoshredder

arpeggio said:


> Anti-modernists rhetorical trick number 4,628.
> 
> "You guts are taking this discussion way too seriously. Lighten up."
> 
> It is alright for anti-moderninsts to be passionate about what they believe in, but when a modernist displays any passion they have no sense of humor.
> 
> Heard this comeback way too many times


Except the modernists are way too defensive. And resort to insulting the anti-modernists. The good modernists are the ones that don't take it so personally. We should respect each others tastes and not attack it.


----------



## Guest

arpeggio,

I was just about to say the same thing.

Only you said it much better than what I had in mind to say, so good on you for beating me to the punch!

Thank you,

some

(I think you'll find, too, that this is higher up the list of rhetorical tricks than 4,628. More like two or three. But 4,628 does give the (accurate) impression that the anti-modernists have thousands of rhetorical tricks. About which they are humorlessly passionate, natch!)


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Except the modernists are way too defensive. And resort to insulting the anti-modernists. The good modernists are the ones that don't take it so personally. We should respect each others tastes and not attack it.


Defensive is a natural response to being attacked. (Besides, why not let's stick to the topics and eschew the ad populum of "modernists are way too defensive"?)

The "I'm being insulted" rhetorical trick is up there, too. Number three or four.

The good anti-modernists.... Oh, wait, there aren't any. Haha, I'm kidding. But seriously, if there were a good anti-modernist, that person would not take things so personally, seeing an insult in every attempt to provide a counter argument to the constant stream of anti-modernist vitriol.

We should respect each others' tastes? Sure. Good idea. Go right ahead!


----------



## neoshredder

Just because your music is being attacked. That's not the same as you being attacked personally. So for an example someone says Xenakis's music is horrible noise. Than the next poster who disagrees with that takes it personally and looks for a sneaky way to insult that posters intelligence and trashes anti-modernists in response. Yes I might defend my favorite Composers if attacked but I wouldn't take it personally.


----------



## arpeggio

neoshredder said:


> Except the modernists are way too defensive. And resort to insulting the anti-modernists. The good modernists are the ones that don't take it so personally. We should respect each others tastes and not attack it.


I have heard that one before too. I wished that anti-modernists would come up with some new original insults. They just keep repeating the same ones over and over and over...


----------



## neoshredder

arpeggio said:


> I have heard that one before too. I wished that anti-modernists would come up with some new original insults. They just keep repeating the same ones over and over and over...


And I've seen Modernists getting defensive over and over and over...


----------



## arpeggio

neoshredder said:


> And I've seen Modernists getting defensive over and over and over...


Sorry, I have heard that one before too


----------



## neoshredder

arpeggio said:


> Sorry, I have heard that one before too


And I've heard complaints about that before


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> So for an example someone says Xenakis's music is horrible noise. Than the next poster who disagrees with that takes it personally and looks for a sneaky way to insult that posters intelligence and trashes anti-modernists in response.


You are in complete control of this example, so can use it to make whatever point you want.

Is it, however, true? Is it an accurate example of what actually happens?

I say not.

Anti-modernists just need to lighten up is all. The whole world isn't sneakily out to insult them or their intelligence.

So defensive!

And I just now realized, I am so bored with this sub-topic.

But then, I was bored with the _topic,_ too. The greatest musical work of the twentieth century? No such thing. There's not even a greatest musical work of 1987. There's not even a greatest musical work of 27 March, 1956. It's just not a thing at all, whatever the time period.


----------



## neoshredder

I'm not defensive. I'm just pointing out what happens when someone complains about modern music. Why does there need to be a refutal to that response? Can't someone share their opinion without getting bombarded by Modernists?


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> *Just because your music is being attacked.* That's not the same as you being attacked personally. So for an example someone says Xenakis's music is horrible noise. Than the next poster who disagrees with that takes it personally and looks for a sneaky way to insult that posters intelligence and trashes anti-modernists in response. Yes I might defend my favorite Composers if attacked but I wouldn't take it personally.


*A topic in itself:* *Why on earth would anyone call it 'my music' or 'your music' unless the 'me or you' of that was the one who had written it?*


----------



## Mahlerian

neoshredder said:


> I'm not defensive. I'm just pointing out what happens when someone complains about modern music. Why does there need to be a refutal to that response? Can't someone share their opinion without getting bombarded by Modernists?


Yes. People have a right to hold whatever opinions they want, and for whatever reason.

But some things are not opinion. Whether or not Webern sounds like nonsense to you or I, there is still a fact of the matter whether it is nonsense or not. If one says it is nonsense, one has to offer more than simply one's own perception of the matter.


----------



## Jimm

Stockhausen's magnum opus *LICHT* is certainly one of the greatest feats of composition in the history of mankind.


----------



## TwoFourPianist

I just love Henrky Gorecki's symphony no 3 especially the 2nd movement.


----------



## neoshredder

Mahlerian said:


> Yes. People have a right to hold whatever opinions they want, and for whatever reason.


Great. Then we agree.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> Yes. People have a right to hold whatever opinions they want, and for whatever reason.


Mahlerian knows that I admire and respect his opinions. So I know he'll understand if I run with this a bit.

People may indeed have opinions. And sometimes they even express them. But traditionally, the person who says that one is entitled to one's opinion is the person who is losing in an argument and uses this particular red herring to sidetrack the discussion. But increasingly, I see people, as here, asserting that other people, people with whom they disagree, have a right to their opinions. Wow, doing people's red herrings for them. That can't be good!!

A person's entitlement is really neither here nor there. Is the opinion defensible is the real question. Is the opinion defend_ed_? Asserting entitlement is not at all to defend an opinion. It serves only to distract from the fact that you cannot (or will not) put forth the effort to defend your opinion.

Here's an essay about opinions and entitlement that y'all may find interesting. Sorry it's only the first page. That's all the interwebs will let us see for free:

http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/index.htm?id=1468712


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Jimm said:


> Stockhausen's magnum opus *LICHT* is certainly one of the greatest feats of composition in the history of mankind.


Really? Have you attended a performance of the complete cycle? Do you have a recording of the complete cycle?


----------



## KenOC

some guy said:


> A person's entitlement is really neither here nor there. Is the opinion defensible is the real question.


Just to clarify: If I say, "I can't stand that music; it sounds terrible to me," that is not an opinion; it is a fact. I am either telling the truth of lying. The statement needs no defense, nor is one really possible.


----------



## Guest

Clarification is not the same thing as obfuscation. Quite the contrary.

It may be a fact that you hold the opinion expressed by the words "I can't stand that music; it sounds terrible to me," but the words themselves express an opinion.

And the question here is, is that opinion worth expressing? Does expressing that opinion ever contribute to a discussion? Will it help anyone understand anything or appreciate anything better? Is it ever any more than the verbal equivalent of an infant saying "waaaaahhhhhh"? Actually, the infant's cry is probably more defensible. It is a legitimate response of a preverbal human to an unpleasant situation. We, however, are not infants. We can talk and we can reason.

Hey, I have an idea! Let's do just that!


----------



## KenOC

It is most certainly a fact, not an opinion. If I say "I don't like liver," that's clearly a fact. It implies nothing about any subjective attributes of liver. It's a bit mystifying that the difference between "fact" and "opinion" seems difficult to grasp.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> Just to clarify: If I say, "I can't stand that music; it sounds terrible to me," that is not an opinion; it is a fact. I am either telling the truth of lying. The statement needs no defense, nor is one really possible.


Oh, your such a liar, pants on fire! even.

You did say either your "either telling the truth of (or) lying", of lying hey - well that's definitely lying, sounds like at best this was a 50% chance or truth or not...... Now there is a statement. :lol:


----------



## KenOC

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Oh, your such a liar, pants on fire! even.
> 
> You did say either your "either telling the truth of (or) lying", of lying hey - well that's definitely lying, sounds like at best this was a 50% chance or truth or not...... Now there is a statement. :lol:


My lawyer says I don't have to take a lie detector test, so there!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> It's a bit mystifying that the difference between "fact" and "opinion" seems difficult to grasp.


True words.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> My lawyer says I don't have to take a lie detector test, so there!


The good old 5th amendment hey, almost proves guilt!


----------



## violadude

Klavierspieler said:


> Hmmm... Do I have an obsession with counterpoint? I wonder...


That's ok, it puts you in the company of JS Bach.


----------



## millionrainbows

The problem is, people aren't saying "I can't stand that music; it sounds terrible to me;" 
they're saying "That music is terrible; it destroyed tonality, sounded the death knell, etc." as if this were an objective fact.

Also, we're playing a shell-game here by confusing subjective opinion with objective fact. To say that "I can't stand that music; it sounds terrible to me" is a _fact,_ not an _opinion,_ is misleading, because it is in reference to an agreed-on subject, a musical work. The "fact" that the listener "can't stand that music" is understood implicitly to be opinion. When did the rules change at this carnival?


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> The "fact" that the listener "can't stand that music" is understood implicitly to be opinion.


Understood? By whom? I think one would have to be quite confused to think that. It might well lead to an opinion by the listener, but that's another matter and has not been stated.
In any event, are you suggesting that people be prohibited from stating their dislikes, because that might be interpreted as a slam on the music itself? Does this apply to any music or (nudge nudge wink wink) only to certain types?


----------



## dkjoeyss

neoshredder said:


> I'm just glad I don't have to hear atonal music. Uh the agony. Pure chaos without a tonal center.  And Sibelius 3 is my choice.


You're missing out then. It's the kind of music that if you understand its design, you appreciate it more (maybe you already have). I love some of Schoenberg's early works during his expressionist period. Six little piano pieces by Schoenberg is an amazing composition. I particularly love the last movement. 



 4:20 starts the last movement. I also love some of Webern's work and I do listen to them for personal enjoyment.

As for the greatest 20th century work, this is a hard question to answer for me. I can name four each for a different reason (trying not to repeat some of those that have been said):

Lutoslawski - Symphony No. 4
Aaron Copland - Fanfare for the Common Man
Mahler - Symphony No. 9
Oliver Messiaen - Quartet for the End of Time


----------



## Guest

Originally Posted by millionrainbows: "The 'fact' that the listener 'can't stand that music' is understood implicitly to be opinion.



KenOC said:


> Understood? By whom? I think one would have to be quite confused to think that.


Yes, there does seem to be some confusion here. "I can't stand that music" is indeed an opinion. Not leading to an opinion but the opinion itself. (There may be other opinions related to it, such as "That music that I can't stand is (in and of itself) crappy music," for instance. But that's as may be.) I

t may indeed be "true" that "I" can't stand that music, and it may seem to the "I" that that opinion has the status of "fact," but the statement "I can't stand that music" is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact. "I heard Schoenberg's violin concerto last night" is a statement of fact. "I hated it" is a statement of opinion.



KenOC said:


> In any event, are you suggesting that people be prohibited from stating their dislikes, because that might be interpreted as a slam on the music itself? Does this apply to any music or (nudge nudge wink wink) only to certain types?


Not to anticipate million or anything, but no, this is not what he's suggesting. And may I suggest that you know that perfectly well?

Stating a dislike is not terribly useful by itself. It's an assertion, and to be useful in an argument, assertions really have to be supported. Or am I prohibited from pointing that out?


----------



## Ukko

KenOC said:


> It is most certainly a fact, not an opinion. If I say "I don't like liver," that's clearly a fact. It implies nothing about any subjective attributes of liver. It's a bit mystifying that the difference between "fact" and "opinion" seems difficult to grasp.


This is difficult for me, but... _some guy_ has it right. It is a fact that you are expressing an opinion. The statement represents intrinsic value for you, but its only value to anyone else is directly related to his evaluation of your opinion's worth - on the particular subject or in general.

[I think this is the _second_ time in 2013 that I've agreed with _some guy_. I'm wondering if I should be concerned.]


----------



## Guest

Hill, that makes this the second time in 2013 that you have made me grin.

I enjoy grinning. Thanks.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

[I think this is the second time in 2013 that I've agreed with some guy. I'm wondering if I should be concerned.]

I would be.


----------



## arpeggio

*Verdi is a ...*

I have know 'some guy' for many years. There has recently been some statements about him that are very inaccurate and unfair. Although he is passionate about modernistic music, he still appreciates traditional music.

There appears to be a double standard. Some individuals feel it is OK to be passionate about what they believe in but those who disagree can not.

I dislike Verdi. If I made an affirmative declaration that Verdi is an overrated schlockmeister, I should not be surprised if a mob of angry Verdites ripped my head off and handed it to me on a silver platter.


----------



## ptr

arpeggio said:


> I dislike Verdi. If I made an affirmative declaration that Verdi is an overrated schlockmeister, I should not be surprised if a mob of angry Verdites ripped my head off and handed it to me on a silver platter.


But he is, and is that not the whole purpose of Verdi? ..to accompany ripped heads carried of on silver platters I mean... 

/ptr


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Well, someguy has the same right to state his opinions (and facts for that matter) as anybody else. Doesn't bother me any. Anything said here reflects mainly on ourselves, after all, not on others and certainly not on the music -- which will go right on being exactly what it is.


Oh absolutely! Why I think we should lighten up a bit. I doubt whether Boulez is losing any sleep over the fact that I can't stand his music.


----------



## mmsbls

This thread has gotten off track. The OP asks simply, "What's the greatest musical work of the 20th century." In the last 5 pages well under a quarter of the posts have focused on that topic or related ones. Please return to the original topic so the thread does not get further derailed.


----------



## millionrainbows

..........this post was in response to the previous page, before I saw the red warning. It has been removed to avoid possible infraction.


----------



## millionrainbows

....................this post was in response to the previous page, before I saw the red warning. It has been removed to avoid possible infraction.


----------



## DavidA

In response to the moderator let me name some 20th century classical works which are great IMO

The greatest piano concerto - Rachmaninov 3

The greatest orchestral score - Rite of Spring

The greatest vocal - Strauss Four Last Songs

The greatest money-spinner - Rhapsody in Blue


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I would say Rite of Spring. Or, one of Shoenberg's first free atonal works. I call them great because they symbolize the mentality/emotionality of many artists of the 20th century.


----------



## millionrainbows

(nervously)...I agree...


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> This thread has gotten off track. The OP asks simply, "What's the greatest musical work of the 20th century." In the last 5 pages well under a quarter of the posts have focused on that topic or related ones. Please return to the original topic so the thread does not get further derailed.


But threads go "off track" all the time. Sometimes into areas more interesting than the original path.

I could find nothing in the forum rules about staying on topic.

We can remind each other to stay on topic if we like. Or we can, since this is a rather informal situation here, just chat with each other, exploring side paths from time to time, just conversing.

Not sure why this kind of thing, which happens in practically every thread that I've ever seen, in every board, suddenly needs a moderator to comment on it. If this were in the rules, then maybe. But it's not, and it shouldn't be. One of the small pleasures of conversation is exploring ways and byways.


----------



## neoshredder

some guy said:


> But threads go "off track" all the time. Sometimes into areas more interesting than the original path.
> 
> I could find nothing in the forum rules about staying on topic.
> 
> We can remind each other to stay on topic if we like. Or we can, since this is a rather informal situation here, just chat with each other, exploring side paths from time to time, just conversing.
> 
> Not sure why this kind of thing, which happens in practically every thread that I've ever seen, in every board, suddenly needs a moderator to comment on it. If this were in the rules, then maybe. But it's not, and it shouldn't be. One of the small pleasures of conversation is exploring ways and byways.


Actually they don't.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> But threads go "off track" all the time. Sometimes into areas more interesting than the original path.
> 
> I could find nothing in the forum rules about staying on topic.
> 
> Not sure why this kind of thing, which happens in practically every thread that I've ever seen, in every board, suddenly needs a moderator to comment on it. If this were in the rules, then maybe. But it's not, and it shouldn't be. One of the small pleasures of conversation is exploring ways and byways.


Threads do stray off topic often, and you are correct that, in itself, veering off topic is neither against forum rules nor necessarily a negative action.

In this case the off topic posts have led to behavior that violates the Terms of Service. Such behavior often leads to threads being shut down. We don't like shutting down threads and would rather warn people before taking such an action.


----------



## Logos

Weston said:


> That's an interesting interpretation. As a layman or armchair music explorer, I had thought of it as emphasizing the rests between the notes to the point that they are all that is left, therreby creating nearly the ultimate in minimalsm. The only thing more minimal would be a shorter piece. Those were my thoughts on it without doing any research whatsever. I agree it's an important work whether serious or a stunt. People will be talking about it for centuries.


He should have made it even more minimal by sparing us such intellectual flatulence in the first place. Cage is hardly known to the public at all even now--what makes you think that anyone will be talking about it in 50 years, let alone centuries? My guess is that even the likes of Bach and Beethoven will scarcely be known in coming centuries except as mere names. Realistically looking at our trajectory, the encrustations of popular culture are going to mean a swift passage into oblivion for all the but the most outstanding occurrences in history, to say nothing of art or musical history. In a century's time I'd be surprised if people hardly remember the two world wars, but I'm afraid Cage and his ilk don't stand much of a chance.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> We don't like shutting down threads and would rather warn people before taking such an action.


Yes. I hadn't thought of that. I understand. Thanks.


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> He should have made it even more minimal by sparing us such intellectual flatulence in the first place. Cage is hardly known to the public at all even now--what makes you think that anyone will be talking about it in 50 years, let alone centuries? My guess is that even the likes of Bach and Beethoven will scarcely be known in coming centuries except as mere names. Realistically looking at our trajectory, the encrustations of popular culture are going to mean a swift passage into oblivion for all the but the most outstanding occurrences in history, to say nothing of art or musical history. In a century's time I'd be surprised if people hardly remember the two world wars, but I'm afraid Cage and his ilk don't stand much of a chance.


Well, I agree with you about Cage and his "intellectual flatulence" (good expression), but he did write actual music too. I strongly disagree that "the likes of" Beethoven and Bach "will be scarcely known in coming centuries". You seem to be suggesting that (mostly ephemeral) popular culture will sweep everyone from history into oblivion!! And "encrustations"? It is hardly this, since most so-called 'popular' culture ends up as the entertainment equivalent of land-fill. It is actually self-annihilating and almost completely redundant very quickly!!

My concern is the lasting impact upon the collective attention span. And history has a tendency to value those who contribute the most to it. Shakespeare comes to mind, as do Cicero, Socrates, Pythagoras, Aristophanes, Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Charlemagne, Ivan the Terrible, the Carolingian dynasty, Elizabeth 1, Marie Antoinette, Newton, Darwin, Dickens, Tolstoy, Hugo, Napoleon etc. etc. Then there are the composers........ who even though 'de-composing' are still 'composing' (if you regard performers as co-composers, as I do).

Those who've had something important to "say" will remain as part of humanity in one form or another.


----------



## DavidA

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Then there are the composers........ who even though 'de-composing' are still 'composing' (if you regard performers as co-composers, as I do).
> 
> Those who've had something important to "say" will remain as part of humanity in one form or another.


Wasn't it Sir Thomas Beecham who, when asked by a lady if his friend 'Mr Bach' was still composing said 'no madam he is decomposing!'


----------



## Logos

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Well, I agree with you about Cage and his "intellectual flatulence" (good expression), but he did write actual music too. I strongly disagree that "the likes of" Beethoven and Bach "will be scarcely known in coming centuries". You seem to be suggesting that (mostly ephemeral) popular culture will sweep everyone from history into oblivion!! And "encrustations"? It is hardly this, since most so-called 'popular' culture ends up as the entertainment equivalent of land-fill. It is actually self-annihilating and almost completely redundant very quickly!!
> 
> My concern is the lasting impact upon the collective attention span. And history has a tendency to value those who contribute the most to it. Shakespeare comes to mind, as do Cicero, Socrates, Pythagoras, Aristophanes, Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Charlemagne, Ivan the Terrible, the Carolingian dynasty, Elizabeth 1, Marie Antoinette, Newton, Darwin, Dickens, Tolstoy, Hugo, Napoleon etc. etc. Then there are the composers........ who even though 'de-composing' are still 'composing' (if you regard performers as co-composers, as I do).
> 
> Those who've had something important to "say" will remain as part of humanity in one form or another.


I'm not saying that any particular pop culture will endure because the pop culture of the next generation always annihilates that of previous one, along with things more worthy. Mass communication is a very recent phenomenon, historically speaking, and no individual figure is now guaranteed to survive in the public memory because there is always a new surge of garbage to absorb. The fact that certain figures have endured for centuries is no guarantee that they will endure for even another 50 years, given an exponentially greater and ever increasing flow of mass entertainment that each generation makes the public more crass and more ignorant of history.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> That's ok, it puts you in the company of JS Bach.


Well, Bach certainly did something with it other than obsess as a passive listener on an internet forum.... one is far more interesting to listen to than the other


----------



## PetrB

arpeggio said:


> If I made an affirmative declaration that Verdi is an overrated schlockmeister, I should not be surprised if a mob of angry Verdites ripped my head off and handed it to me on a silver platter.


Orpheus vs. the Bacchantes


----------



## unpocoscherzando

I think the greatest musical work of the twentieth century is the _Intermezzo_ from Granados' _Goyescas_.


----------

