# Modern Music: Novelty at almost any cost



## mmsbls

My daughter is a music major and is taking a music history class. Her professor described modern music as "Novelty at almost any cost." In other words for modern composers the most important feature of their music was its difference from prior music rather than producing beauty, evoking emotions, painting a musical picture, etc. The professor certainly believes there is plenty of wonderful modern music and was simply trying to describe an era.

Personally, I have always been struck by the diversity of modern music. Other eras seem to have one style (Baroque, Classical, Romantic), but at roughly the same time the 20th century saw atonal, avant-garde, minimalist, and neo-classical (more?) - all distinct styles. While music has obviously changed over time and most composers wish to create something new, do you feel that modern music has relied on novelty to a significantly greater extent than earlier music? Do you agree that "novelty at almost any cost" is a good description of _most_ modern music?


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Do you agree that "novelty at almost any cost" is a good description of _most_ modern music


A lot of it seem to be IMO


----------



## violadude

No that's silly. The styles of modern music are a product of musical evolution just like any other style of music.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

mmsbls said:


> My daughter is a music major and is taking a music history class. Her professor described modern music as "Novelty at almost any cost."...


So, let's use some less judgmental language.

"Innovation at almost any cost".

People had pretty much the same view as the professor of Beethoven when he was alive. There would be none of the music the professor espouses had its composers and their predecessors not innovated.


----------



## violadude

The thing about 20th/21st century is that, yes, there is an element of novelty in most of it (as is the case with music of the past too, Beethoven composing a symphony with a 15 minute long first movement was at once a novelty), but the stuff that is pure novelty, unless it has something to offer as far as new ways of thinking about music (eg 4'33") gets weeded out. The stuff you hear about, the works of composers that are considered great by many people do indeed have musical integrity. Anyone who has taken the time to actually get to the know the music of Carter or Boulez or Rihm or whoever knows that its not just a bunch of random **** on the score to try and be more novel. There are themes and motifs that are well thought out, just like a Beethoven symphony would have. It has integrity, it has musicality, not merely a novelty.

Take our member Sid James here, he's talked about Elliot Carter's 1st string quartet a few times on this forum. Now, Carter's 1st string quartet (and his 1st especially) is one massive beast of a string quartet. You hear it for the first time and you are freaking overwhelmed and yes, it is one of those pieces that sounds like a bunch of random **** if you only give it a shallow one or two listens. But Sid listened to it a lot and over time began to understand it and now it is one of his favorite string quartets. How did that happen? Could it be that its actual quality music? and not just newness for the sake of being new. After listening to Carters string quartet many many times, Sid or myself could both tell you without a single doubt in our minds, that this piece has themes, variations, motifs, direction, harmonies, any musical quality that you could find in music of the past.


----------



## karenpat

I think it's a fairly good description...and it goes for a lot of contemporary visual art too. I often feel "bad" about painting because contemporary art has gone from "art is not ONLY a canvas on a wall" to "art SHOULD NOT be a canvas on a wall". Looking back into history isn't an option.

sorry, venting.....


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I seem to agree with both mmsbls _and_ violadude on this one somehow.


----------



## pjang23

This link basically says it all.


----------



## violadude

Wow...well there is indeed _something_ about that website that's ********....


----------



## jalex

pjang23 said:


> This link basically says it all.


It's like reading Ferneyhough!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Jeremy Marchant said:


> So, let's use some less judgmental language.
> 
> "Innovation at almost any cost".
> 
> *People had pretty much the same view as the professor of Beethoven when he was alive*. There would be none of the music the professor espouses had its composers and their predecessors not innovated.


Folks during Beethoven's day didn't innovate by composing a "horse-drawn carriage string quartet" that required horses to be part of the performance (hint: Stockhausen's infamous crappy piece), nor did they go to the local blacksmith's and declared the sounds of bang-and-hiss was "music", nor did they read Joseph Louis Lagrange's manuscripts to see if the calculus of variations could be converted to music. Innovation in the normal usage of the word, refers to progress.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Folks during Beethoven's day didn't innovate by composing a "horse-drawn carriage string quartet" that required horses to be part of the performance (hint: Stockhausen's infamous crappy piece), nor did they go to the local blacksmith's and declared the sounds of bang-and-hiss was "music", nor did they read Joseph Louis Lagrange's manuscripts to see if the calculus of variations could be converted to music. Innovation in the normal usage of the word, refers to progress.


_*How dare you*_ call Stockhausen's Helicopter String Quartet "crappy!"


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> How _dare_ you call Stockhausen's Helicopter String Quartet "crappy!"


Sorry, my friend. Not aiming at you. OK, innovative, then.


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> _*How dare you*_ call Stockhausen's Helicopter String Quartet "crappy!"


Sarcasm?....


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

It's alright. I would prefer to hear Gruppen to Helicopter String Quartet anyway.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

violadude said:


> Sarcasm?....


No not sarcasm actually.


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> No not sarcasm actually.


Well it's good to know you're so passionate about Stockhausen's Helicopter Quartet...someone around here needs to be!

I like it quite a bit myself, personally.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I let some of my classmates hear it. Their response: "WTF?"


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I let some of my classmates hear it. Their response: "WTF?"


As per usual my friend. That's just what we lovers of avant-garde have to deal with 

I think the sound of the helicopters adds a great amount of power and depth to the sound of the string quartet.


----------



## science

Hmmm... 

I thought the professor's views were obviously correct, so I'm surprised by the responses here. It seems to me that novelty became a fetish in about 1890, and not just in music, and that lasted until at least 1938. 

Beethoven innovated in order to get to the music he wanted to make; Liszt innovated trying to figure out what a piano was capable of, and so on. When did innovation for its own sake become a value? At some point it become a compliment to say, "Well, that was completely different."


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> No that's silly. The styles of modern music are a product of musical evolution just like any other style of music.


Wrong!  Whether it's good or bad, the evolution of music was more natural before the 20th century. The fact that the 20th century featured much more conceptual art - the probing of the fundamental question, "What is music?" - meant that composers necessarily tried to break from the past as much as possible, rather than merely progressing from it like composers before (of course, we must be careful to not be so stupid as to suggest that it is a fair characterisation for _all_ contemporary music).

My more general answer:

Yes, novelty is _highly_ valued. At any cost? It depends who you're talking about. The reason for this is the modern phenomenon of the 'cult of the author/artist/composer'. Most artworks in the past few centuries are inexorably tied to their creators - when we engage with a piece of art, we invariably also ask, "Who made this? What were they like? What was their upbringing/social class/political background? _etc._" It's obviously a huge part of forums like this, and you all know I indulge in Brahms-love! 

It feels like a natural thing to do, but it hasn't always been this way. If you go a few more centuries back into the past, we still have a rich cultural heritage of artworks, but the vast majority are anonymous. The most intriguing thing about this is that it's _not_ because of a loss of information in the transmission of these works over time that we don't know their creators, but because the very idea of authorship (/composership?) wasn't valued. Artists and their audiences did not see themselves as unique geniuses or as having a job of creating something original. They were part of a tradition, there to rework the old and familiar. The importance of an artwork was not about the astounding abilities of the creator (though they were, of course, still astounding), but on the social engagement of the audience.

But with certain technological advances (such as print), a different culture emerged - one where attribution was key. With attribution came competition. With competition came egos. A modern book (or a score - you can tell I'm being influenced by my literary studies here  ) is seen as an unchanging account of a single act of artistic creation endorsed by its creator. It is set in stone, to be repeated again and again and again in the same form, just by different audiences in different places. This relatively new dynamic is what leads to the modern value of authorship and, in turn, why people feel compelled to be _original_. Originality, novelty, innovation - whatever you want to call it - is a highly prized commodity because, in a world obsessed with the Artist, that's how you make a name for yourself.


----------



## norman bates

Boulez is exactly the kind of composer who (for his own admission) put originality at any cost before beauty. A sentence like "Anyone who has not felt -- I do not say understand -- but felt the necessity of the dodecaphonic language is USELESS. " demonstrate that he has a view of art where the aesthetic values are a lot less important than originality. I mean, useless for what? To me it seems the same mentality that push a lot of people to feel the need for the last model of telephone.
It's not different. 
I haven't problems at all with the idea of modern music (though i'd rather consider myself a lover of music whatever it is, not a lover of avantgarde), and i don't have problems with atonality. I don't like at all this idea of music of composers like Boulez or John Cage.


----------



## starthrower

norman bates said:


> Boulez is exactly the kind of composer who (for his own admission) put originality at any cost before beauty.


Beauty is in the ear of the behearer. Music is about more than beauty anyway. It's an individual expression through art.


----------



## science

Personally I like novelty and don't believe that progress is possible in the arts (aside from progress in stuff like how well the instruments are made or recording technologies or whatever).

A thing we have to think of is the social context of all of this. Music from Perotin to Brahms was primarily made in order to entertain, flatter, glorify, and legitimize the aristocracy and the really elite bourgeois and their church. Around 1880 they lost control of their societies, the main influence passed to the common man and woman. Popular arts became more influential than elite arts, which first became decadent, and then...

The spirit of competitive appreciation ("I get this incredibly difficult piece and you don't, you philistine") and the glorification of novelty created a market for anything shocking, and shocking became increasingly harder. Of course anyone can throw crap at the audience, the trick has been to make something that is both shocking and artistically excellent - _The Rite of Spring_ is the ideal. The market for art musicians is now restricted to the self-consciously elite - universities were the great patrons of elite art in the 20th century, and the universities' mission was to turn out individuals with an awareness of their superiority to the crowd. And among the elite, there are always some trying to establish themselves as super-elite. Derrida and Lyotard, Boulez and Stockhausen were required - precisely in the way that once upon a time Rameau and Bach were required.

Again, this isn't to say that their music isn't good - there are a lot of composers without Boulez' talent trying to make music in that style, and failing - exactly the way that back in the day a lot of composers tried and failed to do what Bach or Mozart did (I'm not talking about people like Telemann or Clementi, nor really even of the Michael Haydns and Leopold Mozarts, but of all the people who composed stuff without gaining even that much recognition).


----------



## aleazk

i have mixed feelings with this. Of course, music must go on and advance. But, sincerely, I HATE "conceptual" composers. In fact, i hate conceptual artists in general. I don't like them because there is an un-clear line between really interesting conceptual art and certain type of snobism. Crap artists take advantage of this to sell us their crap "art" as avant-gardism. For that reason, i have this, maybe, unfair reaction. But in every period we will have to deal with this. i suposse that the future will forget the bad and remember the good in today's art. i'm aware that i'm somewhat vague here, but i'm very disoriented right now with some things that are called "modern art", not only in music.


----------



## norman bates

starthrower said:


> Beauty is in the ear of the behearer.


i could partially agree, but the problem is that Boulez simply doesn't care about beauty or the aesthetic values of music. I don't remember where, but i remember to have read a comment by him saying something like that it's not important what one hears, it's important the technique used in the composition.


----------



## starthrower

norman bates said:


> i could partially agree, but the problem is that Boulez simply doesn't care about beauty or the aesthetic values of music. I don't remember where, but i remember to have read a comment by him saying something like that it's not important what one hears, it's important the technique used in the composition.


A composer should write for himself first, and not worry about what the public thinks. Otherwise they are serving commercial interests.


----------



## aleazk

starthrower said:


> A composer should write for himself first, and not worry about what the public thinks. Otherwise they are serving commercial interests.


What??, music and art are social things. of course, there is some unique interaction between the composer and his work, but it's the audience who decide for its aesthetic value. of course, bad people will take commercial advantage of this, it's a complicated subjet.


----------



## starthrower

That's right! The audience can decide after the work is written/performed. Before that it's strictly the composer's business.


----------



## norman bates

starthrower said:


> A composer should write for himself first, and not worry about what the public thinks.


I absolutely, totally agree. But if aesthetic values are not important as originality and novelty (as for Boulez), it seems to me that we're talking more of cult of personality.


----------



## norman bates

by the way: Ligeti is one my favorite composers ever, and i like a lot more his approach: "I am in a prison: one wall is the avant-garde, the other wall is the past, and I want to escape"


----------



## starthrower

I have only one Boulez CD featuring his pieces Rituel; Eclat/Multiples. I like it! It's far from ugly to my ears.

Boulez has good taste. Just my opinion, of course!


----------



## Polednice

I think it's wrong to say that composers should compose for themselves and no one else, and patronizing to say that anyone who considers the audience is being commercial. Aleazk is absolutely right to say that art is social, and I would argue that the audience is _more_ important than the composer (though this doesn't mean that they should be consulted on a composition or pandered to). This ties into my post on the previous page about our obsession with the individual not being how it's necessarily supposed to be.

I would also briefly say that progress and advancement can be achieved without thinking up things that have never been done before.


----------



## starthrower

I didn't say composers should write for themselves and no one else. I said in so many words that they have to follow their muse and be true to themselves first and foremost. They're not popular artists, why should they pander to pedestrian tastes?


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> Wrong!  Whether it's good or bad, the evolution of music was more natural before the 20th century. The fact that the 20th century featured much more conceptual art - the probing of the fundamental question, "What is music?" - meant that composers necessarily tried to break from the past as much as possible, rather than merely progressing from it like composers before (of course, we must be careful to not be so stupid as to suggest that it is a fair characterisation for _all_ contemporary music).


You seem to be quite misguided my friend  The evolution of 20th century music might have been faster than previous eras, not unlike evolution in any other area in the 20th century, but certainly it was no less natural.

When Wagner, Strauss and Mahler all stretched tonality as far as it could go this is what led composers to be in a crises over where to go from there. It was a tricky question and there were many different answers to that question which is why so many styles appeared . Debussy's answer was switching to modes with many triadic extensions (and to an extant, so was Bartok's), Prokofiev and Shostakovich thought it better to stick with tonality but extend it even farther, composers like Hindemith made their own tonal system based largely off of 4ths instead of 3rds (quartile harmony), Stravinsky and Milhaud both experimented with bitonality. Schoenberg and his followers thought that since the post-romantic composers had stretched tonality to its limit, the only logical thing was to finally break its back once and for all, and thus atonal music was written, which evolved into 12 tone music because Schoenberg realized that music without some sort of system must be madness. Neither Schoenberg or Berg used this 12 tone system strictly, it was up to Webern to do that, and it was out of Webern's strict use of the 12 tone system that composers like Boulez, Kurtag, Sessions, and Stockhausen evolved.

Going away from harmony for a minute, there was a strong emphasis on Rhythm in the 20th century. This has to do with two things. One was composers realizing that they just hadn't experimented with rhythm as much as they could have. The second was having the chance to hear things like African drumming or Asian gamelan. The world was becoming smaller and all of a sudden composers had access to many cultures music, which was much more rhythmically advanced, probably due to the fact that the church had restricted music to vocal music for so many years, putting us behind in rhythmic experiments. This is why percussion really came of age in the 20th century and there were pieces written for percussion alone.

Now for graphic notation, and "noisy" pieces like Penderecki and Xenakis and people like that. Well, this has to do with the fact that science was evolving rapidly. These noise experiment pieces and electronic pieces are kind of tied together. The advancement of science meant composers could finally know what music actually was, that it consisted of sound waves of various types that did this and that and that, instead of music being some sort of gift from the gods or something like that. Thinking about music in such realistic and scientific terms got composers to think of music as just in such realistic terms and thus music of pure sound was conceived. This is music that doesn't have a melody or rhythm or whatever because music is just sound waves and it really doesnt need any of that. This was the thought process of these composers (acoustically and electronically).

This was also the thought process of John Cage, who took that idea in a different direction, that since all music is sound, all sound was music. That, combined with the early experiments of Lutoslawski, was how aleatoric/perfromer improvised music was born. The idea was that music didn't always have to be the same and whatever happens to happen in a performance is just as much music as what is written down. So really, if you want to blame anything for these two styles emerging...blame science, they both grew out of looking at music as something scientific and realistic.

Out of those two styles, to a certain extant, evolved conceptual art.

Of course, after this is minimalism, which many composers started taking part in (even including Ligeti to some extent). This was a reaction to all the noise in music and wanting to take things back to tonality or something people could follow better.

Now were in the information age and because we have access to any music any time we want and can read about any musical time in history, composers can have a wider range of influence. This lead to a mishmash of many different styles...which is kind of the boat we are in now because of the ease of gaining information.

But anyway, that is, in a nutshell, the evolution of 20th century music. Completely natural...


----------



## violadude

And to join the Boulez debate. I would say Boulez (or John Cage, or Sciarrino or whoever) never writes for himself! He writes for people, like me and starthrower, who love his music.


----------



## LordBlackudder

Most of the modern classical stays within what you would expect from classical music. I don't think cats playing pianos and 3 minutes of silence represent an entire era.

Why wouldn't these novel ideas naturally occur when we have new technology and ideas. They can be very important, and if one isn't it rules that out and makes another important.

As for people that try to compose in a new or absurd way it's what they want to do and it's all good fun. I'm sure this is nothing new.

I think the dude is right but he should not make it out to be a negative thing and it is only a tiny part of modern music. Like the Turner Prize in the art world.


----------



## aleazk

wow, violad, quite a post, i agree with almost all of it (after all, it's only history), specially with the following:



> Now were in the information age and because we have access to any music any time we want and can read about any musical time in history, composers can have a wider range of influence. This lead to a mishmash of many different styles...which is kind of the boat we are in now because of the ease of gaining information.


and the rhythm reflection. regards.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> I didn't say composers should write for themselves and no one else. I said in so many words that they have to follow their muse and be true to themselves first and foremost. They're not popular artists, why should they pander to pedestrian tastes?


Well everyone would accept that and no one said anything to the contrary, so I don't know why you brought it up. 

Violadude, great post that I don't have enough time to respond to in depth now, but, essentially, you actually agree with me  Yes, styles evolved, but not in the same natural manner. As you rightly summarized, pre-20th century music followed extensions of musical structures, while the 20th century saw the invention of new ones out of the thought that existing structures could not be extended any further. Thus, I was right!


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> Well everyone would accept that and no one said anything to the contrary, so I don't know why you brought it up.
> 
> Violadude, great post that I don't have enough time to respond to in depth now, but, essentially, you actually agree with me  Yes, styles evolved, but not in the same natural manner. As you rightly summarized, pre-20th century music followed extensions of musical structures, while the 20th century saw the invention of new ones out of the thought that existing structures could not be extended any further. Thus, I was right!


lol well that is certainly one way of putting it I guess. But I think of the Second Viennese School at least to be an extension of Post-Romantic harmony, and that's how they thought of it too.

Mainly, I just wanted to show that there was actually a fairly logical progression of events involved in the history of 20th century music and it wasn't just a bunch of composers doing crap for no reason.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Mainly, I just wanted to show that there was actually a fairly logical progression of events involved in the history of 20th century music and it wasn't just a bunch of composers doing crap for no reason.


Well, for the record, I agree with you on that, which is why I tried to keep any personal judgements out of my posts. In general, my feeling is that I fundamentally disagree with a great deal of the thoughts and principles behind 20th century music, but I still think it's wonderful that it happened.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> Well, for the record, I agree with you on that, which is why I tried to keep any personal judgements out of my posts. In general, my feeling is that I fundamentally disagree with a great deal of the thoughts and principles behind 20th century music, but I still think it's wonderful that it happened.


Well at least we can agree on something!  We should be politicians, we would be much more productive than anyone doing anything right in that field now.


----------



## starthrower

Polednice said:


> In general, my feeling is that I fundamentally disagree with a great deal of the thoughts and principles behind 20th century music, but I still think it's wonderful that it happened.


Can you elaborate a bit here. I'm interested to see where you're coming from on this subject.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> Can you elaborate a bit here. I'm interested to see where you're coming from on this subject.


What I mean is that, in terms of my own aesthetics and my own answer to the question "what is music?" (not that there is any right answer), I consider much of the music of the 20th century to value the wrong things. Nevertheless, I would never wish the music was never written - it's great that we have such a diverse musical history, and every answer to the question "what is music?" adds something thought-provoking to the discourse even if I (or anyone else) fundamentally disagree with it.

Does that answer your question?


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> What I mean is that, in terms of my own aesthetics and my own answer to the question "what is music?" (not that there is any right answer), I consider much of the music of the 20th century to value the wrong things. Nevertheless, I would never wish the music was never written - it's great that we have such a diverse musical history, and every answer to the question "what is music?" adds something thought-provoking to the discourse even if I (or anyone else) fundamentally disagree with it.
> 
> Does that answer your question?


This is basically how I see any music I don't like as well. Something for everyone!


----------



## starthrower

Not exactly. What are these misguided values of which you speak? Are you referring to an anti-social aspect in modern music? Do you find the abstract or abstruse qualities alienating? The lack of romance or emotional content? Of course these are generalizations that can't be applied to every piece of modern music unless it all sounds the same to one's ear.


----------



## NightHawk

_Explosante fixe_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…explosante-fixe…







starthrower said:


> I have only one Boulez CD featuring his pieces Rituel; Eclat/Multiples. I like it! It's far from ugly to my ears.
> 
> Boulez has good taste. Just my opinion, of course!


----------



## mmsbls

There are many interesting and varied responses in this thread. Great!



starthrower said:


> Beauty is in the ear of the behearer. Music is about more than beauty anyway. It's an individual expression through art.


The relationship between beauty and music has always fascinated me. We experience music at a deep, fundamental level (literally, since it interacts strongly with our amygdala in the limbic system); therefore, music can evoke strong feelings. I have long wondered how its possible for a string of notes (melody) or several measures could give rise to such strong feelings of beauty?

Yes, music is about more than just beauty, but I think beauty is more important for some than for others. Also I think there are differing kinds of beauty in music. Personally, beauty in music is by far the most important attribute for me. Nothing else comes close. Partly, this may be due to my significant lack of music theory knowledge.

I respond differently to Bach's Art of the Fugue than to Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante, Beethoven's 7th Symphony, and Schubert's Death of the Maiden. The later three are supremely beautiful, but for me the former is interesting, engaging, wonderful, and less aesthetically beautiful. I find physics the most beautiful thing I've ever encountered in life, but the beauty is more closely related to the Art of the Fugue than to Mozart or Schubert. It is intellectual beauty more than aesthetic beauty.

A third type of beauty may have to do with novelty. I know some people find certain sounds, which are different and unusual, extremely interesting. The novelty alone attracts them. I'm not suggesting that novel music _by itself_ makes the music beautiful, but perhaps for some people the novelty adds something very significant. On the other hand, I am not attracted to novelty much.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> Not exactly. What are these misguided values of which you speak? Are you referring to an anti-social aspect in modern music? Do you find the abstract or abstruse qualities alienating? The lack of romance or emotional content? Of course these are generalizations that can't be applied to every piece of modern music unless it all sounds the same to one's ear.


Well there are many different things I could discuss, but I'll give one example. On the issue of the tonal/atonal question, I think atonal music was a dead end and the wrong answer to The Question. I don't say this out of a retrospective love for traditional tonality, but out of a belief (informed by neuromusicology) that listeners need some kind of tonality - Hindemith's quartile tonality is no 'easier' to listen to, but it explores different possibilities for retaining a tonal centre which I believe is a necessary attribute of music.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> Well there are many different things I could discuss, but I'll give one example. On the issue of the tonal/atonal question, I think atonal music was a dead end and the wrong answer to The Question. I don't say this out of a retrospective love for traditional tonality, but out of a belief (informed by neuromusicology) that listeners need some kind of tonality - *Hindemith's quartile tonality is no 'easier' to listen to, but it explores different possibilities for retaining a tonal centre which I believe is a necessary attribute of music*.


This last part is interesting for me because personally, I found Schoenberg's atonal harmonies engaging and connected with them far before I ever found felt Hindemith's harmonic system compelling. I kind of wonder why that is.


----------



## mmsbls

@violadude (and others who like atonal music): Here's more input from my daughter's teachers on atonal music. I have talked with my daughter for a year or so on what it "takes" to enjoy atonal music. I have also explored that a bit here on TC. Presently I don't appreciate atonal music, but I have listened to a lot over the past year or more. I've been mystified why it completely eludes me. 

Her teachers believe that understanding (or hearing) the underlying harmony is critically important. If I understand what my daughter tells me, the "atonal lines" will not sound pleasant without the harmonies. My problem is that I struggle to hear them, and perhaps mostly because of that I do not find the music pleasing. According to one of her teachers there are two general ways to appreciate atonal music: 1) grow up listening to it or 2) understand or hear the harmonic structure. The question is: How easy is it for someone who is in their 50s (and didn't hear much atonal music when young) and hasn't much music training to learn to appreciate atonal music? My daughter's assessment based on what her professor had said was: not likely.


----------



## violadude

mmsbls said:


> @violadude (and others who like atonal music): Here's more input from my daughter's teachers on atonal music. I have talked with my daughter for a year or so on what it "takes" to enjoy atonal music. I have also explored that a bit here on TC. Presently I don't appreciate atonal music, but I have listened to a lot over the past year or more. I've been mystified why it completely eludes me.
> 
> Her teachers believe that understanding (or hearing) the underlying harmony is critically important. If I understand what my daughter tells me, the "atonal lines" will not sound pleasant without the harmonies. My problem is that I struggle to hear them, and perhaps mostly because of that I do not find the music pleasing. According to one of her teachers there are two general ways to appreciate atonal music: 1) grow up listening to it or 2) understand or hear the harmonic structure. The question is: How easy is it for someone who is in their 50s (and didn't hear much atonal music when young) and hasn't much music training to learn to appreciate atonal music? My daughter's assessment based on what her professor had said was: not likely.


I didn't grow up listening to atonal music, nor could I analyze the harmony (at least, not at all easily!) What it took for me to appreciate atonal music was to just let go of what I perceived it to be and listen to what was going on in the music, and then relate that to concepts that are present in past music. It also took a bit of time for me to realize that expression isn't only found in a beautiful melody and harmonies that interact with each other in a magnetic way. I'll show you what I mean...in my next post! 

Edit: One more thing, of course it depends on the composer...but I would actually try to pay attention to the individual lines before I tried to pay attention to harmony, because the harmony is going to be non-functional and hard to actually follow. But before I make may helpful "how to understand atonal music" post, I want to ask @mmsbls do you read sheet music at all? In other words, would it be helpful for you if I posted one of those videos that showed the sheet music along with the audio? And if I did, could I reference the sheet music and you would understand what I am talking about?


----------



## Polednice

mmsbls said:


> @violadude (and others who like atonal music): Here's more input from my daughter's teachers on atonal music. I have talked with my daughter for a year or so on what it "takes" to enjoy atonal music. I have also explored that a bit here on TC. Presently I don't appreciate atonal music, but I have listened to a lot over the past year or more. I've been mystified why it completely eludes me.
> 
> Her teachers believe that understanding (or hearing) the underlying harmony is critically important. If I understand what my daughter tells me, the "atonal lines" will not sound pleasant without the harmonies. My problem is that I struggle to hear them, and perhaps mostly because of that I do not find the music pleasing. According to one of her teachers there are two general ways to appreciate atonal music: 1) grow up listening to it or 2) understand or hear the harmonic structure. The question is: How easy is it for someone who is in their 50s (and didn't hear much atonal music when young) and hasn't much music training to learn to appreciate atonal music? My daughter's assessment based on what her professor had said was: not likely.


3) What degree of learning is it fair for a composer to expect of the audience?


----------



## starthrower

You don't have to understand all of these harmonic relationships to listen to and enjoy the music. I don't really understand these modern techniques to any kind of a significant degree. I just like the sound of it.


----------



## Dodecaplex

mmsbls said:


> I respond differently to Bach's Art of the Fugue than to Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante, Beethoven's 7th Symphony, and Schubert's Death of the Maiden. The later three are supremely beautiful, but for me the former is interesting, engaging, wonderful, and less aesthetically beautiful. I find physics the most beautiful thing I've ever encountered in life, but the beauty is more closely related to the Art of the Fugue than to Mozart or Schubert. It is intellectual beauty more than aesthetic beauty.


Forgive my belligerence, but in the name of Lenin's bald spot, Bach's _Art of the Fugue_ is _the_ most beautiful piece of music in the entirety of history. Both aesthetically and intellectually!
Thank you!






See ya!


----------



## mmsbls

violadude said:


> But before I make may helpful "how to understand atonal music" post, I want to ask @mmsbls do you read sheet music at all? In other words, would it be helpful for you if I posted one of those videos that showed the sheet music along with the audio? And if I did, could I reference the sheet music and you would understand what I am talking about?


I do read music so I should be able to follow along modestly well. I would greatly appreciate your post of sheet music. (This is what my daughter always wants me to do).


----------



## violadude

mmsbls said:


> I do read music so I should be able to follow along modestly well. I would greatly appreciate your post of sheet music. (This is what my daughter always wants me to do).


Alright mmsbls, I'll have a post for you hopefully within the next couple hours, if not definitely by the end of the day that I'm hoping will help you hear what to listen for in atonal music which might make it more enjoyable for you. As you were saying, I can't promise an aesthetic enjoyment, but like your description of Bach, I may just be able to allow you to see an intellectual kind of beauty at least!


----------



## mmsbls

starthrower said:


> You don't have to understand all of these harmonic relationships to listen to and enjoy the music. I don't really understand these modern techniques to any kind of a significant degree. I just like the sound of it.


I agree that you don't _have_ to understand the harmonies. I know people here on TC have said they have no special expertise and still love atonal music. So many classical music lovers _do_ struggle with atonal music, and _everyone_ I or my daughter know personally who does like atonal music has significant theory training. I am sure that it is not simply chance that so many people who adore Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Mahler somehow cannot appreciate atonal music. There must be a straightforward reason (or reasons) why. It's probably relatively complicated, but it's still frustrating for those of us who wish we could enjoy Berg's Violin Concerto but find it less pleasurable than Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.

Incidentally, could you let me know when (what age) you started listening to classical music and when you started liking atonal music?


----------



## mmsbls

Dodecaplex said:


> Forgive my belligerence, but in the name of Lenin's bald spot, Bach's _Art of the Fugue_ is _the_ most beautiful piece of music in the entirety of history. Both aesthetically and intellectually!
> Thank you!


Well, I agree that it is a wonderful work. In fact I would say it is aesthetically beautiful as well (but less so to me than the other works I mentioned). I have a recording of it by the Emerson Quartet who transcribed it for string quartet. I'm listening to the Contrapunctus XIV now. I actually like it more than the piano version. Is that blasphemy?


----------



## starthrower

I don't know, but for me I just keep listening until elements in the music start to sink in and I can make some connections and follow the piece. Berg's music may be a significant challenge, but I find it preferable to something I know inside and out and am growing bored with. Beethoven's 7th, for example. I loved it at one point in my young life, but I just had to retire it after a while.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I am sure that it is not simply chance that so many people who adore Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Mahler somehow cannot appreciate atonal music. There must be a straightforward reason (or reasons) why.


Attitude. (And one that started around 1800, too. Not 19. 18.)



mmsbls said:


> Incidentally, could you let me know when (what age) you started listening to classical music and when you started liking atonal music?


Nine and twenty-one. (Though I'm tired of engaging in discussions that use the word "atonal" as if it really meant something. As I've pointed out before, it has been used to mean at least six fairly different things. And any one of us, at any time in the conversation, could be using any one of those six, without anyone knowing which one we mean. I'd prefer we use an even fuzzier term, modern, though that's a troublesome term as well.)


----------



## jalex

Not to tread on Violadude's toes but a couple of short scrolling-score videos which should definitely be recommended are:

Schoenberg: Drei Klavierstucke op.11 (Pollini), great interpretation




 (other two should be easy to find)

Webern: String Quartet op. 28 (Juillard Quartet), just a really great piece of music.





I think being able to view the score might actually be of real benefit for these pieces.


----------



## violadude

mmsbls said:


> I agree that you don't _have_ to understand the harmonies. I know people here on TC have said they have no special expertise and still love atonal music. So many classical music lovers _do_ struggle with atonal music, and _everyone_ I or my daughter know personally who does like atonal music has significant theory training. I am sure that it is not simply chance that so many people who adore Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Mahler somehow cannot appreciate atonal music. There must be a straightforward reason (or reasons) why. It's probably relatively complicated, but it's still frustrating for those of us who wish we could enjoy Berg's Violin Concerto but find it less pleasurable than Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.
> 
> Incidentally, could you let me know when (what age) you started listening to classical music and when you started liking atonal music?


I started listening to classical music when I was 12, I started liking atonal music when I was 17 or 18.


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> Not to tread on Violadude's toes but a couple of short scrolling-score videos which should definitely be recommended are:
> 
> Schoenberg: Drei Klavierstucke op.11 (Pollini), great interpretation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (other two should be easy to find)
> 
> Webern: String Quartet op. 28 (Juillard Quartet), just a really great piece of music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think being able to view the score might actually be of real benefit for these pieces.


Oh don't worry, you aren't treading on any toes. I'm preparing an entire presentation, with crappy piano sound bites and everything.


----------



## starthrower

I didn't start listening to classical music until I was around 21 or so. At that point it was mostly romantic music and a bit of baroque. I may have enjoyed modern music sooner, but other than a bit of Stravinsky, Bartok, and Ives, I didn't start listening to many more modern composers until the past 3 years or so. I was preoccupied with other styles of music for a couple of decades.

As Some Guy has mentioned, atonal doesn't really mean much to me. I enjoy a number of Schoenberg's works, but due to my lack of an advanced musical education, I couldn't tell you what harmonic system is being utilized in each piece.


----------



## jalex

Started listening to classical - 14
Started liking atonal music - 15 (Schoenberg's Funf Orchesterstucke I believe)

After two years I still don't like much in the serialist/avant-garde vein post-Webern, though, notable exception being Messiaen.


----------



## Dodecaplex

mmsbls said:


> Well, I agree that it is a wonderful work. In fact I would say it is aesthetically beautiful as well (but less so to me than the other works I mentioned). I have a recording of it by the Emerson Quartet who transcribed it for string quartet. I'm listening to the Contrapunctus XIV now. I actually like it more than the piano version. Is that blasphemy?


Well, the Emerson Quartet is completely devoid of the reverence and piety that one needs to feel in order to play the Art of the Fugue. They simply rush through it as if they couldn't wait for their paychecks.

On the other hand, Glenn Gould's slower tempo perfectly manifests the eternal beauty of Contrapunctus XIV. And don't forget about the cyrstal clear sound that he gets out of that piano, which greatly aids in understanding and focusing on all the different and complex interactions between the themes, voices, subjects etc.


----------



## Couchie

The problem is that it's pretentious, isn't it? In fact, some of these pieces are so layered in pretentiousness that it's amazing the players aren't totally asphyxiated and die, right then and there. Has there ever been a performance of 4'33" where the players are not suppressing grins?


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> Attitude. (And one that started around 1800, too. Not 19. 18.)


Of course I agree to some extent. Attitude always plays some role. I could say that attitude is why most people do not love quantum mechanics, and although there's some truth to that, there are other reasons as well. The question is how much a role attitude plays.

I am fascinated by people's responses to music so I would like to understand why atonal (sorry) music fares poorly amongst listeners. But what I really would like is to "learn" to like it myself. So the real question is: Given that someone _really_ wants to appreciate non-tonal centered (?) music, what ought she to do? My experience says that "just" listening either takes a very long time (although maybe 3-5 years is not unreasonable based on others experience) or does not work for me. I need to listen in a particular way. Maybe I just haven't learned how yet (and I don't mean music theory).

Anyway, I'm off to hear my daughter play Baroque music at her school. Thanks so much for everyone's input.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> @violadude (and others who like atonal music): Here's more input from my daughter's teachers on atonal music. I have talked with my daughter for a year or so on what it "takes" to enjoy atonal music. I have also explored that a bit here on TC. Presently I don't appreciate atonal music, but I have listened to a lot over the past year or more. I've been mystified why it completely eludes me.
> 
> Her teachers believe that understanding (or hearing) the underlying harmony is critically important. If I understand what my daughter tells me, the "atonal lines" will not sound pleasant without the harmonies. My problem is that I struggle to hear them, and perhaps mostly because of that I do not find the music pleasing. According to one of her teachers there are two general ways to appreciate atonal music: 1) grow up listening to it or 2) understand or hear the harmonic structure. The question is: How easy is it for someone who is in their 50s (and didn't hear much atonal music when young) and hasn't much music training to learn to appreciate atonal music? My daughter's assessment based on what her professor had said was: not likely.


I agree that perhaps younger people may find atonal music easier to listen to than us oldies but it is not the atonal that I have problems with it is the gimmicky stuff (rip saws, card wedged in Piano strings, slamming car doors and that sort of thing) that irritates me and I get the impression that the composer is either taking the psis, completely run out of musical inventiveness or has lost the way, and of course John Cage's 4:33 is perhaps the biggest con of them all but that is another matter and best left alone.


----------



## Sid James

I have no time or stomach to wade through all this thread. It's kind of reinventing the wheel, this topic always gets a go-around, which is okay if a bit predictable.

I read the first few pages and basically agree with violadude. Go way way back and what's "establishment" now was often seen as pushing the boundaries. At other times of course, the warhorses we know were immediately accepted either/or by the critics or the public, etc. It all varies. Things like Bach had to be resurrected, before he was seen as old hat, only relevant for study by composers and musicians. Monteverdi's_ Vespers of 1610 _was loved by the public that heard it then and couldn't get enough of it, yet some hard core conservatives said it was not "real" religious music, it was too much like opera or too many prominent instrumental bits. Opera was cutting edge then, so it had to be suspicious. It's all about ideology, or mostly, not about the actual music at hand. Same goes with certain opinions by a small minority of people on this forum, but I think people can read between my lines about my opinion of them.

It's a matter of knowing the history and commonsense. And listening. What some person said above about Boulez's radical opinions, he had those opinions like 50 years ago, in the fire of his youth. He's stated in interviews now that he went too far with calling non-serial composers "useless." He's in his eighties now, he is much changed, and like Stockhausen he didn't produce that many total serial works. It was like a fad that they grew out of, I'm sure everyone has gone through these types of things in their lives. Funny thing is that we call to task radical things that guys like Boulez or Cage, etc. said but what about earlier composers who had opinions that are like you read them and go was this guy for real? (Give away answer: Wagner). But let's not go there. Let's just stay in our little boxes of ticky tacky as that song went. I'm a great unwashed moron if I listen to light music, and I'm a highbrow elitist if I listen to contemporary classical music. You can't win basically, but this is now getting off topic, so I'll stop...


----------



## Polednice

mmsbls said:


> Of course I agree to some extent. Attitude always plays some role. I could say that attitude is why most people do not love quantum mechanics, and although there's some truth to that, there are other reasons as well. The question is how much a role attitude plays.
> 
> I am fascinated by people's responses to music so I would like to understand why atonal (sorry) music fares poorly amongst listeners. But what I really would like is to "learn" to like it myself. So the real question is: Given that someone _really_ wants to appreciate non-tonal centered (?) music, what ought she to do? My experience says that "just" listening either takes a very long time (although maybe 3-5 years is not unreasonable based on others experience) or does not work for me. I need to listen in a particular way. Maybe I just haven't learned how yet (and I don't mean music theory).
> 
> Anyway, I'm off to hear my daughter play Baroque music at her school. Thanks so much for everyone's input.


Although it is true for some people some of the time, I think it is unfair and a little bit smug to say that attitude is the reason why people dislike 20th century music of many varieties.

Take that recent ABC Classic FM 20th Century poll as an example. Now, that particular radio station isn't a complete commercial sell-out like some classical stations. Many of the listeners are dedicated listeners to many periods of music. They are obviously genuine explorers. And yet the 20th Century utterly failed to represent much more than 20th Century Romanticism. Why? It is in no way fair to suggest that these are retrospective conservatives stuck in their ways. That may well be true of some, even lots, of them, but it's self-satisfied and pompous to say that of all of them.

No. I think it is a simple fact that many kinds of 20th Century music _is_ harder to listen to. It is so detached from what we hear as children, what we grow up with, that it presents all kinds of extra barriers to overcome. Does that mean that the music is necessarily bad? No. Does that mean that we shouldn't just try to overcome those barriers? Of course not. But to be so simplistic as to label this an "attitude problem" is unreasonable. It's a bigger, more complex issue about our cultural musical conditionings.


----------



## starthrower

What are the reasons we listen to music? Some folks want to put on something pleasant for relaxation. Others want a challenge. The conditioning factor is definitely a barrier/stumbling block for many. Probably for everyone at first. It all depends on your interest level. I'm interested in the history of western music, so I enjoy trying to listen to everything eventually.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> What are the reasons we listen to music? Some folks want to put on something pleasant for relaxation. Others want a challenge. The conditioning factor is definitely a barrier/stumbling block for many. Probably for everyone at first. It all depends on your interest level. I'm interested in the history of western music, so I enjoy trying to listen to everything eventually.


I think you're right, but we mustn't pretend that 'enough' interest and dedication is what we need to overcome our conditioning. Take mmsbls - he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine a huge part of his struggle with certain kinds of music is due to the music that his brain has become accustomed to, and a resultant difficulty in trying to understand and appreciate music that departs a great deal from that now innate standard. And yet I think we can credit mmsbls with being a truly dedicated listener who has tried listening to this 'harder' music many, many times. It is not his attitude that is the problem - it is something in the music itself.

[Note: this still doesn't mean that the music is bad, so don't take like that if you feel inclined to do so.  ]


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Polednice said:


> Although it is true for some people some of the time, I think it is unfair and a little bit smug to say that attitude is the reason why people dislike 20th century music of many varieties.
> 
> Take that recent ABC Classic FM 20th Century poll as an example. Now, that particular radio station isn't a complete commercial sell-out like some classical stations. Many of the listeners are dedicated listeners to many periods of music. They are obviously genuine explorers. And yet the 20th Century utterly failed to represent much more than 20th Century Romanticism. Why? It is in no way fair to suggest that these are retrospective conservatives stuck in their ways. That may well be true of some, even lots, of them, but it's self-satisfied and pompous to say that of all of them.
> 
> No. I think it is a simple fact that many kinds of 20th Century music _is_ harder to listen to. It is so detached from what we hear as children, what we grow up with, that it presents all kinds of extra barriers to overcome. Does that mean that the music is necessarily bad? No. Does that mean that we shouldn't just try to overcome those barriers? Of course not. But to be so simplistic as to label this an "attitude problem" is unreasonable. It's a bigger, more complex issue about our cultural musical conditionings.


Of course it is always easiest to label one's attitude as the main reason, or better still, the failure on the individual listener, but never at the piece of music. We've heard that single party line argument over and over. It's no different really, to the teenager who thinks her band of punk rock is the coolest fad on the block, and that she is the only cool guru who "gets it".


----------



## Polednice

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Of course it is always easiest to label one's attitude as the main reason, or better still, the failure on the individual listener, but never at the piece of music. We've heard that single party line argument over and over. It's no different really, to the teenager who thinks her band of punk rock is the coolest fad on the block, and that she is the only cool guru who "gets it".


I was confronted with the argument a few days ago on a blog about new music, and it made me think that, actually, if these people want to be consistent in their approach to music, then they must throw out all possibility of praise along with the negative criticism. "Oh no, dear listener, there is nothing good in my music at all - you just succeeded in making a positive experience out of my unquantifiable sounds."


----------



## starthrower

Yes, abstract music does pose a greater challenge to the listener. BTW, I believe mmsbls is a she.

All I can say is if you want to learn to like it, just keep listening. It's a matter of exposure. Of course
every piece is different, so if you've invested a large amount of time listening to a piece and you still
get nothing out of it, by all means move on!


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> The problem is that it's pretentious, isn't it?


There's no "it."

And yeah, there are some things you don't like particularly or understand. What about that situation means that you have to rewrite "I don't like it" as "It's pretentious"? For a lot of new music, especially of the experimental tradition, "pretentious" is exactly the wrong word, I would think. It's not trying to pass itself off as anything other than what it is. That is very much the point for works like _4'33"._



mmsbls said:


> So the real question is: Given that someone really wants to appreciate non-tonal centered (?) music, what ought she to do? My experience says that "just" listening either takes a very long time (although maybe 3-5 years is not unreasonable based on others experience) or does not work for me.


If "really wants to" is a given, then I don't see the necessity for the question at all. "Really wants to" means she will. So I'm thinking there may be something else going on.

When I first heard classical music (1961), it was love at first hearing. And so I started exploring. There were no "oughts," just desires. When I first heard modern music(1972), it was love at first hearing. There were no "oughts," just desires. From 1961 - 1972, I was surrounded by people who didn't like classical music. From 1972 to the present, I have been surrounded by people who don't like modern music. It's too bad, but there it is. The non-classical folks of my childhood often wanted me to listen to what they considered real music. The anti-modernists of my adulthood argue that modern music isn't "real music."

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.



Polednice said:


> I think it is unfair and a little bit smug to say that attitude is the reason why people dislike 20th century music of many varieties.


No, it's a historical observation.

Audiences started rejecting new music around 1800, if not before. Before that, people went to concerts _in order to_ hear new music. After that, in order to hear old music. That's definitely an attitude thing, a social attitude. And it had over a hundred years to become thoroughly entrenched before ever Schoenberg or Cage came along.

Otherwise, it's just a matter of logic. If you genuinely want something, then you will get it. I genuinely enjoyed modern music once I had heard it. I hit Carter's music within months of hearing Bartok, and Carter utterly baffled me. But I didn't just reject it out of hand. I just went on to something else, coming back to Carter from time to time. Same with Berio. Same with Scelsi. Same with the Sonic Arts Union crowd. But I liked modern music. None of those (temporary) setbacks ever led me to conclude that twentieth century music in general was crap.

And the older I get, the more different kinds of music I enjoy, and the more I seek out new things. My birthdate has nothing to do with anything. I would guess that the majority of the anti-modernists on this board were born many years after I was. I know also that some of the most eloquent pro-modernists are considerably younger than I. And so it goes.

Here's an age tidbit for ya: many of the leading lights of contemporary music are so old they've already died.


----------



## Sid James

starthrower said:


> What are the reasons we listen to music? Some folks want to put on something pleasant for relaxation. Others want a challenge. The conditioning factor is definitely a barrier/stumbling block for many. Probably for everyone at first. It all depends on your interest level. I'm interested in the history of western music, so I enjoy trying to listen to everything eventually.


Dont worry starthrower, you're wasting your time here.

Fact is, either one has an interest in some type or types of music, or not. When you are interested, or something piques your interest, you get more into that type of music. Eg. as you have done with eg. Schnittke, and as I have done recently with say Rossini or others. But if you are not interested or receptive to certain type or types of music, then that's it. Nobody has to listen to anything if they don't want to. There's also some things that I'm fair to middling upon first listen or two, then it begins to grow on me. But some things don't, and that's fine. We're all human, we all have our limitations, our tastes/preferences, etc...


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> Yes, abstract music does pose a greater challenge to the listener. BTW, I believe mmsbls is a she.


Oh really?! Sorry mmsbls for getting the wrong impression after our conversations - I don't know where it came from!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> Why don't we single out wig operas?...


Please ask any questions you might like regarding Handel's operas. I'll do my best.


----------



## starthrower

Varese was right! An artist is never ahead of his time, but most people are far behind theirs.


----------



## Sid James

starthrower said:


> Varese was right! An artist is never ahead of his time, but most people are far behind theirs.


THat is okay, imo, as long as people admit where they are musically. If they're in 1911 with their tastes or limitations, I'm fine with that. I just don't like it if people go further and judge others who are at other places along the spectrum, whether in 1611 or now, 2011. Many of us have different "orbits" we hover around, eg. it could be music of a certain period or genre, etc.

That is fine, but I don't know why we always get these threads questioning the validity or authenticity of new or newer classical music.

I can reverse that as I said and question the relevance of things like some opera from 1611 about some Greek god or something. How is that relevant NOW to ME? In no way at all, zilch, zero, zip, but do I go around starting a thread about it? No, again, what's the point of that?...


----------



## Polednice

some guy said:


> No, it's a historical observation.
> 
> Audiences started rejecting new music around 1800, if not before. Before that, people went to concerts _in order to_ hear new music. After that, in order to hear old music. That's definitely an attitude thing, a social attitude. And it had over a hundred years to become thoroughly entrenched before ever Schoenberg or Cage came along.
> 
> Otherwise, it's just a matter of logic. If you genuinely want something, then you will get it. I genuinely enjoyed modern music once I had heard it. I hit Carter's music within months of hearing Bartok, and Carter utterly baffled me. But I didn't just reject it out of hand. I just went on to something else, coming back to Carter from time to time. Same with Berio. Same with Scelsi. Same with the Sonic Arts Union crowd. But I liked modern music. None of those (temporary) setbacks ever led me to conclude that twentieth century music in general was crap.
> 
> And the older I get, the more different kinds of music I enjoy, and the more I seek out new things. My birthdate has nothing to do with anything. I would guess that the majority of the anti-modernists on this board were born many years after I was. I know also that some of the most eloquent pro-modernists are considerably younger than I. And so it goes.
> 
> Here's an age tidbit for ya: many of the leading lights of contemporary music are so old they've already died.


You too often try to characterise an entire community of listeners with one simplistic observation, and that's a sign in itself that your observation probably doesn't stand up. You are right about many people, but you are tarring so many others with an inadequate brush. I'd like to see you engage mmsbls and demonstrate how her(?!) apparent desire to learn to appreciate certain kinds of music can't be truly genuine - how there must be some other prejudice there as you suggested in another post.

"If you genuinely want something, then you will get it." --- Simply not true. We all have our limitations.


----------



## Tapkaara

I feel that this teacher's one liner about so-called modern music is perhaps a little too broad-strokes and simplistic, but probably mostly true.

Beethoven proved that you could innovate but still retain a sense of beauty. In fact, a lot of composer have been able to innovate and retain true musicality. I could name several: Berlioz, Wagner, Sibelius, Strauss. Hmmm, it seems perhaps just about all of the "great" composers were innovators to some degree.

Boulez is a supreme example of someone who places emphasis on doing something so outrageously newfangled that if it is at the cost of abandoning a traditional aesthetic, so be it. It may be ugly, it may be incomprehensible, but at least he tried something new.

I disagree with this method in music making. 

I once read a quote that I have used on this forum before. Here it is again: "Music is what someone listens to when they have the intention of listening to music." That is, Mr. X says "I want to listen to my neighbor drag the his garbage cans to the curb and I want to pick out the notes and see if I can distinguish a harmony as he will be dragging two garbage cans. There will be, to me, music in this." So he listens to it, he thinks he can pick out notes and harmonies from the two plastic barrels scraping against the uneven concrete of his neighbor's driveway. Although the sounds produced were quite far removed from what you would hear in a Mozart violin sonata, for example, the experience was a musical one, in a strange way, to Mr. X and thus he heard music.

To me, this is something of a be-all-and-end-all. I cannot determine anything beautiful...or really musical (as far as I am concerned) in Le Marteau sans maitre by Boulez. Stravinsky said it sounded like ice cubes clinking together in a cocktail glass. Well, perhaps that's true. If something that sounds like ice knocking together in a glass sounds like music to some people, then I can't possibly try to convince them otherwise. That's like someone trying to convince me the color green is ugly. (It's my favorite color.)


----------



## Sid James

^^ I haven't come across that Stravinsky quote about Boulez's Le Marteau but I did read that Igor admired that work highly and thought it to be one of the best works he'd heard from the younger gerenation of composers back then.

I just wonder how much experience of new music, I mean say premieres, people have had on this forum. I am not judging just asking. I don't own hundreds of cd's of new music but I do listen to it live in concert and on radio as much as I can, but I also listen to many other things, I'm by no means fixated on only new music, I'm not a high priest of it or whatever.

But it's the same with the Andre Rieu thread which I've abandoned now, it's a waste of time talking to people there who have limited experience with his actual music. Or they just don't like light music in the first place, but of course don't expose their bias. Many people on this forum, who've been here long enough, know my biases and preferences. I can't put "imo" after everything I say but that's what I usually mean when giving an opinion or analysis, etc. The worst thing I hate is double standards and double speak, also dodgy/rubbery thinking, idiotic comparisons, etc. I have a short fuse and I speak my mind. Sometimes I go overboard but I mostly speak from some level of experience. I don't have or claim "expert" status. Pity that some people judging some of my favourite composers/musicians, eg. Rieu or Xenakis, Cage who do often get a raw deal in these places, but I'm happy that some members here have delved into composers like Schnittke and Henze, both of whose music I've liked, what I know of it. It's okay to like or dislike whatever you want, just give us YOUR opinion, not some intellectual gobbledigook which is like to prove a point rather than just tell us what you think.

I have made my own way backwards in time, to guys like Rossini and J.S. Bach, but basically off my own bat, no thanks to some high priest of their music around here, who usually ram into my face that I have to listen to this first, then that, etc. Mass in B minor, whatever, which doesn't interest me, I'll keep the door open, but now I'm getting into the solo instrumental things...


----------



## Vaneyes

Novelty, novelty, novelty. Sticks 'n stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Where's all the tough skin, I ask!?!? Soldier up, people.

Mahler, for one example, displayed exceptional maturity in understanding the derision for his works. He continued to conduct his and the traditionalists' (changing the latter occasionally), saying, "My Time Will Come."


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

And his time _did_ come of course.


----------



## Tapkaara

Sid James said:


> I just wonder how much experience of new music, I mean say premieres, people have had on this forum. I am not judging just asking.


I think you are asking this question because you feel the forum as a whole does not have much experience listening to modern music. Correct me if I am wrong. And if you think that, I guess it's because the majority of the folks on here usually seem hostile toward it.

Speaking for myself, I don't listen to most avant-garde composers. I certainly listen to modern/contemporary composers, but not all of them are avant-gardists. I do not seek it out. I am sure someone like you who has taste for such things will pretty much always have heard more of it than someone like me. But I have heard it. Plenty of it. Enough of it to determine that much of it sounds the same (noise) and it's not worth my time chasing after it trying to like it.

One could retort: "Well, you haven't heard enough. You really cannot dislike something until you have REALLY tried it." On paper that makes a lot of sense, but I don't feel that applies much to music. And it's not a realistic expectation. I have not heard every Mozart work ever written, but I know I don't need to. I know what Mozart is and it doesn't arouse me. I've actually been YouTubing Xenakis recently and while I have not heard ever work by him, I know from what I have heard what he sounds like and I do not like it.

I think the majority of us have heard avant-garde music. I think if there is a lack of appreciation for it on this forum, it is not necessarily out of ignorance.

And finally, it never fails to intrigue me that proponents of avant-garde music seem so bewildered when others say that they don't like that kind of music. Really? I am a pretty big fan of Glass but I can FULLY understand why some people would not like him. His music is pretty damn repetitive, for goodness sake! I am never shocked when people say they don't get him.

I guess for _les avant-gardistes_ to acknowledge that their music isn't for everybody requires them to come off their high horses for a bit and place themselves into the shoes of a more "average" listener. It's awfully comfortable atop those horses.

None of that was directed to you, Sid. But I am merely trying to articulate a broader point. Your passion for the music you like is respectable.


----------



## violadude

Tapkaara said:


> Boulez is a supreme example of someone who places emphasis on doing something so outrageously newfangled that if it is at the cost of abandoning a traditional aesthetic, so be it. It may be ugly, it may be incomprehensible, but at least he tried something new.
> 
> I disagree with this method in music making.


No, actually the truth is, it may be ugly, but it is also well composed and well thought out. Incomprehensible, not to me...please don't state something as incomprehensible just because you don't understand it.


----------



## violadude

violadude said:


> No, actually the truth is, it may be ugly, but it is also well composed and well thought out. Incomprehensible, not to me...please don't state something as incomprehensible just because you don't understand it.


And to back up what I just said about Boulez not being incomprehensible...here Tapkaara, this is Boulez's 2nd piano sonata.






The themes in this piece go by at a rapid pace. Basically what you have in the beginning is a kind of swirly motif, and then a bouncy four note descending theme in the bass. Pause, and then an ascending/descending triplet motif with a huge arc to it. At :13 or :14 there is an important trill motif with two descending grace notes before it. Then at 0:24 there is an important hemolia motif where groups of triplets are divided into groups of duplets. Oh see at 0:31? Theres that trill motif with the grace notes, except this time the grace notes are ascending into the trill instead of descending, a lot like how Beethoven turned his themes upside down too. Then see at 0:34 theres that bouncy 4 note theme that was in the bass at the beginning, this time it is in the bass and in the middle voice (in its upside-down inversion) and they are in canon with each other. And there, look! by golly it happens again with that same motif two measures later at 0:37 this time they are both in their original descending versions. And what is in the measure in between them? there is that arcing ascending-descending triplet motif, but it is upside-down this time as well and it is now a descending-ascending motif. Oh theres the ascending version of the four note bouncy theme again at 0:44 at the end of the measure! Wow so much development and were not even a minute in!! And I'm skipping over a lot of it too!

I could go on but I think I have proved my point. You don't have to like this music, but please for the love of whatever you believe in...don't say that it is just ugly incomprehensible **** thrown on the page for the sake of being new, there are themes and development, its there...hopefully I have proved this once and for all...

mmslbs I will have your post ready soon.


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> No, actually the truth is, it may be ugly, but it is also well composed and well thought out. Incomprehensible, not to me...please don't state something as incomprehensible just because you don't understand it.


1. I can state whatever I want. So can you! So can all of us. It's a forum!
2. I didn't say it wasn't well composed and thought out. If he wrote the score down, which he did, of course he thought it out! Perhaps it's well-composed for what it is, but I wouldn't be in a position to say something that sounds like that is "well composed" or not. It's just not my thing. Despite the quality of its composition (well-composed or not), it still is what it is, and I am unable to appreciate it based on my personally defined requirements for an attractive aesthetic and, above all, my innate sense of personal taste.
3. I don't understand it, despite the fact that it's well-composed and all that. I also don't personally understand why someone would like it. The fact that you do happen to understand it if fine with me, but why is my lack of understanding not alright with you?

And I love your statement: Please don't state something as incomprehensible just because you don't understand it. It would have been even more impactful if you had said: Please don't state something is incomprehensible just because you don't _comprehend_ it. (If I don't understand something, should I say that I DO comprehend it?)


----------



## violadude

Tapkaara said:


> 1. I can state whatever I want. So can you! So can all of us. It's a forum!
> 2. I didn't say it wasn't well composed and thought out. If he wrote the score down, which he did, of course he thought it out! Perhaps it's well-composed for what it is, but I wouldn't be in a position to say something that sounds like that is "well composed" or not. It's just not my thing.
> 3. I don't understand it, despite the fact that it's well-composed and all that. I also don't personally understand why someone would like it. The fact that you do happen to understand it if fine with me, but why is my lack of understanding not alright with you?
> 
> And I love your statement: Please don't state something as incomprehensible just because you don't understand it. It would have been even more impactful if you had said: Please don't state something as incomprehensible just because you don't _comprehend_ it. (If I don't understand something, should I say that I DO comprehend it?)


1. I guess you can state anything at the risk of sounding ignorant.

It's not your lack of understanding that is not alright with me. It is that you state in such a matter of factly way that Boulez just did a bunch of incomprehensible stuff just for the sake of being new, which is not true at all!

Just look at the post above the one you just made...I spelled the first minute of one of his pieces out for you.


----------



## Couchie

Given the large sum of music that is both well-composed *and* emotionally powerful, why listen to music that is well-composed but sounds like total ****?


----------



## Guest

Tapkaara said:


> I feel that this teacher's one liner about so-called modern music is perhaps a little too broad-strokes and simplistic, but probably mostly true.


Mostly _false,_ you mean!:lol:



Tapkaara said:


> Beethoven proved that you could innovate but still retain a sense of beauty.


No, a few people really dug his stuff when it was new, just as they've done with Boulez and company. A lot of people reported for several decades after he'd died that his music was unrelentingly ugly.



Tapkaara said:


> [A] lot of composer have been able to innovate and retain true musicality.


You get to define "true musicality," I'm guessing.



Tapkaara said:


> Boulez is a supreme example of someone who places emphasis on doing something so outrageously newfangled that if it is at the cost of abandoning a traditional aesthetic, so be it. It may be ugly, it may be incomprehensible, but at least he tried something new.


Boulez is a terrible example of this. (It used to be Schoenberg and before him Wagner and before him Berlioz and before him Beethoven and before him Mozart. At least you're up to date, in a way....



Tapkaara said:


> I cannot determine anything beautiful...or really musical (as far as I am concerned) in Le Marteau sans maitre by Boulez.


OK, so you've failed in this instance. So what? Are you seriously suggesting that your personal failings be taken as normative?



Tapkaara said:


> I disagree with this method in music making.


Oh, so you are!:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## violadude

Couchie said:


> Given the large sum of music that is both well-composed *and* emotionally powerful, why listen to music that is well-composed but sounds like total ****?


Because it doesn't sound like total **** to some of us....


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> I could go on but I think I have proved my point. You don't have to like this music, but please for the love of whatever you believe in...don't say that it is just ugly incomprehensible **** thrown on the page for the sake of being new, there are themes and development, its there...hopefully I have proved this once and for all...


No, you haven't proven your point. At least not to me. At least not entirely. I appreciate your example and run down of what to look for, but despite the inner workings, which are deliberate, precise and certainly premeditated by the composer (I freely admit to all of this), the end result to my old-fashioned, conservative ears it more "noise" than "music." I would not listen to this when the desire to listen to music overtakes me. But that should not stop you from admiring Boulez's handiwork and the aural results thereof. I will say, though, this is easier to swallow than Le Marteau. That is is surely a relative statement!

It really, really, REALLY irks me that there is this apparent requirement in every forum of every type in this world that we have to end every statement with FOR ME. You say "Don't say that it is just ugly, incomprehensible..." Really? Why can't I? It is ugly and incomprehensible, though. It is ugly and incomprehensible FOR ME. Not for you, not for anyone else (I cannot speak for everybody else). It is ugly and incomprehensible FOR ME. Isn't that obvious I am just voicing an opinion as opposed to defining some sort of ultimate and universal reality? And if I feel it ugly and incomprehensible FOR ME, you better bet I will say it. That's why I joined this forum, so I can say what I feel and have an opinion. I am not an automaton nor am I going to resist stating what's on my mind so as not to offend someone whose appraisal of a work or composer may differ from mine.

***Reminder to self*** This forum is no different from any others. You will occasionally be put to task for your differing opinions. People will not always extend the same courtesy you extend to them. That's the price of admission. If you don't like that, you should stay off the forum.

***Reply to self*** As irritating as all of that is, it's worth it to roll with the punches every so often so I can enjoy the other, nicer things this forum has to offer on a subject I love, classical music.


----------



## brianwalker

Wittgenstein's quote about Mahler is, I believe, more appropriate for Boulez, and probably the most applicable to Stockhausen. 

“If it is true that Mahler’s music is worthless, as I believe to be the case, then the question is what I think he ought to have done with his talent. For quite obviously it took a set of very rare talents to produce this bad music.” - L. Wittgenstein

My answer is that Boulez should have spent more of his time conducting.


----------



## violadude

Incomprehensible is not an opinion though...when you say something is incomprehensible you are saying it cannot be understood...that is not an opinion that is a fact. It can be understood...

And again I didn't say you had to like the Boulez, but it is so obviously not incomprehensible if I can easily give you a run down of what is going on in the piece...So I did indeed prove my point.


----------



## Tapkaara

some guy said:


> Mostly _false,_ you mean!:lol:
> 
> No, a few people really dug his stuff when it was new, just as they've done with Boulez and company. A lot of people reported for several decades after he'd died that his music was unrelentingly ugly.
> 
> You get to define "true musicality," I'm guessing.
> 
> Boulez is a terrible example of this. (It used to be Schoenberg and before him Wagner and before him Berlioz and before him Beethoven and before him Mozart. At least you're up to date, in a way....
> 
> OK, so you've failed in this instance. So what? Are you seriously suggesting that your personal failings be taken as normative?
> 
> Oh, so you are!:lol::lol::lol:


FOR ME, FOR ME, FOR ME, FOR ME, FOR ME. True musicality FOR ME. Beethoven innovated and still sounded good FOR ME. Boulez innovated and sounded like merde FOR ME. All of it is personal opinion. All of it ONLY relates to my personal experience and understanding of music. FOR ME! FOR ME! Not trying to be the ultimate definer of anything here, just expressing my personal views and how all of this musis, Beethoven, Boulez relates to me. ME ME ME! OPINION OPINION OPINION.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> [T]he large sum of music that is both well-composed *and* emotionally powerful....


You mean like Boulez' _Le marteau sans maître_ or his second piano sonata? You mean like Stockhausen's _Hymnen_ or his Klavierstück 9?

You mean...?

For, you see, other listeners besides yourself have found those to be emotionally powerful? Why is it so important to you and to HC to deny that palpable reality? Are you guys really threatened by the fact that there are people who can enjoy things that you don't, who can find in them all the things you insist are not there at all?

Wow.



Tapkaara said:


> [M]uch [modern music] sounds the same (noise) and it's not worth my time chasing after it trying to like it.


It is, however, worth your time to write us long post after long post explaining why it's not worth your time.... Odd that.



Tapkaara said:


> I know what Mozart is and it doesn't arouse me.


OK, you lose. So what?



Tapkaara said:


> I've actually been YouTubing Xenakis recently and while I have not heard ever[y] work by him, I know from what I have heard what he sounds like and I do not like it.


OK, you lose again. Again, so what? (I'll bet you don't have a clue what I don't like, do you? And you know why? Because I don't go around whinging about it on every thread I can. But hey, I guess if that kinda thing floats yer boat....



Tapkaara said:


> I think the majority of us have heard avant-garde music. I think if there is a lack of appreciation for it on this forum, it is not necessarily out of ignorance.


Well, maybe we're back to that pompous attitude thing I was saying earlier.:lol:



Tapkaara said:


> And finally, it never fails to intrigue me that proponents of avant-garde music seem so bewildered when others say that they don't like that kind of music.


Straw man. Point to one post by one proponent of avant garde music who has been bewildered by this. Can't find one, can you? I thought not. You're intrigued by something that you just made up yourself out of whole cloth. Hmmm, now _that's_ intriguing!!



Tapkaara said:


> I guess for _les avant-gardistes_ to acknowledge that their music isn't for everybody requires them to come off their high horses for a bit and place themselves into the shoes of a more "average" listener.


Um, avant garde music is not for everybody. D'uh. Who doesn't know this? I mean, be fair, we _are_ reminded of that fact about a gazillion times a day. Come on Tapkaara. Two straw men in a row? Is that the best you've got?



Tapkaara said:


> Your passion for the music you like is respectable.


Hmmm. Show some respect for it then, maybe....:tiphat:

EDIT:


Tapkaara said:


> And if I feel it ugly and incomprehensible FOR ME, you better bet I will say it.


To what end? Does stating this help anyone else in their journey? Does it help anyone understand music any better? Or perhaps you're trying to warn people away from crap. You don't trust people to make up their own minds for themselves? There's just no utility to your saying this, no social utility.


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> Incomprehensible is not an opinion though...when you say something is incomprehensible you are saying it cannot be understood...that is not an opinion that is a fact. It can be understood...
> 
> And again I didn't say you had to like the Boulez, but it is so obviously not incomprehensible if I can easily give you a run down of what is going on in the piece...So I did indeed prove my point.


When I say it's in comprehensible, I mean FOR ME. Sorry you don't like my choice of adjectives. I don't need an editor or ghost writer or lessons on how to better articulate my opinions, thank you very much. I speak English well (though my typing sucks) and, like Boulez, I am doing just fine at committing my premeditated, calculated thoughts to print. (If an electronic internet forum can qualify as "print.") I don't see how much more clearly I can spell things out. Everything I state is an opinion or a statement based on my PERSONAL views, philosophies and tastes. Doesn't that make sense? It really is very simple. It does appear that all of this is pretty "incomprehensible" to you, so no one is immune to not getting it sometimes. With all due respect.

This argument is now nothing more than a waste of my time and I assure you it's a waste of yours too because you are not making any headway with me. You are trying to prove scientifically that my opinion is not correct. Maybe you could do that if my opinion was that the earth if flat, but we all know music/art is an entirely subjective affair, so this is just silly and it comes of as exceedingly pompous on your part FOR ME. (That, by the way, was also an opinion. Was the adjective good enough or how else should I have stated that?) Pomposity, though, is standard issue in most internet forums...certainly ones about "serious music," so again, I have to remind myself of the price of admission...

I AM DONE. I said what I needed to say and those who oppose my personal views on the musical avant-garde are free to do so, just as I am free to express my own personal take on it. Go ahead and have the last word, Violadude. I know you won't be able to resist having it.


----------



## Tapkaara

some guy said:


> You mean like Boulez' _Le marteau sans maître_ or his second piano sonata? You mean like Stockhausen's _Hymnen_ or his Klavierstück 9?
> 
> You mean...?
> 
> For, you see, other listeners besides yourself have found those to be emotionally powerful? Why is it so important to you and to HC to deny that palpable reality? Are you guys really threatened by the fact that there are people who can enjoy things that you don't, who can find in them all the things you insist are not there at all?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> It is, however, worth your time to write us long post after long post explaining why it's not worth your time.... Odd that.
> 
> OK, you lose. So what?
> 
> OK, you lose again. Again, so what? (I'll bet you don't have a clue what I don't like, do you? And you know why? Because I don't go around whinging about it on every thread I can. But hey, I guess if that kinda thing floats yer boat....
> 
> Well, maybe we're back to that pompous attitude thing I was saying earlier.:lol:
> 
> Straw man. Point to one post by one proponent of avant garde music who has been bewildered by this. Can't find one, can you? I thought not. You're intrigued by something that you just made up yourself out of whole cloth. Hmmm, now _that's_ intriguing!!
> 
> Um, avant garde music is not for everybody. D'uh. Who doesn't know this? I mean, be fair, we _are_ reminded of that fact about a gazillion times a day. Come on Tapkaara. Two straw men in a row? Is that the best you've got?
> 
> Hmmm. Show some respect for it then, maybe....:tiphat:
> 
> EDIT:
> To what end? Does stating this help anyone else in their journey? Does it help anyone understand music any better? Or perhaps you're trying to warn people away from crap. You don't trust people to make up their own minds for themselves? There's just no utility to your saying this, no social utility.


Please refer to my final post to Violadude on all of that. Thanks!


----------



## Couchie

some guy said:


> You mean like Boulez' _Le marteau sans maître_ or his second piano sonata? You mean like Stockhausen's _Hymnen_ or his Klavierstück 9?
> 
> You mean...?
> 
> For, you see, other listeners besides yourself have found those to be emotionally powerful? Why is it so important to you and to HC to deny that palpable reality? Are you guys really threatened by the fact that there are people who can enjoy things that you don't, who can find in them all the things you insist are not there at all?
> 
> Wow.


I'm sure some people could knock over an average park garbage container and see art in the arrangement of the spewed contents.

I'm not threatened by your "enjoyment". I am morally repulsed by it.


----------



## Guest

Tapkaara said:


> I AM DONE. I said what I needed to say and those who oppose my personal views on the musical avant-garde are free to do so, just as I am free to express my own personal take on it. Go ahead and have the last word, Violadude. I know you won't be able to resist having it.


Tap you show maturity of character by leaving the last word to someone else :tiphat:
and for what it is worth I agree with you.


----------



## starthrower

Whew! I'm exhausted. Time for a nap!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> Why is it so important to you and to HC to deny that palpable reality?


HC? Would that be me by any chance?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Couchie said:


> I'm sure some people could knock over an average park garbage container and see art in the arrangement of the spewed contents.
> 
> I'm not threatened by your "enjoyment". I am morally repulsed by it.


:lol: ROFL.


----------



## Tapkaara

starthrower said:


> Whew! I'm exhausted. Time for a nap!


Me too. I assume you are exhausted because you actually took the time to read all of that. Whenever I see these epic exchanges between other members, I can never get through them.

It's easy to get sucked into these kinds of endless back-and-forths. At some point, you just can say what you have to say and you have to stop lest you just repeat yourself and flog them dead horsies.


----------



## Dodecaplex

It is always refreshing to read arguments about 20th century music, mainly because they're so hilarious.



Tapkaara said:


> But I have heard it. Plenty of it. Enough of it to determine that much of it sounds the same (noise) and it's not worth my time chasing after it trying to like it.
> 
> 
> some guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is, however, worth your time to write us long post after long post explaining why it's not worth your time.... Odd that.
Click to expand...

That had me laughing for quite a while. :lol:


----------



## Tapkaara

Dodecaplex said:


> It is always refreshing to read arguments about 20th century music, mainly because they're so hilarious.
> 
> That had me laughing for quite a while. :lol:


I WILL reply to this. I think it's very clear that I said LISTENING to avant-garde music is not worth my time. I did not say that clarifying my point and defending my statements on this topic was not worth my time. Two different things.

Obviously at this point, engaging in conversation and composing a detailed post explaining my points (why listening to avant-garde music was not worth my time) was indeed worth my time and effort. Again, two different things that could be (and were) confused by those not taking the time (maybe it wasn't worth the time) to read things as they were written, or at least intended.

The conversation did cease to be worth my time later on, thus my desire to completely bow out. Except for this post, which I think was needed just to clarify one issue.

So I am glad some of you could get a chuckle out of it, but it's really not what I said.

Again, thanks!

My God, did any of that even make sense??


----------



## mmsbls

Well, the thread has gotten a bit testy. Perhaps one reason is that people are getting a bit off topic (I helped that a bit because of a particular interest).

My daughter's music history professor who characterized modern music as "novelty at almost any cost" probably understands music history as well or better than anyone here. She used that phrase not because she feels that modern music is bad, inferior, or ugly but because she believes that composers in the modern period _generally_ relied on novelty much more than composers in earlier times. That by itself is neither good nor bad. It simply leads to greater change.

This thread is not about whether modern music is bad, unlistenable, or hard to enjoy (I admit I did contribute to the latter because I want to learn how). The premise is that modern composers resorted to novelty more than composers in other eras. You can believe that modern music is the greatest music ever and agree or disagree with this premise. Alternatively, you could believe modern music is perfectly awful and also agree or disagree with the premise. The premise seems to be unrelated to whether one enjoys modern music or not (there may be deep physiological issues that relate the two, but those are probably beyond the scope of this forum).


----------



## mmsbls

Sid James said:


> I have no time or stomach to wade through all this thread. It's kind of reinventing the wheel, this topic always gets a go-around, which is okay if a bit predictable.


I've seen many modern music threads, but I'm not aware of this particular angle. Please see my post above.


----------



## mmsbls

starthrower said:


> Yes, abstract music does pose a greater challenge to the listener. BTW, I believe mmsbls is a she.


Just to clarify: I am a he. I often use feminine personal pronouns when referring to generic people because society has used the masculine pronouns so often in the past.


----------



## Tapkaara

mmsbls said:


> Well, the thread has gotten a bit testy. Perhaps one reason is that people are getting a bit off topic (I helped that a bit because of a particular interest).
> 
> My daughter's music history professor who characterized modern music as "novelty at almost any cost" probably understands music history as well or better than anyone here. She used that phrase not because she feels that modern music is bad, inferior, or ugly but because she believes that composers in the modern period _generally_ relied on novelty much more than composers in earlier times. That by itself is neither good nor bad. It simply leads to greater change.
> 
> This thread is not about whether modern music is bad, unlistenable, or hard to enjoy (I admit I did contribute to the latter because I want to learn how). The premise is that modern composers resorted to novelty more than composers in other eras. You can believe that modern music is the greatest music ever and agree or disagree with this premise. Alternatively, you could believe modern music is perfectly awful and also agree or disagree with the premise. The premise seems to be unrelated to whether one enjoys modern music or not (there may be deep physiological issues that relate the two, but those are probably beyond the scope of this forum).


Thanks for the clarification.

I suppose the premise that modern composers relied/rely on novelty more than the composers of yesteryear could very well be true.


----------



## Sid James

*@ Tapkaara *- re yr answer to my latest post here, yr post #89 (quote below).

Thanks for your answer. I'll just answer you in points. & make it general for all this thread -

- You'd be surprised how much "new music" around here is non what one would call "avant-garde." Going to new music concerts here, there is often a mix of both more experimental and say "traditionalist" composers on the bill. It depends what type of concert it is, of course. But many composers here in Australia active today are kind of "modern tonal" - eg. Sculthorpe, Edwards, Matthew Hindson, Grahame Koehne, Richard Mills, the list goes on. There are also more experimental ones (eg. eletctroacoustic) and also ones carrying on the current overseas trends. It's a mixed bag. I usually don't value one type over the other, but sometimes depends on my mood, etc. Nowadays I'm out of the more experimental vibe. I went through a long phase & now in a more "traditional" phase.

- I don't mind whatever type of "new" music but I HATE rehash. Eg. composers who repeat themselves ad naseum, give us the same thing of 20-30 years. I have named these before on this forum but I won't now.

- I agree you don't have to hear everything by a certain composer to say you like or dislike their music. But I try to keep the door open for composers I'm suss about, etc. I don't push it too far though, I have my limitations. Now I'm getting into opera a bit more now, and even Wagner may be up for grabs later, though it may be pushing it, I'll see what I feel.

- I agree that no need to be defensive of the flaws or whatever of what we like. I actually like to know the flaws of my favourite composers, kind of makes them more human, not monuments.

- I don't like anybody putting themselves on high horses, but it's not only avant-gardists or modernists, etc. Look over at the Andre Rieu thread, those who heavily got stuck into him, are probably still, just read between the lines what their taste is, overall (hint: it's definitely not Xenakis, more like the wigs, elitist attitudes are not limited to one type of musical taste, that would be too simple).

- With new music, imho it is BEST HEARD LIVE IN CONCERT. I underline this because it really has visceral impact on me in the flesh. On cd it doesn't have half the impact. Went to a Xenakis percussion concert earlier this year and it was phenomenal. Standing ovation was given. It was well attended and there were some quite prominent musicians, composers in the audience. But the main issue was that it's impact on me what HUGE. It made Xenakis' music kind of "real" and "human." So what I urge is not necessarily to buy dozens of new music cd's (I don't), just get along to see/hear it in the flesh if you can. That is the BEST way, the REAL way. Youtube is good in a limited way, but live is the way I like to do it to get full payload...



Tapkaara said:


> I think you are asking this question because you feel the forum as a whole does not have much experience listening to modern music. Correct me if I am wrong. And if you think that, I guess it's because the majority of the folks on here usually seem hostile toward it.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I don't listen to most avant-garde composers. I certainly listen to modern/contemporary composers, but not all of them are avant-gardists. I do not seek it out. I am sure someone like you who has taste for such things will pretty much always have heard more of it than someone like me. But I have heard it. Plenty of it. Enough of it to determine that much of it sounds the same (noise) and it's not worth my time chasing after it trying to like it.
> 
> One could retort: "Well, you haven't heard enough. You really cannot dislike something until you have REALLY tried it." On paper that makes a lot of sense, but I don't feel that applies much to music. And it's not a realistic expectation. I have not heard every Mozart work ever written, but I know I don't need to. I know what Mozart is and it doesn't arouse me. I've actually been YouTubing Xenakis recently and while I have not heard ever work by him, I know from what I have heard what he sounds like and I do not like it.
> 
> I think the majority of us have heard avant-garde music. I think if there is a lack of appreciation for it on this forum, it is not necessarily out of ignorance.
> 
> And finally, it never fails to intrigue me that proponents of avant-garde music seem so bewildered when others say that they don't like that kind of music. Really? I am a pretty big fan of Glass but I can FULLY understand why some people would not like him. His music is pretty damn repetitive, for goodness sake! I am never shocked when people say they don't get him.
> 
> I guess for _les avant-gardistes_ to acknowledge that their music isn't for everybody requires them to come off their high horses for a bit and place themselves into the shoes of a more "average" listener. It's awfully comfortable atop those horses.
> 
> None of that was directed to you, Sid. But I am merely trying to articulate a broader point. Your passion for the music you like is respectable.


----------



## starthrower

Except for those modern composers of yesteryear who relied on novelty.


----------



## Sid James

mmsbls said:


> ...
> 
> This thread is not about whether modern music is bad, unlistenable, or hard to enjoy (I admit I did contribute to the latter because I want to learn how).* The premise is that modern composers resorted to novelty more than composers in other eras*...


I think that the difference between the 20th century was the rate of change. Styles came and went at the drop of a hat, at the bat of an eyelid. & there were/are many of them, none predominant. So it is confusing for the new listener, and even I think the seasoned listener or anyone in between. There's also the issue like travel became more easy and fast, and recording technology emerged in the c20th. All these kinds of things.

So basically I don't think that composers resorted to more novelty than earlier eras, it's just that there were more things happening, more directions, more sudden changes, reactions, etc. It's the confusion, and a kind of audio overload (which I'm getting a bit now, with both old and new music, I like to try & absorb things properly), and even in many/some cases a kind of cacophony.

The last point is that in around 1945, music left the era of harmony and entered the era of sound, which includes noises of all kind. "Illegal harmonies" as John Cage called them, and "Liberating the dissonance" as Arnold Schoenberg said. It's a paradigm shift that listeners are grappling with, have been since, and probably a lot of or most of the "serious" music since 1945 will never become "popular" in the sense of say the popular things of the past. But as I said above, I'm fine with a lot of new music, the one thing I detest though is rehash, which is treating us listeners as morons...


----------



## Tapkaara

@Sid James: I might agree that hearing avant-garde music live in concert is better than hearing it on disc. In fact, hearing just about ANYTHING live probably has a more engrossing affect.

I heard a Toru Takemitsu piece live in concert a few years back called Dream/Window. It was quite fascinating to watch. First of all, the orchestra was rather large. Second, one could very well hear how the sounds would slither about the orchestra in a very interesting way. This is much easier to hear live than on a disc. In all, I was pretty impressed. I later got a recording of this piece and found it to be much less impressive than the live performance.

Same applies to Mozart for me. About two years ago I saw a concert with two Mozart works, one of them was one of his violin concertos. It was an altogether pleasant experience! I enjoyed watching the soloist and watching the orchestra was exciting. Again, it's that sense of occasion that is lost on (most) recordings. I guess I am better equipped to enjoy Mozart if I am watching a live show.


----------



## mmsbls

There have been several posts in this thread related to trying to enjoy atonal or modern music. Since that is a bit off topic and since I started a thread with that exact premise, could people interested in that please post in and read this thread. I have bumped it with a post to make it more accessible.

@violadude: could you post there?

@some guy: I responded to one of your posts there as well.

Thanks.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> I'm not threatened by your "enjoyment". I am morally repulsed by it.


:lol:Best response, ever.:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

I think this about sums it up for the intellectual elite of the Avant garde sect


----------



## Tapkaara

Andante said:


> I think this about sums it up for the intellectual elite of the Avant garde sect


That certainly was novelty!


----------



## science

I guess it would be simpler if we could just like the music we like without insulting other people's music, or insulting people who don't like the same music we do. 

But I am not going to go that route. 

People who disagree with my tastes are immoral and ignorant. There, I said it. Well, actually, it's been said about a dozen times already, in this thread alone.


----------



## violadude

Andante said:


> I think this about sums it up for the intellectual elite of the Avant garde sect


Oh ya...pick the weirdest most obscure thing ever to represent a whole genre...


----------



## science

My bad.

What a lovely day we're having, huh?


----------



## science

This whole thread should be locked, if not deleted.


----------



## starthrower

This guy is more interesting than Cage.






This one's even better!


----------



## science

science said:


> I guess it would be simpler if we could just like the music we like without insulting other people's music, or insulting people who don't like the same music we do.
> 
> But I am not going to go that route.
> 
> People who disagree with my tastes are immoral and ignorant. There, I said it. Well, actually, it's been said about a dozen times already, in this thread alone.


No, your music sucks more and you are immoral and ignorant.


----------



## science

science said:


> No, your music sucks more and you are immoral and ignorant.


No, your music sucks more and you are immoral and ignorant.


----------



## science

science said:


> No, your music sucks more and you are immoral and ignorant.


Best reply ever!


----------



## science

science said:


> No, your music sucks more and you are immoral and ignorant.


I'm not going to dignify this with a response. I'm right, you're wrong, you can have the last word.


----------



## science

science said:


> I'm not going to dignify this with a response. I'm right, you're wrong, you can have the last word.


I'm above taking it. I've proven my points repeatedly, with long words and complex diction. You have been vanquished.


----------



## science

science said:


> I'm above taking it. I've proven my points repeatedly, with long words and complex diction. You have been vanquished.


And still, your music sucks. Mine is better. You have bad taste. You are immoral and ignorant.


----------



## science

science said:


> And still, your music sucks. Mine is better. You have bad taste. You are immoral and ignorant.


I agree with you.


----------



## science

science said:


> I agree with you.


You're both wrong. His taste and ethics are above reproach. But you are immoral and ignorant.


----------



## starthrower

Gee! Just when I was trying to inject a bit of humor to lighten the mood.


----------



## mmsbls

This thread stared out as a technical question (or comment) comparing modern composers to those in earlier eras. Obviously some posts have changed the focus. I am interested in the OP, and I believe some others are as well. Could we please remain relatively close to the OP?


----------



## Rapide

Different technique and ways of expression the musical notes. Maybe that's novelty. I don't know.


----------



## violadude

science said:


> I'm above taking it. I've proven my points repeatedly, with long words and complex diction. You have been vanquished.


Is this one me?


----------



## Tapkaara

starthrower said:


> This guy is more interesting than Cage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one's even better!


Actually, the tree thing was kind of infectious!


----------



## science

violadude said:


> Is this one me?


I wasn't really doing specific people. Just the discussion in general. Some participants were surely not guilty.


----------



## mmsbls

Sid James said:


> I think that the difference between the 20th century was the rate of change. Styles came and went at the drop of a hat, at the bat of an eyelid. & there were/are many of them, none predominant.
> 
> So basically I don't think that composers resorted to more novelty than earlier eras, it's just that there were more things happening, more directions, more sudden changes, reactions, etc.


I agree that the rate of change was greater in the 20th century. If the rate of change was greater, than the total change was greater (per unit time). This implies that there was more novelty. This does not mean that composers were thinking "novelty at almost any cost", but it seems to indicate that composers may have been more interested in novelty.


----------



## gabe

violadude said:


> You seem to be quite misguided my friend  The evolution of 20th century music might have been faster than previous eras, not unlike evolution in any other area in the 20th century, but certainly it was no less natural.
> 
> When Wagner, Strauss and Mahler all stretched tonality as far as it could go this is what led composers to be in a crises over where to go from there. It was a tricky question and there were many different answers to that question which is why so many styles appeared . Debussy's answer was switching to modes with many triadic extensions (and to an extant, so was Bartok's), Prokofiev and Shostakovich thought it better to stick with tonality but extend it even farther, composers like Hindemith made their own tonal system based largely off of 4ths instead of 3rds (quartile harmony), Stravinsky and Milhaud both experimented with bitonality. Schoenberg and his followers thought that since the post-romantic composers had stretched tonality to its limit, the only logical thing was to finally break its back once and for all, and thus atonal music was written, which evolved into 12 tone music because Schoenberg realized that music without some sort of system must be madness. Neither Schoenberg or Berg used this 12 tone system strictly, it was up to Webern to do that, and it was out of Webern's strict use of the 12 tone system that composers like Boulez, Kurtag, Sessions, and Stockhausen evolved.
> 
> Going away from harmony for a minute, there was a strong emphasis on Rhythm in the 20th century. This has to do with two things. One was composers realizing that they just hadn't experimented with rhythm as much as they could have. The second was having the chance to hear things like African drumming or Asian gamelan. The world was becoming smaller and all of a sudden composers had access to many cultures music, which was much more rhythmically advanced, probably due to the fact that the church had restricted music to vocal music for so many years, putting us behind in rhythmic experiments. This is why percussion really came of age in the 20th century and there were pieces written for percussion alone.
> 
> Now for graphic notation, and "noisy" pieces like Penderecki and Xenakis and people like that. Well, this has to do with the fact that science was evolving rapidly. These noise experiment pieces and electronic pieces are kind of tied together. The advancement of science meant composers could finally know what music actually was, that it consisted of sound waves of various types that did this and that and that, instead of music being some sort of gift from the gods or something like that. Thinking about music in such realistic and scientific terms got composers to think of music as just in such realistic terms and thus music of pure sound was conceived. This is music that doesn't have a melody or rhythm or whatever because music is just sound waves and it really doesnt need any of that. This was the thought process of these composers (acoustically and electronically).
> 
> This was also the thought process of John Cage, who took that idea in a different direction, that since all music is sound, all sound was music. That, combined with the early experiments of Lutoslawski, was how aleatoric/perfromer improvised music was born. The idea was that music didn't always have to be the same and whatever happens to happen in a performance is just as much music as what is written down. So really, if you want to blame anything for these two styles emerging...blame science, they both grew out of looking at music as something scientific and realistic.
> 
> Out of those two styles, to a certain extant, evolved conceptual art.
> 
> Of course, after this is minimalism, which many composers started taking part in (even including Ligeti to some extent). This was a reaction to all the noise in music and wanting to take things back to tonality or something people could follow better.
> 
> Now were in the information age and because we have access to any music any time we want and can read about any musical time in history, composers can have a wider range of influence. This lead to a mishmash of many different styles...which is kind of the boat we are in now because of the ease of gaining information.
> 
> But anyway, that is, in a nutshell, the evolution of 20th century music. Completely natural...


If the limits of tonality were truly 'reached' and there was nothing else to do with it, why didn't it cease to exist in 20th century folk/pop/soundtrack/jazz/R&B/...? That just seems like a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. Copland's Hoedown melody has what sounds like a New England fiddle tune as one of its melodies (Miss Mcleod's reelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUwINI2JZlg ). How many other American fiddle tunes are out there? In the Romantic Era, it seems like composers were really dipping into folk music to get stuff. Given all the folk/pop/jazz/etc. music out there, I think if modern composers really wanted to, they could definately do more with tonality.


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> Wrong!  Whether it's good or bad, the evolution of music was more natural before the 20th century. The fact that the 20th century featured much more conceptual art - the probing of the fundamental question, "What is music?" - meant that composers necessarily tried to break from the past as much as possible, rather than merely progressing from it like composers before (of course, we must be careful to not be so stupid as to suggest that it is a fair characterisation for _all_ contemporary music).
> 
> My more general answer:
> 
> Yes, novelty is _highly_ valued. At any cost? It depends who you're talking about. The reason for this is the modern phenomenon of the 'cult of the author/artist/composer'. Most artworks in the past few centuries are inexorably tied to their creators - when we engage with a piece of art, we invariably also ask, "Who made this? What were they like? What was their upbringing/social class/political background? _etc._" It's obviously a huge part of forums like this, and you all know I indulge in Brahms-love!
> 
> It feels like a natural thing to do, but it hasn't always been this way. If you go a few more centuries back into the past, we still have a rich cultural heritage of artworks, but the vast majority are anonymous. The most intriguing thing about this is that it's _not_ because of a loss of information in the transmission of these works over time that we don't know their creators, but because the very idea of authorship (/composership?) wasn't valued. Artists and their audiences did not see themselves as unique geniuses or as having a job of creating something original. They were part of a tradition, there to rework the old and familiar. The importance of an artwork was not about the astounding abilities of the creator (though they were, of course, still astounding), but on the social engagement of the audience.
> 
> But with certain technological advances (such as print), a different culture emerged - one where attribution was key. With attribution came competition. With competition came egos. A modern book (or a score - you can tell I'm being influenced by my literary studies here  ) is seen as an unchanging account of a single act of artistic creation endorsed by its creator. It is set in stone, to be repeated again and again and again in the same form, just by different audiences in different places. This relatively new dynamic is what leads to the modern value of authorship and, in turn, why people feel compelled to be _original_. Originality, novelty, innovation - whatever you want to call it - is a highly prized commodity because, in a world obsessed with the Artist, that's how you make a name for yourself.


This was a good post. In my earlier laziness, I didn't read it.


----------



## science

violadude said:


> You seem to be quite misguided my friend  The evolution of 20th century music might have been faster than previous eras, not unlike evolution in any other area in the 20th century, but certainly it was no less natural.
> 
> When Wagner, Strauss and Mahler all stretched tonality as far as it could go this is what led composers to be in a crises over where to go from there. It was a tricky question and there were many different answers to that question which is why so many styles appeared . Debussy's answer was switching to modes with many triadic extensions (and to an extant, so was Bartok's), Prokofiev and Shostakovich thought it better to stick with tonality but extend it even farther, composers like Hindemith made their own tonal system based largely off of 4ths instead of 3rds (quartile harmony), Stravinsky and Milhaud both experimented with bitonality. Schoenberg and his followers thought that since the post-romantic composers had stretched tonality to its limit, the only logical thing was to finally break its back once and for all, and thus atonal music was written, which evolved into 12 tone music because Schoenberg realized that music without some sort of system must be madness. Neither Schoenberg or Berg used this 12 tone system strictly, it was up to Webern to do that, and it was out of Webern's strict use of the 12 tone system that composers like Boulez, Kurtag, Sessions, and Stockhausen evolved.
> 
> Going away from harmony for a minute, there was a strong emphasis on Rhythm in the 20th century. This has to do with two things. One was composers realizing that they just hadn't experimented with rhythm as much as they could have. The second was having the chance to hear things like African drumming or Asian gamelan. The world was becoming smaller and all of a sudden composers had access to many cultures music, which was much more rhythmically advanced, probably due to the fact that the church had restricted music to vocal music for so many years, putting us behind in rhythmic experiments. This is why percussion really came of age in the 20th century and there were pieces written for percussion alone.
> 
> Now for graphic notation, and "noisy" pieces like Penderecki and Xenakis and people like that. Well, this has to do with the fact that science was evolving rapidly. These noise experiment pieces and electronic pieces are kind of tied together. The advancement of science meant composers could finally know what music actually was, that it consisted of sound waves of various types that did this and that and that, instead of music being some sort of gift from the gods or something like that. Thinking about music in such realistic and scientific terms got composers to think of music as just in such realistic terms and thus music of pure sound was conceived. This is music that doesn't have a melody or rhythm or whatever because music is just sound waves and it really doesnt need any of that. This was the thought process of these composers (acoustically and electronically).
> 
> This was also the thought process of John Cage, who took that idea in a different direction, that since all music is sound, all sound was music. That, combined with the early experiments of Lutoslawski, was how aleatoric/perfromer improvised music was born. The idea was that music didn't always have to be the same and whatever happens to happen in a performance is just as much music as what is written down. So really, if you want to blame anything for these two styles emerging...blame science, they both grew out of looking at music as something scientific and realistic.
> 
> Out of those two styles, to a certain extant, evolved conceptual art.
> 
> Of course, after this is minimalism, which many composers started taking part in (even including Ligeti to some extent). This was a reaction to all the noise in music and wanting to take things back to tonality or something people could follow better.
> 
> Now were in the information age and because we have access to any music any time we want and can read about any musical time in history, composers can have a wider range of influence. This lead to a mishmash of many different styles...which is kind of the boat we are in now because of the ease of gaining information.
> 
> But anyway, that is, in a nutshell, the evolution of 20th century music. Completely natural...


This was also good.

I think possibly you and Polednice have a different idea of "natural" without much other real disagreement.


----------



## Guest

*@science * Now I see how you achieved such a high post count in such a short time


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> Oh ya...pick the weirdest most obscure thing ever to represent a whole genre...


It was not hard to find you actually fall over them, but it is interesting that you find it weird and not musically beautiful

Try this one you will love it so rhythmic and full of meaning


----------



## science

Andante said:


> *@science * Now I see how you achieved such a high post count in such a short time


And perhaps also why I'm known as "the marvel of modern pharmacology."


----------



## violadude

Andante said:


> It was not hard to find you actually fall over them, but it is interesting that you find it weird and not musically beautiful
> 
> Try this one you will love it so rhythmic and full of meaning


Thanks for the patronizing tone...it really helps with all the arguing on here.


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> Thanks for the patronizing tone...it really helps with all the arguing on here.


Don't take it so seriously I am just beefing up my response to the O.P did you enjoy it? he hit the nail right on the head don't you think?



Andante said:


> *@science * Now I see how you achieved such a high post count in such a short time





science said:


> And perhaps also why I'm known as "the marvel of modern pharmacology."


Indeed, every forum needs a poster of your caliber keep it up "as the actress said somewhere to some one" ?


----------



## norman bates

violadude said:


> No, actually the truth is, it may be ugly, but it is also well composed and well thought out. Incomprehensible, not to me...please don't state something as incomprehensible just because you don't understand it.


Boulez composed music like this





This is a piece that was criticized by people like Xenakis and Ligeti (and Adorno too, if i remember well), not exactly examples of traditionalists. Exactly because of the method of construction. Every parameter is calculated, but what one listens is pure chaos (i'm freely quoting the two composers above, though is also my opinion).
The problem is: WHY is every parameter calculated? Why apply the same method that Schoenberg used to achieve pure atonality to rhythm as it would work in the same way? Is this an example of well thought out? To me this is a perfect example of "novelty at almost any cost".
To put the discussion in the mode "traditionalists vs modernists" or "you have not listened to it enough" it's just a way to simplify (and deny) a problem that instead actually exists.
Maybe it's true that as Sid says Boulez softened a bit his juvenile views (but just a little bit, we're talking of the great bully of modern music, to use Alex Ross's words, the musician who Ned Rorem compared to Hitler), but certainly i don't think that "Structures" is an isolated case. And Boulez is just an example, not the center of the discussion.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

science said:


> this whole thread should be locked, if not deleted.


noooooooo!!!!!


----------



## Polednice

I haven't yet caught up with the rest of this thread, but, having just read page 7, I thought that perhaps it would be fair for us to make a distinction between music that is _aurally_ comprehensible and music that is _visually_ comprehensible (i.e. the score). Taking violadude's Boulez example, he made it quite clear that the piece is comprehensible if you deconstruct the score, but the listening experience is worlds away from an analysis like that, so even if someone can comprehend the score visually, that does not mean that they will be able to comprehend the piece when hearing it.


----------



## norman bates

Polednice said:


> aking violadude's Boulez example, he made it quite clear that the piece is comprehensible if you deconstruct the score, but the listening experience is worlds away from an analysis like that


yes, and i'd like to add that even the fact that you have to look at a score to understand and to justify the music is just plain wrong, it means that we're not talking about what one listens but exactly about the process and the techniques used in the composition.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> I haven't yet caught up with the rest of this thread, but, having just read page 7, I thought that perhaps it would be fair for us to make a distinction between music that is _aurally_ comprehensible and music that is _visually_ comprehensible (i.e. the score). Taking violadude's Boulez example, he made it quite clear that the piece is comprehensible if you deconstruct the score, but the listening experience is worlds away from an analysis like that, so even if someone can comprehend the score visually, that does not mean that they will be able to comprehend the piece when hearing it.


The score helped a lot, but I was able to comprehend a lot of those things aurally before I looked at the score. That's not to brag or anything, but just to say that it is possible if you are willing to listen to it enough times. So Boulez's music isn't complete ****


----------



## Couchie

science said:


> I guess it would be simpler if we could just like the music we like without insulting other people's music, or insulting people who don't like the same music we do.
> 
> But I am not going to go that route.
> 
> People who disagree with my tastes are immoral and ignorant. There, I said it. Well, actually, it's been said about a dozen times already, in this thread alone.


This is not a debate over liking different types of music. I reserve the term "music" for sound with a tonal centre that can be harmonically modified for emotional effect. This is a debate between music and flagrant, nihilistic noise.


----------



## science

Couchie said:


> This is not a debate over liking different types of music. I reserve the term "music" for sound with a tonal centre that can be harmonically adapted for emotional effect. This is a debate between music and flagrant, nihilistic noise.


It's not a debate. It's a chance for you to insult music you don't like and the people who like it.

You're doing great. I think you're winning.


----------



## Couchie

science said:


> It's not a debate. It's a chance for you to insult music you don't like and the people who like it.
> 
> You're doing great. I think you're winning.


On the flip side, it's a chance for people who like it to insult people who don't by constantly insinuating it's over our heads.


----------



## violadude

Couchie said:


> On the flip side, it's a chance for people who like it to insult people who don't by constantly insinuating it's over our heads.


I'm just asking that you guys not call something a bunch of random ugly noise when it is clearly not.


----------



## violadude

I guess the main disconnect between myself and most of the other people on this forum, is that for me, when I hear a noisy crazy seemingly random piece such as those by Boulez, this is how I feel:










lol


----------



## violadude

norman bates said:


> yes, and i'd like to add that even the fact that you have to look at a score to understand and to justify the music is just plain wrong, it means that we're not talking about what one listens but exactly about the process and the techniques used in the composition.


I dont see what's so wrong about needing a score to fully understand whats going on.....I do that with Beethoven too ya know...and once I know how a Boulez piece is put together I can listen to it just like I would any Beethoven sonata too.


----------



## science

Couchie said:


> On the flip side, it's a chance for people who like it to insult people who don't by constantly insinuating it's over our heads.


Yes, that's definitely what's going on when you tell us our music sucks, and we say it doesn't.

Every time I put on a Boulez CD, superiority possesses me like an unholy spirit. That's what we've been trying to say all along, so it's natural for you to insult us unceasingly.


----------



## aleazk

well, personally, i like the following sentence by Ravel: the composer must seek a balance between emotion and intellectuality (and this is a general sentence, applicable to tonal music, atonal, whatever). The problem, i think, is that some composers like Boulez rely only in intellectuality. And this is felt when we (or, at least, I) hear his pieces. Sure, they are, intellectually, very interesting, we can see this in violad's post. But when the compositional technique is transformed in some kind of algorithm for producing music, the listener feels the lack of emotion from the composer. Mathematics do not create music, human beings create music. That's my problem with some of this music.


----------



## Guest

I agree with Dodecaplex about Bach's "Art of Fugue" being astounding. After that, EVERYTHING seems second place!! How difficult, then, for modern composers to move ahead of THAT kind of curve!! I think Bach was one of the greatest minds in human history and his musical thinking reflects that.

These threads on modern/avant garde certainly get people going... I'm not sure why because it would take me the remainder of my life, listening every day, to get around the great music written from 1100 to 1970. I don't have time for very much else beyond that point - I mean, it has to be REALLY SPECIAL.


----------



## violadude

aleazk said:


> well, personally, i like the following sentence by Ravel: the composer must seek a balance between emotion and intellectuality (and this is a general sentence, applicable to tonal music, atonal, whatever). The problem, i think, is that some composers like Boulez rely only in intellectuality. And this is felt when we (or, at least, I) hear his pieces. Sure, they are, intellectuality, very interesting, we can see this in violad's post. But when the compositional technique is transformed in some kind of algorithm for producing music, the listener feels the lack of emotion from the composer. Mathematics do not create music, human beings create music. That's my problem with some of this music.


hmm well I understand that some people need emotion to connect to music. I dont though...I just need to think that it's interesting to connect with it..thats all I ask of my music, that it is interesting and well thought out. The emotion is like a side bonus for me...

Maybe I'm just an alien...


----------



## science

I like some music because it's interesting. 

Other music because it's pretty. 

Other music because it's surprising. 

Other music because it's beautiful. 

Other music because it's so difficult to play and I admire the performers' skill. 

Etc.... 

There isn't necessarily a normative way to listen to music.


----------



## science

violadude said:


> Maybe I'm just an alien...


My best fried and I spent several months in 7th grade trying to persuade our classmates that we were aliens - if we'd known about Boulez, maybe we'd have succeeded!


----------



## aleazk

violadude said:


> hmm well I understand that some people need emotion to connect to music. I dont though...I just need to think that it's interesting to connect with it..thats all I ask of my music, that it is interesting and well thought out. The emotion is like a side bonus for me...
> 
> Maybe I'm just an alien...


Yes, it's a good point. You are not an alien. I think it has to do with the following: you are a music student, your profesional life is music. I'm a physicist, my profesional life is physics. Since your profesional life is music, great part of your intellectual life will be going to music, and that's the reason, i think, you are more willing to enjoy Boulez music. On the other hand, i fulfil my intellectual life mostly in physics, that's the reason i look for strong emotions in music.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> hmm well I understand that some people need emotion to connect to music. I dont though...I just need to think that it's interesting to connect with it..thats all I ask of my music, that it is interesting and well thought out. The emotion is like a side bonus for me...
> 
> Maybe I'm just an alien...


This is, I think, the more interesting question, and the one that ought to be answered before we actually get into arguments about what music is 'good' and 'bad', otherwise we're all making fundamental assumptions about each other.

"What do you get (/want to get) out of music?"

For violadude, he just needs something "interesting to connect with ... the emotion is like a side bonus." This is something I can entirely understand and which, as personal preference, is entirely reasonable. However, it is undoubtedly a minority outlook. Most people listen to music for its emotional impact, meaning that intellectual intrigue is not enough. The intellectual side is important for fans of classical music, but not sufficient - I imagine the perspective of most classical fans would be: "I like complex music that is not too hard to listen to." We each have different thresholds of difficulty, and a composer limits his or her audience in accordance with where they draw their threshold. This means that people, when they're not being too emotive, can accept the technical skill behind a Boulez composition, but it _feels_ academic and, to them, that is not what they want from a listening experience.


----------



## Polednice

Just as a little side note, related to aleazk's observation of violadude's profession, though we often talk about a composer composing for him/herself in the first instance, with the advanced techniques and technologies we have, I think it is more important than ever for a composer to remember what kind of knowledge their audience has. Art is social, and it should be a composer's wish _not_ to provide something of academic interest to the academic community (even if it demonstrates pure genius), but to stir something in their wider audience of listeners. Given this, I think it is unreasonable to write music that requires an understanding of musical notation (for example).

Music ought to be _popular_ (written for the people) without being populist - that's the most difficult thing to achieve.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> For violadude, he just needs something "interesting to connect with ... the emotion is like a side bonus." This is something I can entirely understand and which, as personal preference, is entirely reasonable. *However, it is undoubtedly a minority outlook*.












lol no but I get what you're saying...I can talk to you easily about this kind of stuff Polednice. But so often when I'm talking to some other people on this forum who dont like more modern stuff I feel like they keep saying that this music is bad and it is impossible for anyone to like it and the whole time I'm shouting Im right here! I like it!


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> lol no but I get what you're saying...I can talk to you easily about this kind of stuff Polednice. But so often when I'm talking to some other people on this forum who dont like more modern stuff I feel like they keep saying that this music is bad and it is impossible for anyone to like it and the whole time I'm shouting Im right here! I like it!


What do you mean, "no"?  It may be a majority outlook for music students, but if you were to poll people who might describe themselves as having an "interest in classical music", I think you'd find even for them that the emotional side is the most important thing (and this doesn't even take into account the entire population, for whom musical complexity is a sin  ).

But yes, I understand what you mean about these conversations. It's often extremely difficult to know what tone someone intends in these threads, and you can only really tell after you've spoken to someone a fair bit. The same statement by one person could be taken as entirely derogatory, while by another it could be genuine and honest. As tappy said, it's just too tiresome to say "IMHO" after everything; that much has to be assumed (and if anyone thinks they are not talking I_T_HO, then they should be shot  ).


----------



## violadude

And I *really* dont like when people give me a recording of 4'33" and tell me I'll find it rhythmically interesting and emotionally satisfying...like I'm some sort of idiot doofus that falls for anything just because I like modern music.


----------



## Polednice

As someone said earlier (I think), I reckon part of the problem is less hardy listeners than you not knowing how to navigate 20th century music that they might enjoy. A person can say, "I love Romantic music!", and they've got a whole century's worth of music that, while varying in quality, basically uses a small range of comprehensible musical language. Then someone sees the Second Viennese School, hates it, and either assumes that the proceeding decades are the same or worse, or sees just how many different styles and schools there are and has no idea where to start, so just writes it all off.

The attitude in both cases is obviously wrong, but I can empathise with the sense of drowning!


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> What do you mean, "no"?  It may be a majority outlook for music students, but if you were to poll people who might describe themselves as having an "interest in classical music", I think you'd find even for them that the emotional side is the most important thing (and this doesn't even take into account the entire population, for whom musical complexity is a sin  ).
> 
> But yes, I understand what you mean about these conversations. It's often extremely difficult to know what tone someone intends in these threads, and you can only really tell after you've spoken to someone a fair bit. The same statement by one person could be taken as entirely derogatory, while by another it could be genuine and honest. As tappy said, it's just too tiresome to say "IMHO" after everything; that much has to be assumed (and if anyone thinks they are not talking I_T_HO, then they should be shot  ).


The "no" made more sense with the forever alone picture there.


----------



## aleazk

violadude said:


> And I *really* dont like when people give me a recording of 4'33" and tell me I'll find it rhythmically interesting and emotionally satisfying...like I'm some sort of idiot doofus that falls for anything just because I like modern music.


well, that's certainly not me, i made clear that i understand your position, in fact, if you see my last post, i think it's actually very natural for you to like Boluez music, not because you are some "idiot doofus", but because of the things i said before.


----------



## violadude

aleazk said:


> well, that's certainly not me, i made clear that i understand your position, in fact, if you see my last post, i think it's actually very natural for you to like Boluez music, not because you are some "idiot doofus", but because of the things i said before.


I know, I wasnt talking about you.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> The "no" made more sense with the forever alone picture there.


Ah, I get it now!


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> Just as a little side note, related to aleazk's observation of violadude's profession, though we often talk about a composer composing for him/herself in the first instance, with the advanced techniques and technologies we have, I think it is more important than ever for a composer to remember what kind of knowledge their audience has. Art is social, and it should be a composer's wish _not_ to provide something of academic interest to the academic community (even if it demonstrates pure genius), but to stir something in their wider audience of listeners. Given this, I think it is unreasonable to write music that requires an understanding of musical notation (for example).
> 
> Music ought to be _popular_ (written for the people) without being populist - that's the most difficult thing to achieve.


This is where I think we somewhat disagree...I don't think it is unreasonable at all to compose pieces that require that sort of knowledge...as long as the composer accepts that he/she will have a fringe audience. Why cant the people who do enjoy that stuff enjoy it and then the people who dont enjoy that stuff can happily ignore it? Is it because it is now the majority of composers composing like this?


----------



## norman bates

violadude said:


> I dont see what's so wrong about needing a score to fully understand whats going on...


Because it's the composer who have to understand the ear and the brain, not the contrary.


----------



## science

If I were a composer, I think I would try to write popular music at least sometimes, but there would probably be times where I would have an idea that I would like, and write it even if I knew that very few other people (or even none) would like it. 

So I think I would at least occasionally set aside the tastes and concerns of most listeners. But I think that maybe I would never set aside the goal of impressing the really knowledgeable ones.


----------



## aleazk

Polednice said:


> Just as a little side note, related to aleazk's observation of violadude's profession, though we often talk about a composer composing for him/herself in the first instance, with the advanced techniques and technologies we have, I think it is more important than ever for a composer to remember what kind of knowledge their audience has. Art is social, and it should be a composer's wish _not_ to provide something of academic interest to the academic community (even if it demonstrates pure genius), but to stir something in their wider audience of listeners. Given this, I think it is unreasonable to write music that requires an understanding of musical notation (for example).
> 
> Music ought to be _popular_ (written for the people) without being populist - that's the most difficult thing to achieve.


mmm, this is a far more complex discussion, i don't know the answer.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> This is where I think we somewhat disagree...I don't think it is unreasonable at all to compose pieces that require that sort of knowledge...as long as the composer accepts that he/she will have a fringe audience. Why cant the people who do enjoy that stuff enjoy it and then the people who dont enjoy that stuff can happily ignore it? Is it because it is now the majority of composers composing like this?


This is partly an "IMHO" thing again, so of course I think it's fine to say "each to his own", but, _in my opinion_, I think there comes a point where your audience is so 'fringe' that you can't really be said to be creating art because your compositions do not fulfil the requirement of engaging the people. I don't know if it's true to say that the majority of composers are composing in too difficult a language today, but there is obviously a problem with audience alienation.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> This is partly an "IMHO" thing again, so of course I think it's fine to say "each to his own", but, _in my opinion_, I think there comes a point where your audience is so 'fringe' that you can't really be said to be creating art because your compositions do not fulfil the requirement of engaging the people. I don't know if it's true to say that the majority of composers are composing in too difficult a language today, but there is obviously a problem with audience alienation.


Well ok then  To me it seems like even just one person enjoying a piece is enough reason for it to exist. Just IMHO again.


----------



## aleazk

Polednice said:


> This is partly an "IMHO" thing again, so of course I think it's fine to say "each to his own", but, _in my opinion_, I think there comes a point where your audience is so 'fringe' that you can't really be said to be creating art because your compositions do not fulfil the requirement of engaging the people. I don't know if it's true to say that the majority of composers are composing in too difficult a language today, *but there is obviously a problem with audience alienation*.


on the other hand, not all the orchestras have an helicopter to perform some of the avant-garde works, so, maybe, that's the problem :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Well ok then  To me it seems like even just one person enjoying a piece is enough reason for it to exist. Just IMHO again.


I'm not saying that such pieces shouldn't exist, just that they're pointless.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> I'm not saying that such pieces shouldn't exist, just that they're pointless.


Oh! That makes quite a bit of difference then.


----------



## science

Imagine our fascination if we found a document in some attic in Vienna, a score in Mozart's own hand, a piece of music that he declares impossible to share with his contemporaries, but the dearest of all to himself. 

I'd call it art. 

The ideal, in fact, might be to create for an audience of one.


----------



## Polednice

science said:


> Imagine our fascination if we found a document in some attic in Vienna, a score in Mozart's own hand, a piece of music that he declares impossible to share with his contemporaries, but the dearest of all to himself.
> 
> I'd call it art.
> 
> The ideal, in fact, might be to create for an audience of one.


But was it art when it was gathering dust in the attic? I think it only becomes art once we know of its existence and so it is dependent on having an audience.


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> But was it art when it was gathering dust in the attic? I think it only becomes art once we know of its existence and so it is dependent on having an audience.


Well, I certainly won't try to define art or question your definition of it.

But would it have been _pointless_?

Not to Mozart, and that matters.


----------



## aleazk

Polednice said:


> But was it art when it was gathering dust in the attic? I think it only becomes art once we know of its existence and so it is dependent on having an audience.


stayed clear, i think, the point of why some people likes Boluez and other people don't. as i said before, art it's a social thing, so it's a very difficult discussion the decision of what art is pointless and which art is not pointless, after all, music academicians, like vd, are part of this society, a minority part perhaps, but part indeed. so, they deserve a place too.


----------



## Polednice

science said:


> Well, I certainly won't try to define art or question your definition of it.
> 
> But would it have been _pointless_?
> 
> Not to Mozart, and that matters.


It wouldn't have been pointless in that it would have had some great personal and intellectual value, but it would have been _artistically_ pointless because it would have had no artistic value gathering dust.


----------



## norman bates

science said:


> Imagine our fascination if we found a document in some attic in Vienna, a score in Mozart's own hand, a piece of music that he declares impossible to share with his contemporaries


something like this?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> You're both wrong. His taste and ethics are above reproach. But you are immoral and ignorant.


Science, you have made the greatest internet exchange ever. And I say that even though I'm opposed to "greatest" and "ever" as useful words. Oh, and "the" and "have" as well.


----------



## starthrower

Polednice said:


> This is partly an "IMHO" thing again, so of course I think it's fine to say "each to his own", but, _in my opinion_, I think there comes a point where your audience is so 'fringe' that you can't really be said to be creating art because your compositions do not fulfil the requirement of engaging the people. I don't know if it's true to say that the majority of composers are composing in too difficult a language today, but there is obviously a problem with audience alienation.


Lady Gaga's music engages a large segment of the listening public. Wait... um... maybe they're not really listening? Does this make her a more significant artist than Boulez or Stockhausen?


----------



## tdc

Reading through this, what gets me is when people claim in the early 20th century 'tonality was stretched to its limits'. Really? Is there actual scientific proof of this? How can one definitively prove _tonality itself _was ever stretched in such ways? Is tonality not an infinite system of making music? Can something that is infinite even contain limits that can be stretched? It seems like at a certain point though composers realized it was becoming increasingly more difficult to come up with brilliant ideas using tonality, so at a certain stage this system was abandoned? Perhaps in order to compete with the composers of old, the composers of the early 20th century felt they needed whole new systems to work with? I just think it takes a lot more brilliance nowadays to do something interesting based around a tonal center, than only trying to do novel things to move forward. That is not to say a lot of great non-tonal music hasn't been created, because it has. I just think it takes a more brilliant creative mind to find a way to move forward within the proven effective systems of old, than to 're-invent the wheel' so to speak.

Perhaps the greatest composers of this century will find a way to incorporate elements from many systems effectively, but I don't know if I am really hearing much of that yet.


----------



## science

Is the idea about tonality that harmonies and scales were getting so wild that they couldn't get any wilder and still have an obvious tonality? 

My impression is that something like that started about the generation after Beethoven, from Liszt to Wagner to Debussy and Strauss and Stravinsky. 

Something that interests me is that jazz might have gone through something comparable in a very short period of time between 1945 and 1970. 

It can have the feeling of a logical progression: once it becomes artistically valuable to use unusual chords and scales, each succeeding artist/composition is going to have to "stretch" the system further; late or soon people will no longer be using easily recognizable chords and scales. 

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will let me know what I've got right and what I've got wrong in this picture.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> Lady Gaga's music engages a large segment of the listening public. Wait... um... maybe they're not really listening? Does this make her a more significant artist than Boulez or Stockhausen?


It depends on your definition of "significant", but in some cases, there's no doubt about it.


----------



## Polednice

science said:


> Is the idea about tonality that harmonies and scales were getting so wild that they couldn't get any wilder and still have an obvious tonality?
> 
> My impression is that something like that started about the generation after Beethoven, from Liszt to Wagner to Debussy and Strauss and Stravinsky.
> 
> Something that interests me is that jazz might have gone through something comparable in a very short period of time between 1945 and 1970.
> 
> It can have the feeling of a logical progression: once it becomes artistically valuable to use unusual chords and scales, each succeeding artist/composition is going to have to "stretch" the system further; late or soon people will no longer be using easily recognizable chords and scales.
> 
> Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will let me know what I've got right and what I've got wrong in this picture.


I think that's right, but it's only one facet of tonal exploration. Within a tonal system, we have rock/jazz/punk/pop/country etc. - is it not possible to have an equally varied array of classical styles within a tonal system? We have to some extent already, but I don't think we can say we've done _everything_.


----------



## gabe

[reply to starthrower, forgot to quote]
I'll reveal my relative lack of knowledge by saying that I don't know Boulez or Stockhausen. But 
I'd rather listen to Lady Gaga than have to ever practice Hindemith again.


----------



## NightHawk

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> It's alright. I would prefer to hear Gruppen to Helicopter String Quartet anyway.


Here are three recordings of GRUPPEN - would you recommend one over another - another recording altogether? Thanks for considering.


----------



## Guest

Wow, you kids do have a lot of fun while I'm sleeping quietly here in the Pacific Northwest.

I'll try to keep this short, but holy Moses....

OK, here's *norman bates* on Boulez' _Structures:_ "To me this is a perfect example of 'novelty at almost any cost'."

But _Structures_ is a terrible example of "novelty at almost any cost." There's nothing about this piece, how it's made or how it sounds, that exemplifies "novelty." It can seem novel to a listener without the requisite experience, I guess, but we're not supposed to suggest that anyone has less experience than anyone else. We're all equal in the democracy of cyberspace. All equally experienced, equally intelligent. Except maybe for the aliens.

_Structures_ is maybe an example of "control at almost any cost," but "novelty?" Nah.

*aleazk* cites Ravel: "The composer musit seek a balance between emotion and intellectuality...." And goes on to observe that "composers like Boulez rely only [on] intellectuality."

How do you kids separate emotions and intellect? That's what I don't understand. (Well, I do. It's so you can bash things you don't like. But soft....) I'm an integrated human being. Nothing about me is separate from anything else. Emotions, intellect, desires, curiousity, it's all one.

Boulez' _Structures,_ if anyone's interested, strikes me as a very charming and easy to listen to piece.

*aleazk* in violadude being an alien: "Since your profesional life is music, [a] great part of your intellectual life will be going to music." Quick, which logical fallacy does this illustrate? (Really. I want to get through this fascinating conversation and get back to my equally fascinating job, and I don't have time to look it up.)

*Polednice,* also on violadude's alien-ness: "Most people listen to music for its emotional impact, meaning that intellectual intrigue is not enough."

"Most" people get blamed for so many things. And for why? Maybe "most" people are idiots, I dunno, but I think we should leave "most" people alone for a change. What does it prove one way or another to claim that 2,000,000 like Mozart but only 2,000 people like Boulez? This kind of thing can only be interesting to a record executive and to someone _trying_ to prove that Boulez' music isn't very good.

In any case, as an integrated human, I listen to music for how it sounds. My intellect and my emotions are both fully engaged in the process.

*Polednice:* "We each have different thresholds of difficulty...."

I'm getting really tired of the difficulty card being played every hand. I have never ever in all my almost 60 years of listening given a moment's thought to difficulty. It seems as if some people do (unless "difficulty" is just another arrow in the anti-modernist's quiver), but listening to music is not difficult, it's a great pleasure or a great bore. Difficult? Well, maybe boring is difficult to bear. But otherwise.

I have no threshold of difficulty at all. It's a completely alien concept to me, alien to my actual, practical, natural experience of music.

This might be the time to interject where violadude and I apparently differ in this regard. Since we usually agree! I don't hear something strange and unusual (to me) and think of it as a _challenge._ I think "Cool, something strange and unusual. How fun!" But then, I have 40 years of listening on him and oh wait! We cannot bring experience into it. Sorry! Anyone who is (or who just presents as being) more experienced will be savaged mercilessly. How DARE I have more experience!!

*Polednice,* once more: "I think it is more important than ever for a composer to remember what kind of knowledge their audience has."

Remember? Did they know and forget? Besides, if it's "their" audience that's really being referred to, they probably have a fair to middlin' idea of what those people know, and want. I know I usually feel like my needs are being met very well by avant garde and experimental and electroacoustic and live electronics and turntable composers, for instances. I know my needs don't count. Even though I'm not an academic any more (and was in the English department when I was), I don't ever count as part of "the" audience. I recently came out of a symphony concert where Nielsen's fourth was performed. I asked the conductor afterwards if he would consider playing some Lachenmann some time. "Too modern." And the orchestra manager chimed in "Our audience would never go for it." Never? But I got the message. I'm not part of the audience. It seems like I'm in the auditorium, listening to the music, surrounded by other people doing the same. But I'm not. I like contemporary music, so I don't exist.

More *Polednice:* "Art is social, and it should be a composer's wish _not_ to provide something of academic interest to the academic community..., but to stir something in their wider audience of listeners." Poor academics. If you teach in a school, you also don't exist. You need not be stirred. Come on over here, teachers. Sit here in nowhere by me and be nobodies.

"I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us - don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.

How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!"

(I don't need to mention that this is a poem by Emily Dickinson, do I? Oops. Too late.)

And, finally, *Polednice:* "I don't know if it's true to say that the majority of composers are composing in too difficult a language today" [it's not] "but there is obviously a problem with audience alienation."

Wait a minute, I thought it was me and the teachers and violadude who were alienated! What is going on? Man, this alienation thing is really catching on. Wow. Come on y'all, get yerselves alienated. It's fun!!

But seriously, Polednice, this "audience alienated from modern music" thing started around 1800. Not 19. *18.*

History. What a wonderful thing history is. And knowledge. And emotions. What a wonderful world!


----------



## science

And now we have condescension from the other side. The circle will indeed be unbroken.

By and by, Lord, by and by.


----------



## Guest

NightHawk said:


> Here are three recordings of GRUPPEN - would you recommend one over another - another recording altogether?


I don't know Peter's recording of these. Should be OK. The other two I know and love.

If you can only get one, and you want a CD, the Abbado's fine. And it has some sweet Kurtag, too. The LP is available at http://wolffifth.blogspot.com/ as a .flac file.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> And now we have condescension from the other side. The circle will indeed be unbroken.
> 
> By and by, Lord, by and by.


That lovely constructed and beautifully nuanced and often funny post of mine and all you can say about it is "condescension from the other side"?

Oh what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say "condescension" to old ladies.

(Man.)


----------



## Polednice

science said:


> And now we have condescension from the other side. The circle will indeed be unbroken.
> 
> By and by, Lord, by and by.


In fairness, some people are perfectly fine to talk with on this matter. Violadude, for example is a lovely young chap.  It's just that the nature of a contentious issue on a public forum also brings out some bad folks, and we just have to decide whether to ignore the bad parts or the whole.


----------



## starthrower

Polednice said:


> In fairness, some people are perfectly fine to talk with on this matter. Violadude, for example is a lovely young chap.  It's just that the nature of a contentious issue on a public forum also brings out some bad folks, and we just have to decide whether to ignore the bad parts or the whole.


Disagreements and all, nobody ought to get too worked up about it. I mean, it's only musical tastes we're dealing with here. I for one enjoy everyone's input for the most part. Even that condescending know it all, some guy!  I've got to admit I really enjoy reading his clear headed, well informed posts!


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Disagreements and all, nobody ought to get too worked up about it. I mean, it's only musical tastes we're dealing with here.


Here hear. It is only Music! nothing important at all. I like what I like the rest can stay where it is for now.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I for one enjoy everyone's input for the most part. Even that condescending know it all, some guy!


Made _me_ grin!


----------



## Ukko

/\ Yeah, this has been an entertaining thread, what I read of it. If I could can the whole thing and send it to a Boulez-freak musicologist/friend I know...

He teaches this stuff though, so I don't know how painfully familiar it is.

[Just noticed that mine is the 211th post in the thread! All of the back-and-forth must have gone back-and-forth a few times.]


----------



## Polednice

212! Palindrome is mine.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> OK, here's *norman bates* on Boulez' _Structures:_ "To me this is a perfect example of 'novelty at almost any cost'."
> 
> But _Structures_ is a terrible example of "novelty at almost any cost." There's nothing about this piece, how it's made or how it sounds, that exemplifies "novelty." It can seem novel to a listener without the requisite experience, I guess, but we're not supposed to suggest that anyone has less experience than anyone else. We're all equal in the democracy of cyberspace. All equally experienced, equally intelligent. Except maybe for the aliens.
> 
> _Structures_ is maybe an example of "control at almost any cost," but "novelty?" Nah.


ok, i know that my english is terrible, but "novelty" doesn't means that we are talking about something new? I know that he was influenced by Messiaen, but i think his idea was to do something new. Totally controlled, but new. Anyway, it was just an example, again this piece of Boulez is not the center of the discussion.


----------



## Polednice

norman bates said:


> ok, i know that my english is terrible, but "novelty" doesn't means that we are talking about something new? I know that he was influenced by Messiaen, but i think his idea was to do something new. Totally controlled, but new. Anyway, it was just an example, again this piece of Boulez is not the center of the discussion.


I suppose the parameters of "novelty" should be better defined. After all, though some similarities can be found between Beethoven and Brahms (for example), the latter never set out to create music that sounded _exactly_ like Beethoven. No two composers sound exactly alike, so there is novelty in all music somewhere. And still, we can't say that an extreme kind of novelty is "something totally unprecedented", because all music - no matter what kind it is - shares a fundamental exploration of sound.


----------



## Couchie

science said:


> Every time I put on a Boulez CD, superiority possesses me like an unholy spirit.


You don't put a Boulez CD on, a Boulez CD puts YOU on.


----------



## Couchie

violadude said:


> I'm just asking that you guys not call something a bunch of random ugly noise when it is clearly not.


What about stochastic music?

Random: By definition.
Ugly noise:


----------



## science

Couchie said:


> You don't put a Boulez CD on, a Boulez CD puts YOU on.


What a clever guy. All your arrogance and condescension are legitimized by your cleverness.


----------



## science

starthrower said:


> I for one enjoy everyone's input for the most part.


Well, I don't.

Posts of information and explanation are fine; posts of insults are not, and as the saying goes a single fly ruins the broth.

I hate it when people like someguy, couchie, harpsichord concerto, and so on. It's not about what side of the question they're on - I really don't care what music they like - but about the attitude they adopt toward people who do not like the same music they do.


----------



## Sid James

I agree with science's sentiments. Stop the mudslinging and just stick to topic. Which I will try now, even though I often go off tangent.

To answer this from mmsbls ages back now -



mmsbls said:


> I agree that the rate of change was greater in the 20th century. If the rate of change was greater, than the total change was greater (per unit time). This implies that there was more novelty. This does not mean that composers were thinking "novelty at almost any cost", but it seems to indicate that composers may have been more interested in novelty.


Well I think some things are novelty but some are not, some things "new" today become establishment tommorrow.

Take the Hungarian born composer Ligeti for example. I would argue that his piece for 100 metronomes was a "novelty" piece. He said himself he didn't believe Cage's philosophies, he was basically fooling around with that piece, jumping on the bandwagon of music=life.

But other techniques pioneered by Ligeti and others are today not just novelty or tricks. Eg. even back then, his_ Requiem _and _Lux Aeterna _were used in the film _2001: A Space Odyessy_ (late 1960's). Generally speaking, these new techniques (eg. "micropolyphony" or whatever the label) are now firmly part of the arsenal of a film composer's bag of techniques. We come across these sounds in the cinema & probably TV as well without even realising. What was unnatural or novel back in the 1960's is now kind of almost cliche and a convention of sorts.

That's how I can explain it. There may well have been more novelty in the c20th, a lot of it novelty for the sake of playing games or whatever, but some have stood the test of time and entered the "mainstream" or whatever & the popular culture, etc.

So what I'm saying is that I see from what your answer is that there's different sorts of novelty. Some will remain only or mainly of fringe value, others will come to the middle ground or mainstream. Which is similar to music of past centuries. Eg. guys like Weber and Spohr were appalled at some of Beethoven's music, esp. his late works, Sym.#9 being one of them. But was this say just "novelty," eg. injecting chorus and operatic soloists in a symphony? They probably saw it that way, but it was novelty that meant something, not just for playing games. That's what I'm getting at.

Hope this is all not too off topic?...


----------



## Scarpia

If I have a gripe with "novelty at the expense of all else" it would be in concerti. It seems like many composers consider it a challenge to coax the oddest sounds out of the solo instruments, rather than exploit their natural strengths.


----------



## science

I think Sid James' post brought up a good point: a lot of innovation doesn't necessarily need to "touch" people to be successful. What matters is that some other musician hears it and thinks she can do something more interesting with it, and then eventually we hear it in movie soundtracks and dance music and so on. 

We might argue (I think Lisztian would) that Liszt's work with the piano had an affect like that. Of course a lot of Liszt's experimentation turned out wonderfully, but some of it didn't work so well. But one thing no one can deny is that for many decades after Liszt his experiments were influential in a lot of wonderful music. 

Likewise, we're all well aware of the influence of Cage and Stockhausen on the Beatles, and Varèse on Zappa. 

I thought of that listening to eRikm. There is no way that guy is going to reach a large audience; he doesn't seem concerned that he might. He's aiming for a small audience. But I would be very surprised if I don't hear sounds like that in the soundtracks and dance music of about 2015.


----------



## mmsbls

Sid James said:


> So what I'm saying is that I see from what your answer is that there's different sorts of novelty. Some will remain only or mainly of fringe value, others will come to the middle ground or mainstream. Which is similar to music of past centuries. Eg. guys like Weber and Spohr were appalled at some of Beethoven's music, esp. his late works, Sym.#9 being one of them. But was this say just "novelty," eg. injecting chorus and operatic soloists in a symphony? They probably saw it that way, but it was novelty that meant something, not just for playing games. That's what I'm getting at.
> 
> Hope this is all not too off topic?...


Actually you are spot on topic. I agree with your general view. There clearly has been novelty throughout music history; otherwise, we would still be listening to Gregorian Chants. I do not know enough about music history to know how much past novelty never succeeded (i.e. the music never became part of the canon). Maybe only the youngest of us here will know what 20th century novelty will succeed in this respect.

It's certainly possible that the 20th century will be viewed as an especially fertile period of musical development. I suppose it's also possible it will be viewed as the start of many dead ends. Many have viewed the statement "novelty at almost all costs" as a negative portrayal of 20th century music. I simply view it as indicating a very interesting period of musical exploration. Separately, each of us have their own views as to whether that exploration was good or bad.


----------



## Couchie

science said:


> Well, I don't.
> 
> Posts of information and explanation are fine; posts of insults are not, and as the saying goes a single fly ruins the broth.
> 
> I hate people like someguy, couchie, harpsichord concerto, and so on. It's not about what side of the question they're on - I really don't care what music they like - but about the attitude they adopt toward people who do not like the same music they do.


Where have I insulted any member here? Highlight it and I will offer them a full apology.

Sure I can and will insult the _music_ they may listen to... art exists to be interpreted and evaluated, for better or for worse. I hate atonal music, and I am free to say so. The music is a joyless nihilistic abyss of wasted talent. It's morally wrong.

If that hurts your feelings: frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. The best music criticism if rifle with good, damning insults. Some of the most famous music critics and composers have "mudslinged" atonal composers. It is not a phenomenon of internet trolling. It is the earnest vocalization of our feelings that necessitates rudeness in order to properly express the repulsion we experience when confronted with this morbidity. Our feelings are negative, but these feelings are as real to us as whatever feelings this kind of music produces in yourselves which provokes admiration. We are as entitled to express our disgust as you guys your admiration.

Now _you_ have said outright you hate several members of this board, which is against the TOS...


----------



## science

Well, I'll edit. 

Your attempt to portray yourself as innocent is laughable. You're intentionally insulting and you know it.


----------



## science

Couchie said:


> I'm not threatened by your "enjoyment". I am morally repulsed by it.


Terms of service?

Not insulting?

Please.

This comment was far more morally repulsive than anyone's enjoyment of any sound whatsoever could ever be.


----------



## science

Anyway, I'm not a mod here, and it's not my job to stop you from soiling the forum. I'm done here. 

Disgusted, and done.

I stand by my earlier assertion: This thread should be locked immediately.


----------



## Trout

I find it strange that many of the threads with all this drama and arguing occur are on modern music. Just an observation.


----------



## Couchie

science said:


> Terms of service?
> 
> Not insulting?
> 
> Please.
> 
> This comment was far more morally repulsive than anyone's enjoyment of any sound whatsoever could ever be.


You're right, that comment was insulting. I shouldn't have said I haven't insulted anyone in this thread. It is perhaps impossible to criticize music and not end up insulting unless your well-temperedness and eloquence outweighs your hatred for the thing you're criticizing. Mine doesn't, so sorry some guy.


----------



## Couchie

Trout said:


> I find it strange that many of the threads with all this drama and arguing occur are on modern music. Just an observation.


I agree. I will follow science's lead and bow out of this thread.

See you all in next month's atonality thread.


----------



## Sid James

Trout said:


> I find it strange that many of the threads with all this drama and arguing occur are on modern music. Just an observation.


Agreed, but it's not really about how old or new music is, it's ultimately about people's ideologies and dogmas about music, surrounding it, rather than the music itself, which I think is a separate thing altogether. It's similar to what the Buddhists call attachments, these things end up dominating our lives and our thinking, sometimes to the exclusion of reason or logic or how I like to call it, simple common sense...


----------



## Sid James

mmsbls said:


> ...
> It's certainly possible that the 20th century will be viewed as an especially fertile period of musical development. I suppose it's also possible it will be viewed as the start of many dead ends. Many have viewed the statement "novelty at almost all costs" as a negative portrayal of 20th century music. I simply view it as indicating a very interesting period of musical exploration. Separately, each of us have their own views as to whether that exploration was good or bad...


I must emphasise that John Cage's experminents have made it into the mainstream of post-1945 concert hall music. Eg. he influenced people like Lutoslawski and Hovhaness, both less full on modernists. Cage and others like as I said Ligeti are entering film music, eg. the score of the recent film _Shutter Island_ is entirely made of post-1945 musics, eg. those two guys as well as Schnittke, Feldman, Penderecki, etc. So it is coming to centre, even the things considered bizarre decades or half a century ago or more. But of course it doesn't mean that Cagean indeterminacy will be in the latest pop song by the newest disposable boy or girl band. That's not what I'm saying. I'm more saying what the evidence says, that film music is bringing/pushing elements of the avant-garde into mainstream...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Couchie said:


> See you all in next month's atonality thread.


Yep, see you all in 2012's 12-tone saga. We will need a pretty good topic, like this one; something catchy that grabs all the headlines. We'll work on it, PM me for ideas etc.


----------



## Polednice

Well, although the thread went to the ****er as expected, thank you mmsbls for an interesting question which yielded a good number of thought-provoking responses that I hope will not be forgotten among all the insults.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Sid James said:


> That's not what I'm saying. I'm more saying what the evidence says, that film music is bringing/pushing elements of the avant-garde into mainstream...


I wish this were the case. From my experience film music errs on the conservative/Romantic pastiche side, and anything out of the ordinary like atonality is just used to emphasize action or "scary" parts. There are probably exceptions, but I've met a fair share who say avant-garde music reminds them of Loony Tunes or fight scenes, and that they wouldn't seek it out.


----------



## norman bates

regressivetransphobe said:


> atonality is just used to emphasize action or "scary" parts.


this is true (i'm curious to know if there are exceptions), but in that kind of scenes it works great. I don't think that a piece of mozart would work as well in a horror scene.


----------



## Sid James

^^Some of the more modern techniques have been entering film music for ages. A lot of classical composers did film scores, and a lot of purely concert music influenced film music composers too. Jerry Goldsmith's _Planet of the Apes_ soundtrack of the 1960's was one of the things that got me interested in this type of music. It mirrors what guys like Schoenberg and Messiaen, etc. were doing. In the old USSR, a number of composers were film music writers by default, it was their bread and butter. Eg. Arvo Part, Gubaidulina, Schnittke. Here in Australia too, a number of our composers worked in film post 1945, eg. Peter Sculthorpe.



regressivetransphobe said:


> I wish this were the case. From my experience film music errs on the conservative/Romantic pastiche side, and anything out of the ordinary like atonality is just used to emphasize action or "scary" parts. There are probably exceptions, but I've met a fair share who say avant-garde music reminds them of Loony Tunes or fight scenes, and that they wouldn't seek it out.


Sometimes it is romantic or whatever, but there are and where many styles of film music. Eg. Goldsmith as I said above. One of my favourites is the kind of jazz-atonal combo of the 1950's French film_ Hiroshima Mon Amour._ & it's still happening, I will definitely pick up the soundtrack to _Shutter Island _as I said above, it's a who's who of the avant-garde of yore - eg. CAge, Feldman, Schnittke, Penderecki, Ligeti, etc. These are not exactly as popular as Beethoven or whoever now, but they're part of the post-1945 "canons" for sure, in terms of teaching, musicology, & repertoire/performance...


----------



## Ravellian

violadude brought up some excellent points before in mentioning the role that advancements in science and technology have played in the arts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, namely, bringing out the need to innovate with new sounds and textures, which does not necessarily make their music more difficult for listeners.

In reference to the OP's question, I would simply like to point out that there was in fact a school of thought in the mid-20th century where the composers composed only for themselves, to "develop their own craft" and innovate however they saw fit, and really didn't care about what the audience felt. The representative of this was of course Milton Babbitt. His school of thought saw its prominence but, needless to say, I doubt many composers side with Babbitt in the present day.

The fact is most modern composers do care about what audiences like, to a certain extent. Just look at some of today's most prominent composers, like Golijov, Rautavaara, Danielpour (head composer at Curtis), Adams, etc..


----------



## Sid James

^^I agree with the gist of what you say, but there is the other extreme, composers who do rehash & offer the public the equivalent of last night's (or last week's) dinner. Rautavaara, who you mention, is "master" of this. He has been doing the same thing for at least the last 20 years. I like many types of new or newer music, I don't see myself as ideologically bound, but I basically HATE rehash of whatever style or hue, etc...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Ravellian said:


> The fact is most modern composers do care about what audiences like, to a certain extent. Just look at some of today's most prominent composers, like Golijov, Rautavaara, Danielpour (head composer at Curtis), Adams, etc..


I also have two operas by Rautavaara, which were enjoyable pieces, even to a calcified conservative from the Cambrian like me.


----------



## Guest

Ravellian said:


> I would simply like to point out that there was in fact a school of thought in the mid-20th century where the composers composed only for themselves, to "develop their own craft" and innovate however they saw fit, and really didn't care about what the audience felt. The representative of this was of course Milton Babbitt.


Poor Milt. Gets saddled with all sorts of strange ideas just because an editor at Musical America changed the title of one essay of Milt's. One. It's a good idea to read that essay for oneself.

All composers always have composed for themselves. All composers always have cared what people thought of their pieces.

As for pleasing audiences, I am a member of audiences, too. And I don't particularly like any of the people who are characterized as "audience-friendly." John _Coolidge_ Adams, Rautavaara, Danielpour, Higdon, Heggie and the like. I do particularly like people who have been characterized as difficult or noisy or just plain crap. Lachenmann, Karkowski, Lopez, Neumann, Otomo Yoshihide and the like.

The only way people in my second list could be called "unfriendly" is by marginalizing (by completely ignoring, more like!) the audiences who go to hear their music and who buy their CDs. By privileging the concert audiences who mostly have never even heard _of_ the people on my second list, much less heard.

The audience for old concert music by dead white men is simply not the only audience. Pretending that it is is just a cheap way to call the work of many recent and talented artists into question. Everyone writes for themselves. Of course. Everyone wants to be liked. Of course. Every contemporary composer demonized in internet forums has an audience of people who like his or her work.


----------



## Sid James

^^Yes, Babbitt was misrepresented & taken out of context. But in a wider sense, Adorno's view of the composer as being apart from the public in some sort of ivory tower did no good for contemporary or post 1945 music, imo. Also, that post-Holocaust generation's suspicion of anything emotional in music (in other words, any vestige of melody or "tonality") is now dead as a dodo (coming off the Nazi's manipulation of "tonal" music to use as part of their propaganda and big rallies, etc). That kind of ideology is like old, way old. They thought the composer shouldn't be tainted by any commercial interest or whatever but they were shooting new music in the foot. They're just as bad as the hard core conservatives imo, who are against anything newer than the pyramids.

What needs to be done is develop and reach out to the middle ground of listeners, which is most classical listeners. People like myself and a number of others here who don't go by ideology but by what we like, basically. Keeping the door open to things we're middling about, even a possibility to things we don't like or connect with at first.

The high priests at either side of the debate, radical or conservative (these are just labels of course), have done nothing for their respective causes, just alienate the middle ground, the majority.

That's my take on this, anyway...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> I do particularly like people who have been characterized as difficult or noisy or just plain crap. Lachenmann, Karkowski, Lopez, Neumann, Otomo Yoshihide and the like.


If any of the types of fringe composers are of those in the documentary clip I posted in my thread yesterday are of any sort of these standards to go by, then they should be able to accomplish this noisy goal.


----------



## Ravellian

someguy, do you keep a music blog? It might be interesting for us to hear your particular reasons for enjoying certain works, especially those by contemporary composers who are generally declared "difficult" or "noisy." If you could articulate your reasons a bit more, I might find your opinions more persuasive.


----------



## Guest

I doubt I could articulate why I like what I like any better than anyone else can.

I read a lot about music and very little of it matches what I hear when I listen to things. People report that Pettersson's symphonies, for instance, are dark and angst-ridden expressions of pain and suffering. None of that sounds like descriptions of music to me!! What I hear, what I think is intriguing about Pettersson, is how he seems to have made his pieces almost entirely out of what one might call second level activity. That first occurred to me when I was listening to Schubert's ninth and thinking if you took away the top level melodies and just left the accompaniment level of things, so to speak, you'd have something very like what Pettersson does.

So I suppose "obsessive" would be as close as I would get to "angst-ridden." And that's because what in another composer would be underpinning, support for the main ideas on top, is the whole thing for Pettersson. So while broadly "tonal," his pieces are unsettling (at first anyway), because they really don't seem to behave like tonal music.

Anyway, when I started listening to music, I liked Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky and Beethoven and Haydn. I added all the rest of the bigger names up until I heard Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. Then I started adding all the modern composers HC takes his childish pot shots at from time to time.

And I recently purchased the Opus 111 set of Monteverdi _Madrigals._ Wow.

So I like quite a lot of different things. I wouldn't know where to start!! I suppose I favor the quirky and asymmetrical. I know that in tonal music I like the transitions best, places where things change from one state to another. (That's what I like best about Schubert, the constant modulation.) I like noise--asynchronous sounds. Things with rich overtone series and the like. Random sounds, things that don't make a narrative but are just there, quietly (or noisily) being themselves. But I also like quite a lot of the 18th and 19th centuries as well. I suppose that it's most revealing of my own tastes that I like Berlioz over every other pre-20th century composer, but I like many of the others, too.

Does that help at all?

[I don't want to share too much about what I do professionally, as online I just want to be some guy.]


----------



## Ravellian

That gives a nice overview of your general taste, yes. You seem to have a favorable disposition to certain kinds of sounds - complex, random, ambiguous, constantly shifting. At least I know better where you're coming from.


----------



## starthrower

science said:


> Posts of information and explanation are fine; posts of insults are not, and as the saying goes a single fly ruins the broth.
> 
> I hate it when people like someguy, couchie, harpsichord concerto, and so on. It's not about what side of the question they're on - I really don't care what music they like - but about the attitude they adopt toward people who do not like the same music they do.


I've got no beef with some guy. His posts are filled with information/explanation, usually pointing out the flaws and lack of musical knowledge contained in other posts.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> [I don't want to share too much about what I do professionally, as online I just want to be some guy.]


Too late my friend I have a link to your thingy, but don't worry I will not tell :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:


----------



## Guest

Curses!!

Foiled again.


----------



## jhar26

Couchie said:


> The problem is that it's pretentious, isn't it? In fact, some of these pieces are so layered in pretentiousness that it's amazing the players aren't totally asphyxiated and die, right then and there.


I think one of the main problems that many have with atonal and/or avant-garde music is that they feel that it's too smart for it's own good. That it has brains but no soul. That it's an intellectual exercise or endurance test, but that it's impossible to get something out of it on a emotional level. I'm not saying that there's any truth in that, but I'm sure that this is a perception or prejudice that many have.


----------



## Polednice

We are all likely to say that there is a middle ground to be sought in prioritising the composer and prioritising the audience, but anyone who thinks that the audience is even slightly less important than the composer should read my post on p. 2 which most people ignored, probably because it's more than one paragraph long. 

In fact, just to see who actually cares about it, I might just make a new thread...


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> which most people ignored, probably because it's more than one paragraph long.


The problem with constructing any idea with the words "the audience" is that there is no such thing. No _one_ such thing. There are many audiences, as many audiences as there are musics. Saying "the" audience is to silently choose one of them and surreptitiously make it the only one.

That's how you get perceptions like jhar pointed out, that "atonal and/or avant-garde music is... too smart for it's own good. That it has brains but no soul. That it's an intellectual exercise or endurance test, but that it's impossible to get something out of it on a emotional level." So it doesn't matter when some people report, as they do, wearily and with a great sense of ineffectuality, that they _do_ get an emotional charge out of contemporary music, out of Carter or Ferneyhough or Boulez on the one hand or Karkowski or eRikm or Otomo Yoshihide on the other. Why? Because those people simply don't exist. They've been defined out of the picture. They are not part of "the" audience.

It's odd, when you think of it. In what other field are the experts viewed with such suspicion? Are viewed with suspicion precisely _because_ they are experts? How can Brian Greene know anything about string theory? Why, he's a _physicist_!! Of course, aficionadoes are not quite experts in the way that Greene is, but still. The people who know new music, who know it because they love it, because it fills their souls, are the very people who are traduced for having any sort of opinion about it at all. On TC alone, these people have been accused (jokingly--of course when cornered, the anti-moderns will pass off their incivility as jocularity) of having no taste, of being aliens, even of being morally bankrupt. (The moralists might be less inclined to take refuge in the "just being funny, you should lighten up" defense, I dunno. Couchie?)

I guess that is true for any marginalized group. Once a group has been marginalized, it needs to stay quiet or be accused of all sorts of heinous things. Any peep out of any member of such a group is seen as socially inept at the very least. Indeed, ironically enough, at the first peep the response is usually a chorus of complaints about how the peepers try to marginalize the haters! You know. You've seen it over and over again. "I don't have so much trouble with the music as such; it's the pompous, know-it-all attitude of the so-called proponents of it."

Well, I don't have so much trouble with string theory as with Greene's assumption that he knows more about it than I do.

But, oh well. Let the lovers of new music back into the conversation, and you have to deal with the palpable fact that new music of *every* type is beautiful and accessible and pleasing and satisfying and emotionally fulfilling. _And we can't have *that,* can we??_:lol::lol:


----------



## Polednice

That seemed like a lot of jargon and no substance to me. There is one audience - the people who listen to music - and the significance of music (and any art) is its reception amongst the audience as a social phenomenon.


----------



## NightHawk

And, of course, one person's beauty is another's beast. Listened to S.'s In Memoriam this morning - that 'valse' - too much.



starthrower said:


> Beauty is in the ear of the behearer. Music is about more than beauty anyway. It's an individual expression through art.


----------



## NightHawk

aleazk said:


> i have mixed feelings with this. Of course, music must go on and advance. But, sincerely, I HATE "conceptual" composers. In fact, i hate conceptual artists in general. I don't like them because there is an un-clear line between really interesting conceptual art and certain type of snobism. Crap artists take advantage of this to sell us their crap "art" as avant-gardism. For that reason, i have this, maybe, unfair reaction. But in every period we will have to deal with this. i suposse that the future will forget the bad and remember the good in today's art. i'm aware that i'm somewhat vague here, but i'm very disoriented right now with some things that are called "modern art", not only in music.


All good art is conceptual in my understanding (and I don't mean this as an instruction to you, in fact I may have misunderstood your post - it's only my personal idea) - I think composers, painters, writers, etc., _et al_ who are unable to 'abstract' their thoughts into a complete whole-ness before the Art Product is begun or completed end up writing academic, 'good' efforts, but nothing immortal. All art is abstract, and yes, there is a great deal of 'roll up your sleeves and get to work on the section that's giving you problems' behavior, but the problem is, in such a case, getting down on manuscript paper the music that fits the concept you had in the beginning... the music in your head. I certainly agree with you if your meaning is artists whose conceptualism is actually a form of charlatanism and they posture as if no one 'gets it'.


----------



## NightHawk

I read your post. Make a new thread, please.



Polednice said:


> We are all likely to say that there is a middle ground to be sought in prioritising the composer and prioritising the audience, but anyone who thinks that the audience is even slightly less important than the composer should read my post on p. 2 which most people ignored, probably because it's more than one paragraph long.
> 
> In fact, just to see who actually cares about it, I might just make a new thread...


----------



## aleazk

NightHawk said:


> All good art is conceptual in my understanding (and I don't mean this as an instruction to you, in fact I may have misunderstood your post - it's only my personal idea) - I think composers, painters, writers, etc., _et al_ who are unable to 'abstract' their thoughts into a complete whole-ness before the Art Product is begun or completed end up writing academic, 'good' efforts, but nothing immortal. All art is abstract, and yes, there is a great deal of 'roll up your sleeves and get to work on the section that's giving you problems' behavior, but the problem is, in such a case, getting down on manuscript paper the music that fits the concept you had in the beginning... the music in your head. *I certainly agree with you if your meaning is artists whose conceptualism is actually a form of charlatanism and they posture as if no one 'gets it'*.


yes, that was my point. Of course all good art is conceptual.


----------



## norman bates

i'd like to ask to those who are supporters of modern music as a whole what they think of artists like Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> The problem with constructing any idea with the words "the audience" is that there is no such thing. No _one_ such thing. There are many audiences, as many audiences as there are musics. Saying "the" audience is to silently choose one of them and surreptitiously make it the only one.


I think the term audience in this usage is both clear and useful as Polednice has pointed out. The audience is all classical music listeners. Saying "the" audience is to openly choose all listeners rather than restricting the term to some. That is how I have always thought of the generic term, and how I have always used it.



some guy said:


> That's how you get perceptions like jhar pointed out, that "atonal and/or avant-garde music is... too smart for it's own good. That it has brains but no soul. That it's an intellectual exercise or endurance test, but that it's impossible to get something out of it on a emotional level." So it doesn't matter when some people report, as they do, wearily and with a great sense of ineffectuality,
> 
> It's odd, when you think of it. In what other field are the experts viewed with such suspicion? Are viewed with suspicion precisely _because_ they are experts? How can Brian Greene know anything about string theory? Why, he's a _physicist_!! Of course, aficionadoes are not quite experts in the way that Greene is, but still.


I understand your point here and do sympathize with your feelings. I would slightly change jhar's quote to match the feelings I have seen people that I know exhibit towards some modern music.

"atonal and/or avant-garde music is... too difficult for me to easily get. That it seems like an intellectual exercise, and I don't get something out of it on a emotional level."

_They_ do not respond to the music. They respond to essentially all other classical music (Baroque, Classical, Romantic, perhaps some early 20th C depending on the person). Fair enough. Some people love it; others don't. AND I know the last statement is what you'd like to see people say. Of course at the present time, my friends and others who do not respond emotionally to avant-garde/atonal music are _the_ only experts on how _they_ respond to such music.



some guy said:


> Well, I don't have so much trouble with string theory as with Greene's assumption that he knows more about it than I do.


I assume you're joking. As a physicist, I believe that Greene knows much more than I do, but I also believe there are problems with String Theory (and so does he).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

It looks like this thread became an music/art theory discussion. I love!

Avante-Garde is definitely a product of musical revolutions that followed. All music has moved towards "liberation." I think it makes perfect sense that it came to this kind of end. Since the number of rules in music is finite, then breaking the rules is equally finite, and we've hit the point in history where people have achieved completely freedom from the ideas of rules in music. Although in my opinion, it's no longer a freedom but a new prison we have put ourselves into. Once all rules are broken, what do we do next? Make _new _rules then? That can only mean a revival of the past. And so that wouldn't be considered "innovative" technically.

But in the meantime, I'll leave with this: Let people love what they love, as well as hate what they hate, and let's celebrate the diversity of music we have. Instead of imposing our opinions on others, let's teach people to be critical thinkers about music, and figure out what it means for something to be good or bad to _them_. One may end up being entirely individual (though unlikely), or influenced by a person or a group of people. But those groups/schools of thought only formed because it was was evidence of something in common within their consciences, and that needs to be recognized. It's not an issue of "bias," it's just reality.


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Avante-Garde is definitely a product of musical revolutions that followed. All music has moved towards "liberation." I think it makes perfect sense that it came to this kind of end. Since the number of rules in music is finite, then breaking the rules is equally finite, and we've hit the point in history where people have achieved completely freedom from the ideas of rules in music. Although in my opinion, it's no longer a freedom but a new prison we have put ourselves into. Once all rules are broken, what do we do next? Make _new _rules then? That can only mean a revival of the past. And so that wouldn't be considered "innovative" technically.


This is an interesting point. It may have been Schumann (though it could have been anyone really) who said something to the effect that rules are important in order to direct your inspiration. Personally, I think few rules is good - equal temperament, standard acoustic instruments _etc._, it's all arbitrary. With fewer rules, we are limited only by our imagination. _However_, as well as the pure sonic pleasure of good music, I think a big part of well-structured music is a reliance on expectation and surprise. We need a frame of reference for what music usually is in order for someone to break our perceptions, surprise us, intrigue us, and make us appreciate 'good' innovation in a world where anyone can dream of anything and label it music. But without some rules, we do not know what to expect, and so in turn we can never be surprised.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> That seemed like a lot of jargon and no substance to me. There is one audience - the people who listen to music - and the significance of music (and any art) is its reception amongst the audience as a social phenomenon.


Ah, the dismissal school of conversation.

"Blah blah blah blah blah blah."

"Dismissed!"

Game over.

Anyway, you can be as dismissive as you want, but you're the one who started a conversation, so I'm going to stick around and converse.

There is palpably more than one audience. Even in "classical music," there are people who only (or largely) go to opera; there are chamber music fans, antient music fans, contemporary fans, symphony fans. There are some who go to all, but even those don't also go to country western concerts or death metal or rock and roll or pop or hip hop or whatever.

Saying there is only one audience is to ignore tastes and groupings of people with like tastes. It is to ignore that many people who go to chamber recitals hardly ever go to symphony concerts much less hip hop concerts. And none of the audiences for those three ever goes to an opera.

And while new music aficionadoes might venture into the concert hall, you will doubtless never find a symphony subscriber going to a turntable concert.

The only utility I can see to insisting on a single audience is to be able to exclude any music that does not please the people in that single audience. And if that single audience is really just the same old "symphony" crowd now redefined as "the people who listen to music," then it's intellectually dishonest to have done that. Bad enough to single out *an* audience to be *the* audience. Worse to pretend that that's not what you've done.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I assume you're joking. As a physicist, I believe that Greene knows much more than I do, but I also believe there are problems with String Theory (and so does he).


Indeed. A safe assumption to have made.


----------



## nefigah

I feel qualified to comment on this thread because I'm a big newbie to music in general, so I know all too well what it's like to experience something new and different 

You see, I'm worse off than many of you. When I came to this board, I saw many people raving about Mahler and recommending I check him out. I believe Mahler's 5th symphony was the third CD I purchased, after a recording of _The Four Seasons_ and _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_.  I didn't like it, and initially assumed there was something wrong with me. Then I progressed to more of a violadude-esque "challenge accepted" sort of stance, where I was going to learn more about music in general and Mahler in particular. Surely then I would like him! I ended up getting distracted with other pursuits, and nowadays I have adopted something closer to some guy's stance: you just kinda listen, and if any interest or desire appears, keep listening. That's not to say there's nothing to be gained by picking up a score or a textbook, but (for me at least) that probably won't make you suddenly "like" music you were _forcing yourself to listen to_ for whatever reason. I've stopped letting it worry me. Someone recommends something, sure I'll check it out. Maybe I'll like it and want more, maybe I'll shelve it. I have too much respect for many of you who have professed love for Mahler to simply label it as bad or not-my-thing and flee from it for the rest of my life.

I'll freely admit I didn't like the piece Violadude linked. Maybe I will someday or maybe I won't, but the fact that people like him enjoy it says something. I think perhaps some of us are more inclined toward or excited by new territory than others. Perhaps some guy went from Beethoven to Boulez as soon as he heard the latter. Perhaps for others of us, Beethoven sparked an interest in someone slightly different which eventually led to someone even more different. Perhaps some of us don't even like Beethoven  I don't think that makes some guy cooler or more elite than the next guy, and I would hope that he would agree. But by the same token I don't see any reason to call what he listens to morally reprehensible (as funny as I found that comment).

I dunno, maybe I feel this way because I'm the only person who likes art music amongst my friends and family. They say they don't get it or that it's boring, and go back to listening to what they've always listened to. I've found great joy in classical so far, so it's only natural that I'd like to share it with those I love and care about. I occasionally have small successes here and there-my mom really liked Bach's Air on the G string, my grandma liked Jussi Bjorling singing Puccini, my little brother picked out a WTC prelude to learn. But for the most part my attempts to share my passion are met with indifference or even criticism (the latter especially from my friends). And it hurts. I don't blame them for not seeing what I see, and their response doesn't lessen my opinion of the music. But it still hurts a bit and so I feel like I empathize with both "sides" of this thread.

Anyway, I know that was long and probably didn't really add anything, but I felt like I should say how I see it.


----------



## Guest

nefigah said:


> Perhaps some guy went from Beethoven to Boulez as soon as he heard the latter. Perhaps for others of us, Beethoven sparked an interest in someone slightly different which eventually led to someone even more different. Perhaps some of us don't even like Beethoven  I don't think that makes some guy cooler or more elite than the next guy, and I would hope that he would agree.


I agree.


nefigah said:


> But by the same token I don't see any reason to call what he listens to morally reprehensible (as funny as I found that comment).


I too was amused!



nefigah said:


> I've found great joy in classical so far, so it's only natural that I'd like to share it with those I love and care about.


Boy howdy!!



nefigah said:


> Anyway, I know that was long and probably didn't really add anything, but I felt like I should say how I see it.


It was most delightful and most welcome, and I'm glad you wrote this.:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

*@nefigah* You are right in what you have posted in the end it boils down to taste e,g I have good taste and some guy has not :devil:


----------



## violadude

nefigah said:


> I feel qualified to comment on this thread because I'm a big newbie to music in general, so I know all too well what it's like to experience something new and different
> 
> You see, I'm worse off than many of you. When I came to this board, I saw many people raving about Mahler and recommending I check him out. I believe Mahler's 5th symphony was the third CD I purchased, after a recording of _The Four Seasons_ and _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_.  I didn't like it, and initially assumed there was something wrong with me. Then I progressed to more of a violadude-esque "challenge accepted" sort of stance, where I was going to learn more about music in general and Mahler in particular. Surely then I would like him! I ended up getting distracted with other pursuits, and nowadays I have adopted something closer to some guy's stance: you just kinda listen, and if any interest or desire appears, keep listening. That's not to say there's nothing to be gained by picking up a score or a textbook, but (for me at least) that probably won't make you suddenly "like" music you were _forcing yourself to listen to_ for whatever reason. I've stopped letting it worry me. Someone recommends something, sure I'll check it out. Maybe I'll like it and want more, maybe I'll shelve it. I have too much respect for many of you who have professed love for Mahler to simply label it as bad or not-my-thing and flee from it for the rest of my life.
> 
> I'll freely admit I didn't like the piece Violadude linked. Maybe I will someday or maybe I won't, but the fact that people like him enjoy it says something. I think perhaps some of us are more inclined toward or excited by new territory than others. Perhaps some guy went from Beethoven to Boulez as soon as he heard the latter. Perhaps for others of us, Beethoven sparked an interest in someone slightly different which eventually led to someone even more different. Perhaps some of us don't even like Beethoven  I don't think that makes some guy cooler or more elite than the next guy, and I would hope that he would agree. But by the same token I don't see any reason to call what he listens to morally reprehensible (as funny as I found that comment).
> 
> I dunno, maybe I feel this way because I'm the only person who likes art music amongst my friends and family. They say they don't get it or that it's boring, and go back to listening to what they've always listened to. I've found great joy in classical so far, so it's only natural that I'd like to share it with those I love and care about. I occasionally have small successes here and there-my mom really liked Bach's Air on the G string, my grandma liked Jussi Bjorling singing Puccini, my little brother picked out a WTC prelude to learn. But for the most part my attempts to share my passion are met with indifference or even criticism (the latter especially from my friends). And it hurts. I don't blame them for not seeing what I see, and their response doesn't lessen my opinion of the music. But it still hurts a bit and so I feel like I empathize with both "sides" of this thread.
> 
> Anyway, I know that was long and probably didn't really add anything, but I felt like I should say how I see it.


Congrats Nefigah! This is one out of a handful of the most reasonable posts I've seen from "the other side" so to speak.  Thank you for that.


----------



## mmsbls

nefigah said:


> I think perhaps some of us are more inclined toward or excited by new territory than others.


I agree strongly with this view. I believe it applies not just in music but in general behavior. There are people who feel much more comfortable taking risks. There are adventurous types and those who generally shy away from such behavior. There are people who are simply more attracted to new things - new food, new cultures, new experiences, and new music. A significant part of the attraction is the novelty.

This behavioral trait certainly must play a role in people's decision to listen to new music. There are clearly many classical music listeners who just won't go there. Others are strongly attracted to the "new". I don't know exactly what role the trait plays in enjoying new music, but I suspect it might be significant.


----------



## starthrower

I can't agree with that assumption. I'm an adventurous music listener, but I'm not a general thrill seeker. It has nothing to do with novelty or new music. It has everything to do with the sound and content of the composition. I like modern rhythms and harmonies. But they've been around for over a hundred years now.


----------



## Sid James

starthrower said:


> ...I like modern rhythms and harmonies. But they've been around for over a hundred years now.


As I said here or on another thread. Some people's taste or thinking regarding music is back in 1911. Or 1811, or 1711, etc.

I'm fine with that as long as they're fine with where I am, which is basically in the present, 2011.

I think the worst way to think of all this is to talk down to people like some high priest of whatever type of music you like, or suggest that there is a problem if their taste or "place" in the listening spectrum is different from yours.

Of course, good and bad things come from people in all of the different spectrums. People who's taste is in 2011 can be as good or bad or in-between as those "in" 1611 or whatever.

It basically all boils down to ATTITUDE, not necessarily what you do or don't listen to. In the end it's all just music, whether old or new...


----------



## starthrower

I agree, Sid. Everybody has different tastes, and that's what makes life interesting. I enjoy a fair amount of older music as well. I just don't care for polite music. I like something with a bit of substance and depth.

I'm just getting into string quartets in the past year. I know Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are the giants and pioneers of this art form, but I can't get into the sound of it. I'm sure it sounded incredible 200 years ago, but I can't listen to it. I know it's my loss, but that's my taste. I need something a little more contemporary sounding.


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> I agree, Sid. Everybody has different tastes, and that's what makes life interesting. I enjoy a fair amount of older music as well. I just don't care for polite music. I like something with a bit of substance and depth.
> 
> I'm just getting into string quartets in the past year. I know Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are the giants and pioneers of this art form, but I can't get into the sound of it. I'm sure it sounded incredible 200 years ago, but I can't listen to it. I know it's my loss, but that's my taste. I need something a little more contemporary sounding.


Some of Beethoven's quartets sound pretty contemporary actually.


----------



## starthrower

violadude said:


> Some of Beethoven's quartets sound pretty contemporary actually.


If you can point me towards the right ones, I'll give them a listen. Beethoven was one of my first loves when I first got into classical music almost 30 years ago.


----------



## Sid James

*@ starthrower *- It's best you start with the era you like the most - eg. modern/new music - with regards to SQ's or anything else. There is no need to go back to the wigs or whoever. It's all up to you. I don't want to divert this thread, I will PM you shortly. WE can continue there.

But overall for this thread, nobody needs to justify what they're listening to, imo. Or their taste, preference, etc. If someone likes something, it's got meaning for them, it's relevant to their life, and that's good for them, etc. No need to feel guilty about it, etc...


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> If you can point me towards the right ones, I'll give them a listen. Beethoven was one of my first loves when I first got into classical music almost 30 years ago.


I'm guessing you've heard the Grosse Fugue...? Perhaps? That is the most contemporary sounding piece of his I can think of. #15 has some pretty striking sounding parts, especially the middle section of the 2nd movement and parts of the 3rd movement. One of the variations of the c# minor quartet was pretty strange sounding as I remember.


----------



## violadude

Sid James said:


> *@ starthrower *- It's best you start with the era you like the most - eg. modern/new music - with regards to SQ's or anything else. There is no need to go back to the wigs or whoever. It's all up to you. I don't want to divert this thread, I will PM you shortly. WE can continue there.
> 
> But overall for this thread, nobody needs to justify what they're listening to, imo. Or their taste, preference, etc. If someone likes something, it's got meaning for them, it's relevant to their life, and that's good for them, etc.* No need to feel guilty about it, etc.*..


And I'd add to that no need for the composer not to have composed it!  At least a few people enjoy it.


----------



## starthrower

Sid James said:


> *
> But overall for this thread, nobody needs to justify what they're listening to, imo. Or their taste, preference, etc. If someone likes something, it's got meaning for them, it's relevant to their life, and that's good for them, etc. No need to feel guilty about it, etc...*


*

Of course! Hey, in real life nobody gives a damn! But we just like to have our little discussions here on the forum.

I don't understand why anyone would be preoccupied with trying to like atonal/12 tone music anyway? I've never even approached music that way. I either enjoy a piece of music or I don't. I don't care if it's tonal or not.*


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> Of course! Hey, in real life nobody gives a damn! But we just like to have our little discussions here on the forum.
> 
> I don't understand why anyone would be preoccupied with trying to like atonal/12 tone music anyway? I've never even approached music that way. I either enjoy a piece of music or I don't. I don't care if it's tonal or not.


I think people feel that if a large group of people enjoy something, there must be something substantial to it that they are missing so they want to feel what that is. Also, if you don't like atonal music, but then you do someday, that opens up a whole new genre of music to explore and that can be really exciting.


----------



## Sid James

starthrower said:


> ...I don't understand why anyone would be preoccupied with trying to like atonal/12 tone music anyway? I've never even approached music that way. I either enjoy a piece of music or I don't. I don't care if it's tonal or not.


I agree. When I first heard my first "atonal" piece, _Wozzeck_, in my teens, I didn't know much about atonality, etc. My experience with it listening wise was basically zilch until then. Yet this work, upon the first listen, grabbed me to the max! I don't think I cared then or as I don't now (same as you) whether something's atonal, or tonal, microtonal, ambitonal, progressively tonal, diatonic, chromatic, etc. These are just labels and technical things. For composers, they're like a toolkit, they have to know these in-depth. And then some.

But I agree, with that first experience of Berg's music, it just grabbed me on so many levels. Same with "tonaL" composers, the first time I heard them. Same with things new to me today. It's a visceral "gut" reaction often. That's what these meaningless generalisations about "contemporary classical music" leave out. It's all about experience for me, that's basically it in a nutshell, that's what matters, the here and now as people said above...


----------



## starthrower

I was wondering about the harmonies while I was listening to my Berg EMI set the past few days. The only piece I found a bit rough going was the Lyric Suite. I believe it's a 12 tone string quartet? But something like the Lulu Suite is so easy to like. I also love the 3 Orchestral Pieces, and the song cycle. I suppose these other works employ some more conventional harmonies, or mix things up a bit?


----------



## starthrower

That's interesting! We were both posting about Berg at the same time!


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> I was wondering about the harmonies while I was listening to my Berg EMI set the past few days. The only piece I found a bit rough going was the Lyric Suite. I believe it's a 12 tone string quartet? But something like the Lulu Suite is so easy to like. I also love the 3 Orchestral Pieces, and the song cycle. I suppose these other works employ some more conventional harmonies, or mix things up a bit?


Quite a lot of people have trouble with the lyric suite at first. You're not alone 

On the other hand, I believe most people struggle quite a bit with Lulu, so you're back to being alone


----------



## starthrower

violadude said:


> I'm guessing you've heard the Grosse Fugue...? Perhaps? That is the most contemporary sounding piece of his I can think of. #15 has some pretty striking sounding parts, especially the middle section of the 2nd movement and parts of the 3rd movement. One of the variations of the c# minor quartet was pretty strange sounding as I remember.


I've probably heard it but don't remember. I'll try it again some time.


----------



## starthrower

violadude said:


> Quite a lot of people have trouble with the lyric suite at first. You're not alone
> 
> On the other hand, I believe most people struggle quite a bit with Lulu, so you're back to being alone


Heh, Heh! I'm a loner anyway! I'll keep working on the Lyric Suite. It most likely contains more genius than my feeble brain can process easily.


----------



## Guest

Sid James said:


> .
> 
> It basically all boils down to ATTITUDE, not necessarily what you do or don't listen to. In the end it's all just music, whether old or new...


I think you may have the wrong word Sid at least for some of us I have tried and tried over the last 40-50 years to find some enjoyment in so called avant garde music but just find none at all, so I suggest it is not my attitude just simply my taste or preference in music and I will add that I do not have the same problem with "Art" although I am only a novice in that field. also just for the record I prefer your previous avatar lol
*@starthrower * I do hope you persevere with St Qts they are IMO the best form of classical instrumental music in particular Beethoven also Shostakovich


----------



## Sid James

Andante said:


> I think you may have the wrong word Sid at least for some of us I have tried and tried over the last 40-50 years to find some enjoyment in so called avant garde music but just find none at all, so I suggest it is not my attitude just simply my taste or preference in music and I will add that I do not have the same problem with "Art" although I am only a novice in that field...


I was trying to say that you don't have to enjoy or listen to the music I enjoy. You can listen to anything you want, basically. All I'm interested is people as people. Eg. if they have positive or reasonable attitude to things in general. That's more important to me than what you listen to.

Of course, on a music forum, what you do or don't listen to is of importance, but I'm trying to cut through that here a bit, get to the heart of the matter. Which is simply music, a love of any music which binds us all, and sometimes it can be the same piece or even the same recording.

Not trying to sound too kind of like some life coach like Anthony Robbins here, but I hope you get my point.



> ...
> also just for the record I prefer your previous avatar lol...


Do you mean the saltwater crocodile one?...


----------



## Polednice

Still catching up, but @someguy, you're making things far too complicated by using all these different sub-groupings of audiences.

It may interest you to know that by "_the_ audience" I do not mean the usual "symphony crowd" so that I can slyly dismiss modern music that this group generally dislikes. By _THE_ audience, I mean to say _every person on this planet who listens to music_. Viewing music as a social art-form means that we have to consider its effect on _all_ people of _every_ taste. This is why I stated on a previous page in response to starthrower (I think) that, yes, Lady Ga Ga is more significant than Boulez or whoever else. It doesn't matter if she isn't as challenging, innovative, and all-round clever - her reach is greater; she affects more people (with some quite political songs, by the way), and so is more significant.

_THE audience_ = people who exist.


----------



## Polednice

mmsbls said:


> I agree strongly with this view. I believe it applies not just in music but in general behavior. There are people who feel much more comfortable taking risks. There are adventurous types and those who generally shy away from such behavior. There are people who are simply more attracted to new things - new food, new cultures, new experiences, and new music. A significant part of the attraction is the novelty.
> 
> This behavioral trait certainly must play a role in people's decision to listen to new music. There are clearly many classical music listeners who just won't go there. Others are strongly attracted to the "new". I don't know exactly what role the trait plays in enjoying new music, but I suspect it might be significant.


In line with this, I find that a contradiction often encountered is the view that we all have our individual tastes, but you _can_ like X music if you just _try_. Well perhaps certain people just _can't_. Perhaps due to whatever complex mixture of innate brain structures and cultural conditioning, it is simply not possible for a person to like X music. Of course that doesn't mean that X is bad, but it _does_ mean that people shouldn't be so patronising as to say it's an attitude problem.

EDIT: Just as an example, there are many dedicated fans of classical music who may never like Brahms. It's not an attitude problem, it's not a problem of exposure - it's a matter of taste and however that taste came to be. No amount of desperate trying and attitude shifting is going make that person have an epiphany about Brahms's music. It just doesn't suit their brain. Equally, that doesn't mean that they will then go on to say that Brahms's music is crap.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> ...people shouldn't be so patronising as to say it's an attitude problem.


A subtle and thus extremely dangerous distortion of my point about attitude.

Granted that some people will find certain musics impossible to like. But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about barriers to enjoying twentieth century avant garde music. And how to break those barriers down.

One solution often propounded is to listen more. The idea being that familiarity breeds pleasure. But we've all seen people beat their heads against modern music (or at least who claim to have done so, which might not be the same thing) without ever coming to like it. Of course for people who simply cannot, there is nothing more to be said. That's why I never factor those people into a discussion about breaking down barriers. What are the breakable things is the real issue, not that there are some things (for some people) that are unbreakable.

And so I have proposed that one's attitude is key. If one's attitude towards avant garde classical is negative, then no amount of listening over and over again to things will do any good. Indeed, multiple listenings are likely to just reinforce the negative conclusions already held. If something can be done about certain attitudes about modern music, then enjoyment will follow pretty easily. Multiple listenings will not be necessary any more, simply desirable. To that end, I have often resorted to anecdotal evidence. To claims that modern music is emotionless or difficult or ugly, I have pointed out that there are people, myself included, who find it to be quite satisfying, easy, and beautiful.

The opposition is then free to counter with personal aspersions, but at that point the goal is no longer to share one's joy in music but to defend oneself against attacks. And that's not as interesting as talking about music, I don't think. In any case, the impulse to counter is continuing evidence that the old attitudes are still firmly in place, that personal experience with the avant garde that's positive is going to be dismissed.

Further I cannot say. Once one gets to that point in the conversation, it's time to stop.

There are always new people with concerns about new music. And one is very easily seduced into getting into the conversation again with the new people. (When I say "one," you know I mean "I," right?)


----------



## Conor71

Polednice said:


> In line with this, I find that a contradiction often encountered is the view that we all have our individual tastes, but you _can_ like X music if you just _try_. Well perhaps certain people just _can't_. Perhaps due to whatever complex mixture of innate brain structures and cultural conditioning, it is simply not possible for a person to like X music. Of course that doesn't mean that X is bad, but it _does_ mean that people shouldn't be so patronising as to say it's an attitude problem.
> 
> EDIT: Just as an example, there are many dedicated fans of classical music who may never like Brahms. It's not an attitude problem, it's not a problem of exposure - it's a matter of taste and however that taste came to be. No amount of desperate trying and attitude shifting is going make that person have an epiphany about Brahms's music. It just doesn't suit their brain. Equally, that doesn't mean that they will then go on to say that Brahms's music is crap.


Disagree with this... One only needs to show good will to a piece of "music" for it to be appreciated on some level.
I dont think its necessarily a problem in how our brains may be hard-wired - Human beings are adabtable creatures: Most people are a lot more flexible in their attitudes and taste than they give themselves credit for!


----------



## Conor71

some guy said:


> A subtle and thus extremely dangerous distortion of my point about attitude.
> 
> Granted that some people will find certain musics impossible to like. But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about barriers to enjoying twentieth century avant garde music. And how to break those barriers down.
> 
> One solution often propounded is to listen more. The idea being that familiarity breeds pleasure. But we've all seen people beat their heads against modern music (or at least who claim to have done so, which might not be the same thing) without ever coming to like it. Of course for people who simply cannot, there is nothing more to be said. That's why I never factor those people into a discussion about breaking down barriers. What are the breakable things is the real issue, not that there are some things (for some people) that are unbreakable.
> 
> *And so I have proposed that one's attitude is key. If one's attitude towards avant garde classical is negative, then no amount of listening over and over again to things will do any good. Indeed, multiple listenings are likely to just reinforce the negative conclusions already held. If something can be done about certain attitudes about modern music, then enjoyment will follow pretty easily. Multiple listenings will not be necessary any more, simply desirable. To that end, I have often resorted to anecdotal evidence. To claims that modern music is emotionless or difficult or ugly, I have pointed out that there are people, myself included, who find it to be quite satisfying, easy, and beautiful.*
> 
> The opposition is then free to counter with personal aspersions, but at that point the goal is no longer to share one's joy in music but to defend oneself against attacks. And that's not as interesting as talking about music, I don't think. In any case, the impulse to counter is continuing evidence that the old attitudes are still firmly in place, that personal experience with the avant garde that's positive is going to be dismissed.
> 
> Further I cannot say. Once one gets to that point in the conversation, it's time to stop.
> 
> There are always new people with concerns about new music. And one is very easily seduced into getting into the conversation again with the new people. (When I say "one," you know I mean "I," right?)


This is a lot more plausible than what has previously been suggested..


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> To claims that modern music is emotionless or difficult or ugly, I have pointed out that there are people, myself included, who find it to be quite satisfying, easy, and beautiful.


and there are also people who find some of it beautiful and some ugly and pretentious. I don't think that to say that if one don't like one piece of music is just because he has prejudices or he hasn't listened enough is a good service to modern music. Like in every field, there's good art and bad art. There's Matisse and there's Jeff Koons, you rightly say that avantgarde is not a category but then "if you don't like is because you don't want to like it". 
What about Kyle Gann?

http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2010/09/academie_doverrated.html

He thinks that Schoenberg is absolutely overrated, and he's a lover of a lot of avantgarde and he know it perfectly. Now, this is just his opinion, but he certainly know what he's talking about and he certainly doesn't have a biased opinion on it. Just an example of what i'm saying.


----------



## Sid James

^^ Interesting article by Mr. Gann. I can attest that from my contact of people in the music industry, not all of them like Schoenberg's music. Showing a cd I got of Schoenberg to a musician acquaintance, he said that I might find it kind of wierd. This was recently, not in the dark ages or anything of the sort. But I don't think Schoenberg is overrated just not as much liked as say other c20th composers, eg. Stravinsky, Holst, maybe Bartok. Shostakovich no because a number of people I know find him kind of too morbid or dark, etc.

But let's face it, part of the reasons people "like" certain c20th composers is that they are showing the face or just saying they like them in order not to look the jurassics they may well be. Eg. wouldn't you think that if someone said the _Rite of Spring _was jangled noise that their mind was like back in 1911 or even 1811? If you say you don't "get" Stravinsky you won't get much sympathy from anyone, but if you say the same about Schoenberg more people will be inclined to agree, and the more zealot ones will join you and encourage you to start the mudslinging.

But with your first paragraph, I basically agree, there will be mixed opinions on various pieces of music. Eg. some of Boulez's music has grabbed me as being direct and very effective at doing whatever he sets out to do, but others it's too complex and goes above my head. & I don't see myself as a dunce or not giving that music a chance. I think this is all about balance and common sense, as your first paragraph seems to suggest...


----------



## norman bates

Sid James said:


> ^^ Interesting article by Mr. Gann. I can attest that from my contact of people in the music industry, not all of them like Schoenberg's music. Showing a cd I got of Schoenberg to a musician acquaintance, he said that I might find it kind of wierd. This was recently, not in the dark ages or anything of the sort. But I don't think Schoenberg is overrated just not as much liked as say other c20th composers, eg. Stravinsky, Holst, maybe Bartok. Shostakovich no because a number of people I know find him kind of too morbid or dark, etc.
> 
> But let's face it, part of the reasons people "like" certain c20th composers is that they are showing the face or just saying they like them in order not to look the jurassics they may well be. Eg. wouldn't you think that if someone said the _Rite of Spring _was jangled noise that their mind was like back in 1911 or even 1811? If you say you don't "get" Stravinsky you won't get much sympathy from anyone, but if you say the same about Schoenberg more people will be inclined to agree, and the more zealot ones will join you and encourage you to start the mudslinging.


yes, that's true. I'd like to add that unlike Mr.Gann i think that Pierrot lunaire is a great work (and i'd say the same for A survivor from Warsaw, i like his vocal music). But what's it's important to me is that to say "you don't get it because you don't listen to it enough" it's not a way to encourage someone to change his mind. I think it's better to stop listening to that composer and try with another. Or just stop listening to that piece and try with another of the same composer.



Sid James said:


> But with your first paragraph, I basically agree, there will be mixed opinions on various pieces of music. Eg. some of Boulez's music has grabbed me as being direct and very effective at doing whatever he sets out to do, but others it's too complex and goes above my head. & I don't see myself as a dunce or not giving that music a chance. I think this is all about balance and common sense, as your first paragraph seems to suggest...


about Boulez, actually i've pointed to his Structures because it's a piece that i think is pretentious and i know also why i think so. I don't want to say that the whole work of a composer it's the same. But that particular piece is an example of a mentality that consider originality the most important artistic value. Is "Structures" totally unlistenable? For a human ear (even to the ears of Xenakis and Ligeti) it sounds like a mess? For the young Boulez it didn't matter, because it was an original piece. 
But i know that there's also great modern music so it's useless to reduce all to traditionalists against modernists.


----------



## Polednice

@someguy: on your exposition of what you mean by changing attitude, I think I should repeat my request for you to address mmsbls directly on this. mmsbls is someone who has quite obviously dedicated time to certain 20th century music, _wanting_ to like it and see what's good in it, but has still failed. Where is the negativity to be changed in that attitude?

@Conor71: I think it's a little fanciful to say you just have to show good will towards a piece of music and then it can be appreciated. This is a tired old defence, "it's not the music's fault, music _cant_ be bad, it's _you_." Again, I think this is fundamentally incompatible with accepting that personal taste exists. If we all have individual tastes, then we simply _can't_ like any piece of music that we show good will towards. Some things are pleasing, others aren't. And yes we are adaptable, but we have our limitations which we ought to acknowledge.


----------



## starthrower

Too much nerdy intellectualizing going on here. Can't people enjoy listening without thinking so much? What should be an edifying experience is being turned into a science project.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> Too much nerdy intellectualizing going on here. Can't people enjoy listening without thinking so much? What should be an edifying experience is being turned into a science project.


The intellectualism can be obtuse and hard to follow at times, but I do think it is an interesting and useful pursuit in its own right. I enjoy listening without thinking a lot of the time, but I also like thinking at other times. It's a bit wooly to say that we shouldn't or can't intellectualise these things.


----------



## Ukko

Originally Posted by starthrower
Too much nerdy intellectualizing going on here. Can't people enjoy listening without thinking so much? What should be an edifying experience is being turned into a science project.



Polednice said:


> The intellectualism can be obtuse and hard to follow at times, but I do think it is an interesting and useful pursuit in its own right. I enjoy listening without thinking a lot of the time, but I also like thinking at other times. It's a bit wooly to say that we shouldn't or can't intellectualise these things.


I suppose it is "an interesting and useful pursuit _in its own right_" (emphasis mine). There may may no useful way to _discuss_ music much beyond the 'I like it' level without doing so.

My point (and maybe _starthrower_'s) is that if the music _must_ be discussed to be appreciated, it is intrinsically different from music that doesn't need discussion. Bernstein's and Schiff's lectures not withstanding.


----------



## starthrower

I didn't say can't or shouldn't, but ultimately one has to get on with the pleasure of listening unencumbered by too much thinking.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> I didn't say can't or shouldn't, but ultimately one has to get on with the pleasure of listening unencumbered by too much thinking.


I don't think there's any evidence that the people in this thread aren't also just getting on with the pleasure of music.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> But what's... important to me is that to say "you don't get it because you don't listen to it enough" it's not a way to encourage someone to change his mind. I think it's better to stop listening to that composer and try with another. Or just stop listening to that piece and try with another of the same composer.


My point.



norman bates said:


> about Boulez, actually i've pointed to his Structures because it's a piece that i think is pretentious and i know also why i think so. I don't want to say that the whole work of a composer it's the same. But that particular piece is an example of a mentality that consider originality the most important artistic value. Is "Structures" totally unlistenable? For a human ear (even to the ears of Xenakis and Ligeti) it sounds like a mess? For the young Boulez it didn't matter, because it was an original piece.


My ears are human ears. (No, really. They are!) What I hear when I listen to _Structures_ is a very charming piece, easy to listen to and enjoy. For several decades, I knew about Boulez' music without liking it. But there's a line.

I crossed that line with Scelsi. I so disliked a piano piece of his I heard in the early 80s that I actually thought (and sometimes said) that he was just a terrible composer, that his music was worthless. And I, like Kyle, am a very careful and sympathetic listener to contemporary music. And I am even, unlike Kyle, free from the kinds of chauvinisms that bedevil even the world of new music. (It's simply no good to quote new music people about new music. That world is splintered into several factions and the proponents of one splinter are likely to sound just as prejudiced and blinkered about another splinter as anti-moderns sound about all of contemporary music.)

But even I found Scelsi so distasteful that I concluded he was a crap composer.

Around twenty years later, I found out I had been wrong. And now every listen to every Scelsi CD I own, every concert with a Scelsi piece on it, makes me eat my words.

Some people enjoy magisterial pronouncements on this or that piece or this or that type of music. (I'm not thinking of you, norman, just by the way.) But I have found too often, to my shame, that approaching music like that just isn't very useful and can be downright embarrassing. But then, people who enjoy magisterial pronouncements have no shame.:lol:

(Hmmm, maybe this whole situation IS a moral one.)


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> My point.
> 
> My ears are human ears. (No, really. They are!) What I hear when I listen to _Structures_ is a very charming piece, easy to listen to and enjoy.


i've asked another time and i don't remember an answer: is there any modern/avantgarde composition that you don't like now for a reason or another? Or do you think that all in art has exactly the same value?
Personally i think that many ugly pieces have something that is interesting. Said that, i know that there's a huge difference from Les demoiselles d'avignon and the shark of damien hirst. So for the music.

About Scelsi; i don't think that him like anybody else has composed only great music. He has his masterpieces but he has composed also music that is less interesting (and i remember an horrible piece for guitar, though now i don't remember the title)


----------



## Conor71

Polednice said:


> @Conor71: I think it's a little fanciful to say you just have to show good will towards a piece of music and then it can be appreciated. This is a tired old defence, "it's not the music's fault, music _cant_ be bad, it's _you_." Again, I think this is fundamentally incompatible with accepting that personal taste exists. If we all have individual tastes, then we simply _can't_ like any piece of music that we show good will towards. Some things are pleasing, others aren't. And yes we are adaptable, but we have our limitations which we ought to acknowledge.


I did'nt suggest ones attitude could suddenly change overnight! - it might change as a natural progression over a number of years for instance. Ones limitations are self imposed and self perpetuated - I would actually suggest that they can be stretched or pushed a lot further than what people are willing to admit.
You can start appreciating modern music for instance any time you like! - thats not to say you have to or will like modern music straight away however.


----------



## Polednice

Conor71 said:


> Ones limitations are self imposed and self perpetuated - I would actually suggest that they can be stretched or pushed a lot further than what people are willing to admit.


I agree with this, but not _all_ of our limitations are self-imposed. Immerse yourself for an hour in the neuroscience of music, and then come and tell me that those are limitations you can change.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> i've asked another time and i don't remember an answer: is there any modern/avantgarde composition that you don't like now for a reason or another?


And I don't remember answering, though I have said before, somewhere, that there are tons of modern/avant garde compositions that I don't like. I never jump from "I don't like this piece" or even from "I don't like these pieces/composers" to "I don't like modern music." So I've probably only mentioned that I dislike certain things in that context.

Otherwise, I don't find negative assessments as useful as positive ones. That's something Polednice and others are struggling with on another thread. "If there's no bad, then there's no good, either." As if goodness and badness depend on each other. As if the words "good" and "bad" describe intrinsic qualities of the pieces themselves, regardless of whether anyone's listening to the pieces or not. Far as I can see, negative assessments shut the door. Positive ones open doors. Closed doors have their uses, of course, but ingress and egress are much simpler through doors that are open.



norman bates said:


> Or do you think that all in art has exactly the same value?


If you had read any of my posts, you would already know the answer to this. But for me to expect that you had done so before conversing with you would be kinda silly, eh? So I'll answer this again, with apologies to people who know what's coming next!

I think first of all that the question is invalid. That is, "value" is not a quality of anything, it is a judgment, an assessment. That judgment is of course based on the thing's qualities, or _should_ be, anyway! But an evaluation is a different kind of thing from a quality. "This room is messy," is a conclusion not a fact. The facts are that the bed is unmade, there are dirty clothes on the floor, the rug is unvacuumed, there is dust on every horizontal surface. In that scenario, the relationship between the facts and the conclusion are pretty close; no one's likely to dispute it. In these discussions about music, however, the relationships between facts and conclusions are not as close, or are, at least, eminently disputable.

That's because when we are talking about music (or any art, for that matter), we are talking (whether we acknowledge it or not) about the relationship between the sounds (objects) and a listener (observer). And all the "value" things are located in the relationship. They are not in the pieces themselves (can music be either "good" or "bad"? as one thread asks) *nor* in the listeners (as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" would have it), but in the relationship. To ask if a piece has any value is to miss the point entirely. Pieces have things like duration and dynamics and tempi. Those things can stimulate the emotions of a listener, and each listener has different levels of experience and sympathy and perception, so it might make more sense to ask if all listeners have exactly the same value.


----------



## Conor71

Polednice said:


> I agree with this, but not _all_ of our limitations are self-imposed. Immerse yourself for an hour in the neuroscience of music, and then come and tell me that those are limitations you can change.


You've seen the movie Gattacca right?
Maybe youre right! I am being fanciful!


----------



## mmsbls

Is it possible that some of us have differing definitions of "attitude"?

As an example when I was young, I really wanted to like pizza (for various reasons), but I could not eat more than a couple of bites. After several years I did like pizza and always ate a lot. I would say my attitude remained the same, but my behavioral response changed. Would anyone here say my attitude changed as well?

As I have said, everyone I know personally who likes atonal music has said they had to work (listen carefully, etc.) to like it. Would anyone say their attitude changed when they began to like it?



Conor71 said:


> Ones limitations are self imposed and self perpetuated - I would actually suggest that they can be stretched or pushed a lot further than what people are willing to admit. You can start appreciating modern music for instance any time you like! - thats not to say you have to or will like modern music straight away however.


When you use the word, "appreciating", do you mean "enjoying" or something like "recognizing the quality, significance". If the former, I would _LOVE_ to know how. If the latter, I agree.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls,

With few exceptions, I never had to work to enjoy any of the musics I enjoy. Or if I did work, I was not aware of the effort. I was only aware of the enjoyment.

If _I_ mean "enjoy" then I use the word "enjoy." Usually! I use the word appreciate to mean something not quite as direct or visceral as enjoy. I'm keen to find out how Conor71 responds, though.

As for Conor71's quote of Polednice, where did you find that? I looked all over for it. Maybe these new glasses of mine need adjusting. (An _attitude_ adjustment!)

Anyway, I would like to say that I have spent well over one hour's worth of time in the neuroscience of music and have corresponded with a neuroscientist about how he and his colleagues use such a narrow definition of music in their researches and about how they always assume the definition of music, never defining it explicitly. He pled guilty to the first charge and talked at length about how he has been trying out experiments with other musics besides nineteenth century European tonal ones. At such length he maybe forgot to answer the second charge.

The limitations Polednice are sure cannot be changed are things that simply do not exist for some of us. Not sure about this, of course, as the quote does not include any specifics Polednice may have mentioned. Some frequencies cannot be heard by human ears, I know that's an unchangable limitation. But I feel sure that that's not the kind of thing Polednice is referring to.


----------



## Conor71

mmsbls said:


> Is it possible that some of us have differing definitions of "attitude"?
> 
> As an example when I was young, I really wanted to like pizza (for various reasons), but I could not eat more than a couple of bites. After several years I did like pizza and always ate a lot. I would say my attitude remained the same, but my behavioral response changed. Would anyone here say my attitude changed as well?
> 
> As I have said, everyone I know personally who likes atonal music has said they had to work (listen carefully, etc.) to like it. Would anyone say their attitude changed when they began to like it?
> 
> When you use the word, "appreciating", do you mean "enjoying" or something like "recognizing the quality, significance". If the former, I would _LOVE_ to know how. If the latter, I agree.


Yes I mean the latter


----------



## Polednice

some guy said:


> The limitations Polednice are sure cannot be changed are things that simply do not exist for some of us. Not sure about this, of course, as the quote does not include any specifics Polednice may have mentioned. Some frequencies cannot be heard by human ears, I know that's an unchangable limitation. But I feel sure that that's not the kind of thing Polednice is referring to.


Those are actually the very things I am referring to. We don't know all of our limitations, but we sure as hell have many limitations as determined by our brain structures. I'm not saying that this is an argument against certain styles of music, I'm just making a general point to be aware of because these limitations are various in form - for example, while there are finite limitations such as frequencies we cannot hear, there also more fluid limitations, such as the ability to recognise complex sonic patterns.

Furthermore, though we can't even pretend to be able to account for taste neurologically, it's obviously the case that taste is determined in the brain somewhere, no doubt via a mix of innate and environmental influences.


----------



## aleazk

A piece by Boulez that I like:






In fact, I really like the mood of the piece, and it has a clear direction.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> And I don't remember answering, though I have said before, somewhere, that there are tons of modern/avant garde compositions that I don't like. I never jump from "I don't like this piece" or even from "I don't like these pieces/composers" to "I don't like modern music." So I've probably only mentioned that I dislike certain things in that context.
> 
> Otherwise, I don't find negative assessments as useful as positive ones. That's something Polednice and others are struggling with on another thread. "If there's no bad, then there's no good, either." As if goodness and badness depend on each other. As if the words "good" and "bad" describe intrinsic qualities of the pieces themselves, regardless of whether anyone's listening to the pieces or not.


Yes, there's also (also) an intrinsic quality in it (i have a strong sense of deja vu). A quality perceived by human brain, like the fact that we all perceive sugar as sweet for example (or the randomness perceived in "Structure"). There's also a part of subjectiveness in the fact that one maybe doesn't like that particular taste, but withouth the objective part, all history of art critic would be meaningless. And i don't believe it.



some guy said:


> "This room is messy," is a conclusion not a fact. The facts are that the bed is unmade, there are dirty clothes on the floor, the rug is unvacuumed, there is dust on every horizontal surface. In that scenario, the relationship between the facts and the conclusion are pretty close; no one's likely to dispute it. In these discussions about music, however, the relationships between facts and conclusions are not as close, or are, at least, eminently disputable.
> 
> That's because when we are talking about music (or any art, for that matter), we are talking (whether we acknowledge it or not) about the relationship between the sounds (objects) and a listener (observer). And all the "value" things are located in the relationship. They are not in the pieces themselves (can music be either "good" or "bad"? as one thread asks) *nor* in the listeners (as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" would have it), but in the relationship. To ask if a piece has any value is to miss the point entirely. Pieces have things like duration and dynamics and tempi. Those things can stimulate the emotions of a listener, and each listener has different levels of experience and sympathy and perception, so it might make more sense to ask if all listeners have exactly the same value.


I agree that there's a relation between the object and the listener, but you want deny the substance of the object, it's like that you want to say that sugar isn't sweet for someone or that ice isn't cold for someone. The perception does not depends only on subjectivity, even if you desperately try to deny it. Give yourself an hammer blow on a finger and tell me after that that pain is not a fact


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> ... And all the "value" things are located in the relationship. They are not in the pieces themselves (can music be either "good" or "bad"? as one thread asks) *nor* in the listeners (as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" would have it), but in the relationship. To ask if a piece has any value is to miss the point entirely. Pieces have things like duration and dynamics and tempi. Those things can stimulate the emotions of a listener, and each listener has different levels of experience and sympathy and perception, so it might make more sense to ask if all listeners have exactly the same value.


That's effectively the same line John Cage adopted and why he (and others) can define general road traffic noise as music. No wonder there is the sub-culture of folks who enjoy noise, as revealed in my thread recently about a documentary called _People Who Do Noise_.

This approach debases art music. It corrupts art music.


----------



## Guest

This is getting nowhere and never will I'm off :tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

someguy- ... And all the "value" things are located in the relationship. They are not in the pieces themselves (can music be either "good" or "bad"? as one thread asks) nor in the listeners (as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" would have it), but in the relationship. *To ask if a piece has any value is to miss the point entirely.*

HarpsichordConcerto- That's effectively the same line John Cage adopted and why he (and others) can define general road traffic noise as music. No wonder there is the sub-culture of folks who enjoy noise, as revealed in my thread recently about a documentary called _People Who Do Noise_.

This approach debases art music. It corrupts art music.

But surely, HC, you recognize that you... like the rest of us mere musical dilettantes... have once again missed the point entirely. But fortunately for us we have someguy to set us on the path toward true wisdom and musical understanding.


----------



## Sid James

^^ Re HC, it's always John Cage, and the same things by Cage. Cage influenced many composers post-1945, eg. Hovhaness, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, & also our own Peter Sculthorpe. So are all those rubbish as well?

I'm not taking sides here but the fact is that dilettante or "highbrow" or whatever, what one needs with new music (as with the old) is plain old common sense. That's all there is to it. Unfortunately, some people continue to hide behind various judgements, agendas, biases, etc. but they don't admit they have these. So it just goes round and round in circles on these types of threads, ad nauseum.

A number of people have spoken common sense overall here, eg. norman bates and Conor, I think I agree with some of what Polednice says as well at times. But a lot of this thread is just point scoring and borderline mudslinging, so I don't know what's the point, really...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> ^^ Re HC, it's always John Cage, and the same things by Cage. Cage influenced many composers post-1945, eg. Hovhaness, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, & also our own Peter Sculthorpe. So are all those rubbish as well?
> 
> ...


No, I meant the different approach taken by Cage did not always lend itself to bizzare novelty. Neither did the other composers you mentioned. And when they did not subscribe to that suggested by member _some guy_, they actually wrote music without pretending it was by ludicrously badging it as music. I'll give you a list to consider, three examples per composer including Cage, of pieces that exhibit none of that conceptual listening relationship nonsense:-

Cage - _Dream_ (1948), _Melodies for Violin & keyboard_ (1950), _Sonatas & Interludes for Prepared Piano_

Hovhaness - _Celestial Fantasy _op. 44 , _Mysterious Mountain_ symphony, _Nocturne_

Sculthorpe - _Earth Cry_, _Kakadu_, _Mangrove_

Hovhaness, Lutoslawski symphonies, concertos and chamber music.


----------



## starthrower

Polednice said:


> I don't think there's any evidence that the people in this thread aren't also just getting on with the pleasure of music.


With the exception of those who are trying so hard to like music they don't like!


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> [T]hey actually wrote music without pretending it was by ludicrously badging it as music. I'll give you a list to consider, three examples per composer including Cage, of pieces that exhibit none of that conceptual listening relationship nonsense.


Wow. Stick with the fart jokes. These comments are hopeless.

The first one doesn't make any sense. They wrote music without pretending it was music by calling it music. Really? I suppose we could make that make sense by rewriting the excrement out of it, but crikey!

The second is just another jejune insult masquerading as an argument.

Really. This whole post is one huge embarrassment.

Did I already say "Crikey"? I did?

Well, CRIKEY!!


----------



## starthrower

starthrower said:


> I know Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are the giants and pioneers of this art form, but I can't get into the sound of it. I'm sure it sounded incredible 200 years ago, but I can't listen to it. I know it's my loss, but that's my taste. I need something a little more contemporary sounding.


I just listened to Beethoven's Grosse Fugue and I'll have to eat my words! Thanks Violadude!


----------



## Ukko

I know Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are the giants and pioneers of this art form, but I can't get into the sound of it. I'm sure it sounded incredible 200 years ago, but I can't listen to it. I know it's my loss, but that's my taste. I need something a little more contemporary sounding.



starthrower said:


> I just listened to Beethoven's Grosse Fugue and I'll have to eat my words! Thanks Violadude!


And when you accept that the Great Fugue is 'simply' Beethoven's extrapolation of his music from the rest of Op. 130, you may feel that his reputation has yet more basis in fact. It all goes together, and comes together.


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> I just listened to Beethoven's Grosse Fugue and I'll have to eat my words! Thanks Violadude!


you're quite welcome, sir :tiphat:


----------



## Sid James

some guy said:


> Wow. Stick with the fart jokes. These comments are hopeless...
> 
> Did I already say "Crikey"? I did?
> 
> Well, CRIKEY!!


I could use some much stronger words but I won't. I can't anyway, against the rules, etc.

But on a really positive note, let's just do what's "with" the spirit of the xmas season. Let's be nice to eachother for a week?...


----------

